Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-1975 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . TIME: Wednesday, December 10, 1975 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council ChAmbers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Martin, Marshall, Woodward and Zambetti Absent: CommissiOner Lustig B. MINUTES Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the read- ing of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of November 24, 1975 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried; Commissioner Belanger abstained. II. FINAL BUILDINGSITES/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-1211 '-'S~ratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 13 Lots (Expires December 11, 1975); Continued from November 24, 1975 Staff noted that although a Staff Report had been prepared on this item recom- mending approval, they were/recommen.ding~ SD-1211 be continued honoring a recent request made by the State Department. of Historical Preservation. Staff explained that an. unidentified Saratoga citizen had requested the State to investigate this site and the building thereon for any evidence of historical significance; and although State records did not indicate findings of such historical value, they had requested additional time be given in which to research this request. Reference was made to the recently-published Santa Clara County Heritage Re- source Inventory which listed the "SOrosis Ranch (Social Hall)" as being the 'last remaining structure owned by "B~rax" Smith in the 1890's; but other than this reference, Staff noted that there were no City records attaching any his- torical significance to this building or the site. Further, it was noted that a Negative Declaration had been filed on this application. The applicant's representatives, Messrs. Lohr and Turgeon, expressed concern over the further delay of this item;:but after brief dialogue with Staff and the Commission, they:granted an extension 0f'S'D-'~2~t"6'~he Planning ~ommission meeting of January 14, 1976. Chairman Marshall directed SD-1211 b~ continued to the Planning Co~f~fLission meet- ing of January 14, 1975, and referred this item to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. He further directed Staff to notify ~the State of this action, advising them that it was the Commi~sion's intent to take action on this matter at the January 14th meeting. (Note: Commissioner Belanger recommended several changes b~ made to the December 10, 1975 Staff Report, of which note was made by Staff.) -1- · ~ ~I.~_!ON MEETING MINUTES ~ · PUBLIC HEARINGS A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation-Open Space District Ordinance, an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning Ordinance, by Establishing a Hillside Conservation-Open Space District Zoning Classification by Adding Article 3-A Thereto; Continued from November 24~ 1975 Chairman Marshall reopened the publj~_c _h__e_.a_r.~=n~_~?..n ..GF,301 at 7:55 p-.m,-. AsL.a 'matter of Staff input, the ~oll~wing comments were made: (1) Ms. Meg Monroe, planning consultant, gave a brief explanation of the 3 sl'~pe density equations and tables being considered for insertion in the proposed ordinance; (2) attention was given to a recommended insert to the geologic and soils report section of the ordinance, as well as to a chart !comparing existing _· City subdivision yields versus the proposed density table yieldS; and (3) the secretary read into the record a· letter from the Good Government Group dated December 8, 1975 urging the Conmission to adopt the following Slope density equation: 1 a = .6309 - .01095S .,, ............... . . Citizen Response · Dick Wilkinson, planning consultant with the firm of Ruth, Going and Curtis, Inc. and representative of the Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association, expressed concern with the clause.in the geologic and soils report insert which stated: "...unless the City determines that existing information pertinent to the subdivision or site approval makes preliminary analysis unnecessary." He stated that he felt the City should always require a p r e 1 imi na ry , i nv e s t i g a t i on'; -,~d'fH'~h~,ff'~h'~"~it'~'~d~h'~d~r~i nat i that a preliminary o~'~l~s~s was u~ecessar~'~ the applicant might possibly .... have a grief against th'e City 'in" th~ future if he discovered that there were indeed geological problems on the site. He stated that he felt the determination should be made that sufficient geol__ogic and soils analyses have been done, and that this d. etermination should be done by the applicant's professional instead of the City engineering geologist. Discussion followed on these comments. Chairman Marshall pointed o.~t that it had been the Commission's intent that under certain conditions a prelimi.- ~nary analysis beyond a certain point might not be necessary because the ~ site actually did not have geologic or soils problems. Chairman Marshall i suggested that the word "further" be inserted before "preliminary analysis" !, i__n__..this claus_e_,__e_Xp_!a_.i_n..ing.._tha_t_____t.h_.e_.addition of this word would suggest that at some point in time there had been enough data collected to satisfy the City geologist and would consequently be the appropriate point in which to stop conducting further investigations. Staff noted that Item 4 of the geologic and soils section insert allowed for further investigations to be made if necessary_~.··.pointing out that any further investigations could be ~reqUir___e~d by the ·City as a con_d_i_tion of tentative site approval._. After additional dialogue, it was. the Commission's consensus that this clause of the geologic and soils section insert be reworded by the City Attorney to provide further clarification. · Russell Crowther, representative of the Arguello Homeowners Association, introduced to the Commissioners a summary paper entitled "Trends in Saratoga Hillside Density Criteria" prepared by the Arguello Homeowners Association. Essentially the paper compared the Table 1 slope density equation being considered by the Commission, the League of Women Voters proposed slope den- sity equation, the City's Interim Ordinance slope density equation, and the City of Woodside slope density equation. Further, Mr. Crowther showed a slide containing additional data in sub'stantiation of the flooding problems exist- ing ib the Arg~ello Homeowners Association area. ~ ~: DECEMBER 10p 1975 CO_MM~ION MEETING MINUTES III. A. GF-301 - Proposed HC-OS District Ordinance - Citizen Response - Cont'd Mr. Crowther contended that, based on the data collected on Calabazas Creek~ from the Santa Clara Valley Water'District and interpretations of same by authorities in ~e field of hydro!ogy, intensity of u~banization on flooding would increase run-off. Further he contended that increased urbanization also increased the peak run-off, ~nich Mr. Crowther explained was influenced by primarily 2 things: (1) the peak run-off would be faster and occur more frequently due to the percentage of "things which get the water off the hill faster" (i.e., storm sewers, streets or gutters); and (2) the percent§g~ of the area which was impervious.(caused by such things as the scalping___of the s~l, ;r removal of trees, and the type of soil) increased peak run-off and was in- fluenced by development. Additionally by comparing the impact of increased peak run-offS of other areas in the Bay Area, as well as comparing the averag~'~,~ peaks of Calabazas Creek as measured by the Water District over the past 9 years, Mr. Crowther concluded that organization of the hills would increase the run- off~flow by an approximate factor of 2, and would cause the floods which were currently occurring ~o occur more frequently. Mr. Crowther further con- cluded that in comparing the impervious coverage represented by Table l's slope density equation to the equation proposed by the League of Women Voters, there was an approximate~.~0% difference in run-off for the 3-year ~fl~ between the 2 equati0n~. ~ Mr. Crowther pointed out that the~ Arguello Homeowners Association was very concerned about the serious flooding problems that occurred in their area each year, and he stated: '~e h~ve not seen very much concern about the problem in making decisions whic~ will greatly influence the problem, and I think there is a large amount of !information available that greatly demon- strates what the impact is of hi~lsid~ development on flooding." Mr. Crowther suggested the Commission obtain Copies of USGS Circular #554 by Dr. Leopold of the University of California at Berkeley relative to the impacts of ur- banization on flooding, and'he requested that the Commission give considera- tion to what the impacts would be of run-off due to urbanization of the Saratoga hillside. The Commission discussed these p6ints in detail. Con~nissioner Belanger agreed with the statemmnt that as one increased the amount of~'i~coverage on any slopes there would be a greater run-off, but she statedi ~I am not im- pressed by a collection of figures which it seems to me are given to stress the most alarming possibilities ~hat could occur and do not relat~ necessarily to the situation that we are dealing with." Commissioner Martin pointed out that this Arguello Homeowners Association paper had projected 763 dwellingiunits per 1,000 acres when in fact the proposed hillside district only covered'i~2~ acres, and~'6'd~d'h'~ a much lower amount of dwelling units. As an example of this, Commissioner Martin pointed out [hat the paper showed that at an average slope of 10% there would be 763 dwelling units per 1000 acres,nwhen in fact the City's consultant showed that there was only 53 acres at 10% slope in the hillside region which would result in approximately 44 homes. He concluded that the Association's paper was'misleading to the public. Commissioners Woodward and Marshall agreed with the aboveZmentioned comments, and Chairman Marshall noted that. the City relied heavily on the information provided them by the Santa Clara. Valley Water District regarding these matters. He explained that the Water District had the primary responsibility for establishing flow rates and floo~ing within the City's jurisdiction, and he added: "their judgments are the ones which rule as far .as our judgments are concerned." To these statements, Mr. Crowthe~ indicated that/relying Qn the input re- ceived from the Water District "~as not working and tha~ enough attention isn't being given to this area."' He stated: "I think that if you go ahead with any of these.alternatives that there will be absolute disaster, if you look 5 years ahead in our area ~ith regard to the impact on flooding. Mr. Crowther indicated a preference/.~or the City to use either the slope density -3- DECEMBER 10~ 1975 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES III. A. GF-301 - Proposed HC-OS District Ordinance - Citizen Response - Cont'd equation proposed by the League o2 Women Voters or the equation used in the existing City Interim Ordinance. !With regards to the allegations that the Arguello Homeowners Association paper was misleading, Mr. Crowther claimed that the paper plotted these equations as a function Ff ~I'ope andt~f~' was showing a trend as the Arguello Homeowners'Association saw it. · Mr. Hanson, citizen of Saratoga, disagreed with Mr. Crowther's position that development would increase flooding by contending that, on the contrary, development actually had a tendency to decrease flooding. He explained that development in the hills required~drop inlets which were in essence decelera- tors, and he pointed out that water without acceleration did not cause erosion and damage because there was no energy present. He stated that there were decelerators along Calabazas Creek whose sole purposes were to ~low water and take the energy out of it. Further, Mr. Hanson stated that he felt the City could be defeating its own purposes by reducing density in the hillsides because he felt by decreasing the density the City was making the costs per lots considerably higher. He pointed out, as example, that in the future the possibility existed that mobile homes could be, w~thout prior City approval, setting on a 10-acre site. The owner could subdivide the .parcels and move his mobile home to ! one of the smaller lots~with a relative degree of ease; whereas it would :be much less likely for the owner to move an existing house which cost in the range of $50,000-$100,000 and which was located in the middle of the 10-acre site to another lot after subdivision· He concluded'by stating: ""I'Would really 'like to see that we get away from the scare tactics like we just had here a little while ago and maybe concen- trate on what the real issue is. !And that is density and where it is going to go." ,'· Vince'Garrod, representative of the Greater Saratoga Property Owners Asso~ ciation, stated that they felt there was a degree of urgency in adopting an ordinance as soon as possible because "there are people who are under a great degree of financial strain just because of right now they don't know which way they can plan. You can.'t make plans of which way you are going to go tomorrow until you act and the!City Council acts." He stated that they felt that the proposed ordinance ~et the requirements of the General Plan, and they expressed favor for Table 1 being the most fair of the slope density equations because "I think if you;go any further you.become more and more restrictive, and there is no need· There is no need for any additional restrictions when you have your s&wer and septic restrictions, your road restrictions, your setbacks and y6ur 75-foot setback restrictions on collector streets." He stated that although they were not totally pleased with the proposed ordinance as it now stood, they would support it when it came before the City Council. · Dr. Roger Lieuke, representative 6fjthe Good Government Group, read into the record a letter dated December 8,21975 urging the Commission to retain a slope density equation which was at least as restrictive as the following: a= .6309 + .01095S · Bill Cunningham, representative o~ the Wildwood Heights Homeowners Associa- tion, reiterated their concern about the higher densities in the tables that the Commission was presently considering, and reaffirmed their request for the lower density equation that they had specified in their earlier letter to the City Council. · Heber Teerlink, member of the Greater Saratoga Property Owners Association, stated: "we are not entirely happy but we are here to tell you that we are pleased with the effort that you have made and that we are willing to abide and go forward with you to bring about orderly planning. DECEMBER 10L 1975 CO --- ON MEETING MINUTES III. A. GF-301 - Proposed HC-OS District Ordinance - Citizen Response - Cont'd He added: "W~ intend to go forward with that and bring to light before all of the voting public here, that this formula is a workable formula and will .... ~F~d~e'~"~h'~'d~iY~·ar'~'~B'~lY~ once lrl'Yf'~"he true facts are known." Commission Response · Commissioner Martin stated that h·e had voted previously for Table 1 because he had felt Table 2 was too strict. However, since that time he had prepared a curve reflecting Table 3 which =ranged from 1.108 acres at 0% slope up to 10 acres at 50% slope, and he favored this Table because he felt it more appropriately fit with the General Plan. · Commissioner Belanger reiterated her reasons for favoring Table 1 as follows: (a) Table 1 provided a fair density for landowners to operate under; (b) it provided a tested density in that it most closely approximated. the Cit ' y s previous slope density curve and that of the County's; (c) a transis- tion into similar density applied in adjoining County developments which would eventually be annexed to the City would be better served by Table 1; and (d) Table 1 would eventually provide the 1-10 acre span on an overall basis because of the effects which other restrictions in the proposed ordi- nance were likely to have. Commissioner Belanger .stated that although she' felt the best planning for the hillside would be one'with "'PC".pr0visio~s,~ "ow ..... n it seemstto me that if we go. to too strict a denSitX we take away not ·only ~he incentiVeS' for good planning that might have ex{Sted under Planned Community, but we take away some of the possibilities for acquiring some of those varied regulations .that we~have built into the ordinance. You can make development so expensive· that it becomes completely prohibitive, and if there is no margin left over in the density allowed, then I don't think we are going to get all of those controls that we have built in there." · Commissioner Callon agreed with COmmissioner Belanger regarding the disappoint- ment she felt in moving away from the planned community concept in the hillsides. She expressed favor, however, for· Table 3 because it provided stricter regu- lations for the increasingly steeper slopes than Table 1 did. She added for the benefit of those present in the audience: "In all honesty I do not be- lieve that a public entity, which we are, can go very much further than what these .tables speak to on the issue of trying to have public open space but keep it in private ownership. I don't feel honestly that as a public servant I can move into that private sector any further." · Commissioner Woodward· expressed favor for Table 1, pointing out that she felt the Commission had to be sensitive to all factions of Saratoga. She further stated that she felt the City must be aware of the need for open space, adding: "by having larger lots and having a 2.6 acre average per'hous~ under Table 1 would, to me, provide the open space that we d~s~re to have in the hills." · Commissioner Zambetti expressed f~vor for Table 1 because he wished to, see a smooth transistion zSzf~ annexing· in the future County lands into the City, and he felt that Table 1 was the appropriate table in which to accomplish this. · Chairman Marshall expressed favor. for Table 1 for reasons he had expressed in previous public hearings. Commission Action At this time Commissioner Wo6dward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public hearing o~:GF-301 be closed. ~The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 9:45 p.~. · '.~ · Co~f~ssione~'~llon.,'~expres~ed con'cern that the ~-~oot setback requirement for collect~'~}e~[~"set a minimum standard rather than acted as a guide- line, and she asked for clarification of this. The.·~City AttOrney explained that the 75-foot setback requirement served as a guideline because "whenever you have a criteria and you have the ability to modify it, then you are only creating guidelines." Reference Was made to the section in the proposed ordinance regarding modifications which provided the City with the ability to modify certain criteria. DECEMBER 10~ 1975 COMMIS. SION MEETING MINUTES III. A. GF-301 - PropOsed HC-OS District Ordinance - Commission Action - Cont'd j "'~ ....... · Commissioner Martin also expressed reservations about the 75-foot setback requirement, but he indicated acceptance that this acted as a guideline. He did, however, express concern over the 4,000 square foot fencing regula- tion, asking how this would be enforced. Staff explained that both the site development plan and design review requirements stipulated in the ordinance would act as governing vehicles on fencing regulatins. At this time Commissioner Callon mov.ed, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission insert the s:lope density equation represented by Table 3 in the proposed HC-OS Distrfct Ordinance. The motion was defeated; ayes: Commissioners Callon and Martin; noes: 'Cormnissioners Belanger, Marshall, Woodward and Zambetti. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission insert the slope density equation represented by Table 1 in the pro- posed HC-OS District Ordinance. The motion was carried; ayes: Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, Woodward and Zambetti; noes: Commissioners Callon and Martin. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commission Zambetti, that the Planning Commission approve GF-301 (proposed Hillside Conservation-Open Space District Ordinance, an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning Ordinance, by establishing a Hillside Conservation-Open Space District 'zoning classification by adding Article 3-A thereto) with the insertion of Table 1 and with the stipulation that the geologic and soils report insert be rewritten by the City Attorney, and :that this approved proposed ordinance be transmitted to the City council with. the Commission's recommendation for its adoption. The motion was amended by Commissioners Woodward and Martin, and seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to include the slope density equation and table of Table 1 ~foYins~i~n-in the proposed ordinance, as well as to include the chart d~p{c~[n~ the' warped plam~on.page '7 under Building Heights. The motion, as amended, was carried .unanimously. RECESS: 9:45 - 10:20 p.m. .~. ~ ....... : ............ B. UP-288 - American Indian Council of'Santa Clara County, Inc., (Mr. George Woodard, President), Intersection of Prospect 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 Apr{1 24, 1976 to May 7., .1976 (Ordinance NST3, Section 3.3a); Continued from November 12~ 1975 Note was made of a letter dated November 24, 1975 eozMr. Woodard from the City Manager on behalf of the City Council and Planning Commission encouraging the continuation of this application for the proposed encampment. The Secre- tary made additional note, however, 2that via a recent telephone conversation, Mr. Wooda~d had indicated that the proposed project was being abandoned and he requested the City approve withdrawal of this application. After brief discussion[and with concurrence of the Planning Commission,_____ Chairman Marshall t~rminated ~W!'~ pE~j~c__e~ .p__r~eed~ngs on ~pp~c~tio~ UF-288. .... ~ -~ Up=29'0 - Phil Shiota, 14270 Old Wood' Road, Request for Use Permit to Allow a Tennis Court Fence in Excess of 6 Feet in Height to Extend into a Required Rearyard Setback (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1)'; Continued fromNovember 24~ 1975 Chairman Marshall opened the public 'hearing on UP-290 at 10:20 p.m. It was noted that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval of this item. Commissioner Belanger recommended that Condition (2) under Recommended Action be modified as follows: "(2) Tennis court fencing is to be contructed of an open-weave material with opaque..lining prohibited.'% -6- DECEMBER 10, 1975 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES III. C. UP-290 - Phil Shiota - Cont'd There were no further comments. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant approval to applica- tion UP-290 per Exhibits "A" and "B"' and subject to the Staff Report dated i' December 3, 1975, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. D. UP-291 -~Saratoga oaks Association, Springer Avenue, Request for Use Permit to Allow Lightinn of Existing Tennis Court (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.3d) Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-291 at 10:29 p.m. Note was made that. the Subdivision Committee and the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and tha~ a Staff Report'had been prepared' recommending approval. A brief description of the proposed .tennis court lighting was given, and the following 4 letters of correspondence were read into the record regarding this item: (1) A letter dated November 14, 1975· from the residents of the Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association, Inc., 14~700 Springer Avenue, advising the Commis- sion t~iat at the Annual Meeting on October 8, 1975, the members of the Association voted unanimously to. approve the installation of tennis court lighting. (2) Letter dated November 19, 1975 from R.K. Thompson, M.D., 20860 Big Basin Way, requesting the Commission t'o deny this application because it was an "unnecessary intrusion of light and noise upon our neighborhood." (3) Letter dated December 8, 1975 fr'omJoseph Connolly, president of the Congress Springs Place Homeowner's Association, opposing the granting of this'use permit application for the following reasons: a lighted court would be a traffic hazard; noise and light would adversely affect Congress Springs Place. (4) Letter dated December 9, 1975 from H.J. Harlon, 20824 Pamela Way, expressing concern that the approval of this application would be "identified with approving an added drain on our energy sources." He further added: "In this canyon sounds are considerably magnified -- well above what would be a normal level. To trespass further in this r~quest, over a longer period of the day, is not only unwarranted but an added imposition." Commission Response : · Commissioner Woodward noted that· the light standards would be positioned approximately at the eye level o'f drivers approaching the tennis courts, and she expressed concern that the impacts of this condition would create a traffic hazard. Staff explained that the lights were shielded and directed downward; consequently,~ the only light that could be seen would be on the ground. "Commissioner Woodward stated that she felt approval of this application w~did'~iSo set ~ pre'ceden~ for ~th~r g~0ups to request tennis court lighting, and she indicated that she would not be in favor of granting approval of this application for these reasons. · Chairman Marshall pointed out'~h'at traditionally and as a matter of City policy, the City had rejected every private application for tennis court lighting becaus~·'the City had considered such lighting to be "a rather extreme burden upon the neighbors." He further pointed out that by grant- ing this application, the additional night light would add to the problems of night sky lightfn'~b~ing encountered by ~k'Obse~vat~ry, ad~'i~g: ~"Therefore,_I would 5e against {t and argue in th?{u'~ 6H~'e t~ p~eServe~ '[his Valley and the'sky effect, ~would' be a very good argument against night lighting of things like tennis courts." · Commissioner Martin expressed concern ~'eh'~'a'p'~l%cants were requesting lighting for night-time play when there had been very little use of the courts during th~"'da~. He further ~pressed concern that, inasmuch as" there were no other approved private tennis court lights within the City~ ~ approval of this application would set a precedent;. DECEMBER 10~ 1975 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES III. D. UP-291 - Saratoga Oaks Association - Cont'd · Commissioner Belanger stated tha~ 'she felt the application was for private tennis court lights, pointing out that "we do not light private tennis courts in Saratoga, and I don't~believe in setting the precedent. for doing so." Further, she stated that as the City had been opposing in the past the installation of additional night lights at West Valley College, approv- ing this application would.be allowing a use the City had been previously opposing. Additionally, CommisSioner Belanger pointed out that it could be difficult to police the 9:00'p.m. shut-down time. · Commissioner Zambetti stated that, as a member of the Design Review Committee, he.would'vote to deny this application because it would set a preced~n~;. · Commissioner Callon stated that she found no problem in voting for the tennis court lighting if the use was well controlled by the conditions set forth in the Staff Report. She added, however, that theSStaff Report should be modified to include, in addition to the shut-off time at night, a set-up time in the morning. Citizen Response · Arch Schumacher, 14650 Stoneridge Drive, resident and representative of the Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association, pointed out that according to the Association's engineers, "there is very little lighting into the on-coming traffic in either direction" because the lighting was proposed to be directed almost entirely downward. Regarding the energy objection, Mr. Sch.umacher remarked "we are.proposing a timer that would operate at intervals of 30 minutes or less. There is a master and it would be con- trolled by a master time clock under lock and key from the main panel in the recreation building, so that when it is not in use, the court would not be illuminated. After 9:00, the hour ~en we would terminate the use of the court, all utilities to t'he c~rt' ~Uld be turned off." He supported the Staff Report condition to p~ovide additional landscaping in order to conceal the tennis court and provide a sound buffer. Relative to the use of the court, Mr. Schumacher not'ed that the project was at this point only half-developed with approximatel~y 48 units to be built; and consequently, he felt that the use of the tennis court would increase in the future. · Carl Goldsmith, representative of the Congress Springs Place Homeowners Association, made the following 'points: (a) Any hazard to traffic, no matter to what degree, was a hazard. He further noted that the height of the light standards were approximately 4-5 feet above the road in direct line of site-of drivers, and he 'stated t~t he felt this would cause an adverse condition to the driver. (b) Mr. Goldsmith pointed out that there were courts in the Saratoga area that had lights for night playing, --and he suggested the residents of Saratoga Oaks might possibly want to avail themselves of these courts. (c) He noted that there were 4 Congress Springs Place units which looked down on the tennis courts and which would be directly affected by these lights. He stated: "I would li~e to reiterate that the area is not'~"commercial area, and we enjoy the beauty and serenity and the quietness of the residential area in Saratoga. We feel that this would really be a hindrance to the beauty of the area." · (d) Mr. Goldsmith pointed out that a Congress Springs Place resident cur- rently sold his unit, and when asked why, one of the reasons he gave for leaving was the noise factor of the tennis courts. ;Mr. Gol~s'~ex~d[d' .an invitation _~.Z the Commission to visit Congress Springs Place property '~uring a tennis match in order to ~ee to what extent the noise carried up : ~to their property. · A resident of Saratoga Oaks CondOminiumasked where this noise came from when the Commission had agreed that no one used the tennis courts. Further she stated that she felt the lighting on the streets would enhance the streets rather than serve as a hazard. -8- DECEMBER 10, 1975 COMMIS_g.ION MEETING MINUTES III. D. UP-291 - Saratoga.Oaks Association - Cont~d Commission ~ction Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Conmissioner Woodward, that the public hear.lng on UP-291 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the hearing was closed at 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Comm.ission deny application UP-291.. The motion was carried; Commissioner Callon voted no. E. UP-292 - Rudolph Moller, Saratoga-Sqnnyvale Road, Request for Use Permit to Allow a Laboratory to be LOcated at 12250 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 7.3) Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-292 at 11:02 p.m. Staff noted ,~hat the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter, and that a Staff Report had been ~repared recommending ~p'r~al. ' Concern was expressed that the'power tools used in the laboratory might cause interference with neighboring radios and televisions. It was explained that the types of tools being used were hobby-type power tools which would not cause such interference. Mr. Moller, the applicant, was present and explained that he designed and built the prototypes 'of racing equipment which he sold to manufacturers for making their own tooling. He explained that~the models were usually built with wood or plastics, and that he was the only employee working in the laboratory. At this time Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, '~th~h'e'~p~l'i~ hearing on UP-292 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, ~n~'6he publid'hearing was closed at 11:07 p.m. Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant approval !for a conditionai use permit to appi~cation ~2~2 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report da6~d December 3, i97B. The motion was carr{Fd .... . unanimously. .. F. UP-293 - Ronald J. Mackay, 12167 Terrence Avenue, Request for Use Permit to A.1!.OW.aB. Ac.c.esso.ry St.rUpture ~n Excess of 6 F~e.~ iR .H~ight. to be Erected Within the Required Rearyard Setback (Ordinance NS-3, Sec. 317-1) Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-293 at 11:08 p.m. Note was made that the Subdivision Committee.had reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending denial. Staff explained that the pool cover was considered to be an accessory structure governed by Section 3.7-~ of the Zoning Ordinance which stipulated that a use permit must be granted for any such structure over 6 feet in height. Further, this section also stipul~ ~ that the setbacks for an accessory Structure which extended 250 square feet ~ ... should be a min~m~'gf'25. feet from'the ~ear property line and 10 feet from the side property lines. Consequently,'Staff pointed out that the accessory structure exceed 250 square feet in.floor area and did not comply with the prescribed setbacks. Additionally, lStaff noted that issuance of this use permit would necessitate the need for a variance, and Staff did not feel there was sufficient justification for approval of such a variance. Three letters of dorrespondence were introduced into the ~ecord: (1) Letter dated December 5, 1975 from Donald J. Rawson, M.D., 5150 Graves Avenue, San Jose, stating that he had prescribed swimming as part of Robert Mackay's condition of celebral palsey. The letter stated: "A pool cover for the Mackays swimming pool would be very helpful in his rehabilitation." (2) Letter dated December 5, 1975 fromWesley D. Clark, M.D., 877 West Fremont Avenue, Suite J, Sunny~ale, pointing out that Mrs. Mackay was under his care for arthritis, and adding: "It is my recommendation that she swim in her pool all year 'round for help in treating this disease." ............. . ...... -9- DECEMBER 10,1975 COlON MEETING MINUTES III. F. UP-293 - Ronald J. Mackay - Cont ' d (3) Letter dated December77, 1975 from Mrs. T.A. Hooper, 12368 Viewoak Drive, pointing out that the p0ol bubble was of conmercial size and that she felt it was an eyesor~ to the neighborhood. The letter stated: "If everyone were allowed to petition and have one of these, it would completely make zoning laws. needless and worthless. Saratoga has always tried to keep its town a rather.rustic,·rural·setting, and this certainly does not lend itself to its image." Discussion followed on this matter,'and many of the Commissioners expressed concern that by allowing inflatable pool covers over the height of 6 feet within the City would set a precedents. Several questions were raised as to alterna- tives to this type of pool cover, a~d Mr. Mackay, the applicant, indicated that they had investigated many such alternatives but felt that none of themwere as effective for their particular needs. Dr. Jack Chan, Scully Avenue, stated that he was against bubble pool covers on the basis of accident prevention, He pointed out that in addition to the pool bubble itself being an attraction to young children, the transluscent material of the bubble~was a hazard which he felt could be cirCumvented'By .using flatter pool covers. After additional discussion, Mr. MaCkay agreed to make further investigations for alternatevpool covers which would meet City ordinances. Chairman Marshall closed the phblic hearing on UP-2937and continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of January 14, 1976; further, he referred this item to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. G. V-424 - Western Federal Savings and. Loan Association, Big Basin Way, Request for Variance to Allow a Free-Standing Sign Measuring 3' x 4~ to be Located at 14411 Big Basin Way as Regulated by Ordinance NS-3, Section 10.5; Continued from September 10~ 1975 Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing on V-424 at 11:28 p.m. Note was made that the applicant had been requested at ·the last public hearing to submit ~ mat'erial s~bstantiating the need to allow a free-standing sign directing the ~ applicant's patrons to their parkins lot. Staff contended that such a request was not warranted in that grounds for a variance had not been demonstrated, nor had the applicant provided any Substantiation to dlaims made relative to parking inadequacies on the site. As a result, Staff recon~nended this applica- tion be denied per the amended Staff Report dated December 8, 1975. Mr. Lappe, the applicant's representative, was present ~nd noted receipt of the.Staff Report. He expressed support on behalf of the applicant to participate in the proposed Parking Assessment pistrict #3. ~ ~.~ Brief discussion followed on this matter, and'~ommission~r·-za~be~ti indicated· that a petition initiated by the Village Merchants for the ·Parking Assessment District #3 should be circulated in January. Further, Staff was directed to have investigated the illegal parking directional signs located at the Wells Fargo Bank and the Bank of·America On Big Basin Way. At th~ time Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by CommissioneF Martin, that the public hearing on V-424 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 11:145 p.m. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded ~by Cor~nissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission deny application V-424 per the amended Staff Report da'~dD~b'~'8, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. '·· Ho V-440 - Virgil H. Voss, Sobey Road, lRequest for Variance to Allow a 4~Foot Setback from the Street Right-of-Way in Lieu of the Required 30-Foot Setback for the Purpose of Erecting a Horse Corral (Ord. NS-3~ Sect. 2.2f) Staff explained that this request was to allow an existing horse corral and stable within the~·Sobey Road right-of-way. Although Staff noted that a detailed Report had been prepared recommending denial of this application, the applicant had requested this matter be continued pending further review. -10- DECEMBER 10, 1975 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES III. H. V-440 - Virgil H.-Voss - Cont'd The following 2 letters were introduced into the record: · Letter received December 1, 1975 'from Charles Imman, 15040 Sobey Road, oppos- ing the application because of the safety hazards on Sobey Roadthese structures constituted. · Letter received December 1, 1975 from Frank Small, 15020 Sobey Road, request- ing the Commission deny this application and that the code regarding this item be enforced. As there were no additional comments, Chairman Marshall directed V-440 be continued to the Planning Commission· meeting of January ·14, 1976, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee and Staff for further review and report. I. V-441 - David S. Wilson, Saratoga Avenue, Request for Variance to Allow a Free- Standing Sign to be Located at 14370 Saratoga Avenue (Ord. NS~3~ Sect.lO~·2n) Staff noted that the Variance Committee in reviewing this application had suggested that the applicant file for a concurrent Design Review application to review the aesthetic aspects of this situation. Consequently, Staff recom- mended this item be continued. As there were no further comments, Chairman Marshall directed V-441 be continued[ to the Planning Commission meeting of January 14, 1976, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee, the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-462 - Dividend Industries, Christie Drive, Final Design Review Approval for 15 Lots (Phase III of Tract ~5462) Staff noted that the Design Review C~mmittee had reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner WOod- ward moved, seconded by Commissioner'Z.ambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval t0 application A-462 (Phase III of Tract #5462) per Exhibits "A-3 and G-2" and shbject to the Staff Report dated December 2, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. B. SS-96 - George Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review Approval - Extension of Sign Permit for an On-Tract Identification Sign for Tracts ~5408 and ~5327 ~ Note was made that the Design~eview Committee had reviewed this matter, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. After a brief ~ disC~S's~on on the' p~riod of time this application would be in effect, it was the ~ Commission's consensus that Condition (1) of the Staff Report dated December 3, 1975 be amended to a one-year period from June 26, 1975 (the date the original sign permit expired) to June 26, 1976. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Corc~ftission grant final design review approval to application SS-96 per Exhibit "A" and subject to the Staff Report dated December 3, 1975, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously.·. C. SS-97 - Osterlund Enterprises, Radoyka Drive (Off Lawrence Expressway), Final Design Review Approval - OneTract Identification Sign for Tract #5631 Note was made that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and 'that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioners Belanger and Marshall both expressedlconcern that 2 on-tract subdivision identification signs and 2 off-tract directional signs were being requested by the applicant when only 2 lots remaihed to be sold in the subdivision. Staff · explained that the request for 4 sighs was in compliance with City ordinances. After brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to modify Condition (1) of the Staff Report dated December 10, 1975 by reducing the length of the sign permit approval f~om~gne year from ~fi~"dafe ~f approval'~ to 6 months fr~h'~"dat"~f appr"~l'(l.e., June i'0,"~976). DECEMBER 10, 1975 COMMI SION MEETING MINUTES IV', C. SS-97 - Osterlund Enterprises - Cont'd Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application SS-97 per Exhibits "B" and "C" and subject to 2the Staff Report dated December 10, 1975, as amended. The motion was carried;' Commissioner Belanger voted no. D. SS-98 - Allstate Savings and Loan Association, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Argonaut Shopping Center),: Final Design Review Approval - Commercial Identification Sign Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further review. Chairman Marshall directed SS-98 be continued' to the Planning Conmission meeting of January 14, 1976, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report.! V. MISCELLANEOUS ~Status Reports on the following Items V-A, B and C~were given by s~aff: A. V-427 - Oste~lund Enterprises, Radoyka Drive, Request for a Variance to Allow the Construction of an 8-Foot High Fence Along the Rear Property Line of Tract #5631 (Ord. NS-3, Section 3.4)~ Continued from July 23~ 1975 B. A-480 - Osterlund Enterpries, Radoyka Drive, Final Design Review Approval - Fencing for Tract #5631; Continued from July 23~ 1975 Staff explained that these two appro~ed items had been flagged for review of the landscaping progress by the County of the strip of land adjoin~g~this tract. it was noted that the County had provided a substantial.portion of their overall ~" landscaping in'~the area, specifically with the County transplanting several ~ mature olive trees directly in front of this sign. After brief discussion, CitV' ~ Staff was directed to cormnunicate"to the County the y s appreCi~ti0n o.f ....... '. the landscaping done to-date, and to'identify the scheduled completion date of the landscaping project. C. A-483 - James Skinner, Chiquita Way .(off Pierce Road), Final Design Review Approval for 1 Lot; Chan~e of'ConditiOns; Continued from November 24~ 1975 Note was made that this application was being held in abeyance subject to resolution of the grading and physical problems associated with the illegal grading done ~"~e~'~isi~n. Staff pointed out ~h~'~ me'~n~""~'e'~'~'~en the developer, the City and the property owners involved'~a~'5~'l'd"6~'November 25, 1975 at which time the developer had agreed to submit plans' reflectin~"~he ~xtent of illegal grading done. (~r~e~ into the record was a memorandum dated November 25, 1975 from Staff ~egarding this meeting.) Staff added that at this point no such plans had been submitted~ D. SDR-1208 - David Ritter, Bohlman Roa~, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Request for ReconsideratiOn of Conditions; Cont'd from Nov. 24, 1975 Note was made that the applicant was requesting reconsideration of Conditions (c) and (m) of the Staff Report dated November 6, 1975. Staff explained that relative to Condition (c) regarding the widening of Belnap Drive to 18 feet, the applicant was requesting this requirement be reduced from 18 feet to 14 feet. Staff pointed out that .the Fire Department had made an on-site inspection and had determined that 14 feet would be suf- ficient for fire trucks to make a turn-around. Relative to Condition (m) requiring Sanitation sewers, the applicant requested the use of~'~ptic tank ~ntil a sewer system was available in the area. Per previous City ~01i~y'~ it was noted that septic tanks could be used in lieu of sanitary sewers contingent upon the applicant agreeing to participate in the formation of ansanitary sewer assessment district. Staff recommended the following changes be made to Conditions (c) and (m) of the Staff Report on SDR-1208 dated November 6, 1975: -12- DECEMBER 10~ 1975 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES V. D. SDR-1208 - David Ritter - Cont ' d (c) Widen road paving on Belnap' Drive between Bohlman Road and the first driveway to 18 feet with 1-foot shoulders, and between the first drive- way and the second driveway to !4 feet with 1-foot shoulders. Paving shall consist of 2~" asphalt concrete on 6" of A.B 2 · (m) Developer is to enter into an agreement with the City of Saratoga and Sanitation District #4 agreeing,to participate in.'zthe formation of a sanitary sewer assessment district and to connect to the sewers when avai!abl~.. -?A dry and plugged system is to be constructed at the time of building ~'o~ture. The applicant, Mr. Ritter, was present and indicated accpptance of the amended conditions. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission approve the request for reconsideration of Conditions (c) and (m) on application SDR-1208 per the amended Staff Report dated December 10, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. VI. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS : A. Environmental Impact Reports - There were no Negative Declarations filed. B. Other The following written correspondenceZwere introduced into the record: (1) Letter dated November 20, 1975 from Mr. James J. Asher requesting that he be given permission to use septic tanks on his property until such time as sewers were installed. After brief discussion, Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner'Woodward, that~this item be ~f~'d"'~'~h'~' ........ 'L~d'D~'~opment Committee with the direction ~0.Fw~'fv~he sewer,requirement 0n"applicat~on SBR-963 '~Kittridg~ Road, 1 ~ot) with the S'eYpul~'f~on that the applicant must enter into an agreement with the City and Sanitation District ~4 agreeing to participate in the formation of a sanitary s~wer assessment district and to conp~ct to the sewers when available. The · .. motion was carried unanimously. (2) Letter dated December 2,' 1975 from V.L. Cancilia, representative of the Health Department, relative to the Health Department policy on septic tanks. Staff was directed to make this. letter available to potential property developers of urbanizing areas 'of the Ci~'y~. (3) Referral from the City Council .requesting the Commission agendize the following item: Petition from Zresidents of Harleigh Drive requesting the abandonment of the easement on Harleigh Drive. The Commission directed Staff agendize this ma'tter for the January 14, 1976 Commission meetiDg. (4) Memorandum dated December 10, 1975 from Planning Staff regarding Conmission consideration of the proposed adoption of a new conditional use for the C-V Zoning District, as requested by Mr. Hal G. Smith in his letter dated November 10., 1975. Staff was directed to agendize this matter for the Planning Commission meeting of January 14, 1976. (5) Letter dated December 10, 1975 from Mrs. Margaret G. Dunn, 19521 Douglass Lane, regarding the shields for' the tennis courts at West Valley College. Staff was directed to contact the West Valley College Board of Governors encouraging shields be placed on all of the tennis court lights at the College. (6) Letter dated December 8, 1975 from Chief Kraule of the Saratoga Fire Department referring to the letter fromMr. Dan Gilbert (SDR-1068, Belhap Road) who referenced his swimming pool and/or the 2" water lines to qualify for water supply for fire protection in lieu of the required 6"'water lines. Staff was directed to make this letter part of File SDR-1068. DECEMBER 10, 1975 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES , VI. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Continued (7) Letter dated November 25, 1975 from Russell L. Crowther, representative of the ArgUello Homeowners AssOciation, regarding SDR-1037. Staff was directed to make this part of File SDR-1037. (8) Letter dated December 8, 1975 from Staff to Ms. Judy Corliss, president of the League of Women Voters in answer to their questions concerning the relationship of the proposed hillside ordinance to the 1974 General Plan. Staff was directed to make this part of File GF-301. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. C.ity council Report - Chairman Marshall gave a brief account of the City Council meetings of December 3, 1975.~ A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file Cit ' at the y s Administration office.' B. Other (1) Chairman Marshall acknowledged ·the presence of Councilmen Matteoni and Kraus, Ms. Judy Corliss of the 'League of Women Voters, and expressed appreciation to Mrs. McQuire of the Good Government Group for serving coffee. (2) Chairman Marshall reminded the Commission that the annual Commission meeting on election of officers and reorganization of subcommittees was scheduled for January 28, !976, and he requested the Commission?giv. e consideration to these matters~prior to that meeting. ~VIIIo ~'~'jO'URNMENT · i Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by'Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1975 be adjourned, The motion was carried, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, : Marry Van Duyn, Secre.~ry skw/