Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-1977 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF S.~dIATOGA PK~NNING COB[\IISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 1977 - 7:30 p.m~ PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Martin & Zambetti Absent: None B. MINUTES Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 9, 1977 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to including on page 5 the motion made by Commissioner Marshall to close the public hearing on C-187. The motion was carried unanimously. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Composition of Consent Calendar Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the composition of the Consent Calendar of February 23, 1977 be approved. The motion was carried unanimously. B. Items of Consent Calendar ~Commissioner LUs~ig moved, seconded by Commissioner Marsh~.ll, that the Planning Commissim grant approval to the following applications: 1. ~% Building Sites a. SDR-~30 - D. Perata, Pike Road, Final Building Site Approval - 2 Lots b. SDR-1291 - M. Collins, Paul Avenue, Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The motion was carried unanimously. III. TENTATIVE BUILDING SITES/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1271 - Daniel Stuart, Norton Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 lot;\ Continued from January 17, 1977 Land Development Committee Meeting Staff explained that in accordance with the recently-established Commission policy, this application was transmitted from the Land Development Committee to the Planning Commis- sion for action since this site was located within the designated Bohlman Road slide study area. It was noted that a geotechnical investigation report had been prepared on this application, and that the City Geologist had found the report to be adequate. Note was made that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending tentative building site approval, but it was pointed out that per the Commission's policy relative to this slide area studX,_that no building permit could be issued until after said study had been com- pleted or:unti~__6 months,_Whi~be~er occurred first. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that the Subdivision Committee had recommended that Condition VI-C be added to the Staff Report as follows: VI-C. Applicant is to enter into agreement with the City of Saratoga agreeing to participate in the formation of a sanitary sewer assessment district and to connect to sewers when available. -1- CO~IISSION MINUTES OF ~23-77 A. SDR-1271 - Daniel Stuart - Cont'd Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commis- sion grant tentative building site approval to application SDR-1271 per Exhibit "A" filed October 7, 1976 and subject to the Staff Report dated February 22, 1977~ as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. B. SD-1293 - Osterlund Enterprises, Allendale Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 26 Lots A brief status report was given relative to this application. Note was made that the applicant had submitted an alternative plan (Alternative B) to Staff in response to com- ments made by the Subdivision Committee at its meeting of February 22, 1977. Specifi- cally, Alternative B-proposed a cul-de-sac located west of Chester Avenue, breaking to the right in an easterly direction. Also, this proposal reflected o~ly one driveway accessing onto Allendale Avenue. At this point Chairman Belanger directed that appli- cation SD-1293 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 1977, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. C. SD-1296 - Gerald Butler, Montalvo Road,'Tentative Subdivision Approval - 7 Lots Staff recommended this matter be continued pending resolution of access problems. Chairman Belanger directed that application SD-1296 be continued to the Planning Commis- sion meeting of March 9, 1977, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-318 - Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF), 14500 Fruitvale Avenue, Review of Final Environmental Impact Report (E-4) on Request for Use Permit in Accordance with the Provisions of Article 16 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 to Allow for the Expansion of the IOOF Lodge to Provide for 150 Units of Senior Citizen Housing; Continued from January 26, 1977 " Note was made that the EIR consultant had prepared an addendum to the Draft EIR in response to comments and questions raised at the Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 1977. Staff recommended that the Commission certify said Draft and addend~um as being complete. Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on E-4 at 7:55 p.m. As there were no comments, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public hearing on E-4 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 7:56 p.m. As there were no further comments, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission make the finding that the Draft EIR and its addendum be certified as complete~ The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Belanger directed that application UP-318 be continued to the Planning Commis- sion meeting of March 9, 1977, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report'. B. V-462 - Dan Apker for Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association, 1022 W. Hedding, San Jose, Request for Variance to Allow an Increase in the Height Limitation for a Television Reception Antenna Tower to be Located North of Stoneridge Drive in "R-I-40,000" (Very Low Density, Single-Family Residence) Zone from 55 Feet to 100 Feet (Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Section 14.9); Continued from Jan. 26, 1977 Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on V-462 at 7:59 p.m. Note was made of the following items of correspondence received on this matter: (1) Letter dated February 23, 1977 from Henry I. Smith, 21029 Bank Mill Lane, expres- sing the opinion that a 75-80' high antenna system would provide the desired reception. (2) Letter dated February 23, 1977 from Phil Jacklin, 14436 Esterlee Drive, objecting to the variance. ~.~---_--~-:~-~ .... --:-.~ -.. ...... ._: ...... CO~BIISSION MINUTES OF 2-23- IV. B. V-462 - Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association - Cont'd Citizen and Commission Response ® Col. Francis, president of the Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association, read the follow- ing statement into the record: "In March 1976 Alco Paramount TV conducted a test on the present site of our existing TV tower. Test results indicated that by orienting a TV antenna array at the existing 55zfoot height, San FranciSco stations would hot be satisfactory and a good viewing picture would not be consistent. They recommended not to go this route. In May of 1976 a separate test was conducted by Video Engineers in conjunction with State Video Corporation utilizing the same site. They concluded that by changing the antenna array and increasing the height to 100 feet, a satis- factory picture would be produced but not always satisfactory due to the site not being in proper line of site with the San Francisco Mt. Sutro broadcasting tower. Subsequent to these two tests it was surprisingly determined that the present tower was not located on the McDonald"'or Saratoga Oaks property. Thus, it was decided to search for a site availa~17.~on Saratoga Oaks property which would, by erecting a mini- mum high tower, approximate a line of site to the Sutro tower. Mr. Dan Apker, a locally-recognized engineer, and Mr. George Brumbly of TV Service and Electronics, were retained by the Association to conduct the required test. Mr. Apker conducted a topographic profile survey using geodedic maps, and determined that a site he -selected~on Saratoga Oaks property may be within the required line of site; and ff 'eredf~d to 100 feet, a tower may produce a picture of reasonable quality and relia- bility. To check this survey, a TV monitoring test utilizing the area in the Vacinity /__of_ot~p.~resent TV antenna was conducted by Mr. Brumbly. Following this test it was concluded by both Mr. Apker and Mr. Brumbly that by erecting a 100-foot tower on a newly-selected site, reception of San Francisco Bay stations would have an acceptable quality and reliability. ~e following additional actions have been taken: On ~_~eb~ar~.~{r.. Brumbly and Mr. Apker conducted a test at the site ~f the present antenna tower using th6 'type of antenna array to be used on the proposed tower. Results were as follows: Channels 2, 4, 5 - satisfactory; Channels 7 and 9 - no reception; and Channels 3, 10, l~Lr- satisfactory. On 19 February Mr. Apker and Mr. Brumbly conducted a test at the pro- posed site. They sent aloft a TV antenna array supported by 2 helium-filled balloons. Test results indicated that at the 100-foot height, satisfactory results were obtained at Channels 2, 4, 5 and 7. Channel 9 was not on the air, and Channels 3, 10 and 11 were satisfactory. Tests at the 80-foot .height indicated that Channels 2, 4, 5 would be fair, and Channel 7 marginal at best. C6Hs'id~ration was given to !locating the tower on another site within Saratoga Oaks property. The only other location Which would approximate a similar line of site to the Mr. Sutro tower would require erect- ing a tower of 160-feet, and the tower would be completely exposed. This site, because of its total exposure to man~ residents of Saratoga, was considered. unacceptable. "' ' I asked Mr. Brumbly if it was feasible for the Gatehouse apartment complex to tie into the proposed tower antenna system. He stated that this could be done by establishing a separate TV distribution-'amplification system and P~P~ng ~be TV ~i~al_~o ~he _i Gatehouse. This would not in'~ny Qa~'affec~-signal strength to Saratoga Oaks. Subsequently, I contacted the president of th~ G~tehou~e ~ssociation, and appraised him of what we are planning to do, and told him that there may be a possibility for future tie-in into our system if constructed and approved by the Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association members. Saratoga Oaks has spent considerable time, effort and money in conducting tests to assure t Pat we would be able to receive normal reception of San Francisco Bay stations. Further, Saratoga Oaks wants the tower to be erected on its own property to provide .essential control and e~tablish its own maintenance program. Additionally, the loca- tion of the~op~s~"t~wer within a tree-enclosed area provides for all concerned, the best aesthetic location; and as a result, lessens the viewing impact by surround- ing neighbors. It should be brought to the attention of the Commission that Saratoga Oaks directors made a car survey of the area in the vacinity of our proposed site, and concluded that there are many TV antenna towers throughout the area which, if aesthetics were considered, would be a distraction. Granted that a few residents in the immediate .3 CO~B~ISSION MIN]JTES OF .-.23-77 IV, B, V-462 - Saratoga Oaks Homeowmers Association - Cont'd vacinity of the proposed tower location will consider the tower objectionable. It is felt that the requirement for Saratoga Oaks to provide San Francisco-based starionic reception to a potential viewing audience of over 250 people overrides these objections. In summary, the present tower does not provide reception of San Francisco Bay stations and is not on our property. We selected a site on our property which we felt would give us normal reception and is least offensive to all concerned. We chose a tower height no higher than necessary for normal reception. We feel there are no alterna- tive sites or present solutions within our budgetary limitations. We are receptive to having the Gatehouse apartment complex tie into our system. We are not asking for a special privilege. All we want is the granting of the variance so we too can re- ceive what we have long waited for, ~an Francisco TV reception." - .Commissioner Martin explained that he was present at the February 19th testing, and he expressed concern that the antenna array used for said test was not the same antenna that was proposed for this system. It was verified that a less powerful array was used because the proposed array was too heavy to fly aloft by balloons. Commissioner Martin also expressed concern that the antenna array was not able to be kept level so as to. achieve more consistent results. Commissioner Marshall noted that there would be problems of land masses between the transmitter at Mt. Sutro and the proposed receiver, and he further pointed out that th~re_w~ul_d_.a~o.~_~.p~Oblem of Eho~t~n~_caused ~y ~h~ near-fiel~_-e~fect~ of land masses parallel to the transmitter. Mr. Brumbly agreed with these state- ments, but added that the narrower the beam-width of the antenna array, the less ghosting. He stated that the proposed antenna system would be=narrow 'beam. - Commissioner Callon asked whether TV reception would be adequate with the proposed antenna system at an 80-foot level. Mr. Brumbly explained that there was a noticeable increase in ghosting at the 80-foot level as compared to the 100-foot level, and he stated that the higher the antenna system, the better the reception would be. Commissioner Callon further asked whether the stations broadcast from Sacramento were similar to some of the stations broadcast out of Sah Francisco. Mr. Brumbly replied that he was sure that all ma~or networks broadcast from Sacramento. - The question was raised as to whether the alternative~ suggested by the Commission had been pursued; ie, the possibility of Cable TV in this area with City assistance Mr. Apker pointed out that he had contacted the Chief Engineer of Teleprompter concerning the possibility of a microwave system. Mr. Apker. stated that the engineer estimated that it would cost Teleprompter approximately $2S,000-$28,000 for such a project, not including'the cost of receiving equipment and the delivery of cable. Additionally, Mr. Apker noted that the engineer felt that a minimum of 400 customers would be necessary to pursue such a project, and that he had stated that'an FCC license would be necessary. Relative to the possibility of City assistan6~, Mr. Apker stated that it was his understanding that the major drawback thus far to cable TV within the City had been the City requirement that all cables be underground. He added that consequently this possibility had not been pursued, stating: "At the moment, we can only evaluate the Saratoga Oaks and the immediatelD adjacent area as being potential customers." - Commissioner Marshall stated that he had discussed this _proposal with a proR0g~tion theory physicist and an engineer_~pec~liz~g.in ~il~tary__~lectron~c.~ antennaS_. He noted that both felt that the near-field effects would cause many problems, particularly at night; and that both had recommended the insurance of good quality TV reception be proven unequivocably before the system was installed. Commissioner Marshall stated that he did not feel that sufficient, high-~Fuality work had been done to demonstrate that the homem,mers association would in fact get the type of reception that was desired, and he added that: he felt they would be requ&st:ing~ additional variances' in the future in order to obtain ~he desired results. Com- 'missioner Marshall asked whether an agreement had b'een made between'the Association 'and Mr. ~rumbly guaranteeing these desir~.result§,_and _Mrt BF_umb!X st~.ed tBat : none had been made. CO~tlSSION MINnjTES OF ?: 3-77 ..: .. IV. B. V-462 - Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association - Cont'd ® John Walker, 18627 Stoneridge Drive, pointed out that, relative to Commissioner Marshall's concern of whether or not the Association would be getting its money worth with this system, that other residents in this area who had antennas that were at the~ ~pp~o~im~t~~t'o'~t~is proposed' system were receiving San Francisco stations. 'PIe ~t~'~ed that'he'f~lt ~h'~e~e~'~C~9fion 'they achieved w~th the'proposed system ~0uld be better than what they were presently receiving. · Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Drive, stated that those residents from Sullivan Way down objected to this proposed antenna system on the basis of aesthetics and because it would create a precedent. She stated that the Sacramento ;stations' carried most of the major network programs, and that Channel 6 also carried most of the programs offered by Channel 9. She delivered'a message from Bill Cunningham, Canyon View Drive, who was not able to remain for the public testimony, reminding the Commission that he had applied for a similar~type variance and had been denied. Mr. Cunningham's message was tha~'~approval was given to this variance, he would request a variance for a similar height. · Marjorie Foot, 20910 Canyon View Drive, objected to the variance on the basis of aesthetics. Additionally, she contended that if this variance was granted, it would be precedent-setting and would reduce the chances of other residents in the area of getting adequate reception via cable TV through the City. ® Bill Reid, 21110 Canyon View Drive, objected to the variance because it would set a precedent "which will obliterate any concentrated effort to get 'rv reception for the rest of us." Mr. Reid contended that anyone who elected to live in this area had "to pay the price" of ~iving up good TV reception. Additionally, he noted that the proposed antenna tower would be in the middle of the view of another home he was contemplating on building on Canyon View Drive. · Bernice Soles, Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Assoo-i~-t-ien~ indicated that the argument regarding aesthetics was not valid. She pointea-eut that it would be aesthetically more unpleasing if all of the homes in the Association were to erect separate antennas on each home. ® Roland Cordova, Saratoga Oaks Homeo~ers Association, also questioned the aesthetics arguments, pointed out that from a view on Canyon View Drive, he had counted approxi- mately 20-40 antennas in the immediate area. · Regina Martin, 21327 Canyon View ~rive, stated that she lived at the end of Canyon View Drive and that she could not get Channels=~7, 9 or 13 either. She asked;i'f"'7.'' this variance was granted, would a similar variance be granted to her so that she could also enjoy good TV reception. · Henry Smith, 21029 Bank Mill Lane, pointed out that his property was adjacent to the proposed antenna site, and he noted that he was in attendance at the testing. He expressed the opinion that an 80-foot high antenna would be more acceptable to him than a 100-foot high system, which he felt to be unpractical. Additionally, he ex- pressed'doubt that other locations at the 55-foot level had been explored, and ex- pressed the concern refa~i~e'~'~'~edentS~. · John Steffek, 21101 Bank Mill Lane,.presented a slide he created which a~tempted to show the effects of a 100-foot tower on '~He'prop6~ed si~e'. Saia"slide was a'piC~Ure' of the blue balloon with a scale drawing of the tower superimposed thereover. Mr. Steffek noted that~ he.had b~en present at 'the testing, and pointed out that it was :: difficult to substantiate the d~e~'&~ce betW&en ~he- reception quality at the 80- !~oot and 100-foot levels because there were only brieF' ~Fi'6aHf'~i~'~h~'re there 'was a relatively clear picture due to t~ antenna sw~ngin~ w~th th~ wind'. ......... He stated that as he understood it, :the Association now received 6 channel~, and he contended that with the additional channels received at the 80-foot level, the Association would be receiving 11 channels; i.e., Channels 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 20, 36 and 54. He pointed out that the major station still in question was Channel 7. lie ~stated that based on a study he had made of the TV Guide, 78% of Channel .. 7's programming"'w~s ~i~h~9'carried 6n' Channei '~1 o~"Channel i3. l~a' stated 'that he did not feel that the difference between the 80-foot level and the 100-foot level was that much greater when taking into consideration the effect that a 100-foot tower would have on the environment. .~ .o- CO~1ISSION MINUTES OF B-77 .~. 'V. B. V-462 - Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association - Cont'd With regards to other alternatives, Mr. Steffek suggested that investigation be made of a translator system, which received signals in VHF and translated them into UHF signals. He explained that the translater signals would then be broadcast on UHF channels that were not being used. Mr. Steffek stated that according to 2 estimates he received from engineering firms relative to this system, it would cost approxi=~' mately $1S00-$2000 per channel. He contended that such a system would be free of cables and that the FCC would be likely to approve it because it was not VHF. ® Bill Young, Saratoga Oaks Homemakers Association, asked the Commission to give con- sideration to the possibility that=denial of this variance could ,result in no TV reception at all for the Homemmers Asso~{a£ionl [[~'poin~ed out that if this variance was not approved, the m~mer 'of the property on which the present antenna system was located could insist that said antenna system be removed. Co~ission Action Co~issioner Marshall =moved, s~conded by Comissioner Lustig, that the public hearing on V-462 be closed. ~ '~6fion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 9:05 p.m. Commissioner Marshall reco~ended that-.~h~s..application be denied without prejudice to enable the applicants the opportunity to reapply when more information was obtained. He stated that he did not feel other alternatives had been exhausted, nor that the tests proved that said antenna system would guarantee good quality ~ reception. Commissioner Callon supported this reco~endation stating that she was not convinced that the Com- mission should approve this application based on the needs of the other area residents. She also stated that she would like to see more investigation be made of alternatives. Note was made that if the application was denied without prejudice and fees were waived at the time of a subsequent submittal by the applicants, then the City would be respon- sible for paying the public hearing noticing costs. Both_Chairman ~Belanger and Co~is- sioner Martin felt that in order to avoid duplicating the ~ffort~ and expenses involved in renoticing, that this matter should be continued for 2 months in order to allow the applicants additional time in which to further investigate alternatives. At this time Co~issioner Marshall moved, seconded by Co~issioner Lustig, that the Planning Comission deny application V-462 without prejudice, and that subsequent appli- cation fees be waived on this request for variance. The motion was carried; Chairman Belanger and Co~issioner Martin voted no. C. V-463 - Li Chi and Shou-Ui Hsu, 13442 HOliday Court, Request for Variance to Allow a 15-Foot Frontyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 2S-Foot Setback for Residence to be Constructed on Canyon View Drive (Ord. NS-3, Section 3.7-1) Chairman Belanger opened ~e_.p~bl~C hearing on V-463 at 9:15 p.m. Although it was pointed out that a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter, Staff reco~ended that this application be continued pending review of potential access problems. It was pointed out that Staff had suggested that the applicants and their neighbor to the west concurrently resolve the grading problems on this access road, which could result in a reduction in the amount of variance the applicants would be requesting. Co~issioner Martinsnoted that the Variance Co~ittee had made an on-~.ite inspection, and had determined tHa~ t'h~=~a~iance WoUld 'r~duCe th~ 'amount of' gradihg that would be required. · Mr. Theodore Picard, adjacent property m~mer to the west, expressed concern that this continuance would delay his being able to move into his new house. He was assured that the continuance would not affect his moving plans. · Rick Raines, adjacent property m~er to the east, objected to this matter because it -would be a variance from City regulations. He pointed out that he had met the re- -:quired setbacks when he designed his home, and he noted that there was a vacant site on the other side of his lot ,whose "owners might also request a variance to setbacks. It was noted that said variance would move the Hsu house farther from Mr. Raines home. Additionally, it was pointed out that a considerable n~ber of homes within 26- CO~x~IISSION MINIJTES OF 3-77 IV. B. V-462 - Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association - Cont'd this area had requested and received variances due to the terrain-~roble~s. Mr. Raines contended that'moving The house fa'~her up ~'he hill would create a ...... direct lin~'~f'site into his bedroom.' Commissioner Tallon requested Staff to inves- ~ -: ~i~.t~=~i~ matter prior to the next Commission meeting. ® Mr. Hsu, ap~plicant, stated that he had other things to look at rather than Mr. Raines' 'bedroom. Additionally, Mr. Hsu pointed out that Mr. Raines had requested on three occas.ions fFat the applicants grant an easement to help him resolve driveway problems. Mr. Hsu'pointed out that he had denied this request, and that as a result, Mr. Raines had indicated that he would object to this variance. · Thorn Mayes, 21120 Sullivan Way, asked whether the variance would move the proposed house closer to Canyon View Drive. It was explained that the house would moved farther from Canyon View Drive with the variance. At this time Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on V-463 at 9:40 p.m., continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 1977, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee and Staff for further review and report. RECESS: 9:40 - 9:55 p.m. V. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-537 - Security Pacific National Bank, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Commercial; Continued from February 9, 1977 I~ was noted~hat per the Com~ission's request, the Architectural Review Committee had reviewed these plans and had submitted a Report relative to same. Essentially, the Committee felt that the building was architecturally sound, but they expressed the opinion that the roof line may be too severe for the downtown area. Additionally, they recommended that double-glazed tempered glass was preferrable to the proposed "solar bronze glazing" because of the sharp contrast between the glass and the masonry. Staff pointed out that although the Committee discussed alternatives, they did not make any specific recommendations other than requesting that the Bank's architect provide addi- tional alternative designs. Commissioner Lustig noted that this matter was reviewed by the Design Review Committee subsequent to the Architectural Review Committee's review. He noted that per Commis~- sioner Xambetti's request, the plans had been modified by the applicant showing the brick flooring extending from the Bank's entrance to the sidewalk. It was pointed out that a:revised Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-537 per Exhibit "E" and the revised Staff Report dated February 23, 1977. :---."'-Discussion followed on this motion. Commissioners Callon, Laden, Lustig and Martin .~ -favored granting the applicant design review approval. They indicated that the"~'f~lt '~ the Bank would be an asset to the downtown area, and they expressed points of view that i the proposed Parking Assessment District would be closer to completion as a result of ~': -this approval. Commissioners Lustig and Martin expressed disfavor with the roof line '~: of the building, but indicated they were willing to relinquish their objections in favor "~!jOF~he overall aaVantages to be gained b~ granting this approval. ' .... commissioner Marshall noted that his previous concern was whether this design would be compatible with the dowmtmm area. He pointed out that although the Architectural Review Committee expressed a similar concern, they were not able to provide alternatives. Consequently, Commissioner Marshall stated that although he did not like the architectural style of the building, he would vote in favor of the motion. Commissioner Zambetti raised several questions relative to the roofing materials, the type of glass proposed for the windows, and the placement.of the heating and air con- ditioning units. Mr. Foug stated that the roofing materj:~ls used would be non-glare -7- CO~,IISSION MIN~JTES OF 2 ~-77 V. A. A-5~7 - Security Pacific National Bank --Cont'd and would blend in with other materials of the building. He offered to submit samples of the roofing material for review. Relative to the type of glass proposed for the windows, Mr. Foug stated that he would not object to the Commission requiring clear glass if there'was a concern for thermal effect. He pointed out, however, that bronze- colored glass had been proposed for aesthetic reasons, and he obie~ed_.~o having to use double-glazed glass when it was not necessary for thermal purposes. Concerning the heat- ing and air conditioning units, Mr. Foug stated that he felt the roof line was such that there was enough height to conceal these units from view. Commissioner Zambetti said he would oppose approval of the Bank'design because it did not contribute to the intensification of uses which the Village Plan envisioned. He felt that the site should incorporate a building large enough to include shops as well as a bank. He also expressed a general disfavor with the architecture. Chairman Belanger stated that she would not vote in favor of this application because the ~design~was not in keeping with the atmosphere of the Village as it presently existed nor with the hopes for fulfilling the Village Plan in the future. She pointed out that as one of the few remaining lots in the Village, this site had been regarded as a key to helping the City set the theme for the Village Plan. It was her opinion that the Bank was not sensitive to the image which the City was attempting to create in the Village, but took into account only the corporate image which the Bank sought to advance. Addi- tionally, Chairman Belanger stated that she did not feel that the City had to accept this design in order to obtain the Parking Assessment District. No matter what architec- tural design was chosen, she stated that she felt the Bank would be required to assist in creating the Parking Assessment District. The motion to approve application A-537 was~ed; Chairman Belanger and Commissioner Zambetti voted no. B. A-551 - Henry Fallek, Pike Road, Final Design Review Approval - Single-Family Residence 1 Lot; Continued from February o 1977 Staff noted that tentative building site approval had not been grantedgar_ yet by the Land Development Committee to this site, and it was recommended that'-A-SSL be continued pending such approval. Chairman Belanger directed that application A-551 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 1977, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. C. A-S57a- Dividend Industries, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue, Final Design Review Approval of Landscaping and Fencing Along Saratoga-Sunnyyale Road of Tract #5944 (SD-1254) Commissioner Lustig noted that the Design Review Committee would like a consensus opinion from the Commission relative to the width of the pathway proposed for this subdivision. 'It was noted that the tentative map was conditioned for a 6-foot AC asRhalt pathway along Saratoga-S~nnyvale Road, s~nce th?PSb~'i~'l]~f~ standards called for publid pathways to be 6-feet wide in order to allow sufficient room for the City sweeper to operate. However, the design prepared by the a~plicant showed a 4-foot crushed rock pathway instead of the required A~ asphalt pathway.' ....... =, Commissioners Zambetti and Lustig pointed out that a 6-foot pathway would interfere with the mounding effects of the landscaping, and they favored a 4-foot pathway. Commissioner Marshall stated that since the sweeper was run only on occasion, he would rather see a 4-foot pathway with more landscaping. Commissioner Martin favored a 4-foot pathway__if a bike lane wa~ p~pposed to run-alongsAde the .street. It wa~.pointed o_ut by_Eom~is.~i~ner .... Lustig that.~e~p,~a~_D~_bi~9 ~ath propo~e~ .along t~is corrid0~.~__ho~e~er, Commissioner 'Martin did not change his::op~n~on. Concern was expressed that bikers a~ We~Y~ equestrians would be using this pathway, and Commissioners Belanger, Callon and Laden favored a 6-foot pathwy to provide for sufficient room for all of these uses. Commissioner Laden stated that if the pathway was used by pedestrians, bikers and equestrians, she would rather have a 6-foot pathway so that the City sweeper could be used. -8- CO~IISSION MINIITES OF .-77 V. C. A-SSTa - Dividend Industries - Cont'd The applicant's representative was advised that the tentative map conditioned the pathway to be AC asphalt. He was requested to discuss this matter with the Design Review Commits' tee ~t its next meeting. At this point Chairman Belanger directed that application A-557a be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 1977, and she referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. VI. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR-1282 - Martinskis & Associates, Madrone Hill Road - 1 Lot, Appeal of LDC Requirements Regarding Fire ProteCtion; Continued from February 9; 1977 Staff recommended:that this matter be continued in order to allow the applicant time in which to review alternatives proposed by Staff. Chairman Belanger directed that applica- tion SDR-1282 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 1977, and ...... ~e_f~p~ this matter t~=the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. B. Discussion: Bohlman Road Landslide Study Ar~a Note was made that at the Commission's Committee-of-the-~]~ole meeting of February 17, 1977, Staff recommended that a resolution be prepared and adopted relative to a policy which would place a moratorium on building within the County's Bohlman Road Geology Study area for a period of 6 months or until completion of the County study, whichever occured first. Essentially, this resolution would allow tentative building site approvals to be reviewed .,and granted'b~h?P'fann~ng Commission, but it would pro- hibit issuance of any building permits until after the study was completed. S{aff pointed out that said resolution had been prepared, and the Secretary recommended that Item '~'3'~ be added to said resolution as follows: (S) The above requirements would not apply nor restrict issuance of properly- approved permits for normal maintenance and repair on a structure or site.' There were several objections made to this policy by residents. Bill Bennett, repre- sentative of George Day Construction Company, submitted a letter dated February 18, 1977 requesting that a building permit be issued for Lot #11 of Tract SO07 located on Toll- gate Road. It was noted that there were special problems with this lot, and this letter was referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review. Daniel Stuart pointed out that he had just received tentative building site approval for application SDR-1271, and he requested that this policy be waived to allow him the opportunity to proceed with obtaining a building permit. In the same light, Jerry Hagan, Bohlman Road, pointed out that the house he lived in had been on stable ground for 20 years, and he explained that he wished to add onto this structure. He also requested that the Commission waive the prohibition on building permits to allow him the opportunity to add onto his home. Heard that no matter what the results of the County's study were, he would not move out"of the area. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the resolution should be adopted, as amended, and forwarded to the City Council for approval. The Commission pointed out that this was a special study area because'~t was potentially hazardous, and members~ of the Commission statedH that the results of the ~tdhy might greatly affect building in this area. It was noted that the study should be completed within 2!~ months; or'=-- at the latest, by June of this year. Additionally, the Secretary pointed out that if anyone was grieved by the resolution, they could appeal to the City Council for relief. At this time, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission '~pprOye the resolution of the City of Saratoga ad~ting an interim policy consistent with the County of Santa Clara's policy relative to the Bohlman ~oad Geology Study Area, and transmit said resolution to the City Council with the recommen- dation that it be adppted. The motion was carried unanimously. -9- CO~mlISSION MIN'UTES OF 5-77 VI. C. SDR-1214 - Geneva Quickerr, Quickerr Road, 1 Lot - Request for One-Year Extension of / Tentative Site Approval Granted December 18, 1975 Note was made that this lot was within the?BS~l~Road slide!area, and that'a request had been made for a one-year extension. Staff not~d't~a~ an amended ~Staff Report had been prepared on this application, with the following changes: Condition R. Prior to final approval the applicant shall request that the Soils Report dated November 2, 1968 and prepared by Bribaldo, Jacobs / Jones & Associates shall be reviewed by the City and revised as required. A two hundred dollar geologic review fee shall be de- posited with the City. Condition U. Tentative map approval at this time is subject to all pertinent findings as revealed through the Bohlman Road Study Area. Upon completion of the Bohlman Road Study, this application shall be subject to further review and amendment as required. Conunissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant a one-year extension to application SDR-1214 per Exhibit "A~i'~.. and the revised Staff Report dated February 22, 1977. The motion was carried"?""""": unanimously. VII. CO~IUNICATIONS A. ~%~ITTEN 1. Letter dated February 9, 1977 from Robert Chleboun, 14155 Sobey Meadows Court, to the City Council expressing concern over one trail proposed in the Trails and Pathways Task Force Report. This letter was referred to the Commi~sion's Committee-of-the-W~lole meeting of March 16, 1977 for consideration. 2. PPC Agenda of Eebruary 24, 1977, and minutes of PPC meeting held oniJanuary 27, 1977. B. {O L 1. City Council Repor~ - Commissioner Lustig gave a brief oral report of the City Council meeting held on February 16, 1977. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City's Administration office. 2. Chairman Belanger requested that the Commission give consideration to substituting Committee-of-the-Whole meetings in lieu of subcommittee meetings in an attempt to more efficiently handle Commission business. She requested that objections be made to her before the next Commission meeting, and that alternatives be suggested thereto. Additionally, Chairman Belanger made the following assignments to subcommittee meetings, noting that these assignments may be interim if the Committee-of-the- Whole meetings were approved: Subdivision Committee: Commissioner Marshall - Chairman Commissioner Laden Commissioner Zambetti Alternate: Commissioner Callon Design Review Committee: Commissioner Lustig - Chairman Commissioner Laden New Commissioner Alternate: ~C_~airman~er Variance Committee: Commissioner Callon - Chairman Commissioner Marshall New Commissioner Alternate: Commissioner Zambetti -10- ,CO~IISSION HINIlTES OF 2-23- 7 'II. ORAL CO~iUNICATIONS - Committee Assignments - Cont'd County PPC Representative: Commissioner Callon Alternate: Commissioner Lustig Land Development Committee: Chairman Belanger Alternate: Commissioner Zambetti Bi Chair"mi~:Belanger welcomed Councilman Matteoni to the meeting, and expressed ................. ~ppreciaiion to the Good Government Group for serving coffee. VIII. ADJOURnmENT Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 1977 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:2S p.m. . Respe '~ully submitted, ~ty Va' ' ' sko/ -ll-