Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-1993 Planning Commission Minutes- ,,,...r-y, • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 1993 - 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Moran. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Moran, Commissioners Asfour, Caldwell, Jacobs, Murakami and Wolfe Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Minutes of May 26, 1993. Commissioner Caldwell had the following corrections: Page 18, 1st full paragraph, the following language should be added at the end of the last sentence: "with the expressed land use goals of the General and Specific Plan." Page 20, paragraph immediately prior to the "Communications" section, last sentence should read: "Commissioner Caldwell asked that in the future staff promptly forward any correspondence that has been addressed to a Commissioner in care of the Citv to the appropriate Commissioner in order to avoid another similar occurrence." Language reflecting that all were in agreement that this would be a good policy should be added to the minutes. Commissioner Asfour had the following corrections: Page 2, under "Technical Corrections" section, the paragraphs beginning "Chairperson Asfour..." and "In response to Chairperson Asfour's question...", Chairperson Asfour should be deleted and replaced with "Commissioner Caldwell". Page 7, top of the page, entry #2, the word "City" should be deleted and replaced with the word "neighborhood". .~ r• ... _ ,. ~ • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 2 Page 20, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence should read: "Chairperson Asfour also requested that staff look at the addresses of the people who spoke earlier in the meeting (with regard to the expansion of Saratoga's sphere of influence) and determine precisely which properties are in the area proposed to became a part of Saratoga's expanded sphere of influence and which properties are already included in Saratoga's current sphere of influence." WOLFE/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 26, 1993, AS CORRECTED (ABOVE). PASSED 4-0-2 (CHAIRPERSON MORAN AND COMMISSIONER JACOBS ABSTAINED). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 4, 1993. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET There were no technical corrections to the packet. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. V-93-008 - Schwertley; 15300 Hume Dr., request for Variance approval to allow the construction of a 5 ft. high, wrought iron fence to be located along the front property line of a corner parcel where a 3 ft. maximum height fence is allowed per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 32,670 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-40,000 zone district (cont. from the 5/26/93 public hearing to allow staff to prepare a Resolution approving the Variance request). ------------------------------------------------------------- The Report dated June 9, 1993, was presented by Planner Dias. Chairperson Moran opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak. WOLFE/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:35 P.M. PASSED 6-0. 1; r •` • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 3 A F UR MURAKAMI M VED T APPROVE V-93-008 PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT. PASSED 4-0-2 (MORAN AND JACOBS ABSTAINED). 2. A-726.1 - Coates and Sowards/24 Hour Nautilus; 18764 Cox Ave., request to modify the standards of an existing sign program in order to construct a 50 sq. ft. identification sign which is approximately 33 ft. in length and 18 inches in height per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is a 6.28 acre commercial complex within a Commercial Neighborhood (C-N) zone district (cont. from the 5/26/93 public hearing at the request of the applicant; application expires 10/12/93). Planner Dias presented the Report dated June 9, 1993. She reviewed the Sign Comparison Test. She pointed out that the condition requiring the sign to be turned off at 11:00 p.m. has been reworded per the direction of the Commission (at the May 12, 1993 meeting) to allow the sign to remain on during all business hours. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:40 P.M. There was no one wishing to speak. JACOBS/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:40 P.M. PASSED 6-0. - CALDWELL/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE A-726.1. Chairperson Moran stated that she was happy that additional time had been taken to allow the Commission to more closely look at this application. She also expressed support for the re-wording of the condition allowing the sign to remain on during business hours. Commissioner Asfour pointed out that the existing walkway lighting at the site is brighter than that which is proposed for the sign and, therefore, the sign should not be a problem. Chairperson Moran stated that she had visited the 24 Hour Nautilus site in Sunnyvale and had examined the sign. She explained that the proposed sign would be similar to the sign in Sunnyvale and stated that she did not feel there would be any problems with the proposed sign. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. si . • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 4 3. AZO-93-002 - Draft Prezoning Boundary Map for Proposed Expanded Sphere of Influence for the City of Saratoga and Associated Negative Declaration. This the second of two scheduled public hearings held by the Planning Commission to consider the above referenced draft Prezoning map. The prezone map will identify future boundary limits for areas within the proposed expanded Sphere of Influence. The Sphere of Influence is the area outside the current City limits from which parcels may be annexed into the City in the next 5 to 25 years. The purpose of the May 26 meeting was to receive public testimony regarding this item. No decision was made by the Planning Commission at that meeting. On June 9, the Planning Commission will consider the May 26 public testimony, review the map, and make a final recommendation to the City Council. Chairperson Moran explained to the audience the process involved with this item. She stated that two Planning Commission Public Hearings were scheduled for this item. She noted that the first Public Hearing was held on May 26th and tonight (June 9th) the second public hearing will take place. She explained that once the Planning Commission Public Hearing is closed the Commission will discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will then hold a public hearing on the item and make a decision with regard to the item. She explained that once the City Council makes a ruling, materials regarding the item are forwarded on to other agencies for review and acceptance. Commissioner Moran invited people to address the Commission with regard to this item. Associate Planner White presented the Report dated June 9, 1993, to the Planning Commission. His report included information regarding the May 26, 1993 public hearing and review of the sheet addressing the questions raised at the May 26th public hearing. He noted that this informational sheet was included in the Commissioners' meeting packet and available to the public in the lobby and at the Planning Department Counter since Friday, June 4, 1993. Associate Planner White announced that he had been in contact with Autumn Arias of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) who indicated that she would be present for the Planning Commission meeting to answer any questions of a technical nature relating to the LAFCO's involvement in the sphere expansion process. .. _ 4~ ' • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 5 In response to Commissioner Asfour's inquiry, Associate Planner White explained that the map on the board depicts the existing and proposed spheres of influence and that red pins represent those who spoke in opposition at the May 26th public hearing and the yellow pins represent those who spoke in favor of the proposed expansion. Associate Planner White stated that 22 people in total spoke, 16 were in opposition - 8 of those reside in the current sphere in influence boundary - 2 individuals spoke in favor of the project - 1 of which indicated that he represented the 28 property owners in the Montgomery Highland Townhomes Association. Chairperson Moran asked if staff had a chance to review the letters which were placed on the dias (this evening) with regard to the item. Associate Planner White stated that he had a chance to review the letters, but some had come in as late as 5:00 p.m. June 9th and that he is not sure he is prepared to respond (at this time) to them. He stated that letters of opposition had been received from the Mid Peninsula Open Space District, the Maryons (of Los Gatos), Anthony Bozzini, Francis Beilharz, Alford Marks, Thomas and Dorothy Warren, and Peter Yagoosh. Commissioner Caldwell explained that since the last hearing she had received a number of phone calls. She explained that some of the callers left messages indicating that they reside in the Montgomery Highlands area and that they did not agree with what was represented at the meeting of May 26, 1993, by the Homeowners' Association individual. She noted that some of the letters received contain the same kind of comment. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she now is questioning the testimony of the individual who indicated that he represented the 28 homeowners. Associate Planner White explained that some of the letters received did not have return addresses and some did have return addresses, but many were received late in the day and he had not had sufficient time to make an evaluation of the letters or to indicate the property owners' location with pins on the map. Associate Planner White stated that he did contact Mr. Wyse (via telephone) to find out how many individuals he represented. Mr Wyse indicated that he represented 28 individual property owners. Associate Planner White stated that he has no written confirmation of this except for the letter that Mr. Wyse submitted. Associate Planner White stated that there are a total of 28 property owners in this development. . Commissioner Caldwell referred to the 3rd paragraph in the letter from Mid Peninsula and asked if this action (expansion of the sphere of influence) is growth inducing. She compared the paragraph to staff's prepared questionnaire (#9), with regard to how the City is dealing with the CEQA review, and its (the City's) determination that CEQA review beyond the Initial Study is not necessary ;. -~ ~ ~ • i Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 6 because the proposal is not a growth inducing action. She asked how the City would handle its CEQA obligations should it be concluded that this action (expansion of the sphere of influence boundaries) may result in a step toward an extension of the Urban Service Area, may ultimately result in relaxation of density, services, and restrictions and may be growth inducing. Associate Planner White indicated that if it were determined that this action may be growth inducing the correct procedure would be to re-initiate the Initial Study to determine what impacts may occur. The City would then have to come to the conclusion that either the Negative Declaration is sufficient, a mitigated Negative Declaration is needed, or that an Environmental Impact Report is needed. In short, Associate Planner White stated, more studies would be needed. He explained that through the Initial Study staff had determined that there are no impacts and, therefore, there is no Negative Declaration filed. In response to Commissioner Wolfe's inquiry regarding the term "growth inducing" and whether any development would warrant an environmental impact report, Associate Planner White explained that "growth inducing" means, as relating to the project, if it paves the way for developments that would not normally occur. Planning Director Curtis explained that with regard to density, the proposed pre-zoning of the lands in the expanded sphere of influence is similar to the County's current zoning of the area and that is why the City would not say that this action is growth inducing. He explained that if some development should take place after City action on a item such as this, it would be more of a timing factor rather than a factor of the action being growth inducing. Commissioner Caldwell referred to a presentation given by the owner of the Mountain Winery property with regard to a potential development of the land which would be a significant intensification of its current use and inquired if the issue of expanding Saratoga's sphere of influence has significance with regard to the property owners future plan for the site. She also inquired whether expansion of the sphere of influence would enhance the property owner's ability to annex this site into the City. Planning Director Curtis and Associate Planner White explained that the entire property would need to be included in the sphere of influence first. Associate Planner White pointed out that this piece of property is located partly in Saratoga's current sphere of influence and another part is in the proposed expanded sphere. He went on to explain that the property should it become, in its entirety, a part of Saratoga's sphere of influence it would then need to be included in Saratoga's Urban Service Area before it could qualify as a candidate for annexation. Planning Director Curtis verified that the property's current status would not qualify it to be annexed into the City. Associate Planner White also noted that if the proposed . 1 ~ ~- • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 7 sphere expansion were to be approved the property would still need Saratoga's Urban Service Area expanded to include the land before it could petition for annexation. Commissioner Caldwell inquired about the feasibility of the City pursuing a Joint Powers of Agreement as an alternative mechanism for gaining some control of the subject area. She asked for an explanation of a Joint Powers of Agreement, the necessary process to create this agreement and the powers which it may carry. Planning Director Curtis stated that many of the hillside cities have discussed this possibility. He stated that he was unsure of all the legal processes and capabilities of this agreement and noted that he is aware that it is a long and very involved process. City Attorney Riback explained that the Government Code allows agencies to enter into agreement with each other to extend authority that the agencies individually may not have for purposes ranging from creating fire service to land use controls over property. The agencies may either establish a separate total Joint Powers authority or a Joint Powers Authority Board that would be representative of each individual agency. The "Board" could have independent authority as established by the agencies. The agencies would each agree to provide the Authority with whatever level of power the agencies wish it to have. He explained that the process is not complicated, but generally there are issues over what sort of authority the agencies want to grant to the newly created body. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he has observed the Joint Powers Authority that exists in the (south) County between the County of Santa Clara and the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy. He briefly explained his understanding of how this authority operates. In response to Commissioner Jacobs inquiry, Associate Planner White explained that a good number of the people who spoke (May 26th) were from Glen Una Drive. He further explained that this area is already a part of Saratoga's current sphere of influence and has been since 1973. He also noted that before 1973, this area had been included in the City's Boundary Agreement Area. With regard to Commissioner Caldwell's question as to how the City determined its boundaries for the proposed expanded sphere of influence, Associate Planner White stated that the City had utilized the 1973 sphere of influence boundary map which pursued its maximum allowable boundaries. Chairperson Moran explained that public testimony would now be taken, encouraged those who wished to speak to come forward. She explained that she and Commissioner Jacobs were not present at the last public hearing on the item. She noted that she had listened to the tapes of the meeting and read the minutes ~:, • 4 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 8 and that she is sure that Commissioner Jacobs had done the same in order to familiarize themselves with what has taken place thus far. AT 8:07 P.M. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Larry Hartage, 15808 Glen Una Drive, asked if he was in the present sphere of influence. Associate Planner White stated that Mr. Hartage's property is in the current sphere of influence. Mr. Hartage had the following questions: 1) Where is the Urban Service Area boundary? 2) What is the 5 year plan mentioned on Page 1 of the Staff Report? 3) With reference to #3 on Page 2, what sort of control (indirect) would the City have if the sphere of influence is expanded? 4) What is the City's definition of ROS zoning - it is not on the staff informational sheet. 5) With regard to #4 on Page 3 and the issue of the Mountain Winery property, if that property or any other is included in the Urban service area can owner pay for the for various City services i.e., sewer connection etc. and become a part of the City. In response to Commissioner Caldwell's question, Mr. Hartage explained that he is opposed to the proposed expansion because he does not feel that others should be "railroaded" into inclusion in the Saratoga sphere of influence if they do not want to be included. Commissioner Jacobs asked Mr. Hartage if, during the time which his property has been in the sphere of influence, he has experienced any negative impact. Mr. Hartage indicated that no negative impacts have been experienced due to his property's inclusion in the sphere of influence. Barbara Mesa, 19525 Canon Drive (part of Montgomery Highlands Homeowners Association) stated that none of the homeowners of the Montgomery Highlands were informed that anyone was going to represent them at the last public hearing on this issue. She stated that she had spoken with several of her neighbors and that neither she nor the neighbors she spoke with are in favor of this proposal. She explained that her property is included in the proposed expanded sphere of influence. George Tengan, 16565 Sanborn Road, stated that he was glad that the previous speaker spoke with regard to the misrepresentation of the views of the Montgomery Highlands property owners. He also stated that he felt that since Chairperson Moran was absent at the first public hearing, her review and count of the speakers of May 26th on this item would be totally irresponsible. He stated that he felt that staff's summary of the proceedings is very bias. He stated that he felt all questions have not been answered and should be answered and made available. He stated that in 1979 an expansion had been rejected due to financial issues. He asked what has changed since that 1979 rejection and why is the City. again pursuing this issue. He stated that he is strongly opposed to the City expanding the sphere of influence. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 9 Commissioner Asfour asked Mr. Tengan if he could explain why he is strongly opposed to the proposal. Mr. Tengan stated that he thinks the Planning Commission has devious motives with regard to expanding the sphere. He stated that questions exists as to whether the City can adequately serve the subject areas and inquired why the City would want to take this on. Commission Asfour stated that it is his understanding that expansion of the sphere of influence would not cause the City to be responsible for providing services to the new areas. This responsibility would continue to lie with the County and no change would take place. Commissioner Asfour, in reply to Mr. Hartage, explained that property cannot be annexed against the will of the property owners -the issue would be put to a vote. Mr. Hartage indicated that he did not realize that annexation would need to be approved through a vote of the property owners. Commissioner Asfour stated that he had made it clear at the last public hearing that the hearing was not on the issue of annexation. Per Chairperson Moran's and Commissioner Caldwell's request, Associate Planner White explained the difference between the proposal, the process of annexation, and the various ways the annexation process can be initiated. He also answered general questions regarding annexation. Per Commissioner Wolfe's suggestion, Autumn Arias, Executive Director of Santa Clara County LAFCO, elaborated on the annexation process and LAFCO's role in the process. She explained that inclusion in the sphere of influence is different from annexation and inclusion in the urban service area. She also explained that a property must first be included in a city's sphere of influence before it can be included in the City's urban service area. Once a property is in both the sphere of influence and the urban service area, she noted, the property could then be eligible for annexation into the city. Ms. Arias explained that either an individual or a City Council can pursue an expansion of or property inclusion in a sphere of influence. She explained that at the point annexation is proposed if 25% of the property owners involved protest the annexation, the issue is then put to a vote and the annexation is not approved unless there is a 50% majority vote. She noted that if 50% of the property owners involved in annexation protest the annexation, the annexation proposal dies and cannot be reactivated for one year. She went on to explain that with regard to a sphere of influence expansion application, LAFCO does not consider the amount of public protest, but protest is considered at the Planning Commission level. Ms. Arias also answered questions from the _ ~ ~~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 10 Commission with regard to sphere of influence expansions, urban service areas, and annexation processes. Commissioner Jacobs inquired whether expansion of a city's sphere of influence has been used in the past to keep other cities/jurisdictions from claiming authority over certain lands. Ms. Arias stated that she believes that this has probably been the case in some sphere expansions. She also noted that spheres have only been in existence for approximately 10 years and there have not been many large sphere expansion applications. In response to Chairperson Moran's inquiry, Ms. Arias indicated that most of the hillside cities have restricted spheres. In explanation to Commissioner Caldwell's question with regard to the City's original sphere expansion application made to LAFCO, Ms. Arias explained that LAFCO had directed the City to prove that it could adequately control the development on the hillside. Commissioner Caldwell also inquired as to what LAFCO looks for when reviewing a city's request to expand its urban service area. Ms Arias explained that the application would need to go through a CEQA review and an environmental impact study would be conducted to ensure that the City has the capability to provide services to the new area. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the initial study conducted by the City with regard to this proposal has concluded that there are no potential impacts. She inquired how LAFCO will look at this type of analysis and if LAFCO will under take any type of CEQA review and if so, at what level. Ms. Arias stated that LAFCO generally, as a policy, does not become the lead agency. In this case, she explained, LAFCO would be the responsible agency and would review, comment on, and agree that the level of review the City has taken is something about which the Commission can feel comfortable. Ms. Arias also explained that many requests for expansion of spheres of influence are made in conjunction with requests to expand the urban service areas and that this type of application is more in depth and covers more factors than an application for sphere expansion only. In response to Commissioner Wolfe's inquiry, Ms. Arias explained that the services provided in an urban service are include sewers, water, fire and police protection, inclusion in school district, library services plus other service. • ,~ • • ;~ Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 11 Commissioner Caldwell asked Ms. Arias if she would like comment on the previous discussion regarding Joint Powers Agreements and relative authority for the City to comment on development within specific areas. Ms. Arias stated that she was not qualified to comment on these types of agreements, but did report to the Commission that the Los Gatos Area has a Los Gatos Hillside Specific Plan which is a plan designed to protect the hillside. George Tenyan, 16565 Sanborn Road, requested that Ms. Arias be given a copy of the tapes of the last public hearing on the expansion proposal. He expressed concern regarding the accuracy of the numbers (in the June 9th staff report) of those speaking in opposition at the last meeting. He stated that the letters of opposition should also be included in staff's count of those voicing opposition to the proposal. Commissioner Caldwell inquired about the status of the expansion of Monte Sereno's sphere of influence. Ms. Arias stated that LAFCO has not yet received a formal application, but that the agency has been approached on the matter and the petitioners are working with LAFCO to provide the necessary materials. She noted that the Monte Sereno City Council did not initiate the expansion. She explained that should both the Saratoga sphere expansion request and the Monte Sereno expansion request come to LAFCO, she would present both of the proposals to the LAFCO Commission and point out that there is an area that both Cities are interested in. Per Commissioner Caldwell's request, Ms. Arias explained that the LAFCO Commission consists of the following 5 members (2 county members, 2 city members and 1 member of the public) Mike Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Penny Lave, Joe Head, and Sig Sanchez. Charles Walton, 19115 Overlook Road, inquired as to why the City wants to expand its sphere of influence. He suggested that if the City wants to preserve the land as it is, the Open Space District should purchase the land. He stated that his property is in the County and favors it being left under the County's jurisdiction. He stated that he sees the expansion of the sphere of influence as a move toward development. He also spoke with regard to how the City's action may encourage development of the Miller property. Mr. Walton also answered questions from the Commission. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he believes that many members of the public have a misunderstanding as to why the City is pursuing expansion of it's sphere. He stated that he understands the City's intention regarding the expansion is to keep other cities from claiming the properties in the subject area and to protect the land as it exists. • i Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 12 Planning Director Curtis explained that this item has been on the work program since 1989. Commissioner Jacobs inquired about the City Council's original intent with regard to the proposed expanded sphere of influence. Planning Director Curtis stated that one of the main objectives of the expansion was to protect the integrity of the hillside area. He explained that if Saratoga does not claim this property within its sphere another city may claim it and any future development would adhere to that city's development standards. He noted that many of these properties are visible from Saratoga and this action is also to protect Saratoga by enabling the City to respond to development requests -not to increase its tax base. Wanda Alexander, 15879 Ravine Road, stated that she is one of the property owners who has requested inclusion in Monte Sereno's .sphere of influence. She suggested that the City develop a Specific Plan for the Hillside Area similar to what Las Gatos has done. She explained that her property lies in the area of the proposed sphere of influence. She stated that she had never been informed that her property was going to be included in the expansion. She reported on various bad experiences with regard to Saratoga's development standards and spoke in opposition to inclusion of her property in Saratoga's expanded sphere of influence. Ms. Alexander also inquired as to how many acres are involved in the proposed expansion. Associate Planner White stated that he was unsure of the exact acreage, but noted that it is in the thousands of acres. Ted Halunen, 16130 Sanborn Road, acknowledged Saratoga's desire to protect the hillside and explained that his property is included in the proposed expansion, but is not visible to Saratoga. He stated his objection to another layer of bureaucracy and commented that the County does an adequate job of providing services. He stated that he does not agree with the City's pursuit of an expanded sphere. Sherry Chappell, 24124 Big Basin Way, stated that her property is in the proposed sphere of influence and explained that she has had problems with her neighbors bulldozing the hillside. She explained that she reported this activity to the county and the County was unable to do anything to stop it. She inquired if the City would be able to take action once this land becomes a part of the sphere of influence. She also expressed concern with the removal of trees and potential erosion due to the bulldozing. Ms. Chappell also answered questions from the Commission. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 13 Sue Colby, Bohlman Road, inquired whether she could petition the City for annexation once her property becomes a part of the City's sphere. Commissioner Caldwell explained that her property would need to be included both in the sphere of influence and the urban service area before being eligible for annexation. No one else wished to speak. ASFOUR/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:02 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Chairperson Moran recessed the meeting at 9:02 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:17 p.m. Commissioner Caldwell started the discussion by asking the Commissioners to articulate their belief of their objectives as Commissioners in pursuing the sphere of influence expansion. She asked if their objective is to maintain status quo or to control development. Commissioner Jacobs stated that to have some control over development may aid in maintaining status quo. He also stated that his understanding of the sphere of influence is that it does not possess a great deal of power. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she feels the Planning Commission needs to determine their objective and then examine the proposal to see if the expanded sphere will meet the objectives. She stated that there may be other mechanisms which will better meet such objectives. She suggested looking at the alternative of a Joint Powers Agreement and having staff provide more information of the powers offer through such an agreement. She also suggested that the City meet with other cities that are in the process of developing a Joint Powers Agreement or that have experience with an established Joint Powers of Agreement in order to gain further insight on this mechanism. She also referred to past incidents in which the City's comments on certain developments have been ignored by the County. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he did not know if a Joint Powers of Agreement would meet the objectives of the Commission with regard to having some authority over development. He also stated that he feels that there is an assumption with regard to the expanded sphere and the City's intent to not expand the Urban Service Area beyond the current sphere. He stated that he feels that with regard to some of the areas, the City does intend to eventually include them in its urban service area - possibly the Paul Masson Mountain Winery property. He stated that he did not feel the Commission should disregard all the study and effort put into the proposed :~ , : • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 14 expanded sphere of influence merely because the City does not have plans at this time to include the areas in the urban service district. He also suggested that the City discuss with Monte Sereno the issue of the properties that have expressed an interest in becoming a part of Monte Sereno's sphere of influence. He stated he did not see any reason to get into debate with Monte Sereno over these properties. Chairperson Moran and Commissioner Asfour expressed their agreement with Commissioner Jacobs' statement regarding the properties requesting inclusion in Monte Sereno's sphere. Commissioner Jacobs expressed his understanding for Commissioner Asfour' s comment that an issue should not be made over these properties. Commissioner Caldwell raised the inquiry of why so much land has been included in the proposed sphere and if such a great amount of land should be included. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he understands that the expansion can abut other jurisdictions and that this may be an exclusionary device used to keep other jurisdictions from claiming the area and developing the land with less restrictive development standards. He noted that another issue with regard to this proposal is whether the County really has greater potential to protect/preserve the hillside. He explained that according to Ms. Chappell the County has limited ability to protect the land. He stated that by leaving property in the County land may suffer benign neglect. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he would not be comfortable with passing the proposal on to the City Council with the individual concerns of the Planning Commissioners noted. He also spoke in favor of seeing a Policy statement adopted as part of the expanded sphere of influence which would state that the purpose of expanding the sphere is to try to maintain the Hillsides in an as natural and undeveloped state as possible to discourage rather than encourage development. He expressed concern with regard to the non-existence of such a Policy statement. He also noted that he has not been that impressed with what the City has done with the hillsides currently under its jurisdiction. Commissioner Asfour noted that should the expanded sphere be adopted the land would still be under the County's jurisdiction and any development and/or changes would be the responsibility of the County. He also stated that a sphere expansion does not necessarily trigger an annexation of certain properties. _+ `} \, ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 15 Commissioner Jacobs inquired about the possibility of property in Saratoga's sphere of influence being annexed into another city or into another city's sphere of influence should Saratoga not pursue annexation. Autumn Arias, LAFCO representative, stated that in such a case LAFCO would probably not prohibit parcels from becoming a part of another city's sphere or prohibit a change in the boundaries of a sphere of influence. In response to Commissioner Wolfe's question regarding time limits in which a property in a City's sphere of influence must be annexed, Ms Arias explained that no time limit is placed on annexation of property within the sphere. She further explained that there is a time limit is placed on property which has been included in the urban service area. She stated that the city must be able to provide services to this property over the short term or within a five year period. Commissioner Jacobs noted that if the City's intention is to put land in the sphere to keep it undeveloped or as open space, this intent should be enunciated in the Policy Statement which he suggested earlier. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she supported the idea of a Policy statement and feels that development of such a document is the responsibility of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wolfe explained that through his experiences he has learned that the County prefers little or no development of the hillsides and also prefers the hillside to remain hillsides. He noted that the State grows by 5-600,000 people a year and he feels that Saratoga is obligated to have as much influence as possible on the surrounding areas/land. He stated that a statement that acknowledges the respect of property rights should be included in a Policy Statement to help prevent probability of lawsuits in the future. Commissioner Asfour stated that he sees a number of issues related to the proposal some of which are -exclusionary purposes, protection of the hillside, agency best equipped to protect the hillside and each agencies weaknesses with regard to land protection. He stated that he does not feel the Planning Commission has the right to kill this proposal. He expressed support for forwarding the proposal on to the City Council with the Commission's recommendations and proposals (such as a Policy Statement) and also forward a recommendation to the City Council for considerations of the suggestions stated in the letter from the Mid Peninsula Open Space District. it ~ , • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 16 Commissioner Caldwell stated that there are 2 proposals before the Commission - 1) the prezoning of the actual sphere of influence and 2) expansion of the sphere of influence and prezoning of this property. She stated that she is not sure the action of expanding the sphere will meet the expectations of the Commissioners. She spoke in favor of establishing a Policy Statement to clearly state the intentions of the sphere expansion. She stated her preference for the Commission not to make a decision on the proposal at this time because she feels that there are still many unanswered questions. She expressed a desire to look into the offerings of a Joint Powers Agreement. She stated that the ability to comment on development within a city's sphere of influence would not necessarily prevent unwanted development from taking place. She also stated that the expansion may be the first step toward eventual annexation of additional properties into the City. She noted that there has been fairly strong public opposition to the expansion proposal and that this opposition can not be ignored or disregarded because these people have legitimate concerns and may be speaking from the voice of experience. She also stated that this action may have financial impacts on the City in the long run which need to be considered. She also spoke to the issue of development of the hillsides and such geological problems as erosion. She stated that she could endorse the pre-zoning of the current sphere of influence, but with regard to the expansion of the sphere, explained that she felt the City may be overstepping its bounds. She stated that she felt expansion may encourage development in the hillside and growth in the hillside should not be encouraged. With regard to protection of the land and trees, she stated that incidents have occurred in the City which may lead one to believe that the City can no better protect the land than the County. She stated that the land should be left in the County if the County can better protect it. She stated that she felt the City should re-examine the environmental impacts of an expansion. And, lastly, she noted that the ROS zoning may have growth inducing aspects, could increase the property values, and encourage development. Commissioner Asfour explained that the property which is currently in the County can be developed whether or not it is included in the City's expanded sphere. Commissioner Murakami noted that over 300 property owners were notified and that even though the Commission received a number of responses in opposition to the proposal, the number of opposing voices was not great compared to the number of properties involved. He stated that he felt that many people do not understand what is proposed and that the City should do more to educate the public on the proposal. He said that he could not yet support sending the proposal to the Council and suggested that more study be conducted on the proposal, it potential impacts, its powers and other alternatives. :-,~~ • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 17 Commissioner Asfour explained that should the Commission send the proposal on to the Council the Council would hold another public hearing thus giving more property owners a chance to comment. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he feels the Planning Commission has done its job with regard to this item and expressed support for sending it onto the City Council for their consideration. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he did not feel that, at this point, the Commission would be sending the Council a clear recommendation. Commissioner Asfour stated that he favored sending the item to the Council with direction to staff to clearly communicate the Commissioner's suggestions, concerns and proposals and allow the Council to make the final decision. Commissioner Caldwell stated that the Planning Commission's responsibility is to send a clear recommendation to the Council. Chairperson Moran stated that she agrees with Commissioner Caldwell and the Commission should not send a "mish-mash" of views on the issue to the Council. She suggested that there be further study conducted on the issues. She suggested that all the various issues involved be discussed at a worksession. There was discussion regarding holding a worksession and a possible joint City Council/Planning Commission worksession on the subject. Planning Director Curtis warned the Commission that the issue can be discussed, but no decision can be made at a worksession. City Attorney Riback explained that the Commission can have an opportunity to further discuss the issues via a Planning Commission worksession, but to hold a joint City Council/Planning Commission worksession raised some procedural issues namely taking a matter before the City Council before it has actually been brought before the Council in a public hearing context. He stated that he did not feel that procedurally this would be an appropriate action to take. In response to Commissioner Jacobs' question regarding whether a joint public hearing could be conducted, City Attorney Riback stated that this was possible, but that all discussion would need to take place at this meeting. He stated that he felt that the Commission was actually looking to get some feedback from the City Council. Chairperson Moran stated that she is interested in receiving feedback from the City Council with regard to clarifying their objectives concerning the proposal. . i 4 .,' • t Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 18 City Attorney Riback stated that the Planning Commission could, at this meeting, ask for clarification from the Council with regard to this proposal. Planning Director Curtis explained that part of the role of the Planning Commission is to come up with a recommendation and a Policy Statement outlining the objectives , i.e., what the Planning Commission wants to see happen with regard to this item. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he thought a worksession would help the Commissioners to enunciate their own policy, arrange the items/list into a clear Policy, vote on a recommendation and the new Policy at a public hearing, and then pass it on to the Council for their review. Again, the Director stated that comments and thoughts on the issue could be discussed, but no decisions could be made at a worksession. The decision must be reached at a public hearing. In response to Commissioner Asfour's inquiry, City Attorney Riback explained that in order to be able to make a decision on the matter, a worksession and an adjourned public hearing for the purpose of making a decision must be advertised. City Attorney Riback answered questions with regard to this procedure. Planning Director Curtis pointed out that if the public hearing is advertised for the purpose of only making a decision and not hearing public testimony, the Commission will not be able (at the meeting) to re-open the public hearing for public testimony. There was an overall consensus among the Commission to hold and advertise a worksession and public hearing. There was brief discussion with regard to available dates which this meeting could be held and whether public testimony should be taken at the meeting/worksession. CALDWELL/ASFOUR MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING (TO ALLOW TESTIMONY) AND CONTINUE AZO-93-002 TO JULY 6, 1993. PASSED 6-0. Planning Director Curtis announced that the meeting will be held in the Senior Day Care Center. ,~~ _' ~ • ~; Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 19 4. V-93-007 - Wheel Works; 18522 Prospect Rd., request for S-93-005 - Variance and Sign Permit approval to construct a 12 ft. tall, 38 sq. ft. free-standing sign identifying the Wheel Works per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The Code allows an identification sign to be free-standing as long as the sign does not exceed 10 ft. in height, 40 sq. ft. in area, and identifies at least five or more separate uses. The parcel is approximately 13,000 sq. ft. in area and is located within the C-N zone district. Planner Dias presented the Staff Report dated June 9, 1993, to the Commission. Chairperson Moran inquired about the phrase "the granting of a variance will not constitute special privilege .. in that other businesses have received variances for signs" appearing on Page 34(b). She stated that she felt a variance approval should be based on the actual signs and businesses that are in the area not on the fact that other variances have been granted in the past. Planning Director Curtis explained that this language is a backwards way of saying that this variance will grant the same type of privilege that other signs in the area have been given. He further explained that this wording has been used in the past. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:15 P.M. Commissioner Caldwell explained that she had visited this business and had ended up in a conversation with an employee of the business with regard to how another business in the area had gotten their sign. Vern Burgess, Otsen Sign Co., spoke in favor of the application. He explained that because of the low visibility of the establishment much business in being lost. He explained that patrons of the business experience difficulty in locating the store, go to a nearby business of the same nature for directions and end up purchasing from that business instead of the Wheel Works. He stated that the new sign would be better for traffic flow since it would be more visible from the street and motorists would not be turning around to look for the sign. He also stated that the new sign would have lower wattage than the existing sign. Mr. Burgess also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the application. :~;.. .. :y . • ~ Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 20 Mike, CEO of Wheel Works, spoke in favor of the application and confirmed the statements made by Mr. Burgess. He explained that the business has recently changed owners and that he is trying to make the business successful. He noted that this store has the least amount of sales compared to the other stores in the franchise. He also requested that Condition #3 be modified to allow the existing signage to remain up until the new sign is install. He explained that removal of the old sign prior to installation of the new sign would leave the business with no sign at all for awhile and would make a bad situation even worse. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/WOLFE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:32 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Commissioner Asfour stated that he had no problems with the application and modification of Condition #3 as requested by the applicant. ASFOUR/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE V-93-007 AND S-93-005 WITH A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION #3 TO ALLOW THE NEW SIGN TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING SIGN. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that a time limit be specified within which the old sign must be removed. Director Curtis recommended that 10 days be allotted. THE AMENDMENT SPECIFYING THAT THE OLD SIGN BE REMOVED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF INSTALLATION OF THE NEW SIGN WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER. Commissioner Caldwell suggested that the language in finding (b) on Page 34 be changed to read: "That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that other signs within the area are similarly situated in order to commercially compete with surrounding businesses." THE ABOVE AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER OF THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. a • ~ „ . ,. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 21 5. SM-93-002 - Epes; 19205 Crisp Ave. (Lot #15), request for DR- 91-058.1 - Planning Commission consideration of the SD-88-008.2 - following: 1.) Site Modification approval to construct a pool and associated decking and landscaping pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code and the Subdivision conditions of approval; 2.) Modification of a Design Review condition of approval to allow the substitution of concrete for turf block in the area adjacent to the garage and to increase the size of the area to accommodate a basketball court and off- street parking per Chapter 15 of the City Code; and 3.) Modification of a Subdivision condition of approval to eliminate the hillside fencing requirement to allow the area of enclosure to exceed the permitted 4,000 sq. ft. and to allow the use of cyclone fencing per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 52,130 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-40,000 zone district. Planner Dias presented the Report dated June 9, 1993 to the Commission and answer questions from the Commission with regard to the applications. Commissioner Caldwell asked, with regard to the fencing issue, if the applicant had been informed of the solution sought by and received by the Parker Ranch Subdivision. Staff indicated that they were unfamiliar with this alternative solution to the fencing regulations. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she thought this alternative solution had been codified and asked staff to try to locate the section in the code. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:45 P.M. Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the applications. She explained that due to the size of the family and the age range of the family members more parking area is needed to allow for additional off-street parking. She explained that the family also needs additional enclosed outdoor living area that would provide safety and privacy. She reported on the background of the project and explained that during the appeal process of the subdivision application the fencing had not been brought up as an issue. She stated that approval of the fence request would not negatively effect the neighboring properties, the adjacent open space or the trail system. She stated that the proposed fencing would offer the family safety, security and privacy and would also allow the family enjoyment of their property in the same manner other property owners in the area enjoy their property. Ms. Fanelli spoke about the proposed landscaping and also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the applications. ~,. ,+ ~. • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 22 AT 10:55 P.M. ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0. With regard to Commissioner Caldwell's earlier inquiry about the code section that offer alternatives to the hillside perimeter fencing regulations, Planning Director Curtis explained that Section 15-29020 states that exceptions maybe made to the perimeter fencing restrictions if the Planning Commission finds and determines that the visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping or other features of the site; or the Planning Commission finds and determines that the fence is needed for safety reasons; or the property owners of a designated neighborhood area (geographic portion of a hillside zoning district, as designated by the Planning Commission, consisting of not less than 10 lots which are contiguous to each other) get together to develop a customized ordinance for the neighborhood. Virginia Fanelli indicated a desire to speak. CALDWELL/WOLFE MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:59 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Ms. Fanelli stated that if the Commission desired the development to follow this code section particularly the portion regarding development of a customized ordinance, she would inform the neighbors of this option. Planner Dias pointed out the proposed cyclone fencing is prohibited and mentioned that Ms. Fanelli has indicated that some other type of open fencing could be used, with the exception of hog-wire fencing which may be too easy for younger family members to climb. CALDWELL/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:00 P.M. PASSED 6-0. CALDWELL/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE SM-93-002. PASSED 6-0. WOLFE/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE DR-91-058.1. PASSED 6-0. Commissioner Asfour explained that with regard to the fencing issue, he had visited the site and noticed that the adjoining property had cyclone fencing. He stated that he had wondered why the no fencing provision had been included in the original subdivision conditions. He discussed the location of the existing cyclone fencing, expressed his preference for the use of cyclone fencing and stated that he has no objection to the proposed fencing. He stated that the existing cyclone fencing had ivy or some type of climbing vegetation growing on it which was aesthetically pleasing. ~ ~ f "? F; , • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 23 WOLFE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE SD-88-008.2. COMMISSIONER ASFOUR SUGGESTED THAT AN AMENDMENT BE MADE TO THE MOTION TO REQUIRE THAT PLANTING BE INSTALLED ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY FENCE. PLANNING DIRECTOR CURTIS SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMISSION MAY WANT TO APPROVE THE FENCING MATERIAL SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN. COMMISSIONER ASFOUR INDICATED THAT THIS WAS HIS INTENT. City Attorney Riback stated that it would be appropriate for the Commission to cite one of the two following findings set forth in Section 15-29.020 to support approval of S D-88-008.2: 1. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping or other features of the site; or 2. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the fence is needed for safety reasons He also stated that both finding could be used. WOLFE/MURAKAMI INDICATED THAT THEY COULD SUPPORT APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION BASED ON BOTH FINDINGS. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. 6. SM-92-008 - Rivoir; 20415 Montalvo Oaks PI., request for DR-91-004.1 Site modification approval to construct a pool and associated decking pursuant to Design Review conditions of approval. Modification of the original Design Review approval is also requested to shift the building footprint five feet forward and modify the proposed building materials per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 20,989 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-20,000 zone district. Planner Dias presented the Staff report dated June 9, 1993, to the Commission. She also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the applications and presented a materials board. Their was some discussion regarding whether the approved materials were required to mitigate any issues such as mass or bulk. It was determined that this was not the case. ~ y. r ~:iiG ~ F, S Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 24 CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:10 P.M. There was no one wishing to speak. CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:10 P.M. PASSED 6-0. ASFOUR/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE SM-92-008 AND DR-91-004.1 PER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. PASSED 6-0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Planning Director Curtis introduced Planner Dias to the Commissioners. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR-92-042 -Gregorian; 15425 Monte Vista Dr. Review of proposed exterior material modifications Planner Dias explained the proposed modifications to the Commission and answered questions with regard to the modification request. She also presented the applicant's alternative exterior plan. Chairperson Moran stated that she supports the original approval and is not enthusiastic about the modification. She stated that she feels that the house needs some brick. She expressed a willingness to work with staff for the use of less brick, but does not favor the sole use of stucco. Commissioners Murakami and Asfour also expressed their dislike for the use of entirely stucco on the exterior. Their was consensus to deny the applicant's, request for a modification to the approved exterior materials. The Commission expressed their willingness to review a proposal which has less brick than the original approval, but that has some brick and maintains the horizontal nature/emphasis. With regard to the July 6th meeting on the sphere expansion and prezoning (heard earlier in the evening) Commissioner Caldwell asked that staff research the possibility of a Joint Powers Agreement and advised the Commissioners to notify staff of any requests for information/materials and etc. for availability at this meeting. ,~.. ~ ~ ~v ~= Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 25 COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 5/19, 25 and 5/27/93 2. Public hearing notices of upcoming items on the 6/23/93 Planning Commission meeting. Oral City Council -Commissioners Murakami and Jacobs reported on the actions taken at the recent City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 11:22 p.m. Chairperson Moran adjourned the meeting to 7:30 p.m. on June 23, 1993, in the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Ca. Andrea M. Chelemengos Minutes Clerk