Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-1973 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF S~:. ~TOGA PLANNING COlbYfiSSION s TIi~: ~onday, December 10, 1973 - 7:30 P.M. PL'~CE: Saratoga C~ Council Chambers, 13777 ~cu~le A~enue, ~o~, C~l~orn~ T~: Re~ul~ ~eet~n~ I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, Matteoni, Smith, and Woodward. Absent: Chairman_ ~:i~e_!y. Due to the absence of Chairman Lively, Vice-Chairman Marshall presided over this meeting. B. MINUTES, Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the reading of the minutes of the November 26, 1973 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission S'fib]ec'~'f't'5'~h'~'fSIrB'~ing ~nge: ~g'~ 3.' ".Under II. 'E'~"'~".paragraph 4..' .'co~re~["¥He'-~eiling of commiSSion~_r "'~ Matteoni; motion carried with Commissioner Martin abstaining. i C. CITY COUNCIL REPORIT Commissioner Matteoni gave a brief summary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of December 5, 1973 and noted that one particular item of interest to the Planning Commission was the adoption of the Two-Story Ordinance by the Council. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. V-401 - J. T. McManus, Upper Hill Drive - Request for Variance to Allow a Reduction in Side Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from November 26, 1973 Due to the absence of the Secretary the Associate Planner, Charles Rowe, ~ performed the ~u'.t.ies of th3 Secretary at this meeting. The Secretary explained there was no~ .... ~need to open the public hearing relative to this matter at this time. The Variance Committee did meet in field with this applicant and after reviewiD. g:~:the site and the applicant's plans the Committee expressed some reservations about the subject reques% and at the applicant's request it is recommended that V-401 be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Marshall so directed. B. V-402 - Kenneth M. Colson, Raven Court - Request for Variance t.o Allo~.a Reduction in Front Yard Setback Requirements Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing relative to V-402 at 7:43 P.M. The Secretary stated that the Variance Committee has viewed the request in the field and pending input from the applicant has reserved a judgement; however, the Staff has gone ahead on the basis of given information and filed a negative report on this matter. f Mr. Duquette, the applicant's representative, was present and stated that he .... ~ would request that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting to allow additional time for the applicant to submit a revised Variance request. -1- Plannin8 Commission Minutes - December 10~ 1973 - Continued II. B. V-402 - Continued The Secretary read one communication filed in opposition to the proposed Variance and one filed in favor=~ of same. Both submitted by adjacent neighbors. No one else present wished to comment. Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing for the evening at 7:50 P.M., directed V-402 continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Variance Committee and Staff for study. C. V-403 - Sam R. Rondas, Aberdeen Court - Request for Variance to Allow a Garage Conversion Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing relative to V-403 at 7:51 P.M. The Secretary stated that the Notice of Hearing was mailed and then read a Statement of Reason filed by the applicant. The Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 relative to V-402 recommends that the Variance be granted. Commissioner Matteoni recommended that the Staff Report be amended-by adding the following to condition 2 of the report: "amount to be established by the Chief Building Official." Chairman Marshall closed the public!~ hearinK for the evening ~at 7.r~56'PTM7 and explained that if any residen!t'~wished to yoice any comments relative to t~is matter at the next regular meeti~._.t~e'matter'would be reopened. ~9_nm~__is_sio__njr Matteoni moved~_ seconded by COmmissioner Woodward~ 'subject to nd=d ,..receipt of objections by January 9, 1974 it is recon~ended t~at. the ~ S taf~'Rep~d~i'~'D~b'~Y'IOV'I'~'~"~lit~'~'~'~Y%'4'03"b'~'A~do~d and the subject request for Variance be granted as shown on ExhiBit"'A" subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. D. C-173 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "P-A" (Professional-Administrative) to "R-M-4,000" (Multi-Family Residential) Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing at 7:58 P.M. The Secretary suggested'that this matter be continued on the basis that this property is undergoing evaluation as a part of the General Plan review; therefore, no recommendation has been formalized at this time. He further stated that the Notice of Hearing had been mailed and published. Mr. Allen DeGrange, applicant, was present and stated that he had no objection to the proposed continuance, but was somewhat surprised that there would be no action taken at this time. No one else present wished to comment. Chairman Marshall closed the RUbj~_h~aring for the evening at 8:01 P.M., 5referred C-173 to the General--Plan Committee, the Planning Consultant, and the Staff for study ~nd review, and directed same continued to the first meeting in January, 1974. E. UP-229 ~ Bruce Fox, Walbrook Drive - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Two-Story Conversion Chairman Marshall opened the.'~ublic hearing relative to UP-229 at 8:02 P.M. The Secretary stated that the Notice of Hearing had been mailed. Mr. Fox, the applicant, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Marshall, stated that he would prefer that his request be considered under the most recent ordinance adopted by the City Council pertaining to two-story conversions. Chairman Marshall explained that the matter could be referred to the Planning Department Staff for review and recommendation; however, the Planning Commission cannot take any action relative to this matter until the new ordinance becommes effective under the law. -2- %lannin8 Commissionar Minutes - December 10~ 1973 - Continued II. E. UP-229 - Continued Mr. Fox stated that he would prefer to go along with the new ordinance whenever it is fully approved. Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing for the evening at 8:11 P.M., directed UPo229 continued to the next regular meeting, and referred the matter to the Planning Department Staff for consideration under the new ordinance regulating two-story conversions. F. UP-230~- Guenter P. Vollmer, Quito Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Two-Story Conversion Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing relative to UP-230 at 8:12'7zP.M. The Secretary stated that the Notice of Hearing was mailed. Mr. Vollmer, the applicant, was present and stated he would prefer that his application to Use Permit be considered under the existing Emergency Ordinance presently governing two-story conversions. The Secretary explained that the' applicant has submitted the appropriate drawings and documents necessary for Use Permit application. Commissioner Matteoni suggested that since the new ordinance allows for these matter to be referred to the Staff, perhaps, the Staff could do the initial work in connection with UP-230 and have the Subdivision Committee oversee the entire matter in order to give the Staff some assistance in setting up a format to follow in making their determination. Chairman Marshall closed the hearing for the evening at 8:17 P.M., directed UP-230 continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to ~he Subdivision Committee and Staff for review and recommendation by the next regular meeting. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1054 - Roy Anderson, Saratoga Avenue - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from November 26, 1973 The Secretary stated that this matter has been continued since November 26, 1973 awaiting a report from the Flood Control District which agency states that there is certain information that was requested and has not yet been received; therefore, they cannot complete their report. Chairman Marshall noted that. it. will be necessary to obtain an extension of time from the applicant for this tentative map. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, to deny the request for Building Site Approval for SDR-1054 unless a letter of extension is received from the applicant prior to the current expiration date for the tentative map; motion carried unanimously. B. SDR-1079 - Southland Corp. (7-11 Food Stores), Big Basin Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from November 26~ 1973 The Secretary .stated t~.~'~rf'~'~rty is still ~'[i~'~[~ City; therefore, the matter could be continued subject to receipt of an extension from the applicant. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, to deny the request for BuiIding Site Approval SDR-1079 unless a letter of extension to February ~67fg'~is received from the applicant prior to the current expiration date for the tentative map; motion carried unanimously. C. SDR-1081 - James Dyer, Vessing Road - Building Site Approval - 4 Lots - Continued from November 26~ 1973 Mr. Dan Trinidad, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that the applicant has submitted a modified map. Planning Commission Minutes - December 10, 1973 - Continued I:II. C. SDR-1081 - Continued Mr. Herbert F. Killmeyer, land surveyor, present to represent the appli- cant stated he had reviewed the' proposed conditions of approval and found same to be acceptable. Commissioner Belanger recommended that the following condition be added to the proposed conditions of approval.l~iisted in the Staff Report dated December 10, 1973: "Y. Design Review Approval required." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated December 10,. 1973 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map' (Exhibit "B", filed December 10, 1973) be approved subject to the conditions set forth~in.~.said report; motion carried unanimous ly. D. SDR-1087 - Assurance Co., Wardell and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Building Site Approval - 3 Lots - Continued from November 26, 1973 The applicant's representative was present and stated that he had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. After a brief discussion, it was recommended that condition II-E be amended as follows and a condition II-N be added: "E. Dedicate sidewalk easement and improve 6-foot wide walkway along Highway ~85. Walkway to be contiguous with the exist- ing walkway to the south." "N. Landscape berm between fence and walkway (Lot ~3)o Land- scaping to be compatible to adjacent parcel to the south and maintained by deed restriction on Lot ~3." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed November 14, 1973) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unan imou s 1 y. E. SDR-1089 - Stipe Peraic, Thelma' Avenue - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The applicant was present and stated he had reviewed the proposed tions of approval as stated in 2the staff Report dated December 10, 1973 and then expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit~':"A'', 'filed November 27, 1973) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. F. SDR-1090 - Peter Noonan~ Canyon View Drive - Buildins Site Approval - 1-Lot The Secretary recommended that SDR-1090 be continued to the next regular meeting since additional information is needed to complete this file. Chairman Marshall sO directed. Planning Commission Minutes - December 10, 1973 - Continued IV. A. SDR-1073 - James A. Rod~igues, Woodbank Way - Final Design Review - __Single-Family Residence - Continued from November 26~ 1973 Commissioner Belanger explained that the applicant has submitted the information as requested by the Design Review Committee; however, the CommissiOn has not been able to review said information. In view of these facts it is recommended that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting. The applicant was present and stated thatzthe Staff did review the rendering and a letter submitted by his engineer. Mr. Don Butt, Planner I, read a letter received from an adjacent neighbor, Mr. Robert D. Folendorfjof 18660 Woodbank Way, expressing his objection to the proposed residence of Mr. Rodrigues. Chairman Marshall read the communication submitted by Mr. Bill Heiss, applicant~s engineer, stating that the proposed grading consisting of a cut-and-fill operation is a plausible and realistic approach to placing the home on this particular lot. Chairman Marshall, also, read the letter submitted by the applicant listing the reasons that approval should be granted to allow construction of the proposed home on his lot on Woodbank Way. Mr. Rodrigues then requested that the Design Review Committee make a recommendation for ah alternate plan or a recommendation for denial be made in order that he may proceed with an appeal to the City Council. Chairman Marshall explained that the Design Review Committee should be allowed an opportunity to review the new information that has been sub- mitted prior to rendering a recommendation. Mr. Rodrigues stated he is agreeable to allowing the Design Review Committee addtional time for review of this material and is willing to meet with said Committee to explains' and/or discuss same. Chairman Marshall directed this matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Design Review Committee for study and a report at that time. B. Landscaping and Fencing Policies re Planned'Community Developments - Continued from November 26, 1973 Commissioner Marshall read a summation prepared by the homeowners living in the "P-C" development in response to the Design Review Committee's proposed standards for fencing and landscaping. Mr. Butt recommended that the matter be continued and referred back to the Design Review Committee for further study. Mr. Hinshaw, attorney present to represent the homeowners, stated he could see no reason to refer the matter back to the Design Review Committee., Commissioner Marshall explained that originally the Design Review Committee came up with a set of guidelines at the request of the residents of the "P-C" development that would explainc::'. what was in mind at the time the conditions for fencing and landscaping were first la~d~down,~o The Design Review Committee, plus other members of the Planning Commission, laid down, in other words, what the gist of their thinking was at the time ~he conditions were legally set. The residents of the area and their attorney have taken a fair amount of time to review those suggestions and have come back with a document which essentially attempts to shred to pieces the guidelines la~d down rather than consider them in the context in which they were written; which, leaves the Commission in the position o6 going back and carefully reviewing the document prepared by ~- ......... the homeowners-.to--g~-.-~ w,,a-~ ..... y d.ees GGy--.~-The Planning Commls~ion would like to be provided with the opportunity to do that just as the home- owners were given the time to review the guidelines prepared by the Design Review Committee. -5- CI~ OF SA~T~A DECEMBER i0, 1973 . S~FF REPORT ~ · V-402 - Kenneth M. Colson, Raven Court - Request for Varia Allow a eduction in Front Yard Setback Requirements - (S~ction 3.7 of ~o~n'g Ordinance NS-3) Y me applic t is requesting a reduction in thef/ront yard setback an addition to the fron~t portion of his r~L~e at 12851 Raven Court. of As the request is a major d · lure fro etback requirements, and as there is no demonstration of p icat difficulty or physical hardship from application of the Ordinance.,~,doas there are no exceptional conditions on the property which do not exist onto,her properties in the s~e Zoning Districts, and as it appears t e are matire remodeling and addition / X directions the applicant cou4d pursue it is comended that the Variance · : be denied. ~ '. Charles R. RS~e : / Associate Planner Planning Commission Minutes - December 10~ 1973 - Continued IV. B. Landscaping and Fencing - Continued Mr. Hinshaw stated he could not see where there could be a difficulty in understanding the document presented to the Commission. Commissioner Belanger stated that she is having difficulty with the fact that the Design Review Committee did present the homeowners with quite a comprehensive set of outlines and that essentially what has been submitted by the homeowners is an agreement'to only two (2) guidelines that they would admit as possibly being able to apply to the standards. Actually the desired result was to obtain comments on the whole document and now in just one evening it seems the Commission is being asked to throw out the original set of standards proposed by the Design Review Committee and substitute the homeowner's two (2) item document, This seems unreasonable since the Commission has not even had an opportunity to properly review the subject document~ submitted by the homeowners. Mr. Hinshaw stated that when he and other homeowners met with the Design Review Committee the sub~,ect matter of the submitted document was dis- cussed and the Commission requested the homeowners to put those statements in writing and that is exactly what has been done. Commissioner Belanger noted that the homeowners conclusion seems to be the two (2) guidelines submitted as Opposed to the standards prepared .by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Marshall noted that this concern.~ stazted when there was. a question raised by people who reported to have purchased homes knowing full well what they were buying and what the deed restrictions and covenants were;and then asking the Commission to outline what we mean by the standards proposed;followed by we don't like what you suggest and it would be more desirable to go back to the equivalent of "R-I-40,000" zoning with no restrictions, no covenants, and no obligations whatsoever. Obviously these residents have not made use of the current literature offered by the State, the County, and/.or the various Cities in the County relative to public attitudes toward private use of land. Mr. Dunn, One of the homeowners in the "P-C" development, stated that several homeowners have met with the Design Review Committee~ It worked out that the deed restrictions as set down were whimsical and not well defined. The two (2) items proposed in the homeowners proposal were discussed along with the common-green area that the residents of this area must maintain as part 'of the "R-C" development. Commissioner Marshall inquired if anyone has bothered to go back and look at the original George Day map that shows'the perimeter fencing around each lot, stock yard type, that was required to be deleted? Mr. Lou Leto, George Day Co., stated that,fencing was proba~l~ybn the original map submitted to the City when straight "R-I-40,000" zoning was proposed. Commissioner Marshall further inquired if any homeowner in this develop- ment has ever bothered to secure approval or go through an appeal cycle before .ere<ting .a Commissioner Belanger advised that the only plans she has seen are those for lot #13. Commissioner Marshall noted that there have been some plans submitted but never acted upon. He then pointed out that there is only one parcel in this development that has proceeded with fencing on their property with City approval in any way, 'shape, or form. It seems the only thing the homeowners are trying to say is that they want to put fences all around the property line. -6- Planning Commission Minutes - December 10, 1973 - Continued IV. B. Landscaping and Fencing - Continued Mr. Burr explained that tonight's proposal is the first written cormnunication that has been received from the homeowners stating their feelings and this is a delicate situation and will set a precedent; therefore, the Design Review Committee and the Staff would like a little more time to come up with a workable solution. Commissioner Marshall, in answer to an inquiry from Mr. Dunn, stated his attitude is negative only because he keeps asking himself why the residents of the said area have proceeded on their own with the fencing of their yards rather than use the numerous methods of due-process available. Mr. Dunn explained that the fencing that has been put up has been to protect their property, swimming pool, children, animals, etc. He further explained that the homeowners feel the standards laid down by the Design Review Committee are far more restrictive than anticipated; therefore, they have not come forth with a positive reflection on those attitudes or standards. Commissioner Marshall asked if he is to understand that the homeowners do recognize that there is a deed restriction limiting fencing to 15% of the area of the back yard fencing for the subject homes. Mr. Dunn answered that yes they do recognize that; however, it is not well defined. Chairman~..L. Marshall explained that if any homeowner presents a plan that essentially meets the deed restrictions and would otherwise be acceptable from a Design Review standpoint an approval could be granted. Commissioner Belanger stated that she cannot understand why a lot of the comments made this evening have not been put into written form by the home- owners. For example, state that they do object to the Commission's stand on perimeter fencing. The first part of the homeowners document questions the Commission's right to have Design Review 'at all and then at the end they address the fact that, perhaps, if Design Review is required they would be willing to have two (2) standards only. Every time we hear from the homeowners the point is made that the ruling of the Commission against perimeter fencing is one of the things objected to by the homeowners and yet no alternatives have been submitted which state the homeowners definition of the subject 15% fencing limitation and what would be acceptabl~ to them in lieu of same. Commissioner Woodward stated that when the Design Review Committee last met with the homeowners it was expected they would provide a written answer to the guidelines given to them for consideration, but when they arrived they did not have anything prepared and it was requested at that time that they get back something written listing some priorities. The document presented this evening is the answer to that and it was received at 5:00 P.M., Friday, December 7, 1973. Hopefully, the homeowners will show the same tolerance to the Commissione~ that the Commission has shown them and allow sufficient time for review of the subject document. Commissioner. Fmtteoni stated that 1) the homeowners have been cooperative with the Design Review Committee 2) it seems the Planning Commission and George Day and Co. had certain ideas in mind relative to fencing and land- scaping and the homeownersT·had still others 3) all the meetings with the Design Review Committee were held in an attempt to arrive at a mutual area of agreement 4) the fact that the homeowners have expressed a desire to have only two (2) guidelines rather than consider the standards set forth by the Design Review Committee does concern the Planning Commission and 5) it is his desire to take another look at the matter and review the document sub- mitted with the Design Review Committee. -7- Planning Con~nission Minutes.- December lop 1973 - Continued IV. B. Landscaping and Fencing - ContinUed Mr. Hinshaw suggested that the Planning CommisSion may want to consult the City Attorney relative to this matter. Commissioner Marshall noted that this would be an excellent procedure and then directed this matter continued until after the recess. RECESS AND RECONVENE Commissioner Marshall directed this matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred the matter to the Staff and Design Review Committee for further study and a report.~ He further directed the Staff to arrange for a meeting between the Design Review Committee and a representative of the homeowners group. C. A-259 - John H. Powers (Quito Merchants Assn.), Cox Avenue - Final Design ~eview - Directional Sign Commissioner Belanger stated that theimembers of the Quito Merchants _. /Association feel that they are losing ~Usin~s by not having signing along Quito Road. The Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 recommends approval for an off-site directional sign in the right-of-way along the west side of Quito Road between Buchnall Road and Cox Avenue. It was recommended that'the Staff Report be amended to add the following condition b): "b) Lettering is to be at the discretion of the Planning Department." Commissioner Smith stated that the proposed sig~' appears to be a commercial type and not a matter of public interest. "~'airman Marshall stated that the subject shopping center has a sign 'and'since the center is supposed to serve only the immediate area another sign seems unnecessary. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be granted for an off-site directional sign in the right-of-way along the west side of Quito Road between Bucknall Road and Cox Avenue for the Quito Shopping Center as shown on Exhibit "D" subject to the conditions stated in said r~port; motion carried with lCommissioner Smith and Chairman Marshall voting "no". D. A-391 - George Wo Day Construction Co., Fruitvale Avenue - Final Design Review (Revision of Site Development Plan) - Single-Family Residence-.7'. Commissioner Belanger recommended that the Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 advocating Final Design Approval for A-391, revised site development plan for Tract #5327~ be amended by:replacing the existing c6ndition "d." with the following: "d. Design Review Approval. required-fo~ landscaping, fencing, roofing material, and color." and adding the following condit.ion "g.": "go Lot 20 will show a side entry garage." -8- Planning Commission Minutes - December 10, 1973 - Continued IV. D. A-391 - George W. Day -/Plan Revision - Continued Connnissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated December 10, .1973 be adopted, as amended, and.that Final Design Approval be granted for the revised site development plan for tract #5327 as shown on Exhibit "A-2" subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. E. A-391 - George W. Day Construction Co., Fruitvale Avenue - Final Design Review - Single-Family Residence - (Lot #1.~l~, Tract 5327) Commissioner Marshall summarized the Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 recommending approval for the revised plans for lot #1 of tract #5327. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward~ that the Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for the house on lot #1 as shown on Exhibit "W-I" subject to the conditions set forth in said report;.motion carried unani- mously. F. A-405 - Saratoga Foothills Devo Corp., Big Basin Way & 6th Street - Final Design Review - Landscape Plans for Condominium Complex Commissioner Marshall noted that the Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 recommends approval for the final landscape plans for the condominium complex at Big Basin Way and Sixth Street aS shown on Exhibit "K". He then recommended that condition a) of the"subject report be amended to read as follows: ") Garbage areas to be.screened with design subject to a approval of the Design,Review Committee." Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated December 10,.1973 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be granted for the final landscape plans for the dondominium complex at Big Basin Way and Sixth Street subject to the condition stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. G. A-419 - T&F\Development Co., Big Basin Way and Fourth Street - Preliminary Resign Review - Commercial Building Mr. Burt%' Planner I, stated that the Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 recommends that Preliminary Design Approval be granted for the subject commercial building as shown on Exhibit "A 1" After discussion, it was recommended that the subject Staff Report be amended by changing!alternative #2 of the subject report to read as follows: "2) The use of the applicant's adjacent property on the southwest corner of Big Basin Way and Fourth Street for supplementary parking (Exhibit "B-i")." and further amend the report by changing conditions c) ~nd f) to read as follows: ") All air-conditioning units to be properly screened c and sound proofed taking into account roof-top view." "f) Submit plans for the concealment of garbage bin area at time of Final Design Review, with bin pl.acement not to occupy designated parking spaces." -9- ._.Planning Commission Minutes - December l0t 1973 - Continued IV. G. A-419 - Continued Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 be adopted, as amended, and that. Preliminary Design.Approval be granted for the proposed commercial build- ing as shown on Exhibit "A-I" in file A-419 and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. H. A-424 - William C. Carlson ("Vienna "74", Parent's Organization), Saratoga High School - Final Design Review - Temporary Identification Sign Mr. Burt read the Staff Report relative to A-424 dated December 10, 1973 recommending that two (2) temporary identification signs be given Einal Design Approval. After discussion, it was recommended that signjlocation #2 (Blaney Plaza) be ~liminated from the subject Staff Report and that the existing condition d) be deleted and instead insert the following.: "d) Sign will be maintained in good and attractive condition and removed immediately if it appears to be in an non-restorable condition." Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Con~nissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated December 10, '1973 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be granted for ~ne Ill) double faced temporary identification sign to publicize the Saratoga High School Band's trip to Vienna as shown on Exhibits "A"~.a~d"'B" sub jec~ to the conditions stated in said report~'~'~d'~h~'~'ih'~"~p~licant be in~ited to submit a '!~n'tor a second sign for possible location in the downtown area; 'motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Matteoni recommended that the subject design be made available for review by the Parks and Recreation Commission. V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Secretary explained .that in actuality there is not a full environmental -impact report, but he did want to take this opportunity to call the Commission's attention to the State requirement that the City address itself to the specifics of the Environmental Impact Report ~equirement to evaluate General Plan against the implementing guidelines. This information was circulated at one General Plan meeting and at this time I would briefly like to summarize the purpose by quoting from the legislative background: "the requir'ements for an EIR on a local General Plan will be satisfied by the General Plan document, i.e., no separate EIR will be 'required if 1) the-General Plan addresses all the points required to be in an EIR by Article ~9 of the guidelines 2) the docu- ment contain~ a special section or cover sheet where the General Plan docu- ment addresses each of the points required." The points required as noted are that three (3) are informational and therefore easily dealt with and the fourth (4th) is more interpretlye and that is the environmental impact of the project and this requirement is new and it is somewhat a tenuous subject. This repgrt becomes in essence an abstract of the General Plan. Perhaps, the matter best be referred to the on-going public hearings and specifically to the General Plan Committee for comment. Commissioner Marshall referred the matter to the General Plan Committee for further review with the Staff and Planning Consultant. VI. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS z A. Tract #5384 - James'Day, Woodbank Way - Relocation of Emergency Access Easement - Continued from November 26, 1973 The Secretary stated that this applicant has met with the Subdivision Committee and is presently in the process of seeking a~ alternate emergency access easement. -10- Planning Commission Minutes - December 10~ 1973 - Continued VI. A. Tract #5384 - Continued Chairman Marshall directed this matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred Tract ~5384 (emergency access easement) back to the Subdivision Committee for review and a report. B. Request by George Novakovich to put Eleven (11) Acres Under a Land Conservation Agreement Chairman Marshall stated that this request is to put eleven (11) acres under a land conservation agreement (Williamson Act). The Secretary read a Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 explaining alternativesactions available in regard to this request and, also, recommending that alternative #3 as follows be considered as the action by the Commission: "3. As the proposal is consistent with on-going policy and the proposed General Plan and does not require a zoning change recommend the proposal to the City Council (this would'not preclude inputs relative to alternative actions one and two." Mr. Averill Mix, attorney present to represent the applicant, stated that 1) the adjacent neighbors have indicated they look forward to retaining the open-space in this area 2) the George Day Development Co. is, also, aware of this application and is in favor of same and 3) to his knowledge it is one of the few remaining properties avail- able in the City for this use; therefore, he would urge the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that it be accepted for the use requested. Commissioner Belanger asked if this proposal would compromise the City's situation with eventual planning for this as "P-C"? Chairman Marshall stated that he did not think this proposal would constitute a compromise because in'the past advanced planning has been discussed and it would be his recommendation to hold this property under a Land Conservation Agreement and retain the "A" (Agricultural) zoning as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Belanger explained that when it comes to the problem of consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Map it would seem necessary to bring one into conformance with the other and when that is done then the intedded zoning is losE. She is not certain how that can be preserved in future planning. She is essentially for the preservation of the subject land and for encouraging Williamson Act entries of this sort; however, would not like to lose the "P-C" zoning designated for this property. Commissioner Smith agreed and stated that this has generally been the feeling of the Planning Commission. The Secretary explained that it should be noted that the General Plan does accommodate some flexibility and doesn't necessarily become the zoning ordinance and have to mirror the precise zoning. There is a range of densities and compatible uses if the "R-I" does accommodate an agricultural use within it. This is permissible. Sometimes the trend is to tend to become too precisely bound by the General Plan and it almost becomes the zoning instrument. Commissioner Matteoni stated that the foregoing remarks are very much in order and the Attorney General has written some advisory procedures relative to the matter of consistency. Commissioner Matteoninmoved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward to accept the Staff Report dated December 10, 1973 and forward same to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Commission and that this application, George Nowa-kvoch~l_.be allowed to put eleven (11) acres under the Williamson Act and specifically that the Planning Commission approve alternative #3 as stated in said report and that this proposal is consistent with the on-going policy of the General Plan and does not require a zoning change and that the subject parcel be reflected on the General Plan as "P-C" ~'Pi~'~C~'d~[y BeVe{opment~';' moilon Carr~e~ unanimously. \ -11- Planning Commission Minutes - December 10, 1973 - Continued VI. C. SDR-917 - Don Tennenbaum, Saratoga and Cox Avenues - Request for Revision in Entrance to Cox Avenue - Continued from November 26~ 1973 · The Secretary explained that the. Assistant Director of Public Works does have an appointment to meet with this applicant to reivew this matter; therefore, it is recommended that'same be continuned to the next regular meeting. Chairman Marshall sO directed and referred same to the Design Review Committee for review and a report at that time. D. Review of UDOS Plan for Santa Clara County - Continued from November 26, 1973 The Secretary explained that this is a re-~ffirmation of an earlier endorse- ment that the Planning Commission made to the April 26, 1973 UDOS Plan which was transmitted for review to the Cities and Counties by the Planning Policy Committee in a letter of transmittal from Mayor Smith urging adoption of the report and noting that the document basically consists of findings and policies and that a map is not yet included in this (one will be developed). This report follows on that and includes the very general map that is exhibited this evening. To briefly recap the program he explained that the purpose of the UDOS Plan has been to prepare county-wide open-space plan aimed at preserving open-space and establishing county-wide urban development policies focused on guiding future growth. It is necessarily general and will require follow-up studies to develop and action program in which all the cities in the county will have input· into. At earlier meetings the first half of this plan was discussed and becuase of the existence of LAFCO and their policy statements there is something to respond and/or focus on and the other one-half open-space planning is somewhat vaguer and a City representative would meet with the County and he (the ·Secretary) would suggest that be done in the 1974 work year. In essence he feels the Planning.Commission could go ahead and re-endorse this program in so far as it is Consistent with the forthcoming General Plan and Sphere of Influence Plan. Saratoga is not specifically mentioned in the plan a it simply presents·general findings - speaks to no programs or implementation policies. There is a memo from the City Manager dated& October 26, 1973 asking the Planning Commission to schedule for review the final UDOS Plan as adopted by th~ Planning Policy Committee and return a recommendation relative to same to the City Council. Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission conceptionally approve the UDOS Plan and heartily endorse same to the City Council,' but until completion of the 1973 General Plan there is no way that the Planning Commission can assure compliance between that document (UDOS)and the 1973 General Plan; motion carried unanimously. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. SDR-976 - Melvin DeSelle~ Vickery Avenue - Request for Extension Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, to grant a one (1) year extension for SDR~976 from the current date of expiration; motion carried unanimously.· 2. Communication .- Ursula E. Kanady The Secretary read a communication received from Ursula E. Kanady requesting permission to keep a horse on a one-third acre lot on Brandywine D~ive. Commissioner Smith recommended that the Secretary communicate with Mrs. ~'--'s.Kanad~/and inform her of the Variance procedure available for such a request and indicate to her the difficulties involved. Chairman Marshall sO directed·. -12- Planning Commission Minutes December 107 1973 '- Continued VII.-~:.A. 3. Lee's Tree Sung. Cons~ Inc. - Storage of Trucks " The Secretary read a communication received from Mr. Lee L. Lesh, Lee's Tree Surgeons, Inc., requesting that the Planning Commission add v~hicle storage to the.list of permitted and/or conditional uses in the "C-N" (Neighborhood-Commercial) Zoning District. Chairman Marshall referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff and instructed the Secretary to contact Mr. Lesh and inform him that this matter and other similar situations are being looked at and when a decision is reached he will be notified. .He further requested the Secretary to contact the City Attorney to obtain an opinion relative.to the matter. 4. Letter from Dr. Arthur Anderson - Re Grading at Stoneson Development The Secretary read a communication received from Dr. Anderson relative to grading violations at the Stoneson Development (Saratoga Oaks). Chairman Marshall referred :the matter to the Planning Staff for coordination with the Building and Public Works Departments. 5. Memor from City Manager The Secretary read a memorandum received from the City Manager relative to the Cox Garage asking that the Planning Commission imvastigate the possibility. of allowing some type of car repair as a per- mitted~and~or~icondi'ti6nalnhse:~in-".~he-'"C-S~'~.':(C~mmerciatLS~rvice) Zoning District or in some other district. Commissioner Matteoni recommended that the Staff make some investigation and ascertain precisely what could be considered as an appropriate area for this use. Chairman Marshall requested that the Secretary prepare a memo reflecting the aforementioned as the recommendation of the Planning Commission at this time. Commissioner Belanger further recommended that the Staff at some future date agendize for Planning Commission discussion the problem of the whole idea of uses that have no place in the zoning ordinance but are welcome and if there is any constitutional question involved. B. ORAL 1. Policy Issues Commissioner Belanger stated that the Planning Commission seems to have some very important issues in terms of policy that always seem to occur at this point in the meeting when.no one has the stamina to consider them and there must be something wrong.~cfA~lot of comparatively unimportant items ~re discussed for most of the evening and the truly policy issues that the Commission should be addressing are never'considered in depth. 2. Cancellation of Planning Commission Meeting After discussion, Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, to cancel the meeting of December 24, 1973 due to.lack of a quorum and it be rescheduled for January 9, 1974 and that an ~ppropriate notice of same be distributed; motion carried unanimously. -13- Planning Commission Minutes - December 10, 1973 - Continued VII. 'B. 3. Guests Chairman Marshall~ acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of 'Councitman-~B~fdgef'a~!Mrs70~en"and Mr'~'~D~ffin ~f.tbe Good Government Group. He, also,' thanked M~s. Owen for the coffee served at recess. VIII.. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the meeting of December 10, 1973 be adjourned-at 12:25 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, ares . Rowe, cting Secretary Saratoga Planning Commission j -14-