Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-1974 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~RSSION MINUTES *********************** TIME: Monday, January 9, 1974 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting *********************** , I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Ao ROLL CALL Present: Conmissioners Marshall, Martin~ Matteoni, and Woodward. Absent: Conmissioners Belanger, Lively, and Smith. Due to the absence of Chairman Lively, Vice-Chairman ~rshall presided at this meeting. B. MINUTES Conm~issioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the reading of the minutes of the December 10, 1973 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed to the Conmission subject to the following change: page 1. .under I.A. .add the name Martin to the list of Commissioner indicated as present; motion carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Con~nissioner Woodward gave a'brief summary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of January 2, 1974 and noted the follow- ing as items of interest as explained in a written report submitted by Commissioner Woodward: 1. Ordinance No. 3-E.12 - Defining and Establishing ttazardous Fire Areas within the City - Continued 2. Ordinance No. 38.56 - Establishing Truck Routes within the City - Continued 3. Resolution No. 684 .- Saratoga Fire District Request to Consolidate Maximum Tax Rate Election with City Municipal Election - Continued 4.George Nova~ovicb request to put property under the Williamson Act - Continued 5. City Manager's report on West Valley FreeWay. The City agreed to h~lp preserve right-of-ways, but reserved comment on financial participation. II. PUBLIC'HF~.RINGS V-401- J. T. McManus, Upper Hill Drive - Reques-t for Variance to Allow .. a Reduction in Side Yard Setback Requirements -Continucd from December 10~ 1973 Commissioner Woodward explained that at the time the Variance Connnittee looked at this .particular site the applicant was asked to consider a house that would be more appropriately suited to the site. -1- Plannin~ Commission Minutes - January 9 ~ .1974 'i ~onti~ued II. A. V-401 - Continued The Secretary explained that the applicant is aware of this request and is working to conform with same; therefore, it is recommended tha~ this matter be continued to the next regular meeting. No one in the audience wished to comment relative to V-401; therefore, Chairman Marshall did not open the public hearing and directed V-401 continued to the next regular meeting. B. V-402 - Kenneth M. Colson,'Raven Court - Request forTVariance to Allow a ·Reduction in Front Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from December 10, 1973 Chairman Marshall reopened the hearing relative to V-402 at 7:45 P.M. The Secretary explained that the applicant's architect was present to explain the present status of this request. This request for Variance was originally presented to the Variance Committee and asked that the normal requirement for a 25-foot front yard setback-~ in an "R-l-10,000" Zoning District be reduced to 12.5 for the purpose of remodelin~ this applicant's home. Mr. Duquette, applicant's architect, was present and explained that the site plan has been redesigned and amended and the requestsnow is to allow a 13.6-foot ·frontsyard·setback in lieu of the required 25-foot front yard setback. Iflthis lot were located on a through street rather than a cul-de-sac the structure could be 30-feet closer to the neighbors house. Chairman Marshall stated that since the applicant does propose a modification to his request it is the normal procedure to refer the plans to the Variance Committee for review. Mr. Colson, the applicant, was present and stated he had not anticipated a delay and then advised that he had letters from the neighbors in the cul-de-sac stating tbey had reviewed the proposed plans and did not find them Commissioner Martin stated that as he recalled from the last meeting relative to the subject Variance the current plan is the same as was presented previously and the Variance Committee did indicate a desire to have the applicant look for a means of utilizing other portions of the property; thereby, eliminating the necessity for an amended plan. The applicant explained that this recommendation was given consideration; however, a 6-foot Variance would still be necessary. No one else present wished to comment relative to V-402. 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 for study and a report at the next regular meeting. Commissioner Martin, on bebalf of the Variance Committee, made arrangements to meet with the applicant for an on-site inspection of the property for Saturday, January 12, 1974 at 9:00 A.M. C. V-403 - Sam R. Rondas, Aberdeen Court - Request for Variance to Allow a Garage Conversion - Continued from December 10, 1973 Chairman Marshall explained that this matter was acted ~pon at ~he last regular meeting because of the need for urgency on the part of the applicant with the stipulation that any person wishing to appear either for or against would have the opportunity to do so at this maeting. No on else present wished to comment. Commissioner Martin mo?ed, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the public hearing relative~ to V.~403 be closed at 7:53 P.M. and tbat· the action taken at the meeting of December7··i0, 1973 to approve said Variance be reaffirmed;, motion carried. unanimously.' i2_ Planning Commission Minutes - January 9~~ 1974 '- Continued II. D. UP-230 - Guente~ P. Vollmer, Quito Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Two-Story Conversion - Continued from December 10~ 1973 Chairman Marshall reopened the hearing relative to UP-230 at 7:55 P.M. The Secretary explained that the applicant is requesting a Use Permit under the City's two-story emergency ordinance to allow a two-story conversion. This is the first formal request for such a permit. The · Secretary read the Staff Report recommending that the subject request for Variance be denied. He went on to say that the specific purpose of the emergency ordinance ~-' to protect the privacy of adjacent properties - is not strictly observed in this case. 'In this circumstance the conversion would result in a window and a sun-deck within proximity of 15-feet of the neighbor'.s .patio area. The subject property is a legal non-conforming lot with sub-standard setback standards and the proposed building alteration wou] -aggravate this particular situation. If the conversion were completed it is felt that it would result in a conversion that woGld be in excess of the 50% allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. No one in the audience wished to comment in connection with U.P-230. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded b~ Conm~issioner Woodward, that the public hearing relative to UP-230 be closed at 7:58 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Staff Report dated JanUary 10, 1974 be adopted and the subject request f'or' Use Permit to allow a two-story conversion be denied'Tfor the .reasons set forth in said report; motion. carried unanimously. E. C-170 - Ben R. Shippen, Allendale Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-1-40,O00" (Single-Family Residential) to "R~i-IO,O00" (Single-Family Residential) - Continued from November 26~ 1973 Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing relative to C-170 at 8:00 P.M. The applicant's realtor, Veda S. Call, was present and stated the proposed zoning is already in effect on other property in the area of the subject parcel. Chairman Marshall noted that the zoning which is around this property is "R-I-40,000" at least on the same side of the street. Thfs matter has been continued for some time in order to allow the applicant to determine whether he wished to pursue the nmtter or if he wants to wait for the General Plan Review." In any case, in the application for "R-i-10,O00" zoning fo~ this proposed subdivision four (4) of the six (6) lots are illegal. Ms. Call indicated that the applicant is, also, interested in "R-1-12,500" zoning for the subject parcel., Chairman Marshall explained that if the applicant wished to modify his request the application would have to be changed to reflect the change. Ms. Call stated that it was her impression s~me action would be taken this evening in reference to the proposed Change of Zoning request. Commissioner Matteoni noted that it would be in order to decide that "R-l-10,000" zoning could not be allowed for this property and the · , applicant is free to modify his plan. But the Planning Commission will take a look at the General Plan as finally adopted before con~nitting the City to any zoning change for this property. Chairman Marsnail, in answer to an inquiry from the property ownerrs representative, stated that the p~'operty is presently zoned "R-I-40,000" which is very low density and medium density is one-fourth to one-thirds. acre lots. The Zoning Map and General'. Plan Map are at present in conflict with one another and that is one conflict that must be eliminated. -3- Planning Commission'Minutes January 97. 1974 - Continued II. E. C-170 - Continued The Secretary explained that he has had contact with the applicant and advised him that stri'&t. application of the present General Plan would not accommodate 10,O00-square foot lot for this property as suggested by the applicant. The applicant might reconsider and pro- ceed to submit a somewhat lower density plan. Until the applicant responds in writing the City cannot consider a modified plan. Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing for the evening at 8:10 P.M., directed C-1Y0 continued to the' next regular meeting with the stipulation that the applicant or his duly authorized agent respond to the City in .writing with a declaration of his intentions relative to this matter. F. C-171 - Mel DeSalle, Fifth Street.- ReqUest for Change of Zoning from "R-M-3,000" (Multi-Family Residential) to "C-C" (Co~unity- Co~ercial) Continued. from November 26~ 1973 The Secretary explained that he did co~unicate with this applicant and it is a mutual understanding that this matter will be continued pending the General Plan Review and the Village Plan Review and acceptance. No one present wished to cogent relative to C-171. Chai~an Marshall did not open the public hearing relative to C-171 and directed same continued off the agenda, and referred the matter to the Subdivision Co~ittee and General Plan Co~ittee for study and review with the stipulation that it be continued pending review of the Village Plan. G. C-172 - Blackwell Homes, Prqspe~t Road - Request ~or Change of Zoning from "A" (Agriculture) and "R-1-40,O00" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-i-40,000" "P-C" (Planned Co~unity-Sin~le Family Residential) Chair~n Marshall opened the public hearing relative to C-172 at 8:12 P.M. The Secretary stated that the Notice of Hearing was mailed and publisbed. Mr. Bill Heiss, engineer present to represent the applicant, stated that the property consists of the 201-acres of the entire Parker Ranch, plus another seventeen (.17) acres which is a portion of the Hall property totalling 218-acres. The design team for this particular project has been working on the. planS. with the City Staff, Subdivision Co~ittee, and other members of the Planning Conmission to review this property. He went on . i'._'. explain that 1) the plan seen this evening represents the ~tatus of the project 2) the property is bordered by Highway 85, Prospect Road and Stelling Road and lies i~ediately to the west of the Fremont High School District site, with. Prospect Road running along the westerly boundary down to the vicinity of the Saratoga Country Club and is characterized basically by a ridge line beginhing somewh.ere down in the vicinity of Prospect, Road and running about a mile southerly through the property 3) the maps displayed at this time attempt to illustrate the nature of the property, the various slopes and the most logical areas for development and streets 4) the ridge line continuing up into the property has a fairly level area that gives way to a slightly steeper slope on each side 5) the rear portion ....................... ~_ ~.pr~.perty,. ~!so, has a very. level area and this area will be left ..... 'a~ is ,- it is a beautiful meadow area 6) the average slope of the property is 28% and was determined by slope analysis 7) utilizing the Saratoga Slope Density Formula the 28% slope would allow 135-dwelling units 8) considering the nature of the terrain of this property the logical way to develop this property would be as a "P-C" development in accordance with the City of Saratoga "P-C" Ordinance 9) the homes themselves would have setbacks identical to those required under straight "R-I-40,000" zoning 10) by developing the property as ~'P-C" the lots would be somewhat smaller; thereby, making it possible to crea~permanent open-space areas - 15U-acres in this casc 11) each owner, in addition. to owning his own individ~al lot, would, also, own approximately 1% of the 150-acres designated for o~en-space 12) this usually results in the assessed valuation of the Planning. Comn2..i.s§ion Minutes - January 9~ ~974 - Continued II. G.- C-172 - Continued individual lots or homes Being equal to or greater than those developed under regular "R-i-40,000" zoning 13) the 150-acres of open-space pro- posed under'this design concept would be owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association 14) the applicant h~s developed several types of building styles and created a minimum amount of impact on the terrain 15) of the proposed 135-homes approximately one-half of them are designated d~own-hill-split-leve! houses 16) the homes will be in a $70,000 to $100,000 Rrice category 17) the primary access to the property would be at the ~ntersection of Stelling and Prospect Roads 18) internally the circula- tion would consist of a major road running in the vicinity of the ridge back through the property with one down road coming in somewhere at about the middle of the property going near the ridge down to the level area along the creek and then across the creek and down to join Prospect Road - there are some provisions for future circulation into the.adjacent area 19) there is a proposed street that would end at the property line adjacent to the future high school site 20) if the high school site is developed as a school site this road would terminate with a 12-lot cul-de-sac 21) if the property is developed as "R-i" then the street will be extended down into the school property 22) in addition at the southeasterly corner there is a stub- street that reaches the property line at that location 23) if the property between Pierce Road and the Parker Ranch is considered there are a series of developmen~ that have been approved - some previous lot splits that have created s~·~me 60-foot wide easements that go all the way up to the Parker Ranch 24) all utilities for the development are available - there is an existing gas line along Prospect Road, a 19-inch water main that actually goes through the property and runs along the east side of the creek all the way back up to a four-million gallon storage tank and 25) immediately adjacent 'to the water line is a 8-inch sanitary sewer which runs the length of the property :. - the only portion of the property not seviced by that particular sewer line are:'~bout 20-home sites and these homes could be serviced by a pump station. Chairman Marshall explained that this is the first public hearing relative to C-172; therefore, no action will be taken at this time and the matter will be set aside - off the agenda pending receipt of an Enviro~n~ental Impact Report and in no.!case will any action be taken until the General Plan Review is completed. The Secretary tbmn read co~r~nunications filed in opposition to the proposed Change Of Zoning application by the following: 1) Mr. and'Mrs. Knapp, 20885 Wardell Road 2) Mr. and Mrs. Charles Guichard, 21130 Wardell Road 3) Julia S. Nash, 21430 Arrowhead Lane, Cupertino : 4) John F. Torre, 21680 Wardell Road 5) Douglas Diemer, 207~1 Wardell Road Mrs. Barbara Stevenson of 22550 Rolling Hills Road was present and stated that 1) she purchased her property in 1955 2) some individuals need open-space in order to survive 3) many problems of this day and age are -due to overcrowded conditions.4) children need to learn skills such as hiking, horseback riding, and nature study, etc. and these can only be learned in open-space area and it is getting almost impossible for a child to learn these things due to lack of available area 5) people who originally settled in this area are gradually being ousted by developments of the type proposed -- 6) she moved her family to this rural area in order that they would be able"to keep pets 7) survey shows that 80% of the families that have child abuse do not own pets 8) the poorest use of prime "Agricultural" land .in"'_ the United States is in San Jose - it has all been put under concrete 9) build- ing on this hillside property will not be easy - and many people who have done so or tried to do so have been discouraged by the difficulties 10) coming down tlighway 85 from ~rospect is it is difficult to get onto Stelling now and will be worse if ·this development is approved 11) the schools in the area· are already overc',rowded and this development wcul~ a~ a tremendous load to these schools'i=12) buyers of the proposed homes would mcve in and then start obj cting t'o horse smell and the animals and before long the e existing residents would be asked to get rid of their ani~nals and pets 13) peopl~ m:,ving into the proposed development should be made aware that -5- PlanninG. Cormnission Minutes - January 9, 1973 - Continued II. G. C-172 - Continued this is an Agricultural zoned area 14) very often there is a lack of electrical.power and wate.r supply and fire protection is very bad 15) the present residents put up with many inconveniences, but are willing to do so in order to live in the open-space areas 16) she has always left her property open for people to ride or drive through as long as they do not abuse the privilege 17) there is, also, the proble~..of who will maintain and police the open-space that. is proposed as part of this development !8) her residence is located in the County area., but is in the Saratoga Sphere of Influence. ~lr. A. Zettler Greely of 21450 Prospect Road stated that 1) he lived in [he Cupertino-County area, but under the Saratoga Sphere of Influence 2) he has been appointed spokesman for the Greater Prospect Hills Homeowners Association of which many of the members were present at this meeting 3) some of the members of the Association are residents of Saratoga and others live in the County area, but are, also, under the City of Saratoga Sphere of Influence 4) a petition has been prepare~ by and signed by the members of the Association in opposition to the proposed application (Mr. Greely submitted the petition and them summarized its contents). Chairman Marshall stated, in answer to some of the questions raised in the subject petition, that 1) it was his impression that the developer is already committed in respect to the widening of Prospect Road and this entails the widening of several bridges 2) as to the impact on schools - most people are aware that there is a gradual diminishment of enrollment 3) there is an Environment Impact Report required for this entire area and the residents of the area will be permitt'ed to read same 4) the developer has had preliminary geological surveys made, a rather extensive aerial survey establishing the contours. grades and slopes, infra-red photography to determine the basic geological structure of the area. With respect to rural atmosphere protection it might be well to describe what is meant by "P-C": 1) the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.a describes "P-C" as opposed to straight "R-i" 2) "R-I" uses are permitted in a "P-C" and essentially the standards in a "P-C" must be at no less than thoae in straight "R-i" of the appropriate size zone; howaver, the controls imposed on a "P-C" development are considerably more stringent than are the ones put on straight "R-I" 3) the maintenance and upkeep of the common areas of this project are normally accomplished by a Homeowners Association 4) the public access, bike and horse trails for the project are possible for straight "R-i" and/or 'YP-C" and that is usually accomplished through negotiations with the' developer and 5) a "P-C" requires a precise plan, generally fencing, landscaping and all other aspects of development are more controlled than in the case of a normal "R-i". Commissioner Martin explained that the maintenance and upkeep as indicated by the Chairman is assigned to the Homownefs Association and it has been the policy in the past to require that a Maintenance District be formed; thereby, allowing the r~sidents of the development to maintain the open-space and if they do not the City does so and the property owners are taxed for the service. Commissio~er Matteoni stated he would think the environmental impact review process would, also, speak to the school impact. The Environmental Impact Reports are to receive input from the developer, the people in the con~unity and neighborhoods affected and other public agencies other than the City of Saratoga Mr. Tom Sa~er of 20790 Arata Court was present and stated that 1) he has been in contact with the high school.and they are in a state of confusion relative to this application 2) he is not very familiar with the method by which the slope density formula works and 3) it appears to be the interest of the developer to buy basicall. y unbuildable property and include that in his overall parcel thus getting a much higher land to home ratio. Planning Commission Minutes - January 9~.1974 - Contint~ed II. G. C-172 - Continued Chairman Marshall explaindd that nothing is allowed to be built on a lot that has a slope of over 40%. If there is one flat acre and it were allowed to build a house on it and even if one more acre were added that had an average slope of 50% the average slope of the two lots would be 25% and theoretically, two house could be built, but there would be no place to put the second house because of tile slope average. The reason there are only 135-homes allowed on the subject 2]8-acres is that the slope computation of. 28% allows the maxin~um number of houses and the average lot size is no longer 40,000-square fee~. He further explained, in answer to an inquiry ~rom a member of the audience, that the Planning Consultant has recommended that the northwesterly area of the City which encompasses the Painless Parker area as well as another large portion of the City be zoned to SC-10 (slope conservation are of ten acres). This recommendation was based on several factors, i.e., access, fire protection, availability of water,-potential'earthquake hazard, geological sub-structure of the soil, the fact that there are slopes grea~er than 40%. The Planning Consultant's recommendation is Contrary to the pro- posed zoning application. Mr. Marv Kirkeby, engineer, asked if the General Plan Review has been coordinated with the County Interm Zoning Study? Chairman Marshall stated that the only coordination he is aware of is that done by the County aimed at what- the City of Saratoga would like to see. The Planning situration at present between the Cities and the County is a general tendency on the part~ of the County to conform with what the Cities want. Commissioner Matteoni stated that the County zoning came out of primarily the meetings held by the Planning Policy Committee and the Cities did have an opportunity to participate at those meetings. The County has now implemented ~..those suggestions. The CoUnty Zoning for slope density fo~ula · are three faceted - 40,000-square feet would be the starting point of slope density formula minimum lot sizes and would have sewer and water available and would not be developing on septic tank; 70,000-square foot lots would be the situation where only oneof the above utilities would be available and if would be necessary to put in a mutual water system or go to a septic tank system; 100,000-square foot lots would have none of the above utilties available, From here it would go to from 2~-acre to lO-acre parcels. The City has attempted to coordinate - it does have a slope density formula and is looking primarily to utilities as a starting point. Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing for the evening at 9:50 P.M., continued ~-172 off the agenda pending receipt and acceptance of an EIR and adoption: of·the General Plan by the City Council. RECESS AND RECONVENE H. C-173 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "P-A" (Professional-Administrative) to "R-M-4,000" (Multi-Family Residential) - Continued from December 10, 1973 Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing relative to C-173 at 10:15 P.M. Mr. DeGrange, applicant, was present and stated that 1) he assumed this matter would be delayed for the General Plan 2) there have been numerous delays already for this application and the owner of the property is not anxious to give him .(Mro ·DeGrange) too much more time to make a decision relative to the purchase of this parcel and 3) he would request some indication from the Planning Conmission as to what the reconmendation x.Till for the this proposed Change of ZoniDg request. Chairman Marshall explained that 1) the delays are due to the 1973 General Plan Study presently in progress 2) the Subdivision Committee has not studied th matter in any great detail because it was not proper to do so until a decision is made on the General Plan 3) the applicant would be best advised to wait Planning Commission Minutes - January 9~ 1974 - Continued II. tl. C-173 - Continued until the final study on the General Plan is completed and the Planning Con- sultant has submitted his final recommendations. No onenelse present wished to comment in connections'with C-173. Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing for the evening at 10:20 P.M,, continued C-173 to the next regular meeting and referred same to .the Sub- division Committee and the General Plan Sub-Committee. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1079 Southland Corp., (7-11 Food Stores), Big Basin Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from December 10, 1973 The Secretary recomnended that this matter be continued'off the agenda to the meeting of February 13, 1974. The applicant has-granted a 'written extension of fifty (50) days. Chairman Marshall so directed.. B. SDR-'1090 - Peter Noonan, Canyon View Drive - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from December 10, 1973 The Secretary stated that there are ~dditional conditions for this property and there is some reservation as to the developers capacity to comply with the fire district request for an extension on the ~iveway. Based on this request this problem planwas again reviewed by the Public Works Department and Building Department and as a result three (3) additional conditions have been reco~r~nended; therefore, it is recommended that the matter be continued and the applicant be asked to grant a written extension. The resident of lot 11 of tract 1318 was present and stated that, there is some concern on his part about the kind of road that will be constructed for the subject lot since it is located above their existing residence and it is important that an adequate road be provided. C~mmissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the request for building site approval in connection with SDR-1090 be denied unless a written extension ·is received from the applicant prior to the current expiration date for the tentative map; motion carried unanimously. IV. D~SIGN REVIEW A. A-426 - JaZzes Day Development,·Quito Road and Woodbank Way - Final Design Review - Temporary Subdivision identification SiSn Mr. Donald Burt, Planner I, read the Staff' Report dated January 9, 1974 recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for the identification sign fcr Tract 5384. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Staff Report dated January 9, 1974 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for the temporary identification ~ign for Tract #5384 as shown on Exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. Bo SDR-1069 - John Grammer, Canyon View Drive Final DeSign Review Single- Family Residence The Planner I read the Staff Report dated January 9, 1974 recommending the subject single family residence be granted Final Design Approval. The subject report was amended by adding the following condition: "Landscape plans for· the exposed lower part of the house is subject to Design Review Approval." -8- Planning Con~mission Minutes - January 9~. 1974 Continued IV. B. SDR-1069 Continued Cpmmissioner' Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Staff Report relative to '~DR-1069 dated January 9, 1974 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be granted for the subject single-family residence; motion carried unanimously. SDR-1073 - James A. Rodrigues, Woodbank Way - Final besign Review - SinSle Family Residence - Continued from December 10~ 1973 Chairman Marshall read the Staff Report relative to SDR-1073 dated January 9, 1973 reconm~ending denial for this request and then he e>~plained to the applicant that this recommendation can be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Rodrigues, the applicant,was present and stated that 1) this is not a proposed hillside residence 2) .it is a .b~milding site that was previously approved and is notireal~y~..a .flat'.land~house 3) it is a-two-story home with eaves lower than those on the neighbors house 4) there are six (6) distinct · levels in this house 5) the cut of the property allows the house to be nestled into the hillside in order to reduce the impact of the structure on the neighbors 6) at the time building site approval was g~anted for this lot there was opposition voiced ~gainst a two-story structure for this lot 7) it will not be a wood house, but will be stucco and will be Mediterrean in style;~hereby, reducing monotony 8) he will attempt to maintain the harmony of the area by maintaining the orchard trees ahd by reducing the topography 9) a~ engin~er's report states it will be possible to build the house proposed 10) in so far as blocking the neighbor's, Mr. Follendorf, view - will there be any restriction on the cut and building being done at this time less than lO0-feet away from the subject property? and 11) that is the parcel under development by James Day. Chairman Marshall explained that Mr. Day did obtain an approved grading plan. Mr. Rodrigues further stated that this tso will obstruct some of Mr. Follendorf's view since it is no less severe than that proposed for the subject site; therefore, precedent has already been established. Mr. Follendorf has already planted shrubbery that will completely obscure the proposed structure from his property~ Mr. Follendorf stated that he planted the shrubbery anticipating that the proposed structure may be built and he wanted to get the growth of proper screening started as soon as possible. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Staff Report dated January 9, 1974 be adopted and that the request for final Design Approval for the single-family residence as shown 6n Exhibit "A" in file SDR-1073 be denied for the reasons stated in the report; motion carried unanimously. Do Landscapi~ and Fencing Policies re Planned Community Developments - Continued from December 10~ 1973 Commissioner Marshall read the Staff Report dated January 9, 1974 reconmending guidelines for landscaping and fencing for tracts 5150, 5327, and 5408. Mr. Rinshaw, attorney present to represent the homeownerS in tract 5150, stated that 1) this is the first opportunity he has had to review the subject Staff Report and 2) ·it was his understanding that the plans for landscaping and fencing would be submitted to Staff only for review and not to the Design Review Committee. Planning Commission Minutes - January 9~ 1974 - Continued IV. D. Landscaping and Fencin~ - Continued ,: Chairman Marshall explained that 1) the Planning Commissio~ does not claim to be expert in "P-C" developments, because until tbe first "P-C" was created, George Day Tract 5150, Design-Review reviewed public buildings, commercial ventures, condominiums, etc. and those deyelopers were al~.~ays aware.~qf the the requirements of Design Review 2) it is not the intent to tell ~he homeowners in this tract how to live, but rather to exert somewhat the ~ame controls as residents ask the City to exert against commercial endeavors in the City 3) in "~-C'~ the City is striving for a goal we do not even have as yet ~) maybe in the beginning it was not clearly pointed out that solid-wood-board perimeter fencing is not acceptable in the "P-C" develop- ment 5) Design Review approval is obtained by submitting the plans to the Staff, then they are reviewed by the Design Review Con~ittee and then by the entire Con~ission. Mr. Hinshaw stated that this process d~en reverts back to the guidelines lald down by the Chairn~n of the Design Review Co~ittee. Chai~an Marshall explained this is not really the case. The guidelines per se must be put in proper context since they were created at the request of the homeowners of the "P-C" tract .to help them understand the "P-C" requirements for fencing and landscaping. Every attempt was made to illustrate that shrubbery?' instead of fencing in some cases was not a bad thing. Mr. Hinshaw stated he did meet with the Staff and informed them he did ~eel there was much of a problem. He does not, however, feel that it is appropriate, considering past history, that the manner in which this sub- division was approved that he will agree to being subject to ~encing or landscaping plans not of his own doing~ for his own rear yard. Chai~an Marshall stated that the Zoning Ordinance ~oes call for Design Review Approval and Mr. tlinshaw is~'saying he will not agree to that requirement. ...~ Mr. Hinshaw answered that he did request all info~ation pertinent to any rear. yard fencing and landscaping in a "P-C"; therefore, he assumes he has read all the requirements and he has not come across and ordinance requiring Design Review Approval for rear yard fencing and landscaping for "P-C". ~ ' Commissioner Martin stated that as he sees it these homeowner~ do not want anything different than what the devel'oper, George Day, has in every other standard "R-I-40,00" area with complete perimeter fencing and ending up by saying that an individual homeowner (unless he so desires) should not be compelled to put a certain type of fencing in his yard and that he could have any type of fencing he wants as long as it is not over six (6) feet~ Mr. Hi~shaw explained that there is a practical difficulty in that in this "P-C" development one persons rear yard is someone else's front yard. Chairman Marshall stated that it appears the homeowners have taken a position and now refuse to accept any other approach except that position. The attitude seems to be that the homeowners will not take down any illegal fencing they do not consider to be illegal. As stated 'in item ~1 of the Staff Report interior fencing and landscaping plans must obtain Design Review Approval and it has not been said that if fencing in excess of 15% of the lot is proposed it will be rejected. . The homeowners have their own Architectural Control Gronp which the homeowners by signing their deed , .......... lige-~ ................................... Mr. Hinshaw stated thaf~ the homeowners agree that items 1, 3, and 4 of the Staff Report are unacceptable guidelines and that any other ordinance that are in effect the homeowners would be bound by. -10- Plannin~ Commission Minutes - January 9.~ 1974 - Continue________jd IV, D. Landscaping and Fencing Continued Chairman Marshall then suggested that the property owners in this "P-C" development make it a point to find out all of the ordinances and regulations pertinent to their property relating to Building Permits, Use Permit and everything else that is of a legal nature. Cbai~n Marshall explained that there is an Architectural Review Co~ittee under the deed restrictions whicb includes the developer Day, Mrs. Muriel Day, and Mr. Lou Leto. Mr.' Hinshae explained that Committee was foxed as~part 0f agreement between the homeo~ers and the developer and has nothing to do with the City. Commissioner Matteoni stated that 1) perhaps it is too late because certain lines are b~ing drawn 2) he was under the assumption that maybe too much has been asked for in the report that was given several months ago in which certain standards wera set down for design review criteris and the homeowners are saying-.that they and the City are n,~t too far apart and the guidelines should be re-examined in light of the questions asked in Mr. Hinshaw's letter of December 5, 1973. Attempting to do that he thought at one time that the homeo~ners association would be taking over as the Architectural Review Con~ittee and it was their intent to enforce the deed restrictions and work out, to the satisfaction of the people living in the "P-C" development, that plans and guidelines for fencing and landscaping. The Staff could help with the preliminary work with the homeowners and the Design Review Co~it~ee could then take a look and give a response after review of the plans with the Planning Commission. The Staff Report does not really reco~end that rigid standards be adopted, but this is a "P-C~.' and must be treated a little differently than a standard "R-I-40,000" development. Mr. Hinshaw inquired if there was any legal opinion rendered relative to. the enforcability of Design Review relative to the subject fencing and landscaping for this area. Co~issioner Matteoni stated that i~ was his understanding the City Attorney did examine the situation and the 15% fencing restriction is a requirement of the deed restrictions and not a requirement of the City and is no~ mentioned in the Staff Report. Mr. Hinshaw stated he is not sure what guidelines would be in an individuals mind; therefore, he is hesitant to submit any plans at all until he is con- vinced he is required to do so. Co~issioner Martin stated that obviously Mr. Hinshaw does not want .the City to give any guidelinss or have any participation in the design fencing and landscaping for this area even though ~he hOmeo~.~ners have signed' deed restrictions agreeing to same. Mr. Hinshaw stated tbat this is correct. He .and his fellow homeowners have · " a substantial investment in their property and they will decide the best fencing and landscaping for the area. Chairman Marshall stated that the homeowners are taking the postion that their land is to do with as they please subject only to those specific City regulations that pertain to a Use Permit, Building Permit, etc. and feel no obligation with respect to fencing and landscaping or any other aspect that relates to this property other than those legal regulations ~hat apply te any ~tber "R-!" .~rea in ~be Planning Commission Minutes - January 1974 Continued IV. Do Landscaping and Fencing - Continued Mr. Hinshaw stated that i~q correct since he feels there are no regulations between him and the City; hawever, between himself and his fellow homeowners he does have certain obligations. The other homeowners present indicated they all felt the same about this particular iS. sue. Chairman Marshall'~ stated that within the Homeowners ~eclaration of Restrictions on page 3, Part B it stated that "a majority of the Architectrual Control Co~r~nittee' (GeDrge W. Day, Muriel Day, and Lou Leto) may designate a rSpresentative to act for it. Chai~an Marshall then moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, to contact the City Attorney and the George Day Consnruction Co. and request of them that the City of Saratoga Planning Conmission be designated as a representative to act as the Architectural Control Committee for the "P-C" tracts for a period not greater than one (1) year; motion carried unanimously. Co~issioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Conmissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated January 9, 1974 be adopted and that the guidelines relative to landscaping and fencing be accepted as stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. E. A-425 - Osterlund Enterprises, Fruitvale Avent~e and Allendale Avenue - Final Design Review - Single-Family Residence (Lot ~8, Tract 4768) The Planner I read the Staff Report dated January 9, 1974 reco~ending Final Design Approval for Lot #8 of Tract .4768. .Comnissioner Martin moved, seconded by Co~issioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated January 9~ 1974 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for the'residence for lot #8 as shown on Exhibit "F" subject to the conditions set forth in said report; .motion carried unani- mously. V.ENVIRON~IENTAL IMPACT REPORT None VI. MISCELLANEOUS IT~S A. Tract 5384 - James Day, Woodbank Way, Relocation of Emergency Access Easement Continued from December 10~ 1973 The Secretary reco~ended that tbis matter be continued off the agenda pending further clarification of this matter. Chaim~an Marshall so directed. B. SDR-917 - Don Tennenbaum, Saratoga and Cox Avenues Request for R~vision in Entrance to Cox Avenue - Continued from December 10, 1973 The Secretary recomnended that this matter be continued to the next regular mee~inglsince the Public Works Deparment:'and Planning Department Staff are 'st~ll working with the applicant to resolve this matter. Chair~n Marshall so directed and referred the ~tter to the Design Review Comnittee and Staff. C. County Referral - Stanley R. Lee - Land Development Matter in Santa Clara. County Mc Gill and Bohlman Road - Referred back from ~it~ Council Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Con~issioner Woodward, tha~ the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that~n appeal be made to the uounty Fiannxng. C~'nm~ssion ~n the matter o~ Stanley 1{. Lee an~ reco~end denial of subject application due to .lack of adequate fire protection, water supply, and access to tbe property; motion carried unanimous ly. Plannin~ Conm~ission Minutes - January 9 1974 - Continued VI. D. 1974 Department Wgrk Prog.ram - Consideration of 1974 Planning Department Work Program Elements The Secretary explained t~at this is a consideration of the .work and study to be conducted by the Planning Department beyond routine functions and attempting to program tb.e years activites. VI I. COi"~UNI CATIONS A. Written Outdoor Antique and Art Show - Azule Shopping Center The Secretary explained that numerous communications were received from residents and non-residents of the City interested in keeping the Antique Show open as a regular one Sunday. per month event Betty Roland, operator of Detour Antiques and the Antique Show, was present "and submitted ape~t~on-u with 107-signatures requesting that the Antique Show be kept open. Chairman Marshall requested Ms. Roland to make an appointment~ to meet with · .'the Subdivision Committee to discuss this matter. B. ORAL Guests Chairman F~arshall acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilman Kraus, City Manager Bob Beyer, and Mrs. Ruth Owen of the Good Government Group. He, also, thanked Mrs. Owen for the coffee served at recess. VIII. ADJOUP~\~ZNT : Cmmmissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the meeting of January 9, 1974 be adjourned at 12~30 A.M.; motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, ChariesqR. Rowe'; Acting Secretary Saratoga Planning Co~ission j