HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-1974 Planning Commission Minutes OF SARATOGA PLANNING
MINUTES
TIME: Wednesday, June 12, 1974 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City' C~ndil Chambers - 13777 Fruitvaie Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting ~
********************
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
.Chairman Marshall opened the Planning Commission meeting at 7:30 p.m.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Martin, Marshall, Matteoni, Smith and Woodward
Absent: None
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded byeCommissioner Belanger, that the reading of
the minutes of May 22, 1974 be waived~ and that they be approved as distributed
to the Commission. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Commissioner Martin gave an oral presentation of the City Council meeting of
June 5, 1974. Of special interest to the Commission was that Resolution 696
undertaking the proceedings for the V~llage Parking District was approved. A
copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City Administration office.
D. Chairman Marshall welcomed Mr. Marty Van Duyn as the City's new Planning Director.
It was noted that Mr. Van Duyn would Be officially starting his position on
Monday, June 17, 1974.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-171 - Mel DeSelle, 5th Street, Change of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000"
(Multiple Residential) to "C-C" (Community Commercial); a .2024 acre
parcel; Continued from May 22,' 1974
Chairman Marshall r~opened the publiclhearing on C-171 at 7:40 p.m.
The Secretary stated that this proper~y currently abutted a C-C zone', and should
be evaluated in terms of the Village Plan and the proposed Parking AsSessment
District. He added that there were two ways the property could be considered as
it related to the proposed Parking District: (1) if it were within the district
there would be a land-taking; or (2) it if were outside the district the owner
would have to provide parking["'He added that any structu~e"'~uld warrant buifd~g'~
!site approval. He recom~e~a'~he CommisSion adjourn the public hearing to an
informational pUB~,c hearing on Saturday, June 29, 1974 at 9:00 on-site, and
continue C-171 to the July 10, 1974 Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Belanger asked if the rezoning could be conditional. Commissioner
Smith replied that the application now stated that there would be a two-story
building with the lower floor commercial and the upper floor an apartment complex,
and added that this was legal under the present Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary
further noted that the Commission could not make a conditional zoning, but that
at the time land alterations were made in obtaining building site approval,
conditions could be placed on the application.
Mr. DeSelle, the applicant, stated that he was interested in joining the Parking
Assessment District, and agreed to a field trip to the site by the Commissioners.
Chairman Marshall rescheduled the public hearing on C-171 for Saturday, June 29
at the site at 9:00 a.m.; closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m., and continued
this matter to the Planning commission meeting of July 10, 1974. It was noted
that the June 29th meeting would be an informational public hearing.
MINUTES OF JUNE 12.
!/
B. C-172 - Blackwell Ho~es (Painless Parker) Prospect Road and Stelling Road
' ,
Change of Zoning Request fromi"R-1-40,O00" (Single-Family Residential)
to "R-1-40,000 PC" (Single-Family Residential Planned Community): a 218
acre parcel;iContinued from J~nuary 9, 1974
Mr. Bill Heiss, representative of..thelapplicant, stated that he would present a
basic design proposa! at the meeting,:and that other aspects of the presentation
would be given at l~er dates. The following presentation was given:
!
(1) General: Mr. Heiss explained that this change of zoning request involved
~a portion of the Hall Ranch. He stated there were 135 units
the Parker Ranch and,
proposed under a Planned Conmnunity rezoning, which would permit a reduction in
lot sizes 'and at the ~same time put a great deal of control over the design. A
slope density analys~s map was presented which reflected street pattern and house
location, and Mr. He~ss contended that the slope density was compatible with the
open space which w , c 1 e s h n z i
smaller lots. He added that the homes would be in the $85,000-$100,000 price
~ .
category, and that architectural design would be incorporated. He contended the
arch~t~ctur%l design~wVuld be utilizing split levels of many types, and would be
sensitive t th ter~
e rain. He indicated that the size of the lots would be 12,500
to one-half acres which would be sold in fee title; he pointed out that the home-
owners would hold in Mcommon the open space under the control of a homeowners
association, and wou~d be assessed via taxes for maintenance of the open space area.
i
(2) Tax Point of V~ew: Mr. Heiss~ma{ntained that from a tax=point of view, this
type of development ~ould be desirabl~ inasmuch as it would be generating more
taxes than what the s'erviceLlevel required. He illustrated this by stating that
the school district needed $1,200 per dwelling. unit/year for education from grammar
school through high s~chool. He stated that the tax rate on this project would
generate $1,400 per ~nit/year which would be approximately 30% greater assessed
tax valuation over o~her homes in thearea; consequently, a surplus to the whole
tax picture would be Mdeveloped.
(3) Arch D . HeisS
itectural .esiSn: Mr reported that the finn of Martinskis &
Prodis, Inc., AIA had been employed for architectural design, and that Mr.
ould b ~ ' ' ' ' ' '
Martinskis w e maklng a specific .design presentatxon at a later date. He
explained that the r~ason the architectural design was incorporated was in order
to harmonize with th~ existing terrain and minimize the visual impact of the
project. He pointed !out that the homes would not project ~nto the skyline, and
would be stepped dow-~~ off the ridgeline. He further pointed out that the street
work would go along the side of the ridgeline, and would be split on either side
of the peaks in order to insure that the peaks would remain untouched. He stated
that the location of ithe lots was-~.-done to complement this situation and to con-
form with the soil~ and geological-studies done on this project.
(4) New T~°[lt'iVe Map: He stated th'at Blackwell Homes had r~flown the site
and had developed a n'ew aerial-photogr;aphic map, adding to a larger scale and
greater accuracy. He! added that a rev'ised map based on this would be submitted"
as a total tentative map and gradfng map. "This particular map will show in
greater detail the ac~tual siting of the houses, and the nature of the grading
that will be necessary in and around the houses."
(5) "'Prospect Creek:~ Mr..Heiss repor'ted that the Santa Clara County Flood Control
had :evaluated the criiteria for Prospec~t Creek which runs along the border of the
e ined this shou'ld be a Flood Control facility which would
property, and had det rm
d d' 'o~
require the e cat of an approximate 100-foot right-of-way. He pointed out
1 in
that this dedication'o d maintenance and control of the channel.
W ul insure
(6) ~ Sanitation Sewers: He'dstated tha't there had been concern expressed over the
sanitation sewers, particularly on the' southeas.t corner. He pointed out there was
an existing sewer line to the property~ running along the western boundary which
was designed to accon~niodate this property on the basis of one dwelling unit per
acre. He explained that the problem h~d been on the southeast corner, and that
due to the terrain a ~ump station had been proposed. He stated that because of
the "obvious failingsi of a pump station," Blackwell Homes had been negotiating
with adjacent landowners regarding the. acquisition of an easement from the
-2-
B. C-172 - Blackwell Homes (Painless Parker) - Continued
southeast corner of the property to C~mer Drive. He reported that an agreement
had been reached for obtaining this easement which would permit the structure of
a gravity sewer down to the existing Sewer on Comer Drive. He added that this
would eliminate the pump station, andSwould make it possible for the entire
Parker Ranch to be taken care of by gravity sewer system.
(7) . Access Easement: In conjunction with these negotiations, Mr. Heiss reported
that discussions had been held on acqqiring the 600-foot acceas easement from
Comer Drive to the Parker Ranch. He stated that~it~'~ connection, there would
be better circulation provided within!the properly itself, it would improve the
property's relationship to the village and Highway 9, and would give better fire
protection to those homes on the southernly portion of the property.
(8) !Fire Protection: He stated tha~ in regards to fire protection, the develop-
ment as proposed would improve the overall area by bringing in an extensive
water system, an extensive system of fire hydrants, and access roads throughout
the area.
(9) ;~.Open Space: Mr. Heiss pointed out that there would be 157 acres of open
space which would mean that the dedication of approximately 70% of the entire
property would remain untouched. He Stated, "I think this is not a bad proposal
when you think 157 acres will be set ~side and will never be touched. We feel
this will do much to preserve the natural scenic quality of the area without any
cost to the City for acquisition of the land."
(10) Trails: He stated that one item whic~ was still unresolved was the matter
of trails. He pointed out that there.were existing trails on the property, and
stated that Blackwell Homes would be agreeable to granting those trails to the
public and pr, ovide access from Prospect Road up to the Ranch. He added that'~'this
was not presently shown on the plans as an offer of dedication, but would include
it if necessary. He stated, "we are iooking tov~-the City for direction on this."
(ll)~Stellin~/Prospect Roads Intersection: Mr. Heiss reported that Blackwell
.j~mes~ had done"'~udy on the intersection at stelling and Prospect Roads. He
stated that proposals had been submitted to the County of Santa Clara, the City
of San Jose and the City of Saratoga for improving that intersection via widening
of the road.on the western side of the tracks and the channelization of traffic
by way of islands. He stated that no'replies had been received yet, but that
"we are ~opeful one of the designs will be used to help mitigate the traffic problem."
At this time the Secretary read into ~he record the following pieces of correspondence:
(1) A letter from Mr. Jack R. Lyddon,. dated June 1, 1974, of Seven Springs
Ranch in Cupertino which stated he was in favor of the proposed zoning change.
(2) A letter from Mr. Zettler Greeley, dated June 11, 1974, 21450 Prospect Road,
Cupertino which requested the application be denied on the basis that "the
Planning Commission has no authority ~o entertain this request concerning
property encumbered by the Williamson.Act contract."
Mr. Greeley stated, "I realize my request may cause some delay while counsel is
sought." He contended this was not m~rely a p~ocedural matter but a matter of
some substance with far-reaching effects on the City, and he requested the
Commission take as much time as needed to fully evaluate the issues raised in his
letter. He stated that he appeared in the capacity of the individual who wrote
the letter, and as the spokesman for the Greater Prospect Homeowners Association.
Under this capacity he requested the Planning Commission review the procedures
used in notifying property owners within 500-feet of the proposed property. He
informed the Chairman that he lived within 500-feet of the property and had not
been notified. He further made note that tbe__n~i__c.¢ published in the Saratoga
News was posted 7 days prior to the pUblic.,hearing i~ lieu of 10 days as required
by law. He further asked if access onto Prospect Road had been excluded from the
new plan, and when the EIR would be made available to the public.
B. C-172 - Blackwell Homes (Painless Parker) - Continued
The Secretary explained that after receipt of the EIR the City must wait 30 days
before it could certify same. He further explained that cop£es would be on file
at the City, would be made available to the public libraries, to the homeowners
associations and to the public. He stated that because of the bulk of the docu-
ment, general distribution would not Be economically feasible so restraints would
be put on the distribution. It was agreed that the Prospect Road Homeowners
Association would receive three copies of the EIR.
It was noted that the Homeowners AssoCiation had been notified,and further noted
that the Association had been advised,January 9 that this meeting would be re-
noticed a second time as a courtesy to the public. The Secretary stated that this
notice had been posted 7 days and technically not 10 days, but contended that the
initial meeting of January 9, 1974 was the meeting of record and the City had met
its obligation in that area. He further stated that the system of notifying
people within 500-feet was imperfect,!but that 15 'letters had been received back
'from the homeowners on this matter wh6 could not be located. He also informed
Mr. Greeley that Staff had not found his name on the tax rolls, and consequently
had not notified him of the public hearing.
Mr. Greeley requested a definitive answer from the Commission to his letter, to
which the Chairman stated that the City Attorney would give the Commission an
answer which would result in a definitive answer to Mr. Greeley.
Mr. Charles Guichard, 21130 Wardell ROad, expressed_concern relative to the
secondary access of this property. H~ stated that it would be obvious if this
application were to be granted extra ~ressure would be generated from the Parker
Ranch on Pierce Road. He requested that if this application wa~lgranted, the
Planning Commission "~onsider tieing into this project some requirement that there
should be two access roads on the south." He further referred to his letter
introduced at the January 9 Planning Commission meeting, and stated that if the
~rker property were to get rezoned t~ Planned Community, $3/4 million assessed
valuation would be taken off the tax Kolls of perpetuity.
Mr. Karl Mysteon stated that he felt ~here might be some discrepancies concerning
the slope density. He further stated %that he felt "this may need to be under
the name of condominium rather than Planned Community" in that there was open
space allocation w{th the homeowners having joint ownership of a common area,
"'which is close to ~h~ ~0'~'dominium concept." Chairman Marshall stated that the
Planned Community concept related to ~ house and parcel of land surrounding that
house as a single-family residence and a large area of land which was owned by
the landowners. He replied to the fir!st comment that the Staff's figures
reflected what the applicant had submitted~'~d'~'~"~e figures had been further
checked by the consultant who reviewed the EIR.
Mr. Ken Frisby of Center for Environmental Design stated they prepared the EIR
on this matter in February and that t~is had been reviewed by Enviros who indi-
cated they found no discrepancies. H~ stated that copies of the EIR would be
made available to the Planning Staff next Wednesday.
Mr. Greeley expressed concern that no :traffic count had been taken on Prospect
Road. Mr. Frisby stated that the information contained !in the EIR was from data
provided by the City, and confirmed thzat no traffic count had been taken. The
Secretary stated that, if necessary, the City could put out a traffic count on this.
At this time the Secretary recommended that an informational public hearing be
held on Tuesday, July 16, 1974/'at 7:30p.m. in the City .Council Chambers to hear
public comments on the EIR. -He stated no decision could be made at that time,
but would be continued to the regular ~lanning Commission meeting of July 24, 1974.
He added that if the EIR were submitted to the Staff on June 19, after 30 days
the Planning Commission could certify same if desirable; and that the informational
hearing on July 16 would not be applicable to this 30-day requirement.
Chairman Marshall closed the public he~ring on C-172 at 8;40 p.m.; adj?urned..thiS'
matter to July 1~, 1974 at a special informational public hearing on the EIR at
7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers:; and continued C-172 to the Planning Commission
meeting of July 24, 1974.
-4-
'M~TES OF JUNE 12 ~-~
C. V-405 - Robert Tieken, Via Real Drive'- Request for Variance to Allow a Swimming
Pool to Extend 17 Feet into Required Sideyard Setback (Ordinance NS-3
Section 3.2(f); Continued fromMay 22, 1974
The Secretary reported that the Variance Committee had met with the applicant
on-site, and had suggested he revise his plans. He added that in making these
revisions, the applicant had conformed to the setbacks in total; consequently,
there was no need for a variance. '
Chairman Marshall directed V-405 be c6ntinued to the Planning Commission meeting
of June 26, 1974, and directed the SeCretary to obtain a letter from the
applicant withdrawing his request for.a variance.
D. V-406 - Frank Robins, Montrose,Street:- Request for Variance to Allow Construction
of Two-Car Garage within 4-Fe~t,of Property Line in Lieu of Required
10-Foot Setback (Ord. NS-3~ Section 3.7)~ Continued from May 22~ 1974
The Secretary stated that the Variance Committee had.met with the applicant on-site
and had stated that there may be othe~ alternatives to building a two-car garage
instead of reducing the required sideyard setback; the City Traffic Engineer had
determined that a two-car garage could be realized in the allotted required side-
yard without meriting the granting of a variance. He stated that a Staff Report
had been prepared on this which recommended denial of the application.
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-406 at 8:45 p.m.
The Secretary read into the record tw6 pieces of correspondence on this matter:
(1) A letter dated June 6, 1974 from.Mr. Robins which stated: "... if the
location of the structure meets 'with 6he approval of the entire neighborhood
and is consistent with and blends into the overall neighborhood theme, why should
the City Council (sic) deny the request?"
(2) A letter dated May 31, 1974 fromlMr., Richard Rieger which state~'that he
-would have no objection to this provided the applicant construct the driveway
on the north side of his lot in that:i (a) their bedrooms were next to the
proposed driveway and bright headlights and noise of auto and motorcydle engines
would be a constance source of annoyance; (b) construction would require removal
of two trees in the front; and (~) he.disliked a trend starting in the neighbor-
hood where owners began similar large construction projects.
Mr. Robins, the applicant, stated that the only logical pla·Ci_~'f~'h'i~'~b'b~ild·
the garage was on the south side of t~e lot in that there was 18 feet of' iand
to the property line and on the north.side there was only 12 feet. He pointed
out that Mr. Rieger's letter implied that he would make much noise and would be
shining his lights into their windows. He pointed out that there was a 5-foot
fence and thick foliage between the two lots, so he felt Mr. Rieger's statements
were unfounded. He stated that the tree which would be removed would be replanted.
He stated that/{~'h~re ·tQ observe the full'setbacks, the garage would not
"fit into the other structures on the~street, and would stand out'~san odd ball."
Commissioner Martin stated that the basis for recormnending denial of the ~ariance
was that: (1) the location of the ne~ structure ·could be accomplished within the
legal setback limits; and (2) approval would further aggrevate the legal non-
conforming character of the neighborhood, a condition the City did not want to
further. Chairman Marshall pointed o~t that one of the crucial conditions in
granting a variance was to demonstrate a hardship, and there was no hardship here
because the applicant could still build his garage.
Mr. Robins agreed that it was true he·could build his garage without a variance,
but stated that by observing the full:setbacks the garage would look out of place
with the rest of the neighborhood. =
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by!Commissioner Martin, that the public hearing
on V-405 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously. The Chairman closed the
hearing at 8:58 p.m.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Staff
Report dated June 12, 1974 be accepted by the Commission, and the request for
a variance be denied. The motion was:carried unanimously.
-5-
'MINUTES OF JUNE 12.
E. V-407 - John H. Holt, Lynde Court - ~equest for Variance to Allow Expansion of
Residence to be Constructed within 20-Feet of Prpperty Line in Liue of
Required 25-foot Setback (Ord. NS-3~ Section 3.7); Continued from May 22~ 1974
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-407 at 9:00 p.m.
The Secretary stated that the Variance Committee had met with the applicant on-site,
and that a Staff Report had been prepared on this which recommended approval be
granted. He explained that the Variance request did not entail a substantial
deviation from the Zoning Ordinance, that the lot was irregular in shape which
had created a unique situation for the applicant, and consequently the Ordinance
restrictions should be relaxed.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by. Commissioner Woodward, that the public
hearing on V-407 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman
Marshall closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
accept the Staff Report dated June 12,. 1974 on V-407 and that the request for a
variance be granted. The motion was Carried unanimously.
F. V-408 - Carolyn F. Smith, Colby Court - Request for Variance to Allow Patio Ex-
tension to be Constructed within 6-feet of Proper~l_L_..~ne in Liue of
Kequired 10-foot Setback( Ord. NS-3~ Section 3.7).
The Chairman opened the public hearing~ on V-408 at 9:07 p.m.
Commissioner Martin reported that .the Variance committee had met with the appli-
cant on-site.
The applicant stated he had Submitted to the Commission a letter dated June 9
requesting the variance and giving reasons for same; that he had submitted a
petition dated June 12 containing 7 signatures of residents living on Colby Court;
and that he had submitted detailed plans along with this petition. He further
stated that he had received approval zfrom the Pri~s Crossing Homeowners
Association for construction.
Commissioner Martin stated that detailed plans had not been received earlier,
and that the Variance Conmittee would like an opportunity to review these plans.
The Secretary requested the applicant inform Staff as to which exhibit of the
several submitted should be the exhibit of record.
Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on V-408 at 9:15 p.m., continued
this matter to the Planning Commission'of June 26, 1974, and referred this to
the Variance Committee for further review.
G. UP-242 -.Constance Ridder, Quito Road ~ Request for Use Permit to Allow Tennis
Court Fencing Within RequiredlSe~backs (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1);
Continued from May 22~ 1974
TheSecretary stated that the application h~d been revised to conform with the
legal setbacks. Chairman Marshall directed the Secretary obtain a written letter
from the applicant withdrawing the request for a Use Permit.
The Chairman continued UP-242 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 26, 1974,
and referred this matter to the Staff..
H. UP-243 - Sam Sells, Taos Drive (Tract 5327, Lot 21) - Request for Use Permit to
Allow Tennis Court Fencing within Required Setbacks (Ord. NS-3, Section
3.7-1); Continued from May 22~ 1974
The Secretary reported that the VarianCe Committee had met with the applicant on-
site, and had indicated a relunctance to grant a variance on t~%S. He recommended
the Subdivision Committee field-inspect this property at 4:00 on June 13 in ~rder
to give the entire Commission an opportunity to review the request and consider
the question of tennis court administrative procedures.
Chairman Marshall ~'{~cted UP-243 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of June 26, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for review.
-6~
'MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 1974
UP-243 - Sam Sells - Continued
Commissioner Matteoni stated that the Secretary's comment regarding the Variance
Committee's relunctance to grant a variance on this was' an overstatement; and he
added that the Committee had requestedzthe applicant to pull his fencing in closer.
I. UP-245- S.te~.e J.. Stevens, Quito Road!, Request for'use Permit to AllowT~
Court Fencing within Required Setbacks (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7-1)
The Secretary recommended this matter be referred to the Subdivision Committee for
review. He pointed out that Item A under Miscellaneous (SDR-935) related to this
request for a Use Permit in that if the location of the house were to be changed,
a tennis court could possibly be accommodated.
Chairman Marshall directed UP-243 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of June 26, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Com~nittee for review.
At this time Commissioner Martin complimented the Staff on their proposals and prepara-
.~'~8~"~'~h~aV'~i~'nce Committee. He stated that the Variance field inspection trips
on June 1, 1974 had been well-organized and carried through in a very timely manner.
BREAK: 9:30 p.m.
REOPEN: 9:45 p.m.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SD-1112 - Alan Chadwick, Pierce Road,'Subdivision Approval - 8 Lots; Continued
from May 22~ 1974
The Secretary stated that Planning and Public Works were not prepared to report
on this matter, and requested 'this belcontinued. He added that a letter from the
applicant would be needed granting an extension to the next meeting of the
Planning Commission.
CommisSioner Smith moved, seconded by'Commissioner Belanger, that the Commission
deny Application SD-1112 subject to receipt of a written letter from the appli-
cant granting an extension to the Planning Commission meeting of June 26, 1974.
The motion was carried unanimously.
B. SDR-1115 - Marvin Kirkeby, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots;
Continued fromMay 22~ 1974
The Secretary stated that the applicant was still attempting to negotiate an.
alternate access with adjacent property owners~ He pointed out that a letter from
the applicant had been received granting an extension to the June 26th meeting.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1115 be continued to the Planning Commission meet-
ing of June 26, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for
f~rther review.
C. SDR-1116 - Roger Ross, Saratoga Hills Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued fromMay 22~ 1974
The Secretary stated that the SubdiviSion Committee would be meeting with the
applicant in the field on June 13, and that a letter had been submitted from
the applicant granting an extension to the Planning Commission meeting of June 26.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1116 be continued to the June 26, 1974 Planning
Commission meeting, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for
further review.
Do SDR-1117 - S.. Tom Barton, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued
from May 22~ 1974
The Secretary informed the Commission that the applicant would hot be pursuing
a building site approval. He stated that the applicant had been informed that
June 12, 1974 was the final date for submitting a letter granting an extension
of this matter, and that same had not been received.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Commission
deny Application SDR-1117. The motion was carried unanimously.
-7-
~MINUTES OF JUNE 12,1974.. '~,
E. SDR-1119 - John Constantip,Norton Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued from May 22~ 1974
The Secretary stated a Staff Report had been prepared on this recormnending
approval be granted.
Commissioner Belanger stated, "I would like to go on public record as objecting
to the significant effect that the type of grading required on this one lot will
have on the surrounding neighbors. The fact that the Sewer District is investing
something like $21,000 in public funds to service primarily this lot bothers me
as well." Commissioner Smith stated that the letter received from the City
Attorney on this matter stated there was nothing the Commission could do about it.
The Chairman added that the lot was legal and the Staff Report had a set of condi-
tions Which would tie it to the City Ordinances. He pointed out that grading
plans had been submitted as required, and the home was subject to design review.
Mr. Trinidad amended the Staff Report, Condition (i) to be 18-feet wide at the
property line instead of 16-feet wide.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that due to the
City Attorney's remarks, the Commission approve AppliCation SDR-1119 subject to
the Staff Report dated June 12, 1974 including General 'Conditions I and Specific
Conditions II (a) through (x). No vote was taken.
Chairnmn Marshall asked how adequate water supply would be insured. He explained
that he was concerned with the fact that there was a,2" water pipe supplying the
Bohlman Road area, and that as houses were added the demands on that pipe would
be strained to the breaking point. He requested Staff contact the Water Company
and ask them at what point in the Commission's granting building site approvals
would the!,..system fail. He further suggested the Fire Department be asked the same.
It was recommended this matter be continued pending comments from the Fire
District and the Saratoga Heights MutUal Water Company. Commissioners Smith and
Woodward respectively withdrew their motion and second. Mr. Constantin was asked
for, and 6rally granted, an~ extension of the expiration date of the application:
'.to the June 26th meeting. It was.req~ested.~__s~bm~.t this ext.ension in Writing.
!Mr. C~nsean~in stated that the'Water Company was trying to sell to the San Jose
Water Company, and that he could not See why one more house would add that much
.,~ _ 'to the overload. .:
Commissioner Smith stated that as an unofficial answer, he was aware that last
summer the Saratoga Heights Water Company pumps were running 23 hours/day to supply
water'to this area, and t~at there had been houses built since then. He stated
that the Water Company was presently negotiating for the installation of another
line and a new pump location; "~owever', I would like the Water Company directors
to officially give us that information."
Commissioner Belanger stated that she felt the Planning Commission should formulate
a policy on governing the single-lot development in the Bohlman Road area. Chair-
man Marshall stated that work had been started by Staff on the preplanning of this
area, and directed Staff to continue with this work.
Commissioner Belanger asked what was the status of the moratorium on this, and
the Chairman explained that issues raised in the moratorium had been addressed
in the new General Plan.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1il9 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- .
ing of June 26, 1974, and referred thi.s matter to the Subdivision Committee and
Staff for further review.
F. SDR-1121 - Lanoie, Inc., Canyon View Drive, Building Sita Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued from May 22~ 1974
The Secretary stated a staff Report hald been prepared on this which recommended
approval be granted. The applicant was present and indicated acceptance of the
Report.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by CommisSioner Belanger, that the Commission
approve Application SDR-1121 subject to the Staff Report dated June 12, 1974,
-8-
MINUT. ES OF JUNE 12
J. SDR-1125 - Frank Rodriguez - Continued
stated that an automatic variance would be granted if this building site W~
approved, and that there was a recorded easement relative to same.
Con~nissioner Smith moved, seconded byeCommissioner Belanger, that the Commission
approve Application SDR-1125 subject to the Staff Report dated June 12, 1974,
including General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (m). The
motion was carried unanimously.
K. SDR-1126 - Paul GerrinS~ Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road~ Building Site Approval - 4 Lots
The Secretary stated the file was incomplete on this matter, and recommended this
be con[inued.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1126 b~ continued to the Planning Commission meet-
ing of June 26, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for
review.
L. SDR-1127 - David Zappacosta~ Paul Avenue~ Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
The Secretary stated the file was inc6mplete on this matter, and recommended this
be continued.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1127 be continued to the Planning Commission meet-
ing of June 26, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for
review.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
.A'~. A-391 - George W. Day Construction Company,.Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass Lane,
?"F'{~l"Des~gn Review - Landscape Plans for Common Areas of Planned
Community Development (Tracts#5150~ #5327~ and #5408)
It was noted that a Staff Report had been prepared on this which recommended approval
be granted.
Ms. Lydia Norcia, Nutwood Lane, state~ that she had to pass the common grounds of
Tract 5150 every day and that she fell she was seeing "wholesale destruction of the
orchard trees." She contended the landscaping plans were devoid of professional
technique; the land was never properly planted or conditioned; no sprinkler system
had been installed; the crush-stone walk had washed away after the first heavy
rain; there were weeds growing; and it was not properly maintained. She stated
"this is an eyesore," and requested the Commission, "deny this until something is
done so that it does not detract from the area."
The Staff read into the record the St~ff Report dated June 12, 1974 and the
Appendage Staff Report dated June 11, ~1973. Chairman Marshall stated that the
Staff Report was an attempt "essentially to eliminate the b.light that presently
exists in the common green area and get what the Commission had originally
intended."
Mr. Leto, the applicant's representative, stated that he had no comments until
he had shown the Staff Report to Mr. Day.
Chairman Marshall stated that he had ~eached the point 'a~ which he was quite
dis~'~rBed at the applicant's attitude ]toward conditions imposed on them by 'the
Commission. "I do not consider a callous disregard of the conditions of the
Staff Report agreed to at these meetings to be in the best interest of the City.?.
or-'~f a~company which should have ~ono'rable intentions toward the ~st.interests"
of [he City." Consequently, he stated, "my view of George W. Day COnstruction
company is going to be highly prejudiced until I see some evidence of something
more than a slipshod plan that is taking place on these tracts." There was
applause from the audience.
Mr. Leto stated that the City had passzed the plans on Tract 5150, and that the
quantity and site of trees had been ap~roved by them.
MINUTES OF JUNE 12.
A. A-391 - Landscape Plans for Common Areas of Tracts 5150, 5327, 5408-Continued
~hairman Marshall stated t['at he would be willing to select a panel of qualified
professionals chosen half by the Commission and half by the applicant to survey
Tract 5150 landscaping and to see whether in the judgment of professionals
Tract 5150 was to be considered professional planning by mature and responsible
professional groups.
Commissioner Belanger commented that in an earlier report all three tracts were
to be planted simultaneously so that the plants could all grow at the same time,
and come'to maturity-at the same time~ Chairman Marshall stated that the developer
had also been asked to do his planting in the spring-time, and that it had been
delayed month after month until, "essentially you blew the whole planting seasOn."'~.~
-~·~r. Leto SiVated that part of the reason for the delay on Tract 5327 was that
PG&E had not completed~ieheir work at ehat time.
A gentleman. residing in'Tract 5150 asked if a definite plan of action for when
the it;eras of the Staff Report could be made. Chairman Marshall explained that
Mr. Leto felt he had to consult with Mr. Day before he could go ahead.
Commissioner Belanger suggested that as an incentive toward the solution of these
problems "it will be my attitude that:for future design review approvals of homes
in this subdivision, to condition them to be effective as soon as this work gets
underway." Chairman Marshall stated 6hat he would vote against any design review
until the work was completely done.
Commissioner Belanger read into the record a letter dated June 12, 1974 from
Mr. and Mrs. Dunn which took exception to Condition (d) of the Staff Report~
'~··6~ing the requirement of an un~m~·r~'~d'~h~y along the north side of
Douglass Lane as follows:
"When we purchased our property, Lot 13 in Tract 5150, we did not see a
pathway on any of the plot plans nor on any of the landscape plans for
the common green areas of Tract 5150. This property had been landscaped
by the developer when we purchased iit. The landscape plans were approved
by the Planning Department and did'not include an unimproved pathway."
Mr. Dunn stated that had they been aware of this pathway, they would not have
purchased their home, and asked why there should be a pathway. Mr. Burt
suggested he contact Barbara Sampson,.Secretary for the Parks & Recreation
Commission, regarding this. Mrs. Dunn stated that the City had already approved
the landscaping plans, and that she felt she should not have to do anything about
this pathway now. Mr. Leto confirmed that the front-yard landscaping plans on
Lot ~13 had been approved.
Commissioner Belanger told Mr. Leto th:at she felt there was a "~f~eiing of-.dup!lcity
to throw this back onto the Commission and say because you appr6ved of the land-
scaping you would negate the intent to have a path. It would be your responsi-
bility in the fullfillment of the conditions to have brought us in a landscape
plan which reflected an easement for a path on it. I am a little disillus{oned
on how George Day is relating to us be%cause I do not like to think I would have
to look with a magnifying glass at everything you brought to us. I have always
expected that you brought them in the best~spirit, and I am sorry that you did not
-i~CiUde·that path on it because it was' clearly wanted for the whole length of
Douglass Lane."
A gentleman in the audience stated tha~t he did not understand the lack of direction
from one Planning Commission meeting to another on this matter. He added that
it was "strange that four or five properties have completely landscaped yards
and now we find out about this pathway." Chairman MarShall stated that Condition
(d) was nothing more than a condition previously existing which had not been
complied with.
A lady in the audience stated that there was nothing in her legal document about
a pathway. Commissioner Belanger stated that "if this was a public easement it
would seem to me they did not have a properly depicted map of their survey."
The Chairman added that in the case of Tract 5150, there had been an incredible
case of poor communication, and he referred the lady to the George W. Day
Construction Company.
MINUTES OF JUNE 12.
~/~ A-391 - Landscape Plans - Continued
Mr. Dunn asked why it had taken an entire year since the last Staff Report dated
June 11, 1973 to come up with ConditiOn (d). Chairman Marshall stated that the
City was as fragile as anyone else and could lose~ track at times; he stated that
this matter had surfaced again and the City "is trying to put things togethm."
Da '
It was suggested this matter be continued pending Mr. y s comments. Commissioner
BeIanger disagreed with this suggestion, and stated that she agreed "with the
people in asking in general why this had taken so long and also where the direction
is to.~.come from. I think this document is very strong in the sense of asking for
bonds. I suspect ~here might be an item or two that Mr. Day will object to, and
he might as well object as soon as.poSsible and get his appeals underway if
necessary, so that we can finally come to.an end ~'~h~.~
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded'by Commissioner Woodward, that the
Commission/grant Application A-391/final d~s~'~pproval subject to the Staff
Report dated June 12, 1974 and the Ap~'endage St~ff Report dated June 11, 1973
including Conditions (a) through (d). The motion was carried unanimously.
B. A-391 - George W. Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review;
Single-Family Residential StrUcture (Tract 5327~ Lot 14)
Mr. Butt read the Staff Report which recommended approval be granted. He pointed
out that the front-yard setback of the house differed by 20-30 feet. He explained
that the lot adjacent to this property was a two-story structure, and as originally
proposed, the rear-yard privacy of Lot 14 would be infringed upon. He added that
the new proposed location of the structure allowed for more efficient use of the
land.
Mr. Leto, the applicant's representative, stated that in regard~ to Condition (a)
he had submitted the recorded copy of:the deed restrictions to Mr. Rowe last
week; Mr. Rowe confirmed this statement.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded ~by Commissioner Matteoni, that the
Commission grant final review approval to Application A-391, Tract 5327, Lot 14
per the Staff Report dated June 12, 1974, but that this approval would become
effective on ~e date tha.t the provisions of the Appendage Staff Report of A-391
(Landscape Plans for Common Areas of Planned Community Development in Tracts
5150, 5327 and 5408) dated June 11, 1973 was commenced. The motion was passed;
Chairman Marshall voted no.
C. A-429 - Church of Ascension, Prospect ~venue, Final Design Review - Religious
Education Center - 1 Lot; Continued from May 22~ 1974
Mr. Burr read the Staff Report which r'ecommended approval be granted. The
applicant's representative, Mr. Myers, indicated acceptance of the Report.
Commissioner Martin asked if approval had been given from the Department of Pub lic
Works on the traffic circulation pattern. Mr. Trinidad stated that they had not
reviewed this since UP-80, the Use Permit application relative to this matter.
He stated that it had been agreed to that whoever developed first, the Church of
Ascension or Beth David Synagogue, wou'ld be required to acquire a 24-foot encroach-
ment permit and bond for secondary access onto Prospect Road. He stated that
Beth David had done this. '
Mr. Trinidad further stated that in the past the Department of Public Works had
felt that perpendicular parking on major access roads was undesirable, but that
the Commission had felt this was not within their realm; consequently, their
final report.made no mention of internal traffic circulation. Commissioner
Martin stated that a traffic problem could exist which might result in cars park-
ing along Ascension Drive. Mr. Trinidad explained that internal circulation was
within the realm of private property; he stated that it was legal as it stood
and until parking restrictions were made there was nothing wrong with on-street
parking. He stated that a study had b~en made relative to this at the time of
UP-80, and Public Works had determined:there was no need for restricting parking
on Ascension Drive; he added however, that Public Works could restudy this situation.
MINUTES OF JUNE 12~ 1974
C. A-429 - Church of Ascension - Continued
Mr. Muzzy, Eric Drive, representativeZof the Prides~ Crossing Homeowners Association,
stated he would like to make comments'on this matter· He stated that they had
requested the Commission notify them whenever the Design Review Committee re-
viewed this application, and complained that they had not been notified of the
June 11 meeting when new designs had been submitted. He stated that since the
plans had been changed, they would like to make the following comments: (1) the
building design was a considerable improvement and they would like to commend
both the City and Church for the improved plans; (2) location of the patio
directly faced the community and there was concern over the generation of noise;
they requested the location be moved to the other side of the building.
Commissioner Woodward disagreed with this co~xmLent. She stated that she did not
feel the Church would be "planning any wild orgies and would be very sensitive
to the noise." She added that the patio was 200-feet from the back of the homes,
and that landscaping would be incorporated to ~viate any problems·
Mr. Muzzy stated that the third problem was concerning traffic and parking along
Ascension Drive· He stated that the impact of parking would be on the total
community,.and that a petition would be submitted to the Commission requesting
restrictions be placed on the on-street parking.
Chairman Marshall expressed a displeasure of allowing the Pride's Crossing
Homeowners Association an opportunity'to speak. He stated that he felt the City
generally bent over backwards in permitting comments on design review, and that
this was not a public hearing. He pointed out that representatives from the
Association could have visited the architect's office or the Planning Department
to inspect the plans. He stated that.different persons generally attended the
Planning Commission meetings, and tha~ there was a possible lack of communication
among the representatives of same. He added that he felt they had been trying to
use the Planning Commission as a "whipping boy," and felt that the Commission had
been quite generous in listening to the Association in the past on this matter.
Mr. Popylisen, Ascension Drive, another representative of the Association, sub-
mitted a petition dated June 12, 1974 to the Commission requesting restrictions
be placed on parking during mass on certain days on Ascension Drive. Chairman
Marshall informed Mr. Pop~lisen that the Planning Commission dealtZ'., with private
property and ingress/egress matters only, and had no jurisdiction over public
streets. He stated that this should be addressed to the City Council, and that
the Commission would pass the petition along to them.
Mr. Popylisen further stated that the location of the patio and the circular
drive Would create a parking problem on Miller Avenue because people would be
coming in and out of the driveway to serve the patio. Commissioner Matteoni
stated that the Design Review Committee had requested a circular drive in order
to provide immediate access for making deliveries to the kitchen. He stated
that the Commission had been concerned with garbage and having people haul things
at some distance; consequently, the circular drive had been suggested with a
landscaped island provided·
Mr. Popylisen stated that the Associat'ion had not been given an opportunity to
see the revised plans, and that they had requested they be notified of the last
meeting..~ Chairman Marshall stated that this matter had been reviewed
b~'~the.!'D.eSign Review Committee on April 11, May 21 and June 11, and that the
Association had been given ample opportunity to set up meetings with the S~aff,
the architect, the Church or the Design Review Committee about the plans.
COmmissioner Belanger asked if it would be possible to use a hammerhead confirgura-
tion under the kitchen instead of a looped driveway so that people would not be
tempted to use the loop as a turnaround. Mr. Trinidad stated that there would
be enough room to still service the kitchen~ ~ut that there were possible safety
'factors involved in_the use of a hammerhead configuration. Mr. Myers indicated
· he had no objection to this.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
grant Application A-429 final design approval subject ~'?~he Staff Report dated
June 12, 1974 including Conditions (1): through (3), and adding a Condition (4)
as follows: Driveway access to the k~tchen will be reappraised'with possible
/redesign at the time ~'~l'l~h'd~'ape approval· The motion was carried unanimously·
-13-
D. A-431 - Fred Marburg, Saratoga-Sunnyv~le Road, Preliminary DeSign Review;
Commercial Building; Continued from May 22~ 1974
Mr. Burr read the Staff Report on thi~ recommending approval be granted. Cormnissioner
Woodward stated "it has been deiightf~l to work with Mr. Marburg and his Staff;
they have been very cooperative." Mr. Marburg indicated acceptance of the
Staff Report, and expressed appreciation to Commissioner Woodward for her
comments.
Commissioner Belanger moved, secondedlby Commissioner WoOdward, that the
Commission grant Application A-431 preliminary design approval-subject~ to the
Staff Report dated June 12, 1974 inclqding/~onditions (1) through (5)'. The
motion was carried unanimously.
E. A-432 - Evans Products, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review - Commercial
Expansion
Mr. Burr read the Staff Report which recommended-~pproval be granted. The appli-
cant was present and indicated acceptance6f'the report.
Commissioner Belanger moved, secondediby Commissioner Woodward, that the
Commission grant final design approval on Application A-431 subject to the
Staff Report dated June 12, 1974. The motion was carried unanimously.
F. SS-75 - George W. Day ConstructiQn Company, Fruitvale Avenue - Final Design
Review - Temporary SubdivfSion Identification Sign
Mr. Burt read the Staff Report on this which recommended approval be granted.
Chairman Marshall pointed out that the applicant had erected the sign before ob-
taining a sign permit. He stated tha~ Mr. Leto had caused himself useless work
and digging in not obtaining a permit ~before he put up the sign. Mr. Leto stated
that he had put the sign up, and that :the Code Enforcement Officer had informed
him he was required to take it down and obtain a sign permit.
Commissioner Belanger·moved, seconded ,by Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
approve Application SS-75 subject to the Staff Report dated June 12, 1974,
including Conditions (1) through (5). %The motion was carried unanimously.
G. A-436 - Guthrie Swartz~ Pike Road~ Final Design Review - Single-Family Residence
Mr. Burt read ·the Staff Report on thisZ recommending approval be granted. There
were no further comments.
Commissioner.Belanger m~v~d, ·seconded bY commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
grant Application A-436 final design approval subject to the Staff Report dated
June 12, 1974. The motion was carried. unanimously.
i
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-.935 John L. Richardson~ Quito R0ad~ 1 Lot - Amendment to Tentative Map
The Secretary stated that the proposed, location change would result in ~Tmore
interesting house design, would not violate setback requirements, and would f~ee
up the area needed for a tennis court.' Mr. Trinidad was asked about improvements
on Vessing Road, and he stated that regardless of where the h~use was placed, if
the applicant Was to use Vess:~ng·j. Road~'as an entrance, Public Works would require
improvements thereon.
Commissioner Belanger asked that this matter be continued pending review by the
Subdivision Committee.
~ Chairman Mar~hill'd'fr~'~a'SDR~93'5'b~' ~o~fiE~ed to the Planning Commission meeting
of June 26, 1974,.·and referred this maeter to the Subdivision Committee for
review.
MINUTES OF JUNE 12
B. SDR-1007 - Ralph. Pearson, E1Quito way - 1 Lot; Approval of Revised Tentative
Map
The Secretary explained that the applicant wished to move a proposed property
line on the tentative map 20-feet to the left, which would not create an illegal
lot. Mr. Trinidad asked that this matter be continued to the next meeting of the
Planning Commission pending review byePublic Works.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1007 be continued to the Planning Commission meet-
ing of June 26, 1974, and referred this matter to Staff for further review.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATIONS
Commissioner Belanger requested Staff include in the weekly Cormnission packets lists
of N~gative Declarations filed .gn.variOus.applications. Chairman Marshall directed
the.S~cretary to apprise the Commissioners in a timely fashion of"Envi~onm~tal
Impa~.t Determinations, to determine a better means of notifying the public with regard.-
to S~6~e,'and to report to the Commission at the next meeting.'c'
VII. COMMUNICATIONS
A. WRITTEN
1. Letter from the Santa Clara. CoUnty Archaeological Society dated June 3, 1974
'-'stating that a map could not be furnished to the Commission reflecting
archaeological sites in the City,'but suggesting the Commission fund an
archaeological survey by professi6nal archaeologists~to determine sites.
.2. Letter from Dr. Winter dated June.4, 1974 stating that after a second survey
of SDR-1110, Dividend Industries, no archaeological findings had been
discovered.
3. Letter from the Publi~ Storage, Inc. dated May 29, 1974 to Mr. and Mrs.
Siffernian of Saratoga expressing lappreciation that homeowners in the City
were interested in having public storage facilities installed in Saratoga.
B. ORAL
1. Mr. Popylisen stated that in the matter of A-429, the Prides CroSsing Home-
owners Association had never been notified of the Design Review Committee
meeting of June 11, 1974 with the .applicant, and complained, "we never got a
shot at that design."
Commissioner Martin stated that even though Design Review was not subject to
public hearings, he was concerned lthat those people who were really interested
should get an opportunity to participate in the discussions. Commissioner
Woodward stated that she did not believe the City had an "obligation to call
people and tell them we are going to discuss a particular matter." She stated
that if people were concerned they. should come down to the City or call and
find out what is going on.
Commissioner Matteoni reported that the night before the June llth meeting,
Mr. Popylisen had called him and asked whether the Committee would be going
over the parking situation. He stated that he told Mr. Popylisen that the
· parking matter had been covered under uP-80, but that they would be going over
the design~ "I apprised him that there had been a design change," and added
that he felt "these people haveLsome obligation to follow through." Commissioner
Matteoni suggested that in the future when homeowners associations requested
they be notified of Design Review meetings, it be made clear to them the
Commission could not do this, and that it should be. their responsibility to
keep track of matters of interest.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by C6mmissioner Matteoni, that the Planning
Commission meeting of June 12, 1974 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously.
Chairman Marshall closed the meeting at 1:05 a.m.
Charles ~/~ow~~ Acting Planning Director