Loading...
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