HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-1975 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~flSSION
~fiNUTES
-~IME: Wednesday, May 14, 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale A~enue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Marshall, Woodward and Zambetti
Absent: Commissioners Lustig and Martin
B. MINUTES
~--G~mmissioner Woodwa~d-mo~ed-,--seconded-.~y--Commissi.oner--Call-on,--tha.t-the=~e~a-i-ag=--'
~ of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1975 be waived,
~. and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the fol-
~ lowing correction: page 6, Items E and F were continued to the Planning Commis-
%sion meeting of May 14, 1975 instead of April 23, 1975. The motion was carried;
~C~mnissioner Belanger abstained-.
C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Commissioner Callon gave an oral presentation of City Council meeting of
May 7, 1975. A copy of the minutes bf this meeting is on file at the City's
Administration office.
D. Chairman Marshall commended the Planning Director for his presentation of the
City's position before the West Valley College District Governing Board at the
public hearing on the EIR of the proposed lighting and bleachers of the stadium.
II. 'PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item A was delayed until after action had been taken on Items B and C.
B. UP-268 - Thomas J. O'Rourke, Apricot Hill, Request for Use Permit to Allow the
Construction of an Accessory Structure in Excess of 6 Feet in the
Required Rear Yard of 14045 Apricot Hill as per Ord. NS-3~ Sect. 3..7-1
Mr. Don-Burr, Assibtant Planner, stated that the Subdivision Committee had re-
viewed this matter on May 13, 1975, and that a Staff Report had been prepared
recommending approval be granted. He pointed out that the request for a Use
Permit was in conformance with all existing Ordinances, and Staff recommended
the request be granted per the Staff Report.
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-268 at 7:45 p.m. There were
no comments from members of the audience nor from the Commission.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the public
hearing on UP-268 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the
public hearing on UP-268 was closed at 7:46 p.m.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the
Planning Commission grant approval of UP-268 per Exhibits A and B. and the
Staff Report dated }~y 8, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. UP-269 - George Day Construction Company, 19550 Montauk Drive - Request for Use
Permit to Allow a Model Home Sales Office to be Located at 19550
Montauk Drive as per Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.3(f)
Mr. Burr stated that this matter had been reviewed byethe Subdivision Committee,
and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. He added that
-1-
MINUTES OF MAY 14~ 1975
II. C. UP-269 - George Day Construction Company - Cont'd
this matter complied with all existing Ordinances, and that the Staff Report Fon-
ditioned the Use Permit to post a bond for insurance of elimination of the.~odet~'-
~hB~e~ sales office on expiration one year from date of approval.
The public hearing on UP-269 was opened at 7:48 p.m.
Commissioner Woodward asked whether there were other George Day model homes
sales offices within the City, and Mr. Mel Davis, the applicant's representative,
responded that there were none. Question was raised as to whether this Use
Permit complied with the City's Model Homes Sales Office Policy dated May 3,
1974. After citing this policy to the Commission, Chairman Marshall noted that
all stipulations/had been met.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission close the public hearing on UP-269. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the public hearing on UP-269 was closed at 7:50 p.m.
Commissioner Belanger~oved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant application UP-269 approval per Exhibits A and B, and subject
to the Staff Report dated May 8, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
A. GF-302 - Ordinance No. 60, An OrdinanCe Regulating the Design and Improvement
of Single Lots, Parcels and Subdivisions of Land in the City of
Saratoga, and Superseding and Repealing Ordinance Series NS-5
Relatin~ Thereto
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on GF-302 at 7:51 p.m. It was noted
that Ordinance NS-5 had been amended in order to comply with recent revisions
of the Subdivision Map Act as amended by the State legislature, and that the
provisions of this Map Act were required to take effect by March 1, 1975.
Citizen and Commission Response
· Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court,~'made ~he ~o~l?wipg comments:
(1) He drew attention to the fact that the Ordinance contained several
blanks in reference to the number of the latest revision of Ordinance
NS-5, and asked what this number would be. .The City Attorney explaiaed
that this NS-5 number would be the i~t~'~t~:i~umber of the NS-5 series,
adding that this proposed/draft 9rdina~c~ ~o~1~ repeaI ~e?entire NS-5
Ordinance. He' further explained the number was pur'pos'~l~oleft blank
/at the time/this Ordinance was drafted in order to provide flexibility
to the Ci[y Council and Planning Commission for insertion of possible
additional sections. He noted, however, that it had not been necessary
to include additional sections since the original drafting of the
Ordinance.
(2) Mr. Crowther stated that the~ concern was that this draft Ordinance
appeared to be inconsistent in a number of places with the Subdivision
Map Act, and.~v~.th~e ~olloWing examples:
- Section 9.3 of the draft stipulated judicial review must be effected
within 30 days after the date of final map decision, contending that
Section 66499.37 of the California Government Code indicated that
judicial review must be effected within 190 days. The City. A~tor~ey
pointed out that Section 66499.37 had recently been changed from
190 to 30 days by the State legislature, and Section 9.3 reflected
this revision.
- Section 7.1 and Section 7.2 of the draft stated that neither a final
map nor site approval would be granted which was not in.conformance
with the zoning ordinances of the City. He contended that the Map
Act stated that one could not deny a final map if it was consistent
with a itentative map, and ~ta~ed.that._it would appear that the word
"final" should be replaced with the word "tentative."
-2-
MINUTES OF ~Y 14~ 1975
II. A. GF-302 - Ordinance'No. 60 - Cont'd
- Section 9.2 of the draft had omitted reference to Government Code -2 ......
Section 6647~,/.thus being inconsistent wi~h'~he ~p Act. The City.
Attorney agree~"~s S~'c~ion sho~ld'be'~ef~rred to in the ~{t, and
reported that the latest draft of the Ordinance had included same.
(3) Relative to Section 15 of the draft whereby the Planning Coh~ission
would have power to authorize conditional exceptions from the ordinances,
Mr. Crowther pointed out that this was not in the existing ordinance.
It was pointed~by the City Attornel that this Section was identical ~o
]Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the existing NS-5 Ordinance, and t~at it had__
/been a ~gh.~ ~_.c~tiz~ns.to h~y~ y~ian~es.f~ _~h~.past 15 years.
(4) Mr. Crowther stated that they would have other comments to make if
given additional review time. It was pointed out that the Planning
Commission had been requested by the Council to make due haste on this
matter insomuch as the Subdivision Map Act had taken effect on }~rch
1, 1975. The City Attorney added that the Planning Commission was
holding a public hearing on this item as a matter of convenience,
not because it was required by law.
· Mr. Gene Carlson, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission, expressed
appreciation to the Planning Commission for the opportunity to offer input
on this Ordinance revision, but requested additional time in which to more
thoroughly review the Ordinance. He requested a joint study session be
scheduled between the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Planning Commis-
sion to review the parks and recreational aspects of the Ordinance. It was
arranged that Mr. Don Burt, Assistant Planner, would meet with the Parks &
Recreation Commission at its meeting of }~y 19, 1975 to discuss this matter.
· Commissioner Belanger made the following co~m~ents:
(1). She asked if there was a provision which could be added to this Ordi-
nance relative to granting a Certificate of Occupancy contingent upon
providing guaranteed landscaping when required by Design Review. The
City Attorney stated that this could be done, and Section 6.2 of this
Ordinance would be the proper place to put it. He requested Commissioner
Belanger to provide him with a list of specific requirements she felt
must be done before-a person could/recei~etCer.tificate. of Occupancy.
(2) Commissioner Belanger asked if it was City policy to inspect City monu-
ments prior to approval of final map as referred to in Section 13.2 of
the draft. Mr. Trinidad, Public Works Department, pointed out that it
was the policy of the City's Department of Public Works to inspect all
City monuments prior to final approval.
(3) Commissioner Belanger requested Section 13.3-4 relative to cul-de-sacs
be modified to include "... unless a length in excess of said 400 feet
atethe discretion of the advisory body," so that the language would not
l~dicate a built-in right for a developer to have a cul-de-sac longer
than 400'feet in developiBg property within the zone.
(4) Relative to Section 13.9-3, Commissioner Belanger stated that she felt
it had been the Commission's intention that no site should be approved
which bore an average slope of over 40%. She stated that as the Section
presently read, it encouraged the building of homes on pads and in areas
where they should not be built. The Secretary agreed this was correct,
and stated that this Section would be modified to reflect that no site
should be approved which bore an average slope of over 40%, thereby
deleting ~p ~he_~aft "at the area on ~hich.~nX_§t~qture is to be built."
(5) Pertaining to Sections 14.3-1 and 14.3-2 of the draft, Commissioner
Belanger asked who was responsible for insuring against the drainage
from new sites onto existing homesites. It was pointed out that the
plan check procedure by the Public Works Department for proper drainage
was implemented to insure against this situation occurring. The City
-3-
MINUTES OF ~Y 14~ 1975
II. A. GF-302 - Ordinance No. 60 - Cont'd
Attorney added that liability of a drainage system by the City occurred
after the City accepted an offer of dedication of the public easement
for storm drain purposes. He added that relative to a site-by-site
basis, however, normally the City would not be accepting such easements;
and that to insure proper drainage on a single site, the Planning Commis-
sion should so condition.a~_=~he time of tentative map approval.
· James Vanderlaan, resident of Los Gatos, stated with regards to the maximum
length of a cul-de-sac that Archibald Lane in Saratoga was 2,000 feet long,
and that he felt there should not be a maximum placed in the Ordinance on the
length of a cul-de-sac but rather be at the discretion of the Commission. It
was pointed out that in the past the Commission had placed more emphasis on
the number of houses to be serviced on a cul-de-sac rather than the actual
length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Vanderlaan stated he felt there could be an
access problem on a long cul-de-sac, and the City Attorney pointed'out that
the latest copy of the draft provided a condition under Section 16 stipulating
that a cul-de-sac not having a means of secondary access where such street
serviced more than 15 lots should not be approved.
· Tom Sawyer, 20790 Norada Court, pointed out that with regards to Section 15.2
of the draft relative to the power of granting exceptions, that the old
Ordinance stipulated the granting of exceptions by the Planning Commission
had to be approved by the City Council. The City Attorney stated that the
City Council felt the granting of exceptions by the Commission as referred to
in Section 15.2 should be handled at the Commission level in order to delete
the burdensome procedure of hearingi. these Commission recommendations. When ~sked
whether any exceptions of grace granted by an advisory board c'0uld'b~'
appealed to the City Council, the City Attorney explained that an appeal
could be made by an interested citizen if~if°was felt..Lsuch an action was in
._ yiola~ion of the objectives of the General Plan;. or Cit~ Ordinances.
At this point Mr. Cr~vther referenced Section 13.9-3 of the draft relative
to standards of hillside developments stipulated as minimum land area .per.
dwelling unitsybeing subject to exceptions. He stated that this essentially
meant tha% whereas before' the Pra~ning commi~sion's' exception decision had
to be approved by the City Council, the Commission could now grant excep-
tions without City Council approval, and consequently an interested citizen
could not .~ppeal a decision of this nature. It was again pointed out bX .....
Staff that if an interested citizen felt that an advisory-bo~y decision was
in any way in violation of the General Plan, then the decision was an appeala~
ble matter. Mr. Crowther stated that they preferred to see the retention of
the procedure whereby the City Council approved all Commission decisions of
exception in order_to give the. citizenry additional checks and balances.
Cit '
· Mr. Hanson, resident on Pierce Road, referred to the y s criteria on the
slope conservation formula; and after considerable dialogue, indicated h~-
felt the formula should also consider the type of drainage to be used as
well as the condition of the soil.
i_ Commission Action
Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on GF-302 at 9:25 p.m. It was the
consensus of the Planning Commission that GF-302 be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of May 28, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision
Committee and Staff for further review~
D. V-421 - Alex Weathers, Bank Mill Road - Request for Variance to Section 3.3-7
of Ordinance NS-5 by Allowing the Number of Lots Served by a Minimum
Access Street to Exceed Four (4) Lots
It was noted by Staff that there was some question as to whether a Variance was
actually required on this matter, and that in all probability V-421 Would
be withdrawn. Staff recommended this matter be continued pending receipt of a
letter requesting V-421 be withdrawn. Chairman ~rshall directed V-421 be con-
tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1975, and referred this
matter to Staff for further consultation with the applicant.
-4-
MINUTES OF ~Y 14~ 1975 _
IIo E. V-422 - Fred Morehouse, Vickery Lane - Request for Variance to Section 22.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance NS-3 Providing for Overhead Electrical Utility
Service for the Residence Located at Vickery Avenue
Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on V-422 at 9:41 p.m. It was noted
that the Variance Committee per se had not reviewed V-422; h~ever, Staff re-
viewed this wi~h-the Design Review Committee (of which 2 members are on the
Variance Committee) and the Subdivision Committee. The Secretary added that a
Staff Report had been prepared in concurrence with the Design Review Committee's
findings. Mr. Morehouse, applicant indicated acceptance of the conditions of
the Staff Report.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commissionsclose the public hearing on V-422. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the public'hearing on V-422 was closed at 9:45 p.m.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan-
ning Commission grant approval to application V-422 per Exhibit A and the Staff
Report dated May 8, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
Relative to applications V-423 and V-424, Staff recommended the Variance Committee
make an on-site inspection of theTproperties involved on May 17, 1975. It
was noted that Commissioner Belanger Wgni~'~ct a~ alternate' member o~ the Committee
for these inspections.
F. V-423 - Arthur Holmboe, 14566 E1 Puente Way - Request for Variance to Allow a
19-Foot Sideyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 20-Foot Setback as Per
Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7-1
After brief dialogue with the applicant, Chairman Marshall directed V-423 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1975, and referred this
matter to the Variance Committee and Staff for an on-site inspection at 9:00 a.m.
on ~y 17, 1975, further review and report.
G. V-424 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, 14411 Big Basin Way -
Request for a Variance to Allow a Free-Standing Sign Measuring 3~ x 4'
to be Located at 14411 Big Basin Way as Regulated by Ord. NS-3, Sect. 10.5
After brief dialogue with the applicant's representative, Chairman ~rshall
directed V-424 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1975,
and referred this matter to the Variance Committee and Staff for an on-site
inspection at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 1975, further review and report.
At this time the Secretary read into the record a letter received ~y 12, 1975
fromMargaret Reed, 13366 Ronnie Way, objecting to this Variance. Cited within
the letter were references to several Village merchants who had requested simi-
lar signs of the City but had been denied such requests, as well as references
to other Village merchants who were opposed to granting this Variance request.
Mr. Mel Ed~u~d~z,'~ ~ner of the Saratoga Hardware building, objected to this type
of sign "especially where it would be located because of the traffic going through
the town and getting a bad effect of that type of sign." He added that he did
not think it fair to allow this concern a Variance for a free-standing sign
when other Village merchants had hot been allowed to have same.
Commissioner Belanger requested that the Variance Committee also review on ~y 17th
application SDR-1179 (John Colistra, Canyon View Drive) which may require a ~ide-
yard setback variance of 5 feet. Staff was directed to notify the applicant and
the adjacent property owners (Mr. and Mrs. Stone) of this on-site inspection.
III. BUILDING SITE AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SD-1112 - Alan Chadwick, Pierce Road, Subdivision Approval - 8 Lots (Expira-
tion Extended to May 14~ 1975); Continued from April 23~ 1975
The Secretary explained that subsequent to the Staff Report dated ~y 9, 1975
reco~m~ending denial, the applicant's representative, Mr. Dan Apker, had submitted
a letter requesting withdrawal of SD-1112.
-5-
~NUTES OF ~Y 14~ 1975
III. Ao SD-1112 - Alan Chadwick - Cont'd
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Co~uf~issioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission accept the request for withdrawal of SD-1112. The motion was carried
unanimously.
B. SDR-1164 - Frank Shepherd, Douglass Lane, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots
(Expiration Extended to May 14~ 1975)~ Continued from April 23, 1975
The Secretary noted that the Subdivision Committee had requested additional
material, and that the applicant had submitted a letter granting an extension
to the Commission meeting of June 25, 1975 in order to allow him sufficient time
in which to comply with the Committee's request. Chairman Marshall directed
SDR-1164 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of ~une 25, 1975, and
referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review
and report.
C. SDR-1170 - Alexander M. August, Live Oak Lane, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots
(Expiration Extended to May 14~ 1975)~ Continued fromApril 23~ 1975
The Secretary explained that the applicant would be submitting revised plans,
and that a letter had been received from Dr. August granting an extension to the
Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1975. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1170
be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1975, and referred
this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further revi~ and report.
D. SDR-1174 - Thomas N. Foster, Horseshoe Drive, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots
(Expiration Extended to May 14, 1975)~ Continued fromApril 23~ 1975
Mr. Burr stated that subsequent to the preparation of the Staff Report dated
~y 7, 1975, it had been discovered that the applicant did not own Horseshoe
Court which would thereby necessitate a need for~furtherlrev~e~.-
Mr. Vanderlaan, the applicant's representative, gave an oral extension of
SDR-1174 to the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1975, and indicated
he would submit prior to the next Commission meeting a letter granting such
an extension.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Plan-
ning Commission deny application SDR-1174 subject to receipt of a written ex-
tension to the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1975. The motion was
carried unanimously.
E. SDR-1175 - Matt Voros, Mt. Eden Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expiration
Extended to May 14~ 1975)~ Continued from April 23~ 1975
Mr. Burr stated that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter on
several occasions, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
He pointed out that the matter had been delayed pending comment from the San Jose
Water Works Company stating that it would provide adequate water to the property.
He added that this letter had been received indicating domestics°water would be
supplied.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seccnded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission approve SDR-1175 per the tentative map (Exhibit A filed April 28, 1975)
and subject to the General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (A) through
(U) of the Staff Report dated May 7, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
After dialogue was h~d on the next item of the agenda, Mr. Voros, the applicant,
objected to Condition (N) of the Staff Report which stipulated a 6" water main
be required. He pointed out that the County only required a 2" water main,
and complained that a 6" main would be too costly for just one house. It was
pointed out that this condition was a standard requirement of the Fire Depart-
ment in order to insure and provide adequate fire protection. Commissioner
Callon expressed a concern that the San Jose Water Works Company would provide
water on a 2" main without recognizing the need by the Fire Department for a
6" water main, and discussion followed on this.
-6-
MINUTES OF ~Y 14.
III. E. SDR-1175 - Matt Voros - Cont'd
The applicant was informed that since action had already been taken on SDR-1175,
he could either request a reconsideration of conditions by the Planning Commis-
sion or file an appeal with-the City Council within 10 days of this decision.
Although Mr. Voros indicated a preference for filing an appeal with the City
Council, Commissioner Belanger strongly expressed a desire that this matter be
dialogued further by Staff, the Subdivision Committee, the applicant and the
Fire Marshall at a Subdivision Committee meeting prior to tentative map approval.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that approval of
SDR-1175 tentative map and Staff Report by the Planning Commission on May 14,
1975 be rescinded. The motion was carried; Chairman Marshall voted no.
It was explained to~.the applicant that a letter-granting an extension to. the
Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1975 would be required. In lieu of this,
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Plan-
ning Commission deny SDR-1175 subject to the receipt of a written extension
to the Planning Commission meeting of ~y 28, 1975. The motion was carried
unanimously.
At this time, Mr. Voros submitted a letter granting the Planning Commission an
extension of SDR-1175 to the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1975.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1175 be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of May 28, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee
and Staff for further review and report.
F. SDR-1176 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. (John Lyngso), Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires ~y 17, 1975); Con-
tinued from April 23~ 1975
Staff recommended this matter be continued insomuch as this property had been
transmitted to the City Council for review of rezoning in order to bring the
zoning into compliance with the latest adopted General Plan. He added that a
letter had been submitted granting an extension to the Planning Commission meet-
ing of May 28, 1975. Mr. Warren Heid, applicant's representative, added that
the applicant was granting such extension to further investigate possible
alternative ways of developing the site.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1176 be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of May 28, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee
and Staff for further review and report.
G. SDR-1178 - Jack Graham, Lutheria Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires
June 4~ 1975)
Mr. Burt stated that this matter had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee
on May 13, 1975, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
The applicant was not present, but it was noted that a copy of the Staff Report
had been mailed to the applicant 5 days prior to this Con~mission meeting.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission approve application SDR-1178 per the tentative maps (Exhibits A and
B filed April 16, 1975), and subject to General Conditions I and Specific
Conditions II (A) through (M) of the Staff Report dated May 7, 1975. The motion
was carried unanimously.
H. SDR-1179 - John Colistra, Canyon View Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires June 6~ 1975)
Mr. Burt recalled the Commission's attention to the request by Commissioner
Belanger that this matter be on-site inspected by the Variance Committee on
May 17, 1975, and recommended this matter be continued. Chairman Marshall
requested that the Design Review Committee also review this matter prior to
the next Commission meeting.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1179 be continued to the Planning Commission meet-
ing of May 28, 1975, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee for an
on-site inspection on May 17, 1975 and to the Subdivision Committee and Staff
for further review and report.
-7-
MINUTES OF ~Y 14~ 1975
III. Staff noted that files on (I) through (O)-were not complete, and recommended the
following applications be continued:
I. SDR-1180 - Sylvia Jean, Aspesi Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires
June 10~ 1975)
J. SDR-1181 - John Vinson, Live Oak Lane, Building Site Approval - 2 Lots (Expires
June 14~ 1975)
K. SDR-1182 - Bernard Tougas, Paramount Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires June 17~ 1975)
L. SDR-1183 - Assurance Company, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Willjams Avenue,
Building Site Approval - 3 Lots (Expires June 18~ 1975)
M. SDR-1184 - Jerry Christensen, Cordwood Court, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires June 18~ 1975)
No SDR-1185 - Charles Laughlin, Canyon View Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires June 18~ 1975)
O. SDR-1188 - Jack Drinkard, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires
June 18, 1975)
Chairman Marshall directed applications SDR-1180, SDR-1181, SDR-1182, SDR-1183,
SDR-1184, SDR-1185 and SDR-1188 ibe continued to the Planning_C_ommissi.on__meeting_o_f ......
°~_!~_~X 2_J8~_19~_5.,- and referKed these matter§. to the SubdivisiOn Committee and Staff
· fo~_further_r~view and report.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
Ao A-391 - George Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review
Approval~ Tract #5327~ Lot #19
~. Loewke Stated that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review
Committee on ~y 6, 1975, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending
approval. Discussion followed on the type of stucco material to be used,.and
Mr. Mel Davis, the applicant's representative, informed the Commission that a
"skip-trowel finished stucco" would be.~sed. -Commissioner Belanger
requested this be made a det~he~tion'.ofl~h~S~ff~iRep~rt.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Commission grant final design revi ~ approval to application A-391,
Lot ~19 of Tract #5327, per Exhibit-"F" and color sample "~"'~]ect to the
Staff Report dated May 9, 1975 amended as 'folloWs: "first sentence of second
paragraph under Project Description should read: "Exterior elevation
materials consist of skip-trowel finished stucco with 2" x 6" wood trim
used for accent on all elevations and a shake roof, as shown on Exhibit F."
The motion was carried unanimously.
B. A-431 - Fred ~rpurg, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Revi~ Approval
Reconsideration~ Commercial Building - 1 Lot; Continued from April 23~ 1975
M~. Loewke noted that the applicant had decided to comply with all of the con'-
ditions of the originally-approved Design Review Staff Report, and had requested
the amendment procedure~be discontinued. Insomuc~ as an app~ica~qR_o~._the.recon-
sideration had never been ~ormally s~bmi[~'d~ ~'h~irman Marshall directed that
all further proceedings on this/TrequeSt for recohside~.~on be terminated.
C. A-447 - George Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review
Approval~ Trac.t ~5408~ Lot #13
~. Loewke stated that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Commit-
tee on May 6, 197~ and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
~t'~b~l~f~iscuss~on on fh'~'placement and size of the house, Commissioner
Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission
grant final design review approval to application A-447, Lot ~13 of Tract
#5408, per Exhibit "H" and color sample "H-C," and per the Staff Report dated
May 9, 1~7~_ Th~ ~otion was..c_a_r~o.~naD~mously. ~
-8-
MINUTES OF }~Y 14
D. A-467 - Osterlund Enterprises, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review Approval,
Tract #5011~ Lot #11
Mr. Loewke reported that Staff was currently working with the applicant on sub-
mitting revised drawings, and recommended this matter be continued. Chairman
Marshall directed A-467 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
May 28, 1975 and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff
for further review and report.
E. A-470 - Lyngso Garden jMaterials, Inc. (John Lyngso), Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road,
Final Design Review Approval, Commercial Building - 1 Lot; Continued
from April 23~ 1975
It was recommended this item be continued in concurrence with building site
application SDR-1176. Chairman Marshall directed A-470 be continued to the
. Planning Commission .meeting of May 28, 1975, and referred this matter to the
.Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report.
F. A-471 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road,
Final Design Review Approval~ Lots A and C of SDR-1126
Mr. Loewke explained that this matter involved design review approval of Lots A
and C of a 4-lot subdivision (SDR-1126), and also involved a request for
approval of the proposed landscaping, irrigation and fencing plans along
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road on Lots A and D of said subdivision. Note was made
that the last paragraph under Project Descriptions of the Staff Report should
be corrected to read Lots A and D instead of Lots A and C.
Commissioner Belanger questioned whether the width of the landscaped area met
the conditions of the Staff Report on SDR-1126. It was noted that this ~StaffL'-
.~R__eport required Desi_gn Re_y_i_~W_app_r0_va! of landscap_ing as well as a pe_d.es_tr_i_a_n ....
? walkway and bikepath. A review of the exhibits submi['ted' refiected an absence
/ of this pathway; and after discussion of this oversite, it was the Commission's=
~ consensus to continue A-471 Mr. Lohr, applicant~s representative, indicated
! ·
concurrence with the Commission's decision on Lot A, but requested action be
taken on design review approval of Lot C.
~ Comm,issioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan-
-! ning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-471 Lot C
~ only of Tract SDR-1126 per Exhibit "C", color scheme "X", Site Development Plan
~ "S-I", and the Staff Report dated May 8, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
A-471, L~t A was continued to the Commission meeting of May 28, 1975, and re'fer=.red
.... to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and repor_t.
'"b.'" ~2 ~"~ara~0~"F~othills Development Corp~ration,"Sar~toga-Sunnyva~~
Final Design Review Approval, Lots #1, #5 and #10 of Tract #5583;
Continued from April 23~ 1975
Mr. Loewke stated that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter on
several occasions, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommeding
approval. He pointed out that a letter dated April 24, 1975 had been received
from Mrs. Norcia, adjacent property owner to Lot ~10, requesting the location
of Lot #10's garage be moved to the east side of the property. He added, how-
ever, that the potential property owner (Mr. Getz) had indicated a desire to
leave the garage placement on the west side of the lot as currently planned.
Mr. Loewke pointed out that in reviewing this problem, the Design Review
Committee and Staff considered the following before recommending approval of
this application: (1) The distance between the two houses was ap_proximately
100 feet, and there were a considerable number of fruit trees between the
two houses. Additional landscaping could be incor_porated to overcome the
="visibility of the garage by Mrs. Norcia. (2) The amount of sun exposure to
the Getz' house: by placing the garage on the west side, shelter from after-
/ noon sun would be afforded to the livable areas of the house. (3) The layout'
out of the house and flSor plan were preferrable to the proposed home buyer. t.
-9-
~tINUTES OF ~i~Y 14~ 1975
I~. G. A-472 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation - Cont'd
Mrs. Norcia was present and stated that her living room and dining roo~nwould be
directly facing Lot #101s garage, and that this would not only be aesthetically
undesirable but also would be a potential noise problem. She further pointed
out that although there were several trees between the two homesites, the trees
were deciduous and during the winter months a direct view of the garage would be
~ possi~'le'TSh'~ req~es~d"~h~f'L~'~'r0"~ garage b~la"~d'~he east side of
The site. ' ..................
Mr. Lohr read a statement into the record by Mr. Getz whom he was representing,
citing reasons why he wished to retain the present placement of the house as
follows: (1) He selected this lot because of fts orientation, and the house ~-
was designed t0 capi[aiize' ~h~ maximUm=optimum ~n~rgy'con~ervat~on. (2) Privacy
of bedroomwould be maintained. It was pointed out that the Norcia's had a
two-story house which overlooked Lot ~10. (3) Safety factors were pointed
out in regardstto the placement of the driveway on Kenosha Court. (4) Inso-
much as the~Getz' would have an automatic garage-door opener, the garage ~
door would be closed most of the"tlme.'
After discussion of this problem, it was the consensus of the Commission that
landscaping of the garage area would be a reasonable compromise to this problem.
Both Mr. Lohr and Mrs. Norcia indicated acceptance of this decision.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Commission grant final design review approval to A-472, Lots #1,
#5 and #10 of Tract ~5583 per Exhibits "A," "B" and "C," and subject to the
Staff Report dated ~y 8, 1975 amended to include Condition (2) under
Recommended Action as follows: (2) f.~andscape screening pla'~fo'~he west ~i'd~
of the garage of Lot #10 shall be prepared ~d ~6Bmitted t~ the D~sign Review
Co~m~ittee and Staff for~approVa!. .~he__~pt~On was carried unanimously.
H. A-473 - Eloise Hanson, Perata Court, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Continued from April 23, 1975
~. Loewke stated that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review
Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
Many of~z~He~details 'of the design were pointed out and Commissioner Woodward
~'~[e~ ~he felt this ~e~ ~'~Y~ ~'~ '~'~fd an ex~l~f'~h'~"w'~h'6'~l'd see
~ xn the hills because of the sensitivity given to t~e surrounding treesj"'
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-473
per Exhibit A and the Staff Report dated ~y 8, 1975. The motion was
carried unanimously.
I. A-474 - Michael Conn, Vacquero Court, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
Single-Family Residence
Mr. Loewke stated that Staff was working with the applicant on submitting re-
vised plans, and recommended this matter be continued. Chairman ~rshall
directed A-474 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 28,
1975, and referred same to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further
review and report.
J. A-475 - Phillip Warner, E1 Camino Grande, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
Landscaping for Tennis Court Area
Mr. Loewke drew the Commission's attention to the revised Staff Report dated
May 14, 1975 deleting Condition (1). He pointed out that the fencing referred
to in Condition (1) did not belong to Dr. Warner but rather to the adjacent
neighbor, and therefore was not the applicant's responsibility. He added that
the City Code Enforcement Officer would investigate!the possible violation of
~ity ordinances of this fence an~ .take any nec~§par~ ~c~ion~_.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by. Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan-
ning Commission grant final design revi~ approval of application ~-475 per
Exhibit "A" and per the revised Staff Report dated ~'~y 14, 1975. The motion
was carried unanimously.
-10-
IV.- K. SS-84 - Russell Reed, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval -
Identification Sign; Continued from April 23~ 1975
Mr. Loewke noted that Staff was currently working with the applicant on submit-
ting revised plans on this matter, and recommended this be continued. Chairman
Marshall directed SS-84 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
May 28, 1975, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and
Staff for further review and report.
L. SS-85 - Gauger, Sparks & Silva, Christ~e Drive, Final Design Review Approval -
Temporary Subdivision Sign of Tract #5462
Mr. Loewke stated that this had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee,
and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval for one-year.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Conm~ission .grant final desigp review approvalTto application SS-85
~ per Exhibits_~ apd_A~!, _a~d su~jec~ to the conditions of the Staff' Report ..... ~
..-_-%a~.Ma~...~, !~Z~.,__The_.~R~on_~as_¢arried unanimously,
M. UP-119 - W~st Valley College, Fruitvale Avenue; Review of Soccer Field Fencing
as Per Requirements of UP-119
Mr. Loewke explained that as per the requirements of the Use Permit for the
operation of West Valley College, this matter had come before the ~lanni~__
~Commission for its review. He added tha~ th~~ ma~r _ha~._b~en r~i.eWe~ by ~e
'~esigh ReVieW' C~mmi~'~e'0n'two occa~{0ns, and that a Staff Report had been
prepared recommending approval subject to conditions. Mr. Loewke gave a
graphic presentation of. the location of the soccer field fencing, adding
that the College had proposed plans for landscaping of the west end of the
campus which would help to screen this fencing. Mr. Loewke noted that he
had been in contact with a homeowner residing on Short Hill Court relative
to this fence, and that the homeowner agreed with comments made by the Staff
in its Report and endorsed the plan for landscaping.
Mrs. Dunn, citizen of Saratoga, asked if the College would put in temporary
bleacher stands around this field. The Secretary noted that the area sur-
rounding the field would be very restrictive to installing such stands, and
that there had been no indication of such a plan by the College.
Commissioner Woodward moved that t~e Planning Commission grant final design
review approval of application UP-119~ for soccer field fencing per Exhibits
F and F-l, and subject to the Staff Report dated May 8, 1975. Commissioner
Woodward amended her motion' by including the approval of this application
per Exhibits F, F-1 and Item ~9 of UP-119 and subject to the Staff Report
dated May 8, 1975. This amended motion was seconded by Commissioner Zambetti,
and approved unanimously.
V. E~RrlRON'~NTAL D~ACT DETEP~IINATIONS
The following Negative Declarations were filed between April 24, 1975 and
May 14, 1975:
A. GF-302 - City of Saratoga, Ordinance No. 60, An Ordinance Regulating the Design
and Improvement of Single Lots, Parcels and Subdivisions of Land in
the City of Saratoga, and Superseding and Repealing Ordinance
Series NS-5 Relating Thereto
B. SDR-1181 ~ John Vinson, Live Oak Lane, Building Site Approval, 2-Lots
C. SDR-i183 - Assurance Company, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Williams, Building
Site Approval - 3 Lots
VI. ~ S C ELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1080'- Richard E. Johnson, Via Regina, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
Request for One-Year Extension; Continued fromApril 23~ 1975
Mr. Burr stated that this had been reviewed by the Land Development Committee,
.~ ............... and that the Fire Department was investigating the water flow. Mr. Burt ..
-11-
~flNUTES OF MAY 14
VI. A. SDR-1080 - Richard E. Johnson - Cont'd
stated that Staff recommended approval of this one-year extension subject to
the revised Staff Report dated ~y 9, 1975 amended to include the addition of
Condition (X) as follows:
(X) Proposed dwelling must have minimum recognized water system capable of
delivering 1,000 GPM for one hour.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that a one-year
extension be granted to SDR-1080 per Exhibit A filed December 26, 1973, and
subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (A) through (X) of
the Staff Report dated May 9, 1975 as amended. The motion was carried
unanimously.
B. SDR-1083 - Frank Schillace, Upper Hill Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
Request for One-Year Extension~ Continued from April 23~ 1975
! Staff 'expressed a desire to further review this matter, and reconm~ended this
~.. be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1083 be continued to the Planning
~Cof~fLission meeting of ~y 28, 1975, and referred this matter to Staff for
~.further revi~ and report.
C. Quito Area Study - Continued from February 26~ 1975
The Secretary noted that the Variance Committee and Staff had not had adequate
time in which to review this matter in terms of the overall problems of the
Quito area, and recommended this be continued indefinitely. Commissioner
Callon expressed a desire to have this item agendized to a specified date,
and Chairman ~rshall requested this be reviewed by the Variance Committee
after Commissioner Martin returned. iAfter discussion, Chairman ~rsh~ll
~directed'~he Quito Area Study be continued to the Planning Commission meet-
~i~'~f'Ju'~2~~, 1975, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee and
~S'f~f'f'f~'~'e~ie~ and r'~por~. ' ' ' '
VII. CO~qqICATIONS - WRITTEN
The following written correspondence was introduced into the record:
A. Letter dated April 7, 1975 to City Council from John Weir and Russ Crowther
appealing the decision of the Planning Commission of tentative map approval
on SDR-1037, the R.J. Hunter property located on Comer Drive. It was noted
that the City Council at its meeting of ~y 7, 1975, under the advice of
couns~'!, did not hear the appeal in that there was no provision in Subdivision
Ordinance NS-5.2 providing for the appeal of a tentative map approval by the
Planning Commission to t he City Council by anyone other thanlthe
subdivider.
B. Letter dated April 22, 1975 from Ed Armintrout, Greenbriar Homeowners
Association, opposing the usage of the State ~ight-of-way by the Boething
Treeland Nursery Company "for any purpose not approved in their initial
Usage Agreement." Staff was directed to~ake this letter part of UP-239
.... file for Boething Treeland Nursery.
C.Letter dated April 22, 1975 from Walter V. Hays, attorney at law, regarding
the proposed rezoning of the Parker and Hall properties. ~haii~nan~Marshall
{referred ~his letter to the City Attorney for coL~m~ent by the nezt Planning
~C.0mmission meeting. _. ~ ...............
D. Letter from Mr. Ironside, Williams and Mocine, dated April 15, 1975 relative
to the interpretation of the General Plan in reference to densities. In
essence. the letter agreed with Staff~s position that General Plan densities
were intended to be approximatelindications of the ~nole capacity of the City.
E. Letter from the Good Goverrnnent Group expressing appreciation to Staff for
the a~ailability of ~ommission meeting packets for representatives of the
Good Government Group, as well as the inclusion therein of copies of exhibits.
-12-
~- =' --~ }[[NUTES OF ~L~Y 14
VII. CO~rONICATIONS - ORAL
A. Mr. Bernard Turgeon, representative of Saratoga Foothills Development, sub-
mitted a request that UP-240 for a model homes sales office located on
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road be granted an extension. It was pointed out that
this Use Permit had been granted by the Commission at its meeting of April 24,
1974 for a 6-month period, and that the Use Permit actually expired October 24,
1974. It was further noted that the City_had received a ~letter of complaing
'~ointing out that the Use Permit on this m6del homes sales'offiCe had long
expired. After dis'cdssion of this request, it was the Commission's consensus
that Saratoga Foothills had in fact violated the terms of the Use Permit
#UP-240, and that an extension should not be granted. Recommendation was
given to Mr. Turgeon to apply for a new Use Permit if Saratoga Foothills
Development desired to retain a model homes sales office in the City.
B. Mrs. Zett Greely, 21450 Prospect, asked if the Parker Ranch ppblicahaa~ing--(C-172)
was still scheduled to be heard on May 28, 1975. Chairman Marshall assured her
that C-172 had been agendized for the Planning Commission meeting of ~y 28,
1975 for purposes of presenting to the Commission and the public the status
of the application to-dat~ as well as for purposes of taking any new public
testimony.
C. The Secretary explained to the Commission that the previously scheduled
public hearing on the proposed Hillside Conservation Zone was forced to be
postponed until clarification was made byeamended legisl~l~ive to
;ambiguities of the Gonzales Bill. He noted that, as presently written, the
i' Bill stipulated that public notices must be sent to afi'~BPe~t~"~j-n-erb'afEect~d
by a zoning matter, and that the City interpreted this to mean public notices
would be required to be mailed to all or nearly all City of Saratoga property
owners affected by the proposed erdinance. Discussion of the proposed ordinance
· 'followed, and Staff was requested to schedule another ~tudy session on this
~ matter bX the next Pl~nning..~.__oi!m_~p_sion meeting..
D. Commissioner Callon asked Staff to investigate the reason why The Burl located
on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road had two signs. Mr. Burt reported that Staff had
made two visits to'the site informing the owners that only the City-approved
sign could be used. He added that the City's Code Enforcement Officer would
be requested tolfurther investigate this matter.
E. Commissioner Callon asked if there was a legal requirement for posting agendas
of Subcommittee meetings prior to the actual occurence of same. It was pointed
out that last year the City Council determined that all City Subcommittee meet-
ings should be posted at City Hall at least 24 hours in advance of the actual
meeting time.
F. Chairman Marshall expressed appreciation to Mrs. Moss and Mrs, Owens of the
Good Government Group for serving coffee.
VIII. ADJOURN}~NT
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission meeting of }~y 14, 1975 be adjourned. The motion wa~ carried unanimously,
and the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 1975 was adjourned at 1180 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
f~arty Vary
skw
-13-