Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-28-1975 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CODfiSSION ~fiNUTES TIME: Wednesday, ~y 28, 1975 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Lustig, WoodWard and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners ~rshall and Martin B. MINUTES Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the read- ing of the minutes of the May 14, 1975 Planning Commission meeting be waived, and that they be approved as-~stributed to the Commission subject to the fol- lowing corrections: page 3, third line of seventh paragraph, replace "in the discretion of" with "at the discretion of;" and page 5, Item II-G, correct spelling of Mr. Edmunds' name. The motion was~=carried; Commissioner Lustig abstained. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT IC~ai~ady.Belanger gave a brief account of the ~y 21, 1975 City Council meeting at the end of'~h.~s m~i.ng under Oral Communications. A copy of. the minutes of ~his meeting is on file ~t'~'he C{t~"~ Admi~ist~a~{6n Office. II. Pb~LIC HEARINGS Chairlady Belanger directed Items A and B be addressed after completion of Items II (C)-(H). C. 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; Continued from May 14~ 1975 The Secretary explained that this matter was pending a request for withdrawal, and recommended this be continued. Chairlady Belanger directed V-421 be con- tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this matter to the Staff for further consultation with the applicant. D. V-423 - Arthur Holmboe, 14566 E1Puente 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; Continued from ~y 14~ 1975 The Secretary pointed out that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting this matter be withdrawn. It was noted that after an on-site in- spection of the property by the Variance Committee and Staff .... the applicant had indicated acceptance of~suggested amendments which y0uld. therepy eliminate the need for a variance. ~ " Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission accept the request for withdrawal of application V-423. The motion was carried unanimously. E. V-424 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, 14411 Big Basin Way, Request for Variance to Allow a Free-Standing Sign Measuring 3' x 4' to be Located at 14411 Big Basin Way as Regulated by Ordinance NS-3, Section 10.5~ Continued fromMay 14~ 1975 It was noted that although~Staff had recommended thisi matter be denied p~r t~e -1- ~ '., -. MINUTES OF MAY 28. II. E. V-424 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association - Cont'd Staff Report dated May 28, 1975, the applicant had subsequently requested this matter be continued pending submission of revised plans. Chairlady Belanger directed V-424 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred same to the Variance Connnittee and Staff for further review and report. F. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery Company, Prospect Road, Request for Use Permit to Allow the Construction of an 8-Foot High Storage Shed to be Erected in the West Valley Freeway Right-of-Way The Secretary noted that there had been several phone calls and letters regard- ing this matter, and as a result Staff would suggest the Subdivision Committee make an on-site inspection. It was arranged that the Subdivision Committee and Staff would make an on-site inspection on Tuesday, June 3, 1975 at 4:00 p.m. Chairlady Belanger directed UP-239 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of June 11, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for ~eview and report. G. UP-261 - Saratoga Cable Television, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Storage of Construction Equipment and Supplies and a Signal Processing Antenna Site to be Located at 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Ordinance NS-3, Section 7-3); Continued fromApril 9~ 1975 The Secretary advised the Commission that major problems with the franchise agreement between the City and applicant had yet to be resolved by the City Council, and recommended the Commission continue this item until such resolu- tion had been made. Chairlady Belanger directed UP-261 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this matter to the Staff and Subdivision Committee for further review and report. H. UP-274 - Eldon Hoffman, Bank Mill Road, Request for Use Permit to Allow the Construction of an 8-Foot Tennis Court Fence (Ord. NS-3~ Sect. 3.4) The Secretary pointed out that this matter wa~ still being reviewed by Staff, and suggested this be continued. Chairlady Belanger directed UP-274 be con- tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this matter to the Staff and Subdivision Committee for review and report. A. C-172 - Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect and Stelling Roads, Change of Zoning Request from "A" (Agriculture) and "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-1-40,O00 PC" (Single-Family Residential, Planned Community); a 218-acre parcel; Continued from April 23~ 1975 Chairlady Belanger advised those present that a Staff Report had been prepared with the recmmnendation that C-172 be approved subject to certain conditions. She explained that this Report was a preliminary report setting forth conditions to be accomplished by the applicant prior to approval of tentative map. She pointed out that the site development plan to be presented this evening served as the basic guideline on which zoning would or would not be granted. Public testimony was solicited, and Chairlady Belanger stated that upon receiving all public comment she would recommend the public hearing on C-172 be closed. She further stated that insomuch as the Council expected a full Commission consensus on this matter, she would further recommend that action on the r ezoning appli- cation be continued to the June 11, 1975 Commission meeting at which time a full Commission should be present. At this point, Chairlady Belanger reopened the public hearing on C-172 at 7:58 p.m. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Mr. William Heiss, applicant's representative, gave a status report via a slide presentation on the progress of the application to-date. Briefly he recapped the changes made in the application plan starting from the first proposal in 1973 for 185 units to the present plan proposing 105 units. He explained that .... ~rrNUTES OF ~t~Y 28 II. A. C-172 - Chan~e of Zonin~ r(Applicant's Presentation) - Cont'd this~present ~l~'n was based on pictures and analyses of the scale model provided the City, and on meetings held with the Subdivision Committee and Staff. The plan involved the following aspects: (1) Circulation. The Circulation System would incorporate a variety of public and private streets, including one-way streets and "eyebrow and-antler" streets, which had been designed for a hillside situation. He pointed out that by the use of these private streets and driveway turnarounds, no home- sites would be placed in such a way as to require the resident to back out onto public streets. He stated that the plan proposed a major street running from Prospect Road across the property to connect with Comer Drive, adding that this concept had been acceptable to the City's Traffic Consul- tant relative to what he thought might be an acceptable handling of cir- culation in the northwest area.of garatoga. He noted that in all but a dozen cases, the homes would be set back from the curb of the public street at least 75 feet. FurtheSt'he pointed out a bridge connection proposed on Prospect Road to help relieve traffic on Prospect Road by placing it on an internal street of the subdivision itself. He gave a detailed review of the location of the homesites along the proposed circulation system, point- ing out specific features of same. Concerning street specifics, Mr. Heiss noted that per discussions held between the Planning Department, Public Works Department, the City Traffic Consultant, the Fire District and himself, the following types of streets were proposed to be used: · Public streets to be 32-feet wide, measured from each outside edge of pavement; i.e., 22 feet of pavement with a 3-foot concrete roll curb on either side of the street which would be mountable, and adjacent to that, a 2-foot section of asphalt on either side. · Private streets had been introduced to keep the width of streets as narrow as possible in order to minimize the amount of grading required and the amount of trees required to be removed. The private streets would be as follows: (1) for 4 or less homesites, the streets would be 18-feet wide; (2) for 5 or more homesites, the streets would be 22-feet wide; and (3) for one-way streets, the widths would be 14 feet. Mr. Heiss added that on-street parking would not be allowed, noting that "parking bays" would be provided along the streets for off-street parking purposes. (2) Tree Removal. Mr. Heiss pointed out many specifics relative to particular groups of trees which would not be removed. Among these trees was the sky- line eucalyptus grove which he assured would not be removed, but which would be looped by a private road with homesites downhill from the grove. (3) Tr.ails. Mr. Heiss gave a detailed review of the two trails proposed as discussed with the City~s Trails and Pathways Task Force: one running along the western side of the property,'~nd'the other running along the eastern side of the property. (4) Water Tank. He mentioned ~t~at an additional water tank would.be re- quired, explaining that it would be for appr~xima[ely 150,000 gallons of water, measuring approximately 20-feet high and 35 feet in diameter; further explaining that the San Jose Water Works Company would construct the tank and that "lavish landscaping" would be used. He gave as an example of the size of the tank, the fact that the present water tank on /adjacent prq~e__r.ty ?wned by San Jose Water Works Company held 4 million ~ gallons of water. (5) open space. The plan proposed 150 acres of common open space with scenic easements to the City which would'be maintained by the property owners. -3- ~NUTES OF MAY 28~ 1975 _ II. A. C~172 - Change of Zoning (ApDlicant's Presentation) - Cont'd (6) Recreation. He explained that approximately 8~ a acres near the location of the ancient landslide area Would be used for the project's active recrea- tional facilities, including swimming pools and tennis courts. A recap of the landuses of the proposed plan was given as follows: !- 150 acres of common open space with scenic easements. 12~ acres public streets i- 8 acres private streets -- 40 acres land under private o~mership · - Average size of parcel to be about 16,000 square feet (minimum to be · ~ approximately 10,000 square feet) of which half would be limited to ! selected usages guided by a set of covenants and restrictions. ~ 155,000 cubic yards of cut and fill - 95% of trees over 12" in diameter would be saved CITIZEN RESPONSE · ~ Zett Greely, 21450 Prsspect Road, asked for clarification of the 6-month. '~'~i~ulation i~ the'sta~f'Report"rel'ative't& ~n in-d['~[h'~'fls and geology study. The Secretary explained that~'~'d'd~ prior to time of approval of tentat{V~ ~ap'or within'6 months ~ft~r zon- ing decision had been made by the City Council, whichever was lesser. .. He pointed out that {f such studies were not submitted within the speci- " fied time limit, it would be considered a violation of the conditions of the zoning and the progress of the application would be reverted back to the original classification. Relative to the use of the words "extensive and intensive" concerning this geology study, Mr. Greely asked if these words could be defined in more detail. The Secretary explained that these words referred to and meant the intent of the City to require the appli- cant to 'take test borings on each?site to be developed on the,site plan. Mr. Greely asked what the effect woui~ b~'6n the si[e ~lan i~ a determination was made that the Williamson Act lands could not be removed. The Secretary responded that this would mean that the total acreage would decrease from 218 acres to 201 acres, and Staff would suggest the City Council refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for review of the change of zoning on the basis of 201 acres. · ~rgaret Clevenger, 19337 Titus Court, read a statement into the record opposing this change of zoning on the basis that development would destroy the n~tural beauty of the hills. She stated she felt that all of S~ratoga would be impacted by this development, and added that without the hills she felt Saratoga "would be like any other area of urban sprawl." She called for a commitment to preserve the hills in tact with no tract develop- ment. She concluded by stating: "It does not seem like ~he time to open this up to private profit, and you as our leaders, I am sure, can find a way to save them." · ~Stanley Friedman, 12520 Greenmeadow, stated that he was speaking for the 'S'ar'a~oga ~sr Homeo~ners Association~ He pointed out that although' the Association was leaning tm~ard the "PC" zoning designation rather than straight "R-I-40,000" zoning, they were oppose~ to this de~l~pment because of the visual impact as well as the impact development would have on the roa~'. · Tom Sawyer, 20790 Norada Court, Stated that he was ~epresenting the Arguello Homeowners Association, and asked the applicant if any sites reflected on the site development plan had slopes greater than 40%. He further asked if the average~slope ~f=the property would be recalculated if it was de- termined that the Williamson Act property should not be part of this project.'.'. He questioned~ff'!~p~0perty owners would be responsible for maintaining the private roads referred'to i~ the circulation system. Mr. Heiss responded to the first question by stating that according to their calculations, there would be no sites over 40% slope, adding that the average slope on the Parker Ranch was 27.4%, the average slope on the Hall Ranch was 30.3%, and the overall average slope of the entire property was 28.4%. The Secretary added that if the Hall Ranch was excluded from the -4- II. A. C-172 - Change of Zoningi-(Citizen Resppnse)}- Cont'd project, a recalculation of the overall average slope of the property would be necessary. Relative to private street maintenance responsibilities, Mr. Heiss noted that=~i~ would be the responsibility of the homeo~.mers to maintain private streets and'acCeSseS. Mr. Sa~.~er then asked whether test borings would be done on the circulation system, and was informed that they would be done. Mr. Sawyer complimented Mr. Heiss on his presentation, pointing out that he felt the developer was trying to do a good job on a very complex site per the existing City ordinances. He added, however, that he felt development of this site would present bad effects throughout the hills by increasing the runoff, by the unavoidable need for removal of trees, by the fact that soils on the site had "marginal stability," and in addition, the extra 105 homesites in the area would increase the amount of traffic on Comer Drive and ~n the Arguello area. He stated that he would quarrel with the statement '{~ ~he staff'Report ~hat this project plan was in line ~{th the General Plan, arguing that the General Plan consultant had suggested devel- opment of one unit per 10 acres in this area. He concluded his remarks by stating that he was disappointed that more pressure had not be exerted in reducing the density of this project in order "to reduce our tax burden." · Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, asked what the minimum lot size would be. Although Mr. Heiss responded that it would be 10,000 square feet, Chairlady Belanger and the Secretary pointed o~t that the Commission had not addressed the question of minimum lot size yet, and that this would be determined at the time of the tentative map application. The Secre- tary explained that the site development plan at this point did not indicate a minimum square footage in that the change of zoning process was not the proper vehicle to address this matter. He pointed out that the test borings on each site could possibly determine that a particular site could not be built upon and thereby effect the number or placement of the lots to be used. He pointed out that the purpose of the site development plan with this application was that if rezoning was approved, no more than 105 homesites would be allowed to be built on the site, irrespective of the size of the individual lots. Mr. Crowther then asked what the minimum sideyard setbacks would be. He was informed that insomuch as no minimum lot size had been determined, the guidelines of setbacks had not yet been addressed. Mr. Crowther informed the Commission that a Planning Staff member had in- formed a group of homeowners that a fire station would be required for this site. Mr. Burt~contested this statement, pointing out that what he 'h'~'d'~d was ghat if the entire h'~rl~i'd~'~d~iope conservation zone area WaS ever ~Ully de+eloped, there eventuall~ would be a need f~r a fire station. Mr. Crowther asked whether the proposed water tank would be adequate enough to handle fire problems, and Mr. Heiss stated that the gallonage of the tank had been determined by the Fire District and the San Jose Water Works Company. Mr. Crowther expressed concern that this property fell within the Fire Hazard Zone, and the Secretary explained that the Fire Hazard Zone dealt with conditions relative to reducing fire hazards, such as requirements ~or water fl~ per h'~, insurance, protective insurance, and roofihTg'materials~j~'d'd general extr~6'~'di~y ...................... c~nS~.~tiO_n~_requirement~_which.Shpuld be used. Mr. Crowther asked why the present site development plan was not based~ existing geological data, pointing out that some of the proposed hillsides were in areas of soil creep and unstable soils. He further asked if the roof elevations would be higher than the ridge line, and what the setbacks would be on homes near Prospect Creek. He stated that they had done evaluations on this site and had determined that some ofzthe sites had slopes greater than 40%. He stated that their concern was that with the density involved with this project, there was some chance that development might occur on "risky sites," which they felt might cause high costs to the City in the future. He concluded his remarks by stating that because of these issues, they continued to be opposed to this project. ~.~ --=. ~NUTES OF ~tAY 28 II. A. C-172 - Change of Zoning (Citizen Response) - Cont'd At this point Chairlady Belanger directed Mr. Crowther's questions and any others which may arise, be addressed by Mr. Heiss after recess. RECESS: 9:10 - 9:25 p.m. · Joel Wight, 20603 Carniel Avenue, asked what could be expected in the way of procedure in the next few months. The Secretary explained that it had been indicated no action would be taken on the change of zoning request this evening in that a whole Commission was not available; consequently action could be taken at the next meeting of the Planning Commission relative to whether a recommendation should be fom,~arded to the City Council on the rezoning matter. He pointed out that~i0r to thiS, the Conmission had fon~arded to the City Council a recomhendati0n to accep~ 6he EIR '~n'this mat~er~ bUt~hat the Council had elected to{d~!ay scheduling a publi9 hearing on the EIR until a rec~m~,endation from the Commission on the change of zoning matter had been received. He explained that once this recommendation was submitted to the Council, public hearings would be scheduled at the Council level on the EIR, and the Council would either accept~ refer it back to the Conmission for modification. Once the EIR had been ~ccep~ed, ~ e~plained that t~e Counc{1 would then schedule public hearings and take action on the change of zoning application. He further pointed out that with regards to the Williamson Act question, the City Council would have to make a ~eterminatiOn on this prior to taking action on the rezoningmatter. The Secretary explained that if after consideration, the Council approved the change of zoning request, application must be made by the applicant for tentative subdivisionSmap approva~h~Z~ Y time the Commission would be amenable to receiving public input even'~'~ugh pUbli~ hea~ings were not required for tentative map approval. He stated that if tentative map approval was granted, the applicant had 18 months in which to meet the conditions of tentative approval and file for final map approval with the City Council. He noted that Design Review would be required as a condition of tentative map approval for reviewing such things as landscaping, trail plans, elevations, designs of houses, color schemes, etc., and that this would be re- quired prior to filing for final map approval. Upon obtaining final map approval the Secretary explained that the applicant would then be entitled to file for a building permit and begin construction. Mr. Wight a~ked how much physical development could be done prior to obtaining a building permit. The Secretary replied that the engineering analysis, such as soils compaction tests and test borings, would be allowed,Lbut any/sort of grading would not be allowed. · Joan Greene, 12350 Goleta Avenue, stated that she opposed this development because of traffic increase on Prospect Road and Highway 85, and because she did not want to see development take place in the hills. She asked what kind of guarantee there would be that the final map would be adhered to. The Sec- retary explained that prior to issuance of a building permit, all conditions of final map approval would have to be complied with. · Linda Stuckey, 22660 Prospect Road, asked what provisions had been made for archeological filings and for accidental tree removal. The Secretary ex- plained that the EIR stated that should any artifacts be discovered, there would be an automatic hold on the project's development. Relative to acci- dental tree removal, it was noted that either the applicant could be required to replace the missing tree or be required to pay a fine. It was noted that a fine of $500 could be levided for such a violation. · A gentleman residing at 20998 Comer Drive noted that Comer Drive was not yet a public street, pointing out that ~he City had not yet accepted the offer of dedication. He expressed concern that if the offer of dedication was not in ~-~F~u and thi~ p~uject-was-'approvedr--the ~ ........... ~--^- might be required to maintain this street. Mr. Dan Trinidad, Public Works Department, explained that there were some minor points to be clarified on this Before the City would accept the offer of dedication, But that it should be accepted shortly. He added, however, if there was concern on this, the C~f~f~ission could impose a condition of tentative site approval that develop- ment could not proceed until Comer Drive had been accepted as a public street by the City. MINUTES OF MAY 28, 197~"~ II. A. C-172 - Change of Zoning (Citizen Response) Cont'd · Mr. Zinga, 12423 Arroyo de Arguello, suggested that a moratoriummight be placed on this issue until resQlution of the fo~19!qing problems currently ~being experienced by;citizens in th6'A~0yo de Arguello area: (1) flood- ing difficulties downhill from the proposed site; (2) traffic problems on Arroyo de Arguello relative'to cars racing do~.m the street; and (3) problem of present inadequate law enforcement. He asked how considera- tion could be given to multiple residential developments without first -' alleviating the'difficulties the citizens of the area were currently experiencing. · Marilyn Norling, 21000 Comer Driv~ expressed concern that one of the pro- posed trails were proposed to end in the Comer Drive area. She pointed out that she presently dealt with many trespassing problems which could currently be addressed by the Sheriff's Department. She reasoned that if a public trail was allowed in this area, she would not be able to do any- ghing about law breakers, and asked how this area would be policed. Chairlady Belanger responded to this stating that the.placement of'ih'~' /trails was not fi~ly'~h'6~d'i~h'~'~l~,~'~d'~hat proper poli6e measures ~should be addressed by the Council'~iatiVe to this matter at the time' it -came before them. ·Mr. Heiss, in answer to the questions raised priorto recess, responded as follows: (1) Relative to soil creep, he stated that the developer's own soil engineers had determined isolated areas of soil creep on property which were relatively shallow and which they determined would be reparable. He pointed out that at the time of soil testings, deter- mination would be made as to how reparable the soil creep would be, and in the event of a negative determination, the building site "would have to be moved. (2) Relative to setbacks along the creek, Mr. Heiss explained that there would be a 50-foot easement along the creek as required by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, andaadded that the houses would be out- side the flood bank. He explained that the Water District stipulated a top-of-bank measurement of a 2:1 slope lnd added that one home was !proposed~be built on the creek side of the easement outside the ~f~'~f"b~~fr~'~he other 7 homes would be built on the_hillside_. _Yi~J~_t__h_~__ea~.emep~ .~1~ we!!_b~.gk from the top_. o~._b_an_k_ ....... -' (3) With regards to whether roof top elevations would be higher than ridge lines, ~. Heiss replied that tops of roofs would be below the ridge line of the property; but noted that there were many view- points of the ridge, and that the matter of which ridge line to measure would have to be considered. (4) With regards to homesites exceeding 40% slope, Mr. Heiss pointed out that according to their calculations, no hillsides would exceed 40% slope. He added that about 12 homes would be in the 35-40% slope range, and noted that a breakdown of all slope ranges would be pro- vided the City in the near future. (5) In addressing the runoff problem, Mr. Heiss stated that reasons for this runoff were addressed in the,EIR which prop~sed"~h'~s situation be mitigated by installing a pipeline to take the wa~ef shed out of the Arguello system; and additionally, he added that $45,000 would be set aside for utilization of any other downstream fun-off problems. · Guthrie Hollingshead, 20775 St. Joan Court, pointed out that the function of the Planning Commission was to plan, and asked what action'had been taken to investiga~j~he possibility of acquiring the Parker Ranch site as permanent open space. / -7- ~fINUTES OF ~AY 28 19Z~ II. A. C-172 - Change of Zoning (Citizen Response) - Cont'd Considerable dialogue followed on this, with Chairlady Belanger, Commis- sioner Woodward and Mr. Beyer, City ~nager, responding. Commissioner Woodward pJ~nted out that on two separate occasions/citizens had oppor- ~ tunity to assess recreational needs through Citizens Committee to study future needs in 1961-62 which resulted in ~"b'8~'d' issue and later forma- o ~tion of the Parks & Recreation Commission. This_Commi__s_s_io_nw_as_chargedo with the task of putting together a study on various areas in the Cit~ _-_~E_~onsid~ati0~.Pf_the a~q~is~.~OB. of.ppen .~Pa~. _S_he ~_ted{%hat_.moni.eS ~ from the General Fund had been used to acquire parks which were being paid for on a long-range plan. She suggested that if citizens of Saratoga fel~ strongly enough about acquiring Parker Ranch for open space, a bond issue' should be passed. Mr. Beyer added to this that most recently a reco~m~enda~ .~io~__ha~-b~en__mad~a_by__th~_Par~s_&_Recr~a~i~n_Commission _to the_City_Council /for a bond issue of $3 m~llion for acquisition of open space lands. It was / reco~m.ended that thepproper agency for Mr. Hollingshead to direct his suggestionsto was the Parks & Recreation Commission. CO~'~SSI~N ACTION Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public hearing on C-172 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously,.and the public hearing was closed on C-172 at 10:05 p.m. ~ It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that discussion on the Staff ~ Report and action by the Commission be continued to the June 11, 1975 meeting. ~ After brief discussion o~ whether the public hearing on C-172 should be con- ~ tinued with regards to input on the Staff Report, Commissioner Woodward moved, -. seconded by-Commissioner Zambetti, that the-public-hearing on C-172 be con- tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975 at which time the Commission would consider the preliminary Staff Report dated May 21, 1975. " The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Callon requested the Staff--R~port be modified as follows: (1) under Project Descriptions, include the fact that the~Commissi0~recommendation ~. to the City Council relative to the EIR made the determination 'th~t"the'p~op0sed project wo~ld'have a significant impact on the environment; and (2) the words= "intensive and extensive" be defined in more detail. B. GF-302 - Ordinance No. 60, An Ordinance Regulating the Design and Improvement of Single Lots, Parcels and Subdivisions of Land in the City of Sara- toga, and Superseding and Repealing Ordinance Series NS-5 Relating Thereto; Continued from~y 14~ 1975 (NOTE: This item was addressed after Item IV, Design Review.) Staff recommended this Ordinance be approved and transmitted to the City Council for adoption as soon as possible in order that the City would be able to comply with the California State Map Act requirements which mandated adherence to the amended provisions by ~'~rch 1, 1975. Chairlady Belanger reopened the public hearing on GF-302 at 11:07 p.m. CITIZEN RESPONSE · Russell Crowther, representative of the Arguello Homeowners Association, expressed concern that this revised Ordinance appeared to reduce!othe num- ber of steps necessary for subdivision approval. He pointed out that left remaining in the City for development was the hillside sites which would possibly have a much greater impact on the enviromment in terms of flooding and costs to'.~he citizens, "and we feel it is not the time to make things simpler." He stated that they would prefer to see the ordi- nance made tougher, and he submitted to the Commission a letter relative to this which was being distributed to homeowners in the City ~B~"~[~"' Arguello Homeo~mers Association soliciting support for a peti[ion against this Ordinance for the following reasons: (1) "grace" exceptions could -8- MINUTES OF ~tAY 28 II. B. GF-302 - Ordinance No. 60/(Citizen ResDonse) - Cont'd be made by the Planning Commission without final approval by the Council, thereby disallowing appeals by interested citizens; (2) encourages "ratch- eting" by giving the Land Development Committee authority to approve sub- divisions of 4 lots or less; and (3) gives full authority to Land Develop- ment Committee and Planning Commission to judge consistency with the General Plan and grant variances on access streets. He read the petition into the record which requested retention and expansion of the present subdivision ordinance in order to permit Saratoga citizens appeal of any planning Commission legislative decision, and further which requested that the numerator of.!t~e slope density equation be revised from one acre to 2.5 acres. He concluded his statements by stating that it was their understanding that "it is the intent of the California law that elected officials shall be accountable for legislative acts and therefore legis- lative acts should not be carried out by-i"_~dyi_~0ry bodies unless there could be an appeal to the elected officials'. We'would'conclude that based on this set of general criteria that this ordinance be held legally invalid." Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, responded to these statements by pointing out there were no legislative acts the Commission as an advisory agency, nor a committee as an advisory agency, performed;'further, that State Law provided the functions of the advisory agencies. He noted that, in response to other points brought up by Mr. Crowther, that this proposed ordinance did provide tentative map approval for less than 5 lots. He explained that the State Map Act now made it discretionary for a City_ to not require tentative map approval for less than 5 1 ts but that Saratoga had alway~f~'~'~iY~'d' tentative map approval for all lots. Mr. Johnston explained ~hat the'p~opSsed'ordin~[nce ~id contain an appeal procedure to the City Council by any interested citizen on matters of conformity with the General Plan and conformity with precise plans, and noted that the existing ordipance did not permit such an appeal. Relative ~to minimum access--street requirements, the City Attorney pointed out that 'th~Se'r~qd~rements were identical to those ~e_City had_~lWa~s had in its ordinance. He further contended that the proposed ordinance did not reduce the number of steps for subdivision approval, and that they were the same steps as those required in the present ordinance. Mr. Crowther pointed out that the existing ordinance had tables relative to street planning and tree plantings, which had not been part of the pro- posed ordinance. The Secretary stated that those tables were being amended somewhat to up-date the fee schedule portion thereof, and would be included in the ordinance. · Tom Sawyer, 20799 Norada Court, stated that he felt the proposed ordinance did not give a definition for consistency, and expressed concern that as long as an ambiguous definition' of consistency was'within the'ordi'~a~'e, ! ~an interested c~tizen may not be able to appeal many decisions'. Mr. ' ..... · johnSton cited the following definition of consistency from the State Map Act: '- "A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a General Plan or a specific plan only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed subdivision or landuse is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan." He added that this meant that it would be the City Council's perogative to define that any more specifically, and the City Council was in the process of doing so now. He stated that this would not only relate to the Subdivision ~p Act, but also to zoning consistency as well. Mr. Sawyer requested this matter be continued in order to allow interested citizens more time in which to review this proposed ordinance. It was pointe~ out that although it was not a requirement to have a public hear- ing on a subdivision ordinance change, the Commission had as a matter of courtesy held two such hearings; further, that the Commission was under strong urgency from the Council to review this brdinance as soon as -9- :;; ; }IIN~UTES OF ~[~Y 28 II. B. GF-302 - Ordinance No. 60 (Citizen Response) - Cont'd possible in that the effectuation date of the ordinance as stipulated by the Map Act was March 1, 1975. · Mr. Crowther pointed out that relative to this urgency statement, an attorney had informed them that the draft ordinance contained more infor- mation than was required. He suggested that just those amendments recom- mended by the State Map Act be recommended for adoption by the City Council in order to be consistent with the Map Act. He further asked if the judi- cial review period had been changed from 30 days to 180 days in the pro- posed ordinance. It was noted that the latest copy of the proposed ordi- nance contained this change. ~-CQ~iI~ StQN--RE-.SPONS-E-XND-AC~-ION---__ 'DiscUSsion folloWed'on fihe'abOV~ ~tatements, and the request that this matter be . continued'~~e was a division-of opinion on whether the ordinance had been ~ adequately reviewed for forwarding to the Council. Commissioners Belanger and y Callon were in favor of further study to determine whether subsequent changes :~ should be contemplated before forwarding the ordinance. Other Commissioners wished -..~..~to_j~ecommend approval of the ordinance to the Council, and recommended that a cover letter be fom~arded to ~he Council along with this ordinance requesting .the Council give consideration to specific areas of concern within the ordinance. .... ~_---~---~-i-?~ · Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambett~ that the Plan- ning Commission close the public hearing on GF-302. The motion was carried unanimousl~ and the public hearing was closed at 11:35 p..m. ':'~.,. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig~ that the Plan- ning Connnission accept Subdivision Ordinance No. 60 updated through ~y 28, 1975, and that this be fon~arded to the City Council for its consideration and adoption; further that a cover letter accompany this ordinance pointing out certain areas of concern by the Commission with recommendation that the Council address same in reviewing the ordinance. The motion was carried; Commissioners Belanger and Callon voted no. The Secretary requested the Commissioners submit ~ list of areas of concern /on this ordinance to h~m for drafting of the cover letter. It was the con- /Sensus of the Commission to review the letter at its Committee-of-the-Whole ~ [meeting on June 5, 1975, and to__t~ke action _the~qn at the regular planning 'Cbffm,xssxon meeting of ~une 11, J975. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1170 - Alexander M. August, Live Oak Lane, Building Site Approval i('~"~s (Expiration Extended to ~y 28, 1975); Continued from }My 14~ 1975 ~ff F[6[~ne'~d[d]~is item be continued pending submission by applicant of revised plans. It was noted that a letter extending this to the June 11, 1975 -~ Commission meeting had been received. Chairlady Belanger directed SDR-1170 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this ma't~r to Staff and the Subdivision Committee for further review and report. B. SDR-1174 - Thomas N. Foster, Horseshoe Drive, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots (Expiration Extended to May 28~ 1975); Continued from May 14~ 1975 Staff noted that the applicant was presently reviewing the possibility of ob- taining dedication of the proposed street right-of-way from the abutting property,~' that a'letter granting. an extension to the next meeting had been__ ,~received. C~'iri~_~elang~r directed SbR-1174 be continued to. th~'CSmmiSs{on > meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this matter to Staff and the Subdivisicn ~C0_.n!n_~t~e for further review and rep0r~. C. SDR-1175 - ~tt Voros, Mr. Eden Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expira- tion Extended to May 28, 1975); Continued from }~y 14, 1975 Staff noted that a Staff Report dated }~y 7, 1975 had been prepared for Commission review at the last Commission meeting which recommended approval. It was additionally noted that ~he Commission con tinued this matter pending ................... ~_u._rth~ ~ey!~w_.of qqnd!~iqn. (N) per~.aining to thg_Fire. P~St~.~ct. requirement.=' -10- ~[INUTES OF ~Y 28. III. C. SDR-1175 - Matt Voros - Cont'd of providing a 6" water main. Chairlady Belanger explained that upon review- ing this condition with the applicant, Staff, the Subdivision Committee and the Fire Marshall, the Committee determined that the condition was mandatory for development within the City of Saratoga, ~nd the ~y_7, ~75 Staff Report ~shou!d be app~oved. Commissioner Callon moved, secon'd~'d'by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning_' '~Connnission grant tentative b~ii'~i~'~'Yite approvar to aRplication~SDR-1175 per 'Exhibit A-l, and!subject t~ General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II~_/(A) 7t~'~'lU)"~'f'~h~S[~f~'Report dated ~y 7 1975. The motion was carried unanimously~ It was noted that if the applicant wished to appeal this decision, he could do so by submitting a written request of appeal to the City Council within 10 days of the decision's date. D. SDR-1176 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expiration Extended to May 28, 1975); Continued from ~y 14~ 1975 Staff recommended this matter be continued to the Commission meeting of June 25, 1975 pending review of alternate development and possible redesigna- tion by the Commission at the June 16th Committee-of-the-Whole meeting of this site. It was noted that a letter 0~ extension to the June 25th meeting had been receive~, and Chai~i~Hy'B~l~nger directed SDR-1176 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. E. SDR-1179 - John Colistra, Canyon View Drive, Building Site ~pproval - 1 Lot (Expires June 6~ 1975); Continued from May 14~ 1975 It was noted that the applicant had applied for a variance and that this item should be continued until action had been taken on same. Chairlady Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that application SDR-1179 be denied subject to receipt of written extension to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975 prior to June 6, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. F. SDR-1180 - Sylvia Jean, Aspesi Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 10~ 1975); Continued from May 14~ 1975 It was noted that/'the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter, and that~ f a S~f~' Report had been prepared recommending approval The applicant was present'and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report. Mrs. Marsha Citta, 13695.Quit~ Road, pointed out.that-she was an adjacept property owner, and that the Jeans' property had only a 15-foot wide access from Aspesi Drive. She stated that she knew that equipmen~ trucks had had -difficUlty negotiating this access, but noted that the Jeans had not'bee~. -given permission to use her property for such use. She further pointed out that grading had taken place on the Jeans' property recently, and asked if procedurally this could be done in that building site approval had not yet been granted. Mr. Trinidad explained that this was a lot of long-standing, and did indeed have a 15-foot wide corridor. He stated that the City felt that since the lot had legal access and was a pre-existing lot, building site approval was in order? He added that any trespassing problems should be resolved by the two parties in question. Mrs. Citta stated that she and other'neighbors were concerned with, in the event the Jeans' subdivided their property, how sufficient access would be provided. She explained that one neighbor, Mr. Dozier, had been required by the City to dedicate land for access, and she Was concerned that part of her property might have to be dedicated. Mr. Trinidad explained that if the Jeans' wished to subdivide their ~r__eopert~, th~X would~be subject to conditions simi- ~ lar to those imposed on Mr. Dozier .... He pointed put that relative to the Dozier's ~ offer of dedication, the City..had ~ot yet accepted this offer as a public right- -11- ~fI~rOTES OF }rAY 28, 19 III. F. SDR-1180 - Sylvia Jean - Cont'd At this point Ms. Jean, applicant, stated that she was aware of the conditions of a private road, and pointed out that she had no plans of subdividing her property in the near future. She contended that no equipment truck had crossed her neighbors' property, but added that she herself had on several occasions, and apologized for having not received permission first. Relative to the re- moval of soil,-Ms. Jean explained that the previous owner had moved a mound of top soil onto the property and after checking with the y s Building Depart- , Cit ' ment, she was told that a grading permit was not required to remov& a small quantity of dirt; further, that it was covered with weeds and considered to be weed abatement. Mr. Trinidad verified this statement adding that one could move up to 50 cubic yards of earth without having to obtain a grading permit. Commissioner.i~'~'i~n moved,_Seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission gran~ 'tentative building site approval to application SDR-1180 per Exhibit A and subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (A) through (M) of the Staff Report dated }~y 28, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. G. SDR-1181 - John Vinson, Live Oak Lane, Building Site Approval - 2 Lots (Expires June 14, 1975); Continued from May 14~ 1975 It was noted that~he Subdivision Co~,m~ittee h~d reviewed .thi. S application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant tentative building site approval to application SDR-1181 per Exhibit "A" and subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions Ii (A) through (O) of the Staff Report dated ~y 22, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. H. SDR-1182 - Bernard Tougas, Paramount Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 17~ 1975); Continued fromMay 14~ 1975 It was noted that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant tentative building site approval to application SDR-1182 per Exhibit "A" and subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (A) through (G) of the Staff Report dated May 22, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. I. SDR-1183 - Assurance Company, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Williams Avenue, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots (Expires June 18, 1975); Continued fromMay 14~ 1975 Staff noted that more'ttime was required in order to review this application, and recommended this matter be continued. Chairlady Belanger directed SDR-1183 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. J. SDR-i184 - Jerry Christensen, Cordwood Court, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 18~ 1975); Continued from May 14~ 1975 It was noted that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. The applicant was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report. Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission grant tentative building site approval to application SDR-1184 per Exhibit A and General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (A) through (O) of the Staff Report dated ~y 22, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. The files were hot complete on the following files, and Staff recommended same be continued: K. SDR-1185 - Charles Laughlin, Canyon View Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 18~ 1975); Continued from~y 14~ 1975 -12- MINUTES OFMAY 28 Ill. L. SDR-1186 - Richard Carlson, Pike Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 19~ 1975) M. SDR-1187 - Stekoll Development Corporation, Ten Acres Road, Building Site '~T-i---i--'~ Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 19~ 1975) N. SDR-1188 - Jack Drinkard, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 18~ 1975); Continued from May 14~ 1975 Chai~lady Belanger directed applications SDR-1185, SDR-1186, SDR-1187 and SDR-1188 be'=~ontinued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred these items to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-467 - Osterlund Enterprises, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review Approval, Tract ~5011~ Lot #11; Continued from }~y 14~ 1975 lit was noted that Staff was still working with the applicant on this matter, and that this,item should be _continUed, ~ Chairlady Belanger directed A-467 be con- tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. B. A-470 - Lyngso Garden ~terials, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from ~y 14~ 1975 It was noted that this matter should be acted upon concurrently with application SDR-1176, and consequently, should be continued to the second meeting in June. Chairlady Belanger directed A-470 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of June 25, 1975, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. C. A-471 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rpad, Final Design Review Approval, Lot A of SDR-1126; Continued from May 14~ 1975 Staff noted that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval be granted to the design of the house on Lot A, and of the landscaping, fence and pathway along the front of the subdivision adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. He added that the Design Review Committee and Staff felt this was consistent treatment of all elevations in the subdivisions, and recommended approval. .... gom~..~issioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, .that the Plani ~-.ing'con~nission grant final design review approval to application A-471, Lot A'of SDR-1126 per Exhibit A and E ' i _,~_a_na ~he Staff Report date . ' xh~b t X __.~ ~May 22, 1975, and approval ~_f_!and~caping, irrigation andZfencing per Exhibit .... Lj1 ~'[he'~taff Report dated ~y 22','i975. The motion was carried unanimously. D. A-474 - Michael Corm, Vaquero Court, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot; _- Continued from~y 14~ 1975 - 'Staff noted that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval be granted, adding that this item had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-474 per Exhibit A-1 and the Staff Report dated May 22,z 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. .... ~ ......... 77 . .- ..... E. A-476 - Eldon Hoffman~ Bank Mill Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot "'- It was noted that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval, and that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this item. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that final design review approval for application A-476 be granted per Exhibit A and the Staff Report dated May 22, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. ..... -. -13 - MINUTES OF MAY 28. IV. F. A-477 - Donald Perata~ Pierce Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot It was noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that final design review approval for application A-477 be granted per Exhibit A and the Staff Report dated May 22, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. G. A-478 - Jack Graham, Lutheria Way, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot o It was noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared reco~m,Lending approval. Brief discus- sion followed re~arding the compatibility of the design of this house with the remaining neighborhood, and Commissioner Belanger expressed disapproval of same in that she felt there were serious questions about the impact of this design in the neighborhood. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that final design review approval for application A-478 be granted per Exhibit A and the Staff Report dated May 22, 1975. The motion was carried; Commissioner Belanger voted no. H. SS-84 - Russell Reed, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval, Identification Sign; Continued from~y 14~ 1975 It was noted that a request for withdrawal had been received from the applicant on this item. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Conmission accept the request for withdrawal of application SS-84 without prejudice. The motion was carried unanimously. V. E~riRON~ENTAL IMPACT DETEP~INATIONS Staff'.noted there were no Negative Declarations filed between the period of May 12, 1975 abe_May 28, 1975..i vI. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR-1083 - Frank Schillace, Upper Hill Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Request for One-Year Extension; Continued from ~y 14~ 1975 It was noted that the Land Development Committee wished to further review this matter, and Staff recommended SDR-1083 be continued. Chairlady Belanger directed SDR-1083 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this matter to the Land Development Committee and Staff for further review and report. VII. CO~%~ICATIONS - WRITTEN The following written correspondence was introduced into the record: A. Letter dated May 20, 1975 from Faber Johnston, City Attorney,~to the PlanninB Commission in answer to Mr. Walter V. Hays~ letter relative to C-172~ cha~ge ~f zoning application on the Parker Ranch. qhairlady Bel~nger ~irected.staff forward'a copy of th{s le[te~ to ~r. Hays, and make this letter part of the C-172 file. B. Revised edition of Northwest Saratoga circulation ~ster Plan Study dated May 21, 1975 was referred to~the Planning Commission from the City Council with the request that the CommissiBn schedule a public hearing as part of the review on the General Plan Circulation Element, or schedule discussions of same for a Committee-of-the-I~aole meeting. Staff was requested to recom- mend a date for such discussions in the near future. C. Petition signed by 256 names opposing the change of zoning of the Fremont High School to R-I-20,000 PC. Staff was directed tomake this part of the C-178, Zone 1 fileL~ and the petition was referred to the General Plan Review Committee-of-the-Whole ~eeting of June 16,' 1975 for further review. -14- ~-~ ,_~ MINUTES OF ~l~Y 28, 19~ .... ..-.~. VII. CO~IIrNICATIONS - ORAL A. Commissioner Woodward requested Staff to notify The ...S_u_n_n__yval_e .Road that only the City-apprgved sign was permitted :to be us~d'f~'- the Ci.~y. B. Chairlady Belanger acknowledged the presence of Mr. Beyer, Mrs. Runyan of the American Association of"~e University of Women~' 'and Councilwoman Corr, and expressed appreciation to the Good Government Group for serving coffee. 'VIII. ADJOUR~r~W. NT Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission meeting of ~y 28; 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Respectfully submitted, ~'M'rty Van Duyn, S~ry skw -15-