HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-1975 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO}~5SSION
~riNUTES
TIME: Wednesday, August 13, 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL GALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Lustig, Marshall, Woodward and Zambetti
Absent: Commissioner ~rtin
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the reading
of the minutes of the July 21, 1975 Special Public Hearing meeting be waived,
and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the fol-
lowing corrections: (1) page 3, Item C: add "as a collector street" after
"designation of Canyon View Drive" in Commissioner'B~langer's motion; and
(2) page 4, Item E, point (2) in first paragraph: add "Plan" to "amend the
General Plan." The motion was carried unanimously; Commissioner Callon was
not present at time of vote.
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the reading
of the minutes of the July 23, 1975 Planning Commission meeting be waived, and
that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following
corrections: (1) page 4, second paragraph, first sentence: change word "cabaria"
to "accessory structure;" and (2) page 9, Item VI-B: SDR-1176 was continued to
the meeting of August 27, 1975, not August 13, 1975. The motion was carried;
Commissioner Callon abstained.
C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Commissioner Lustig gave an oral presentation of the City Council meeting of
August 6, 1975. There was brief dialogue among the Commissioners relative to
the Council's recent adoption of an interim ordinance concerning~d~%Ypment ~
sites with a slope in excess of 10%. Note was made~by the Secretary that public
hearinglon The proposed Hillside Conservat~pn Distr-~ct Zoning Ordinance had been
noticed'and scheduled for'Planning Commission review on August 27, 1975. Further
note-was made that a joint meeting between the Commission and City Council had
been held on Tuesday, August 12, 1975 to discuss this proposed Ordinance. A
copy of the City Council minutes of August 6, 1975 is on file at the City's
Administration office.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-179 - Albert Hanson, 13761 Dolphin Drive, Change of Zoning Request from
"R-I-20,000" (Single-Family Residential, Low Density) to "R-1-12,500"
(Single-Family Residential, Medium Density) the Parcel Designated as
Parcel 65 of Book 391 at Page 37 Located on the Northwest Corner of
Allendale and Dolphin Drive (Ordinance NS-3, Article 18); Continued
from July 23, 1975
Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing on C-179 at 7:49 p.m.Z NQ~e ~ ~
!made that S~aff had recently submitted a concept to the Subdivision Committee a~d
"the'applicant whereby C-179 be deferred pending investigation of Allendale Avenue
area relative to the General Plan Review process~ This was indicated specifically
~.~o involve.rezoning.matters C-178, Zones 14, 15 a~d ~6.
Mr. Hanson, applicant, was present and gave a brief chronological history of the ~
events on this rezoning request. He contended that the study of the Allendale
Avenue area would take much longer than one month, and oDjected to the further
delay of C-179; further, he requested the Commission give consideration to a
-1-
'~NUTES OF-AUGUST 13
II. A. C-179 - Albert Hanson - Cont'd
R-1-20,000/R-i-10,000 zoning_'a~f~t on this parcel. Note was made that a map had ~
been submitted by the applicant reflecting this prop6sed split and establishing
new property lines which would comply with the minimum setback requirements of
the respective zones.
After some discussion of this request, it was the consensus of the Planning
Commission to :continue this matter to the Commission meeting of September 10,
1975. Chairman Marshall expressed an opinion that this parcel was;~-~key ~
lot in a problem area, and he felt it would be reasonable to resolve Mr. Hans'o~'s
problems along with other problems pertinent to the Allendale Avenue area. The
Commission expressed a desire to investigate the entire area prior to acting on
C-179. Chairman ~rshall closed the public hearing on C-179, and directed this
matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1975.
B. C-180 - Charles P. Guichard, Wardell Road, Change of Zoning Request from
"R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential, Very Low Density) to "A"
(Agriculture) the Parcel Designated as Parcel 31 of Book 503 at Page 17
f6r::purposes of Allowing Said Property to Come Under Williamson Act
Contract (Ordinance NS-3, Article 18)
Staff noted that per correspondence received on C-180, Staff would like this matter
continued in order to allow further investigation of this matter. Mr. Steve Pecsar,
20880 Wa~de~l Road, asked what the minimum land size was for Williamson Act prop-
erties. Chairman }~rshall explained that City policy was to consider 20-acre
minimum parcels of land for Williamson Act contracts, but that it could possibly
be less if the parcel abutted other Williamson Act land, thereby creating a cOn-
tiguous expansion thereof. Chairman ~rshall directed C-180 be continued to 'the
Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1975, and referred this matter to the
Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
C. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery Company, Prospect Road, Request for Use Permit
to Allow ~qo (2) Fertilizer Injection Systems each Housed in a Temporary
Shed on a Portion of Leased State of California Property (West Valley
Freeway Right-of-Way) Located South of Prospect Avenue between }~rillo
Court and Sara~len Drive; Continued from July 23~ 1975
Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing on UP-239 at 8:15 p.m. Staff
pointed out that the present proceedings on this matter had started ~nen the
applicant began construction of the fertilizer system on this site without
obtaining prop~ ~ermi~s from the City; i.e., an~amended use permit. He noted
that this matter' had-b~en reviewed:~n~Sjte b~ the Subdivision Committee, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval subject to conditions
which addressed complaints received from adjacent property owners.
Chairman }~rshall introduced into the record a letter dated July 23, 1975 from
Mr. Patrick Wolford, 12243 Goleta, to the applicant objecting to certain trans-
actions taking place on the site. Mr. Wolford was present and ~rated on ~he
points addressed in his letter as follows: (1) He did not feel that the location
of the deciduous trees on.t_h_e, perimeter of the site 20-feet from the residential
property was sufficient in that the trees had been placed within 5-10 feet of
each other. (2) He contended that the location of the storage shed and ferti-
lizer system had been misrepresented on the plans submitted by the applicant.
(3) He stated that he did not feel that the Staff Report r~quirement of oil
screening every three months would sufficiently mitigate the dust problem
caused by cars and trucks using the road. He comp!ained that the nursery had
not been cooperating with the neighboring property owners and urged that "thei~
lease should be reviewed and rejection should be thought about."
Mr. Mike McNair, a resident on Goleta Avenue, asked questions relative to the
history of events of this matter, and Chairman Marshall briefly explained the
sequence of events on UP-239 to him.
Mr. Bob Swartz, a resident of this area, stated that he was not opposed to the
nursery-use itself, but he did express concern that the applicant had not come
into the City for permits to all~ for the extended use of the sitel
-2-
MINUTES OF AUGUST ~ 1975
II. C. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery - Cont'd
In response, the following was discussed:
(1) Relative to the placement of the deciduous trees, Mr. Stockard,~ the applicant~s
representative, pointed out that they had been operating on tie site ~or ~
year~, and that they had done "a lot in d~fi'~"~th"the'~ei~hbo~L""'H~""~
explained that several swimming pools had been installed during this time,-
and that the nursery had removed trees in order to provide access for thes'e
- neighbors. He contended that any further removal of trees along the peri-'
phery of the ~ursery would mean complete restructuring of the nursery.
(2) Regarding the location of the fertilizer system, it was noted that Staff
viewed this side of the property as ~a Side yard. Staff pointed out that ~
the fertilizer system building measured 13-feet from the sidey_a~_d prQp~X'
line,. and donsequently met the minimum sideyard setback r~quire~ep~s.__of the City.
(3) Regarding the oil screening of the lot to mitigate dust problems in the
area, ~t was t~ consensus of the Commission to m6dify Staff Report
condition %[) as follows:
(h) All vehicular access roads are to be protectively oil screened
not less than four times per year at intervals of-not less thaR...
once every two months during the dry season commencing in May of
each year.
(4) The Commission addressed the problem of noise, and.a consensus was made.. ~
to modify Staff Report Condition (c) and add Condit{0n (j) as follows:
(c) Fertilizer injection system is to be operated only during normal
daytime business hours, 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
(j) Use of heavy equipment and operations other than watering is not
permitted on Saturdays or Sundays. Watering operations on
Saturdays and Sundays shall not begin before 9:00 a.m.
(5) Mr. Stockard stated that he thought that the nursery___had been in_c_omDliance
~ with the City regarding use of this site. He ~__xplaine~ to the CommisSion
tit '
the licensed agreement entered into by the nursery and the y s Community
Services Department for the additional t0 acres of land used by the nursery,
and stated that he had understood this agreement covered any additional use
' of the property. Staff pointed out that the original use permit had not
provided for construction of new structures, and consequently~ a revised ~
use p~{~'h'~d"'~'~'n~e'~. ..... ~
(6) The point was made thatluse~permit approval by:the 'Commission began upon
granting the approval and continued until the use was altered. H~ever,
it was pointed out further that !if any terms of the use permit conditions
were found to be violated, the Clty could initiate proceedings to reverse
the permit insomuch as the granting of a use permit was considered to be
a 'priVileged isituation.
At this point Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig,
that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on UP-239. The motion
was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:48 p.m.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan-
ning Commission approve application UP-239 per Exhibits "A," "B," "C" and "D"
and subject to the Staff Report dated August 7, 1975, as amended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was carried unanimously.
D. UP-279 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue, Request for Use Permit to Allow a Multiple
Family Residential Development (a Senior Citizens Housing Project) to
be Constructed at a Site Located on Cox Avenue (Ord. NS-3, Sect. 6.3)
Staff recommended this matter, along with application V-430, be continued to the
Commission meeting of August 27, 1975 in order to provide additional time in
which to review these applications. This recommendation was acceptable to the
-3-
/ ~fi~UTES OF"'AUGUST 6 1975
II. D. UP-279 - Allen DeGranMe - Cont'd
applicant, and Chairman ~rshall directed UP-279 and V-430 be continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1975, and referred these matters to
the Subdivision Committee and Variance Committee, respectively, for further
review and report.
E. UP-281 - Thomas N. Foster, Horseshoe Drive, Request for a Use Permit to Allow a
10-Ft. High Tennis Court Fence to be Located at 14552 Horseshoe Drive
(Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1)
Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on UP-281 at 8:58 p.m. The.Secretary
pointed out that this matter had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. It was explained
that the tennis court had been in existence since 1920; and that as a result of
application SDR-1174, the applicant was required to obtain a use permit to allow
for a tennis court fence in excess of 6 feethigh. Staff noted that the fence and
court---yxT_eY~ar~l~ %~a~ Sn the applicant' s lanH' '~h'd"pa~'i~II~"~i~h'i~ la~ds -'
to be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District; further, that the
Water District had consented in written form to allowing the continued use of
this tennis court.
Mr. Bruce McClellan, the applicant's representative, was present, and requested
that Condition (1) relative to tenni~ court lighting be omitted from the Staff
Report, even though no tennis court lighting was contemplated in the future.
Chairman ~rshall explained that it was the Commission's policy to never approve
tennis court fence use permits without this "no lighting" stipulation.
Commissioner Belanger recommended the Staff Report be modified to include the
following Condition (2):
(2) Opaque fence lining is prghibited.
~At this~point, Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti,
"that the publf~'~earing on UP-281 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the public h~aring was closed at 9:04 p.m.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission approve application UP-28t per Exhibit "A," and subject to the condi-
tions of the Staff Report dated August 7, 1975, as amended by the Commission.
The motion was carried unanimously.
F. V-429 - CRI Properties, Saratoga-Sunnyvale and Willisms, Request for a Variance
to Allow a 20-Ft. Rearyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 35-Ft. Set-
back and to Allow an Increase in the ~ximum Allowable Building Site
Coverage from 20% to 25% for Lot "C" (Ord. NS-3.31); Cont'd from July 23,1975
The Secretary pointed out that Staff had not received landscaping plans as re-
quested by the Variance and Design Review Committees on this application as yet,
and recommended this application, as well as Design Revim¢ application A-488, be
continued. Chairman ~rshall directed V-429 and A-488 be continued to the
Planning Conmission meeting of August 27, 1975, and referred this matter to the
Variance Committee and Design Review Committee for further review and report.
G. V-430 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue, Request for Variance to All~ 2!-Ft. and
25-Ft. Rearyard Setbacks and to All~ 10-Ft. Sideyard Setbacks for
Structures to be Constructed on a Parcel of Land Located on Cox Avenue
(Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7)
See Item II-D.
H. V-431 - Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Curry Court, Request for a Variance to
Allow the Extension of Overhead Facilities Existing at 12431 Curry Court
(Ordinance NS-3~ Article 22~ Section 22.1)
I. V-432 - Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Brockton Lane, Request for a Variance
to Allow the Extension of Overhead Facilities Existing at 19467 Brockton
Lane (Ordinance NS-3~ ArtiCle 22~ Section 22.1)
-4-
MINUTES OF AUGUST 1975
II. H & I V-431 and V-432 - PG&E - Cont'd
The Secretary pointed out that a letter dated August 6, 1975 had been received
from PG&E withdrawing applications V-431 and V-432, and Staff reco~m~ended this
request for withdrawal be accepted by the Commission.
Frank Albert, 12431 Curry Court, indicated that his house was one of the hDmes
for which a variance was being requested by PG&E, and he asked how this situa-
tion would now be handled. Staff explained that PG&E wires presently crossed
over the backyards of the property owners referenced in V-431 and V-432, and
consequently prohibited installation of swimming pools underneath said wires.
Staff noted that the original PG&E plans stipulated installation of small drop
poles within the existing public utility easements at the rears of the properties
involved, rather than the utilization of overhead wires, but that these poles had
never been installed. As a result, and per the above-referenced letter, PG&E
was now attempting to correct this situation without violation of City ordinances
and without the use of variances. Note was made that the City would be working
in conjunction with PG&E on this matter.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Cormnission accept the letter dated August 6, 1975 from PG&E requesting withdrawal
of applications V-431 and V-432. The motion was carried unanimously.
J. V-433 - Chaiho Kim, Sunset Drive, Request for Variance to Allow a 10-Ft. Front-
yard Setback in Lieu of the Required 30-Ft. Setback for Residence to
be Located on Sunset Drive ~Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7)
Note was made that the Variance Committee and Staff had met with the applicant
on site to review this matter, and had discovered that there were other alterna-
tives the applicant could pursue in developing his property without necessitating
a variance. Consequently, per the Committee's suggestion, the applicant had
submitted a letter dated August 8, 1975 requesting application V-433 be withdrawn.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission accept the letter dated August 8, 1975 from the applicant requesting
withdrawal of application V-433. The motion was carried unanimously.
III. BUILDING SITES/SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-1164 - Frank Shepherd, Douglass Lane, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots;
(Expiration Extended to August 13~ 1975); Continued from July 95 1975
Staff noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
Questions were raised relative to maintenance of the common green area of these
sites, the proposed pathway and on whether a site development plan should have
been submitted insomuch as theseSlots ~ere zoned "PC." Staff explained that
a general site development plan had been submitted, as required by Ordinance,
when this matter was rezonedt~"a~d was consequentry not ~equired at time of
tentative building site approval. Note was made, however, that a precise site
development plan would be required at the time of Design Review. Relative to
the first two points raised, the City Attorney proposed an amended Condition (u)
of the Staff Report as follows:
(u) Provide for common green area along Douglass Lane as shown on said
maps, with standard provisions for installation of landscaping and
permanent irrigation system, landscape maintenance agreement and/or
maintenance through homeowners association and/or CC&Rs, all as part
of subdividi~nTs improvements, all to be set forth on specific site
development plan to be submitted and approved at time of Design ReviewS.-'
and prior to Final Approval. Pathway to be provided along c~mf~on
green strip unless modified or w~ived at Design Review.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant ~entative building site approval to application SDR-1164 per
Exhibit A-1 filed July 21, 1975, and subject to the conditions, General and
Specific, of the Staff Report dated August 8, 1975, with Condition (u) as ame~d[d.
The motion was carried unanimously.
-5-
MINUTES OF AUGUST 1975
III. B. SDR-1194 - ~.C. LaGuisa, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - 2 Lots (Expires
August 13, 1975); Continued from July 23, 1975
Staff noted that a letter had been received from the applicant dated August 12,
1975 requesting that application SDR-1194 be withdrawn.
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission accept the letter from the applicant dated August 12~ 1975"requesting'
application SDR-1194 be withdrawn. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. SDR-1196 - Geneva Quickerr, Quickerr Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
(Expiration Extended to August 13~ 1975); Continued from July 23, 1975
Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further review, but note was
made that a letter granti~g_~n extension had not been received as~requested ~y
Staff. CommissionerL_Belange~ moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, t~at the
Planning Commission deny application SDR-1196 subject to receipt of a written
~f~i~ ~'~h'~'Land Development Committee meeting of August 21, 1975. The
"~otfon°wa~ carried unanimously.
~ Not~e"~s made that the files on the following applications were not complete, and
Staff recommended these matters be continued:
D. SDR-1198 - Stonesone Development Corporation, Stoneridge Drive, Building Site
Approval - 1 Lot (Expires August 28, 1975)
E. SDR-1200 - Beverly Pinkerton, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires September 9~ 1975)
F. SDR-1201 - Clifford Dennee, Paul Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires
September 17~ 1975)
Chairman Marshall directed applications SDR-1198, SDR-1200 and SDR-1201 be continued
to the Land Development Committee meeting of August 21, 1975, and referred this matter
to Staff and the Land Development Committee ~or further review and report.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-467 - Osterlund Enterprises, Inc., Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review
Approval - 1 Lot (Tract ~5011~ Lot ~9)
Staff noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee,
and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commendations
'~n the design were given by both Commissioner Woodward and Commissioner Lustig.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
C'~iss~on grant f~l'd~ign review approval to application A-467, Lot ~9 of
Tract ~5011, per Exhibit "C" and the Staff Report dated August 5, 1975. The
~ motion was carried unanimously.
B. A-472 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporati~p,_DouglaSs Lane, Final Design
'Ray i~-'A~-p~v~r~ 'r L~f'( T~a"d'f~#5'583~ 'LS~'~ · --~
Staff noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. l
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-472, Lot ~4 of
Tract #5583 per Exhibit "F" and the Staff Report dated AuguSt 6, 1975. The
· -motion was carried unanimously.
C. A-480 - Osterlund Enterprises, Inc., Radoyka Drive, Final Design Review Approval
13 Lots (Tract ~5631)
Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. __.T~.~_a_R~licant's repre-
sentative, Mr. Tersini, noted that the homes were specBIati~n_..L_houses, and that
the intent of the developer was to sale the homes as shown. He further noted
that there was no intention on the developer's part to have a model homes sales
office on this development.
-6-
~NUTES OF AUGUST~1975
IV. C. A-480 - Osterlund Enterprises~ Inc. - Cont'd
C~f~nissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Conmissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-480, 13 Lots of
Tract ~5631 per Exhibits "D," "E" and "F-1 through "F-13," and per the Staff
Report dated August 5, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
D. A-483 - James Skinner, Pierce Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued from July 23~ 1975
Staff noted that revised plans, as requested by Staff, had not yet been submitted,
and the recommendation was made that this matter be continued. Chairman ~rshall
directed A-483 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1975,
and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further
review and report.
E. A-484 - Thomas Fryer, Saratoga Hills Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 lot;
Continued from July 23~ 1975
Staff noted that the Variance Committee and the Design Review Committee had/made
on-site inspections of this site; and that at a recent meeting bem,Teen t~e_.applicant
and the Design Review Committee, it had been resolved that a variance would not
be required. Staff°recommended this matter be continued pending review of n~
alternative designs for this site. Chairman Marshall directed A-484 be continued
.~t~o_t~he__Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1975, and referred this matter
~to .~he Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report.
F. A-488 - CRI Properties, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. and Willjams, Final Design
Review Approval - 3 Lots~ Continued from July 23~ 1975
See Item II-F.
G. A-493 - Dale and Beverly Pinkerton, Pierce Road, Final Design Revi ~¢ Approval -
1 Lot
Staff noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. The point was made
that tentative building site approval had not yet been granted, but that Design
Review Approval could be granted by the Commission subject to approval of the
tentative map. The following Condition (5) was added to the Staff Report as
follows:
(5) Subject to approval of tentative building site application SDR-1200.
Conmissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval per Exhibit "A" and subject to
the Staff Report dated August 5, 1975, as amended. The motion was carried
unanimously.
H. A-494 - Joseph Shuster~ Mr. Eden Court~ Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
Staff noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee,
and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Chairman
Marshall recommended to Staff that if an applicant indicated a desirable loca-
tion for a future tennis court during the Design Review process, that Staff
should dialogue with the applicant with regards to whether the location would
be acceptable with the City.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-494 per Exhibit "A
and subject to the a~~ Staff Report dated August 13, 1975. The motion was
carried unanimously.
I. A-495 - Frank Schillace~ Upper Hill Drive, Final DesiMn Review Approval - 1 Lot
Staff noted ~h~'~his matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee,
and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Before proceed-
ing with this application, the Commission indicated a desire to address the
request by Mr. and Mrs.~S~'l~'~ to gra~t an extension to tentative building site
application, SDR-1083.
-7-
MINUTES OF AUGUST 1975
IV. I. A-495 - Frank Schillace - Cont'd
Relative to SDR-1083, Staff noted that a revised Staff Report dated August 8, 1975
had been prepared on this application, with.primary ch~ges '~d~'f~i~Yive to the
~revis~d'~h'~Bi~ submitted. Insomuch as a forme~ request for extension had been
denied by the Planning Commission in July of this year,~.?~di~ion (~was...added~
to the Staff Report. as follows:
(D) One-year extension be granted to ~y 27, 1976.
Conmissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant approval of tentative map application SDR-1083 and Exhibit "A-2"
filed July 18, 1975~subject to the conditions, General and Specific, of the
/~'~d~'d'~f~ R~por~ dated August 8, 1975; and with the additional provision
that said 'tentative building site approval shall expire on May 27, 1976. The
motion was carried unanimously.
Relative to A-495, Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti,
that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application
A-495 per Exhibit A and the Staff Report dated August 5, 1975. The motion was
carried unanimously.
J. A-496 - Donald Ne~nan~ Off Garrod Road~ ~inal Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
Staff noted that the Design Review Committe~had reviewed this matter, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
Conmissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-496 per Exhibit A
and the Staff Report dated August 5, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
K. A-497 - Melvin Stout~ E1 quito Way~ Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-497 per Exhibit A
and the Staff Report dated August 8, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
L. A-498 - Fred Marbur~ Sarahills Drive~ Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Staff pointed out that
complete landscaping plans had been submitted to provide privacy for the owners
as well as adequate screening of the exposed decking posts. Commissioner Lustig
warmly. commended the architect for the design plans on this matter. as ~_.n.~ ~'.
an excellent example. j
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-498 per Exhibits
"A" "B" and "C "and subject to the Staff Report dated August 8, 1975. The
motion was carried unanimously.
M. SS-89 - Safeway Stores, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review
Approval - Master Sign for Argonaut Shoppin~ Center
Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval subject to conditions.
Some concern was expressed by the Commission relative to the possible glare of
the illuminated sign=at night, and Condition (1) as follows was added to the
Staff Report:
(1) Intensity of light is to be reviewed by Planning Department Staff to
determine if there is any annoying glare.
Commissioner Woodward moved, s~conded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application SS-89 per Exhibits
"A," "B" and "C," and subject to the Staff Report dated August 8, 1975, as amended.
The motion was carried unanimously.
~NUTES OF AUGUST 1975
IV. N. SS-90 - Safeway Stores,-~nc., Saratoga~Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Revi~
Approval - Identification Sign for Safeway Store
Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and that a
Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Staff pointed out that the
total area of letters was in compliance with City Ordinances. Concern was ex-
pressed, however, by some of Commissioners that the size of the letters did not
meet City standards; further, that the use of the word "insignia" in the Staff
Report was misleading as to what type of sign this actually was. Commissioner
Belanger recommended that Condition (3) of the Staff Report be amended by
deleting the third and fourth sentences,-~th regards to the use of the term
"insignia."
Relative to the size of theT. letters being larger than City Ordinances all~ed,
the City Attorney referenced Sections 17.2 (Powers of City Planning Commission),
17.4 (Public Hearing--Notice and Procedure) and Section 17.6(b) (Action of City
Planning Cpmmission) as~g'i~ing ~'~h'BYffy to ~h~Commission to grantTautomatic
.~'~ariances with respect to signs. The following C6nditibn (4) was adde~ to the
"Staff R~p~t bX the Co~nission relative to this matterj
(4) An automatic variance is hereby granted under the provisions of Section
17.2~and 17.6 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 relative to the height of the
letters of the sign based upon the finding that the proposed sign is
consistent~with the public welfare and is a !~l~e~
G on the present Safeway Store building.
Commissioner Zambetti rec~f~f, ended a time limit be impose~ on the ~plicant with
regards to how long the sign should remain illuminated. ~Mr. Ono, the _~pplicap~-!s
representative, exiled that it was general policy to turn off the signs
approximately one~h6ur after closing time. A{___~_precaution, however, the
.__~'f~II~'~{~g Condition (5) was added! to the Staff Repo~ relative to this matter:
(5)-'~h'[ sign Shall generally be illuminated only during business hours.
Commissioner Belanger.~r'~ss~d a desire that signs on other businesses within__
.... thY'Argonaut Shopping Center be coordinated with each other in terms of design
standards. Mr. ~rburg, the architect representing Argonaut Shopping Center,
agreed and indicated a willingness to dialogue with Staff and the individual shop
owners with regard to unifying the signs within the shop~i__ng__c~pter. Note was
-~,however, that if not_changed, the signs would remain in.compliance with the
r~ori~i~i'per~i~ ~"th~ City, and that the City-could not force unifcation of these
At?this time, Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti,
that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application
SS-90 per Exhibit "A," and subject to the Staff Report dated August 6, 1975,
'and subject to'modification of Condition (3), and the addition of Conditions
~(4)'and (5). ~he motion was carried unanimously.
O. SS-91 - Congregation Beth David Synagogue, Prospect and Scully, Final Design
Review Approval - Identification Sign for Synagogue
Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and that a
Staff Report had bee n prepared recommending approval. Note was made that the
total height of the sign was 7 feet.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Con~nissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application SS-91 per
Exhibits "A" and "B" and subject to the Staff Report dated August 6, 1975. The
motion was carried unanimously.
P. SS-92 - Ad-Way Signs, Inc., Christie Avenue, Final Design Review Approval -
~o Temporary Off-Tract Directional Signs for Tract #5462
Staff noted that the application had been amended to one temporary off-tract____
direction~l sign. Further note was made that the Design Review Committee had re-
viewed this matter, and that a Staff'Report had been prepared r'~0~ding
approval for one temporary off-tract directional sign. The following Condition (3)
was ..added to the Staff Report by the Commission:
-9-
~. SS-92 - Ad-Way SiSn~'~lnc. - Cont'd
(3) This approval is valid for one-year from date of approval unless prior to
expiration the applicant applies for an =additional extension.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application SS-92 per Exhibit A
and subject to the Staff Report dated August 7, 1975, as amended. The motion ~s
carried unanimously.
V. M~SCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1083 - Frank Schillace, Upper Hill Drive, Building Site Approval - Request
for One-Year Extension
See Item IV-I.
VI. ENVIRO~IENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
The following Negative Declaration was filed between the period of'JU~y 23, 1975 and
A 9 7 5:
A. C-180 - Charles Guichard, Wardell Road, Change of Zoning Request from "R-i-40,000"
to "A"
VII. CO~RINICATIONS ~ WRITTEN
The following w~itten correspondence were introduced into the record:
A. Letter dated July 17, 1975 from Stephen W. Keller, West Valley College, regardi
ing tennis court lighting at the College. After brief discussion of this letter,
.- Staff was directed to respond to Mr. Keller's letter by inquiring x~hat the
College intended to do about providing shielding for these lights.
B. Letter dated July 28, 1975 from Robert van der Toorren regarding applications
for variances. After brief discussion, Staff was directed to correct the
variance applications by deleting the phrase "not less thann' from.the sentence:
"'.. as o~ning property '~%ih'in a distance of "not less than" 500 feet..."
C. Letter dated August 10, 1975 from Roger and Alice Humbert, 15555 Glen Una
Drive, objecting to variance application V-433. Staff was directed to make
this part of the V-433 file.
D. Letter dated August 12, 1975 from~rcelle Venator, 21120 Wardell Road, inform-
ing the Commission that the land Mr. Guichard (C-180) was requesting a change
of zoning on was in litigation with the Venators and Pecsars relative to
boundaries. Staff was directed to make this letter a part of file C-180.
E.Capital Improvement Program for 1975-76 through 1977-78 was scheduled to be
revi~¢ed by the Commission at the Commission meeting of August 27, 1975.
F. Memorandum to the Commission from Staff suggesting changing the format of
Planning Commission agendas. The recommendations made in the memorandum
relative to this were acceptable to the Commission.
VII. COM}ftFNICATIONS - ORAL
A. Chairman Marshall reassigned the Variance Committee membership as follows:
Conmissioner Callon will be a full-time member of the Committee, with
Conmissioner Lustig acting as alternate.
B. Staff noted that a Committee-of-the-I~ole meeting had been scheduled for
Thursday, September 4, 1975 to review the Northwest Saratoga Circulation Study.-
This meeting date was acceptable to the Commission.
VIII. ADJOURnmeNT
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward,that the Planning
Commission meeting of August 13, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
R s ectfully submitted,
M ,