HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-1975 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~[[SSION
MINUTES
TIME: Wednesday, October 22, 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Lustig, Martin and Woodward
Absent: Commissioners Marshall and Zambetti
B. ~NUTES
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the reading of
the!'Planning-.Commission meeting minutes of October 8, 1975 be waived, and that
they be app~6ved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried
unanimously.
II. FINAL BUILDING SITES/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-1166 - Wayne Leposa~ic~ Verde Vista Lane~ Final Building Site Approval - 2 Lots
Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission grant final building site approval to application SDR-1166, Wayne
Leposavic, Verde Vista Lane, for 2 lots. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. SD-1202 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, La Paloma at Saratoga
Avenues, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 24 Units; Conversion of
Existing Apartments to Condominium Units (Expiration Extended to
November 8~ 1975); C~ontinued from October 8~ 1975
Note was made that~l~ii~ht Of the fact that the City CoUncil had recently adopted
a moratorium ordina~C~ ~la't'iv~ ~0=~dominium"c0n~rsions, this matter should be
continued pending further review. Staff pointed out that a letter had been re-
ceived from the applicant granting an extension to the next Commission meeting.
Chairman Belanger directed that SD~t202 be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of November 12, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Commit-
tee and Staff for further review.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ordinance, an Ordinance of the
City of Saratoga Amending Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning Ordinance by Es-
tablishing a Hillside Conservation District Zoning Classification by
Addin8 Article 3-A Thereto; Continued from September 2~ 1975
Staff Presentation
Ms. Meg Monroe, planning consultant, gave a page-by-page explanation of the latest
revisions made to the proposed ordinance draft as outlined in the Modification
Sheet dated October 22, 1975. She explained that essentially the majority of
these revisions had been made for clarification purposes as well as to help
eliminate repetition between the draft ordinance and other existing City ordi-
nances. In conjunction with these modifications~ the CommiSsion~ suggested
that the following specific amendments also be m~e ~o the 10-22-75 draft:
(1) Page 2, paragraph (b)~ Permitted Uses. The addition of the word "and"
should be'inserted after the word "vegetables."
(2) Page 6, paragraph (d), Minimum Parcel Size. The first sentence should read:
"The following minimum standards for frontage, width and depth shall be
applicable to the HC-OS District." Also, delete the word "parcel" in the
table that follows this sentence.
~ ;~ MI~IITES OF OCTOBER 22 ~ 1975
III. A .... GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ordinance - Staff Presentation
(3) Page 7, paragraph (e)~ Building Height. The last word in the sentence should
be ~!.'plane" not "line."
(4) Page 7, paragraph (h)-~ Utilities and Access Routes. Chairman Belanger and
Conmissioner Lustig expressed concern in reference to prohibiting necessary
water or sewer lines through areas of geologic or soils hazards. Staff was
requested to eliminate the "negative" statement of this item, and to word
it so as to permit such services through this area provided safe methods
for their construction could be shown and there were no alternate routes
to bring them in.
In general, the following comments were made by the Commission and the City Attorney:
(1) Relative to the Site Development Plan section of the draft, questions were
raised as to the design review requirements of this section in comparison
with the requirements for design review on .page 8 of the ordinance. Chair-
man Belanger stated that she felt the Commi~Sion's intent had been that design
review was to be concurrent with the Site Development Plan when critical
features occurre~_._ It was explained that when it was determined that there
were critical natural'features involved, design revi~ approva~ was required
at the time of: the ~ite Hevelopment plan approval rather than later .on. in the
" regular process. Staff explained that Ordinance No. 60 required that a
site development plan was required for any lot over 10% slope, complete
with landscaping plans, elevations, colors and materials; further, that
Section 13.9 of Ordinance No. 60 specified that tentative map approval
could not be granted unless a site ~evelopment plan had been previously
approved. Because Section 13.9 of Ordinance No. 60 presently covered the
requirement for design review, Mr. Burt contended that the entire second
paragraph under Site Development Plan could be removed and not jeopardize
Cit '
the y s position.
(2) Page 4~ Geologic and Soils Investigation and Report. Commissioner Callon
questioned whether the applicant would be required to be~ the cost of an
"independent review" as well as a geological and soils report. Staff noted
that first of all, geologic studies and soils investigations were 2 separate
areas, and consequently 2 reports would be req'uired. Further, Staff noted
that the Subdivision Ordinance presently required a deposit for the City's
engineering geologist to review these geologic and soils plans prior to
obtaining a building_permit, and the applicant was required to bear the
cost of the City'geologi~'s review.
(3) The City Attorney contended that the development standards, such as the size
of the parcel and density requirements, involved in the draft did not belong
in the Zoning Ordinance, but rather belonged in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Brief discussion followed, and it was felt by the Commission that development
standards for the hillside could be established at this point in the draft,
and perhaps separated into the proper ordinance at a later date.
At this point, Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on GF-301 at 8:45
p.m. A letter from Caryl Groteguth, 18846 Ten Acres Road, was read into the
recor~ opposing the propose~ ordinance.
Citizen Response
(1) Vince Garrod, representative of the Greater Saratoga Property ~ners Asso-
ciation, offered for the Commission~s consideration information relative to
the Williamson Act lands included in this proposed hillside district. He
explained that a 10-year "rolling contract" °h~d'been execu~d'b'~n the
property owners and the City,~f Saratoga'~"w~reby for certain rights you
give us, we agree not to change the use of the property from its present
use." Mr. Garrod pointed out that of the 1,200 acres within the proposed
district, 178 acres were presently under Williamson Act contract. He ex-
plained that there was no particular reason for the property owners under
Williamson Act contract to develop their lands, but he expressed the con-
cern that they did not want to have their options for development taken
away by the proposed ordinance.
-2-
.._~N.U=TES OF OCTOBER 22, 1975
III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ord. - Citizen Response - Cont'd
(2) Heber Teerlink, member of the above-mentioned Association, asked the follow-
ing questions:
® What was the basis and factors involved in determining the 1200-acre area
designated as being the proposed Hillside Conservation and Open Space
Cit '
District. The Secretary explained that the area outlined as the y s
"hillside region" was taken directly from the latest-adopted General Plan.~
wh~ch--spec~f~ed-th-at-th~s-area-be-w~thin--a-s~ope-conservat~on-zone~ .... He
differentiated this particular area from other areas~ithin the City,
iS~h as Sobey Road, in that there were instances of landslide/slope
~ stability problems, fault traces, seismic safety problems, etc. which
.... ~ x~ere atypical of this area.
® Was an EIR necessary when there was a proposed change to a zoning ordinance?
The Secretary noted that an EIR had been filed in substantiation of the
General Plan document which was a further substantiation of this 1200-
acre area being designated as slope conservation. Further, he noted that
a negative declaration had been filed on the original draft ordinance.
He added, however, that it was anticipated that another declaration,
either one of a negative nature or one of which would require an EIR
analysis, would be done at the time of actually rezoning ~pecific areas.~
.~ThTS~Cretary contended that__~_h~d not been his intention to spend .qity
money to do a ~mpl~tl'~ironmental analysis of a report which might
ultimately get changed. He added that if the City had an ordinance that
was adopted by the City Council and ~pplied to a certain area, then an
EIR based on the effects of that action might be necessary.
· Mr. Teerlink invited the Commission and any interested members of the
public to take a tour of the 1200-acre hillside region. After brief
discussion, it was the Commission's consensus to take the tour, and a
date for same was to be scheduled ~D__c_0ordination with Staff.
· Mr. Teerlink introduced at this time a city/regional planning cons'ultant,
Mr. Herman D. Ruth (president of Herman D. Ruth & Associates), whom the
Greater Saratoga Property Ck.~aers Association had retained to review this
ordinance. He gave an extensive outline of Mr. Ruth~s credentials, sta~ing
that a more formalized brochure would be sUbmitte~ on Mr. Ruth at a
later date.
(3)~ Herman D. R~h'7~'pl~ning consultant, offered the following comments relative
to the 10-22-75 draft ordinance:
® Relative to the first section dealing with intent, Mr. Ruth stated:
"The purpose of government is not only to regulate and control, but it
is also to promote the general welfare and improve the health and safety
of the people." He suggested that this section be reworded to make it
more ppsitive, and offered the following paragraph (1) as a replacement
for the first paragraph in the section, as well as the following para-
graph (4) as a replacement for the fourth paragraph in the section:
(1) To bring zoning for this area in conformity with the General Plan
which provides that future development-should conform to the low
density residential character of the area, the slope density formula,
and conservation evaluation of development proposals.
(4) To provide for an orderly and harmonious development of the foot-
hills ~,~ich will result in minimum amount of disturbance of the
natural terrain through the relationship of design and engineering
skills, slope density, geological investigation of soils investi-
gation to insure health, safety and welfare of the conmunity.
~ ® Relative to the Site Development Plan section, (a) Mr. Ruth agreed with
the City Attorney~s contention that site development plan provisions
should not be in the zoning ordinance, but rather should be in the
subdivision ordinance. (b) Mr. Ruth contended that the requirement for
._ = .....site-development plans--had-th_e effect o~_making-.~y~ry~u."b~d~ision a use
-3-
..=~ ~IN. UTES OF OCTOBER 22~ 1975
III. A. GF-301 - Proposed HillAide Conservation District Ord. - Citizen Response - Cont'd
permit; i.e., "if you make every use subject to site devel6pment plan,
then it produces a situation where every site development plan is a
special situation, every property is a special situation." He stated
that he felt if the City wished to have this provision, it should be
in the subdivision ordinance and not in the zoning ordinance. (3) He
stated that if a geological report was required, he felt that it should
not be required in 2 separate instances, but rather one report should be
sufficient to cover both geological and soils investigations reports.
(d) He stated that he felt the term "critical and natural-features" as
referred to in connection with design review, should be defined in the__
draft. (e) Mr. Ruth asked whether the draft ordinance provided that a
property owner could subdivide his property, but not develop it; and ff
he could, what was the purpose of requiring a site development plan. The
Secretary noted that a property owner could subdivide but not develop his
.__p_r_opertl. p_er. th_e_. prop_os_e_d ordinance.;l and further,_ that the City'_s SUb_divi__-
sion Ordinance No. 60 required a site development plan on any development
.o.n_ any "lot in the City_ of'~aratoga. ~
Relative to the proposed slope density formula, Mr. Ruth stated that many
of the hillside property owners had concern that the number of lots they
could realize on their property might be dimenished with the application
of the slope density formula, and he requested Staff test the formula
on various-sized parcels to determine whether the ordinance was viable.
He explained that their concerns were that when this ordinance went into
effect, with .lslope density.f_o_r!n_Ul_a applied as well as other provisip.ns in
the ordinance which tended to limit the .productive density,_ that there
may be a decreased density. The Secretary pointed out that~the City had
had a slope density formula very similar to the one proposed in the draft
since 1969; further, thattthe proposed formula was very close to
rently used by Santa Clara County. Consequently, he pointed out tha'~' ~ormulas
very .close to th~ one p.roposed had indeed been tested_an_d were viable.
Cit '
Mr. Ruth took exception to the y s position relative to requiring an
EIR on this draft ordinance.-by stating that an EIR was definitely re-
quired. He pointed out that he felt there was an obligation on the part
of the City to prove the ordinanc_e_was viable, and the City's preparation
of an EIR would~'f~dUce this pr_.oof. j
Relative to paragraph (c), Setback~ on page 6 of the draft, Mr. Ruth
stated that he felt the 75-foot s~tback requirement for collector roads
was excessive, pointing out that if a 25-foot setback was adequate for
a collector street in the flatlands, it should be adequate in the hillside.
He suggested that along with the diagram provided in the draft for a
warped plane (paragraph f, Building Height), a definition of same should
also be provided.
Relative to-paragraph _(g.), COy_erage,' Mr. Ruth stated that he ~'
did not feei a 20% or 12,000 square foot coverage provision W~s"~'~e~a[e.
He suggested that 12,000 square feet should be a minimum requirement,
with a sliding scale for larger lots which would be relative to the den-
sity distribution on the size of the lots.
Mr. Ruth suggested dlarification of the ordinance be made relative to
the design review requirements; i.e., "I would suggest that perhaps
when a property is proposed for subdivision and the actual development
is deferred, that the design review would not be appropriate and it
might be deferred until such time as a building permit is sought."
Mr. Ruth requested the Commission give consideration to the fences and
walls restriction limiting such to 4,000 square feet. He suggested that
such a restriction might be regarded as inverse condemnation without
c-~n_pensation, and he suggested that this stipulation be tied in with
the coverage provisions in the ordinance. He stated: "I think the
area enclosed ought to be at least the area which is going to be covered.
-4-
..~. }~NUTES OF OCTOBER 22~ 1975
III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ord. - Citizen Response - Cont'd
"' if you hav~ a ho~se and a pool and whatever other facilit.~, and you are
permitted an impervious coverage of 12,000 square feet, I think you ough~
!~ to be able to enclose that much area on a particular lot and not limit it
to the 4,000 square feet.'.'
· Relative to the formulation on page 5 on Development Standards, Mr.
Ruth suggested that there be a definition included in the ordinance
on average slope.
· ~.M!r_...Ruth ~stated that after having surveyed the hillside region area, he
did not ~eel that it was of the character described in the General Plan,
particularly the agricultural preserve lands. He stated that this region
abhtted property which was being assembled by the Mid-Peninsula Regional
Park District, and he felt that the District's acquisition of the property
would~learly ~stinguish the "developable from the undevelopable, the
open ~om the suburban." He suggested that it might not be appropriate
to pla'~h'~hillside region as very low density when abutting areas were
basically being developed as one-acre lots.
(Note: Mr. Ruth was requested by the Commission to submit in writing the
above-mentioned comments.)
(4) Dick Wilkinson, planning consultant from the firm of Ruth, Going and Curtis
and representative of the Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association, submitted
a-~positi?on paper on behalf of the Association relative to what the Associa-
tion would like to see written as the City's Hillside Ordinance. He ex-
pressed appreciation of the progress made to date by the City in this ordi-
nance, specifically commenting on what they felt to be the major change
.-- from the first draft and the current draft; i.e., that the purpose and
:effect of this ordinance was that the land as it lies in its natural state
should be the determinate of h'ow it should be developed. X'd~itionally, Mr.~
Wilkinson related the follm~ing comments to the Commission on behalf of
the Association:
The Association felt that the slope density formula proposed in the
latest draft was a compromise that they would prefer not to see adopted.
He stated that the group felt that the City had lowered the density in
the proposed draft more than what they were comfortable with.
· The Group felt that the 75-foot setback requirement for arterial and
collector roads was excessive, and that it could negatively contribute
to such things as overly-long driveways or a tendency to force clustering
of units that might not otherwise take place.
· He stated that h~ felt that it was good to have a combination of
subdivision and zoning requirements in this draft ordinance in order
for the community to understand the full implications of the draft.
He added, however, that at the time the draft ordinance was put into
legal form, then the City's Subdivision Ordinance should include one
thing and the Zoning Ordinance include another.
The group did not feel it was necessary to require a use permit for
accessory buildings, swimming pools, normal fences and walls, etc. in
that it would be an excessive administrative burden to the City as well
as to the citizens. He submitted that it would be easier to spell such
things out on the .site development plan (which might necessitate an
amendment thereof) than to process a use permit.
The Association recommended that the "advisory board" should include
membership from some of the design professions.
The Association felt that the ordinance should include ~lear guidelines ~
and standards so that the advisory board would be instructed by the ordi-
nance instead of being given "pure delegation of authority to change the
ordinance." Additionally, the Association felt that the ordinance "should
be understandable, that we should be able to read and understand what it
means in all par~gr,.aphs."
-5-
.- ~NUTES OF OCTOBER 22~ 1975
III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ord. - Citizen Response - Conrad
· Mr. Wilkinson stated that relative to the reqU'{~'~n~[~'in the proposed
ordinance that a site development plan be keyed to a subdivision map,
t~e felt that the details of siting the building, landscaping, elevations,
etc. should be required later in the process and prior to final approval
r~ther than at the beginning of the application process.
(Note: Mr. Wilkinson was requested by the Commission to submit in writing the
above-mentioned corf~f~ents.)
(5) Russ Cr~ther, representative of the Arguello Homeowners Association, made
the following comments:
· He stated that they felt the proposed ordinanceShad not imple~ent~d..the
Open Space Element in the General Plan, specifically in that they did not
find anything in the ordinance which actually preserved o~en space aspects.
He added: "We don't really regard open space between houses in a resi-
dential development as open space." He added that they also agreed that what
the Mid-Peninsula~Regional ~ark District was doing with the lands adjacent
to this hillside re~ion Should be considered with regard to open space.
/ Chairman Belanger asked Mr. Crowther whether he had any positive sugges-
-° tions for preserving open space, inasmuch as he had opposed the City's
earlier proposals for requiring it in hillside areas. Mr. Crowther indi-
°' cated that the City could either buy some of the land for open space pur-
poses, or severely restrict density based on the natural characteristics of
the land. ~p .regard to the latter point, Mr. Crowther indicated that
hazardous areas should not be developed.
· He stated that they felt the section relative to 'geology was too general
and did not specifically identify key considerations. He drew the
Comission's attention to a recently published map entitled "Relative
Geologic Safety Map" on Santa Clara County's areas of high geologic risk,
and noted that this map reflected some of the Saratoga's hillside region
as being some of the highest risk areas in the County. Additionally,
Mr. Crowther recommended thatzthe City obtain a copy of "Special Report
~107 of the California Division of Mines and Geology" for the purpose of
further identifying fault lines in the area.
· Mr. Crowther stated that he did not feel that the draft ordinance imple-
mented the General Plan as far as including therein development criteria
and standards which control development depending on various factors,
such as the,~%~bility of roads, the impact on flooding, fire hazards,
geology, etc.=. He stated that they felt the Willjams and Mocine approach
during the General Plan process of formulating a flow chart (which re-
flected factors that control density depending upon the specific charac-
teristics of the site) should be included in the draft ordinance.
· Relative to density, he stated that they felt the minimum 2.5 acre zoning
used by the County should also be .th.~_~D~_~ !e_quirement for saratoga.
~ He stated that they felt the effects of hillside development on the people
downstream in the valley should also be considered, such as would the
City~s creeks have to be concrete-lined, or how would the City treat the
increased run-off caused by driveways and roofs.
Park: (a) the cost' 0~' la~ds'lides in the '~ay Area in the year 1972-73;
(b) detailed report on Contra Costa County which considered such thin~
as'wheth~ there had been a geologic report submitted and what its impacts
had been; and (c) detailed report on Alameda County which computed the cost
per acre of damaging landslides from land that had been developed in the.
kinds of soils similar to Saratoga~s hillside region. He recommended the
City Secure copies of these 3 reports for its review of this draft ordinance.~
RelatiXp to the County's app!~o_~ch to density as above mentioned,_ the
Secretary made the following comments: The Secretary {h~IE'ated that~it
~'~ the rule rather than the exception for the'county ~o allow develOp-
ment of properties less than.~..5 acres. He explained that theoretically
-6-
· i MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22~ 1975_ _
III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ord. - Citizen Response - Cont'd
the County ordinance did not allow development of property less than 2.5-
acres_,_. .b__u_t__.t_h~a__t._in_p_r_a_c_~i_c_e,.. they had been allowing de~elopmer~t_oLproper..ty.
i' adjacent to Saratoga of less than 2.5 acres, which had sewer and'~ater
services and often on sites without such services. He based this obser-
~ vation on the fact that the Ci.ty's Planning Staff had reviewed all proposed
developments in the City's urban service area and sphere of influence as
for~¢arded to them by the County, and that the majority of-the applications
reviewed thus far had .indeed been less than 2.5 acres in_ .s~.z_:_e_~. .....
e Mr. Cro~tHer submitted handouts on the County's Seismic Safety Piah',
and requested that strong constraints similar to those within the Plan
Cit '
be implemented in either the y s Subdivision Ordinance or Zoning
Ordinance.
· Similar to wording found in the County ordinances, Mr. Crowther sug-
gested that a statement b'.e added to the proposed draft that stipulated
development on or adjacent to knDwn potentially hazardous areas would
be discouraged.
® Mr. Crowther recommended that a clear definition of the total map area
(page 5 of draft) should be included in the draft, suggesting that the
!~o_rding be changed to state total map area rather than total area.
· M~.. Crowther reqqested relative to paragraph (b), Slope, on page
that the first sentence read as follows: "No structure shall be built
on a local slope which exceeds forty percent (40%) measured over a
10-fo0t Contou'r"interval. ~' ~_H_is _reas?_ning _f_o_r_ t_his. request. was th.a.t .at
present the way it could be interpreted would be that one could inte-
grate under the entire structure to get the average slope under the
structure, and that ~:;ould determine whether the 40% condition had been
met or not. Additionally, measuring local slope over a given contour
interval would be a much simpler process than measuring average slope.
Relative to the second sentence in the same paragraph on Slope, Mr.
Crowther stated that he personally felt this should be stricken from
the draft. He explained that if an applicant was to take out all lands
which had slopes in excess of 40% and then determine the average slope
on what remained, the allowed density would increase.
· Relative to the last paragraph of (a), Density, under Development
Standards, Mr. Crowther also felt that this should be stricken from
the draft.
· Regarding Minimum Access Roads and Driveways (section g, page 7), Mr.
Crowther stated that the Fire Marshall did not allo~ driveways over 187:
in slope because he donsidered them to be unsafe. He suggested that
the City check this requirement with the Fire Chief.
· Relative to the design review provision, he stated that they agreed that
this stipulation should not be required. He added: "We think if we had
a lower density, perhaps we would not require such an extensive effort."
Commission Action
Chairman Belanger announced that there would be a Commission Cornmittee-of-the-Whole
meeting on Tuesday, October 28, 1975 to further review the proposed draft ordinance.
She closed the public hearing on GF-301 at 11:07 p.m., and continued same to the
regular Planning Commission meeting o.f November 12, 1975.
-7-
}Yi~X~UTES OF OCTOBER 22~ 1975
~ 4°
III. B. UP-288 - American Indian Council of Santa Clara County, Inc. (Mr. George Woodward,
President), Intersection of Prospect and Stelling Roads, R~quest for
Use Permit to Allow a Temporary Use of a 13-Acre Portion of the Fremon~
Union High School District Land for a Bicentennial Indian Encampment
from April 24, 1976 to May 7, 1976 (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.3a);
Continued from October 8~ 1975
Note was made that responses from all of the various agencies had not as yet been
received, and consequently, Staff reconmaended this matter be continued. Chairman
Belanger directed UP-288 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
November 12, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and
Staff for further review and report.
C. V-438 - Jerald L. Bittner, Apricot Hill, Request for a Variance from Zoning
Ordinance NS-3, Sections 3.7 and 3.7-1(~) to Allow a Reduction in the
Required Side and Rear Yard Setbacks for Fencing in Excess of 6-Feet
in Height
Note was made that subsequent to a site inspection by Staff and the Variance
Committee, the applicant had prepared revised plans which now conformed with all
applicable setback r~qUirementsxeth'h'~by'~[i~i~'ating the need for a variance.
Additional note was made that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting
this matter be withdrawn.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission accept the written request of withdrawal of application V-438. The
motion was carried unanimously.
D. UP-289 - Jerald L. Bittner, Apricot Hill, Request for Use Permit to Allow a Tennis
Court Fence in Excess of 6 Feet in Height to Extend into ~ Required Rear
Yard (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1)
Staff noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Chairman Belanger
op~ned the public hearing on UP-289 at 11:15 p.m.
Mr. Don Smith, landscape architect and representative of the applicant, requested
that approval from the City on UP-289 be granted at this time; adding, although,
that they had just recently been informed that approval by the subdivision's
architectural site control committee (per the CC&Rs) was required prior to
building said fence.
Harvey Nail, 14032 Apricot Hill, submitted a copy of the subdivision's CC&Rs,
and pointed out the stipulations requiring approval of such a fence by said
architectural site control committee. He indicated that some of the members of
this dommittee had indicated an unwillingness to grant such approval, and
he objected to the Commission's granting approval of UP-289 until such time as
the applicant had received approval from this architectural site control committee.
Discussion followed on this, and the City Attorney noted that the City had no
p~er to enforce a subdivision's CC&Rs, and consequently, whether the architectural
site control committee permitted or prohibited this particular use had no bearing
Cit '
on the y s action. "-
Paul McMullen, representative of Thomas O'Rourke (14045 Apricot Hill), stated
that it appeared that at one end of the proposed court, the 10-foot high fence wo~ld
be built on tqp of 5 feet of fill, and he added ~hat Mr. O~Rourke objected to this.
Commissioner Martin pointeH out'that the Variance Committee haa reviewed this
on site in reference to V-438, He noted that it had appeared that a considera-
ble amount of~'~ding woul'd have to be done, and he asked what the amount of cut
and fill ther~ wSu%d"be.' fir. Smith explained that the cut would be about 7~ feet
at one end of the court, and on the other end of the court, there would be
approximately 5 feet of fill. Commissioner Martin expressed a desire that
....... grading plans for this.project be reviewed. -. ....
At this time~Chairman Belanger~.c~o~ed _the_public hearing on UP-~89 at 11:30 p.m.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that"~Y-28~"be continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 1975 subject to additional review
by the Subdivision Committee and Staff.
-8-
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22 ~ 1975
III. E. V-437 - Wilbur Drake, Saratoga Vista Court, Request for a Variance to All~ a
Reduction in the Required Front Yard Setback from 25 feet to 15 feet
(Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7)
Note was made that plan~ had been submitted by the applicant which now complied
with all applicable City ordinances thereby eliminating the need for a variance.
Additional note was r~ade that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting
V-437 be withdrawn.
Commissioner~ Martin ~oved, seconded by Commissioner callon, that the Planning
Commission accept the written request of withdrawal of application V-437. The
motion was carried unanimously.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Com-
mission grant final design review approval to the following applications per:their
respective exhibits and Staff Reports:
A. A-462 - Dividend Industries, Christie Drive, Final Design Review Approval - 12
Lots (Tract #5462~ Lots ~15 through ~26)
C. A-509 - Mate Voros~ Mt. Eden Road~ Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
D. SS-79 - Montalvo Theater, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Final Design Review Approval -
Sign for Yuletide Festival
The motion was carried unanimously.
B. A-483 - James Skinner, Pierce Road, Final Design Revi~ Approva-1 - 1 Lot; Con-
tinued 'from October 8~ 1975
Note was made that this application was still in the prqcess of being reviewed,
and the Staff recommended this matter be continued. Chairman Belanger directed
that A-483 be con tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 1975,
and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further
review and report.
V. WRITTEN CO~RINICATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Reports - There were no Negative Declarations filed.
B. Other - The following items of written correspondence were introduced into the
record:
1. Memorandum dated October 7, 1975 from Barbara Sampson, Secretary of the Parks
&'-'fRecreation Commission, relative to UP-288. Staff was directed to make this
a part of the file on UP-288.
2. Letter dated October 14, 1975 from Ludwig Kulinski, 4343 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Santa Clara, reversing his original position of opposing the
Saratoga Creekside Apartments' application for a condominium conversion
(SD-1202). Staff was directed to make this part of the file on SD-1202.
3. Letter dated October 6, 1975 from Walter H. Blaseck describing conditions
relative to the Common Green Area of George Day Construction Company's
Tract #5150. Also, letter dated October 15, 1975 from Mrs. Diana Apgar,
19659 Kenosha Court, requesting action be taken to maintain the common area
walnut trees in the George Day Construction Company's Tract~'=~5150.
Discussion followed on this matter, and note was made that Staff was investi-
gating the landscaping requirements of this tract, and that the City was
holding up releasing the improvementsbonds until it had been determined that
all conditions of the !a~dscape._agreement had been met. ~
=..j..~=~.. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22~ 1975
VI. ORAL COM~fONICATIONS
A. City Council Report
The Secretary gave a detailed report of the City Council meeting of October 21,
1975, referencing special interest to the following items: (1) adoption of
Ordinance 61 relative to a moratorium on condomin~um conversions; (2) adoption
of resolution providing for a subscription rate for mailing out City Couhcil and
Planning Commission agendas and minutes; (3) consideration and continuance of the
non-conforming use ordinance; (4) termination of legal action pending on the Mar-
golis property; and (5) action to terminate proceedings with Dr. Abrams on the
library site negotiations. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file
t'
at the Ci y s Administration office.
B. Other - None
VII. ADiOURNMENT
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Com-
mission meeting of October 22, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,//' /' ~
~rt~ Van Duyn, Se /
/
-10 -