HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~[ISSION
MINUTES
TIME: 7:30 p.m. - Wednesday, January 14, 1976
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present:Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Lustig, Marshall, Martin, Woodward
and Zambetti
Absent: None
B. ~NUTES
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the reading
of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 10, 1975 be waived, and
that they be approved subject to the following corrections: (1)..page 3, 4th
paragraph, third line: substitute the words "would consequently result in" with
"would have;" page 5, correct misspelling of word "approximated" in paragraph
3, line 3. The motion was carried; Commissioner Lustig abstained.
II. [ FINAL BL~LDING SITES/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS
~. SDR~l152 - Maurice L. Martin~ quito Road~ Final Buildins Site Approval - 1 Lot ~
~Staff noted that all conditions of tentative building site approval had been met,
and recon~nend~d ~inaf building site approval be granted. Commissioner Belanger
\ moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant final
building site approval to application SDR-1152. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. SD-1211 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga Avenue, Tentative
Subdivision Approval - 13l_Lots (Expiration Extended to January 14, 1976);
Continued from December 10~ 1975
The Secretary noted that a letter dated January 7, 1976 had been received from
the applicant requesting this matter be withdrawn. :Per the consensus of the
Planning Commission, Chairman Marshall directed that proceedings on application
SD-1211 be terminated.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. UP-293 - Ronald J. Mackay, 12167 Terrence Avenue, Request for Use Permit to
Allow an Accessory Structure in Excess of 6 Feet in Height to be Erected
within the Required Rearyard Setback (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1);
Continued from December 10~ 1975
Introduced into the record were the following letters of correspondence regarding
this matter: (a) Letter dated January 12, 1976 from Charles and Diana Hamilton,
19723 Somerville Court, supporting the request for use permit; and (b) letter
dated January 13, 1976 from Mrs. Cecilia Andris, 12155 Terrence Avenue, supporting
the request for use permit.
Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing on UP-293 at 7:40 p.m.
Mr. Tom Stephens, 12164 Scully Avenue, explained that he lived directly behind
the applicant's~site and.urged the Commission to deny ~he.application. Mr. Steph~ns
stated that he f~l[ ~[°e'h~ight'~f the pool cover was higher than indicated by
the applicant, and was closer to the rearyard property line than was indicated.
He objected to granting this use permit application because it was a nuisance,
not only in its appearance but also because of the noise factor.~
~INUTES OF JANUARY 14 1976
III. A. UP-293 - Ronald J. Mackay - Cont'd
As there were no further comments, Chairman ~rshall closed the public hearing
on UP-293 at 7:45 p.m., directed this matter be continued to the-Planning Commission
meeting of January 28, 1976, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and
Staff for further review and report.
B. V-440 - Virgil H. Voss, Sobey Road, Request for Variance to Allow a 4-Foot Set-
back from the Street Right-of-Way in Lieu of the Required 30-Foot Set-
back for the Purpose of Erecting a Horse Corral (Ordinance NS-3,
Section 2.2f); Continued from December 10~ 1975
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-440 at 7:46 p.m.
Introduced into the record were the following pieces of correspondence:
(1). Letter dated November 28, 1975 from Charles Inman, 15040 Sobey Road, opposing
the application for safety reasons.
(2) Letter dated November 26, 1975 from Frank Small, 15020 Sobey Road, request-
ing this variance be denied and that the City Code be enforced.
(3) Letter dated January 13, 1975 from Mr. and Mrs. S.N. Aparicio, 14897 Sobey
Road, supporting the application for variance.
(4) Letter dated January 9, 1975 from Elizabeth Ghest, 14900 Sobey Road,
supporting the granting of this application.
(5) Letter and petition containing 10 signatures of residents located on
Sobey Road supporting this variance application; attached thereto a copy
of a letter dated January 9, 1976 from Edward J. Kelley, 14949 Sobey Road,
supporting said variance.
Note was made that the Variance Committee had reviewed this on-site, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending denial of this application.
Dr. Virgil Voss, applicant, responded to the 5 variance criteria referenced in
the Staff Report dated December 8, 1975 point by point:
· Relative to the first requirement for variance, he drew the Commission's
attention to the letters and petition from surrounding neighbors indicating
support of this variance request, adding: "You have a letter signed by those
affected denying any practical or other difficulty from ~e horse facility
in its present location, including the owners of the new house under con-
struction across the street, which is referred to several times in the
Report. The purpose of the ordinance, according to the Staff Report, is
to protect residential properties from noise, illumination, unsiteliness,
odor, dust, smoke, vibration, etc. and other objectionable influences.
There is unanimous accord that this purpose would not be violated by the
horse facility in its present location."
He pointed out that a garden currently existed in the area proposed as an
alternative location for the corral and stable, and contended that there
was really no practical alternative location on the property for this garden.
Additionally, Dr. Voss pointed out that they are considering the eventual
construction of a swimming pool, and pointed out that the most logical
place for a pool would be the 40x80 square foot area suggested in the
Staff Report as an alternative location for the horse facilities. He drew
attention to the preliminary engineering report on this site which listed
3 alternative locations for a swimming pool outside of the initial 40x80
area proposed, and he noted that all 3 locations for a pool "would be
extremely poor because of the small size and untenable distortion of
traffic patterns about the residence." Further, he contended that there
would be "considerable distortion of the landscape necessary, including
removal of well-established trees, to build a pool in this alternative
site. So again it would seem that an alternative pool location would
present considerable practical difficulties."
· Relative to the second requirement for a variance, Dr. ~oss noted that the
property had a good deal of slope which limited its potential; further,
that the horse facility was located in a unique location in that the nearest
-2-
}~NUTES OF JANUARY 14~ 76
III. B. V-440 - Virgil H. Voss - Cont'd
point that~.a residence could be constructed to the horse facility was the
new house under construction across the street. He pointed out that the
o~,mers of this property across the street had signed the petition earlier
referenced.
· Relative to the third requirement for a variance, Dr. Voss stated that they
felt denial of this variance request would deprive them of privileges en-
joyed by other neighboring property owners; i.e., many neighbors currently
had horses, pools?.and-ga~dens.
· To the fourth requirement for a variance, Dr. Voss stated that he did not
understand how keeping a horse could be regarded as a special privilege
in this context, adding: "Be assured that were it possible in our circum-
stance we would also meet S~tbaC~'re~Ui~'eme~ts."
Lastly, relative to the public health, safety and welfare requirement for
a variance, Dr. Voss pointed out that all of the neighbors across the
street had unanimously agreed that the variance would in no way intrude
on their rights.
Citizen Response
· Rod Jennings, 14955 Sobey Road, stated that they felt the variance request
should be granted. He added: "He (Dr. Voss) is a good neighbor, and we
would like to see him enjoy the same privileges as the rest of us do on
the street."
· Gerald Jacobson, 14960 Sobey Road, stated that they had no objections to
the variance, and in fact approved of it. He stated that he had lived next
to the Voss~ for 8 years, and pointed out that they had been very good
neighbors. He added: "I say this because of how they take care of their
animals and take care of their things. Their animals have been no problem
to us as far as smell and odor goes."
· Ed Kelley, 14949 Sobey Road, explained that he lived across the street at
the same level as the Voss' corral, and he noted that he could view the
horse facility and the entire Sobey Road valley from his house. He
recommended that a variance be granted "on the basis of the fact that the
location Dr. Voss chose for that corral is much more aesthetically pleasing
than having another structure on the horizon as the Committee recommends.
The fact is that you are recommending the structure be located in such a
position that it will satisfy the codes with disregard to one of the major
concerns in that area -- which is the pastoral setting of the entire
neighborhood. Therefore, another structure popping up on the horizon
would be much more offensive to me as a neighbor than having it in the
location~.~ere it is now."
Commission Response
· Commissioner Martin noted that the Variance Committee had inspected this
on site, and that it had been their general consensus that there was an
alternative location for the horse facility which would comply with City
ordinances. He stated that they felt for those people driving along Sobey
Road that a horse facility one-foot from the Road could cause unpleasant odors.
· Commissioner Callon pointed out that she as a member of the Variance Committee
had not agreed with the other members of the Committee that there was a
better location for the horse facility. She indicated agreement w~ h
Mr. Kelley that possibly the best location on the property for the horse
facility was where it was presently located, adding "but I think there would
be a problem as to what happens to the street along there. I would not like
to be in the position to grant this in perpetuity. If we could grant it for
one year and hear it again at the end of the year,'that is the course I would
-3-
~NUTES OF JANUARY 14, 1976
III. B. V-440 - Virgil H. Voss - Cont'd
like to pursue." Commissioner Callon stated that if there were a number of
corrals within this area which did not meet ordinance specifications, then
she felt the ordinance might not be practical for the area. She added: "I
believe ~hat if a zoning ordinance is consistently violated, then it is time
to look at changing the ordinance."
· Conmissioner Woodward noted that she had visited the property on her own,
and stated that she agreed with Commissioner Martin~s opinion that there
was another location for the horse facility. She explained that there
was sufficient space on'Lthe property to locate the horse facility, a swim-
ming pool and a slightly redesigned garden, and she stated that she could
not vote in favor of this variance because of this reason. Additionally she
disagreed with Conmissioner Cal!p_n'~.0~nion regarding the invalidity of
~enforcing an ordinance which Commissioner Callon felt might not be practical
~ for this area. Commissioner Woodward pointed o~t that Dr. Voss had been a
~ resident for~0 year~ in th?i~tion, ~d'in"~'."'JUst because 't~ere is o~e
~7 ....i-~f~a~-f~-~-~he---ord~c~ does not mean that we'sh~uld ov~10ok'~he'~ame~
~ infraction somewhere else when it is called to our attention." She explained
that the horse facility had been built in August of 1975, and that it had
-. been called to the City's attention by a citizen complaint.
· Commissioner Belanger stated that she felt landuse_proviSions were ~uilt'
not on whether or not the man who owned the land was~ajhiceSg~y,'~but on
whether or not he was using his land in the way the City ha~d thought to
regulate that land. She stated that it had been asserted that the City
was trying to deprive this neighborhood of its equestrian character and
use of horses, adding: "I don't think that the Report in any way talks
of getting rid of the privilege of having a horse on this property. It
talks about moving the location of the horse and its facility. The fact
that there are neighbors who have 3 uses (garden, pool and horse) on their
property does not in my view support the idea that there should be a
variance for the location of this stable." She objected to the precedence
setting implications of allowing this variance, and she added that she did
not agree with the timed variance concept because "we could allow someone
to expend a large amount of money to build a stable in the wrong place for
a year, and then if we didn't like it ask him to move it."
· Commissioner Zambetti stated that this was a strict violation of the Code,
and as such, he moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the public
hearing on V-440 be closed. The motion was carried; Commissioner Callon
voted no. The public hearing on V-440 was closed at 8:30 p.m.
After additional discussion, Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner
Woodward, that the Planning Commission deny application V-440 per the Staff Report
dated December 8, 1975. The motion was carried; Commissioner Callon voted no;
Commissioner Lustig abstained.
Chairman Marshall advised Dr. Voss that he was entitled to appeal this decision
to the City Council within 10 days of Commission action.
C. V-441 - David S. Wilson, Saratoga Avenue, Request for Variance to Allow a Free-
Standing Sign to be Located at 14370 Saratoga Avenue, (Ordinance NS-3,
Section 10.2n); Continued from December 10, 1975
Chairman Marshall opened th~__publ~c h~__ri~ onj~-4A1 at _8j41_3_.m .... ~a__f.~._n_~_e_~
'that this matter had been continued pendingjRplication for design review (SST100)~
in conjunction with this matter,. and the reco_m~__~pd__a~iqg.~as made that these items
be heard concurrently. Staff explained that there were several'h~r~h'{~.
tions identified with the site, as well as practical difficulties relative to
building location and design. Note was made that the Variance Committee and the
Design Review Committee had reviewed this on-site, and that Staff Reports had been
prepared on V-44!..and SS-100 reco_mmending approval.
Mr. Wilson, applicant, was present and stated that he felt the application for
variance met all of the 5 variance requirements. There were no further comments.
-4-
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 ~ 19 76
III. C. V-441 - David Wilson - Cont'd
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the pub lic
hearing on V-441 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public
hearing was closed at 8:42 p.m.
The Chairmans of the Variance and Design Review Committees reported on 'their
committee~ on-site inspections, both concurring with the findings and conclusions
of the respective Staff Reports.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that application
V-441 be approved subject to the Staff Report dated January 8, 1976 and
per Exhibits "A" and "B-3," and subject to approval of application SS-100.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Pl__an-
ning Commission grant fi~ design review'approval per Exhibit~"'X'~ and "B-3."
and '~~f~~t dated' january ~,' 1976, and subject to approval o~ a~plica-
tion V~Z~41'. "The motion was carried unanimously.
D. V-442 - Anthony Musolino, Ten Acres Way, Request for Variance to Allow a 20-Foot
Rearyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 25-Foot Setback for a Principal
Structure (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7)
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-442 at 8:46 p.m. Staff noted
that in reviewing ~.request for a rearyard setback variance for a pool equipment
enclosure, it had been discovered that an illegal addition was constructed by
the applicant joining his non-conforming garage and house and thereby creating
a setback violation for the house itself. It was explained that the house itself
adjoins the Santa Clara Valley Water District reservoir. Staff pointed out that
the Variance Committee had inspected this on-site, and that a Staff Report had
been prepared recon~nending approval subject to the~appl~cant_~btaining a building
permit for said addition. The Commission's attention was drawn to the specific
findings of the Staff Report as the basis for granting approval of said variance.
The applicant, Mr. Musolino, was present and indicated concurrence with said
Staff Report. Also present was the prospective buyerTof the property, Dave
McLaughlin, who'~k'~i~g~d~acceptance of the Staff Report.
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public
hearing on V-442 be~closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public
hearing was closed on V-442 at 8:58 p.m.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Coff~f~ission grant approval of application V-442 per Exhibit "A" and subject to
the Staff Report dated January 12, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously.
E. V-443 - Edward Thompson, 20811Norada Court, Request for Variance to Allow a
5-Foot Sideyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 10-Foot Setback for a
Swimming Pool (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.2f)
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-443 at 9:00 p.m. Staff noted
that the Variance Cormnittee had reviewed this on-site, and that a Staff Report
had been prepared ~ecommending approval. The applicant, Mr. Thompson, was present
and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report.
There was concern expressed by some members of the Commission regarding the reason
why this lot had only recently been declared buildable as referenced in the Staff
Report, and the consensus of the Commission was to review the background inform-.
mation relative to this lot in order to determine its status. Although Staff
explained that the lot had been legally recorded, they indicated that additional
review of the background information would be made.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded~· Commissioner Martin, that the public
hearing on V-443 be cl0~ed. The m6~ion was carried unanimously, and the public
_~_ hearing was closed at 9:11 p.m.
~rUTES OF JANUARY 14~ 1976
III. E. V-443 - Edward Thompson - Cont'd
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission grant approval of application V-443 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff
Report dated January 12, 1976~'a'5'd"~'db~ect to th?S~'~f~'?~'~iying the histo~ 6f
the lot to determine its star'uS. "'T~e motion'was carried; Chairman ~rshall and
Commissioner Zambetti ~ted no.
RECESs: 9:15 - 9:30 p.m.
IV. DESIGN REVI~
A. A-511 - Boyd In~le~ Ten Acres Road~ Final Design Review-Approval ~ 1 Lot
.~taff noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this application, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. After brief discus-
sion, it was the Commission's consensus to modify the Staff Report as follows:
·Third paragraph under "Property Description" substitute word/"slumps~ne" ._
with the words "red brick."
· Concluding Comment ~3 was deleted inasmuch as this was a condition of tentative
building site approval.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-511 per Exhibit
"A-I" and the Staff Report dated January 8, 1976, as amended. The motion was
carried unanimously'.
B. A-512 - Frank Daviar~ Pierce Road~ Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this applic.ation, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. ~ ~
Co~m~issioner Woodward moved~ seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
C~m~ission grant final design review approval to~application A-512 per Exhibit "A"
and the Staff Report dated January 9, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. SS-98 - Allstate Savings and Loan Association, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, (Argo-
naut S~opping Center), Final Design Review Approval - Commercial
Identification Sign; Continued from December 10~ 1975
Staff noted that the.Design Review Committee had reviewed this application in
conjunction with review of a set of design criteria for all signage within the
Argonaut Shopping Center, and additionally noted that this application would be the
first sign subject to these standards. Note was made that a Staff Report had
been prepared outlining the particular standards, how they were to be applied, and
what existing signs were involved; further, the Report recommended the Commission
adopt these standards and also grant approval to application SS-98.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this
matter be~continued. The Conmission requested that the Staff Report be amend~d
to separate application SS-98 from the design criteria for the Argonaut Shopping
Center. Additionally, it waj r~e~uested by the Commission that the Staff Report
on the design criteria be modifie~ to include lighting requirements. Chairman
Marshall directed that SS198 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
January 28, 1976, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and
Staff for further review and report.
D. SS-99 - Imperial Savings and Loan Association, Big Basin Way, Final Design
Review Approval - Commercial Identification Sign
Staff noted that although a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval
of this application, the applicant had recently requested this matter be continued
pending consideration of/plan alterations. Chairman }~rs~'~l"dir~d'that
SS-99 be continued to the Planning ~omm~'ssion meeting of JanU~ry'28, 1976,' and
referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further revi~
and report.
· ~[NUTES OF JANUARY 14. 76
IV. E. SS-iO0 - Butler and Wilson, Saratoga Avenue, Final Design Review Approval -
Conmercial Identification Sign
Approved. See Item III-C (V-441).
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. GF-305 - PropOsed Adoption of a New Conditional Use for the C-V Zoning District;
Hal G. Smith - Photographic Studios
Staff explained that Mr. Smith was requesting that the Planning Commission add
"photographic studios" as a new permitted use in the "C-V" zoning district inso-
much as he wished to open a photographic studio at the west end of the Village
which was currently zoned "C-V" and which did not allow for such a use. Note
was made that the majority of the Village was zoned "C-C," and that photographic
__studios were allowed under both "C-C" and "C-N" zones in the City. Staff pointed
out that Section 14.1 of the Zoning Ordinance empowered the Commission with the
authority to add such a use without the necessity of a public hearing. Staff
noted that a detailed Staff Report had been prepared on this request, and that it
'~ ....was St~'{~'~'~n~ndation that '~hotography studios" be added to the list of per-
mitted uses in the "C-V" zoning district as requested in proposed Resolution PC-122.
After brief discussion, Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner
'Zambetti, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC-122, a resolution
amending Section 7.2(c) of Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning District, by adding ~h~to-
graphy studios as a permitted use in the C-V zoning district. The motion was
carried unanimously.
B. Abandoment of Easement - Harlei~h Drive
Staff noted that the City Council had transmitted to the Planning Commission for
review a petition containing 91 signatures from residents of the Harleigh Drive
area requesting abandonment of the existing easement from the west end of the
east link of Harleigh Drive. Reference was made to the memorandum dated
December 3, 1975 from Planning Staff to the City Council relative to this request.
Mr. Richard Snow, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Snow (18768 Harleigh
Drive) and Mr. and Mrs. Bob Canote (18763 Harleigh Drive), madeT~the following
points: (1) He stated that prior to his clients' acquiring their property, the
City Planning Staff indicated that.~this easement would not be used by the City,
and as a result of these representations, 'h~Y'~l%e"n~'d' p'~h~dTthe property,
built on it and had done extensive landscaping on the"~sement." He stated that
he felt in order to protect ~the prop~rt~.va~e~.of their property, that the
City should follow up tits representations and abandon the easement. (2) He
pointed out that a petition c~6~taining all but 1-2 residents' signatures on
Harleigh Drive had been signed requesting this easement be abandoned "for fear
that it would substantially change the value of all of their properties if the
two Harleigh Drives were connected."
Chairman Marshall gave some background information on the reasons the City
first established this easement, pointing out that the only reason the City
allowed the development to have 20 homes on the cul-de-sac was the fact that
there would be an easement ~hich could be used, if necessary, as emergency
access. He noted that at the time this development was being considered, i:t
Cit '
was the y s policy that a cul-de-sac ~W~l'd'haVe no more than 13 homes on
the street; ~ currently, City cul-de-sacs ~ould'~a~e dp to 16 homes thereon.
~hairman ~rshall further explained that the City had wished to have some options
available to it'were the Campbell Union School District site adjacent to this
easement.to be d~V~!oped. He iBd~ated_tbat.be would be relunctant to appr~ye!
abandonment of this easement because of the reasons=made when the City i~it~al!y
Commissioners Martin and Woodward agreed with Chairman Marshall's opinion.
Commissioner Martin stated that he felt the City should keep its qptions o~en if
for no other reason than to maybe have a walking-type'easement available. Conmis-
sioner Belanger...~equeSted.Staff provide a_hypothetical circulation or development
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14~ 1976
V. B. Abandonment of Easement - Harleigh Drive - Cont'd
pl~"~i;hich would not connect the 2 Harleigh Drives but would provide safety for
the cul-de-sac_to_Harl~igb Drive and access that would not create double front§ge
lots off of FO~.~Una Court. Staff indicated that this was being investigated at
the present time. Staff further noted that it was its opinion that evaluation of
Harleigh Drivej~s noV..different due to drastic changes in the area (i.e.,
increased growth a~d use ~f West Valley College). However, Staff added that
the City had not ~o date been notified by the Campbell Union School District
? of plans' to 'sell the p~perty, nor had it b~e~"~i~ie~"th'~t t'h'iS .pr6p~ty
~ was being considered for subdivision development; and consequently, Staff
too felt that the City should keep its options. open at this time. ~
At this time, Chairman Marshall directed that' th~.petiti6B requesting abandonment
of Harleigh Drive be continued to the Planning Commissio~ meeting of January 28,
1975, and referred this request to the Subdivision Commiftee and Staff for further
review and report. J
C. EP-5 - Encroachment Permit Request for Access to the Community Gardens~ Crisp Avenue
Staff noted that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting this
encroachment permit request be withdrawn. Further, Staff pointed out that the
following ~ritten correspondence had been received relative to this matter:
· Letter dated January 5, 1976 from Perry and Hazel Skinner, 19332 Crisp Avenue,
requesting the City reject this encroachment permit request.
· Letter dated January 5, 1976 from Robert H. Swanson, resident on Crisp Avenue,
pointing out existing conditions on Crisp Avenue with regard to the Community
Gardens and opposing the encroachment permit request.
· Letter dated January 7, 1976 from Dean H. and Marilyn F. Vesling, 19300 Crisp
Avenue, urging the Commission to reject the encroachment permit request.
· Letter dated January 12, 1976 fromWilliam J. Cornwell, 19364 Crisp Avenue,
opposing the approval of this encroachment permit request.
· Petition dated January 12, 1976 containing 30 signatures of residents.on
Crisp Avenue, Granite Court, Haun Court, ~A'~dr~C~'~rt~requesting the
City reject the application for a driveway.~ncroachment ~t the end of Crisp
Avenue and to direct the Saratoga Community Garden to: (1) remove the
footpath entrance that was constructed this past summer and (2) to inform
their members and visitors to enter through the regular Odd Fellows Home entrance.
Messrs. Clark Bassett, Bob Swanson, and Dean Vesling and Mrs. Jean Hecker, all
residents on Crisp Avenue, were present to represent those residents who signed
the above-referenced petition. In further explanation of their petition's
request, they pointed out that many of the participants of the Community Garden's
activities W~re using residents' driveways for parking as well using Crisp Avenue
for parking. Further, they pointed out that part of the barrier erected at the
end of Crisp Avenue had been taken down this summer, resulting in foot traffic
from Crisp Avenue to the Community Gardens.
After discussion of this matter, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission
to accept the Community Garden's letter of withdrawal. Further, the Commission
instructed Staff to write a letter to the Community Gardens reminding them that
they do not have encroachment rights for foot traffic or vehicular traffic from
Crisp Avenue to the Cormnunity Gardens, and requesting them to notify their
constituents not to use Crisp Avenue for vehicular parking or foot traffic.
D. GF-304 - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance NS-3 of the City of Saratoga, The Zoning
Ordinance, By Adding Article 23 Thereto Relating to Temporary Uses in
All Zoning Districts Other Than Residential
Staff explained that a draft ordinance had been prepared for Commission review
relative to temporary uses in all zoning districts other than residential~ and
suggested a public hearing date be scheduled to hear this item on February 11, 1976.
After brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that GF-304 public
hearing be scheduled for February 11, 1976 Planning Commission meeting.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 ~
V. E. SDR-1207 - Jeffrey L. Omodt, Sobey Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
Request for Reconsideration of Condition "B" of Staff Report dated
November 4~ 1975
Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further review. Chairman
}~rshall directed SDR-1207 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
January 28, 1976, and referred same to Staff for further review and report.
VI. WRITTEN COMMLr~ICATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Reports - Negative Declarations Filedf ~
There were no Negative Declarations filed between the period of ~ecember 11, 1975
and January 14, 1976. Note was made, however, that an EIR was being required for
the City Public Library proposed to be located at the corner of Fruitvale/
Saratoga Avenues.
B. Other
1. Letter dated December 23, 1975 to the City Council from Mr. Perry Moerdyke,
attorney at law representing Parker Ranch owners, in response to allegations
made in a letter dated December 10, 1975 fromMessrs. John Weir and R. Cr~ther.
2. Letter da~ed'December 15, 1975 from Marty Van Duyn on behalf of Planning
Commission to the District Governing Board of West Valley College supporting
the installation of shields on a permanent basis for all of the tennis court
lights at West Valley College. ~ ................. /
3. Letter dated January 9, 1976 from Marty Van Duyn on behalf of City Council
to West Valley College making the determination that the proposed project
involving the bleachers and lighting at West Valley College was not in
conformance with UP-119, the College.!s approved 1967 use permit, and as a
result would not be rey~ewed by the City.
vII. ORAL CO}~UNICATIONS
A. City Council Report
Commissioner Woodward gave a detailed account of the City Council meeting of
January 7, 1976, noting several specific items of interest to the Commission.
A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City Administration office.
B. Other
1. Commissioner Woodward requested Staff to clarify City procedure on Commission-
member expiration of terms. Commissioner Woodward noted that her term would
be expiring the last of January, and explained that she had elected to not
be reappointed to a second term. -Staff noted that this information would be
provided to her.
2. Chairman Marshall reminded the Commission that the annual reorganizational
meeting was scheduled for January 28th, and requested the Commissioners to
give consideration to election of officers and subcommittee assignments.
3. Chairman }~rshall welcomed Councilman Kraus to the Commission meeting, and
thanked Mrs. Stark of the Good Government Group for serving coffee.
VIII. ADJOUP~NMENT
Conmissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission meeting of January 14, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
s~/ Marty Va~'n//Duyn, ~gc~e/~~y
-9-