HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
TIME: Wednesday, February 11, 1976 - 7':30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Lustig, Marshall, Martin, Woodward and Zambetti
Absent: Conmissioner Callon
B. }~NUTES
Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the reading
of the Planning C.__oJ~._~.~p~_.~_e_et~pg minutes of January 28, 1976~b~'{~i'~dT"~h'd
....... that they be approved as distributed to the Conmlission subject t6 the'following
correction: page 8, Chairman Belanger welcomed the presence of Councilmen Corr~
- Kraus, Matteoni, Mrs. Runyan of AA~, and Mr. Bridenbach and Mrs. Owen of the
Good Government Group for attending the meeting. The motion was carried
unanimously.
C. SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
The following-subcommittee assignment~ were made for the period February 11,
1976 through Jun~' ~' i~':
subdivision Committee: Commissioner Marshall, Chairman
Commissioner Martin
Commissioner Zambetti
Commissioner Callon, Alternate 1
~Chairman Belanger, Alternate 2
Design Review Committee: Commissioner Lustig, Chairman
Commissioner Zambetti
Commissioner Woodward
Chairman Belanger, Alternate 1
Commissioner Callon, Alternate 2
Variance Committee: Commissioner Martin, Chairman
Cormnissioner Callon
Commissioner Woodward
Commissioner Marshall, Alternate
Land Development Committee: Chairman Belanger
Commissioner Marshall, Alternate
PPC Commissioner Callon
--~-~'i_~ ..... Cormnissioner Lustig, Alternate
II. FINAL BU~I.DING SITES/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-1064 - C.J. Hinderman, Victor Place, Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
Staff noted that all conditions of tentative building site approval had been
met, and the recommendation was made that SDR-1064 be granted final site approval.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission grant final building site approval to application SDR-1064. The
motion was carried unanimously.
-1-
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. UP-294 - Saratoga Rotary Club, 14440 Big Basin Way, Request for Use Permit to
Allow an Outdoor, One-Day, Once-a-Year Public Event under the Auspices
of a Non-Profit OrganizatiOn in a Community Commercial Zoning District
(Rotary Club Art Show)
Chairman Belanger explained that this was a request for use permit to allow the
annual Rotary Club Art Show to be held at the Saratoga Plaza Shopping Center on
May 2, 1976. She noted that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending
approval of this request, and she cited the conditions imposed on the use permit.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hea~ing on UP-294 at 7:40 p.m.
Mr. Bob Barbatti, 18570 Mt. Pierre Way, stated that he was the Rotary Club's
president, and requested that Condition (D) be modified to extend the hours
for preparation and clean-up of the Art Show. He explained that in previous
years, the Rotary Club had began its setup the evening before the Show with
permission from the shopping center owners.
Staff explained that Condition (D) was basically intended to represent when
Big Basin Way was to be closed and opened, and added that!setup an~71ean-up times
could be whatever was agreed upon between the private property own~ 'of ~he
shopping center and the Rotary Club.
After brief discussion of this item, modifications of Conditions (D) and (I) were
recommended by ~he ~anningjCommission as follows:
(D) Limit hours of sales from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with a reasonable time
before and after for preparation and clean-up.
(I) Comply with conditions as requested by the Department of Transportation,
-~including hours set by their department as to street closing and
~reopening.
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the public
hearing on UP-294 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the
public hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Conmissioner Zambetti, that the Plan-
ning Commission grant approval of application UP-294 per the Staff Report dated
February 6, 1976, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. UP-295 - Haven Nursery (~arath Vidanage and James McCandless), 12585 Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road, Request for Use Permit to Allow the Continuation of
a Non-Conforming Cormmercial Use in a Residential Zoning District in
Accordance with Article 15 of Zonin~ Ordinance NS-3
Staff explained that in accordance with the recently adopted Ordinance NS-3.32
. (Non-Conforming Uses and Structures), use permits must be granted by the City
to all non-conforming use ope=ators in the City in order to allow the
continuance of their non-conforming activities. Consequently, Staff explained
that both items UP-295 and UP-296 were agendized for public hearing.
The Secretary read into the record the following items of correspondence re-
ceived on UP-295:
· Letter dated January 30, 1976 from Sarath Vidanage and James McCandless,
giving a description of the history, current operation and future goals
of the Nursery, and requesting that the use permit be granted. Attached
to this letter was a petition containing 276 signatures of residents in
the City supporting the continued use of the nursery.
· Letter dated February 6, 1976 from Bob and Merrilee Downer, 20525 Wardell
Road, pointing out that their property was located behind the Nursery, and
supporting its continued use.
· Letter dated February 11, 1976 from Jon P. Svilich, president of the Chamber
of Corf~erce, requesting the City grant the maximum time to Haven Nursery
for its continued business operation.
-2-
~. .'. MINUTES OF F~ ~
III. B. UP-295 - Haven Nursery - cont'd
Note was made that a preliminary Staff Report had been prepared dated February 6,
1976 describing the project, and recommending__approval of the use permit~
'~b~ect to conditions. Additional note was made that this preliminary Report
/h~d"B~en prepared as an informational document.to___se~y~_~b~:Commission jn its.
-review of this application.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-295 at 7:50 p.m.
7e "~i~"~C~dre~'~ joint owner of Haven Nursery, gave a brief history to the
Commi~sl'o~ bn ~he reasons they purchased the nursery 1~ years ago. He
stated that they had been given assurances from the City at that time that
the City had no plans to limit operation of the nursery. He stated:
"Given these assurances we purchased the nursery as an on-going concern,
and incurred financial indebtedness which extends over a .period of 30
years." He'p.ointed_~Ut that.they had ~d'e significan~ imp~oyemen~§_16 the
general appearance of the nursery, and's~'~ tha["~drther improvements
of the property had been anticipated. Mr. McCandless noted that they had
circulated a petition to ascertain the feelings of their neighbors on this
matter, adding: "We were overwhelmed by the unanimous support given to
us by our neighbors who wish to have the nursery use continued." He
pointed out that in addition to the.petition submitted to the Commission,
there were Z5D+ signatures to be submitted. Mr McCandless concluded:
"From the response we have had, it is apparent that Haven Nursery is a
desirable and essential member of the Saratoga community, and certainly
the demand for this type of service will always exist. To impose a time
limitation of the operation on the nursery in the City of Saratoga would
deny a fundamental convenience and benefit to its citizens."
· John Lancen, 20577 Wardell=Road, stated that he had lived in the City for
7~ years behind the nursery and supported the continued use of the
nursery. He stated that they had found the nursery to be very desirable,
adding: "I would regret very much seeing the beautiful gardens in back
of our house come down."
· Mr. Lancen read int9 the record a~tetter from Lou Pambianco, 20541 Wardell
Road, whose property abuts the Nursery. The letter stated: '~e want it
known that there are no problems in having the Haven Nursery as our
neighbors. In fact we do not consider the Haven Nursery a commercial
property. It is a beautifully-maintained garden area that serves us
both as a place of landscape beauty and as a reference for maintenance
of our own property.j We feel that at a time when land management and
ecology are so vitally 'concerned, it i~'fsrtunate that the City of
Saratoga has a nursery to serve its residents." The letter conci~'dFd'
by strongly urging the City to extend the commercial use of the nursery.
· Mrs. Barke, 12567 Wardell Court, pointed out that she lived behind the
nursery, and stated_ that she fglt the nursery was a very nice asset to
~ community.
· Mrs. Roger Countryman, 13860 River Ranch Circle, pointed out that she had
lived in Saratoga since 1957 and that she had patronized the Nursery since
that time. She stated that she felt the nursery was a great addition to
Saratoga.
· Steven Richard, 14101 Douglass Lane, supported the continued use of the
nursery. He stated that he felt the use should be considered as a life
use rather than any limited amount of time, and he added that he felt
this commercial business would broaden the City's tax base.
· Betty Peck, 14275 Saratoga Avenue, stated: "I wish to say that this is
the kind of business we hope that Saratoga would want to keep." She
pointed out to the Commission the fact that the Nursery had helped to
rejuvenate and beautify the Argonaut School, adding: "And I feel that
we owe them a great deal of gratitude. I hope that this kind of thing
can go on and be a part of Saratoga for a long, long time if not forever."
· Rudolph Kanne, 19918 !Bonnie Ridge Way, stated that he felt if was very
difficult to ask people owning a business to continue investing in it when
there was an uncertain termination point facing them. He added: "So I
encourage you to eliminate the termination time of the use permit."
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11
III. B. UP-295 - Haven Nursery - cont'd
· Barbara Campbell, 13759 Saratoga Vista Avenue, supported the continued use
of the nursery, stating: "I think they make a marvelous neighbor.
I think that the community mindedness of the Vidanage's has just been
outstanding. To see what has gone bn at the Argonaut School with the idea
coming from Mr. Vidanage early in September is a dream come true." S~e
added: "I call them excellent neighbors. I hope they are there forever.
I think it is a business that we would all miss."
· Tom Linders, Wardell Court, pointed out that he owned the property next
door to the nursery, and stated that he would like to see the nursery
remain. Mr. Linders pointed out to the Con~nission that he
bus ~a~h_ mo~ning on saratoga-sunnyvale Road, and stated: "With our
highway and 45 miles per hour, I don't think it is a very good place to
put residential housing. So I would like to see the nursery stay forever."
· Mrs. Harold Clark, 19818 Vineyard Lane, pointed out that she was a patron
of the nursery, adding: "I think ~he Haven Nursery is a very beautiful
spot, and I love it, and I know everyone feels the same way."
· Jim Rosenfeld, Okanogan Drive, stated: "I think that if 2 highly ethical
individuals with a very valuable service want to operate a business, you
can't hold a carrot over them like this. They are making a capital in-
vestment and they are trying to establish good will, etc., and you are
making this a tenuous proposition. And that makes them not on a equal
footing with the other businesses in Saratoga. So I think it should be
legally clarified that we are in favor of this organization remaining in
Saratoga on a permanent equal footing with the rest of the businesses in
Saratoga."
Mr. McCandless asked if the use permit could be renewed, and the City Attorney
explained that under the present ordinance, the Planning Commission had the
power to extend a use permit. He added, however, that the extension of a use
permit would depend upon the circumstances at that time rather than the cir-
cumstances existing today.
Mr. Vidanage asked whether there was a restriction to rezoning this site.
The Secretary explained, as discussed with the applicants previously, that
the City General Plan designated this site as residential, and that applying
for rezoning of this site would be inconsistent with the General Plan. He
advised that in order to make the nursery site permanent, the General Plan
would have to be amended, and then the zoning would have to be changed. The
Secretary explained that the General Plan provided for a delineation of land
use in a pattern which the community (some 400+ citizens ~.~o participated in
the General Plan Review), felt was desirable. He explained that one of the
stipulations in the Non-Conforming Use ordinance was to provide for continued
commercial activities in a residential area, but amortizing them over a reasona-
__~._p_eriod_of time. _
Commissioner Martin encouraged the applicants to continue under the use permit
application process rather than applying for a General Plan amendment because
a cormnercial zoning designation could open up the site for any commercial use.
He pointed out that under a use permit, the City could designate the use
permit for a nursery only. Commissioners Martin and Woodward both urged the
Subdivision Committe~ in its continued review of this matte~ to consider a
longer period of amortization.
At this time, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on UP-295~ 8:39 ~m.,
c~i~"d~d same to th'~Pl~'~ing E~%~i~n meeting of February 25, 1976, and
/~e'f~'d'eh'i~'Mgfter fo eH~'S~b'd'iVi~i~'d'C~ittee and'B~'f~SF revi~ at the
=c~fm~i~'s meeting on February 17,'1976~
C. UP-296 - Lyngso Garden }~terials (John Lyngso), 12405 S. Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road, Request for Use Permit to Allow the Continuation of a Non-
Conforming Commercial Use in a Residential Zoning District in Accor~
dance with Article 15 of Zonin5 Ordinance NS-3
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-296 at 8:41 p.m. Introduced
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11 '~
III. C. UP-296 - Lyn~so Garden Materials - donttd
into the record was the following correspondence: Response dated JanUary 27,
1976 from James T. Craig, 20524 Manor Drive, stating that he felt the Lyngso
Garden Materials site was "an eyesore, dirty, creates too much traffic." He
added: "It is a non-conforming business that does not belong ~ere it is today."
Further, note was made that a preliminary Staff Report dated Febru~Ky 6, 1976
had been prepared describing the projec% and recommending approval.of the use
~ermit subject to conditions. Staff additionally noted that the preliminary ~
'~Y~ Report 'K~'b'~'~K preparld for the Commission and Subdivision Committee ~
~.~.~."~~?~.~UY~s~. Present at the request~ 0{=~ ~p~ic~7~ ~ ....
. ..court repqrter taking a %erbatim account of the proceedings in this matter.
In response to a question raised earlier in the evening on whether "nurseries"
~ ....~iH'b~. considered a permitted used in a residential zone, Commissioner Marshall
'~ ';6{ted"S'e~tion 3.2 (subitems (a) and (b)) of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Section 3.2 Permitted Uses. (a) One-family dwellings. (b) Raising of
fruit and nut trees, vegetables and horticultural specialties not
including nurseries, greenhouses, or storage of landscaping equipment,
products or supplies for commercial uses.
Applicant's Presentation
· Richard Gardella, P.O. Box 869, Redwood City, California, attorney
representing John and Mary Lyngso, Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc., and
Leo Ott, a landscape contractor leasing an office building on the site.
Mr. Gardella gave a chronological review of the development of this site,
pointing out that a rockery business had been in operation on this site
for approximately 30 years, and further pointing out that the site had
beenrrezoned to a commercial zone in 1962. In evidence of this back-
ground information, Mr. Gardella submitted for the Commission's considera-
tion and review the following documents:
- Letter dated May 29, 1968 from Mayor Glennon, City of Saratoga, indi-
cating to the Lyngso's that operation of the nursery could remain
indefinitely.
- Memorandum of June 26, 1973 from the then City Planning Directpr
(Stanley Walker),/concluding that Mr.-'Lyngso wa~ prb~eeding in good
faith to comply with'~he City's' r~quests in making improvements. Rela-
tive to this, Mr. Gardella explained that the applicant's had made im-
provements on the widening of Manor Drive, that they had installed
curbs and gutters on Manor Drive, that they had contributed funds to
the City in lieu of a storm drainage requirement, that they had re-
modeled the tenant's building as well as the main structure, that they
" had put in substantial landscaping around the perimeter of the site,
that they had oiled the property, that they had installed a sprinkler
system, and that they had reconstructed the bins periodically. Mr.
Gardella pointed out that these improvements were done after 1968
when development of the adjacent development had gone through, and
upon reliance of the above-referenced letter from Mayor Glennon.
- Xerox copy of an aerial photograph taken in mid 1968 of this site
reflecting the general condition of the nursery at that time. Mr.
Gardella, while submitting the photographs and in support of the' ...... """'-
improvements made since 1968, stated: "That is the condition that
~ existed in 1968, and I think you will see that there has been some ~.-
: dramatic improvements and dramatic investment of monies by the Lyngso's %.`
~ L and Lyngso Gar~ep ~terials.since-that ~ime." ...... -\
- Copy of lease-addendum relative to this site. Mr. Gardella pointed
out that this lease would continue into the early 1980's, and that
L so'
the yng s were financially obligated on this site until that time.
- Copy of the Superior Court Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
in favor of Lyngso Garden Materials relative to the 1973 litigation
between the City and Lyngso Garden Materials. Mr. Gardella pointed
out that specifically the court had found that there was no nuisance
involved with Lyngso Garden Material business, and that there was no
increase in intensity of this use.
-5-
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11 '6 ,-
III. C. UP-296 - LynSso Garden }~terials - cont'd
Relative to the preliminary Staff Report dated February 6, 1976, Mr. Gardella
indicated willingness to comply with all conditions except Condition (A) deal-
ing with the amortization schedule as well as Condition (C) requiring the en-
closure of all commercial operations. Mr. Gardella argued that the costs to
the applicant for enclosing the structures would be between $270,000-$370,000,
which would not be acceptable if the amortization schedule was only 10 years.
He added: ."if we are ~k'ffig Eo~"~s an ultimate ~hasi'ng out, it is best
served' by ~""doi~ anything mo~'t~'n"l~ndsc~i~'~'~d '~a-uti~ic~io~"~t the"'
ground level at this time."
In support of this argument, Mr. Gardella introduced Mr. Meryl Hyam, CPA,
who was to report on his findings relative to the dollar volume of business
being conducted in relationship to the rate of inflation. He pointed out that
this information should demonstrate how Lyngso Garden Materials was actually
doing business in terms of volume, adding that this was a small, family-type
business which would require an amortization period of far more than 10 years.
Mr. Gardella also introduced to the Commission Mr. Warren Fox, appraiser,
who made a survey of the replacement costs of the improvements on this property.
e Meryl Hyam, 1035 Alameda, Belmont, California, stated that he was a
certified public accountant licensed in the State of California~ ~.He
submitted to the Commission total dollar sales figures for the 5-year
period beginning in l?713__a_~dding that these figures had been taken from
the sales tax returnS' reported to the State Board of Equalization:
1971 - $251,995 Mr. Hyam pointed out that the average
1972 - $290,234 annual growth rate was 9.10%. Mr. Hyam
1973 - $347,341 compared the price level index using the
1974 - $427,010 U.S. Department of Commerce Construction
1975 - $391,688 Review (Volume 21, Issue 10, November 1975).
These figures were: in 1971 a price level index of 127.9 points and in
1975 a price level index of 190.0 points. He explained that if one applied
the Construction Indu_st~X Index to the 1975 total dollar sales figures, the
sales figures for Lyngso Garden Materials in 1975 should have b~$~08748~.
He concluded that Lyngso Garden'Materials was not keeping pace w~'t~'th~"
Construction Industry Price increases, and that this indicated there had
not been any major increase in the volume of activity.
Commissioner Marshall suggested that the reduction in the 1974-75 sale
figures could have been the result of a reduction in business hours-with a
lesS~niRg_p.f_~u~ness on the site, as well aS the national economic
recession that occurred at that time.
Warren Fox, appraiser, explained that he had made a survey of the present
replacement costs of the improvements on this property, the building costs
themselves taken from the Marshall Swift Construction Journal. Supporting
this survey, he introduced into the record a series of photographs taken
of the improvements for the Commission's consideration. The following
breakdown was given as to the replacement costs:
Bins $24,800
Office Building, containing 378 sq. ft. 5,481
Storage Shed, containing 510 sq. ft. 2,805
Rented Building, containing 405 sq. ft. 4,353
Fairbanks Scale 10,157
Fencing 6,000
Radio Transmitter 1,500
Yard Improvements, including gravel and asphalt,
bedrock landcovering, landscaping and sprinkler system 6~500
$61,596
Mr. Fox stated that in his opinion the present improvements on the Lyngso
site depreciated the adjacent subdivision property because there was no
landscaping or screening between the site and the single-family homes. He
further stated that in his opinion it would be difficult to amortize the
$61,~00 improvement costs over just a 10-year period.
-6-
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY
III. C. UP-296 - LynSso Garden Materials - cont'd
Con~nission Response
The following questions were asked by the Commission:
- What is the real value of the property?
- Does this ap~is~'i'differ fr0n{ the County Appraisal?
- What is the fair market value of the improvements?
Relative to the first question, Mr. Gardella replied that this type of informa-
tion was not admissible as evidence in court, and explained that Mr. Fox
approached this matter from the standpoint of a condemnation-type proceeding.
Regarding the second question, Mr. Gardella stated that these figures had
been submitted to the City at one time, adding that the fair market value
would probably be less than the figures Mr. Fox quoted~ Mr. Gardella did
not have the answer to the last question. Chairman Belanger requested
Mr. Gardella to submit in writing the information given by Messrs. Hyamand
Fox, and if possible, include therein an approximate fair market value of the
improvements. Commissioner Lustig additionally requested that the Commission
also be provided with the number of'entries per year thatzconstituded those
dollar values
Citizen Response
John Haufe, 21210 Canyon View Drive, stated that he felt the City was for-
tunate to have a nursery as close as it was. He re'!~yed an example of his
patronization of the Rockery, adding: "so I find Lyngso's is a very handy
place to pick up a rock or other type of garden material that the nursery
(Haven Nursery) doesn't stock."
Rosemary Woolley, 19396 Shubert Drive, stated that she felt there was a
"tendency to put a little more pressure than necessary on this corporation
from some of the people up these." She relayed experiences of her patron-
ization of the Rockery, and pointed out that other patrons were the citizens
of Saratoga. She stated that she appreciated the neighbors' feelings who
lived adjacent to the business, but pointed out that there were more citi-
zens in Saratoga who did not live next door to the nursery and patronized
same than those who did live next door.'
Rod Rodrigues, citizen of Saratoga, stated that he hoped this use permit
L so'
would be issued to the yng s on an unlimited time basis. He explained
to the Commission that he had worked in getting permission from the City
for the first Little League ballpark in the City. He explained that
the funds for the park had been donated by various citizens, and pointed
out that Mr. Lyngso personally had donated the topsoil for the infield
and outfield. He requested the~Commission give considerationzto this
information.
e Barbara Campbell, 13759 Saratoga Vista Avenue, stated that she felt it was
unfair "'~h~t a business wH~'h'~'B~ in operati~'~f~'~h~homes were th~
should suddenly have to-leave because'residents moved in and decided"th~t
their neighbor~ was not ex~tly'~ha['they wanted."
® Don Sifferman, 12400 Green Meadow Lane, stated that he was president of
the Saratoga Manor Homeowners Association. He stated that they were
against the continued use of this commercial operation on residential
property, and urged the Commission take a stand toward bringing the
property into conformance with the General Plan and the residential zoning.
He stated: "As long as the Lyngso operation remains, it will be a negative
impact on the residential neighborhood, and will be a continuing source of
concern of the adjacent neighbors." He added, however, that if the use
permit should be granted, they would recommend~'~['~h~' continuance Of'ih~ use
be clearly specified so that no expansion could occur and so that viola-
tions could easily be recognized. He explained that the applicants had
still not received approval for a rearyard setback variance, that the
bins placed on the property did not have the necessary permfts, and that
. they were concerned about what the structur~ wo~ld l'ook lik~'-'~."~.'.facil~ty
were required to be enclosed.
-7-
~"' .... ~ MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11
. ~
III. C. UP-296 - Lyn~so Garden Materials - cont'd
o Fred T~ter, 20577 Manor Drive, pointed out that he owned ~dj~cent property,
and as a homeowner recommended the Commission deny the use permit. He ex-
plained that it would not be good City planning t o grant a use permit to a
use that was a nuisahce' because of the noise, dust and odor generated.
Further, he stated that it was a nuisance because the tax assessment on his
home had been reduced from the previous level because of the proximity of
the Lyngso property. FIr. Tater pointed out to the Commission that he had
been assured by the City at an earlier date that the Lyngso facility would
be phased out. He additionally contended that this use permit should be
denied because "one of the main objectives of the City is to bring landuse
into conformity with the General Plan in a planned, scheduled and expeditious
manner." He stated that if this use permit were denied, the LyngsoSs would
have to take the initiative to resolve the problem, "and that ~ill lead,
I am convinced, to a rational, well thought out, scheduled plan for phase
out. And that basically is what we want."
Ruth Schork explained that she had been a resident at 12529 Green Meadow
Lane for 9~ years. She stated that she also felt it was a shame to put
someone out of business who had been in business. But she pointed out
she had been led to believe by the City that the business operation was
not going to expand, and it had. Consequently, Ms. Schork indicated
a desire to see the use permit denied.
Commission Action
At this time, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on UP-296 at 9:55
p.m., continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of February__2_5_, 1976,__~
and referred this matter fo~..further review a~_the Subdivision C.q_mm. itte~ ...........
meeting of February 17, 1976.
RECESS: 9:55 - 10:15 p.m.
D. GF-303 - City of Saratoga, PrOposed Amendments to the 1974 General Plan for the City of Saratoga ~
Staff drew the Commission~s attention to the Staff Reports dated February 10,
1976 recommending approval of 5 amendments and 1 General Plan Map correction
as well as a request from the Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association to
eliminate the map designation of an extension of Canyon View Drive connecting
to Pierce Road. Note was made that all of these matters had been reviewed by
the Planning Conmission in 1975, and the:recommendation was made that the
Comnission approve said changes and forward same to the City Council with the
recommendation for approval. Staff explained that it used as its basis for
determining these General Plan amendments the City Council Policy Statement
on Consistency of the Zoning Ordinance with the General Plan dated ~y 7, 1975.
Essentially, the recommended changes were as follows:
1. Exhibit 14, 1.067-acre parcel bounded on the west by Dolphin Drive and
on the south by Allendale Avenue, with a current General Plan designa-
tion of "medium density residential," and a current zoning of "R-1-40,O00."
Staff recommended a General Plan Map change to "low density residential."
2. Exhibit 15, a parcel comprising .92 acre in Tract 3617, a portion of the
property belonging to the Campbell Union School District comprising 2.36
acres, and 3 parcels comprising 2.53 acres, all located on the north side
of Allendale Avenue adjacent to Tracts 3617 and 5243; with a current
General Plan designation of YYmedium density residential," and a current
zoning of "R-I-40,000." Staff recommended a General Plan Map change to
"low density residential."
3. Exhibit 16, 7 parcels comprising 13 acres, fronting on the south side of
Allendale Avenue adjacent to Tracts 1146 and 1689, with a current General
Plan designation of "medium density residential," and a current zoning of
"R-1-40,O00." Staff recommended a General Plan ~p change to "1~ density
residential."
-8-
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY~ ~"
III. D. GF-303 - City of Saratoga - Proposed Amendments to 1974 General Plan - cont'd
Relative to these 3 recommended amendments, Commissioner Marshall raised ques-
tions relative to the interpretation of the City Council's consistency policy
statement. He expressed concern that the Council's low density designation
provided too broad of a range and allowed too much of an overlap; i.e., 1~
density provided for a range from "R-1-40,O00" to "R-I-IO,000," and medium
density provided for a range from "R-1-20,O00" to "R-lzl0,O00." Staff ex-
plained that its interpretation of this policy statement had been that if,
after overlaying the General Plan Map onto the Zoning Map: there was a 2-step .......
d'ff~erence between the existing ~eneral ~la~designation and the designation to
which current zoning corresponded, then it was considered an inconsistency. (The
difference between very low density designation on the General Plan ~p and a
Zoning }~p classification corresponding to medium density would be considered
inconsistent.)
After considerable discussion on this matter, the Commission expressed concern
that using the Council!s Policy Statement would allow an effective argument to
be made by a developer for a change of zoning to a higher density within a low
density residential zone. Specifically, the Commission was concerned that
areas ~14, 15 and 16 could have requests for changes of zoning from "R-I-40,000"
to "R-l-10,000" with the argument advanced that the General Plan designation of
l~q density would all~ for such a zoning change.
C~Lm~issioner Marshall suggested that the following interpretation of the City
Council policy be designated on the General Plan Map:
Very Low Density - Acreage To and Through R-I-20,000
Low Density - From and Including R-i-40,000 To and Through R-l-15,000
Medium Density - From and Including R-I-20,000 To and Through R-l-10,000
Chairman Belanger requested Staff review its determinations made on the General
Plan/Zoning consistencymatter;thus far, and report its findings at the next
C~m~ission meeting. The point was made that if Staff's"'interpretation of the
City Council policy statement was altered, consistency determinations already
made by Staff might be substantially altered.
4. Exhibit 24, single parcel located on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and
Park Place, with a current General Plan desigSation of '~edium density
residential" and a current zoning of "R-M-3,000." Staff recommended a
General Plan Map change to "PD Mixed."
5. Exhibit 25, single parcel located on the corner of Oak Place and Saratoga-
Los Gatos Road, with a current General Plan designation of '~edium density
residential" and a current zoning of "community commercial." Staff recom-
mended a General Plan change to "PD Mixed."
6. General Plan Map change, Exhibit 17, 8 parcels (6 of which have houses
on them)~:~directly south of Sousa Lane with a current zoning of "R-1-12,500"
and a General Plan designation of "commercial." Staff explained that the
1974 General Plan Map extended the QuitoMarket commercial designation to
cover these lots, and pointed out that per Staff~s records, it was never
intended to reflect such a commercial zone. Staff surmised that this was
an error in printing the General Plan Map, and proposed the Map be amended
to reflect ~!medium density residential" which would be consistent with the
"R-1-12,500" zoning classification of the adjacent area.
7~' Relative to the Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association request that the
Canyon View Drive "collector street" designation be changed, Staff explained
'zthat the Association felt this street should not be a collector street be-
cause of the current heavy traffic problems currently being experienced on
Canyon View Drive. Staff recommended that the General Plam Map be amended
to reflect that portion of Canyon View Drive proposed for extension as an
"Emergency Vehicle/Fire Access." Staff additionally noted that a crash
barrier was recommended to be installed at the entrances to the fire access
road if and when it was built to prevent any thru-traffic.
-9-
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11~ ~76 .
- ~j .. -; ,~
III. D. GF-303 - City of Saratoga, Proposed Amendments to 1974 General Plan - cont'd
Conmaissioner Marshall suggested that the symbol used for this "emergency
vehicle/fire access" road not be a heavy black dotted line as recommended
by the Staff because the line could become solid at a later date if the
street was not extended. After brief discussion, Staff recommended that
a narr~er dotted line be used to designate this new symbol.
Citizen Response
At this time, Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on GF-303 at 11:00 p.m.
® Russ Crmqther, 20788 Norada Court, stated that he did not feel it was
consistent to allow a large, flexible density range in the General Plan
because of the confusion it might cause. He explained that the City
Council policy had been adopted ~ring discussions on the Wildwood Heights'
change of zoning issue, but that he felt it did not apply very well to
undeveloped lands within the City because of the large overlap it allowed
in the ranges. He stressed that the General Plan designations should be
clearly defined in the General Plan so that there would not be any un-
certainty as to its interpretation.
Cu~,ission Action
Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on GF-303 at 11:05 p.m., directed
same be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 25, 1976, and
referred this matter to Staff and the Subdivision Committee for further review.
E. V-444 - H.H. Mayr, Old Oak Way, Request for Variance to All~q a Reduction in
the Required 30-Foot Frontyard Setback to 18 Feet for a Residence
(Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7-1)
Staff noted that the Variance Committee had made an on-site inspection on this
matter, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Staff
explained that the significant topographical problems associated with this
site made it impossible to develop if the 30-foot frontyard setback was
enforced.
Introduced into the record was the follox~ing piece of correspondence: Response
dated January 28, 1976 fromMichael Conn, 3969 Freed Avenue, San Jose, owner
of an~a~jacent parcel, suggesting certain conditions be imposed on the granting
of this variance. Staff noted that these suggested conditions were already part
of the Staff Report conditions on this variance application.
Brief discussion followed on the location of the house, and note was made that
there was only one potential site on the property feasible for house construc-
tion, that being the level area adjacent to Old Oak Way at the northwest corner
of the lot.
Citizen Response
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V-444 at 11:13 p.m.
® Ray Jones, 13558 Old Oak Way, pointed out that he was a member of the
subdivision's architectural design review committee, and noted that the
design plans for the house would have to be approved by this committee
prior to construction.
® Herb Mayr, applicant, assured the Commission that the selected house site
was that one previously mentioned located on the northwest corner of the
property.
Con~nission Action
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zainbetti, that the
public hearing on V-444 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and
the public hearing was closed at 11:15 p.m.
-10-
· . MII~UTES OF FE~
III. E. V-~ - H.H. Mayr - cont'd
Conmissioner Woodward moved, seconded by C~L~aissioner Zambetti, that the Plan-
ning Conmission approve application V-444 per Exhibits "A" and "B," and the
Staff Report dated February ll, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously.
IV. DESIGN REVIB4
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval per their respective exhibits and
Staff Reports to the following applications:
A. A-514 - Ernest O. Kraule, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review ApprDval for
Commercial Building_~Remodeling; Exhibit "A" and Staff Report dated
:February 4~ 1976
B. A-515 - Frank Cali, Via Regina, Final Design ReviewApproval for 1 Lot;
Exhibit "A" and Staff Report dated February 4~ 1976
C. SS-98 - Allstate SaVings and Loan Association, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Final
Design Review Approval - C~x~aercial Identification Sign; Exhibit "A"
and amended Staff Report dated February 5~ 1976
E. SS-101 - Otsen Signs (Argonaut Liquors), 12868 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final
Design Review Approval for Conmercial Identification Sign; Exhibit "A"
and Staff Report dated February 4~ 1976
The motion was carried unanimously.
D. SS-99 - Imperial Savings and Loan Association, Big Basin Way, Final Design Re-
view Approval - C~m,ercial Identification Sign; Continued from
January 28~ 1976
Note was made that the Design Review Conmittee had reviewed this matter on
several occasions, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending denial
on the basis that the sign projected at a right angle to the building rather
than being flush-mounted. The Report contended that allowing projecting signs
would start a precedence, and that general circulation conditions on Big Basin
Way were such that no use~ needed to advertise itself from long distances.
Conmissioner Lustig, as Chairman of the Design Review Committee, reported that
the Committee members recommended this item be approved because the sign,
if flush-mounted~could not be adequately seen. The Conmmittee felt that the
logo sign was attractive and non-obtrusive, and pointed out that the sign
itself would be 720 sq. in. in area whereas the OrigiD~l sign designed for
flush mounting would have been 880 sq. inches. Commissioner Marshall agreed
with the Committee~s consensus stating that he felt the projecting sign was
an acceptable solution to the placement of the sign.
Chairman Belanger disagreed with the Committee~s consensus on the basis that
it would set a precedence for not only other_projecting signs within the
Village, but possibly also for free-standing signs as well.
C~mnissioner Marshall moved, seconded by C~m~ssioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission gra~t design review approval to application SS-99 per Exhibit "C"
dated January 13, 1976 per the following conditions:
(1) All internally lit signs are to be shut off within ~ hour of the closing
of the store for normal business.
(2) The applicant will be mailed a sign permit decal which displays his
permit and the City emblem. Said decal is to be displayed on the bottom
right hand corner of the face of the sign. Failure to display said decal
will constitute termination of permit.
(3) All illumination shall be checked by the Planning Staff subsequent to
installation of lighting to insure against harsh and annoying glare.
The motion was carried; Chairman Belanger voted no.
-11-
IV. F. SS-102 - Cal Coast Signs, (A. Riginals Silver Fox), 12850-Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road~ Final Design Review Approval - Commercial Identification Sign
Staff noted that a letter requesting withdrawal had been received from the
applicant; however, the applicant had recently telephoned requesting this mat-
ter not be withdrawn. Chairman Belanger directed SS-102 be continued to the
Planning Conmission meeting of February 25, 1976, and referred this matter to
Staff and the Design Review Committee for further review and report.
V. }ffSCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1207 - Jeffrey L. Omodt, Sobey Road, Tentative Building Site Approval -
1 Lot; Request for Reconsideration of Condition "B" of Staff Report
fdated November 4 ~ 1975; Continu~H'f~'o~'January 28 ~ 1976
Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further review by the Public
Works Department. Chairman Belanger directed SDR-1207 be continued to the
Planning C~mission meeting of February.25, 1976, and referred this matter to
Staff and the Subdivision Committee for further review and report.
B. EP-6 ~ Dividend Industries, Carnelian Glen Court, Request for Encroachment
Permit to Allow I~o (2) Subdivision Entry Pylons within the 40-Foot
Right-6f-Way; Continued from January 28~ 1976
Staff pointed out that this was a request for an encroadhment permit to allow
two subdivision pylons within the City right-of-way identifying the entrance
to the Carnelian Glen subdivision. Staff noted that this matter had been re-
viewed by the Subdivision Committee on February 3, 1976, and that the design
itself had been reviewed by the Design Review Co~ittee at an earlier date.
Note was additionally made that a Staff Report had been prppared recommending
approval of this request.
After conmissi0n discussion, objections were raised to the granting of this
encroachment permit on the basis that the material of the pylons was not
s~rong enough. Conmissioner Marshall contended that children could break the
pylons with the throwing of a rock, and he additionally objected to this
request because he felt the design of the pylons was not appropriate for the
subdivision.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Co~xm~issioner Lustig, that the Planning
Conm~ission deny application EP-6 without prejudice. The motion was. carried
unanimously.
VI. I~RITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Reports
The following Negative Declarations were filed between the period of January 28,
1976 and February 6, 1976:
1. UP-298 - Haven Nursery, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
2. UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Saratoga-Suhnyvale Road
B. Other
The following written correspondence were introduced into the record:
1. Summary Report dated December 1975 on Solid Waste Management Plan for
Santa Clara County. Note.was made that this was for informational
purposes only.
2. Letter dated February 6, 1976 from Rolston J~hnson, 13999 Pierce Road,
pointing out that the area between the 15-30% slope density range of the
proposed Hillside Conservation-Open Space District Ordinance was the area
of most significant concern to the City, and requesting the City Council
give careful consideration to this area.
-12-
MINUTES
VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. City Council Report
Commissioner Callon submitted a ~ritten report of the City Council meeting of
February 4, 1976. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the
City ' s Administration office.
B. Other
1. Chairman Belanger reported that Cc~,~issioners Marshall, Martin, herself
and Councilwoman Corr attended the PPC-sponsored workshop on Planning
Commissioners, held at De Anza College on February 7, 1976, and expressed
a favorable opinion of the workshop.
2. Commissioner Woodward reported that a replacement for her Commission seat
would not be made by the City Council until April, and that she would be
remaining as a Commissioner until that time.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Con~nissioner Marshall, that the Planning
Commission meeting of February 11, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ma~y ~/an Duyn, Secretary
Ski'7/
-13 -