Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION }~r~rOTES TIME: Wednesday, March 24, 1976 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Lustig, Marshall, Martin, Woodward and Zambetti Absent: None B. MINUTES Conmissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the · ~eading of th~ Planning Commission meeting minutes of March 10, 1976 be !~aived~"a~d that they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried unanimously. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Composition of Consent Calendar Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission approve the composition of the Consent Calendar less Items (C) and (D), applications A-522 and A-418 respectively. The motion was carried unanimously. B. Items for Consent Calendar Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Conm~issioner Callon, that the "'Pl~i~'C'd'mr~i~slon grant approvaI:~'I~(!~y~'('2~)"~h'd'('2~)~'~llows: · SDR-1221 - Frank Rodrigues, Saratoga Avenue, Final Building Site_Ap~r0val 2 Lots ..... · ~14~7 - George Day Construction Co., Taos Drive, Final Designs'Review "' ~'Approval - 1 Lot; ~er E~h~bit"'A" and ~he Staff Report'~ated .... M~Ch°'I'8~ 1976 · A-521 - H.H. Mayr, Old Oak Way, Final DesignReview Approval - 1 Lot per Exhibit "E-2" and the Staff Report dated March 18~ 1976 The motion was carried unanimously. i_.!II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. V-446 - David Bowman, 13685 Yerba Santa CoVrt, Request for Variance to Allow a Reduction in the Required Sideyard Setback for the Con- struction of a Swimming Pool (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7 and 3.2f}~ Continued fromMarch 10, 1976 Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on V-446 at 7:36 p.m. David Bowman, applicant, requested the Commission grant a variance from the 15-foot sideyard setback requirement in order that he might be able to install a swimming pool on his site. Mr. Bowman explained that he had purchased this 1/2 acre site 7 months ago with the intention of inst~lling a swimming pool thereon, and he noted that there were no stipulations in his CC&Rs prohibiting such a pool. Mr. B~man gave the Commission a brief history of events on this -1- C0MMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 24~ 1976 ~= III._. A. V-446 - David Bo~nan - cont'd= application, pointing out that he had redesigned the pool plan~ 3 times in an attempt to avoid the need for a variance. He argued, however, that the pool could not be located in the rearyard, where a variance would not be required, for safety reasons° Mr. Bowman explained that there was no way in which to see out of the back of the house other than through the bedroom windows,_ a~d he contended that this would be a safety hazard. Further, Mr. Bowman pointed out that his pool plans provided for the maintenance aspect of the pool. Considerable discussion followed on this application. Concern was expressed by many of the Cormnissioners on the recent tree removal permits granted to Mr. B~man and on the stipulations imposed on She subdivision at the time of its approval. With regard to the latter concern, Commissioners Belanger, Woodward, Marshall and Martin gave detailed inputs into the history of this subdivision, pointing out that there had been great concern expressed over the loss of . trees on this site at the time of subdivision approval, Commissioner Marshall explained 'that' at that' time the Commission had stipulated that no one should consider in'~Y~rl%~g a swimming pool'~'iot with this much foliage density becaus'e maintenance would be'~er~ d{ffi~Ult, and because there would be c'~fd~'~l~'d'ing from sunlight. In reply to these comments, Staff poimted o~t that without those specific requirements being spelled out in the subdivision's CC&Rs, Staff had difficulty in flagging this subdivision's requirements. Discussion followed on this comment, and Commissioner Marshall suggested that the matter on how Planning Staff flagged requirements be agendized for Commission discussion. Regarding the issuance of 2 tree removal permits, Staff explained that it had been proceeding initially under a variance request based on 40-foot sideyard dimensions; and at the time the Variance Committee had inspected the site, the 2 trees in question were present. Staff noted that subsequent to that Variance Committee meeting, the pool plan was revised so as not to require a variance based on that large of a setback. Consequently, after the Variance~atter had apparently been resolved, Staff issued 2 tree removal permits. One permit was issued on the grounds of the safety and public hazard provisions of the Tree Removal Ordinance in that the tree itself was directly overhanging the house's chimney. The other permit was issued in connection with the pool; said permit being issued for the removal of a double tree, the larger of which had been dwarfing the smaller from sunligh_t_~_.. Staff ex~lalned that subsequent to the issuance of ~hese permits, it had been determined that the sideyard property line had not been correctly demon- strated (35 feet instead of 40 feet), and as a result, a variance was once again required. It was explained that the Variance Committee inspected the site once again, and that they had scheduled another on-site inspection for March 25th pending receipt of revised plans sh~qing an alternate pool location. Staff noted that the applicant had indicated an unwillingness to revise his plans, and as a result, Staff had written a Staff Report based on the current plans. The Staff Report dated March 22, 1976 recommended approval, and Staff indicated that said Report contained the Staff~s findings and position on this matter. It was noted additionally. that the applicant's south-side neighbpr.had_indicated aRproval of this.pro~Q~ed --'Considerable discussion followed on the issue of tree removal permits, and 'it was suggeSt__ed by Commissioner Marshall that consideration of-the tre~_~emoval o~dinance be agendized for Planning Commission review. Relative to the Variance application itself, Commission Martin pointed out that the Variance Committee did not agree with Staff's position, and a continuance of this item was recommended. After due discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that application V-446 be con- tinued to the Planning Con~ission meeting of April 14, 1976, and that this matter be referred to the Variance Committee for further review and a report from its Chairman. -2- COMMISSION MEETING F1976 III. B. UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. (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 Accordance with Article 15 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3; Continued from February 26, 1976 Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Richard Gardella, attorney representing the applicant, introduced for .the record the following information per the request of the Commission .at i~ meeting~ of February 26th: · Report'cOncerning the total taxable sales vs. resales, and the applica- tion of the wholesale price index to the sales for the past 5 years. · Fair market value figure of $54,352 for Lyngso Garden Materials, the prime tenant, ex~uding the PG&E lease plan. Note was made that this figure was applicable only to the physical things that the tenant had. (Note: Considerable discussion followed on what physical improvements could be amortized, and Mr. Gardella indicated that he did not know what physical improvements could be salvaged.) Letter fromMr. Fox, applicant's appraiser, indicating an evaluation of Lyngso Garden Materials business in the amount of $285,000. · Large aerial photograph2of the Lyngso operation as it existed in 1968. Mr. Gardella pointed out that there was no green area at that time, · Series of 3 photographs taken in 1961, 1966 and 197~ S~owing the amount of landscape and shielding improvements that had been done by the appli- cant. (Note: Commissioner ~rtin stated that these pictures inferred that there were no trucks present on the site, pointing out that he was certain there were actually 6-8 trucks present on the site. Mr. Gardella concurred that this was correct, indicating that he had not intended to imply that there were no trucks on the site.) · Letter from the Chamber of Commerce dated February 17, 1976 supporting the continuation of this business. (Note: The Secretary at this time introduced into the record another letter dated March 11, 1976 from the Chamber of Commerce also supporting the continuation of this business.) · Petition containing 700~.signatures of residents basically supporting the retention of this business. (Note: Discussion followed on this petition, with Chairman Belanger pointingcout that there were actually 3 petitions with different wording.) Mr. Gardellamade the following observations: · With regard to the General Plan/Zoning Map consistency issue raised at previous public hearing on this matter, Mr. Gardella contended that-'_-.- a recent Marin County case indicated that use permit procedures and the use permit under use permit procedures were not required to be totally consistent with the General Plan in that a General Plan was considered ito be general~nly in nature. · Mr. Gardella requested an oral report be given on the Subdivision C~m~ittee meetin~ held February 14 and February 23, 1976. Regarding the February 14th meeting, it was noted that Mr. Gardella had bee~ ~equested to suppiy ....... information for Committee review, but that he had indicated to Staff that such information would not supplied. Insemuch as there was no new input to be covered at this meeting without this requested infor- mation~ and because the Lyngso's themselves who were in attendance at the meeting had no additional input to supply the Committee, this meeting was postponed. Staff explained that after the applicants had left, a group df homeowners represented by Mr. Tater arrived with the -3- C0}~iISSION MEETING 0f~RCH 24~ 1976 III. !._B. UP~296 -~Lyngso Garden Materials - cont'd request to give a presentation to the Committee_ of their arguments against this use permit request. It was pointed out that this presentation, given by Mr. Tater, was similar to the one given to the Commission. (Note: See Citizen Response) Regarding the February 23rd meeting, Staff noted that Mr. Gardella was present. In response to an allegation made by Mr. Gardella that he was requested to wait outside the meeting room while this matter was being discussed, Staff explained that the Committee was in the process of reviewing another application. Staff noted that as soon as discus- sion on the Lyngso application was started, Mr. Gardella was invited into the meeting room. Specifically concerning the provisions of the Staff Report dated February 24, 1976, Mr. Gardella made the following comments: · Regarding Condition (A) Mr. Gardella stated that the 5-year amortization period was not acceptable, and that a very minimum of 10 years would be an acceptable period for amortization. · Regarding Condition (B)~ Mr. Gardella explained that the bins referred to were more in the way of 69 feet from the property line rather than 70 feet, and he requested this condition be modified to a 69-foot measurement. · _~g~.~ing_Cop~.~p (c) Mr. Gardella requested that the 35-foot setback for internal vehicular circulation be reduced to 30 feet in order to provide a wider area in which to turn vehicles around. He added: "This is not to say that we cannot operate with a 30-foot setback along the west side, but actually we think it will be more beneficial for the neighbors to keep trucks from having to jockey back and forth. I think it would be to everybody's benefit to reduce that down to 30 feet." · Conditions (D), (E), (G) and (H) were acceptable. · Regarding Condition (F), Mr. Gardella stated that they felt g~ven a time limitation of 5 years, they w~pld_~o~_prpp0se t0_~u!!~ ne~_buil~ings_in_that. they would not be willing to spend more money onmajor capital improvements. · Regarding Condition (I), Mr. Gardella declined to enter into an agFeement of this nature. He explained that in his opinion either ordinance con- ditions were valid and could stand on their own wi~o~'t an'additional x~ritten agreement or they could not. H~ever, in answer to a question raised by Commissioner Marshall as to whether he would be willing to enter into such an agreement if he had a lO-year amortization schedule, Mr. Gardella indicated "quite possibly." Citizen Response · John Svilich, president of the Chamber of Commerce, reaffirmed the Chamber's letters of February 17, 1976 and March 11, 1976, and requested the City to allow for the continu~d~operat~on of this business. He stated: '~e request the:same consideration for Lyngso Garden Materials that w~s. reCe~tly~af~pr~ .: the Haven Nursery." · Arthur Brooks, 12492 Saratoga Creek Drive, explained that he had lived at this residence since 1958 and stated that he felt Lyngso Garden Materials should be allowed to continue in business "as a convenience to a great many people in Saratoga to get landscaping materials." · Manuel Costa, Quito Road, stated that he supported Lyngso Garden }~terials "since I feel that they were ~here previousl.~o the homes, and I think they have a right to continue." '~' -4- : COMlfKSSION MEETIN~ ~ III. B. UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials - Cont'd · Fred Tater, 20577 Manor Drive, gave a slide presentation on behalf of the Saratoga Manor Homeowners Association argui~g-against the continued operation of Lyngso Garden Materials. Mr. Tater showed several slides~ '(~finyfr~3 years b~"[~'~he present date) of the business ope~at~._n__-~ specifically pointing out the problems they felt were associated with the continued operation of this business. Mr. Tater contended that Lyngso Garden Materials impacted the area by its unsitel~ appearance and because of the nuisance factors involved on the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Regarding the unsitely appearance, Mr. Tater argued that the business itself was incompatible with the surrounding residential area, that the business detracted from property values of the neighborhood, and that the business had negative impacts on the City's "gateway" development. He showed slides of the business stating "the pictures I have shown you point a ma~ked' contrast between what I consider a beautiful area, and then the heavy industiral site that they have on-the Lyngso facility. I humbly submit that these kinds of contrasts are not really in the interest of good City planning." Further, he submitted a letter from ----the-Gounty--~ssessor-~-s-of-fice-supporting-his-pos~t~on-th-a-t-th~-v~l~- of the residential property had been reduced "due:to the noise and dust pollution caused by the Rockery." He also offered to obtain and submit a copy of a letter from the County Appraiser to a neighbor in this Homeowners Association stating that the appraised value of his house ~ ~ --had-decreased--$10~OOO-b-e-cau-s~-o-f-~'t~ ~i~i'~' to a commercial us~. "i Regarding the nuisance factors referred to by Mr. Tater earlier, he pointed out that the Lyngso business was a nuisance in the way of dust problems.which "permeate the whole neighborhood," the noxious fumes caused by the equipment used, the noise problems caused by the loading .... and unloading of materials, and the traffic problems caused bX the attempts of various trucks to turn around. Mr. Tat~E argU9~ that the noise factor ~ was the worst offender, s~ating [~a[ when "they drop a h~avy l'oa~ o'f' ...... rocks, it literally shakes the house." He further contended that the applicant had not oiled his property for over a year, and pointed out that when the sprinklers were used, they did not cover the entire area and they made mud puddles where they did cover. Mr. Tater gave a brief chronology of events on this issue from Kpril o~' ~" 1973 to date. He pointed out several observations he had made from this chronology of events, stating that he felt: "There are certain milestone .... times in this period where theCity had to make a decision as towhaj_they' want'~'d"~o do. And I present to yop that ~e~v~' the Planning Commission or~ City Council had an opportunity to vote, they voted, in my judgment, in the . direction of residential development of that property." Further, Mr. Tater stated that this neighborhood opposition was not a ?"Vind~tta" _adopted by a few neighbors adjacent to this business. He pointed out there were 24 homeowners within the Homeowners Association district, all of whom had at one time or 'another come before the City to speak to this issue. In support of ~"' '~his pos~io~ that it was not 'just a few homeSwners'P~oteSting'[his"' ~: business operation, Mr. Tater introduced into the record a letter dated September 1973 to Mayor Smith from the Good Government Group expressing concern over the Lyngso operation. As a final observation, Mr. Tater stated that "there has been an overt attempt on the part of the o~mer to thwart the City action to delay these things to every degree that they can." In conclusion, Mr. Tater requested the Planning Conm~ission deny this request for a use permit, citing Section 16 of the Zoning Ordinance as the justification of such a denial. He stated that he felt this was a realis- tic, justifiable request in that he did not know how the City could grant azuse permit to a nuisance; and in that from a practical point of view, he felt denial would "bring the issue to a head" causing the applicant to -5- COMMISSION MEETING III. B. UP-296 - Lyn~so Garden Materials - Cont'd "take the action which will ultimately result in what I think the City and the residents want -- and that is a phasing out of a non-conforming use." Mr. Tater submitted that the applicant has had plenty of time in which to amortize a "very small investment that he paid for that property in the 1960 timeframe." Mr. Tater also felt that this ~hasing out of the business operation would not unduly penalize the owner in that the applicant could develop this site as a residential development. (Note: In support of Mr. Tater's presentation, there were 13 residents present in'~the audience opposing the granting of this use permit.) In rebuttal to this presentation, Mr. Gardella stated that he had not seen anyzdust problems in the slides presented by Mr. Tater. He explained, with regard to the mud puddles and sprinklers, that the sprinklers were on automatic timers and were sequential; consequently "there are liable to be wet. spots in one spot and no visible wetness on the other portions." (Note: With regards to Mr. Gardella's statement on dust, Chairman Belanger stated for the record that she had indeed seen dust in the photographs next to the loaders, under the ~heels of cars and about the bins.) RECESS: 9:45 - 10:00 p.m. Con~nission Action Staff went on record as supporting its Staff Report dated February 24, 1976 recommending approval of this application subject to conditions. Chairman Belanger moved that the Planning Commission grant approval to UP-296 as conditioned by the Staff Report dated February 24, 1976, and Exhibit '~", amending Condition (A) as follows: "All non-conforming commercial uses being conducted by Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. on the site shall be discontinued within three (3) years from October 3, 1975 or before October 3, 1980. Additional non-conforming con~nercial uses are prohibited." The motion died for lack of a second. As a prelude to a motion, Commissioner Marshall stated that he would move for approval of this application in deference to th~ time the applicant has been in business on this site, and in recognition of his need to have time in which to discantinue his business and find an alternate site. Based on these reasons, COmmissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that application UP-296 be approved per Exhibit "A", and subject to Conditions (C) through (I) of the Staff Report dated February 24, 1976, and the following conditions: (A) All non-conforming commercial uses being conducted by Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. on the site shall be discontinued within ten (10) years from October 3, 1975 or before October 3, 1985. Additional non-conforming commercial uses are prohibited.:~ (B) All storage bins located within seventy (70±) feet of the western property line (S0° 28' 00° W344.46') shall be removed Before October 3, 1976 (Exhibit "A" of SDR-1176). (J) Material handling equipment, specifically the front loaders, shall be converted to propane fuel to minimize the generation of noxious fumes. The motion was carried: ayes - Commissioners Marshall, Zambetti, Woodward and Lustig; noes - Commissioners Belanger, Callon and Martin. Note was made that this decision"e0uld be appealed within 10 days of Commission action. -6- COM}~rSSION MEETING ,~RCH 24, 1976 IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. SS-103 - Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, Blaney Plaza, Final Design Review Approval - Banner for Annual Antique Show and Several Directional '- Signs to be Displayed at Various Locations Note was made that the applicant should'have applied for a use permit for this use, but that due to a misunderstanding between Staff and the applicant, such an application was not made. Ms. Cuenca, representative of the Chamber, stated that Staff had advised her to wait to apply for this permit until after the new temporary use permit ordinance had been adopted in order to determine whether this .ordinance would apply to the Annual Antique Show activity. Staff expla~ned"th~t it had been determined, however, that a regular use permit would be required on this activity insomuch as the Antique Show was being held on West Valley College campus, which was not under the jurisdiction of the City. Commissioner Lustig added that the Design Review Committee rec~xm~ended approval of this sign permit application insomuch as there was a misunder- standing on the procedure to follow. However, he noted that the Committee felt this would be the last time the City would be willing to waive its requirement for a use permit. Regarding the sign permit application itself, Chairman Belanger expressed concern over the proliferation of off-street signs being used for this activity. She recommended that a notation be added to the motion regarding this concern. (See wording of motion.) Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by C~mx~issioner Woodward, that the Plan- ning Commission grant approval to application SS-103 per Exhibits "A," '~-1," and "B" and the Staff Report dated March 18, 1976, and subject to the follow- ing notation: "The Commission takes note of the fact that the allowance of 6 off-site directional signs is not a precedent- for future applications, but is per- mitted in this instance as an experiment only." The motion was carried unanimously. B. A-467 - Osterlund Enterprises, Granite Way, Final Design Review Approval - Tract ~5011, Lot #12 Staff noted that the applicant had requested this item be continued pending submittal of revised plans. Chairman Belanger directed A-467, Lot #12 of Tract #5011 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 1976, and referred this item to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. C. A-483 - James Skinner, Chiquita Way, Final Design Review Approval - Tract ~5461, Lot ~2 A-522 - Dean Joy, Chiquita Way, Final Design Review Approval - Tract #5461, Lot ~1 These applications were discussed concurrently due to common problems. Staff explained that following substantial unauthorized grading operations on these 2 lots by the developer, Staff, the Heveloper, his engineer, and these 2 property owners worked to find a mutually acceptable solution to erosion and hillside profile problems. Staff pointed out that the plans submitted for both applications were culminations of these efforts, both of which had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Note was made that application A-483 had received Design Review approval in Novamber of 1975.; however, it had been suspended following discovery of the unauthorized grading by the developer. -7- CO~ISSION MEETING 0F~iARCH 24~ 1976 IV. C. A-483 and A-522 - James Skinner and Dean Joy - Cont'd Relative to application A-483, Commissioner Lustig reported that the design itself had been approved by the Design Review Committee in its review of this item. He advised the Commission, however, that he personally objected to the placement of the house across contour lines, contending that it was a "flat- land" designed house sited on a hillside lot. Commissioners Marshall and Belange~ agreed with this position, and Chairman Belanger asked the applicant whether the house could be sited in another location. Mr. Skinner, the applicant, pointed out that they had considered a number of other proposals for this site, but added that none of them provided them with "something We would like to live in." Commissioner Woodward added that this issue had been dealt with by the Design Review Committee over many months of review, with the outcome being an impasse between the Committee and the applicant. She explained that the design plans were what the applicant desired, and she personally expressed the opinion that the current plans were acceptable. Relative to the Staff Report on application A-483, discussion was had on the requirement for hydromulching. Staff explained that it had been its concern that erosion control requirements be made with the understanding by the appli- cant that more detailed landscaping plans would be implemented on the site after the house was constructed. The applicant concurred with this under- standing, explaining that it was his intention to seed after grading as a short-term measure, then landscape ~he entire area after construction of the house. After additional discussion, it was recommended that Condition (1) of the Staff Report on A-483 be modified as follows: "A cash bond in the amount of $100.00 is to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit to cover the hydromulching specified on Exhfbit E." At this point, Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant design revi~ approval to application A-483 per Exhibit "E" and subject to the Staff Report dated March 23,197~, as amended. The motion was carried; Commissioners Belanger, Lustig and Marshall voted no. Concerning application A-522, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by C~m~issioner Woodward, that~the Planning Commission grant design review approval to application A-522 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated March 23, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. D. A-518 - Manuel Costa, Quito Road, Final Design Review Approval - Landscaping of Commercial Property - Continued from March 10~ 1976 Staff explained that this matter had been continued pending resolution of the question od the use of this property, and drew attention to a letter regarding this question from the City Attorney to the applicant. Said letter, dated October 3, 1975, explained that a parking lo~, improved under the stan- dards prescribed for off-street parking facilities as per Section 11.3 of Ordinance NS-3, was permitted in a C-N (neighborhood commercial) zoning district as a permitted use under Section 7.2(2). Staff recommended approval of the landscaping plan involving the screening of commercial property as outlined in the Staff Report dated March 19, 1976 pending resolution by the Commission of the question on use. Discussion followed on this issue with Commissioner Marshall disagreeing with the City Attorney's interpretation that the use of the property was for off- street parking. He argued that the requested use was for storage of service trucks rather than as an off-street parking facility, and he contended that it had been the Commission's position in the past not to permit mass storage of a commercial nature other than what which was in support of a legal and conforming use. The City Attorney explained that the present ordinance did not specifically distinguish between parking lots incidental to a use and parking lots being used for storage. He stated that if the Commission -8- CO}~4ISSION ~ETING ~RCH 24,1976 IV. D. A-518 - Manuel Costa - Cont'd wished to impose regulations on storage vis-a-vis parking, then storage should be defined in the ordinance, which at this point it was not. Discussion followed, with the general consensus of the Commission being that it did not want a ~roliferation of trucks being stored overnight nor a heavy industrial storage use under the guise of parking. Further, the Commission indicated a desire to review the question of storage vis-a-vis off-street parking at a sub-conmittee level. Relevant to this application, however, it was suggested by Commissioner Marshall that the landscaping plan for the proposed facility be approved, and that the Ordinance be modified to include "tree surgeon" as a permitted conditional use under the C-N zone. Authority to add such a conditional use without the need for a public hearing was cited to be Section t4 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3. Cormuissioner Marshall noted that if such a conditional use was added to the uses under the C-N zone, the applicant would be required to apply for a use permit. After additional discussion between the Commission, Staff, the City Attorney and the applicant, Chairman Belanger recommended that the Staff Report be modified to delete the specific reference to the parking lot use. Specifically, Concluding Comment (4) was deleted from the Staff Report, as well as the following sentence under Project Description: "The proposed parking lot use will involve the parking of service trucks for a landscape contracting company. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-518 for a landscape proposal involving the screening of commercial property per Exhibit "A" and subject to the Staff Report dated March 19, 1975, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. Relative to the conditional use, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Conmissioner }~rtin, that Section 7.3(a) of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 be modified to include under Conditional Uses for a C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) zone the conditional use of "tree surgeon." The motion was carried unanimously. The applicant was advised that a use permit would be necessary in order to proceed with his proposed intention of parking service trucks for his landscape contracting company oh this site. E. A-418 - Kocher-Tyler, Big Basin Way and 5th Street, Final Design.Reyie~ ..... "~ Approval - Improvements at Rear of Commercial Site Staff requested this itembe continued pending receipt of revised plans. Chairman Belanger directed A-418 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 1976, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. F. A-520 - Aloyse Gacs~ Bank Mill Road~ Final Design Revie~ Approval - 1 Lot Staff requested this item be continued pending further review. Chairman Belanger directed A-520 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 1975, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. G. UP-119 - West Valley College, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review Approval Proposed Warehouse Structure Staff pointed out that design review approval was required for all new facility constructions at West Valley College as specified under the terms of UP-119. Note was made that this specific project involved the relocation of a storage building from the West Valley College Campbell campus to the Saratoga campus, to be located adjacent to the eastern perimeter road north of Parking Lot ~3. Staff added that the owner of the house next to this -9- COMMISSION MEETING 24~ 1976 ' IV. G. UP-119 - West Valley College - Proposed Warehouse Structure - Cont'd proposed warehouse structure had no .objections to the placement of the build- ing, and that the design and location of the structure as well as mitigating landscaping improvements were all reviewed and endorsed by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application UP-119 for the addition of a warehouse structure at West Valley College per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated March 18, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. V. ~RSCELLANEOUS A.Discussion of Alternatives for Slope Density Standards Covering Areas Outside of the Designated Slope Conservation Zone Note was made that the Planning Commission had been requested by the City Council to discuss and approve other slope standards, if any, which might be applicable to areas outside of the Hillside Conservation Zone. Staff intro- duced a Report outlining suggested alternatives available for regulat__i~g ...... development within these areas, and ~suggested that the Commission reViSit__~ ~ and transmit a recommendation to the City Council on this matter. ~ Commissioner Marshall explained that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter, and had endorsed the staff Report dated March 23, 1976 which provided for the same slope density formula as contained in the Hillside Conservation Residential District Ordinance. Commissioner Marshall stated that the Committee felt this same formula should be approved in order to provide consistency and uniformity throughout the City. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission fo~ard and recommend to the City Council that the formula contained in the Staff Report dated March 23, 1976 be adopted for regulation of slope lands outside of the Hillside Conservation District, and that said formula be added to the City Subdivision Ordinance No. 60. The motion was carried unanimously. VI. I~ITTEN CO~TNICATIONS A. Environmental Impact Determinations The following Ne_gative Declarations were filed between the period of March 10, 1976 to ~rch 24~ 1976: 1. UP-299 - Saratoga Horticultural FoundAtion, Verde Vista Lane, Use Permit Request to Allow the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Conmercial Use in a Residential Zoning District 2. SS-103 - Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, Blaney Plaza and Various Locations, Sign Permit Request for Banner for Annual Antique Show and Directional Signs B. Other The following correspondence were introduced into the record: \ 1. Letter to City'Council dated March 17, 1976 from Jackie Welch, 20925 J~cks Road, objecting to the use of the abandoned Arco station as a bus terminal on Big Basin Way. 2.Memorandum from the Planning Policy Committee dated March 11, 1976 regarding PPC action on Community Care Facilities. 3. Memorandum from the Planning Commission (signed by Chairman Belanger) to the City Council dated March 19, 1976 regarding the Fremont Union High School site rezoning matter. -10- COMMISSION MEETING 24 ~ 1976 VI. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Cont'd 4. Three Senata Bills introduced by Senator Smith relative to community colleges: SB-1714 concerning the location of non-classroom facilities; SB-1634 concerning the reimbursement by a community college to a govern- mental entity for services providing benefit to the college; and SB-1664 concerning the requirement of school districts and community college districts to. make reports regarding expenditures from the proceeds of taxes. Discussion followed and it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the word "may" be changed to t~e word "shall" in the fourth line of SB-1634. After additional brief dialogue, Chairman Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Marti~ that the Planning Commission call SB-1714, SB-1634 and SB-1664 to the attention of the City Council, and recommend that they forward the City's encouragement to Senator. Smith for the passage of these bills. The motion was carried unanimously. 5. Conflict of Interest Reports were distributed to each Commissioner with the request that they be completed and submitted to the State prior to April 30, 1976. VII. ORAL CO~fONICATIONS A. City Council Report - Commissioner Marshall gave a detailed oral report of the City Council meeting held on March 17, 1976. A copy of the minutes of this meeting can be obtained from the City Administration Office. B. Chairman Belanger welcomed and-expressed appreciation to Mrs. Owen of the Good Government Group for servi~'coffee. VIII. ADJOURnmeNT Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m. Resp~.u~/~lly submitted, Marty Van~ skw/ -11-