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-