HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, May 12, 1976 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Martin and
Zambetti
Absent: None
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Coumissioner Zambetti, that the ~ding_of
the Planning Commission meeting minutes of April 28, 1976 be waived, and that
they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following
correction: page 2, last paragraph - Vice Chairman Martin closed the public
hearing on UP-299. The motion was carried;~Cha~rm~-Belanger abstained.
C. Chairman Belanger expressed appreciation to Commissioner Martin for chairing
the April 28th meeting in her absence. She also personally welcomed Conm~issioner
Laden to the Planning Commission.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Composition of Consent Calendar
Co~nissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Coumissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission approve the composition of the Consent Calendar. The motion was
carried unanimously.
B. Items for Consent Calendar
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Co~nission grant approval to Items l(a), 2(a) and 2(b) as follows:
· SDR-1227 - Aloyse Gacs, Bank Mill Road, Final Building Site Approval -
1 Lot
® A-447 - George Day Construction Co., Okanogan Court, Final Design Review
Approval, Lot #5 of Tract #5408; per Staff Report dated May 4, 1976
and Exhibit "M"
· A-525 - Woolworth Construction, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review
Approval - 1 Lot; per Staff Report dated May 4~ 1976 and Exhibit "A"
The motion was carried unanimously.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. UP-299 - SaratogaYHorticu~ural_.Foundation, Verde Vista Lane, 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 April 28~ 1976
Staff explained that this matter had been continued pending investigation of
concerns expressed by residents at the last public hearing on this matter; i.e.,
additional landscaping, the hours of operation of heavy equipment, and underground-
ing of existing overhead utility services. Staff noted that these it~n~ were
-1-
MINUTES OF MAY 12 1976
III. A. UP-299 - Saratoga Horticultural Foundation - Conttd
discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting of May 4th, and that a revised
Staff Report had been prepared recon~nending approval. Staff noted that conditions
requiring landscaping and restricting the hours of operating heavy equipment were
added to the Staff Report.
Relative to the point on power lines, Staff explained that PG&E had investigated
several alternatives on undergrounding said power lines; i.e., connections to
Sevilla Lane and Verde Vista Lane. It was noted that per PG&E t s estimates,
the closest and least expensive connection would be to Verde Vista Lane at a
cost of $5,000. It was pointed out that this amount would include not only ......
the costs of actual undergrounding, but also ;a substantial amount for~_i f~__z:_~i3.__
the removal of existing overhead lines and power poles as well as the installa-
tion at the office of entirely new metering and wiring. Staff noted that the
Subdivision Con-~ittee had determined this amount tO be excessive, noting
additionally that the Foundation was a non-profit organization. It was added,
however, that -should this site be converted to any alternate use, said utility
services would automatically be conditioned for underground wiring.
At this point Chairman Belanger r.eopened the public hearing on UP-299 at 7:35 p.m.
· George Zimmerman, 20546 Sevilla Lane, expressed concern over the safety
hazards involved with existing power lines over s~imming pools on Sevilla
Lane. He also stated that he did not feel $5,000 was that significant
an expenditure for a non-profit organization ~hich might have substantial
u_~ revenues, contending that many non-profit organizations have significant
cash reserves. He pointed out that according to his copy of the Tract
Plan, there was an existing 5-foot PG&E easement running-bet~een Lots 6
and 7, as well as an easement running along Lot 10; and he suggested that an
overhead power line connection be made to one of these points.
Commissioner Marshall explained that these particular concerns had been
discussed at the Subdivision Gommittee meeting. Relative to power-lines
over swimming pools, he stated that according to state law there was -~'
a 10-foot power line clearance requirement for_-lines running over swimming
pools. He stated that the Subdivision Committee had felt it unfair to
hold the Foundation liable for a rather excessive amount of money to pro-
vide additional protection to the homeowners on Sevilla Lane when state law
r requires this 10-foot easement. Additionally, Chairman Belanger pointed
out that there were many areas within the City which still had overhead
wiring running over swimming pools, noting that this condition was not
abnormal to the City.
Relative to the 5-foot easement mentioned by Mr. Zimerman, the Tract Plan
was reviewed and discussed by the Co,,,,=ission. A 5-foot easement was shown
on this Tract Plan between Lots 6 and 7, approximately 30 feet west of the
..~ easterly boundary of the Foundation. The distance from the Foundation to
the nearest connection point between Lots 6 and 7 was determined to be at
least as much as the connection point to Verde Vista Lane. Relative to the
easement referred to by Mr. Zinmerman near Lot 10, Mr. Trinidad of the
Public Works Department explained that that easement was abandoned at the
time of the subdivision's construction. The suggestion was made, however,
that the property owners on Sevilla Lane .could "ii~'ft'i~t~ergrounding power '
'Yf~n~i~h'., PG&E and the Foundation on their own. '
At this point Mr. Zimmerman stated that if the alternative to getting under-
ground utility services was to turn the site into a residential development,
the property owners on Sevilla Lane would vote against that insomuch as they
felt the Foundation was a very good neighbor. He added that his only concern
was the safety hazards involved with the overhead power lines over pools.
At this point Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall,
that the public hearing on UP-299 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the public hearing on UP-299 was closed at 7:52 p.m.
-2-
III. A. UP-299 - Saratoga Horticultural Foundation - Cont'd
Discussion followed on the contents of the Staff Report, with the follo~ing
amendments being made:
· Page 2, Recommended Action Item #2 was amended as follows:
"Up to two (2) tractors may be operated only-'.~bet~.~een the hours o~ 8:00 a.m.
end 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday."
· Page 3, Counents Item ~2: substitute wo~d~junderstanding" on third line
with word "undergrounding"
~ CormnissionerMarsha11 moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that' the Planning
Commission appr0,e' in principl~ 'the ~deas expressed in the Staff Report dated
May 4, 1976, as amended, :relative to use ~errnit appl~'6ation UP-Z99, and direct
Staff to prepare a resolution on same. The motion WaS carried unanimously.
Staff was requested to agendize said Resolution for the Planning Con~nission
meeting of May 26, 1976.
B. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn (G.N. (Jerry) Renn, Inc.), Marion Avenue,
Use Permit to Allow the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Commercial
Use in a Residential Zoning District in Accordance wi~h Article 15
of Zonin~ Ordinance NS-3~ ContinUed from April 28, 1976
Staff explained that this itemwas discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting
of May 4, 1976, with special concerns being expressed over the storage of flam-
mable petroleamproducts and the over-night parking of potentially flarmnable
tanker trucks on site. It was explained that in order that an accurate evalua-
tion of fire hazards be determined, Staff had requested the County Fire
Marsha11's office to investigate these concerns. Staff noted that a Fire
Marsha11's report was anticipated to be ready for review and discussion at
the Subdivision Committee meeting of May 18, 1976.
Additionally, Staff introduced into the record the following correspondence
recently received on this item: ...... ._-~--- .........
e 2 petitions dated April 27, 1976 (submitted under Oral Oommun'~cations
at the April 28, 1976 Coum~ssion meeting) signed by 4 residents on Marion
Road, and reqU}pting-that tH'e' ~se permit not be granted for more than 2-3
..... ye8~s---wfth special conditions placed thereon.
· Letter dated May 5, 1976 from Donald and Dorothy Stamper, 20562 Marion Road,
recoupending that the letter received on this item from Mr. Taro Yamagami
not be considered in that Mr. Y~m~gami does not reside on Marion Road.
· Letter dated May 6, 1976 from C. Althouse, 20659 b~rion Road, objecting
to granting this operation a use permit because of the fire hazards. The
letter outlined several conditions that Mr. Althouse felt should be placed
on the use permit, however, should the application be granted.
Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on UP-300 at 8:05 p.m. As
there were no comments, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on UP-300,
directed it be continued to the Planning Corm~ssion meeting of May 6, 1976,
and referred this item to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further
review. Chairman Belanger requested that copies of all correspondence re-
ceived on this matter be supplied to the Commission at its next regular meeting.
C. UP-301 - Richard Previte, 14842 Andrew Court, Request for use Permit to Allow
for the Construction of a 10-Foot High Tennis Court Fence within the
Required RearWard Setback (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7-1)
Staff noted that the Subdivision C~mxdttee reviewed this item at its meeting of
May 11, 1976, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recomuending approval.
-3-
MINUTES OF MAY 12 1976
III. C. UP-301 - Richard Prevlte - Cont'd
Note was made that no correspondence had been received on this item. Staff
recu~maended the Staff Report be modified to include the following condition:
(4) Direct opaque screening of the verticle surface of the tennis court
fence is prohibited.
Commissioner Marshall ~riefly summarized this application, explaining the reasons
why this application for a tennis court fence had not required a variance. He
explained that per the City Zoning Ordinance, a variance would not be required
if a 10-foot high fence was located within 20-f~'~f'eh~ sideyard property
line, pointing out that this was the case in this instance.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-301 at 8:15 p.m. As there
were no conmmnts, Co.~-issioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin,
that the public hearing on UP-301 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the public hearing was closed at 8:16 p.m.
Co,,.f,~ssioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant approval to application UP-301 per the Staff Report dated
~y 7, 1976, as amended, and Exhibit '~." The motionwas carried unanimously.
D. UP-304 - Bryce Reynolds, 20700 Prospect Road, Request for Use Permit to Allow
for the Construction of an ~ccessory Structure within the Required
Rearyard Setback (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1bl)
Note was made that this was an application to allow for the construction of a
shade structure in the rear yard. Staff pointed out that the Subdivision Co ...... {tree
reviewed this item on May 4, 1976, and that a Staff Report had been prepared
recommending approval.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-304 at 8:19 p.m. As there
were no co.=uents, C~mnissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissione~amb'~tti,
that the public hearing on UP-304 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the publicshearing was closed at 8:20 p.m.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Co~nissioner Martin, that the Planning
Commlssion grant approval to application LrP-204 per the Staff Report dated
May 5, 1976 and per Exhibit '~". The motion was carried unanimously.
E. V-450 - George Bate, 13280 Paramount Drive, Request for Variance to Allow for
the Reduction of a Required 25-Foot Exterior Sideyard Setback to Allow
for the Construction of a Swimming P6ol (Ord. NS-3, Section 3.7)
Note was made that the Variance Co~uittee reviewed this matter on-site on May 6,
and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner
Martin explained that the proposed swimming pool would encroach into a required
exterior sideyard of a comer 10t bordering Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. He noted
that the Variance Committee had considered this to not be detrimental to any
residents in the City, and in fact, would be locating the noise of the pool
towards Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road away from any abutting neighbors.
jQhairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V-450 at 8:21 p.m.
James Coleman, landscape architect for the applicant, was present to answer
questions. In response to a question on the removal of trees, Mr. Colemant
explained that there were no trees where the pool was proposed to be located
and consequently there would not be any trees removed.
As there were no additional comments, Comm~i~'L~t'ig mov~d'~--seconded-~y----
Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on
~V-450. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at
8:24 p.m.
Co~nissioner Martin moved, seconded by Couwnissioner Callon,' that the Planning
Commission grant approval to application V-450 per the Staff Report dated
May 6, 1976 and Exhibit '~". The motion was carried unanimously.
-4-
III. F. V-451 - Dividend Industries (Aquarian Pools), Carnelian Glen Court, Lot #8 of
Tract #5575, Request for Variance to Allow for the Reduction of a Re-
quired Sideyard Setback to Allow for the Construction of a Swimming
Pool (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7)
Note ~as made that the Variance Committee had reviewed this item, and that a
Staff Report had been prepared recc~,,,~ending approval without the endorsement of
the Variance Committee. (Staff was requested to make note of this fact on its
Staff Report dated May 6, 1976. ) The Secretary introduced into the record a
letter recommending approval of this request from Montgomery and Doris Hawks,
20221 La Paloma Drive.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V-451 at 8:26 p.m.
Don Gentry, architect representing the applicant, explained that he had been
contracted to design this subdivision, and emphasized the need for considera-
tion of sensitiv.ity to a well-designed subdivision. It was explained that the
applicant was requesting a 6-foot sideyard setback variance to allow for a
swimming pool. Mr. Gentry explained that the rearyard was not a feasible loca-
tion for a pool because a great deal of the yard was taken up by the abutting
creek. He explained that, due to safety reasons and the fact that the house
cast a shadow, they had proposed placement of the swimming pool in its present
location. He pointed out that he would develop plans which would increase the
setbacks on the adjacent lot to compensate for the requested variance, and he
stated that only these 2 lots would be affected by the changed setback lines.
Concerns were expressed by many of the Commissioners over the fact that a domino-
type situation would occur if this sideyard setback was moved. Additionally,
Commissioner Marshall stated that he felt the si~e had been designed for mRxi-
r~!m coverage, which he found undesirable, and he obj~d to grantin~h~ variance ~
ion the grounds that there was not a hardship involved.
Mr. Gentry pointed out that this lot had received Design Review approval in July
of 1975, a~d that the location of the swinnning pool had been reflected on said
design review plans. Staff concurred with this statement, adding that the Design
Review Staff Report had excluded the pool from'approval in that the appli-
cation was for Design Review approval and not for Variance approval.
Considerable discussion followed on this application. Co~n~ssioner Marshall
suggested that alternate pool shapes be considered in an attempt to avoid the
need for a variance (such as a kidney-shaped pool or a }~rquis-shaped pool).
Mr. Gentry explained that the house was of a .F. rench-Regency design, and that
a kidney-shaped pool would not be appropriate to the design of the house. In
response to this conEaent, Con~nissioner Marshall stated: "I find it incongruous
that a person knowing that a variance is required back when the design and
conceptual study was done, would studiously ignore applying for a variance
until it was absolutely too late to do anything about the siting of the house
and the pool. And then they use arguments such as the styling of the house
decrees that the shape of the pool mast not be a shape that fits. It is as
if we are being forced into the issueio~ approving it because somehow they
spent a lot of money and they have to maintain the posture of the s~t~le rather
than careful thought going into the placement of the house in consonance with
the ordinances."
The suggestion was also made that the tract's lot lines be redrawn and re-recorded.
Commissioner Martin explained that this suggestion ~as made by the Variance
Co~nittee, but that problems in changing the graded pads was brought up.
Comm4ssioner Marshall stated that he felt this was an excellent suggestion,
adding: "Since the developer wants a way out of his dilenmm, if he x~ishes to
bear the additional padding expenses and filing fees for the new lot line,
he should do it. He doesn't need a variance per se in order to accomplish
what he desires."
Comm/ssioner Laden expressed concern that the setback change on the adjacent
lot would be an infringement to the potential buyers. Commissioner Martin
stated that he did not feel the setback change would be an encroachment in that
-5-
. MINUTES OF ~
III. F. V-451 - Dividend IndustTies (Aquarian Pools) - Cont'd
the house on the adjacent lot had not been built as yet, but he expressed concern
in making findings for a variance~4nen there was not a hardship involved. He
suggested that one side of the pool be swung over 6 feet thereby alleviating
the need for a variance. Commissioner Callon stated that she also had diffi-
culty in making the findings that a hardship existed in this case, and she
suggested that the pool design be redone to mitigate the need for a variance.
She disagreed, however, with Commissioner ~rsha11's contention that this lot
was almost at a maximum coverage, stating that she felt ~his was a personal choice.
At this time Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti,
that the public hearing on V-451 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the public hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission deny without prejudice application V-451. Conmissioner Martin
explained that he felt this should be denied without prejudice in order to allow
the applicant the opportunity to submit revised ~lans, although he would prefer
the applicant to design a pool without the need for a variance. C~fmaissioner
Callon stated that she felt the application should be denied without prejudice
on the basis that the design concept had been reviewed by the Design Review
Committee at an earlier date. The motion to deny application V-451 without
prejudice was carried unanimously.
Chairman Belanger advised the applicant that there was a 10-day appeal period
to the City Council from date of Cmmmission decision, if the applicant wished
to appeal this decision.
G. V-453 - Michael Holden, Old Oak Way, Lot #19, Tract #3943, Request for
Variance to Allow for the Reduction of the Required 30-Foot Erontyard
Setback to 6 Feet for the Construction of a Residence (Ordinance NS-3,
Section 3.7)
Staff noted that due to the severity of lot slope on this site, the applicant
was requesting reduction of the frontyard setback along Old Oak Way~in order
that the house could be anchored on level ground. Staff explained that the
'Variance Committee reviewed this on-site, and that a Staff Report had been
'prepared rec~mfLending approval.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V-453 at 8:55 p.m. As there were
no conments to be made, Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner
Martin, that the public hearing on V-453 be closed. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:56 p.m.
CoumLissioner Martin explained that the Variance Committee, in inspecting this
on site, felt that the proposed variance was the only possible solution for
development of this lot, and Variance'ECommittee endorsement of the Staff Report
was given.
Commissioner Martin asked of Staff whether the original subdivision tentative
map had indicated a variance for the house location. In response, Staff pointed
out that the tentative map specified a 30~foot setback from the building wall=
to the street right-of-way. Hm~ever, the location of the actual street im-
provements were on the far side of the right-of-way effectively increasing the
separation between the proposed dwelling and the pavement.
Some concerns were raised relative to the visual impact of a pole-type house
on this site. Staff explained that the entire side and rear elevations of the
house were completely screened by a substantial number of mature oak trees,
and that the front elevation~ showed no negative visual impacts.
At this point a letter was introduced into the record dated May 12, 1976 from
Raymond Jones, 13558 Old Oak Way, favoring approval of this variance request.
The letter indicated that the d~sign of the house would be reviewed by the
subdivision's architectural review committee prior to a request for building
permit. The questionzdfwhether design review approval would be required was
raised, and both Commissioners Callon and Marshall felt that such approval
MINUTES OF MAY 17 1976
III. G. V-453 - Michael Holden - Cont ' d
was not necessary. Cc, nm~ssioner Marshall explained that the Commission had
approved a subsequent variance in this subdivision without the requirement for
design review approval, and he stated that for the sake of consistency he did
not feel Design Revie~ Approval was necessary. Commissioner Callon stated that
insomuch as the design of the house would be reviewed by the architectural
review cow-.,ittee of the subdivision, she felt this was adequate design review
. requirements.
At this point Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Cow....issioner Callon, that
the Planning Co......{ssion grant approval to application V-453 per the Staff
Report dated ~L~y 7, 1976 and Exhibit "A". The motion was carried unanimously.
H. GF-303 - City of Saratoga, Proposed Amendments to the 1974 General Plan for the
City of SataroMa~ Continued from April 14~ 1976
Staff recommended this matter be continued to the next Planning C~ssion meet-
ing due to present workload constraints.
Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on GF-303 at 9:04 p.m.
Relative to the extension of Canyon View Drive, Marlene Duffin;=. representative
of the Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association, requested the Planning Co.muission
to modify the General Plan to show Canyon View Drive as a dead-end street not
connected to Pierce Road=per their earlier requests made during the 1975 General
Plan Reviews. Some confusion was expressed over the reason why dots ]~¢ere_= ~roposed
· to be used to reflect a Canyon View Drive extension on the General Plan ~p.
Staff explained that, per the Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association's request,
the Planning Coj.~ndssion had a~reed to consider Canyon View Drive as a dead-end
street. Hewever, the Commission felt it necessary to consider Canyon View
Drive as a future em._er_g_enjy access road x~ithoutfimmediate improvements. It was '
pointed out that the graphics used to illustrate this ~Uture emergency access
road were dotted lines shown on the General Plan Map in order that the City would
be able to recognize at the time of future development of the area that an
easement for emergency access on Canyon View Drive would be required.
Chairn~n Belanger advised Ms. Duffin that this request would be taken under
consideration, and that this item would be addressed at the Planning Commission
meeting of May 26, 1976.
As there were no further connents, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing
on GF-303, directed this be continued to the Planning. Commission meetin~ of
}~y 2'~, 1976, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff
for further review and report. . .....
BREAK: 9:15 - 9:35 p.m.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-526 - Jerry Lee Harris, Cox Avenue,. Final Design Review Approval - Con~nercial
Expansion
Staff requested this matter be continued to the first meeting in June pending
receipt of other design review applications o~i other tenants of the rear of the
Quito Shopping Center. Chairman Belanger directed A-526 be continued to the
Planning Conmission meeting of June 9, 1976, and referred this item to the
Design Review Committee and Staff for further review.
V. ~FiSCELLANEOUS
A. Hassan Zeno - Request to Include A~_~sement Centers as a Conditional Use in the
Co,,...~/nity Commercial (C-C) Zoning District; Continued from
April 28, 1976
It was noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Subdivision Cormnittee.
Commissioner Marshall stated that although he had expressed concerns over ~ether
proper controls could be made on this type of activity, he now felt satisfied
-7-
~ MINUTES OF MAY 12A~~..
e~- ,:~-. _
V. A. Has san Zeno - Cont ' d
that there would be a proper check and balance system incorporated. He explained
that, as a controlled use, this type of activity could be rescinded on the
basis of adverse public opinion or on the basis of violation of any condition
of use permit approval.
It was pointed out that "recreational centers privately operated within a
building" was a conditional use permitted under the C-V zone, and both
Co.w.~ssioners Callon and Marshall stated that they had no objections to adding
this use to the C-C zone.
Chairman Eelanger expressed some doubts that this type of use was appropriate
to the City's Village area, citing potential problems with young people hanging
out downtown. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that young people hung out
now in front of the theater, and he stated that he felt it better to have an
amusement center available to these people rather than having them standing
on the streets.
Cu~uissioner Zambetti stated that he felt the proposed use was good as a
conditional use in the Village area, but he stated that he felt there should
be an adequate enforcement system set up in advance. Comm~ ssioner Lustig
urged that the Conmission request guidance from the County Sheriff's Department
relative to whether there had been problems created by this type of activity
elsewhere in the County. The point was made that if this use was permitted
as a conditional use under the C-C zone and the applicant made application
for a use permit, the matter would require a public hearing and solicitation
of neighboring merchants' connnents w~rd be made. :
At this point, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Conmissioner Martin,
that the Planning Commission add to Zoning Ordinance NS-3 "recreational centers
__privately operated within a buildi~ng". to the permitted uses allowed under the
: Ccu~unity-Cormnercial (C-C) zoning district. ~he motion was carried 'UnanimOusly.
VII. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Determinations
The following Negative Declarations were filed between the period of April 28th
and May 12, 1976:
e SD-1235 - George Day Construction, Mr. Eden Road, Subdivision Approval for
5 Lots
s SDR-1236 - Saratoga Foothill Development Corporation, Wardell and Arroyo
de Ar~uello, Buildin~ Site Approval for 4 Lots
o SDR-1237 - David Mendenha11~ Mr. Eden Roads Buildin~ Site Approval - 2 Lots
o SDR-1239 - R. Craig, Saratoga Avenue, Building Site Approval - 2 Lots
~ SDR-1240 - Armin Kampman, Chiquita Way, Building Site Approval - 2 Lots
o SDR-1244 - Iacomini Construction, Ten Acres Road, Building Site Approval
for 3 Lots
o SD-1246 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Douglass Lane,
Subdivision Approval - 5 Lots
The following EIRs were requested to be filed:
· SDR-1242 - W.C. Garcia, Prospect and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building Site
Approval - 2 Lots (Coumercial Development)
® SDR-1243 - Ira Kirkorian, Kirkmont and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building
Site Approval - 1 Lot (Commercial Development)
Chair~n Belanger asked whether there was any way in ~hich to mitigate geologic
problems relative to any of the above site approval applications which had re-
ceived Negative Declarations. Staff explained that when the Land Development
Committee reviewed these applicati.ons, they had the option to require any
mitigating measures which they deemed necessary. Staff noted that an EIR
-8-
WRITTEN CO}~4UNICATIONS - Cont'd
presented the City with evidence of conditions that it knew nothing about, and
the Secretary explained that he felt there was a very large data base already
on file relative to these hillside area lots. Further, it was explained that
all applications for tentative site approval were reviewed by the City's con-
sulting geologist, and that the geologist would condition these applications
as he deemed was necessary.
B. Other
1. Staff noted that a letter from Boething Treeland Nursery Company had been
received requesting approval from the Planning Conmnission to relocate their
office trailer for a variety of reasons. Discussion followed on this request,
'zzitwith concern being expressed over the intended use of power tools. It was
the consensus of the Planning Counalssion to agendize this matter for
further discussion at the Commission meeting of May 26, 1976. Staff was
directed to prepare a report for the Conmassion's consideration.
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. City Council Report
Commissioner Laden gave a brief oral report of the City Council meeting of
May 5, 1976. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City
Administration office.
B. Other
1. Con~ssioner Zambetti requested that consideration be given to prohibiting
any further drive-up windows in the City because they cause pollution and
traffic congestion. He referenced the City of Cupertino's policy discouraging
drive-up windows because of the pollution problems they create.
Discussion followed, and it was the consensus of the Conwn!ssion that Staff
add Conmhissioner Zambetti,further investigate this matter. Staff was
requested to obtain copies of the City of Cupertino's policy on this nmtter.
2. Commissioner MarShall expressed concern that the rural character of the
City was disappearing, and that/many of the older and younger citizens -~
(+64 and -42) of the City were leaving Saratoga because they could not afford to
live in the City. 'He cited the recent census figures as evidence of this
trend, and contended that much of the reasons for this situation resulted
from r,rising construction costs due to maximum development of lots within
the City. He stated: "The point is that the money that is poured into
wall-to-wall improvements on lots is raising the general cost of living
in this town, which is helping to force out some of the people. Secondarily,
it is also destroying the character of Saratoga." Coh~ssioner Marshall
applied a Fortune magazine article statement to this situation by pointing
out that people were moving to Saratoga and destroying the very thing that
caused them to move to the City in the first place. Commissioner Marshall
urged the Planning Commission to schedule a study session on the direction
of the City, and suggested that the Subdivision Committee be assigned the
task of initiating review of these concerns. He suggested several miti-
gating solutions to the above-described problems; i.e., reduce the amount
of maximum square-foot coverage permitted for a house on a given size lot,
reduce the amount of permitted impervious surface coverage on a lot,
address the issue of what constitutes an accessory structure, address the
feasibility of changing the mix of zoning in the City, and redraft the
Zoning Ordinance to clarify many of the anomalies contained therein.
Chairman Belanger stated that she felt the current trend in the City was
a result of the natural fruition of the General Plan, and expressed some
doubts as to whether there was enough undeveloped space left in the City to z
'~e any substantial ch'Hi~e'~ ~ ~'~o~'~'s~f~ha'~'~E~t~'.~. HoweVer, she did
agree that the Planning Conmission shohld give this matter consideration.
-9-
MINUTES OF ~
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Cont'd
Co-mmissioner Laden stated that she also was very concerned about the loss of
young and old people in the City, and suggested the implementation of a
beautification program for smaller and older homes in the City with possible
tax rebates provided as incentive for renovation. She contended that this
]loss of young people in the City affected the City's schools, and resulted
in_a ~hange in the cha~a_~er o~ the City.
Cou~issioner Callon disagreed with Commissioner Marshall's feeling that the
primary cause of these problems}was _from maXimum development of sites within
the City. She stated: "If you really want to deal with other economic
groups, and therefore age groups, you have to bite the bullet on zoning.
You have to have multiple zoning and small-lot zoning."
After additional discussion, it was the consensus df the Planning Commission
that the Subdivision Committee draft a program of ideas on this issue for
discussion at a Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. Staff suggested that the
entire Planning Commission submit individual ideas relative to this matter
to the Subdivision Committee for compilation, and suggest6d that the
Committee look to Staff as a data source.
3. Cormn~ssioner Callon stated that she felt the Planning Staff or the Planning
Cou~miission should make an attempt to correct any errors appearing in the
Saratoga News on Proposition "I" because it was a City-initiated proposition.
Note was made that Councilman Matteoni was presently preparing a clear
explanation of clustering.
4. Chairman Belanger expressed appreciation to the Good Government Group for
serving coffee, add welcomed Councilman Kraus to the meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission meeting of May 12, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the meeting was adjourned at 10:35Sp.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marry Van Duyn ,,
! skw/
-10-