Loading...
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-