HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PIA~rNING COM}ffSSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, June 9, 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 and
Zambetti
Absent: Cormnissioner Martin
B. MINUTES
Conmissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the read-
l~ng.~ ~e planning commission meeting minutes of ~y"2'67'rg'76 be waived,
and that they be'appr~ved'~s' di~trfButed t~"the c'~mni~si6n~- The motion was
carried unanimously.
II. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION APPROVALS
A. SD-1235 - George Day Construction Company, Mr. Eden Road, Tentative Subdi-
vision Approval - 5 Lots (Expires June 21~ 1976)
Staff noted that as a result of the g~ologic review of this site, the deter-
mination was made that tentative map approval should not occur until a geo-
technical report was ~repared. Additional note was made that a letter had
been received from the applicant granting an extension of SD-1235 to the
Planning Conmission meeting of July 28, 1976, and Staff reconmended this
matter be continued to said meeting. Chairman Belanger directed SD-1235
be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1976, 'and re-
ferred this item to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review.
B. SD-1246 ~ Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Douglass Lane, Tenta-
tive Subdivision Approval - 5 Lots (Expires June 21~ 1976)
Staff explained that the location of the turn-around had not as yet been
determined, and the request was made that this matter be continued.pending
further review. ~As note was made that ~his~applica~0n.w0ul~ expire June 21,
1976, Commission~'M~Shal~'~oved,'~co~ded by Commissioner'Callon, that the
Planning commission deny application SD-1246 subject to-receipt of a written
extension to the Planning Commission meeting of June 23,"'1976'." The motion
was carried unanimously.
~ IIi. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. UP-307 - Thomas Hong, 19308 Zinfandel Court, Request for Use Permit to Allow
for the Construction of a Fence in Excess of 6 Feet in Height for
the Purpose of Enclosing a Tennis Court (Ordinance NS-$~ Section
3.7-1); Continued from Ma~ 26~ 1976
Staff noted that a Report had been prepared on this matter recommending
approval, and that the application had been ~eviewed by the Subdivision
Committee. Commissioner ~rshall~c~_mme~ded_tha~ Condition (2) of the
Staff Report be amended to read:
(2) Opaque screening of tennis court fence is prohibited.
Commissioner Marshall stated that as chairman of the Subdivision Comnittee he
was personally satisfied that everything was in order for this application,
and recommended the Commission grant approval to UP-307% He explained that
-1-
COMMISSION }~NU~S dF JUNE 9 1976
III. A. UP-307 - Thomas Hong - Cont'd
on one side of the tennis court, grading was such that the fence was only
6 feet high and the grade from the top of bank to the tennis court finished
grade was 4 feet, thereby creating a lO-foot fence. Further, he noted that
at the other end of the tennis court the fence was 10-feet high, but that
the setback was su'hh that the court fell properly within the setback re-
quirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Burr added that the tennis court
was graded at the time the building pad was graded, and that there had been
no grading activity since that time.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-307 at 7:41 p.m. }~. Hong,
the applicant, was present but offered no comments. As there,was no
testimony given on this item, Cormuissioner Marshall moved, seconded by .....
Cormuissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing
on UP-307. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was
closed on UP-307 at 7:42 p.m.
Connuissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Planning
Conmission grant approval to application UP-307 per Exhibit '~" and subject
to the Staff Report dated June 3, 1976, as amended. The motion was carried
unanimously.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-532 - Eldred Kunkel Associates, Comer Drive, Final Design Review Approval -
Lot #4, Tract #5693
Note was made that the Design Review Committee reviewed this matter on June 1,
1976, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recital,ending approval.
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning
Commission grant approval to application A-532 per Exhibit '~" and subject
to the Staff Report dated June 1, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. A-526 - Jerry Lee Harris, Cox Avenue, (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design
Request Approval - Conmercial Expansion~ Continued from May 12~ 1976
Staff explained that the Building Department was in the process of scheduling
a public hearing before the City Council for condemnation of the structures
identified in this application. Consequently, Staff pointed out that it was
not appropriate at this point for the Commission or Staff to further pursue
Design Review. However, the request was made that this item be continued.
Chairman Belanger directed A-526 be continued to the Plarming Commission meet-
ing of July 14, 1976, and referred this item to the Design Review Coumnittee
and Staff for further review.
C. A-527 - Bill Cardia, Chiquita Way~ Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
Staff noted that several significant errors in the grading plan submitted had
been identified, and the recommendation was made that this itembe continued
pending further review. Chairman Belanger directed that A-527 be continued to
the Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 1976, and referred this item to
the Design Review Committee for further review and report.
D. A-528 - Geraldine Gamaunt, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design
Review Approval - Commercial Expansion
Staff noted that this matter was reviewed by the Design Review Coum~ittee on
June 1, 1976, and the determination had been made that part of the use of
this business was being conducted out of doors, which was a violation of the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff reported that it had recommended to the applicant at
the Design Review Committee meeting that either the out-of-doors use be
enclosed or eliminated, and stated that it was now waiting for a response
from the applicant on this recommendation.
Ms. Gamaunt, the applicant, was present and stated that the use was an
outdoor garden aviary ~hich could not be enclosed.
-2-
COMb~SSION }fINUTES OF 1976 ......... ~- .........
IV. D. A-528 - Geraldine Gamaunt - Cont'd
It was determined that this matter should be addressed at the Design Review
Committee meeting of June 22, 1976~' ~_Chairman pelanger direg~ed.~-5~!..be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 1976 and referred
same to the D~eSign Review Committee for further review.
ii'. E. A-531 - ~lant World, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design Review
Approval - Conmercial Expansion
Staff recou~L~ended this matter be continued pending further review. Chairman
Belanger directed A-531 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
June 23, 1975, and referred same to the Design Review Cou~,~ttee for further
review and report.
F. A-529 - W.C. Garcia and Associates, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design
Review Approval - 1 Lot - Commercial
Staff noted that this item, as well as application A-530, were jointly con-
sidered by the Design Review Committee on June 1, 1976, and that the conceptual
aspects of both projects were endorsed by the Committee. Staff reported that
it was formulating a list of specific details ~ahich would require further
consideration by the applicants and subsequent review by the Commitee, and
it was recommended this item be continued. Additional note was made that
Staff was also waiting for the findings and recommendations of the EIR being
pr~red on this project_-for further input as to architectural and site
planning considerations. Chairman Belanger directed A-529 be continued to
the Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 1976, and referred this matter
to the Design Review Committee for further review and report.
G. A-530 - Ira Kirkorian, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Revi~ Approval
1 Lot - Commercial
As this item is being considered in concert with A-529, Chairman Belanger
directed A-530 be continued to the Planning ConmLissionmeeting of July 14,
1976, and referred same to the Design Review Committee for further review
and report.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn (G.N. "Jerry" ReD_n, Inc.), Marion Avenue,
ResolUtion for Use Permit to Allow the Continuation of a Non-Con-
forming Commercial Use in a Residential Zoning District
Staff noted that Resolution UP-300-1 had been prepared by Staff as r~quested
by the Planning Commission at its meeting of }~y 26, 1976 reflecting the con-'
ditions contained in the amended Staff Report dated ~y 26, 1976. Staff fur-
ther noted that a letter dated June 8, 1976 had been received from the Renn's
___expr~i__ng_th_e_f_O.~!o!~ng_; '~e sincerel~_~gp_e_y~_do not c~t .QUr_~ontinuation
period down any further than 7~ years. At this time it would present an ex-
treme hardship on our family-owned corporation as our other two locations are
not suitable for our ~nole business operation. We hope to use the remaining
7 years to consolidate our business in one locationsland still hope to keep
~r_Marion_Av~nue_home.__This_has_b_een_Renn_land_f~r 4O_y~s_and we do
..to continue living here."
Considerable discussion followed on this resolution, with the following comments
being made:
e--C~i~fO~f'M~Bh~II'~l~i~'~h~f'h~h~d~eques~d'S~f~'t6'~llUstra~e
the amount of undeveloped area along }~rion Avenue in an attempt to deter-
mine wh~ther the character of the residential neighborhood would change
much over the next 5-10 years. Staff sh~ed a map depicting the remaining
non-Renn property which could still be developed, and the note was made
--~h'~t~ha~617mYlots codl'd'b~d~l~'d'~l~g Marion Avenue.
COMb~SSION MINUTES OF 1976
V. A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricla Renn - Cont'd
· Commissioner Lustig stated that he felt paragraph (4) of Exhibit A was dis-
tasteful insomuch as he could not vote in favor of forcing the cessation of an
existing business. As a result, he suggested that UP-300-1 be adopted with
the exclusion of paragraph (4) of Exhibit A, with a period of 5 years and an
option that every 2~ years the use permit be issued for an additional 5 years.
He explained that this would be on the same principal as the Williamson Act
continuing contracts.
'Commissioner }~rshall sympathized with Commissioner Lustig's relunctance to
accept paragraph (4), but added: "I don't personally agree with that para-
graph although I can understand the logic behind it. The ordinance allows
for the Planning Con=nission at a later date to review the use permit and if
they_ in their judgment find it in the best interest of the City to extend
the use permit, they can. They also have the option of terminating it at an
earlier date if conditions change."
Con~nissioner Laden asked whether Commissioner Lustig's suggestion was feasi-
ble under the ordinance. The City Attorney stated that ~he suggestion was
possible but that he fel't it flouted the philosophy of the ordinance. He
stated: "First of all the ordinance provides that non-conforming uses should
be terminated within one year; and that the Planning CouEnission has the
authority at the time of the hearing to grant beyond the one-year period
in the event they find unusual circumstances to permit it. The way this is
drafted, it even permits the Planning Commission at any .time within the
time period to make certain findings to extend it beyond that period."
ConEnissioner Marshall stated that he felt this would be contrary to the
City's policy which was reflected in the General Plan as a cessation of all
non-conforming uses. Chairman Belanger agreed ~ith this position, stating
that she also felt a rolling-type use permit did not speak to the intention
of the non-conforming use ordinance, which was to eventually phase out all
non-conforming uses'.
· Commissioner Marshall expressed concern over the findings expressed in
Exhibit B, particularly Finding #2 relative to the proposed location of
this use being in accord with the specifics of the Zoning Ordinance. He
stated that he could not vote in favor of this use permit because he could
not personally make the findings specified in Exhibit B. Chairman Belanger
stated that she also had difficulty in making the findings of Exhibit B,
but added that she could vote in favor of the use permit if the time frame
was shorter. Chairman Belanger pointed out that there was pressure on all
of the undeveloped land within the City~ to develop, and she felt that land
~l~"~fi~'~' Avenue Was ~h'~h~ it ~0~l'd"'b~e~l'~ped prior to the expira~
tion of this use permit, therefore changing the existing character of the
residential neighborhood. The Secretary pointed out that on a temporary basis
the City was accepting this use as a conditional use which the City would
allow to continue until such time as it could adequately be phased out.
· Relative to the time frame of this use permit, Commissioner Callon stated
that she preferred giving the Renn's a longer period of time with the
intent that this operation cease at a particular time' in the future. She
stated that this wax the Renn's ....... .
, as well as the .adjoining neighbors, would '-
'have firm guidelines under which :to operate.
Commissioner Zambetti agreed, and as such moved, seconded by Connnissioner
Callon, that the Planning ConEnission adopt Resolution UP-300-1 for a period
of 10 years and with the deletion of paragraph (4) under Exhibit A.
Considerable discussion followed on the deletion of paragraph (4), the
condition requiring the Renn's to sign a cessation agreement. Concern was
Cit '
expressed that it was not the y s intention to phase out non-conforming
uses immediately, but rather phase them out if it was necessary. The
'po{nt was made th~ t~e non-~onfonning use ordinance specified that all
non-conforming uses should be phased out ~ithin one year from the date of
the ordinance; however, it gave the City authority to extend the period of
time in which the non-conforming use should Be phased out. Consequently,
-4-
,COMMISSION }~v0TES 0F J~
V. A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn - Cont'd
the point was made that when the use permit expired, it could again be re-
viewed by the Planning Con~nission with consideration given to a renewal if
all of the necessary findings could be made.
C~i~ioner Callon stated that she was not concerned about paragraph
(4)"insomuch as the use permit could still be considered for r~newal at
the end of 7~ years. She stated: 'but in today's terminology we are issuing
a warning that we expect cessation of business according to the number of
years we put in our resolution. Therefore, I want to go for as many years
as I think is reasonable for them rather than a small number of years."
At this time the vote was taken on Commissioner Zambetti's motion:
Commissioners Zambetti, Callon and Lustig voted yes; Commissioners Belanger,
Laden and Marshall voted no.
As there was a split decision on the previous motion, Commissioner Zmubetti
m~ved, seconded by C~m~Lissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution UP-300-1 for a period of 7~ years ~qith the deletion of paragraph
(4) under Exhibit A, The motion was not passed: Connnissioners Zambetti,
Callon and Lustig'voted yes; Commissioners Belanger, Laden and Marshall voted no.
Connulssioner Laden suggested that a mandatory review of this use permit ~ithin
5 years be a condition for use permit approval, expressing concern over the
safety factors involved with a use of this nature in a residential zone.
Accordingly, Commissioner Laden moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that
the Planning Commission adopt Resolution UP-300-1 for a period'of '7'~ years ~'i~'~
a mandatory revi~¢ period of 5 years, and with the deletion of paragraph (4) ....
under Exhibit A. The motion was carried: Commissioners Laden, Lustig,
Callon and Zambetti voted yes; Commissioners Belanger and }~rshall voted no.
Resolution UP-300-1 was amended by deleting paragraph (4) under Exhibit A,
and by adding the following sentence to the second paragraph U~der Exhibit A:
"In all events there-shall be a mm~datory review 5 years from date hereof."
Coumassioner Marshall explained that his no vote was based on the fact that
he was unable to make the findings of Exhibit B, specifically Findings #2,
#3 and #4. The City Attorney pointed out that Findings #2, 3 and 4must be
met under state law in order for the Coumassion to g=ant any use permit or
variance, and that Findings #1 and ~5 were peculiar to non-conforming use
permits. He stated: "If you make:a finding, the only way a court could over-
turn it would be if you exercise an abuse of'discretion. YoU do not'have an
abuse of discretion if the matter i~ fairly debatable., and_you have been fairly___
--debatable on this matter." Connnissioner ~rshall stated that this definition of
w~hat a court would consider reasonable was adequate explanation for him with
regards to making ~e necessary findings for non-conforming use permits.
C~issioner Lustig suggested that the cessation clause (paragraph 4) be deleted
henceforth from all non-conforming use permit resolutions. Chairman Belanger
stated that she only considered voting in favor of deleting paragraph (4) as
a compromise if the time period had been 5 years. Commissioner Laden agreed
with Commissioner Lustig pointing out that these non-conforming uses had been
in business for a number of years and had been contributing to the City in a
variety of ways. She stated: "I think that we should be able to use our o~n
judgment or use the ordinance to control their continuation of business ra~her
than putting a cessation date on the permit." Commissioner }~rshall argued
that insomuch as the City Attorney was called upon to draft these resolutions,
he would have no problem in deleting conditions therefrom if he disagreed.
Consequently, tommissioner b~rshall stated: "Therefore I would rather Mr.
Johnston be given license to prepare in proper legal form l~hat he thinks should
be the resolution and let us chew on it, rather than tell him not to ever put
that clause in again."
-5-
.~0~iSSION MI~tUTES OF JUh~ ~
-~'.V. B. SDR-1229 - Sylvia Jean,--Aspesi-DriVe,. Requ.eSt for VarianCe on MinimumAccess
Road
As background information Commissioner Marshall explained that application was
being made for a land spli% and that an automatic variance for access was
required for the existing 15-foot driveway which was proposed to service homes
on Parcel A and on the proposed Parcel B. It was pointed out that the Land
Development C~mf~ttee was not empowered to deviate from the Subdivision
Ordinance and grant automatic variances. Consequently, this request was re-
ferred to the Subdivision Co.m~ttee for review, and was agendized for Con~nis-
sion consideration. Con~nissioner Marshall explained that if the Con~nission
were to approve the tentative map on SDR-1229, it would constitute an automatic
variance for the 15-foot minimum access road and would in effect legalize
Parcel B. He stated that if the Commission were to deny said request, the
matter would be referred to the Land Development Committee which in turn would
be forced to deny SDR-1229. Within 15 days of any negative Land Development
Con~nittee action, the applicants could appeal said decision to the City Council.
Conm~issioner Marshall explained that this matter was reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee meeting of June 8, 1976, he being the only member in attendance.
Commissioner ~rshall stated that he had given ~s. Jean the option of con-
tinuing her request until a full Subdivision Committee membership was present,
but that she had elected to have this matter placed on the C~f~f~ssion's agenda
of June 9th for action.
Cormnissioner Marshall explained that when the Jean's initially made application
on this parcel, the point was made by the Corm3ission that there was an oppor-
tunity at that time to subdivide the parcel into Parcels A and B. He noted
that the applicants elected at that time to proceed with approval for one~-Z_
parcel only. Additionally, Commissioner }~rshall pointed out that there were:2
accesses for this property: the 15-foot right of way from Aspesi Drive,
and a private lane along the eastern side of the jeans' property. Relative
to this private lane, he noted that a petition signed by 6 residents on said
lane had been submitted to the Commission,requesting that no further develOpS.'
ment of said lane be allowed. Commissioner Marshall stated that when this
was discussed at the time of original application, access could have been
taken from this private lane but would have resulted in the lane becoming a
public street. Note was made that when the adjacent Dozier property was
given tentative site approval, they had to offer for dedication land which
which could eventually be accepted as a public street if development of the
area required such. He further noted that the adjacent Anderson property
could be subdivided into 2 lots, and stressed the fact that this private lane
would eventually become a public street. Commissioner Marshall stated that
he felt the key to the entire request was the development of the Anderson
property: '~ere it to be developed it automatically is going to force that
lane into being a pub~iC~ street. Under our ordinances, if they remain as
they are now, that property cannot be properly developed any further than
it is without the street becoming something other than what it is."
Commissioner }~rshall outlined the applicants' options: (1) zThe Jeans could
proceed ~ith efforts aimed at developing the primary access of this site;
i.e., the private lane. He noted, however, that the residents of the private
lane were opposed ~o-?-further development thereof because of the increase
in traffic created and the fact that large trees along the lane would have
to be removed. (2) An automatic variance for the 15-foot minimum access
road could be approved by the Commission. He noted that the Fire Department
had submitted a letter stating that they had no problem with said 15-foot
access road; and noted that they required parking for 4 emergency vehicles,
~hich they had.
Commissioner Marshall stated that he personally objected to granting this
variance for the 15-foot minimum access road insomuch as it would set a
precedent for future similar requests. He stated that he felt granting
said variance would constitute ~he granting of a special privilege because
it was not something that was normal to any other landowner in the district.
At this point }~. Jean, applicant, stated: '~e chose to go with Parcel A at
the time we built our house because we were interested in establishing a home
-6-
COMMISSION ~NUTES OF J~_~!~ ~
.... V. B_. 2SDR-1229 - Sylvia Jean - Cont'd
for ourselves at that time. We got an opinion as=fro what would b~d .th'e..eas~'St
way to go through ~ith it, and we were told that we should develop the one lot.
' That is the reason we situated the house the way we did."
Chairman Belanger noted that when the initial application was granted, "I
agree with Mr. Marshall that we urged you at the time that if you wanted
to be sure of getting 2 lots, that you should make application then. Our
voting for one lot was not in any way to imply that at some future date you
._ could get a sedond lot from it."
}~. Jean agreed with this statement, adding that now they were applying for
a variance in order tq get this second lot. Mr. Jean stated that his in-
terpretation of a '~riance was that there was an exceptional circumstance
involved, which he stated he felt this situation was; and that if the situa-
tion was not detrimental to the public, the variance should be granted. He
stated that they felt they had a very desirable location for Parcel B, and
that 1/2 acre was as much land as they personally needed. He added: "As
far as allowing the driveway to go through, I just don't see whether this
is going to be a detriment to the public. It can only add positive things
to the area. Ihe only other alte.rnative we have is the lane, and the neigh-
bors do not wish to add 2 more houses to that lane. And I don't blame them.
The way it is set up now with us using our own access, it kind of sets us
off from that lane. We are not involved in the traffic and we are cc~npletely
detached from the other area. If you add our land to the other lane, you
are adding more houses. I talked to Mr. Anderson and he said there are
problems in developing his land into 2 lots. So in the near future, he is
not going to be doing anything with that land."
Chairman Belanger stated: "But you are making the assumption that you have got
the other lot coming. Having made that assumption then you are telling us
that the people who live on that lane would not be too happy if you brought
in another house. Therefore, in order for you to have this thing that you
are assuming you ought to have, we should let you have this 15-foot road.
As I remember, you sold us on the 15-foot road the first time around because
you were only going to put one house on it."
Commissioner Laden asked whether the Jean's had attempted to obtain a right
of way through the other proper_t_y. _Mrs. Jean stated: '~We have discussed
this with~the pe_ople who live on the lots, and as I said we feel that our
property is a special piece of property. Our driveway is off of Aspesi.
Aspesi is a much safer in and out for that particular prgperty, and adding
another home which is supposedly an alternative would just create more ~_<: . ....._
traffic at an intersection that we feel is dangerous now."' ~. Jean added_
'~ha~h~ir property sat at a d'fff~e'~ elevation and was separated from the
'other pieces of property by 3 very large trees. He added: "And even if
Anderson does' develop his land, that would not~ff~t us, and we are not g6ing
to affect the development of his land."
Commissioner ~rshall p~inted out that it was dialogued by the Commission at
the time of the first application relative to what the alternatives were for
the Jeans. He stated: "And the conment was mdde earlier that you were told
at that time that you had a drive-way into a sin~gle-family residence. I
would submit that whereas I would not be adament against Parcel B, I think
that yo.u_are premature. The Anderson's property becomes the key for develop-
ment ot-~_the lane. Unless and until the Anderson property develops and the
City street situation is settled, you don't have _bu..t a single-family parcel."
Mr. Jean rebutted this statement, pointing out that he was told that due to
the zoning they could subdivide their property into two 20,000 square foot
lots if they obtained a variance from the City for the minimum access road,
if they received approval from the Fire District, and if they were able to
take care of the flood control requirements. He pointed out that the Fire
District had not objected to this road, and that the flood control problems
had been taken care of.
-7-
~ ~ COMMISSION MINUTES OF J~9, 1976
V.' B. SDR~1229 - Sylvia Jean - Cont'd
Con~nissioner Lustig stated that he felt granting a variance in this instance
would constitute a special privilege. He stated that granting a variance
required a unique situation, in his opinion, where no other alternative way
would be possible, and he stated that he felt this request should not be
~ranted~
At this point Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by C~f~ssioner Lustig, that
the Planning Commission deny application SDR-1229~s request for a minimum
access road variance on the basis that it grants a special privilege for economic
":'2:' benefit only. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Belanger referred
SDR-1229 to the Land Development Committee for further action, and advised the
applicants that they could appeal the Coum~ittee's decision to the City Council
~ithin 15 days of the Land Development Committee's action.
}~. Jean pointed out that Commissioner b~rshall was the only Commission member
present at the Subdivision Committee, and he charged that Commissioner Marshall
had influenced the Commission's ~f~%orable decision. Commissioner Marshall
pointed out that he had offered to continue FIrs. Jean's request until all
3 members of the Subdivision Committee were present, but that Mrs. Jean
had elected to have her request agendized for the June 9th Conmmission meeting.
" He added: "I don't like the connotation that just because I was thereby
myself that your wife did not have the opportunity to make any choice that
she wanted to make." Chairman Belanger noted that the ConmLission decision
~ras made by all 6 Commissioners present and was not trnduely influenced by
Commissioner b~rshall's opinion. Commissioner Callon voiced her reasons for
voting against this request by stating that in her opinion a variance ~as
granted only due to hardship cases. She stated that she was also concerned
over future development in the City, adding: "I am facing that issue in a
very small way tonight. There is one house on one parcel of land~ and I
don't want to abet creating more houses in that area even when we are dealing
with only one house."
C. SDR-1174 - Thomas Foster, Horseshoe Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
Request for Chan~e of Conditions
___Staff explained that the applicant was requesting reconsideration of Conditions
........ - (A) and (B), specifically relating to Public Works Department requirements for
road improvements. Note was made that this matter had been referred to the
Public Works Department for review, and that a Report had been prepared by
the Director of Public Works recou~f, ending changes in the conditions as re-
quested. Staff pointed out that this had been reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee, and that a revised Staff Report had been prepared reco~m~ending
approval of revised Conditions (A) and (B), and with the addition of
Condition (V).
Con~issionerMarshall moved, seconded By Commissioner Callon, that the Planning__...
Commission approve the revised Staff Report dated June 7, 1976 and Exhibit A-1
relative to application SDR-1174. The motionwas carried unanimously.
VII. WRITTEN GOMMUNIGATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Determinations'- There were no Negative Declarations filed
between the period of May 27, 1976 and June 9, 1976.
B. Other
1. Letter dated June 4, 1976 from Sue Kobata, 18754 Wood Dell Court, relative
to the removal of a tree located in the middle of an access road by the
Kobata's neighbor, FIr. Frank Rodriguez.
The Kobatas were present, and ~xplained that plans for improving the ease-
ment Between the Kobata~ property and the Rodriguez property had been
submitted in 1973-74, and accordin~ to Mr. Kobata, reflected space in
~nich to plant a tree without interferring in~? the improvement.of._t_he
easement. Accordingly, FIr. KObata stated t~at they planted a tree in the
-8-
· ..... CO}~ISSION MINUTES-OF J~
VII. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Cont'd
easement for beautification purposes, and that Mr. Rodriguez personally
pulled it out and replanted it on the Kobata property. Mr. Kobata complained
that Mr. Rodriguez had no right to do this without his prior approval, and
implicated that the plans themselves had been changed since the original
submission. He contended that if the Commission approved the most recent
plans~submitted by Fir. Rodriguez, they were liable for the removal of his
tree.
Staff explained that the only improvement plans submitted from Mr. Rodriguez
were submitted in 1976. Further, that building site approval had been
granted to Mr. Ro~riguez on March 24, 1976, with a condition included
in the Staff Report requiring improvements of the 20-foot minimum access
road running be~qeen the Kobata and Rodriguez properties. Staff additionally
noted that this was a private easement and had nothing to do with the City.
It was suggested that the Kobata's discuss this matter with Mr. Rodriguez.
VIII. ORAL CO~UNICATIONS
A. City Council Report - Conmissioner Callon gave a brief oral report of the City
Council meeting of June 2, 1976. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on
file at the City's Administration office.
B. Conmissioner Marshall gave a brief report of the recent West Valley College
Governing Board meeting, explaining that the decision on whether to exempt the
College from the City's use permit requirements had been continued. Council-
woman Corr, present at the Commission meeting, added that herself and Council-
man Kraus had met with 3 members of the Governing Board to discuss this matter,
but that no decisions had come out of the meeting.
C. The Secretary advised the Commission that a Committee-of-the-Whole meeting had
been agendized for Monday, June 14, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. in the Crisp Conference
to discuss ~ith Staff the Planning Department budget priorities as requested
by the Commission at its meeting of May 26, 1976. The Secretary referenced a
copy of the agenda in the Commissioner's packets, al6ng with a memorandum
explaining present budget priorities.
D. Chairman Belanger thanked Cc~fm-~ssioners Callon, Marshall and Zambetti for working
so hard on the support of Measure "I," and asked for the continued support of
all Comm4ssioners~ for the continuing education of zthe Measure "'~'~ matter to
'the public. ' ......
E. Chairman Belanger expressed appreciation to Mrs. Stark of the Good Government
Group for serving coffee, a~d welcomed Councilman Corr to the meeting. She
also offered the Con~ais~ion's congratulations to Mr. Dick Loewke on his tentative
marriage approval[ and ~xpressed warm farewells to Ms. Kathy Carman who has
given ~er resignation. to the City.
IX. ADJOURN}~NT
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission meeting of June 9, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
MA~y/~/e~]~~'cre~ry~/
shq/
-9-