HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-1976 Planning Commission Minutes
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES~-
DATE: Wednesday, June ~3, 1976 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. 95070
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Lustig, Marshall, Martin and Zambetti
Absent: Commissioners Belanger, Callon and Laden
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the read-
ing of the Planning Com~ission-_meeting minutes of June 9, 1976 be waived,
and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was
carried; Vice-Chairman Martin abstained.
C. Vice-Chairman Martin explained that Chairman Belanger had been in the
hospital, and was presently convalescing in her home. He wished her a
speedy'recovery on behalf of the entire Commission.
II. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION/FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVALS
A. SD-1246 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Douglass Lane,
Tentative Subdivision Approval - 5 Lots (Expires June 23, 1976);
Continued from June 9, 1976
Staff explained that this matter had been reviewed by the Subdivision Com-
mittee and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. The
applicant was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report.
Brief discussion followed on whether this subdivision had adequate road
service, and note was made that the Public Works Department had reviewed
and conditioned this application according to City ordinances.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Commission approve Resolution SD-1246-1 on application SD-1246,
per the Staff Report dated June 14, 1976 and Exhibit "Ao" The motion was
carried unanimously.
B. SDR-1249 - Rocco Clemente, Montalvo and Saratoga-Los Gatos Roads, Final
Buildin~ Site Approval - 1 Lot
The Secretary noted that the applicant had paid all fees and had met all
conditions of tentative site approval, and he consequently recommended final
'site approval"f~r SDR-1249.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Commission grant final building site approval to SDR-1249. The
motion was carried unanimously.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-181 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga Avenue, Request
for Change of Zoning for a 4.456-acre Site Located on Saratoga Avenue
from "A" (Agriculture) to "R-I-iO,000" (Single-Family Residential,
Medium Density)~ Continued from April 28~ 1976 -o
Vice-Chairman Martin reopened the public hearing on C-181 at 7:38 p.m.
Note was made that it had been determined that this application would require
an environmental impact report. Staff explained that said draft EIR had been
prepared and that it had been scheduled for public hearing before the Commission
COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE ~1976
III. A. C-181 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation - Cont'd
on July 14, 1976. Additionally, Staff noted that both the public hearings
for the EIR (CE-181) and C-181 had been readvertised for the July 14th meeting.
Staff requested this matter be continued to the Commission meeting of
July 14, 1976, agendized subsequent to the public hearing on CE-181.
~ice-Chairman Martin closed the p~hlic hearing on C-181, and directed that
it be continued tO~.the Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 1976.
B. UP-308 - M. Hassan Zeno, 14519 Big Basin Way, Request for Use Permit to Allow
for a Recreational Center (privately operated within a building) to
be Located at 14519 Big Basin Way (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 7.3b)
Vice-Chairman Martin opened the public hearing on UP-308 at 7:41 p.m.
Note was made that the Planning Director and Assistant Planner investigated
this site, and had expressed reservations relative to the capacity of the
structured proposed for this use. As a result, Staff requested inspections
be made by the Fire District and the Building Department, pointing out that
these inspections were going on at present. Staff recommended this matter
be continued to the 3uly 14th Commission meeting pending replies from the
Fire District and Building Department.
Vice-Chairman Martin closed the phblic hearing on UP-308, directed that same
be continued to the Commission meeting of July 14, 1976, and referred this
item to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW' ~
A. A-527 - Bill Cardia, Chiquita Way, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued from June 9, 1976
Staff noted that the Design Review'Committee had reviewed this matter, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.-'_There was
considerable discussion on this item, with the following comments being made:
· Commissioner Lustig, as Chairman of the Design Review Committee, ex-
plained that landscaping plans had been submitted reflecting additional
shrubbery which would be planted on the lower surface in front of the
house in order to mitigate the slope of the property in lieu of a re-
taining wall. Commissioner Lustig stated that one concern expressed
in Design Review was the situation regarding the design of the house
with respect to the contour lines of the hill. He stated: "Mr. Cardia's
design does address itself to the conservation of the contour lines with
respect to the design of the house, in most instances. However, since
there is a partial consideration that this has not been 100% addressed,
this was not put on the Consent Catendar to be sure that other Commissioners
would see what we have made reference to. In general consensus and in
meeting with Mr. Cardia, I think Mr. Cardia has designed a building of
good appearance. It certainly addresses itself to the fire hazards that
are in that particular area. I am sure that it would be a credit to the
addition of the particular community that it is going to be placed into."
· Commissioner Zambetti, as a member of the Design Review Committee, stated
that he felt the Commission should start looking at the building site
coverage ordinances, "because this house only covers 7% of the lot and
yet the house is over 7,000 square feet. It is a 2-acre parcel of land,
not all of which can be built upon." He added: "We have come a long
ways from when this first came into the Planning Department. Mr. Cardia
wanted torb~ve more on-site parking places. I think we convinced him in
a mitigated plan to cut down on retaining walls and to cut down on
asphalt. He has submitted to us a landscaping plan which shows the trees
that will be planted on the site. I am concerned about the size of the
homes that I guess are being builk. There is a ratio of when you pay
$50,000 for a lot, you build 4 to 1. I guess what we are looking at is
about a $250,000 home. And these become quite difficult in the future
as far as, I believe, resale in another 10 years and also in regards to
the energy and resources. I will vote for this house only because the
applicant wants to live here. He has copied this design from a friend
of his in Los Altos Hills who enjoys it, and this is what he wants. This
-2-
COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 1976
IV. A. A-527 - Bill C ~dia - Cont'd
is his dreamhouse, and. he was able to meet us more than half way with the
elimination of the retaining wall, the elimination of some of the paving,
~'-]'~'~land by putting in a landscaping plan."
· Commissioner Marshall expressed concern over the size of the proposed
structure. He stated: "With respect to coverage, during the Hillside
Conservation Residential District zoning matter, we addressed the ques-
tion of how much impervious coverage there should be, which would be
the maximum size of the structure. And you will recall that originally
the ordinances were structured based on flatland standards; i.e.,
40,000 sq. ft. of land. At the time that we started dealing with 1.5 to
5+ acre parcels in the hillsides, we really never addressed the question.
I assumed that the standards would remain the same; i.e., that the house's
impervious structures and surfaces would remain the same regarding 40,000
sq. ft. Therefore, I find myself rather upset at the use of numbers which
are real in terms of being mathematically correct but improper in that I
don't think they reflect the intent of the Commission relative to the
base. Therefore, I consider this to be 25% relative to a comparable
lot on the flats, and therefore, I consider it grossly out of scale.
My intention is to vote against it."
The Secretary pointed out that the ordinance specified 25% lot coverage
or 15,000 sq. ft., whichever was lesser, as being the maximum lot coverage
allowed in the new HC-RD zone.
Commissioner Marshall responded: "That was a compromise based upon the
notion that many of the lands would require excessively long driveways
or private access roads. If you recall some of the dialogue that went
on, we commented on the fact at the time, that landowners might have to
make 'trade-offs between long driveways, swimming pools, tennis courts,
and so on. You can't necessarily have all of those things. This is a
very large house, and it is on a street which I think is an abomination
not because of the people that live on it, but because of the way in which
~ the land was developed subsequent to original approval of Chiquita Way.
I don't want to see any more Chiquita Ways, frankly. So now what we
have, to me, is a substandard street in a substandard area in terms of
developability -- I'm not talking about desirability -- and in terms of
it being easily developed consistent with the kind of standards that we
would like to apply."
With regard to these statements, Commissioner Lustig added: "If we were
to discount the unbuildable area, such as the creek that runs through
there in the winter time and the other side which would make the house
inaccessible without a brid~e_~ we are dealing with a ~eog~aphic area of
a lot much smaller than 2 ~9~e~-'-' Note was made!_~ha~_ the- ~e~aining por-
tion of the 2 acres represented open s~ace. Commissioner Lustig continued
by stating: "As Chairman of the Design Review Committee, I cannot ho"~ly
make a motion for acceptance. I think that would be almost a hypocritical
approach on my part since I would not vote on the'approval of the design
of the building above this lot."
· Vice-Chairman Martin stated: "Before we have a motion, I agree with
Mr. Marshall that I don't want any more Chiquita Ways. I think it is
unfortunate that we got programmed into allowing that type of a develop-
ment, and I am hopeful that our HCRD ordinance will prevent thfs-in the
future. However, I don't feel that we are going to be preventing any of
this by now turning down the purchaser of the property. It becomes a
hardship on him in order to keep on doing new plans. I feel that from
what I have heard from the two people on Design Review, that they have
had considerable discussions with him, and he has been willing to make
new negotiations in meeting you half way. So I feel that we shouldn't
penalize one individual because of the mistakes that the Planning Commis-
sion has made in the past. I welcome this dialogue because I hope that
future Planning Commission personnel will react to this and do that. But
I certainly feel that we shouldn't penalize him any further."
At this point, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that
the Planning Commission deny application A-527 on the baSis. that the design is
inconsistent with the policies and direction taken by the 'airy relative to
development of the hillsides. The motion was carried; Vice-Chairman Martin voted no.
.N~.~e.-was-made_~h~t~he-a.pp~-~ant_~u~d-appea~-t.h.~s-dec±s±~n-t~-the-C±ty-C~unc±~
Within 10 days of the Commission's action.
COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 23,,. 1976
IV. B. A-528 - Geraldine Gamaunt, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design
Review Approval - Commercial Expansion; Continued from June 9~ 1976
Staff explained that there were several problems associated with this appli-
cation, as well as application A-531, and recommended both matter she con-
tinued. Staff reported that the Design Review Committee had met with both
applicants; and noted that preliminary plans had been submitted for A-531,
but:had not as yet been submitted for A-528.
Vice-Chairman Martin directed A-528 be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of July 14, 1976, and referred same to the Design Review Committee
and Staff for further review and report.
C. A-531 - Plant World, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design Review
Approval.- Commercial Expansion; Continued from June 9, 1976
In reference to application A-528, Vice-Chairman Martin directed A-531 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 1976, and referred
same to the Design Review Committeef~and Staff for further review and report.
D. A-533 - Sam Espeseth, Vi.a Regina, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
Note was m~de that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan-
ningCCommission grant final design review approval to application A-533
subject to the Staff Report dated June 10, 1976 and Exhibit "A". The motion
was carried unanimously.
E. SS-105 - Downey Savings & Loan, 18725 Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center),
Commercial Identification Sign - Final Design. Review'Approval
Commissioner Lustig reported that the Design Review Committee had made an
on-site investigation on this item, and noted that it was their determina-
tion that the sign would be in keeping with the balance of the entire shop-
ping center. Commissioner Lustig pointed out, however, that the color
combination would be different from the other signs in the Center inasmuch
as the colors of blue and white were part of the applicant's traditional
logo.
Commissioner Marshall stated that he felt as a matter of policy, the Commis-
sion had never precluded organizations from expressing their logo colors.
He also stated: "There is no reason in my mind why we have to have the
same colors in signs in every shopping center. Therefore, I would be
favorably disposed toward accepting this." Vice-Chairman Martin agreed
with Commissioner Marshall, stating that he too felt that all signs in
shopping centers '~o not have to have the same colors.
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application SS-105
subject to the Staff Report dated June 23, 1976 and Exhibits "A", "B", !'C"
and "D". The motion was carried unanimously.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. UP-277 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Black Walnut Court,
Request for Extension of Use Permit Allowing for Model Homes Sales
Office on Lot #1 of Tract #5583
Note was made that a letter dated June 10, 1976 had been received from the
applicant requesting a 6-month extension to application UP-277, allowing for
the continuance of the model home sales office located on Black Walnut Court.
Staff recommending approval of this extension, making special note that the
condition had been included in the Staff ReportSdated June 17, 1976 providing
for the continuation of this activity on Lot #I only. The Secretary pointed
out that a new application would be required should the model homes sales
office be moved elsewhere in the City.
Commissioner Marshall added that the Commission would appreciate the developer
not locating.ap~ 9~er model homes sales office on a front corner lot. The
-4-
COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 1976
V. A. UP-277 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation - Cont'd
representatives of the applicant were present, and made note of this request.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Commission grant a six-month extension to application UP-277 per
the Staff Report dated June 17, 1976 and Exhibits "A" and "B". The motiom
was carried unanimously.
B. Review of 1976-77 through 1978-79 Capital Improvement Program
The Secretary stated that Staff had reviewed the CIP for FY 1976-77, making
note that most of the projects were carried over from previous years. Staff
recommended the Planning Commission review the CIP, and approve same as being
in compliance with the City adopted General Plan. Discussion followed on
this item, with the following comments being made:
· 'Commissioner Marshall made reference to city street lights, in concert
with energy conservation. Mr. Trinidad, Public Works Department, ~
'explained that the City installed low standard lighting, pointing out
that these lights were much lower than what surrounding cities used.
He added that the Ci~y_~y__r_~g.~pg_street lighting was based on ........
safety.
· Commissioner Zambetti asked for an explanation of the Saratoga Hills
Drive reconstruction project. Mr. Trinidad explained that a landslide~
caused damage_to the 'curb and ~tter, to the street and to a street
lamp', and CIP expenditures were to cover the r~ConS'truc~ion' of these
items.
· Commissioner Lustig referenced several question marks used.~ as sources
of funds, and he asked where these sources were to come from. The
Secretary pointed out that the sources of these funds were expected_. to
c. ome from continued revenue sharing. He added, however, that if the
City did not get such revenue sharing, than a shifting of program
priorities would have to be made. Commissioner Lustig requested that
an asterisk be used in place of a question mark in the future printing
' of the CIP in order to eliminate any confusion created.
· Vice-Chairman Martin noted several discrepancies in the financial infor-
mation shown in the CIP, specifically:
- Page 5, under Acquisition & Land Development, a total of $1,320,000
was shown; however, on page 6, a total for the same item was listed
as $1,620,306.
- Page 6, Streets and Highways 1977-78 expenditures, a total of $326,000
was shown; however, on page 11, a total for the same item was listed
as $316,000.
- Page 6, Storm Waters 1976-77 expenditures, a total of $.41,500 was
shown; however, on page 10, a total for the same item was listed
as $72,000.
Vice-Chairman Martin requested that these discrepancies be corrected.
At this time, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig,
that the Planning Commission certify the 1976-77 through 1978-79 Capital
Improvement Program as being consistent with the City General Plan and
that said certification be forwarded to the City Council with the recommenda-
tion for adoption, making special note that there are a number of incon-
sistencies in the financial information displayed that should be correcteH~ .....
The motion was carried unanimously.
VI. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Determinations
Note was made that a Negative Declaration had been filed on application
b~-308 - M. Hassan Zeno, 14519 Big Basin Way, Request for Use Permit to
Allow for a Recreational Center (privately operated within a building)
-5-
MI~TES OF JUNE 23, 1976 - "'-
VI. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Cont'd
B. Other
1. Note was made that copies of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Park Master Plan
'~'d"b~'d~iSn'~d to the Commissioners~ along with a letter request-
ing a joint meeting of the Commission and Council to review this Plan.
Additional note was made that a memorandum accompnying this Plan from
the City Manager pointed out that a joint Committee-of-the-Whole meeting
had been scheduled for Tuesday, July 13, 1976 to review this Plan.
2. Memorandum dated June 15, 1976 to the City Council regardin_E. Planning
Department budget priorities. The Secretary noted that a Commission
Committee-of-the-Whole meeting was held on June 14th to discuss budget
priorites, and explained that the list outlined in the memorandum was
the result of this discussion. The Secretary added that the Council
would be reviewing ~the 1976-77 budget at_its meetinR..o_on_Ju_n~ .29.th,_and
suggested that inte~e~ Com~aissioners attend. Commissioner Marshall
added that the concern of the three Commissioners in attendance at the
June l~th meeting was that there might be a discrepancy between the
Council's and Commission's idea on what the budget priorires for the
Planning Department should be. Consequently, it was felt by those
Commissioners .present that a list should be forwarded to the .City Council
expressing. the Commission's. recommended priorires.
After brief discussion, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by
Commissioner Lustig, that the memorandum dated June 15, 1976 regarding
Planning Department Budget Priorities be forwarded to the City Council
for consideration and approvals. The motion was carried unanimously.
VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Cit7 Council Report
Commissioner Marshall gave a brief oral report of the City Council meeting
held June 16, 1976. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at
the City Administration office.
B. Other
1. Commissioner Marshall announced that he would not be available for
meetings during the period of July 12 through July 20, 1976.
2. Commissioner Zambetti pointed;- out that illegal real estate signs
were cluttering Saratoga/Sun~yvale Road and SaratQga Avenue, the
entrances into Saratoga, on the weekends~ He requested the Staff~
initiate a program of sign-ordinance education'via t~e 'Sara.t. oga' News,
and suggested the City ?C~d~'E~forcement 0f~~~'~ to enforce
th~'~'~'~'Fi~.Ordinance on w~ekends.
3. Vice-Chairman Martin referenced a flyer he received in his mail box
from the "Save Our Hills" organization regarding the rezoning of the
Fremont High School property located on Prospect Road. He pointed out
that the flyer was full of non-factual information, and urged the
Planning Commission as a whole or Commissioners as individuals address
this non-factual information via the Saratoga News in order that the
"people of Saratoga do not become educated with biased opinions."
General discussion followed on this matter. Commissioner Marshall
stated that he felt the Commission should not~-~tart a crusade ~:ith
this organization regarding this mis-information, but should wait until
the City Council took the lead. He stated that with res. pect to using
post boxes, that would be a matter for the federal government to cover.
Commissioner Lustig agreed, and after additional discussion it was
suggested that this matter be jHiscussed at a future joint City. Council/
Planning Commission Committee-0f-the-.~Whole meeting./
4.Vice-Chairman Martin expressed appreciation to Miss Moss for serving
coffee on behatf of the Good Government Group.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the/Pla_nning
Commission meeting of June 23, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the meeting was adjourne a.~t 8:45 p.m~c~~
skw/ MarCy Van,./D'~n, Secr~tar,.~j/ _/-