HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-1976 Planning Commission Minutes/
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO}~ilSSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, July 14, 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 Belanger, Callon, Lustig, Martin and Zambetti
Absent: Commissioners Laden and Marshall
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the ~reading of
i_the Plann_ing commission meeting minutes of June 23, 1976 be waived, and' that they
be approved suSj~Ct to the following corrections: (1) page 1, correct date of
Commission meeting tO June 23, 1976; and (2) page 6, Item VI-B-i~ correct name
of Mid-Peninsula Regional Park Master Plano The motion was carried; Commissioners
Callon and Belanger abstained°
IIo PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ao CE-181 - Environmental Impact Report, Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation,
Saratoga Avenue, Request for Change of Zoning for a 4o456-acre Site
Located on Saratoga Avenue from "A" (Agriculture) to "R-1-10,000"
(Sin~le-,F.ami.l~ Residential ~ Medium Density)
The Secretary explained that a draft environmental impact report had been prepared
and distributed in accordance with City_Resolution 653-1 regarding ichange of !
.~! zoni__ng application C-1_81,. _a_.._l.~n__g with copies of all responses received to "d~'t'~
! thereon. Staff referred to its memorandum dated July 9, 1976, and 'recommended
/ the Commission certify the EIR and forward same to the City Council with the
· Mr. Charles Bennett, representative of the EIR firm of Environmental Science
Associates, gave a brief presentation of the draft EIR, carefully explaining
the intent of EIR~. He stated: "An EIR is prepared as an informational docu-
ment which is intended to supply base data and information for the Commission
and the public in deciding on the merits of a given project. It is part of
the information-gathering process. So approval of the EIR represents agree-
"' ment that the data base is adequate on which to make your decision on the
- project."
Mr. Bennett summarized the results of the EIR study as follows: "The project
is quite small in terms of a development pro]ect o The impacts are: increase
in traffic will result; air quality ~gmplications will result from increases
in traffic; there will be an increased demand on public services. The magni-
tude of all these impacts is fairly slight, however, because you are dealing
with only 12 additional units of housing. The most significant issue that we
ran into on this Study was the issue of the potential historic value of the
structure on the site. In order to assess its historical value, several of
our consultants evaluated the structure with regard to the criteria of the
Federal Register. The best opinion our consultants came up with was that the
structure is of potential local significance, but not necessarily of national
significance o"
Chairman Belanger referred to the alternative use of elderly housing as referenced
in the EIR, and asked whether the EIR was complete in its study of this alternative
-1-
'MINUTES OF JULY 14~ 1976
II. A. CE-181 - EIR - Saratoga Foothills Develppment Corporation - Conrad
use. Mr. Bennett replied: "The intent of the alternative section is to examine
alternatives which are suggested by General Plan objectives. There are 2 objectives
in the General Plan: one is for single-family housing, and the other is for housing
for the elderly. It would seem almost economically unfeasible at this time to
satisfy both of them with a single project. So we looked at an overview examina-
tion of housing for the elderly to get an idea of what the effects would be
rather than project feasibility. We looked at impact parameters." Additionally,
the Secretary explained that the EIR primarily analyzed development of the site
as submitted. He stated that it would be difficult to analyze the full impacts
of an elderly housing project on this site in that the City had no minimum
standards on which to evaluate such a project.
Commissioner M~[in referenced the memorandum from the Director of Community
Services in response to this EIR. He asked for Mr. Bennett's view on the
Director's opposition to the proposed mitigation measure suggested on page 21
which would provide for a pedestrian access easement to the abutting park.
Mr. Bennett explained that whenever their firm identified an impact, they
suggested a mitigation measure which could be either endorsed or rejected by
the City. He added: "Personally I would think it would be nice to have an
access to the park, but I have no hand in the design of the project. It is
really up to the City." Staff noted that if this change of zoning matter re-
ceived approval from the Commission and Council, the Planning Commission would
have the opportunity to review the tentative subdivision application submitted~
including those comments received from the Director of Community Services.
At this time Chairman Belanger opened-the public hearing on CE-181 at 8:02 p.m.
e Ms. Kevil Smith, Bohlman Road, expressed concerns regarding the historical
.· significance of the structure=located on the site. Specifically her con-
.~·...ce~ns focused on the EIR's finding that said structure would be considered
of local significance rather than of historical significance on a state or
national level. The Secretary explained that the.criteria used for this
finding was the Federal Register, adding: "The Rep~ ~s Saying ~h~t"there
is no national major significance, but locally it would be of limited
significance; limited meaning limited to our locale."
Ms. Smith stated that it was her understanding that the Town Historian,
Melita Oden, had been requested to research this matter, but had not been
"recontacted for comment. Ms. Smith indicated that Ms. Oden had felt the
structure did qualify for the State Register.
The Secretary concurred-~hat M~.' Oden had been contacted on this matter,
noting that Staff had recommended the consultant contact a number of indi-
viduals regarding the local history and yh'~l'oric significance of the structure.
the Secretary cited a list of indi~-idualS"and organizations contacted (page 37,
EIR) which included Mso Oden. Further, he noted that copies of the EIR had
been sent to a number of agencies and individuals soliciting comment, among
them: Art Ogilvie, Santa Clara County Historic Heritage Commission; Knox
Mellon, State Historic Resources Commission; Santa Clara County Archeological
Society; and the Saratoga Historical Society. The Secretary emphasized that
no comments had been received to date from any of these individuals.
Mr. Van Duyn did note, however, that he received a telephone communication
on July 14th from a representative of the State Historic Resources Commission
advising the City that a response would be prepared. on this matter. Essen-
t~ tially, the representative indicated that the State ~jght.~request retention
of the building as an alternate use, such as a restaurant, office building,
etc., which would still maintain the original structure's appearance. The
Secretary stated: "I am a bit disappointed in the fact that we sent the EIRs
out on the first of June and it is-now July 14th. I have yet to hear anything
in writing from any of these people." Mr. Van Duyn continued b? also noting
that an application was presently before the State to designate the site as
an officially-registered historic site. He noted that the State had not as
yet taken any official action on this application. When asked whether the
-2-
· MI~TES OF JULY 14, 1976
II. Ao CE-181 - EIR - SaratoE~ Foothills. D~velopment Corporation - Cont'd
City could certify the EIR without a ruling from the State thereon, the Secre-
tary suggested that the City continue its processing of C-181 because it was
unknown as to when the State might act on the application presently before it,
and because it was not known whether the State would find this site of State
historical significance. The Secretary explained that the State did not have
any official powers to prohibit demolition of a historical structure, but
could only make recommendations as to its use.
Ms. Smith stated that she did not wish to delay the property owners pending
action by the State. She recommended that if the EIR and change of zoning
were approved, that the Commission consider the conditions suggested by the
Staff Report in light of historical significance.
Note was made that this site had been listed on the Santa Clara County
Resources Inventory by the Santa Clara Historic Heritage Commission, and that
it was currently nominated ~or inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places. (Reference: page 45, EIR)
o' H.A. Beaudoin, 13204 Pierce Road, pointed out that he was a member of the
Cit '
y s Senior~~sing Task Force. He noted that although the charter
from the City Council' had hot requested the Task Force to designate possible
sites for senior citizen housing, the Council had not precluded such. Mr.
Beaudoin pointed out that the Task Force would be preparing its Report on
Senior Citizen Housing within the next 3 months, and noted that this site was
a favorable site for senior citizen housing. He asked whether affirmative
action on the CE-181 and C-181 matters by the Commission would preclude the
possibility of senior citizen housing on this site laterc The Secretary
pointed out that earlier this year the Planning Commission recommended to
the City Council that senior citizen housing be placed in the Zoning Ordinance
as a conditional use under an R-1 zone. He reported that the City Council
referred this to the Senior Citizen Housing Task Force for review, that
review of such had been accomplished, and that it was presently in the'process
of Deing forwarded to the Council again in the form of a resolution. The
Secretary pointed out that should this resolution be adopted prior to the
second ordinance reading of this change of zoning application, the City
could require the developer to apply for a conditional use permit;for senior
citizen housing in lieu of straight R-i-10,O00 development. He noted, however,
that presently such resolution had not been adopted by the City Council, and
that no minimum standards existed presently for senior citizen housing.
At this time, the Secretary cited the following correspondence received in
response to the Draft EIR:
- Letter dated June 4, 1976 from Santa Clara County Health Department indi-
cating no comments.
-Letter dated June 16, 1976 from County Sanitation District #4 discussing
sewer mains and grade considerations.
- Memorandum dated June 16, 1976 from the Director of Public Works addressing
the mitigation measure suggested on page 11.
- Memorandum dated July 8, 1~76 from the Director 6f Community ServiCes
addressing water sources (page 11), pedestrian access easement (page 21),
and alternatives (page 33)°
- Letter dated June 11, 1976 from Central Fire District indicating no comments.
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning_
Commission certify and transmit to the City Council the draft EIR~.eB__ap~j!~a~i~
~C-181 ~identified as ~il.e C~-%~l~,_including_all correspondence reCeived.thereon,
~_as.. the ]inal .~n~irqnm~a!~_~p~t ..... The motipn.~S"~r~ed unanimously.
B. 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-1-10,000" (Single-Family Residential, Medium
De~sitT); Continued from June 23, 1976
The Secretary.?~es~nt~d ~ide~_S~0Wing.~he zoning of parcels surrounding this site.
-3-
_ MINUT.ES OF JULY 14, 1976
II. B. C-181 - Sarato~ Foothills Development Corporation - Chan~ of Zoning - Cont'd
He made special note that a 20-unit senior citizen housing project had been
approved on a Cox Avenue site near the Smith's property, and that an additional
100 senior citizen housing units were proposed for the Independent Order of
Oddfellows site located off of Fruitvale Avenue°
The Secretary noted that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval,
and he cited the 2 conditions proposed in the Report. The Secretary noted that '-
it was Staff's.i~tent to provide an opportunity for someone to relocat~'t~'
..~ structure on the ~i~'f~"h~i~'~ purposes. He ~"~'~f~rence t0'a l~tter
~ dated July 1, 1976 from Donald B. Richardson, Jr., attorney representing the
'~ Smith family, advising the Commission that the Smiths were willing to donate
~ to a responsible historic group all or a portion of the building located on the
.....- ~.l,.
The Secretary further suggested that the Commission give consfa'~ration to adding
a condition requiring that a monument be placed on the site designating that the
site and structure were fomnally owned by "Borax" Smith.
At this time, Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on C-181 at 8:40 p°m.
The following comments were made:
1. Jerry Lohr, representative of the:r-applicant, advised the Commission that
the Smith family who presently owned this property were not descendants
of'~'the notorious Borax Smith.'t He added: "So while I think we are will'i~g
'to put up"~ mo~u~_en~,_there are so~e. of_~s..whq_.w_o~ np~..~ke to_~em~;alize
Bo~aX""0~rations too much."
Additionally, Mr. Lohr pointed out that if the Commission desired senior
citizen housing on this site as an alternative use to the proposed 13-lot
subdivision, this could be accomplished if the City Council approved the
resolution allowing senior citizen housing as a conditional use in an R-1
district prior to its action on this change of zoning application. He urged,
however, that a time limit be placed on the investigation of senior citizen
housing as an alternate use so that the application would not be held up for
an indeterminate amount of time. He pointed out that it would be at least
another 60 days before this change of zoning application could become legal,
and suggested that the alternative-use investigation be accomplished within
that timeframe. In addition to this, Mr. John Smith, representing the Smith
family, indicated a willingness to consider senior citizen housing....' ...... '
2. Discussion followed on the matter of senior citizen housing. Note was made
that if senior citizen housing was recommended for this site by the Council,
a use permit application would be required. Commissioner Callon asked
whether this site could be rezoned to "R-l-10,000 PD" as a way in which to
accomplish senior citizen housing on the site. Chairman Belanger stated
that she felt without an ordinance on senior citizen housing criteria,
the density of such a zone would be that of the underlying R-l-10,000 dis-
trict arranged with a "PD" overlay, It was noted that the approved senior
citizen housing project on Cox Avenue was zoned "PA" and the question arose
as to the possibility of rezoning the Smith site to "PA°" Note was made
that "PA" would not be consistent with the General Plan, and consequently,
a change of zoning as well as a General Plan amendment would have to be
approved. In the same light, using the site and existing structure for
commercial purposes (such as a restaurant) would also require a change of
zoning and General Plan amendment approval.
3. The suggestion was made by Commissioner Lustig that the Commission proceed
with the rezoning application as submitted, making a recommendation to the
City Council that the site be considered for senior citizen housing. A
further suggestion was made that a study session between the Planning Commis-
sion, Senior Citizen Housing Task Force and the Council be scheduled to dis-
cuss the feasibility of senior citizen housing on the site.
4. Kevil Smith, Bohlman Road, stated: "I would like to compliment the Smith's
'MINUTES OF JULY 14, 1976
II. B. C-181 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation - Change of Zoning - Cont'd
on their generous offer of advertising the building for historic purposes, and
also to compliment the Planning Department for their creative thoughts as to
an alternative."
5. Commissioner Callon asked whether the applicants would consider donating
the structure on the site to other'than local historians. The Secretary
stated that it was Staff's intent that priority be given to local historians.
6. H.A. Beaudoin, 13204 Pierce Road, noted that the Senior Citizen Housing Task
Force had reviewed the Commission's recommendation that senior citizen hous-
ing be added to the Zoning Ordinance as a conditional use in an R-1 zone,
and he urged that this be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration
as soon as possible.
COmmISSION ACTION
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public
hearing on C-181 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public
hearing was closed at 9:06 p.m.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission approve and transmit to the. City Council the Staff Report dated
July 6, 1976 regarding application C-181, with the Commiss~i~n's additional
recommendation that the City Council give consideration to senior citizen housing
as an alternate use on this site.
After additional discussion, Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lustig, to amend sa~d motion by additionally recommending to the City Council
that a joint meeting be scheduled between the Planning Commission, Senior Citizen
Housing Task Force and theo~~il in order to discuss senior citizen housing as
an alternative use, as per'~h'e provisions of the proposed resolution adding
senior citizen housing as a conditional use under an R-1 zone.
The motion, and amendment, were carried unanimously.
C. 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); Con-
tinued from June 23~ 1976
Staf~ noted that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting UP-308
be withdrawn due to the facts-that the property located at 14519 Big Basin Way
had been-rente~'fo"f'~other use.
Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on UPOn08 at 9:15 p.m. As there
were no comments made, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin,
that the public hearing on UP-308 be closed° The motion was carried unanimously,
and the public hearing was closed at 9:16 p.m.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission accept the request for withdrawaloof application. UP-308. The motion
-.was carried unanimously. -'
D. UP-309 - Frank J. Francis, 18813 Kosich Drive, Request for Use Permit to Allow
for Construction of a Fence Over Six (6) Feet in Height and an Accessory
Structure Over Six (6) Feet in Height, Both to be Located within a
Required S~tback (Or.dinance NS-3~ Section 3o7-1)
Staff noted that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed t~is application, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-309 at 9:17 p.m. As there were
no comments made, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti,
that the public hearing on UP-309 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the public hearing was closed at 9-:18 p.m.
-5-
'MINUTES OF JULY 14, 1976 --
IIo D. UP-309 - Frank J. Francis - Cont'd
Commissioner Lustig mQved, seconded Dy Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission approve application UP-309 per the Staff Report dated July 7, 1976 and
Exhibit "A". The motion was carried unanimously.
E. UP-311 - G.H. Simpson, 19742 Douglass Lane, Request for Use Permit to Allow for
the Construction of a Ten ~10) Foot High Tennis Court Fence within the
Required Rearyard Setback '(Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7~1)
Note was made that subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting of July 13th,
Staff had amended its Report to include Conditions (4) and (5).
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-311 at 9:18 p.m.
® Russ Dixon, architect representin~ the applicant, requested Condition (1)
.... ~f ~h~ St~'~p~'~ b~"am~ded t6'require a ~-foot rearyard setback in lieu
of a 6-foot setback. He contended that this setback would force removal of
5 trees (3 blue spruce, 1 Montery pine and 1 deodore cedar, approximate
size of 15-~allon trees), and contended,rthat a 3-foot setback would allow
adequate space in which to provide appropriate landscaping. Mro Dixon
pointed out 2 concessions he felt the applicant had made in order to lessen
~the impacts of this proposed tennis court fence: reduction of the court to'
-a substandard-si~e tenni~'~o~t~ ~nd ~edUetion 0f' the'fence 6n'either'end to
9 feet~' M~ D~Xon s~gested that evergreen trees (10 15-gallon size trees)
be provided;and installed by Mr. Simpson on the adjacent lot owned by Dr.
"' Evans,~ adding: '~The-setback, in terms o~_.lap~caping, will not.make ......
any difference b~use of the' type'0'f foliage we are going to be planting.
But in terms of physical characteristics of the backyard, it will mean that
we cannot have a tennis court. It means destroying trees that we want to save."
Chairman Belanger asked t~at if Mr. Simpson was willing to provide 10 15-gallon
tEees for planting on Dro Evans' property, wouldn't Mr. Simpson also consider
removing the equivalently-sized trees and suffering their lost on his property
in order to provide additional protection for Dr. Evans. Mr. Dixon explained
that Mr. Simpson did not want to remove the 3 blue spruce trees, nor the 4
apricot trees near the property lineo
· Dr. Robert Evans, adjacent property-owner, noted that he had submitted a
letter regarding this matter. He stated that a metal-type fence lacked any
real aesthetic value and was a detriment to his family° He explained that his
children's playground was located in the area next to this proposed fence,
as well as a sprinkler system for gardening purposes, and he noted that
the proposed fence would be in constant view of his family. He~d'd~d':
"Thus, I don't wish to plant their .trees on our property to cam6uflage'their
tennis court. I feel that if there is a detrimental impact from 'something
that is not very aesthetically pleasing, perhaps the consideration could be
made that-~hey e~j~y ~h~mpac-ts of the wire fence rather than us." Dro
Evans did indic~zacceptance, however, of~!apdpqap~pg__on_th~ ~imp~on side
of the proposed fence. -'
As there were no further comments made, Commissioner Lustig, moved, seconded by
Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on
UP-311. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed
at 9:36 p.mo
Commissioner Martin suggested the following modification to Condition (5) of
the Staff Report:
(5) Landscaping shall be provided by-the applicant between the court and the
property line. Said landscaping shall be sufficient to provide a solid
ten (10) foot high hedge within a period of 3 years with-Se~e~ti0~.to b~~
approved by the ~fT" ~
Commissioner Callon objected in general to adding such minute details to Staff
Reports because she felt such matters-were best left up to the landscape architects.
-6-
MINUTES OF JULY 14, 1976
II, E. UP-311 - G.H. Simpson - Cont'd
Commissioner Martin explained that in the past oftentimes applicants had not
followed their architect ' s suggestions and consequently/~pp_ropri.a_te lands.caping
was not done. He stated that the City Attorney had explained that h~i~'~s specific
conditions were specified in a Staff Report or Exhibit, the City could not enforce
oral agreements o
At this point Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that
the Planning Commission approve application UP-311 per Exhibit "B" and subject
to the Staff Report dated July 14, 1976, as amended by the Commission. The
motion was carried unanimously°
F. V-455 - Rolf and Inge Kirsch, 14014 Pierce Road, Request for Variance to Allow
for a Fifty (50) Foot Rearyard Setback for a Multi-Story Structure in
Lieu of the Required Sixty (60) Foot Rearyard Setback (Ord. NS-3,
Section 3.31)
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V-455 at 10:01 p.m.
As there were no comments, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner
Zambetti, that the public hearing on V-455 be closed. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 10:02 p.mo
Commissioner Lustig requested that the Design Review Committee be allowed to
further review 'the grade variations and oak tree .!_ocations, either by review
of a contour map Of th~ 'f~p~i';C~z"o~'~y: ~ay"of an on-site inspection. Discus-
sion followed on this request. Commissioner Martin stated that he was the only
member of the Variance Committee who had the opportunity to inspect the site,
and he personally endorsed approval of the application. Commissioner Martin
stated that he did not feel that the two-story ordinance was. intended'~'6~be
applicable to this type of matt-er,~.adding that he personally felt .th__e..propos~d
plan was the best plan for the site. Afte~"addit'ionai'~iscus~ion, Chairman
Belanger,. Commissioner Callon and Commissioner Zambetti agreed with Commissioner
Martin, and"C'0hfi'f~'si6~'~'~S~"re~c'i~ded 'his 'r~q~'t" ....................
commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Com~nissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission approve application V-455 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report
dated July 9, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously.
G. Saratoga Avenue Plan Line Corrections: Request to Review and Adopt by Resolu-
tion Corrections to the Saratoga Avenue Plan Line for Conformance wi~h the
Circulation Element of the General Plan
Staff explained that as a result of research done on the .proposed Saratoga Avenue ~
library, the Public Works Department had discovered several min~r tec~fi~'c~l "'
discrepancies relative to the Saratoga Avenue Plan Line rights-of-way. Note
was made that the most extreme adjustment would take approximately 4 feet in
depth from one property, from other properties it would take a lesser amount,
and to some properties it would relinguish rights-of-way. It was pointed out
that this item had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee~ and that a
Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Note was further made that~
:_Sai_d' amendmen__ts were.in .c. 0nfq_rma.n~e.jwith the Circulatl'6~ 'Ei'~me~t' of"the General Plan.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on this matter at 10:11 p.mo As
there were no comments, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner
Zambetti, that the phblic hearing on the Saratoga Avenue Plan Line Corrections
be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was
closed at 10:12 p°m.
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Sarato_g_a
Avenue Plan Line Corrections are in conformance with the ~4 City General Plan,
specifically the Circulation Element, as per Exhibit "A" a~d ~h~ ~t'a~f 'Report
dated July 9, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously.
-7-
MINU~ES OF JULY 14.
III. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-526 - Jerry Lee Harris, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design Review
Approval - Commercial Expansion; Continued from June 9, 1976
Commissioner Lustig requested this matter be continued, along with applications
A-52~ and A-531, to the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1976 pending
further review. Chairman Belanger directed A-526 be c6ntinued to the Planning
Commission meeting of July 28, 1976, and referred this matter to the Design
Review Committee for further review.
B. A-528 - Geraldine Gamaunt, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center) Final Design Review
App,r.oval - Commercial Expansion; Continued from June 9, 1976
Per CommissionerY--Lustig's request, Chairman Belanger directed A-528 be continued
to the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1976, and referred this matter to
the Design Review Committee for further review.
Co A-531 - Plant World, Cox Avenue {Quito Shopping Center), Final Design Review
Approval - Commercial Expansion; Continued from June 9, 1976
~er Commissioner Lustig's request, Chairman Belanger directed A-531 be continued
'to the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1976, and referred this matter to
the Design Review Committee for further review.
D. A-527 - Bill Cardiac. C~iquita Way, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
Commissioner Lustig explained that the Planning Commission had denied plans sub-
mitted on this application at its meeting of June 23, 1976o He pointed out,
however, that subsequent to this denial, the applicant had submitted revised
plans calling for a significantly smaller house with approximately one-half the
impervious paved area. Further, said revised plans oriented the house with
respect to slope contours by significantly reducing the grading and visual
impact. Commissioner Lustig explained that this matter had been reviewed by
the Design Review Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recom-
mending approval. He complimented the applicant on his revised plans, and
personally endorsed this application.
Commissioner Lus~ig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission g~a'~.final design review approval to application A-527 per Exhibit
"B" and subject to the Staff Report dated July 8, 1976o The motion was carried
unanimously°
Eo A-529 - W.C. Garcia & Associates, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design
Review Approval - 1 Lot - Commercial; Continued from June 9, 1976
Commissioner Lustig requested this matter be continued, along with application
A-530, to the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 1976 pending further
review. Chairman Belanger directed AT529 be continued to the Planning Commis-
sion meeting of August 25, 1976, and referred this matter to the Design Review
Committee for further review°
Fo A-530 - Ira Kirkorian, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval
1 Lot - Commercial; Continued from June 9~ 1976
Per Commissioner Lustig's request, Chairman Belanger directed A-530 be continued
to the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 1976, and referred this matter
to the Design Review Committee for further review.
IVo MISCELLANEOUS
A.Request for Change of Status on Pepper Lane off Quito Road~ Petition Referred
from City Council
Staff explained that a petition dated May 3, 1976 signed by 10 residents (5~hoU~es)
on Pepper Lane had been received. Essentially, said petition requested tha~-'
-8-
MINUSES OF JULY 14, 1976
IV. Ao Pepper Lane Petition - Cont'd
Pepper Lane be insured against becoming a public street in the future insomuch
as the public street improvements would require removal of pepper trees along
the lane as well as possible loss of the existing rural character of the lane.
The Secretary explained that the matter of extending Pepper Lane to the Jean
property had been discussed before the Land Development Committee and the
Planning Commission when Mrs. Jean applied for a lot split. The Secretary
"'-noted that the Commission denied Mrs. Jean's ~'variance request for:a substandard
i~-/access road and also for extension of Pepper Lane, and as a result, the Land
..-~ Development Committee had denied her request for a lot split. With respect
to these denials, it was explained that it was not the intention of the Plannin..g__?
~ Commission to connect Pepper Lane to the Jean property; and that at the prese~'''~
:-.:.~..time, it was anticipated that_Pepper Lane would remain as is, or in the future~
· ~ poSSibly as a cul-de-sac. The Secretary added, however, that the status of ~'
. ~ Pepper Lane would remain in its present form until such time as any additional
!~;~L'i development occurred on the 2 remaining vacant properties (Doz'ier and AnderSon)
'.-r located at the end of Pepper Lane. It was noted that if these properties
"'~ '~ developed, the number of houses serviced Qn._a_minimum_-access_street..would
.;'e'~ee~ that which was allowed by the City, and consideration would have to be
~ _.-.-given to Pepper Lane improvements. He recommended that the Commission take this
~7 petition under advisement, and refer it to the Land Development Committee for
.-~-~ consideration at the time of site applications for these vacant properties.
Mrs. M~r~ia Citta', 13995 ~U~['o'~oa~ stated that Mr. Dozier had received tenta-
tive site approval and had been conditioned to offer for dedication land
fronting his house for access purposes. She expressed concerns that this
offer of dedication would permit access to the Jean property. Staff explained
that the offer of dedication would only apply to direct access for the Dozier_
L property, and~fd not Ef~e'~ no_r ex_t_end _to _~the ._j_e_a_.n property.
"TAt"ih'i~' time, Commiss, i_0ne.r .LU.s~ m6v'~d~'se~ohded'by C'0'~misbioner Martfn, 'that'~=''-
th'~'Planhing CO~Lmi~sion take under advisement the petition dated May 3, 1976 by
residents on Pepper Lane,~ and refer said petition to the Land Development Committ~
for consideration when additional development of Pepper Lane Were_req_uested. _..
'T_be m~_ti0.n_. _w.a_S _ca~r_i.e._d___u__n_a_n_imously° - _~.
B. Request for Reconsideration of Condition V-F for Tentative Mite Approval
Applications: SDR-123Z - Ralston Johnson, Pierce Road - 1 Lot
SDR-1248 - Fred Irany.,. Pierce Road - 1 Lot
Staff explained that applications SDR-12~2 and SDR-1248 were conditioned by the
Land Development Committee (Condition V-F) to provide 1,000 gallons/minute of
water for a Z-hour period for fire protection.=purposes, a standard the Fire
District was trying to accomplish t_hr0_ughout Sar_at. Oga_ ._ba.Sed. on the. ISO ratin~s'o
It was further explained that the applicants were requesting that this condition
be deferred until an assessment district was formed to service the entire area, in
an estimated period of 2-3 years. Staf~ noted that a Report dated July 10~ 19.Z~_ ..-.
had been prepared recommending denial of this'~re_qUe_st, __a_nd nq_.t_..e__d __fp_rther an .j~'
addendum memorandum dated July 14, 1976 evaluating alternatives to this 'a~pealV"
Essentially, the memorandum addressed 2 alternatives, one of which addressed
the possibility of installing a 6" or 8" main from the subject sites down to
Pierce Road where an existing ~" main connected up Pike Road to the Saratoga
Hills water tanks. Staff explained that it had requested the San Jose Water
Works Company to run a flow test in order to determine what effect these im-
provements would produce in terms of water supply° Staff estimated that said
flow test and report would be accomplished within a week's time, but pointed
out that the memorandum contained estimates of the results as per the San Jose
Water Works Company.
Discussion followed on this matter. Commissioner Callon pointed out that although
70% of the City currently operatee under a Grade 4 or 5 fire standard, these
standards were for flatland lots. She noted that most of the hillside area
was under a Grade ~ or 9 rating, pointing out that hillside lots paid higher
insurance rates because of this higher risk. She contended that this was
-9-
~ MIN~TES OF JULY 14.
IVo B. Johnson and Irany Request for Reconsideration - Cont'd
an expected situation. StaIf stated that it's approach was that the same fire
standards should apply to both flatland and hillside Lots because there was a
greater fire risk involved in the hillside areas. Commissioner Callon asked
that if an assessment district was formed for this area, could the City force
participation therein~--by homeowners with existing houses. The Secretary replied
that under the new Map Act provisions, the City Council could mandate assessment
districts to include existing homesites if they could ~_n_ot_ get_ general approval
otherwise. Note was made that general approval was 51% of 'the~_owne_rship.are_a
/to be incldded in an assessment district.
Commissioner Zambetti, although concurring with Staff's concern that additional
water protection was needed in the hillside area, warned against imposing a
building moratorium on hillside lots pending completion of a water district
design and formation of an assessment district by the San Jose Water Works
Company. Commissioner Lustig also expressed support of additional water
protection in the hills, citing the Apollo Heights water assessment district
as a hillside development with a Grade 4 rating° He asked the applicants if
they had tried to form an assessment district on their own°
-~ In response, Mr. Ralston Johnson, SDR-lZ48 applicant, explained that they had
~';~ discussed this matter with their neighbors, and felt that the majority of the
~ neighbors would share in the cost of the improvements. Mr. Johnson gave a
~ brief summary of the tentative site process both he and Mr. Irany had been
!!<~through_. _o_ver _t_he _p_a.St _l_~_.ye_ar_s; n_o.ting that ..u__nti!_ Co._ndit_ion .VT~o had been
~imposed on them on June 2ist by the Land Development Committee, the_X_.h_a.d_. ~o-~-7=-
been aware that a water problem existed. He explained that the. Staff Report -.
condition would effectively prevent their developing their property-until an
:assessment district was formed~ and that the alternative suggested would require
a 12001f0ot ~'e~s£6a"'o'f 'a' 6" water main. He noted that there were presently
6 houses existing in th~s area, with the potential of 3 more houses (including
his and Mro Irany's homes); further, that there was a~;po.tenti~l"of 1-3 more
homesites in this area. He added: "Mro Irany and I have decided that if you
give us approval to build, we are going to go ahead and put the required main
and fire hydrants in, even if we have to foot the bill ourselves. But we ao
have a cooperative group of neighbors, and we think the majority of them will
help share in the cost." Mr. Johnson' did, however, urge the Commission to take
action on this matter at its next Commission meeting in order to expedite~=
their applications.
At this time, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue this
matter to the Commission meeting of JUly 28, 1976 pending reports from the
Fire District and the San Jose Water Works Company. This matter was also re-
ferred to the Subdivision Committee for further review and report.
V o WRITTEN CObE-IUNICATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Determinations
The following Negative Declarations were f~led between the period of June 21
and July 9, 1976:
SDR-1244 - Iacomini Construction, Ten Acres Road, ""-Tentative Site Approval
for 2 Lots '~ '
· SD~1252 -- James Day Construction Co~, Chester Avenue, Tentative Site
Approval for 16 Lots
SD.1253 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corp-;.-, Douglass Lane, Tentative
Site Approval for 6 Lots
® SD-1256 - Kosich Construction Company, Allendale Avenue, Tentative Site
Approval for 6 Lots
V. WRITTEN COMb%~ICATIONS - Cont'd
B. Other
1. Letter dated July 1, 1976 from Jim Isaak, 13685 Calle Tacuba, regarding the
West Valley College stadium. Staff was directed to place this in the
UP-119-A file.
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Cit7 Council Report
The Secretary gave a brief r&port of the City Council meeting held on July 7,
1976. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City Administra-
tion office.
B. Other
1. Commissioner Callon gave a brief report of the Planning Policy Committee
meetings, noting that emphasis was being placed on the issues of transit,
solid waste and energy.
2. The Secretary announced that the City Council would be reviewing the impacts
of the "Save Our Hills" Initiative submitted by Russ Crowther at its meeting
of July 21, 1976. He stated ;that a presentation would be given by StyfiZz'
're___g_ard_____i~g its position on the Initiative, and suggested attendance.by any -.~
'interest~a 'co~miss'~o~er. ' ......................
3. Appreciation was expressed to the Good Government Group for serving coffee.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission meeting of July 14, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted ~
Marty Va~/'n Duyn, ~ng SaCretary-.
-11-