HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-1976 Planning Commission Minutesi
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~MISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, July 28, 1976 - 7:30 pom.
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, }~rtin and Zambetti
Absent: Commissioner Marshall
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Lustig '~oved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the reading
of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 14~ 1976 be waived,
and that they be approved as distributed, subject to the following correction:
page 6, Mro Dixon requested Condition (1) be amended to require a 3-foot set-
back in lieu of a 6-foot setback. The motion was carried; Commissioner Laden
abstained.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Composition of Consent Calendar
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Composi-
tion of the Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. ..Items of Consent Calendar
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti~ that the Planning
Commission grant Final Design Review approval to the following applications
subject to their respective Exhibits and Staff Reports:
a. A-534 - S.N. Aparicio Construction Company, Chiquita Way, Final Design
Review Approval, Lot #6 of Tract #5461; Exhibit "A" and
Staff Report dated July.22~ 1976
b. A-535 - Frank Andrews, Carniel/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review
Approval, Landscaping of Pathway and Fence; Exhibit "A" and Staff
Report dated July 22, 1976
c. SS-106- Federal Sign & Signal Corporation, 12312 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road,
Final Design Review Approval - Identification Sign; Exhibit "A"
and Staff Report dated July 22~ 1976
d. SS-107- Ad Lite Neon, 12896 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review
Approval - Identification Sign; Exhibit "A" and Staff Report dated
July 22~ 1976
e. SS-108- Charles Barrett for Westhope~U~ted_p~es~erian!~hurch, 12850
Saratoga Avenue, Final Design Review Approval for Bulletin Board;
Exhibit "A" and Staff Report dated July 22~ 1976
The motion was carried unanimously.
-1-
MINUTES OF JULY 28, 1976
III. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS/FINAL BUILDING SITES
A. SD-1235 - George Day Construction Company, Mr. Eden Road, Tentative Subdivision
Approval - 5 Lots (Expiration Extended to July 28, 1976); Continued
from June 9~ 1976
Staff recommended the Commission continue this matter_=per ~ applicant's'written
~
~request for a 60-day extension pending completion of the required soils and
~
geologic report. Chairman Belanger directed SD-1235 be continued to the
~
Pla~in~'~6~n'is~i~'~tl'~"~f ~e~t~B~r"~,' f~'6~' ~nh" ~~'d"~h~S 'm~t~ to - ~7 ....
the Subdivision Committee and Staff.for further review and report.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. V-456 - Ilse Maria Noeggarath, 12950 Pierce Road, Request for Variance to Allow
Keeping of Animals (Goats and Donkeys) Not Permitted by Ordinance in an
"R-i" Zone (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.2(g)) ......
Staff explained that the applicant was requesting a variance from the minimum
site area requirement and the minimum sideyard setback requirement for the
keeping of a donkey on her site. Staff added that this variance application
was submitted after 2 complaints had been filed via phone messages with the
City Code Enforcement Officer regarding problems with noise, odor and horse-
flies. It was explained that this property fell within the City./~questrian
Zone, which allows for the keeping of 2 horses for the first 40,000 square feet,
with one additional.'horse for eacB 40,000 square feet thereafter, Additionally,
the Zoning Ordinance"~{ff~s"~hat there must be at least a 50-foot setback
from the corral and stable to the property line, and a 100-foot setback to
the nearest adjoining residence. Staff pointed out that the applicant's
property, although within the Equestrian Zone, was less than the required
40,000 square foot minimum; and additionally, the location of the existing
corral and s~able facilities were approximately 50-70 feet..;fr~m__~he...~asterly
ineighboring residence. Further, it was noted that if said .variance were approved,
~he-~ppli~'~'would be re~Ui~ed to ~pl~'~or a ~o~'~e'per~'it with the conditions
of the variance imposed thereon.
Staff pointed out that the Variance Committee had made an on-site inspection
on this matter, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval
subject to conditions. It was further noted that 7 letters supporting the
granting of this variance had been received, 5 of which contained no addresses;
additionally, a petition dated July 23rd had been received which contained 28
signatures of neighboring residents favoring said variance.
Chairman Belanger asked whether a use permit was also required on this item.
She pointed out that generally variances ran with the land, while use permits
did not; and she expressed concern that a variance could not be conditioned.
She pointed out that if a use permit were required, it could be recalled if
any of the provisions of the Staff Report were violated, or whether the house
were sold or enlarged. The Secretary stated that in his opinion a use permit
was not required, and he noted that variance applications have been conditioned
by the City Council in the past. He further explained that the application
requested a variance on the minimum site area requirements as well as the
minimum side setback requirements.
At this time Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V-456 at 7:52 p.m.
Citizen Response
® George ~obin, attorney representing the applicant, made the following
comments: (1) He corrected the agenda to reflect a variance request for
the keeping of one donkey and one goat, not donkeys and goats. (2) He
pointed out that the applicant had'lived at this site when it was within
the jur-iSdiction of the County, and that she had the right to use the
property for horses since that time. (3) He noted that the donkey was
a pet, and that he felt it was a tremendous benefit to the neighborhood
insomuch as the neighborhood children loved the donkey. Additionally,
he cited the 25 signatures of neighboring residents who supported this matter.
-2-
MINUTES OF JULY 28~ 1976
IV. A. V-456 - It~e Maria NoeS~arath - Cont'd
(4) In response to a question relative to the applicant Volun~r{iv.withdraw-
:.ingYher reqUe~t__fo~._t~e ~eping_of a goat.,._~r_._.~obin stated that they would __.~
like to have the goat, but that they would give it up if necessary. (5) In
response to a question of how large the animals were, Mr. TObin submitted
a picture of the animals. He noted that the donkey was about the size of
a Great Dane, and the goat was much smaller than the donkey. (6) He noted
that the flies complained about were really fruitflies and not horseflies,
and he made reference to the large amount of fruit trees in the area.
-e Ray Eubank, applicant's neighbor to the west, requested that the variance
be denied. He explained that there was a prevailing breeze from the
applicant's property which carried flies as well as an odor from the
-.accumulation of manure. He pointed out that for 2 years the applicant
8'i~ ~0t ~av~ any horses on her property, and that during that time the
amount of flies decreased substantially, even though he owns fruit trees.
He stated that with the keeping of the donkey, there had been a reoccurence
of flies, and he complained that his patio was unpenetrable during the
day light because of the flies. Mro Eubank also drew the Commission's
attention to the donkey's loud braying, and he played a recording of the
braying made on July 25th at 6:00 a.mo He estimated that the donkey
brayed once an hour and at more frequent intervals in the evening. In
response to a question on what Mr. Eubank was doing about the flies,
he responded that he had sprayed his yard with bug spray. In conclusion,
Mr. Eubank stated that with the advent of flies, the odor and noise,
he did not feel that it would be difficult to prove that this was detri-
mental to the market value of his property.
· Mary Gaston, neighbor liviDg behind the applicant, requested the variance
be denied because of the fly problem and noise. She estimated that the
donkey brayed once an hour, and she complained that her children were
awakened by the braying at early-morning hours. She stated that 4 years
ago she had complained to the City over the keeping of horse, and that
'~7'N~o'eggarath had been required by the City to get rid of the horse.
ShY'pointed out that for the past 2 years the applicant has not had a
horse on her property, and that the problem of noise and flies had subsided.
She added: "The flies are very bad;~my son killed 35 flies last night
~fle we were barbecuing chicken." '~'i ...............................
Chairman Belanger asked the applicant to explain why the City had requested
her to rid herself of the horse.4 years ago. Mrs. Noeggarath explained
that she had been keeping a horse for a friend, and that after receiving
the complaints from the City, she had gotten rid of the horse. She added
that she had never received complaints regarding her own horses.
· Norma Murphy, a neighbor living behind the applicant, expressed concern
over the reason why the donkey brayed. Mrs. Noeggarath explained:
"Wh n
e I acquired the donkey the man I bought him from told me that he
would not bray. He was in a big corral with goats, and when I had him
for awhile I unfortunately found out that he did bray. I got the goat
to keep him company. I contacted 2 vets to see if it would help if he
were altered. One said it would help with the braying, and the other
said it would not. I put this in writing in a letter to Mr. Loewke."
· Kevin Mc~n&V~' applicant's neighbor to the east, stated that his family
found thae [~e noise did not bother them. He added: "As a matter of
fact, we have made tapes and we have sent them to our relatives in St.
Louis and they think it is great. Since we do live in a rural area,
I think the donkey fits right in. We have no objections at all to
keeping the donkey or the goat."
Judy Blath, neighbor living behind the applicant, requested that the
agenda be corrected to reflect a request for one donkey and one goat,
instead of the plural donkeys and goats.
MINUTES OF JULY 28 1!
IV. A. V-456 - Ilse Maria Noeggarath - Cont'd
Dolores Siebert, neighbor, stated: "I plead with you to let her keep this
donkey. She just loves him like you would your pet animal. It would be
heartbreaking to take him away. We should really all go there and visit.
It is really a very pleasant sound. I enjoy it."
Commission Action
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission close the public hearing on V-456. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the public hearing was closed at 8:14 p.m.
Commissioner Lustig noted that he lived in a very quite, rural community,
and pointed out that there was a constant problem with neighbors' ~ogs
barking. He stated that he did not feel that much could be done about
such a problem, and stated that he had no objection to granting this
variance if the stable and corral facilities were kept clean.
Commissioner Callon pointed out. that layout of the applicant's lot was
such that her~front yard was quite small while her rearyard was very
large and rural in appearance. She~Fpointed out that all setback
requirements had been met except on the easterly side of the property,
and she noted that the neighbors to the east were in favor of granting
this variance. Commissioner Callon stated that she would be in favor
of granting the variance if the stable facility were kept clean in order
to keep the flX problem to a minimum. She also stated that she would be
in favor of allowing the goat to remain on the property insomuch as the
goat was very small.
® Commissioner Martin stated that although the rearyard was large, he
sympathized with Mr. Eubank's problems. He stated that although he
felt it was possible to keep the fly problem down, he felt it would
Cit '
take a large amount of work on the y s part tO police this effort.
Consequently, Commissioner Martin stated that he could not support this
variance. He added, however, that if the variance application was
approved, he would recommend an additional condition that the variance
would not be granted to run with the land, but rather be granted only
to the applicant.
At this point Staff interjected that after speaking with the County
Health Department, they felt it would be possible to reduce the smell
and the effect of horseflies provided that certain conditions were met:
regular cleaning of both the corral and stable, impervious floor, a
solid roof, and several other cdnditions listed in the Staff Report.
® Commissioner Zambetti stated that he could support the variance, and
he recommended that the Staff Report be modified to include one goat
and one donkey.
® Commissioner Laden stated that she felt if the donkey were totally en-
closed-'at-night, the braying could be kept down. She stated that this
could not be guaranteed, however, and she expressed concern as to how
this would be policed. Commissioner LuStig stated that he felt the
penning up of the donkey would be as ineffective as requiring people with
large dogs to pen up their animals in an enclosed area at night. He
added: "I think we have to address the noise problem that pets make
on a general basis, and I don't.think that the result of making this.
applicant lock her animal up at night is fair since we do not have a 'law
in the City that says you must lock up every large dog that barks and howls."
® Chairman Belanger also expressed concerns over who would be responsible
for policing the conditions of this variance, and stated that she felt
the ordinance existed ~o insulate people from problems of having to police
such things on their own. She pointed out tha~ the Zoning Ordinance
stated that horses would not be permitted on lots under 40,000 square
feet, and she surmised that the ordinance must have come into existence
-4-
MINUTES OF JULY 28. 1976
IV. A. V-456 - Ilse Maria NoeS..garath - Cont ' d
because of the problems created by the equestrian use, one of which could
be noise. She asked how many people had horses in the immediate area,
and Staff responded that 5 horse permits had been issued to residents with-
in an approximate lO00-foot area.
At this time Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig,
that the Planning Commission grant .'approval ~'f application V-456 per Exhibit
"A" and the Staff Report dated Jul~ 2'3'~' 1'976~ s~b]e~'~ '~'0 the following
amendments: (1) Condition 1 to include a variance for the keeping of one
donkey and one goat. (2) Add a Condition (5) by adding: "The Variance will
be permitted for the present owner onlyo"
The motion did not pass: ayes - Commissioners Zambetti, Callon and Lustig;
noes - Commissioners Belanger, Laden and ,~hrtin. The variance was denied
for lack of affirmative action.
The Secretary suggested that an additional motion might be made to rescind
~this motion by moving to continue V-456 until a f~fl'C~ission woul'd'b~ :
;_P_.r_es_ent_ .t_9_ ~c.o. ns_i_d.er' .t_h__is appl~cat.i0.n_- .'T~& a~l'~ ~'~"~'~0'rn~ "S~te~' ~at
insomuch as Commissioner Marshall could not fully participate in the recon-
sideration of the application unless he listened to the tapes of this meeting,
he felt it more expedient for the applicant to appeal this decision to the
City Council. Note was made that an appeal could be made to the Council
within 10 days of the Commission~s decision°
B.=' C_-__1_83_ ,- Galeb Properties, Zorka Avenue, Request for Change of Zoning for a
4.78_+ Parcel Located between Zorka Avenue and the Southern Pacific
Railroad from "R-l-10,000"' (Single-Family Residential) to
"R-l-10,000 PC" (Single-Fami.1x Residential, Planned Community)
Staff explained that the applicant was proposing an 18-lot subdivision under
the Planned Community concept with minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet in
of a 12-lot standard subdivision under straight R-l-10,000 zoning. It was
~pointed out that under the "PC" concept, private streets with a 24-foot
mxn~mum width could be used instead of f public streets with a ~40-foot minimum .....
width requirement. Staff noted tha~t an '~ddlti~{~ai' 2~ ~'cYes'Would result from
incorporating a private street in lieu of a public street for this project,
or 6 additional 10,000 square foot lots.
Receipt of 3 letters in opposition to this change of zoning application were
noted: (1) Letter dated July 23, 1976 from Walter So Bogden, 12471 De Sanka
Avenue; (2) Letter dated July 26, 1976 from Winston & Johanna Chew, 12501
De Sanka Avenue; and (3) Letter dated July 27, 1976 from Daniel & Marsha
Sarkisian, 12485 De Sanka Avenue.
Staff pointed out that a Report hadi not been prepared, and requested that the
public hearing be opened for public testimony prior to making a recommendation
on this application.
Chairman Belanger opened the public. hearing on C-183 at 8:40 pom.
Applicant ' s Presentation:
Warren Heid, architect representing the applicant, pointed out that the site
had particular problems with regard to being long and narrow, as well as
with regards to its proximity to the Southern Pacific railroad track._ He
~e_x. plai.n__e_d__tt__ha_.~t__in_d_es_ign~_n.g this project, he gave special consideration to
the objectives of the l~Elanned Community" concept as per the following
Ordinance NS-3, :;Art_icle _~ (a) Purpose:
"...the objectives of the Zoning Plan may be achieved by the development of
a residential community~-primarily f.or--a common .green development or for
older or retired persons desiring !smaller resi_d_enceS_or___d_w_ell_ing B.nits _than-
economically feasible under existi~ ~Sning districts. o ."
.... _--:.= .. ~=-=~: ~:-~-..-~- ............. = ...................... _~_},._ .-
-5-
MINUTES OF JULY 28. 1976
IV. B. C-183 - Ga~eb Properties - Cont'd
Mr. Heid stated that he '~'ad attempted to combine both aspects of the "PC"
objectives in his proposed project; i.e., common green development and a
development for older or retired persons. He added: "We decided for this
type of commnnity we would like to have a comfortable area which would
support smaller homes that fell into an economic package for people who
are retired or semi-retired." He contended this "PC" project would be
ideal for senior citizens because of the proximity to public transportation
and commercial facilities.
Mr. Heid described the proposed project as follows: small rustic-styled
homes with an approximate size of 1200 square feet, including a 2-car~
garage. He explained that there would be 12 2-bedroom homes and 6 3-bedroom
homes, for a total of 32,115 square' feet. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance
permitted a 35% coverage under the R-l-10,000 zoning classification, which he
contended could result in 54,500 square f~et of house coverage, adding:
"which is 22,000 square feet more than proposed, So as far as the area is
concerned, we are not overcrowding the site with buildings." Mr. Heid
noted that the largest house proposed was 13,094 square feet, and he indi-
cated that'~the price range of these' homes would be in $60,000 range.
Mr. Heid stated that the plans proposed a screened barrier along the railroad
tract side of the property, as well as on the commercial side of the property.
He suggested topped Monterey pine trees as being a good sound barrier along
the railroad side of the property. He stated that fencing would be kept
down to a minimum, being allowed only around private patios and gardens.
Further, he stated ~h~t_n~.sig~ ~F~_proposed.
He explained that all frontiS'and rearyard setbacks had been met,~noting
that several of the proposals had more than the required footage. He noted,
however, that he had grouped many of the sideyards such that there was a zero
setback with a common fire wall between houses, He clarified that the zero
sideyard setback concept was a suggested planning practice to accomplish
more-efficient.~.~f__~_~te. He i~.~strated._t~iS_b~.~ot~ng that a standard
subdivison on this site would allowlfor a 6-foot fence and 2'i0-f~[' Sid~yardS~
where homeowners "grow moss and slugs," or "use it as a dog run or as a place
to put extra lawn clippings on." He contended that by using zero sideyard
setbacks on one side would allow for a larger sideyard on the opposite side-
yard, and thus a more usable yard space.
Regarding the private street proposed for this project, Mr. Heid explained
that the street would be under a maintenance program, He explained that he
had eliminated the area from the curb to the property line as a public street
right ~f way in order to form a 24-foot wide private street. He added: "As
far as the net area is concerned, eliminating the public street~ which is
roughly 16,800 square f~et~ we could come up with 191,414 square feet that
is suitable net area for the project. l~en you divide that area by 10,000
square foot lots, you could have 19 units, We presented 18 units because we
felt that certain open space is important." He contended that a development
with 2.65 acres of total site in open common green area would be more
harmonious with rural living than 2.34 acres of streets and driveways.
Relative to open space, Mr. Heid pointed out that a pathway had been proposed
on De Sanka Avenue side of the property to provide for community circulation.
He noted, however, that there were other ways of developing that side of the
project which could be worked out with Staff, such as providing a turnaround
in lieu of the pathway.
With regards to traffic, Mr. Heid maintained that an 18-lot subdivision
comprised of elderly citizens would have a less adverse impact on the neigh-
borhood than a standard 12-lot subdivision with 3-5 bedroom homes and 2-4
cars per house. He estimated that a standard 12-lot subdivision comprised
of families with 2-4 cars could generate approximately 288 trips per day,
whereas the "PC" development with elderly citizens with 2 or less cars would
possibly generate only 108 trips per day because they would be'-Viih'~ walking
distance to public transportation and shopping areas.
-6-
MINUTES OF JULY 28. 1976
IV. B. C-183 - Gale~. Properties - Cont'd
Regarding off-street parking, Mr. Heid noted that each home would have a 2-car
garage~ with a 20-foot double driveway for 36--off-street par.king spaces.
Further, he noted that there would be 13-guest parking spaces within the
project as well.
In conclusion Mr. Held stated: "I really feel that good quality homes will
clean up an unused site that has been an eye sore and a problem with unde-
sirables in the neighborhood. ~en you f~tl a site with a good use, you are
ending up with much better neighborhood,"
Commissioner Callon asked whether senior citizen housing could be tied directly
to this proposed development, The Secretary explained that based on a ruling
by the City Attorney, the City could not restrict the development to senior
citizens. He stated that the City could express a preference that the uni5
be sold to senior citizens as well as encourage that the homes be designed
accommodate senior citizens. He added, however, that the. Ci~_~0~d npt._'
F~s~Fi~_t_~. deX~!_?p~ent' ~o oag~_p~ ~mily size,
Citizen Response
1. Ms. Shaun Lamanet, 20338 Sea Gull Way, objected to the rezoning on the basis
on the basis that it would increase traffic in the area. She pointed out
that existing traffic was very bad, and she stated that she felt~an 18-1otl
subdivision in lieu of a 12-lot-subdivision would increase traffic,
2. Laurie Boyd, 12500 De Sanka Avenue, complimented the applicant on this
project design as being the best proposal yet submitted° She expressed
concerns, however, over the De Sanka becoming "a freeway" if this project
were approved, and requested a more detailed explanation of the proposed
pathway. She explained that presently the area she lived in was a dead-
end street, and she informed the Commissioners of problems she currently
had with children tearing down her fence and damaging her trees With
regard to planting trees along the railroad tract, Ms, Boyd indicated
that the train traveling this tract twice daily did not disturb anyone.
Further, she objected to the planting of trees along the railroad track
because they would cut off her view of the Saratoga hillside.
3. Gordon Smith, 12384 Ted Avenue, objected to the rezoning application on
the basis of increased traffic. Further, he stated: "We are going to
have a subdivision with small lots and larger homes than we have. Our
lots are large° We have 1/3 acre on all of our properties, with 1100
square foot size houses° And yet they are going to come up with small
lots and larger homes than we possess. The people who are going to buy
in there are going to have racecars, motor cycles and everything else.
And this is one of the reasons why we are against it." He stated that
they had been complaining about the noise and traffic problems for years,
adding: "If we can't get cooperation in killing our problems off now,
what is the use of adding another 18 homes to aggrevate the problem?"
Additionally, Mr. Smith drew the Commission's attention to the fact that
Ted Avenue was presently being pa~d for by the neighborhood residents who
formed an assessment district. -He stated: "The original street that
the Galeb's put down there became so inadequate that we had to form an
assessment district. The present owners of that street are still paying
for it under an assessment district. If anyone else is going to come out
on it, they might as well as pay for it."
4. John Mooney, 12385 Ted Avenue, explained that the existing lots in the
neighborhood were World War II G.I, homes, 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom,
He did not object to the development of this vacant site, but he encouraged
denial of the rezoning application. He recommended that a 12-lot subdivision
plan be approved in lieu of the proposed 18-lot plan.
5. Ms. T. Floris, 12415 Ted Avenue~ stated: "I am the undesirable on the
corner of Ted Avenue that has the stock car° Undesirables I believe
-7-
MINUTES OF JULY 28, 1976
IV. B. C-183 - Galeb Properties - Cont'd
are being described here as young adults who like to ride motorcycles and
who have no where to go in our area." She objected to the prop.0sed
development indicating that it was discriminating against young people.
Further, she pointed out that the neighborhood was presently congested,
and that adding more homes woulH compact the congestion.
6. Winston Chew, 12501 De Sanka Avenue, obj.ected to the rezoning application
because of the congestion problem which it would create. He indicated
that he had moved to Saratoga because he did not like the overcrowded
tract situation of San Jose. He contended that placing 2 homes within
a 28-foot setback from his rearyard would be intolerable to him, adding
that the "PC" concept placed homes too close together. He stated: "The
houses will be less than lO'feet apart~ To me that is just making a
planned slum, even though it is called planned community." Mr. Chew
drew the Commission's attention to the 8-lot subdivision on Guava Court
of the same sized area, and stated that he would rather see a standard
subdivision developed rather than the ;'PC" deveiopment. Further, Mr.
Chew stated that he felt a pathway along his property would be an
attractive nuisance, although he indicated that a pathway would be accepta-
ble if it were only for people to walk through. Commissioner Martin noted
that under a standard development, the houses would be closer to Mro
Chew's house than under the "PC" concept. M~'~W ~e~e~a~ed his
desire to see a standard developmen= approved in lieu of the "PC" proposal.
7. Dorothy Smith, 12384 Ted Avenue', contended that one of the Galeb Properties
owners, Mr. Milan Popovich, objected to the present traffic and noise
problems of the neighborhood. She requested that Mr. Popovich give
testimony on this matter. Further, she stated that she was told the
"PC" development would actually. create 6,000 foot lots, and she urged
the Commission to more correctly specify the rezoning classification°
She further suggested that the Street pattern follow the railroad tracks
instead of using Ted Avenue. In response to this, Mr. Held reiterated
that the rezoning application was from 10,000 square fost lots to
10,000 square foot lots, with a "PC" overlay. He explained that "PC"
allowed certain liberties, such as allowing zero setbacks on sideyards,
allowing more open space, and allowing more control to the City.
Additionally, Mr. Heid stated that a street alongside the railroad
tracks would be more damaging to the neighborhood than using Ted
Avenue. Further, he reiterated his feeling that a standard subdivision
would generate more trips per day than;'under the "P~" proposal.
Chairman Belanger aksed whether the property owners would be willing to
propose a 12-lot subdivision under the "PC" concept. Mr. Heid responded:
"I think the owners would have the right to put in just a standard subdi-
vision then. I think the plus for a "PC" as far as the City is concerned
should be a certain plus ~o~ards a little more density because they are
g6ing to have to go to a greater expense than just for individual lots."
Commissioner Callon requested the property owner consider a "PC" proposal
with fewer homes than 18, and she cited as an economical advantage a far
more attractive development as well as cost savings on the private street
construction.
Chairman Belanger requested Mr. HeiH to submit a depiction of a standard
12-lot subdivision for comparison purposes. Commissioner Laden requested
that a traffic count of the neighborhood circulation pattern be taken.
/Commission ACtion:
At this time Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on C-183~ and
continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of August 11, 1976.
Further, she directed that this application be referred to the Subdivision
Committee for further review and report.
RECESS: 10:00 - 10:25 p.m.
-8-
MI~JTES OF JULY 28 1976
V. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-526 - Jerry Lee Harris, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design
Review Approval - Commercial Expansion; Continued from July 14, 1976
Commissioner Lustig requested this matter be continued, along with applica-
tions A-528 and A-531, to the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 1976
pending submission of revised plans. Chairman Belanger directed that A-527
be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 1976, and
referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further
review and report.
B. A-528 - Geraldine Gamaunt, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center)~ Final Design
Review Approval - Commercial Expansion~ Continued from July 14~ 1976
Per Commissioner Lustig's request, Chairman Belanger directed that A-528 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 1976, and referred
this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and
report.
Co A-531 - Plant World, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design Review
Approval - Commercial Expansion; Continued from July 14~ 1976
Per Commissioner Lustig's request, Chairman Belanger directed that A-531 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 1976, and referred
this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and
report.
Do UP-119 - West Valley College, FruitVale Avenue, Final Design Review Approval
(1) Portable Classroom Relocations from Campbell Campus, and (2)
Pedestrian Pathway Lig~ti~g~ Vehicular Access Road Lighting
Commissioner Lustig requested this matter be continued pending further review.
Chairman Belanger directed UP-119 be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of August 11, 1976, and referred this matter to the Design Review
Committee for further review and report°
E. A-536 - E. Continillo, Chiquita Way, Final Design Review Approval - Lot #7,
Tract #5461
Note was made that concerns had been expressed relative to screening of the
deck-support posts. Staff explained that per an on-site inspection, they had
determined that there was sufficient natural landscaping to adequately screen
these posts, Chairman Belanger a~ked what the slope of the driveway was~
with Staff explaining that it was less than 12%. It was pointed out that
the Design Review Committee had reviewed this application, and that a Staff
Report had been prepared recommending approval.
Commissioner Lustig moved, sedonded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant Final Design Review approval to application A-536 per Exhibit
"A" and the Staff Report dated July 22, 1976o The motion was carried
unanimously°
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Request for Reconsideration of Condition V-F for Tentative Site Approval Appli-
cations: SDR-1232 - Ralston Johnson~ Pierce Road, 1 Lot and SDR-1248 - Fred
Irany, Pierce Road, 1 Lot; Continued from July 14., 1976
Staff explained that a letter had been received signed by both applicants
requesting this matter be~withdrawn. It was noted that the applicants had
agreed to~-meet all conditions of tentative site approval, including Condition
V-F relative to water supply.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission accept the letter requesting withdrawal of recondition V-F relative
to applications SDR-1232 and SDR-1248o The motion was carried unanimously.
-9-
VI. A. Request for Reconsideration of Condition - Irany and Johnson - Cont~d
Mr. I~any, applicant on SDR-1248, requested that his application as well as
SDR-124~ be granted final building site approval insomuch as all conditions
had been met. Staff concuTred that all conditions of Tentative Map Approval
had been met on both applications ,/.ap~ _ t~_ a~_J~S._an~.~ndS_ ~a~ been paid.
Regarding the water supply condition, Staff explained that per San Jose Water
Works Company computations, a 950 gallon/minute water supply could be made at
the-'~ites. ~
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant final building site approval to application SDR-1232o The
motion was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant final building site approval to application SDR-1248o The
motion was carried unanimously.
B. Keith Miller - Resolution Approving Adjustment of Parcel Map from 11 Lots to
3 Lots, Hill Avenue
Staff explained that the applicant was requesting a lot line adjustment of his
parcel map from 11 legal non-conforming lots to 3 legal conforming lots. It
was noted that the average size of the 11 lots were 10,000 square feet, and
that these lots were located within an R-i-40,000 zone. Further, it was ex-
plained that there were 2 existing houses on the site which would remain on
2 of the parcels, leaving one of the 3 parcels vacant° Staff also explained
that a parcel map would be recorded'by the County.
Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission approve Resolutions PM-1A, PM-1B, and PM-1C relative to adjustment
of parcel map from 11 lots to 3 lots on Hill Avenue, by Kei~h Miller. The
motion was carried unanimously.
VII. WRITTEN CO}~NICATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Determinations
The following Negative Declarations~were filed between the period of July 14th
and July 23rd:
SD-1254 - Dividend Industries, Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, Subdivision
Approval - 48 Lots
e SD-1256 - Eldred Kunkel, ~es.ter ~venue, SubdiviSion Approval - 6 Lots
· SD-1257 - Marie Rose Gaspar, Pierce Road, Subdivision Approval - 8 Lots
Discussion_followed on SD-1254, with concern being_exjressed by several of the
~qP-m~n-_~Ss~O~rP_re%a~_tQ.~raffic_circulation,._landscapin~ and noise.._ChairmanZ
Belanger asked why an EIK had not been required to help discover mitigating
measures for some of these problems. The Secretary explained that under the
CEQA guidelines,~prelimin~ry reports could be required regarding mitigating
measures for potential problems, and that such had been requested of the
applicant. The Secretary stated that an EIR provided information relative
to potential problems of a given site along with suggested mitigation measures,
and he contended that the problems encountered on this application were not
difficult to recognize. Consequently, he had not felt an EIR was required,
but that preliminary reports suggesting mitigation measures should be required.
Commissioner Martin added to this that traffic estimations had been presented
by the applicant at the Subdivision Committee meeting on this matter, as well
as an audio report. He noted that the Subdivision Committee was reviewing the
visual aspects of this proposed project, and had been working closely with the
architect representing the applicant° He noted that the applicant had been
very cooperative with the Subdivision Committee's requests, and indicated
support of the Planning Director's decision that an EIR was not required°
-10-
_ MINUTES OF JULY 28, 1976
VII. WRITTEN CO:~MUNICATIONS - Environmental Impact Determinations - Cont'd
Chairman Belanger asked how the Planning Director's decision could be appealed.
The Secretary explained that an appeal could be made to the City Council within
30 days of the Planning Director's environmental impact determination.
B. Other
1. Letter from the University of California Extension announcing a workshop
to be held on EnviromrLental Impact Assessments°
2. Memorandum dated July 26, 1976 from Staff regarding a polidy statement
concerning prohibition of drive-up windows in Saratoga. Enclosed with the
memorandum was a copy of a report prepared by Professor Donal Myronuk on
"Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxide Levels Attributable to Use of Drive-Up
Window Facilities." Further, Planning Commission Resolution PC-125 was
enclosed in the memorandum relative to a policy by the Commission to
deny any and all applications for new developments incorporating drive-up
facilities within the City of Saratoga°
After brief discussion of this policy, it was the consensus of the Planning
Commission to adopt a prohibitive policy relative to drive-up window
facilities, excluding walk-up window facilities. Commissioner Zambetti
moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution PC-125. The motion was carried unanimously.
VIII. ORAL CO}~4UNICATIONS
A. City Council Report. No report was given. A copy of the minutes of the
City Council meeting held on July 21, 1976 is on file at the City's Administra-
tion Office.
B. Commissioner Callon gave a brief report of the Planning Policy Committee meetings.
She pointed out that an energy program had been adopted by PBC encouraging
~P_l__anni_ng_.._C_ommissions to become more energy oriented when they were designing7
.subdivisions. She requested Staff t0 ~er6x c~le~/~ the Commission a-.repo~
~'~d"5~ '~[~'~y'of"b~vi~' regarding energy research mat'e~iai. Further,
she noted that the voters passed in June a charter amendment for the County
to form an Intergovernmental CounCil, and that the PPC felt it was a top
priority for it to get involved with giving input to the Board of Supervisors
as to the design of this proposed Council° She requested the Planning Commis-
sion give consideration to what functions !and qo~p0§iti9n_t~_~o~p~.il might
.... have
Co The Se~[~"r~bhi~ehd~d that a Commission Committee-of-the-Whole meeting be
scheduled to discuss water situation alternatives for the City's hillside
region. After brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to
schedule a Committee-of-the-Whole meeting'at 7:30 p.m° on August.2, 1976 in
the Crisp Conference Room~.
D. Chairman Belanger expressed appreciation to the Good Government Group for
serving'.coffee.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission meeting of July 28, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p°m.
Res~~7~//,~~
Marty Van Duyn, S~re~y
sko/
-11-
CITY OF SARATOGA OCTOBER 26, 1976
RESCHEDULED
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~ISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Secretary of the City of Saratoga
Planning Commission, State of California, has rescheduled the Saratoga
Planning Commission meeting date from Wednesday, November 24, 1976 to
Monday, November 22, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. Additionally, the regularly-
scheduled Planning Commission meeting of December 22, 1976 has been
cancelled.
CITY OF SARATOGA
PLANNING CO~IISSION
Mar~~
~D/sko
PLEASE PUBLISH NOVEMBER 3, 1976
TFANK YOU.
This space is for th~ County Clerk's Filing Stamp
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
i2015.5 C.C.P)
· ':,TA'FE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Santa Clara
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the ,~ -
not a par~ ~ or interest~ ~ ~e above~ntitl~ ~t~r. I am /
the principal clerk of the prin~r of ~e
SARATOGA NEWS
14053 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, California, a newspaper of
general circulation, printed and published every Wednesday
newspaper has been adJudged a new ~,pape~_ of Seneral cir-
culation by the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara,
State of California, under the date of November ~6, 1957, Case
Nmber 105852; that the notice of which the annexed is a "LSe"'~'~ ,NbTXCS ..... ~
printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has CITY OF S,~RATOGA
been published in e~ch regular and entire issue of said news- a Es cH EDU L E~
paper and not in any supplement thereof on the following ,NOTICE OF H~ARn~GS
dates, tO wit: crry OF SARATOGA
Pk*tN,N ~'G CO~I~I~SION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GI~'EN thatthe
//~~9/L~t_/~/ ~ Secretary tithe Cityd Saratoga
Planning Commission, Stat~ d Cal-
ifornia, has rescheduled the Saratoga
all in the year 19 )76 Planning Commission meeting d at e
from Wednesday, November 24, 1976
to Monday, November 22, 1976 at
I certify or declare) under penalty of perjury that the 7:30 p.m. in theCityCouneilCham-
[oreg0ing iS true and correct. bets, 13777 Fntitvale Avenue, Sara-
toga', California. Additionally, the
regularly-scheduled PLanning C ore-
Dated at SaratOga, California, this ! mission meeting of December 22,
....... ~ 1976 has been cancelled.
----~ - . CrrY OF SArtATOGA
C OMMtSS
ION
Marty Van
Duyn,
Secretar2'
.Pub. Nov-, 3t 1976
Signature