Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-11-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COB,~ISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, August 11, 1976 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE':' City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. 93070 TYPE:. Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Martin and Zambetti Absent: None B. MINUTES Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 28, 1976 be waived, and that they be ~pproved as distributed to the Commis'sion. The motion was carried; Commissioner M~rshall abstained. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Composition of Consent Calendar Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission approve the composition of the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unanimously. B. Items of Consent Calendar Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by CommisSioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant approval to the following applications subject to their respective Staff Reports and Exhibits: 1. Design Review a) SS-109 - Hal Johnston (The Lollypop), 12882 Saratoga-Sunnyvat~ Road, Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - per Staff Report dated July 29, 1976 and Exhibit "A" 2. Final Building Site Approvals a) SDR-1230 - Timothy Nobriga, Vickery Lane, Final Building Site Approval for 1 Lot " b) SDR-1236 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Wardell Road/ Arroyo de Arguello, Final Building Site'Approval - 4 Lots The motion was carried unanimously. III. TE~YrAT. IVE SUBDIVISIONS/FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVALS A. SD-1252 - James Day Construction Company, Chester Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval for 16 Lots " Commissioner Marshall, as Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, outlined the specifics of this application, making special note that application SD-1255 for ~'O'lots was contiguous to thi~parcel. He e~plained that the 2 developers had arranged for a common green area on which a tennis court would be constructed, as well as space for the location of an additional tennis court in the future. -1- _~ ,._ COI~ISSION MINI]TES OF~_~U~ III. A. SD-1252 - James Day Construction Company - Cont'd Further, both applications proposed an extension of Chester Avenue from one development to the other, which would result in a looped circulation system. He explained that San Marcos Road would provide temporary emergency access until the public street improvements on Chester Avenue had been completed. Commis- sioner Marshall noted that a scenic easement had been required of SD-12S2 pre- serving in perpetuity a grove of trees located on the northeast side of the site. He stated that the Subdivision Committee reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Martin asked what would happen to the San Marcos Road emergency access after the Chester Avenue improvements had been made. Staff explained that since it was a temporary crash barrier only, it would be abandoned after Chester Avenue had been extended. Note was made that this access was reflected -on ~h~Tentative Map as an emergency access belonging to the adjacent property .owmer, and it was pointed out that said property owner could petition the City for release of this easement after Chester. Avenue improvements had been made. -After note was made that the average slope of the entire parcel was 18%, concern was expressed by ~ommi'ssioners Belanger and Callon that the averaging method used in calculating the slope density formula on this application allowed for more houses than an individual avera.gin~ of each parcel. It was explained that the City's ordinances allowed averaging of densitK_.gf_any si~_n. gle parcel .= ]~;ithin the City under one ownership. For example, the Secretary explained that ~ ~ under the newly-adopted HC-RD Ordinance, averaging was allowed using a base of ~ : 43,560 square feet; whereas, under Subdivision Ordinance No. 60, averaging was .. allowed using a base (in this case) of 40,000 square feet, which is the zone in which this parcel lies. Staff assured the Commission that lot yield of this 'application was in total compliance.with all ordinances Of the City. At'this"time,"C0~missioner Marsh~ii"moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission grant tentative subdivision approval to application SD-1252 subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated August 6, 1976 and Exhibit "A". The motion was carried unanimously. B. SD-1253 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Douglass Lane, Tentative Subdivision Approval for 6 Lots Commissioner Marshall gave a brief outline of this application, making special note that this subdivision would form a terminus via a cul-de-sac for Douglass Lane. He stated that this application met all City ordinances, that this appli- cation had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Lustig requested that the bridge required under Condition II-E be engineered by a civil engineer. Mr. Trinidad, Public Works Department, pointed out that being a major subdivision, this application would be required to meet all Standard Engineering Conditions; i.e., construction 6f a public street would entail meeting public street standards for bridges. Commissioner Zambetti pointed out that there would be 2 Douglass Lanes with the approval of this subdivision, and requested Staff work with the citizens to clarify this duality. Staff noted that it was working with the Fire District regarding this matter. At this time, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission grant tentative subdivision approval to application SD-1253 subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated August 6, 1976 and Exhibit "A". The motion was carried unanimously. C. SD-1255 - Kosich Construction Company, Allendale Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval for 6 Lots Commissioner Marshall gave a brief outline of the specifics of this application, noting that Camino de los Barcos would now service the 6 lots of this subdivision, -2- -= CO~B~ISSION MINUTES OF UST 11, 1976 III. C. SD-1255 - Kosich Construction Company - Cont'd the existing 4-lot subdivision developed by Col. Barcos, as well as 2 to 3 poten- tial sites. Commissioner Marshall explained that the maximum number qf lots allowed on a cul-de-sac was 16, noting that this cul-de-sac/~nder the re- quired maximum. Commissioner Marshall also drew the Commission'S attention to Condition VI-B requiring Design Review approval for Lots #1 and #4, which are '~6Ea'~a'o~"£H~ corner of camino de los Barcos and Allendale Avenue. He ex- plained that Design Review approval was an attempt to address the siting and design of these 2 homes so that there will be a minimum impact along Allendale Avenue. He noted that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this application. At this point Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission grant tentative subdivision approval to application SD-1255 subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated August 6, 1976 and Exhibit "A". The motion was carried unanimously. D. SD-1256 - Eldred Kunkel, Chester Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval for 10 Lots Commissioner Marshall drew the Commission's attention again to the adjoining subdivision (SD-1252), noting that both applications proposed an extension of Chester Avenue, as well as arranged for a common green area. He stated that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission grant tentative subdivision approval to application SD-1256 subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated August 6, 1976 and Exhibit "A". The motion was carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-183 - Galeb Properties, Zorka Avenue, Request for Change of Zoning for a 4.78± Acre Parcel Located between Zorka Avenue and the Southern Pacific Rail- road from "R-1-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-1-10,000 PC" (Single-Family Residential, Planned Community); Continued from July 28, 1976 Chairman Belanger noted that at the last Commission meeting, the applicant was requested to submit to the Subdivision Committee a standard subdivision proposal for comparison purposes, and Staff was required to provide a traffic count of the area. She noted that the standard subdivision plans had been submitted on August llth, and that Staff was still in the process of obtaining traffic counts. She made note of the following correspondence received on this matter since the last Commission meeting: 1) Letter dated August 1, 1976 from Betty Reed, 12500 De Sanka Avenue, favoring the rezoning application. 2) Letter dated August 1, 1976 from Lori Boyd, 12500 De Sanka Avenue, favoring the rezoning application. 3) Letter dated August 11, 1976 from Winston Chew, 12501 De Sanka Avenue, opposing the rezoning application. 4) Petition dated August 9, 1976 containing signatures of 26 residents on De Sanka Avenue, Ted Avenue and Cherry Lane objecting to the rezoning application on the basis that 18 houses_Would represent_ a 50~ increase over present neighborhood density. Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on C-183 at 9:04 p.m. Warren Heid, architect representing the applicant, apologized for the late delivery of the pt~ns for a 10 and 12-lot standard subdivision, and made the following comments: (1) He noted the similarities of this project with the PC development called Saratoga Place, and noted that the only difference between the 2 projects was that Saratoga Place had a 36-foot wide public street, whereas this proposed project was requesting a private street. -S- COI~1ISSION MINUTES OF ;UST 11, 1976 ~= -~-' · A. C-183 - Galeb Properties - Cont'd (2) Relative to concerns expressed by Mr. Chew regarding the 5-acre minimum, Mr. Heid explained that the property owner could provide the additional .22- acre to bring the total size of the project to the required 5 acres. Responding to a request that he submit a PC development_/plan with less than 18 lots, Mr. Heid stated that he felt he had come down from 21 lots to 18 lots already. Further, he stated that he felt the 18-lot plan was a practical answer for the owner as well as an ideal solution to the community for a difficult site. · Peter Chisom, Ted Avenue, noted that the proposed plan showed a road "appro- ximately half the width of Ted Avenue," with 13 parking spaces to service 18 homes. He stated: "Eventually the boats, dune buggies, racecars, etc. will show up, and they will take up driveway space and there will no longer be any parking. It will mean that the people who come home late will be parking out in our area. It looks like it is just totally inadequate." Mr. Chisom further noted that 4 years ago the applicant had requested approval for 21 duplex-type units, adding: "I believe common wall units translates into duplexes which sounds very much like that is what they want to do now, only now they want to build 18." · Winston Chew, De Sanka Avenue, stated that he did not feel the applicant was following proper procedure insomuch as he was also requesting with this change of zoning a variance from the minimum requirement of 5 acres for a PC project. He stated that he felt the applicant could build.,~'~'fSffa~' ble development with 11 units similar to the Guava Court subdivision, with' the minimum requirements of an R-1-10,000 zone. Further, he pointed out that thej'hB'~ w6~l'dYbe within 60-feet of a train going by every day. Also, Mr. Chew noted that the ordinance allowed a public swim center to be operated in this t>~e of use, and he complained that the open space adjacent to his home could some day be turned into a swim club. He stated that he would rather see a standard subdivision rather than a PC development. In order to guide the Subdivision Committee as well as the applicant, the following comments were made by the Commission: · Commissioner Callon stated that she would not be willing to approve a 15-18 lot PC development, but would only consider a development with less homesites. · Commissioner Marshall stated that he wished to compare a standard sub- division proposal with the PC proposal in order determine whether this 18-~ot proposal was the best use for the property. · Commissioner Lustig stated that he would not be Tin favor of approving more lots "under the umbrella of PC" than would normally be allowed under a standard subdivision in an R-1-10,000 zone. · Commissioner Laden stated that she hoped the dialogue with the Subdivision Committee would be meaningful because she felt PC was a needed landuse in the community. · Commissioner Martin stated that he was in favor of PC zoning_ for this -'property, but noted that the City had never given more than a 10% bonus = for the creation of a better community use via a PC development. He stated that he would not personally be in favor of approving a 50% bonus for this PC development. Mr. Heid made a point that the standard subdivision proposals submitted should be considered as informational documents only, and not be considered as a proposed development in lieu of the requested 18-lot PC subdivision. At this time Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on C-183, continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 1976, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. RECESS: 9:30 - 9:50 p.m. -4- COMMISSION MINRJTES O~UST 11, 1976 IV. B. C-182 - City of Saratoga, Change of Zoning from "R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "HC-RD" (Hillside Conservation-Residential District) of that Area Defined as the Slope Conservation Zone in the 1974 General Plan Chairman Belanger read the following memorandum dated August 11, 1976 from the Planning Director to the Planning Commission into the record: "The "R-i-40,000 to HC-RD (Hillside Conservation-Residential District" rezoning now being presented as C-182 is the implementation follow-up to the previously-adopted "HC-RD" Ordinance adopted by the City Council in April of 1976. The Hillside Conservation-Residential District Zone (HC-RD) is the ordinance which brings the 1974 General Plan Policy into consistency with local zoning. In order to complete the consistency of zoning with the General Plan, as required by State law, the next step is to place those lands to be affected under its (HC-RD) control. The action requested and advertised for hearing at this time is to place those lands as identified as being within the 1974 General Plan into this new "HC-RD" classification. 1. In May of 1976 the Council adopted an emergency ordinance (#3E-13) to place the areas within the Slope Conservation Zone under the provisions (principally the new slope density formula) of the new HC-RD Zone. This was done in order to prohibit applications to be filed which would be inconsistent with the objectives and contradictory to the allowable develop- ment potential addressed in the new HC-RD regulations. As an emergency ordinance and an interim measure, the ordinance can only be valid for a limited period of 4 mont;~s. This interim ordinance is intended to fulfill the intent of the HC-RD zone until the r9zoning of the Slope Conservation arca was implemented. 'l]!is interim ordinance will expire in September 1976. If the rezoning of this area is not accomplished by September, then the area will revert back to existing R-1-40,000 zoning, and applications for develppm~nt can be submitted under less restrictive (increased d~'i~)~h~d' use ~ control. 2. If the "Initiative" measure ~ils in Xovember, it Would be important to have the new HC-RD ordinance in effect in-order =...to retain consistency wi~h the 1974 General Plan and also avoid reversion to previous R-1-40,000 classification for this area. 3. Should the Initiative pass and subsequently be challenged in court, it would prove advantageous to have demonstratable proof of an established history of Saratoga Hillside restrictions progessively being adopted and enforced. 4. The Commission and Council are interested in proceeding with the rezoning as soon as possible in order to retain a progressive movement in implementing the adopted HC-RD ordinance. The re- zoning is proceeding now in order ~o avoid losing the interest participation and knowledge of impacts associated with the recently-adopted HC-RD zoning." The following correspondence was received on this ~atter: 1. Letter dated August 6, 1976 from R.S. Cronhardt, 3004 Constellation Drive, Colorado Springs, Colorado, a Saratoga hillside property o~er, objecting to the rezoning. 2. Petitions dated August 4 containing 37 signatures of residents who, although supportive of the HC-RD ordinance, requested that portions of the Sisters of Notre Dame property (APN 517-13-013) be included in the 'HC-RD zone. -5- ~ CO~IISSION MINUTES OF~GUST 11, 1976 IV. B. C-182 - HC-RD Ordinance - Cont'd With regard to the petitions, Chairman Belanger explained that including this property into the HC-RD zone would not be possible at this time insomuch as the public hearing on this matter had been advertised to include only the 1500± acres designated on Exhibit B. Further, she explained that the General Plan would also have to be amended t~-include this property in the General Plan's slope conservation zone. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to make note of these petitions, and to refer same to the next General Plan Review public hearings scheduled for early 1977. At this time, Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on C-182 at 10:00 p.m. ® Vicky Ashmore explained that she owned a vacant lot on Bohlman Road, and asked how this ordinance would affect her. The Secretary stated that the Ordinance would not prohibit her from developing her property if the lot was a legally-recorded parcel. He added, however, that she would be re- quired to adhere to the standards of the ordinance relative to setbacks, building heights, area requirements, etc. ® Russ Crowther, Norada Court, raised a question relative to the different slope density formulas applicable to the HC-RD zone and other zones within the City. The Secretary explained that the HC-RD zone applied a slope density formula to all parcels with slopes over 10%. (per 1974 GeneFa'I .... Pla'H'Siope Conservation Zone) using a base of 43,560 ~qUare 'fee~"~l'to~al ', acre), while other lands within the City with slopes over 10% had the ":_ 'S~b'd'iViYi~'OFdih'ance No. 60 slope density formula.applied,'using'as i{~"' base' 401'000'gq~are"fe~t'~ .......................... Mr. Crowther stated opposition to this rezoning on the basis that the HC-RD .:ordinance-was-nOt-totaTTy-cons~stent-with-the--l-9~4-General Plan. Me cited .. the following (page 23) from the 1974 General Plan: "...Redefine the Slope Conservation Zoning Ordinance to provide minimum density and to include conservation evaluation, i.e., slope, distance from all-weather road'~.school capacity, water service, sewer service, electrical service, fire protection, geological hazards, vegetation, arterial access. Before development is permitted, each site shall be evaluated according to criteria for Slope Conservation development." He/stated: ~'iF'i~7our belief that the intent of the General Plan as it is w~i~ten was to maintain this as a slope conservation zone subject to these criteria. Although the Hillside Eonservation-Residential District ordinance does implement some of these criteria, it does not implement all [~of them. And ~h~'~fo~we believe that it is inconsistent with the General ~i'an. ' ~ ........ As there was no further testimony, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on C-182. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 10:10 p.m. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner ~'~rtin, that the Planning Commission approve the Staff Report dated August 6, 1976, Exhibit "B" and Resolution #C-182 relative to application C-182, and forward same to the City Council with the recommendation of approval. The motion was carried unanimously. C. V-487 - Hyrum r. Olsen, 14470 fruitvale Avenue, Request for Variance to Allow for a Reduction in the Required frontyard Setback for Accommodation of a Swimming Pool'(Ordinance NS-5, Section ~.7) Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V-457 at 10:12 p.m. She made note of the following correspondence received on this application: 1) Letter dated August 8, 1976 from Bert & Jan Martel, 14420 ~ruitvale Avenue, objecting to the granting of this variance. 2)Letter dated August 9, 1976 from Mrs. Ralph Costclio, 144~0 ~ruitvale Avenue, objecting to the granting of this variance. -6- ': CO~'~tISSION MI~IJTES OF~UST 11, 1976 IV. C. V-457 - Hyrum Olsen - Cont'd ~As there was no testimony offered, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on application V-457. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 10:13 p.m. Commissioner Martin, as Chairma__n oj__tbe.._y~r__ia~~ Committee, pointed out that the Variance Committee ~ade ah on-site inspection, an~ noted that the Committee ._~gr_e_ed with the Staff's recommendati6n of denial. He explained that!£h~f~" were 2 other locations on the site which'~ff6~2~d~dequate space ~n ~Hi~ to install a pool; however, the applicant was planning to add a garage on one of ~ the locations for purposes of housing his boat, and on the other location, he did not feel there was adequate sunlight for a pool. Commissioner Marshall expressed the opinion that the Commission should not allow people to develop their properties !!so that every square inch is maximized into something." tie stated that it looked as though the applicant was approaching the maximum impervious coverage limits, and he requested Staff to advise the applicant 6f these limitations. At this point, Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission deny application V-457 per the Staff Report dated August 3, 1976 and Exhibit "A". The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Belanger advised that the applicant could appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days of Commission action. D. V-458 - Geraldine Gamaunt, 18850 Cox Avenue (The Quito Pet center), Request for Variance to Allow Outdoor Use in C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) Zone (Ordinance NS-3, Sections 3.2(f)'and 3.7) It was noted that this was ~_va_ri_an_Ce_request to allow for_the._k_e~p~ip~_of do~, rabbits and birdsL~t'comple~e!y. enclosed within structhr~s. The Doint was. made that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending that the bird a~iary be allowed in an open-air situation, but that rabbits, dogs and other animals must be kept within a completed-enclosed structure. Note was made that the Variance Committee made an on-site inspection, and that they endorsed the Staff Report's recommendation. Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V-458 at 10:22 p.m. Ms. Gamaunt, applicant, stated that she was satisfied with the recommendation for approval of the bird aviary, noting that she only had 2 rabbits in her outdoor pen an)~ay. As there was no further testimony offered, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission close the public hear?fng _.~ on application V-458. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 10:25 p.m. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that City ordinances prohibited the keeping of certain animals, including birds capable of raucous outcry. He pointed out that the applicant would primarly be selling to Saratoga citizens, and main- tained that the sale of prohibited animals would be aiding and abetting a vio- lation of the ordinances~ Staff pointed out that the oridinance's prohibitions were applicable to residential zones, and not commercial zones. Further, it was pointed out that the ordinance was directed at animals kept out of doors. Staff maintained that the intent of the Staff Report relative to this variance was that these birds could be sold in Saratoga and kept indoors, not outdoors. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant approval to application V-458 ~Fj~_t'~to the conditions of the Staff Report dated August 5, 1976 and per Exhibit "A", allowing only an outdoor structure for the keeping of birds and not allowing any other outdoor structure for the keeping of other animals. The motion was carried unanimously. -7- ~,. CO~ISSION MINUTES OF UST 11, 1976 IV. E. C-178 - City of Saratoga, Change of Zoning of Four Parcels Located West of Saratoga Avenue and South of Cox Avenue from "A" (Agriculture) to "PA" (Professional-Administrative) in Accordance with 1974 General Plan for the City of Saratoga (Zone #20) It was explained that pursuant to Section 65860 of the California State Code, the City proposed the above-referenced amendment to the 1974 zoning map in order to bring said map into consistency with the 1974 General Plan. Note was made one letter had been received from Joseph Stellman, De Haviland ~rive, objecting to this rezoning. Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on C-178, Zone #20, at 10:35 p.m. As there was no testimony given, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on C-178, Zone #20. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 10:36 p.m. Commissioner Callon stated that a lady residing on DeHaviland Drive had opposed this rezoning on the basis that there would be more vandalism caused by un- attended PA buildings than by having single-family houses on this site. Several of the Commissioners pointed out that the present vandalism problem probably resulted ~ore from an open-field access to the rears of homes located on DeHaviland Drive than any other cause. Commissioner Callon suggested that this site be considered for multiple-family units, and Staff noted that such a use was allowed under the PA zone as a conditional use. Note was made that the StarrY.Report pointed out that this property had been rezoned from "A" to "PA" in July of 1972. However, Staff explained that conditions were imposed on this rezoning for road improvements which were not completed; consequently, the rezoning reverted back to "A" for this site. As there were no further comments, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission approve application C-178, Zone #20, per the Staff Report dated August 5, 1976 and Exhibit "20", and that this recommendation for approval be forwarded to the City Council. The motion was carried unanimously. V. DESIGN REVIEW A. UP-119 - West Valley College, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review Approval for (1)?PorHb'l~Classroom Relocations from Campbell Campus and (2) Pedes~ia~"Pathway Lighting, Vehicular Access Road Lighting; Continued fr_om July 28, 1976 Note was made that the applicant was com~!Eing with one of the conditions of the 'City's use permit (UP-119) requiring that the College obtain Design Review _- Approval for any proposed new buildings. Commissioner Lustig, as Chairman of the Design Review Committee, noted that although from a design review standpoint these improvements were acceptable, he felt the matter should be continued. Commissioner Lustig suggested that the application be split into 2 separate applications: one addressing itself to the relocation of 5__.portable buildings constituting an additional 12,000 square foot under-roof capacity; and the other to improvements to the existing" lighting system for purposes of security and visibility along the campus walkways' and perimeter road. He expressed concerns that an additional 12~000 square feet .: of buildings would encourage more students on the campus and add to the already present parkin_g_problems. He u~rged a continuance of this .~pRlicatio_n u_n_til the applicant could provide information concerning the present number of students and the parking ratio. Commissioner Marshall concurred that the request for relocation of the portable buildings be continued, expressing concern over the question of how permanent these buildings would be. -~ CO~IISSION MIN~JTES OF 11, 1976 -' V. A. UP-119 - West Valley College - Cont'd After discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Conunmission to approve the lighting portion of this application, but continue the request for reloca- tion of portable buildings to the next Commission meeting. It was also the consensus of the Commission to refer the relocation of these portable buildings to the Design Review Committee and the Subdivision Committee for further review. Steve Keller, applicant's representative, noted that they were ready to relocate these buildings as well as to install the lighting system. He stated that he would be willing to meet with the subcommittees at any time. In response to a statement made by Commissioner Lustig that if the college had met its original ~ obligation relative to th~"~be'~f~den~,ii~d'have avoi'dFd~h~ ' 7: -'- "~re~ent overcrowded situation, Mr. Keller ~t~fed'7"It'i~S~trli~h~'f 'for anyone who applies for a class at West Valley College, we are obligated to 2.~ accept their application and try to fit them into a class. This has been our first permanent campus. We have continued to hold onto the Campbell campus, and are continuing to educate people there. And we have the ~|ission College under construction. We did not with malice accept students with the desire of making you or anyone else unhappy. We are trying to respond to the needs of our school district. I think we should discuss the types of uses, buildings and their locations. This project was described many months back in a compre- hensive environmental impact report that was reviewed by the City Staff, and it did discuss uses, traffic, number of students, etc." Relative to the Design Review Approval request for a lighting system, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to the lighting system requested under application UP-119 per.Exhibit "A" and subject to the Staff Report dated July 29, 1976, excluding the portion relative to the relocation of 5 portable buildings. The motion was carried unanimously. / Ch~I"B'~Y~n~r~~'~H Staff to prepare a revised Staff Report pertinent to the lighting system only. Chairman Belanger also directed that the Design Review Approval request for the relocation of 5 portable buildings be continued to the Planning Commission meet-- ing of August 25, 1976, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Subdivision Committee for further review and report. B. A-S00 - Larry Tyler, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review Approval for Revision of Previously-Approved Plan for Parking Assessment District #2 Commissioner Lustig explained that the builder of the tollhouse project (Dave Franklin) had agreed to dedicate a 2-foot easement to the Parking Assessment District #2 in return for considerations r~garding 4 walnut trees. It was noted that these 4 walnut trees are located below the townhous project, and that one -of them was to be removed with the Stipulation that the other 3 trees would be 'C'ity-~in'~in~d for 5 years, at which tim_e_they would-also be removed. Commis-'i-' sioner LUstig n_o~Od%'[0~ver, that Mr. Franklin had sold these townhouSes without 'mention of this 2-foot easement' in any of the property owners' deeds. He'noted that the property o~mers were unwilling to dedicate the 2-foot easement, but ~hat the lessor of the Parking Assessment District property (Security Pacific Bank) would. He stated that'~this constituted the request for amendment to appli- cation A-500, and he recommended approval of this application. Ms. [iurkacki, one of the property owners of the to~mhouses, requested this matter be continued. She stated that the builder had not told the to~mhouse property owners of this agreement, and she .p~inted out that th~'~r~h'a~price of the townhouse was based on the walnut trees which face'the back of ~er property. She stated: "We paid for this. We object to the removal of these trees. If there is any damage done, it will undermine the construction of our homes. is built, it is going to cut into our hillside." She explained that the builder was to have installed trees along th'~"'h'i'Ii~id~'f~idditional protection' when the walnut trees were removed, but she complained that only 2 pine trees :had been installed. She stated that she felt the City owed it to Saratogans and to the to~house owmers to lplant trees because the back of the townhouse = CO~IISSION MINUTES OF ;UST 11, 1976 V. B. A-S00 - Larry Tyler - Cont'd project would look like a block to Big BaBin Way t~a~ic if:the walnut trees were removed. Commissioner Lustig noted that at the latest Design Review Committee meeting, a representative of the townhouse homeowners association had indicated that the trees were not that important insomuch as they were leafless during the months of October through March. Discussion followed with note being made by the Commission that the Parking Assessment District #2 plans had been approved prior to the construction of the townhouses. Note was made that there was no signed agreement between the townhouse builder and the City, but that Design Review Approval had been con- ditioned for this 2-foot easement. It was the consensus of the Planning Com- mission that since the homeowners did not have to dedicate a 2-foot easement, they could plant trees at their own expense on their own property for protection purposes when the walnut trees were removed. At this time Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to the amended application A-S00 per Exhibit "D" and the Staff Report dated August S, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. C. A-S19 - George Kocher and Larry Tyler, 3rd and 4th Streets, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Commercial Commissioner Lustig gave a detailed description of the project, pointing out that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter on several occasions. W~en asked whether there would be a problem with the abutting creek, it was explained that the building had been brought up 20 feet creating adequate access and eliminating any need for improvements of the creek. Commissioner Belanger requested that the requirement for an automatic irrigation system be made part of the building site approval conditions on this matter. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-S19 per Exhibit "D" and the Staff Report dated August 11, 1976. The motion was carried ............. unanimous 1 y. VI. MISCELLANEOUS A. Policy Statement: Adoption of Policy Statement on Water Service Requirements on Hillside Lots Staff noted that the General Plan required that adequate urban services were to be provided for the area within the Slope Conservation Zone. Consequently, Staff in conjunction with the Saratoga Fire District, developed a proposed hillside water policy to--govern future development in the hillside area. It was noted that the Planning Commission held a Committee-of-the-W]~ole meeting on this topic, and that the Subdivision Committee had also reviewed this matter. Mr. Burr, Staff member, noted that the policy prohibited individual water storage tanks for fire protection purposes; required strict adherence to the Saratoga Fire District's recommended fire flow requirements; required water rate consistent with the Public Utility Commission's minimum standards for domestic purposes and Insurance Service:Office's minimum standards for fire flow and storage purposes; and encouraged development of a public water system per the Master Plan being developed by the San Jose Water Works Company. Mr. Burr contended that with this policy statement, potential developers would know what water requirements were expected prior to making application for site approval. Co~nnissioner Callon asked why the City would not allow for an individual, mutually owned system if the PUG and ISO standards were met. She suggested that the City require developers to participate in forming a water system such as it does with some sewer requirements, thereby allowing development prior to installation of a .w;ater_ system'l'R~"~ets Saratoga Fire District..;s specifications. -10- COMMISSION MINUTBS OF ~UST 11, 1976 -VI. A. Policy Statement: Water Service Requirements on Hillside Lots - Cont'd Further, Commissioner Callon pointed out that neighboring hillside communities did not require as strict fire standards as Saratoga. She stated that Grade 4 requirements were flatland standards, and contended that if the City required the hillside area to conform to Grade 4 stanaards from its present Grade 8 standards,. it would in effect be prohibiting future development in the hillsides. :DiScussion followed on these points. The Commission modified the Policy as follows: ...... Condition (1) Prohibit the use of individual water storage tanks, swimming pools and other private water systems below the PUC and ISO standards for the purpose of providing fire protection as an alternative to a public water system. Condition (2) Adhere to the SAratoga Fire District's recommended fire flow requirements for individual development proposals. (Note: The term "below the PUC and ISO standards" was added to Condition (1). The word "strictly" was deleted from Condition (2).) Mr. Butt explained that the economical difference between requiring a Grade 4 system and a Grade 8 system was approximately $2 per foot. He stated: "This is a virgin area as far as urban infrastructure is concerned. The hazards are greater in this area than in the Valley floor as far as fire protection is concerned. Our Fire Chief feels that it is important to get an adequate water flow. If we are asking for 750 gallons/minute, the developers would still have the same problem of upgrading or installing a new system. An up- graded system has to be put in, so what we are saying is put in a good system to begip with." It was noted that the SJ~'C was in the process of creating a Master Plan divided into 3 different pressure systems. It was asked what would happen to this Master Plan if the City allowed individual mutual water companies to develop their own water systems. Staff explained that most mutual water systems had to purchase their water from SJ~TC,'.and if the City required the same standards for all hillside developments, the overall system would still D~_cQnSi.~t_ent_. Sta~F"explained that the City would be suggesting the same specifications for all hillside lots; consequently if individual water systems wished to connect to the SJt~]~'C, there would be consistent standards for the entire hillside area. At this time Commissioner"Ma~hall'moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission adopt the "Planning Commission Policy: Statement on Hillside Water Service Improvements," with amendments to Conditions (1) and (2) as above referenced. The motion was carried; Commissioner Callon abstained on the basis that she did not feel she had enough information on which to make a decision as to whether or not these conditions were reasonable. VII. IVRITTEN COF~NICATIONS A. Environmental Impact Determinations The following Negative Declaration was filed between the period of July 28th and present: UP-314 - Spaich Corporation, Miljevich Drive & .Saratoga-Sunnyvale' Road, Use Permit Application Requesting Continuation of Non-Conforming Commercial Use in an R-1 Zone B. Other 1. Letter dated July 28, 1976 from Willys Peck, President of the Saratoga Historical Foundation, advising Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation that the Foundation was interested in acquiring portions of the old S6rosis Ranch packing house building which may be suitable for -11- .. CO~IISSION M~7~RJTES OF 11, 1976 VII. B. Written Communications - Cont'd incorporation into the museum and site development of the Saratoga His- torical Park. The Secretary advised the Commission that a fire erupted at the building on Friday, August 6th',. burning the rear and upper floor of the building. He n~F~ih~' part~ of the building were still salvagable, however, VIII. ORAL COmmUNICATIONS A. City Council Report - Commissioner Martin gave a brief oral report of the City Council meeting held August ~, 1976. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City's Administration office. B. Other 1. Commissioner Callon suggested that a service street running parallel to S~ratoga-Sunnyvale Road could be incorporated into the street circulation system of the proposed 48-1ot subdivision applied for under Tentative Site application SD-12S~. She contended that such a service street would decrease noise from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and would provide a visual barrier if properly landscaped. She requested the Subdivision Committee consider this suggestion when reviewing SD-12S~. 2. Chairman Belanger w~lcomed Councilman Corr to the meeting, and expressed appreciation to the Good Government Group and Mrs. Owen for serving coffee. I~. ADJOURnmENT Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission meeting of August 11, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the m~eting was adjourned at 11:~0 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ar~t~Va,~ Duyn,~etary ~ sko/ -12-