Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PL~NNING CO~IISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, August 25, 1976 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Martin & Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Callon B. MINUTES Commissioner'.Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of August 11, 1976 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following correction: page 1, note that Commissioner Marshall abstained from approving the minutes of July 28, 1976 due to absence. The motion was carried unanimously. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Composition df Consent Calendar Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission approve the composition of the Consent Calendar of August 25, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. B. Items of Consent Calendar Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Planning Commission grant approval to the following items: 1. Final Building Sites a) SDR-1231 - Roger Ross, Saratoga Hills Road, Final Building Site Approval for 1 Lot b) SDR-1258 - Rocco Clemente, Montalvo/Los Gatos Road, Final Building Site Approval for 1 tot 2. Design Review a) A-447 - George Day Construction Company, Taos Drive, Final Design Review Approval for Lot #1 of Tract #5408, subject to Staff Report dated August 17, 1976 and Exhibit "N" b) A-525 - Woolworth Construction Company, Brand~'ine Drive, Final Design Review Approval for Parcel "A" of SDR-1100, subject to the Staff Report dated August 18, 1976 and Exhibit "B" III. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS/FINAL BUILDING SITES A. SD-1254 - Dividend Industries, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval for 48 Lots Commissioner Marshall explained that'the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this subdivision, paying special attention to Commissioner Callon's suggestion that a frontage road approach be given consideration in lieu of the proposed sound attenuation wall abutting Saratoga-Sunn)rvale Road. He requested the developer's representative, Dick Cecchi, to give a brief status report of the proposed -1- CO~-~ISSION MINUTES OF 2S, 1976 III. A. SD-1254 - Dividend Industries - Cont'd subdivision, recommended that SD-1254 be continued to the next Commission meeting, and requested that this be referred to the Design ReviewYCommittee and Subdivision Committee for further review. Mr. Cecchi gave the following status report: 1) He noted that the original plans had been revised per Subdivision Committee recommendations to include a variable landscaping plan along Saratoga-Sunny- vale Road by using more ground cover, more trees and a meandering pathway. He added that they were able to save almost all of the existing trees on the site with this revised plan. :: ~- 2) Relative to the frontage road concept suggested by Commissioner Callon, / ~lr. Cecchi stated that they felt a frontage road with landscaping would not provide as-effective a ~sound barrier as the sound attenuation wall proposed. He noted that in checking with the developer's acoustical engineer, the suggested frontage road and landscaping would reduce the noise level by 2-4 decibals, which would not be enough. He indicated that a reduction in the line of 7 dbs was needed, and that a sound attenuation wall would provide this type of reduction. Commissioner Martin noted that the wall would reduce the noise level for' the Subdivision's property owners, but expressed concern that the noise would increase for those properties located across Saratoga=Sunnyvale Road via traffic noise bouncing off this wall. Mr. Cecchi agreed that noise would be increased, but felt that subsequent development of that area with land- scaping and sound barrier walls would ultimately reduce the noise level. Mr. Dick Oliver, representire of the applicant, added that the design of the wall was folded so that sound bounced off at angles, reducing the noise. He noted that landscaping along the wall would also reduce noise. Commissioner Marshall stated that he felt the sound attenuation wall was the best SolUtion to this noise problem. Chairman Belanger requested the applicant investigate building materials relative to their noise reflective qualities as a further way in which to reduce noise. 3) Mr. Cecchi pointed out concerns expressed over the visual impacts of the barren right-of-way adjacent to this subdivision. He explained that this right-of-way was under private ownership by PG&E, noting that PG&E did not normally landscape and maintain their transportation corridors. He suggested that the City request PG&E to=landscape this right-of-way and if this was not acceptable, to initiate a City beautification program along this right-of-way by planting a row of trees. He added that he did not feel the developer was obligated to landscape and maintain this right-of-way. At this point, Chairman Belanger directed SD-1254 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1976, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and the Subdivision Committee for further review and report. B. SD-1257 - Marie Gaspar, Pierce Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval for 8 Lots Note was made that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Staff noted that trenching had been done on this site, and the :location of the Sergent-Berrocal fault had been identified as running between Lots #1 and #2. Staff explained that the City Geologist felt the location of this fault would not impede develop- ment of these two lots as long as development criteria and setbacks from this fault were incorporated. Note was made that the City Geologist had conditioned the Staff Report for review of the final geologic and soils report prior to approval of the final map on this subdivision. Chairman Belanger directed that when this application was ready for final site approval, Staff not agendize such under Consent Calendar. She indicated a desire to thoroughly review the request for final site approval in order to assure that all conditions of tentative site approval had been met. -2- COb~IISSION blINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 1976 III. B. SD-1257 - Marie Gaspar - Cont'd At this point Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission grant tentative ~bd~ision apprq~al to applicatioH"'~D-1257 per Exhibit "A-I" and subject to the conditions of the Sfaff Report dated August 24, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-183 - Caleb Properties, Zorka Avenue, Request for Change of Zoning for a 4.78± Parcel Located between Zorka Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad from "R~I-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-l-10,000 PC" (Single- Family Residential, Planned Community); Continued from August 11, 1976 Staff noted that the applicant had requested this matter be continued pending review of federal funding for senior citizen housing for this site. Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on C-183 at 8:25 p.m. · Winston Chew, 12501 De Sanka Avenue, asked whether it would be/discfi~i~ry to allow a senior citizen housing project on this '~i~. The City Attorney explained that the City was not permitted to designate what age group lived in a house, and that the City could not require a developer to have federal funding before it approved a housing project for senior citizens. He added, however, that the developer might designate age group restrictions in the subdivision's CC&Rs. · Ms. R. Sheets, 12444 Ted Avenue, noted that the Commission had indicated it would not approve an 18-lot subdivision on this site, pointing out that the developer was trying to keep the same amount of units in this subdivision under the auspices of senior citizen housing. She asked how the City could guarantee that these houses would only be o~ed by senior citizens. Chairman Belanger stated that the Commission would not be interested in approving 18-lot subdivision unless there were safeguards built into the s~f~'i'~i~n-'~ ',CC&Rs assuring the continuance of the Senior citizen housing special use. As there were no further comments, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on C-183 at 8:40 p.m., continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1976, andjreferred !this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. B. V-459 - Michael D. Kaufmann, 18868 Aspesi Drive, Request for Variance from Section 3.7 of Ordinance NS-3 (Zoning Ordinance) to Allow for the Encroachment of an Accessory Structure into a Required Front Yard Staff explained that per a complaint to the City Code Enforcement Officer regarding the erection of a basketball backstop and supporting column, the applicant was requesting a variance to allow said accessory structure to remain within the required front~ and sideyard setbacks. Commissioner Martin, Chairman of the Variance Committee, explained that/the"Committee had made an on-site inspection and had noted that there were many basketball backstops in this neighborhood attached over the garage doors. Commissioner Martin stated that the Variance Committee had determined that the basketball backstop could be legally attached to the house, and endorsed the Staff Report's recommendation for denial. Note was made that one letter of correspondence had been received from James Orlando, 18861Aspesi Drive, ~bjecting to the granting of this variance. Chairman Belanger opened the public hea~ing on V-459 at 8:42 p.m. · Nancy Kaufmann, applicant, stated that when they erected the structure theK____ did not know it was against City Code. She explained that they had not in- stalled the backstop over the garage because it would be hard on the shingles and because the bouncing of the ball would make the garage door unsightly. Mrs. Kaufmann read into the record a letter from the neighbor directly ad- jacent to the backstop stating they had no objection to the variance. Mrs. Kaufmann requested the Commission approve her application for a variance. -3- CO~IlSSION MINIJTES OF AUGUST 25, 1976 IV. B. V-459 - Michael D. Kaufmann - Cont'd Q James Orlando, 18861Aspesi Drive, requested his letter be read into the record. Essentially the letter stated that this would become a basketball court for the neighborhood, adding: "It seems we pay sufficient taxes for the privilege of living in a quiet, controlled neighborhood. Mr. Kaufmann obviously does not want to damage his garage door or loosen his roof shingles, nor allow his children the freedom to use City provided facilities for such purposes." He noted that his bedroom windows were located directed across from the backstop, stating: "We, across the street, have only the daylight as a buffer to the noise in our bedrooms." He requested the Commission deny this variance application. Commissioner Lustig asked if Mr. Orlando felt the noise would be decreased if the backstop was relocated to the front of the garage. Mr. Orland replied that he thought the noise would be decreased. As there was no further testimony given, Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the public hearing on V-459 be closed. The motion was carried unanimousIy, and the public hearing was closed at 8:48 p.m. Commissioner Marshall stated that the City had in the past tolerated this type of use as long as the neighborhood did not object. Since there was a complaint on this application, he indicated that he would vote to deny this application. Commissioner Martin stated that he felt if a desired facility could be accommo- dated legally, the City did not have ~he right to grant a variance. He stated: "And in this instance it is possible to put up a backboaid for the children to use in the legal manner, and therefore I do not feel that we should grant the variance." Commissioner Laden noted that the backstop was presently located very near to the neighbor's landscaping, noting that the basketball must be in the landscaping a ~reat deal. "Shlstated that she felt that by granting this variance the City would be asking the neighbors to put up with something that could be.rlegally. located on the roof o~'~H~'.-garage. Commissioner Zambetti supported the Variance Committee, adding: "But I become very disturbed when I see things before the Planning Commission that can be worked out at the neighborhood level of people talking to one another." Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission deny application V-459 per Exhibits "A" and "B" and the Staff Report dated August 19, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. Note was made this decision could be appealed within 10 days to the City Council. C. UP-314 - Spaich Corporation, 20401Miljevich Drive, Request for Use Permit in Accordance with the Provisions of Article 15 of Ordinance NS-3 (Zoning Ordinance) to Allow for the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Commercial Use in a Residential District Staff noted that the applicant had operated a retail commercial fruitstand on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road for over 17 years; and as a commercial facility on a residentially-zoned site,.:this use was subject to amortization within one year from date of adoption of Article 1S of the Zoning Ordinance unless the Commission granted a use permit for its continuation. Staff noted that a Report had been prepared recommending approval of this use permit for one year, citing major problems of the site as being:the lack of on-Site parking and access to the site for southbound traffic on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Staff pointed out that the applicant owned property across the street which would be more adaptable for the fruitstand use. Consequently, Staff requested this matter be continued pending discussion with the applicant relative to relocating the fruitstand to another site. Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-314 at 8:55 p.m. The following correspondence were introduced into the record: o Note dated August 18, 1976 from Roy & Marion Cunningham, 13186 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, stating they had no objections to the use permit request. -4- CO~BtISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 1976 IV. C. UP-S14 - Spaich Corporation - Cont'd · Letter dated August 18, 1976 from Alic~..Misin, 20490 Glasgow Drive, objecting to the use permit on the basis of inadequate and unsafe parking, noise, and the attraction of rats to the drying apricots. As there was no'testimony given on this application, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on UP-S14 at 8:56 p.m., continued it to the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1976, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. D. GF-309 - City of Saratoga, Amendment to Ordinance NS-3 (Zoning Ordinance), Section 7.2 Entitled "Commercial District Permitted Uses" by Adding a Prohibition Against Vehicular Drive-Through Facilities Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on GF-309 at 8:58 p.m. -'P~'Bl'f~ ReSponse 'l · Alexander Passovoy, resident of Orinda and vice president of Security Pacific National Bank, referenced the Commission's policy prohibiting drive-up facilities within the City, and pointed out that Saratoga was the only community he was aware of tha't was considering adopting an ordinance pro- hibiti__ng_,.._not ju_s_t discouraging_, these t}~_e___s_9f facili_t_ies. He stated that they Wished to establish a full-service branch in the Ci_ty with a drive-up i facility-, and request_ed the CommisSion "not close the door when a properly designed facility wishes to serve the community in a proper manner. Mr. Passovoy maintained that the goals of the City and the Village were identical to the goals of the bank, and contended that the design of the bank was subtle and blended in with the community. Mr. Passovoy referenced a report prepared for the City of Cupertino by Profess6r Donald Myronuk, San Jose State University, dated February 5, 1976 entitled "Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxide Levels Attributable to the Use of Drive-Up Window Facilities." He complained that Dr. Myronuk's report did not substantiate the statements made relative to smog emission caused by stacking at drive-up facilities with statistical analyses. He maintained that Dr. Myronuk had not visited branch banks to conduct surveys as to how many people used drive-up facilities nor to see what levels of C02 were actually being produced by automobiles. He stated that according to the San Francisco Pollution Control Board (G. Carrols, 771-6000, ext. 254), the equipment used to test C02. levels was a non-dispersive, infrared analyzer, and he noted that Dr. MyronukJ~s report had not referenced using any equip- ment to test CO2 levels. Mr. Passovoy added that the Air Pollution Control Board also indicated that the amount of sulfur in gasoline was so minimal that it did not affect health. Further, he cited the Report's statement that CO2 and sulfur dioxide could enter interior buildings if the building:~.s air in-take was located near d~ive-up facilities. Mr. Passovo); contended that no feasible bank design would have an air in-take adjacent to a drive- up facility, but would locate such units on the fool. Mr. Passovoy introduced to the Commission a report prepared by United California Bank entitled "The Automobile and the Bank: Parking and the Drive~Up Window" dated April 1972. He explained that this was an extensive statis- tical analysis conducted in Sunnyvale with 1200 customers. He cited the report as stating that over a 7-hour period, the 2 drive-up windows averaged 31% of the business conducted: 387 customers used the facility on an average of 56 per hour, of an average transaction of less than two minutes. The remaining 950 customers conducted business inside the bank' at an average of 8½-10½ minutes per complete transaction. He offered this information in support of his argument that Dr. Myronuk's report contended that a customer had to wait at drive-up windows on an average of 15 minutes, with an average transaction .period at the window of 3 minutes:, thereby causing a st~cking :problem. Mr. Pass.ovoy stated: "If there is a stacking problem whereby there are more than 2 cars involved, then we have not succeeded with our design. In our design and projections for this bank we expect under peak load 360 customers p~r hour, with a peak load at the drive-up windows of 26 customers per hour." -5- COmmISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 1976 IV. D. GF-309 - Prohibition Against Vehicular Drive-Through Facilities - Cont'd Mr. Passovoy cited Dr. Myronuk's comment that "the continuing practice of providing drive-up window service must seriously be reconsidered, both from air quality and health point of view, as well as from an energy viewpoint in which gasoline is unnecessarily wasted." Mr. Passovoy stated: "He assumes here that more energy is consumed by the use of a drive-up windo~than would a customer~ha'i~'~rlFin~h~'~k'i~ lot, parks, gets out of his car, starts jhis car again"'~h'd~its." The following questions were raised by the Commission with regard to Mr. Passovoy's comments: - Commissioner Marshall noted that the Village Design Plan encouraged pedestrian traffic and parking districts, and a~ked whether the bank wished the City to abandon its Village Plan philosophy. Mr. Passovoy noted that there were 2 existing banks within the City (Wells Fargo Bank and First National Bank) which had drive-up facilities, and noted: "You have to realize what would happen if our application was denied. There are two banks that have drive-up facilities in the City of Saratoga. Those customers that would be using those facilities or want to use those facilities would-go to ~h~'~'~'b~fik~'l"'W~'h~ to ~d~?~ss ourselves to the ~ type of indiviudal that normall~ will use a drive-up facility: it is the handicapped, it is the mother with 6 kids in a station wagon with a howling dog, it is the elderly, and it is the people during inclement weather that don't want to get out of their cars. We cannot change human nature. People want drive-up facilities." - Commissioner Marshall asked whether the bank planned to participate in the Parking Assessment District, with Mr. Passovoy replying: "We proposed t9 join the parking district both in spirit and actuality, and we have so indicated by signing the necessary papers for formation of the Parking Assessment District. However, it is predicated on the fact that we get the drive-up facility." He stated that their studies show that a drive- up window was equivalent to 7 parking spaces, and added that if their application was denied they would have to add an addltional 14 parking stalls. He stated: "That would preclude us from entering into the Parking District." In response to a comment made by Chairman Belanger that this position did not seem to be in the spirit of the parking district, Mr. Passovoy explained that the bank wished to control its own parking spaces. He stated: "The reason being is that we maintain it, we are responsible for it, it is there to service our customers." He added that if they joined the Parking Assessment District, they would be turning over 11,700 square feet of area.~'a n~ differential between the purchase price of the property and whar-the bank would sell the property to the Parking Assessment District for of approximately $3.00 per square foot. Commissioner Zambetti 'in~du~d~h'i~im'~b~k~'' doom of the Village Parking Assessment District #2 dated March 1, 1976 showing square footage and the amount of off-set land acquisition, along with assessments each property owner would have to pay. - Commissioner Laden asked what amount of business the bank would anticipate losing if they did not obtain approval for a drive-up facility. Mr. Passovoy estimated a 10% loss of business. · Larry Tyler, 13611 Saratoga Vista Avenue, noted that there were basically four areas of concern: pedestrian orientation, smog emission, aesthetics for strip commercialism, and concern for the parking district. He stated: ~1_3 "Speaking to the pedestrian orientation issue, I see this ordinance as trying to force people out of their cars that don't want to get out. If these people want to go to a drive-up window and they are denied it, then they are going to go someplace where they can. So I suggest that there is a possibility that you would be drivin~__D~tential customers away from the Village by such an ordinance. The number two reason why people shop where they do is because of habit..It is just as important in creating this habit to have a broad selection of services as it is to have a broad selection of merchandize. Once you create this habit, people tend to come back again and again. If -6- CO~tISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 2S, 1976 IV. D. GF-S09 Prohibition Against Vehicular Drive-Through Facilities - Cont'd they tend to do a lot of banking because they want a drive-up window, they will get out of the habit of shopping in the Village. (2) Speaking to the issue of smog, I note in the Myronuk report that he did not compare the amount of emission created by starting an automobile after it has been parked versus the emission that is created while it is waiting in line. I do understand that there is considerably more emission of the starting up an engine than there is for some time of idling. I suspect that another item that isn't involved in the Report is that people can drive around in circles looking for a parking spot, and there may be a time consumption here that would equalize the smog emission. (S) As far as it giving a connotation or an atmosphere of strip commercialism, I just can't believe that a set of drive- up windows on the far side of a building away from the main street would give that kind of connotation in the Village. There is so little land yet to be developed in the Village, I don't think there is any possibility, especially with Design Review control, of having strip commercialism." ® Edwin Garner, 14S31 Oak Street, stated that he did not feel drive-up windows were condusive to the Village growth. He stated that if he owned a shop in the Village he would much prefer pedestrian traffic over drive-through traffic because people would tend to shop in other businesses than the bank. · Mrs. Kocher, Village merchant, stated that she could see where a bank must give every kind of service they could,_ a_d_di~g "especially when their com- petitors have drive-up windows." She stated: "If you are going to have an ordinance, then you close all of the other windows too. Either that or you have to allow windows." Commission Action Chairman Belanger suggested the public hearing be closed and continued to the next Planning Commission meeting in order to advise the City Council of the proposed ordinance. Commissioners Lustig, Marshall and Martin concurred with this suggestion, indicating a desire to meet with the City Council at a joint Committee-of-the-~qhole meeting to discuss this ordinance as soon as possible. Commissioner Martin stated that in his experience with drive-up .bank facilities, he waited considerably longer/in line at drive-up windows and conducting his own personal business than 2 minutes. He added: "I think there are a lot__ of things_~o be considered when you read-i~iS report ana take into account /that the r~port is probably written with a pro-type purpose. I am not entirely in favor of eliminating all of these drive-up windows. This is why I would like to see some dialogue between the Commission and Council." Commissioner Lustig concurred with the recommendation for continuation, s stating: "Becau e what we are advocating is the possibility of legislating an inequality of what has been allowed to happen in the past, namely other drive-up windows at other banks." Commissioner Marshall favored continuance, stating that he felt more study was necessary. He stated: "One of the things Mr. Passavoy convinced me of is the smog issue is sort of a cloud that is concealing what is really important. l~at should be important to us is wha_t_t~_e__l~pact is on the Village:. Does it change our Plan? Does it cause change from our stated policy of encouraging pedestrian:traff]c? I consider that would be much more important_~h~n whether a car sits and idles or is. parked..in a lot for 1-2 ~inutes." He stated that he felt there was-a difference between the three commercial zones within the City, noting that-the ordinance suggested prohibition of drive-up facilities in all three zones, and he suggested further review of this.matter. Commissioner Zambetti urged the Commission to act on this matter without continuing it because he felt there was sufficient inforamtion on which to make a decision. He noted the following items of correspondence received on this matter: -7- CO~IISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 1976 IV. D. GF-309 - Prohibition Against Drive-Through Facilities - Cont'd 1) Letter dated August 24, 1976 from Til Mahoney, 14601 Aloha Avenue, object- ing to a drive-up facility because it would create confusion and pollution; also because it would not be keeping with the Village Design Plan. 2) Letter dated August 24, 1976 from Ka~hleen Roth, 14304 Big Basin Way ("Gardenspot"), objecting to the drive-up facility in that it would create more pollution, noise and traffic congestion. 3) Letter dated August 24, 1976 from Yves Cassabonne ("Saratoga Handyman. Shop"), 14433 Big Basin Way, objecting to drive-up banking facilities because of traffic hazards that would be created at the corner of Big Basin Way and Fourth Street, pollution and because it would not be in keeping with the VillageY'D~i'~'P~. 4) Letter dated August 25, 1976 from W.E. Schmidt ~("The Village Pharmacy"), objecting to drive-up facilities in that it would not be keeping with the Village Design Plan, and because of the negative impacts it would have on pedestrians and shoppers in the Village. 5) Letter dated August 25, 1976 from Edwin Garner, 14531 Oak Street, objecting to drive-up facilities because of pollution, traffic congestion and the lessening of pedestrian traffic. 6) Letter dated August 25, 1976 from Ronald Weaver ("Saratoga Cycle Center") 14486 Big Basin Way, objecting to the drive-in Bank facili_tX ~ecaus~it ~dl~'t'b'~fi~"~h~h~nts ~f'~'ViIl~g~ in'~m~h as it would not add to pedestrian traffic, and because such a facility'would cause pollution. 7) Telephone-diCtated memorandum to the Commission dated August 25, 1976 from William E. Chapman, owner of the Shaw's Confectionery ~ Gift Shop located on Big Basin Way, objecting to the bank and to the drive-up windows because it would decrease foot traffic. He indicated that he would re- locate his business if such a .facility were approved.._ 8) Letter dated August 25, 1976 from Margaret Reed, 13366 Ronnie Wa~L_' objecting to another bank facility:and drive-up"~'{~'6~'~ithin the Village _ 'because foot traffic w~uld be lessened. 9) Letter dated August 25, 1976 from Thomas McGrath Brennock, Barbe~ ..... Properties, Inc., 14480 Big Basin Way, objecting to another bank f~cility in the Village, and endorsing the Village Design Plan and Resolution #506. Commissioner Zambetti pointed out that the Village was located within a canyon, condusive to generating and entrapping pollution. He noted that the Saratoga Village Design Plan was prepared at a City expense of $7,000, and urged compliance with said Plan. He cited subparagraph (2) of Resolution #506 unanimously adopted by the City Council in 1969 as follows: "In the Village area particularly an effort should be made to preserve the atmosphere of a quiet, country town in the early 1900's." Commissioner Zambetti contended that the.proposed bank design was not of the early 1900's, adding"__.I~_~ _ not quiet, and it will not .add to the atmosphere nor develop the Village Plan the way we would like to see it." He stated that he-felt the presence of of drive-up facilities in the Village would cormorate strip commercialism. He noted that 2 existing drive-up facilities were installed 10-12 years ago in the City, and indicated favor of closing these facilities in support of this ordinance. Lastly, Commissioner Zambetti stated that he did not think drive-up windows efficiently handled people who had time-consuming business to conduct, and suggested walk-up windows were more efficient. At this time Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on GF-309 at 10:09 p.m., continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1976, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Design Review Committee for further review and report. Staff was directed to schedule a joint Committee- of-the-]~ole meeting with the City Council prior to the next Commission meeting. RECESS: 10:10 - 10:25 p.m. -8- CO~1ISSION MINUTES OF AUG r 2S, 1976 V. DESIGN REVIEW A. UP-119 - West Valley College, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review Approval for Portable Classroom Relocation from Campbell Campus; Continued from August 11, 1976 Commissioner Lustig, Chairman of the Design Review Committee, stated that Steve Keller of West Valley College gave the Design Review Committee a detailed explana- tion of the purpose of these portable buildings. He noted that the College was now using hallways and offices for classrooms, and that these portable buildings were to alleviate this overcrowded situation. Further, he noted that one of the buildings would be used to house the campus police, and that one would be used for a child care facility, the only building which would add to further con-' gestion on the campus. From a design review point of view, Commissioner Lustig noted that the Committee endorsed this project. Commissioner Marshall recommended that the applicant be required to note on the West Valley College Master Plan that these S portable buildings were temporary structures. Steve Keller, representative of the applicant, stated that the College would be happy to denote these portable buildings being temporary, and would forward a copy of the Master Plan to the City for its records. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning -Commission grant final design review approval to the request to relocate S portable buildings requested under application UP-119 per Exhbiit "A" and the Staff Report dated August 20, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. B. A-S26 - Jerry Lee Harris, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design Review Approval - Commer.cial ~xpansion; Continued from July 28, 1976 C. A-S28 - Geraldine Gamaunt, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design Review Approval - Commercial Expansion; Continued from July 28, 1976 D. A-S31 - Plant ~orld, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design Review Approval - Commercial Expansion; Continued from July 28, 1976 Staff requested these matters be continued to the Commission meeting of September 22, 1976 pending a'determination by the City Council on a request by the City Building Department for aemolition of certain structures on these sites. Chairman Belanger directed that applications A-S26, A-S28 and A-S31 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 1976, and_referred these matters to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further 'reyieW:and report. E. A-S29 - W.C. Garcia ~ Associates, Inc., Saratoga-Sunn)~ale Road and Prospect Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot, Commercial;'Continued from ?-I4=76 F. A-S30 - Ira Kirkorian, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot, Commercial; Continued from July 14, 1976 Staff requested these matters be continued subject to review and certification of '.the Draft EIR relative to these applications by the Commission and Council. Chair-. iman Belanger directed that applications A-S29 and A-S30 be continued to the Plan- ~ning Commission meeting of November 10, 1976, and referred these matters to the -'Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. VI. MISCELLANEOUS A. EP-8 ~ Timothy O'Donnell, 13429 Paramount Drive, Request for Encroachment Permit to Allow for Fence within City Right-of-~ay Staff noted that this application requested an encroachment permit to construct a solid 6-foot high wooden fence within a portion of the City right-of-way bor- dering the adjoining westerly edge of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Staff explained that most of the fronting on Paramount drive and backing onto this City right-of-way had either constructed fences on their o~ property or had resolved their problems otherwise without encroachment permits.- Staff felt that the -9- ~ CO~IISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 1976 VI. A. EP-8 - Timothy O'Donnell - Cont'd applicant's proposed fence would have negative aesthetic and psychological impacts on pedestrians using Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and that favorable action of this matter would constitute special consideration. Consequently Staff recommended that EP-8 be denied per the Staff Report prepared on this item. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission deny application EP-8 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated August 19, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. VII. I~RITTEN COmmUNICATIONS A. ~Environmental..~Impact Determinations The following Negative Declarations were filed between the period of August 9, 1976 and August 20, 1976: 1) UP-SIS - Lillian Rodoni, Saratoga~Sunnyvale Road, Continuation of Non-Conforming Use in "R" Zone 2) SDR-122S - George Kocher-Larry Tyler, Fourth Street, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot S) SDR-1261 - Michael Martinez, Comer Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot 4) SDR-1262 - Kathleen Bartie, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot B. Other 1. Letter dated August 18, 1976 from Sandi Cuenca, Manager of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, to Mrs. Lillian Rodoni, regarding use permit appli- cation UP-SIS. Staff was directed to make this letter a part of File #UP-SIS, and to make note of its receipt at the public hearing scheduled on UP-SiS on September 8, 1976. 2. Letter dated August 4, 1976 from Jim McCandless, Haven Nursery Company, requesting a 2-month extension'to ~omplete certain conditions 'UYd~r use permit application UP-29S. Staff was directed to agendize this 'request for the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1976. 3. Planning Policy Committee of Santa Clara County Agenda for August 2S, 1976 and the PPC minutes of July 22, 1976. 4. Letter dated August 24, 1976 from Allen De Grange, S40 Bird Avenue, San Jose, California, requesting a one-year extension to application UP-279. Staff explained that the applicant was actively pursuing- financing for the senior citizen':h~d~ing project proposed to be located on Cox Avenue, and recommended that a one-year extension be granted. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by__Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission grant a one-year extension to application UP-2?9. The motion was carried unanimously. S. Letter dated August 24, 1976 from Miles Rankin, past president of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, contending that City design review policies had not been adhered to by the City Planning Staff and Design Review Committee relative to 2 new building site applications before the City; i.e., application for a restaurant and application for a bank. Staff was directed to address the allegations made in Mr. Rankin's letter. VIII. ORAL CO~iUNICATIONS A. City Council Report - There was no report given relative to the City Co_U_uS~l_~ meeting'B'f'~fi~s't'lS'r-tg?6. A copy of the minutes of this meeting~'i~'bn file:- at the Cityts Administration office. -10- CO~-IISSION MINUTES OF ;T 2S, 1976 ~ . VIII. ORAL CO~B~NICATIONS - Cont'd B. Other 1. Dick Loewke, Staff member, explained that 2 weeks ago the Planning Staff and Public Works Inspector identified-discrepancies between the approved grading plan and street improvement plan for Tract S461 lqcated on Chiquita Way. Specifically, Staff pointed out that a 1-foot cut had been made inside the property line on Lot #S owned by Mr. Cardia which was contrary to the grading plan, and a 4-foot verticle cut had been made on Lot #2 o~med bX._Mr. Skinner- Staff further explained that additional grading occured between the street curb and the southerly boundaries of these lots for the intended purpose of elimina- ting the need for a retaining wall specified on the official street improvement plans. Note was made that illegal grading had occured previously on these lots- which resulted in the lowering of the top of Lot #2 by 6 feet. Staff stated . :iha"~h~"developer's engineer, Da~forth Apker, was requesting approval of a 'revised grading plan for Lots #2 and #S in accordance with the recently2~xecut~ .... gY~in~.Sr~ff~d'dFd'~h~'~h'~'~i~fi'R~Vi~"C~i'~'h'ad reviewed this request, and that Mr.' Cardia and the Skinners indicated opposition to the revised plans. In answer to a question raised by the Commission relative to the reason why Mr. Apker had proceeded with grading which did not conform to the approved grading plan, Mr. Apker replied that: (1) ~he Skinners were anxious to move into their house, and (2) he honestly felt he was grading to the approved soils report approved by the Director of Public Works. He ex- plained that this report called for a 1:1 slope for the first S feet, and a'1½:l slope.above that. Staff noted that the soils report was not the same as the approved grading plan, however. %ommissioner Marshall 'stated that if Mr. Apker knowingly was a party to this illegal grading, he felt the Contracting Board in Sacramento should ~ be notified that 2 adverse situations had a~ready occured in the same ~ract, ~ and that any further incident would be cause for the City to request Mr. Apker 'to not pract~_c~ _i~_~he Cit_y... ........... ~. Mr. Apker stated that he knowing!y_.~pervised the most=recent grad~Dg.,_ and- ".reiterate~'his feeling that he had complied with the'grading plans. Relative ,to the previ_o_us_.illegal grading, Mr. Apker explained that due to a misunder- standing between himself as the p'roject's surveyor and the machine operator, 6 feet of illegal grading occured on Lot #2. Relative to the specified retaining wall, Mr. Apker stated that he felt some amount of retaining wall was necessary, and .proposed a wall which would be · reduced in height proportionately to the amount of grading which had previously ~ occurred 6n these lots. In response to a comment that the retaining wall was also intended to meet General Plan requirements f~g~'fd'in'~difh'[fic"~,Mr. Apker stated that he had never claimed that the wall would be "a thing of beauty." ~He stated that he felt the naturai'l~'~ds"C'~p~ng ~f'fh'~'h'i'rlYi'de was more b~'f~t'i~ .ful than any retaining wall. Commissioner Lustig objected to this statement, .pointing out the damage already done to the p~operty by the illegal grading. Jim Skinner, owner of Lot #2, requested the City to allow continued construction of his house, pointing out that all grading had been done on his property. He stated that it did not make sense to him to require a retaining wall where one was not needed; however, he stated that he felt it critical to have a retaining wall larger than the one proposed by the developer near his drive-way. Because of the 'conflict between Staff and Mr. Apker's comments, CommisSioner Marshall suggested that another registered_engineer be hired by the developer to verify the accuracy of the grading'.plan-~and provide a third plan "which is a true representation of what exists and what should be done to satisfy both the City's requirements relative to General Plan aesthetics and to good engineering practice." ~ile this plan was being prepared, Commissioner Marshall suggested a stop work order be issued in all grading within this tract. Discussion followed on this recommendation. Mrs. Skinner requested that a time limit be placed on the developer relative to the preparation of the third PLODS_._ /expl~f~ing that they planned to move into their new home within 30-3S days. Staff members from the Public Works Department and Planning Department indicated -11- CO~IISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 1976 VIII. ORAL COmmUNICATIONS - Tract #S461, Chiquita Way - Cont'd 'that they would require 2 weeks in which to review this revised plan, and suggested =that the plan be submitted to the City within 21 days. The developer stated that would pay f~r the plan check fees relative to the City's additional review. After several~sug~ested amendments, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that: '(1) construction on the Skinner property (Lot #2) be allowed to proceed, along with the creek channel activity; and (2) that no further grading be allowed within Tract #S461 until receipt and approval by the Public Works Department, Planning Staff and Planning Commission of/~h~.-~third grading plan prepared by a registered civil engineer other than the one assigned to the project and paid for by the developer, depicting what should be done on this site relative to the City's standard engineering practices and the aesthetic and grading requirements of the City's General Plan. The motion was carried unanimously. 2. Commissioner Martin noted that he would be--absent from ~the Subdivision Committee meetings of August 31 and September 7, 1976, and noted that he would not be present at the Planning Commission meeting ofTSeptember 8, 1976. S. Chairman Belanger welcomed Councilman Kraus, and expressed appreciation to Mrs. Carlson and Mr. Crane of the Good Government Group for providing coffee. 4. Commissioner ~rshall requested Staff investigate the abandonment of the Jiffy GaseSration located at the corner of Big Basin Way and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. IX. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner L~stig, that the Plan~ing Commission meeting of August 2S, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried .~n~imously, and the meeting was adjourned at ll:SS p.m. Respectfully submitted, sko/