HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~ISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, September 8, 1976 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, Ca. 95070
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Marshall and Zambetti
Absent: Commissioners Lustig and Martin~
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the reading
of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of August 25, 1976 be waived, and
that they be approved as distributed. The motion was carried; Commissioner
Callon abstained due to absence.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Cpmposition of Consent Calendar
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission approve the composition of the Consent Calendar of September 8, 1976.
The motion was carried unanimously.
B. Items of Consent Calendar
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant approval to the following applications:
1. Final Building Sites
a) SDR-1174 - T.N. Foster, Horseshoe Drive, Final Building Site Approval
for 3 Lots "
b) SDR-1234 - Phillip Boyce, Boyce Lane, Final Building Site Approval -
4 Lots
c) SDR-1239 - Robert Craig, Saratoga Avenue, Final Building Site Approval
2 Lots
d) PM-2a and PM-2b - Angelo Ozoa, Leonard Road, Approval of Lot Line Ad-
justment and Parcel Map
2. Design ~eview
a) SS-110 - Hal Johnston ("The Pant Company"), 12888 Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road, Final Design Review Approval Identification Sign;
Per Exhibit "A" and Staff Report dated September 1, 1976
b) A-538 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Wardell ~ Arroyo
de Arguello, Final Design Review Approval - 4 Lots for SDR-1236;
Per Exhibits "A" through "D" and Staff Report dated Septem-
ber 1, 1976
The motion was carried unanimously.
-1-
· P.L~NNING CO~B-IISSION OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1976
II. CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd "
Commissioner Marshall referenced Item l(d), pointing out that the reason For requesting
the lot line adjustment was for the purpose of constructing a tennis court on one of
the lots. Commissioner Marshall expressed concern over construction of tennis courts
on smaller size lots, especially in~reFerence to the total amount of impervious
coverage allowed on a site. After brief discussion of this concern, Commissioner
Marshall was appointed to investigate amending the Zoning. Ordinance to Further control
i[e amount of'£mperv~ous coverage allowed For lots within the Cit~..
III. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS/FINAL BUILDING SITES
A. SD-12S4 - Dividend Industries, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Tentative Subdivision
Approval For 48 Lots; Continued from August 2S, 1976
Note was made that both the Design Review Committee and Subdivision Committee re-
viewed this application, with special consideration given to the proposed landscap-
ing. It was pointed out that the Design Review Committee approved in concept the
landscaping of the proposed walkway,_and had requested that the lan~s~p~pg.and
fencing round the corner lots on Cox Avenue. Concern was expressed'
relative to removal of trees. Mr. Cecchi, representative of the applicant, ex-
plained that 'every specimen tree had been reflected on the plans, and assured
the Commission that very Few trees would be removed. Mr. Oliver, another
representative of the applicant, added that the major clustering of trees was
located on the lot line running between Lots 9 and 10, which would not call
For removal of any trees. Staff additionally noted that Design Review approval
was required, and that the Design Review Co~nittee would give detailed considera-
tion to the placement of the houses with regards to the location of existing trees.
Commissioner Callon reiterated her suggestion that a Frontage road with a sound
attenuation wall be utilized along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Commissioner Marshall
pointed out that incorporating both a Frontage road and-a wall would require a
substantial amount of land, and could reduce the amount of landscaping along
the required pedestrian pathway.
The following comments were made relative to specific conditions:
1. Condition II-G was modified as Follows:
G. Provide decorative wall or Fencing, including tree planting, within
lots along Cox Avenue, Highway 8S and PG~E Company land as required
by Design Review.
It was explained that planting would not be required on the PG~E right-of
way, but contiguous to it. Further, it was noted that Design Review Approval
was required on all landscaping, and consequently review would be made by the
Design Review Committee of this matter.
2. Mr. Cecchi objected to Condition II-J concerning the construction of a storm
line, pointing out that they would be using another drainage system. Mr.
Trinidad, member of the Public Works Department, explained that the City
had a drainage problem on the west side of Highway 8S which could be cor-
rected by the installation of a storm line by this developer at a lower
cost to the City than if the City contracted For these improvements. He
added that per the City Subdivision Ordinance, installation costs of over-
sized, out-of-tract storm lines were Fully reimbursible if requested by
the developer.
3. Considerable discussion Followed on Condition II-M requiring widening the
Highway 8S right-of-way by an additional 4 Feet. Mr. Trinidad explained
that !h~F~l~h'i~d'ftion was appropriate in order to provide safe access
along this'highway, especially in view of the 4S mph speed limit. He noted
that there was an existing S-Foot shoulder, and concluded that~k
shoulder was required to insure adequate safety. He stated tha~ a 'S-Foot
requirement might produce this desired result, but asserted that 4 Feet would
insure an adequate sized shoulder. Mr. Cecchi pointed out that a
-2-
P:I~ANNING CO~IISSION MINIIT 5.~F SEPTEMBER 8, 1976
III. A. SD-1254 - Dividend Industries - Cont'd
requirement could force relocat~p~__~_f_~b~_.~_i~i~g ove~h~d..power lines along
this right-of-way, which could require undergrounding the power lines. The Secre-
tary cited Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance which specified that public
utilities shall be underground if the voltage carried by the power lines was
more than 34.5KV. He stated that if the subdivision was serviced by these
power lines and the voltage was/not in excess of 34.5KV, undergrounding of ~he
power lines would be required anyway. Further discussion ensued, and
Condition II-M was modified as follows:
M. Widen pavement on Highway 85 to provide an additional 3'-4' of paved
shoulder together with a 6" A.C. berm~ as determined by the Director ~
of Public Works.
Commissioner Marshall expressed disfavor of this modification, pointing out
that this was the last large subdivision to be developed in the City, and
he desired no compromises relative to landscaping or shoulder requirements.
Commissioners Callon and Laden stated that if the Director of Public Works
determined that a 3-foot widening~provided adequate safety, they would
accept his judgment.
4. Chairman Belanger requested Condition VIII-B be modified to include "sprinkler
system" in lieu of "irrigation" as follows:
B. Landscaping, sprinkler system and fencing along Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road and Cox Avenue frontage is required.
5. To clarify the Design Review Approval requirements, Condition VIII-C was
modified as follows:
C. Prior to final Subdivision Approval, Design Review Approval is required."
At this time Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that
the Planning Commission approve application SD-1254 and the tentative map
(Exhibit "A" filed June 18, 1976) subject to the conditions of the Staff Report
dated September 2, 1976, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously.
IV. 'PUBLIC HEARING~
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 8-25-76
Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on C-183 at 8:45 p.m. She noted
that the applicant was pursuing the possibility of federal funding for senior
citizen housing relative to this project, and had requested this be continued
to the next Commission meeting.
· Winston Chew, 12501 De Sanka Avenue, asked whether the Commission would be in
favor of approving an 18-unit senior citizen housing project for this site.
Commissioner Marshall explained that the Subdivision Committee had indicated
to the applicant that an 18-unit standard development was remote, but that
retirement housing with smaller houses might be acceptable. Consequently,
the applicant was pursuing this possibility. Chairman Belanger added, however,
that it had been the consensus of the Planning Commission that it would not
be in favor of a 50% housing increase in this neighborhood.
Chairman Belanger introduced into the record a letter received September 2, 1976
from Johanna Chew, 12501 De Sanka Avenue, objecting to this change of zoning
request.
As there was no further testimony, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing
on C-183 at 8:S1 p.m., continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of
September 22, 1976, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for
further review.
-3-
~PLANNING CO~ISSION OF SEPTBMBER 8, 1976
IV. B. 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; Continued from 8-25-76
Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on GF-309 at 8:52 p.m.
· Sandi Cuenca, representative of the Chamber of Commerce, asked if this proposed
ordinance would affect existing drive-though facilities. She explained that a
bank located within the City wished to up-grade its existing drive-through
facility by creating a kiosk. Staff explained that existing drive-through
facilities would not be affected. However, if the drive-through facility-'
was detached or if the bank desired an additional drive-through facility~
the ordinance would prohibit this. Ms. Cuenca requested a continuance of
this matter in order to allow this bank an opportunity to discuss its plans
with the Planning Staff.
Discussion followed by the Commission regarding this ordinance. Commissioner
Marshall recommended that the proposed ordinance be amended as follows:
1. Page 1, Cleaning and Laundery Agencies: Change the word "noninflammable"
.~o "nonflammable". Staff explained that according to Webster's Dictionary,:'
~both words meant the same, and additionally,~ii was hoted that'ithe word
/"noninflammable" was presently used in the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Page 2: Delete the phrase "not including drive-in restaurants." Staff
~ concurred wi~h this suggestion.
2. Commissioner Marshall favored applying this ordinance to the Village commer-
cial zones only, thus allowing drive-through facilities in other commercial
districts within the City subject to obtaining a use permit, and he favored con-
'Yi~ince--to review this. Com~i~'~io~r~C~ii'0~,' Laden and Zam~etti favor~a'~h~-
.proposed ordinance applying ~o all commercial zones within the City. ~
As there was no further testimony offered, Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded
by Commissioner Laden, that the public hearing on GF-309 be closed. The motion
was carried~ Commissioner~Marjhall voted no. The hearing_was closed at ~9:02 p.m.
Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission forward to the City Council with the recommendation for approval
GF-509, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, prohibiting drive-through facilities
within the City, as amended by deleting the phrase "not including drive-in res-
taurants" on page 2. The motion was carried; Commissioner Marshall voted no.
Commissioner Callon explained to Ms. Cuenca that the reason she did not suggest
a continuance of this matter as requested was because this hearing was the second
public hearing on application GF-309, and she noted that public hearings would
be held by the City Council on the same subject...
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; Continued from 8-25-76
Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on UP-S14 at 9:05 p.m. Note was
made that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval of this applica-
tion for a one-year period.
Citizen Response
· Nick Miljevich, 20401Miljevich Drive and owner of the fruit stand in question,
explained that he had lived on this property for 51 years and had been opera-
ting his fruit stand s~nce prior to the incorporation of the City. He stated
that the City had been responsible for forcing him out of 3 other businesses,
and contended that the City was being unfair to force him out of this business
as well. He explained that the fruit stand tb~i~eSs was only in operation 3
months of each year, and maintained that his business did not bother anyone.
}~en asked whether he was importing products onto this site for commercial
-4-
P-LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1976
7
9ur-poses-,-M~.--~lj-e~ich-s~ated-tha~he was importing'fruit from orchards under
ownership at different locations.
· C.W. Neal, 1416S Saratoga-Su~_nn~__ale Road, stated that he had been a resident
of the City for 40 years. .He-~tated that he did not feel this fruit stand
[ bothered anyone, and urged the Commission to allo~'~he opeiati6n'to continue.
'Mr. Neal contended that many businesses in the City had been forced to leave
"because of the strict stipulations imposed on them, and he stated: "I think
you have to live with your conscience when you push these people out of business."
Mr. Neal stated that many of these businesses had'been in the City since prior
to its incorporation, and he maintained that the City had overlooked the grand-
father clause when it adopted the non-conforming use ordinance. In response
to this latter statement, Staff noted that the non-conforming us~.ordinance
was legal under the police power provisions of the State of California, adding
that this was a common non-conforming, amortization ordinance used in man~.__
cities. Chairman Belanger added that the grandfather clause was' not a con-
'sti+ui'~nal right, contending that there was no such thing as "being here
first gi~es you more right than those coming later."
· Ruth Owen, 14180 Victor Place, stated: "I have a warm feeling when I see the
fruit drying on the property. I like the idea of having fruit drying right
on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road where our residents and visitors can see it."
· Pat Renn, 20601 Marion Avenue, asked what she and other businesses required
to obtain use permits for non-conforming activities could do to lengthen
their business operational life. She asked if these properties could be
rezoned to commercial. The Secretary explained that the intent of the ordinance
/~as to phase out all non-conforming uses within the City as per the Genera-1
Plan. policy. He stated that one approach which could be taken would be to'
:.~equest the Cit~ Council and Planning Commission to reconsider this ordinance
by allowing non-conforming uses to continue for an indefinite period of time.
Relative to the suggestion that these properties be rezoned, the Secretary
explained that the City would not have a right to preclue these businesses
from selling to other individuals for other commercial uses if these properties
were rezoned to commercial. Further, he explained that rezoning of these
properties would require a General Plan amendment.
· Sandi Cu~nca, representative from the Chamber of Commerce, urged the recon-
sideration of this ordinance, suggesting that this type of ordinance was
creating an imbalance between the commercial and residential tax structure.
Commission Response
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission close the public hearing on UP-S14. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the'publ~c hearing was closed at 9:45 p.m.
It was explained that the City had received complaints regarding the traffic
hazards created on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road because of this activity. The Secre-
tary explained~h~ customers presently parked along the State right-of-way, and--
had to re-enter a~traffic flgw of 45 m~h --When leaving the fruit stand. He referenced
f'fh'~'SF~f~'Report dated September 1, 1976 recommending approval of this use p~r~{'{ ....
for a one-year period, and pointed out that this time period would give the appli-
~'a'fff an opportuniYy to ~Fide whether he wished to terminate his business or move
to another location. The Secretary explained that the a~plicant owned comm~ial.l~-
;zoned property on SKratoga-Sunnyvale Road which could provide adequate parking and'.
:safe vehicular access onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, but added that Staf~_had._not
-~b=e=~h~g~ccess~ul in i~s attempts to discuss this alternative with the applicant~
.The suggestion was made that this matter be continued pending further review of'
.-an ~Ft~rnate ~I~H'{~ this business operation.
Discussion followed on this matter. COmmissioner Marshall favored the Staff
ReportIs recommendation. He noted that the applicant's fruit stand was only
operating 3 months out of the year, and contended that the one-year time limit
was sufficient time for the applicant to decide on what he wished to do. He added,
however, that Miljevich Drive might possibly accommodate this operation, with suffi-
'cient space for on-site parking and Vehicular access off of Saratoga-Sunn,vvale Road.
Commissioners Callon and Laden favored continuing this matter pending further
=S-
~: Pf~uNNING CO~IISSION MINUTE~F SEPTEMBER 8, 1976
IV. C.. UP-314 - Spaich Corporation - Cont'd "'
review by the Subdivision Committee, and also favored reconsideration of the non-
conforming use ordinance by the Commission. Commissioner Zambett_i_pointed out
that the Miljevich family sold this operation to the Spaich/fam~ly,.and he requested
that a.representa[iv~f the Spaich family be in attendance at the Subdivision
Committee meeting. Further, he requested that an on-site inspection be made.
At this time Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that
the motion to close the public hearing on UP-S14 be rescinded. The motion was
carried unanimously. Chairman Belanger directed that the public hearing on
UP-S14 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 1976,
and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review and report.
RECESS: 10:00 - 10:15 p.m.
D. UP-S15 - Lillian Rodoni, 14038 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for Use Permit in
Accordance with the Provisions of Article 15 of OrdinanCe NS-S (Zoning
Ordinance) to Allow for the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Commercial
Use in a Residential District
Note was made that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-S15 at 10:17 p.m.
· Albert Ruffo, applicant's attorney, requested this application be continued
until after a determination had been made regarding the City-initiated lawsuit
relative to condemning the northwest portion (.1 acre) of this site. Mr. Ruffo
explained that the City was condemning this portion of the property to make a
cul-de-sac which would facilitate the exit and entrance of the school buses
on the adjacent Saratoga School property. He added that a signal light was
also being planned on this corner in conjunction with the cul-de-sac matter.
Commissioner Marshall and Staff concurred with this recommendation. Commis-
sioner Marshall explained that the Staff Report and Subdivision Committee
dialogue had been based on the premise that the condemnation proceedings were
initiated by Saratoga School, and he requested further study of this situation.
· Flora Bronzich, 20400 Williams Avenue, stated that she had lived at this site
for 23 years. She stated that most of the neighbors had lived in this area
for 16-20 years, and most of them had no objection to this continued use.
She pointed out much of the audience present on this matter represented several
hundred years of citizenry and were responsible for incorporating the City.
She expressed the opinion that it did not seem fair to force these people out
of town. Further, with regard to the cul-de-sac issue, she fully supported
installing a signal light, adding: "but at a fair price to the Radonis."
· Chris Bronzich, 20400 Williams Avenue, stated that he had lived in Saratoga
for 54 years and had resided at this address for 23 years. He stated that
he had been a neighbor of the Rodoni~ for this period of time, and added
that he had no problem with the continued use. Further, he expressed support
for the proposed signal l~ghts in this area. Mr. Bronzich also indicated that
it was very difficult to request a contractor to keep all of his equipment
under a shed. He pointed out that he was the Road Operator Superintendent
for the County and was responsible for 250 pieces of equipment, "with only
10% being under a shed." He explained that the County just could not provide
enough sheds to house this equipment.
· C.W. Neal, 14165 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, stated that he owned 3 separate
parcels of land within 500 feet of this site, and made the following comments:
- Regarding the Staff Report's condition requiring the removal of the trailer
presently on site, Mr. Neal drew the Commission's attention to the trailer
presently on site at City Hall offices. He stated: "I don't think it is
right to tell them they can't do something, while the City that we are pay-
ing taxes to is doing the very thing that they.c~n!t do."
-6-
P~'~NNING CO~B{ISSION MINUTES OF SEPTE~IBER 8, 1976
IV. D. UP-315 - Lillian Rodoni - Cont'd
- Mr. Neal gave a brief history of the Rodoni property, noting that this site
had housed horse-drawn equipment, tractors and water wagons for many years.
He noted that blr. Rodoni had built much of Big Basin Way, and that the Rodoni
family had been in this business for 65 years. He stated that they had always
been good neighbors, and arg~'d' that the only people complaining about the
R .doni site were newer residents'of Saratoga, not the =~jacent neighbors. :
He stated: "I think that the City should take time to think where we are
going and what we are doing to the people who built this towm and who have
paid taxes. Maybe you don't realize that some of the old timers have the
right to live here too. We have a right to enjoy Saratoga and the hillsides
just like the rest of them do because we were here first. That doesn't make
any difference. Everybody has the right to be here because they pay taxes,
but you seem to think that old is no good so get rid of it." Mr. Neal indi-
cated strong support of this use permit application.
· Ruth Owen, 14180 Victor Place, stated: "With all due respect to the R .doni
family and all of the other pioneers here, I think that that place is very
unsitely. I guess that beauty is in the eye of the beholder because there are
people in the room who apparently think it is beautiful. I think that, accord-
ing to what I read in your report, the principle reason for this place is a
business address and that would take a mighty small place for a telephone and
a post office box. I just cannot say that I think that is beautiful in the
same way as the Miljevich fruit stand is beautiful."
· George l%~alen stated that he had lived within 100 yards of the R-doni property
for 26 years, adding that there had never been a problem caused by the Rodonis.
He stated that he was present in support of this application.
· Mr. Ruffo responded to Mrs. Owen's remarks by noting that this place of business
was more than just an address. He explained that there were 3 buildings on the
site, and that there was one employee working on the site. Further, Mr. Ruffo
stated that Mrs. Rodoni was in the process of cleaning up the yard. Additionally,
. he made the following comments:
- Relative to the Staff Report condition prohibitin~ outdoor storage, Mr.
Ruffo drew the Commission!s attention to the City of Saratoga Corporation
Yard which stored equipment out of doors. He stated that he felt if the
applicant's yard was cleaned of all unuseable material and was put into
good shape, the site would not be unsitely.
- Relative to the condition recommending that the present open shed be destroyed,
Mr. Ruffo stated that he felt this statement was inconsistent with the Staff
recommendation to house all equipment and materials on site. He suggested
that the existing building be relocated to conforming setback criteria.
- Concerning the prohibition.of flammable materials on site, Mr. Ruffo explained
that there were 2 diesel storage tanks underground on the property which were
not presently being used. He contended that this was not unusual, noting that
many gas stations '~a~acent to resfd~'h~d~aerground~§oline storage
tanks. Commissioner Zambetti asked what the size of the tanks were and if they
were insured. Mrs. Ro. doni answered that there were two 8,000 gallon tanks on
site which were presently empty, and she stated that they were heavily insured.
- Relative to the Staff Report's condition prohibiting the chemical toilet on
site, Mr. Ruffo explained that the toilet was serviced regularly and was used
very minimally. Staff noted that the Health Department was not aware of the
presence of this facility, and expressed the opinion that it would not approve
such on a permanent basis.
- Lastly, Mr. Ruffo raised the question of what better use of the site could
be made. He stated that in his opinion this property could not be developed
beyond one residence and contended that no one would be foolish enough to
put a residence on that property. He stated that he felt the best use of
the property was the present use, after the yard had been cleaned up.
Further, he pointed out that the neighbors who lived adjacent to this site
-7-
': PF~NNING CO~B-IISSION MINIJTE~ SEPTEMBER 8, 1976
IV. D. UP-SiS Lillian Rodoni - Cont'd
were the ones that would be most concerned, adding: "And outside of the charge
that it is unsitely, I think that none of the other neighbors object to the
location of the buildings that are on site and they don't Object to having
the storage yard there."
· Lillian RQdoni, applicant, thanked all those present who had given testimony on
her behalf, and she requested favorable consideration by the Commission of her
use permit request. She stated that the Radoni family had lived in Saratoga
for S generations, and she expressed the hope that they would be allowed to
stay in Saratoga.
At this time the following-p~eces ~ correspondence were introduced into the record:
- Letter received September 3, 1976 from Kenneth Jewell, 20S20 Reid Lane,
opposing the continuance of this use.
-Letter received September 7, 1976 from A.W. and Elayne Yesney, 140S4 Alta
Vista, objecting to this continued use.
- Letter received September 8, 1976 from Sandi Cuenca, Manager of the Chamber
of Commerce, recommending approval of the use permit subject to landscaping
as a buffer.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to close th~ public hearing on
UP-315, continue same to the Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 1976,
and to refer this item to the Subdivision Committee for an on-site inspection,
further review and report.
V. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-5S7 - Security Pacific National Bank, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review
Approval - 1 Lot - Commercial
Staff explained that the Land Development Committee granted tentative site approval
to this project (SDR-1270) subject to conditions, one of which prohibited drive-
through windows. The Secretary noted that the applicant had submitted a letter
requesting reconsideration of this condition, and suggested this appeal be agendized
for review at the next Commission meeting. Insomuch as A-537 plans called for
drive-through windows, Staff recommended that this item be continued pending
resolution of the drive-through facilities issue.
Chairman Belanger directed that A-537 be continued to the Planning Commission meet-
ing of September 22, 1976, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee
and Staff for further review.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
A. UP-29S - Haven Nursery, 1258S Saratoga~Sunnyvale Road, Request for Consideration
of Additional Time for Submission of Plans on a New Building
Staff explained that the applicant was requesting a 2 month extension of this appli-
cation in order to allow the applicant's engineer additional time to resolve some
of the structural problems involved with the project and to complete working draw-
ings. Staff stated that they felt the applicant was/acting xn good faith, and
recommended approval of this extension per the Staff Report pr6pared on this item.
Note was made that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded Dy Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant a two month extension to application UP-295 per the Staff Report
dated September 3, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously.
VII. WRITTEN CO~'~UNICATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Determinations - There were no Negative Declarations filed
between the period of August 23, 1976 and September 3, 1976.
-8-
~ .': Fk,~NNING CO~{ISSION MINUTE~F SEPTEMBER 8, 1976
VII. W~ITTEN COb~NICATIONS - Cont'd
B. Other
1. Letter received September 7, 1976 ~rom A.E. PassoVoy, Assistant Vice President
of Security Pacific National Bank, requesting reconsideration of conditions
VI-A and VI-B of tentative site approval application $DR-1250. Staff was
directed to agendize this appeal for the Commission meeting of September 22, 1976.
2: Copy of letter dated September 3, 1976 from Thomas ~ite, attorney representing
Mr. and Mrs. James Skinner, advising Mr. Anthony Cocciardi that the Skinners
had retained his services regarding the:problems on Lot #2 of Tract #5461.
Staff explained that the letter advised Mr. Cocciardi that the Skinners wished
him to construct the grading and retaining wall relative to this lot as called
for on the original plans, and that they would not~accept anything less.
Staff noted that plans depicting the existing topography of this site had been
submitted to Staff by Bill Heiss, a civil engineer hired by Mr. Cocciardi.
Further note was made that th~se plans were submitted in compliance wit~ the
Commission's request.. Staff Was directed to make th'f~'re~ p~t'~ the
Design Review file on this matter (A-483).
VIII. ORAL CO.~BIUNICATIONS
A. City Council ~port - No report was given for the City Council meeting of
SeptemDer 1, 1976.
B. Other
1. Chairman Marshall urged more complete participation by Subcommittee members
at the respective Subcommittee meetingS. He expressed the opinion that
~ecommenda~ions from Subcommittees with fufi membership better served the
Planning Commission in its review of applications than if only one or two
Subcommittee members reviewed an item and made their recommendation.
2. Commissioner Laden requested Staff to change the usual Variance Committee
meeting time of 8:0U a.m. to later in the day. She explained that she had
a class scheduled for this time.
3. The Secretary distributed the draft EIR for the Garcia/Kirkorian project
located on Saratoga-Sunn)rvale Road. Staff explained that State law required
a 30-day review period, and advised the Commission that a public hearing on
this matter had been agendized for the Commission meeting of October 13, 1976.
Staff suggested that a Committee-of-the-~ole meeting be scheduled to discuss
this EIR, and Staff was directed to agendize such a meeting.
4. The Secretary advised the Commission that the Planning Department budget had
been reduced by $12,000; ie, the planning consultant money was eliminated.
The Secretary explained that the Planning Department would not be able to hire
a consultant to review and up-date the Zoning Ordinance as planned because of
this loss. The Secretary suggested that this matter be discussed at the
Committee-of-the-Whole meeting agendized for the Draft EIR above-referenced.
IX. ADJOURNMEN~F
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission
meeting of September 8, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the
meeting was closed at 11:30 p.m.
biarty Van D.~, Planning '~/ector
sko/
-9-