Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~IISSION MIN~jTES DATE: lVednesday~November 10, 1976 - 7:~0. p.~. PLACE: City Council Chamber~ ~ 137~7' Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California /'~ Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORG.~NIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: CommisSioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Marshall, Martin and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Lustig B. MINUTES Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minfites of October 27, 1976 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried unanimously. II. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS/FINAL BUILDING SITES A. SD-1270 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 24!~nit~, Condominium Conversion; Continued from October 27, 1976 Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further study. Chairman Belanger directed that application SD-1270 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1976, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. B. SD-1277 - James Day Construction Company, Sobey Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 6 Lots; Continue4 from October 27, 1976 Note was made that the Subdivision Committee reviewed this application concurrently with application SD-1278, and that Staff Reports on both applications had been prepared recommending approval. It was pointed out that tentative map conditions were interlocking on the Staff Reports so that if one development did not occur, appropriate conditions would be made on the other development. Chairman Marshall, chairman of the Subdivision Committee, pointed out that this was the reason why both Staff Reports contained a condition requiring 2 fire hydrants, but he ex- plained that a total of 2 fire hydrants were required for both subdivisions, not for each subdivision. At this time '.'Commi~ssioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that th.__~ePlanning Commission grant tentative site approval to application SD-1277 per ~Ex~bit "A" filed October 8, 1976 and subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated November 3, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. C. SD-1278 - James Day Construction Company, Sobey Road, Tentative Subdivision AppFoval - 5 Lots; Continued from October 27, 1976 (See Item II-B for discussion of this application.) Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant tentative site approval to application SD-1278 per Exhibit "A-I" filed October 26, 1976 and subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated November 3, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. -1- PLANNING COB~IISSION MIN~J' OF 11-10-76 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-18S - Larsen & Blackwell, Pierce Road and Ashley Way, Request for Change of Zoning for Two Parcels Located between Pierce Road and Ashley Way from "R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential, Very Low Density) to "R-i-20,000" [Single-Family Residential, Low Density); Continued from October 27, 1976 Staff pointed out that a letter dated November 9, 1976 had been received from the applicants requesting this application be withdrawn. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission accept the letter of withdrawal for application C-18S. The motion was carried unanimously. (NOTE: Applications UP-31S and UP-S21 were addressed before E-3). B. UP-315 - Lillian Rodoni, 14038 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for Use Permit in Accordance with the Provisions of Article IS of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 to Allow for the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Commercial Use in a Residential District; Continued from October 27, 1976 -'The Secretary noted that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval ~ -subject to conditions, particularly that the enti~e_non.-C0nf0_r~._~g_ps~!'~ ...~ terminated on or before April 30, 1978. Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on UP-315 at 7:50 p.m. Albert J. Ruffo, applicant's attorney, stated that they had been in contact with Joe Clark of the Saratoga School District with respect to purchasin_g this site. Mr. Ruffo reported that the school district indieated an interest 'in ~ site but had no fundsin which to purchase it. He added, however, that if the District could purchase the property, they would be acquiring it for storage purposes. He stated that the neighbors were concerned with the possible acquisition by the school district because they felt it:would bring the activities of the high school closer to their homes, and he added that there were existing problems with students breaking through the~p~ficant's cyclone ~ence. In response to a question _ ~' raised as to whether any of these~dlents would be willing to purchase this site' to add to their properties, Mr. Ruffo stated that he had not heard of anyonef~H- .' ling to acquire it. He added: "They would like to have it remain as it is.' They' feel that it has not created any adversities insofar as the neighbors are concerned." Mr. Ruffo went on to explain that the applicant presently used this property as a business office, an estimating office and for storage. He stated that they would be willing to install additional landscaping, and hoted/iha"~hi applicant was trying to clean up the yard at the present time. He asked the Commission to give consideration to what the City wanted 'on this site, and conte~d~d'~h'~f residential lots would not be a good use for the property. Discussion followed on the alternative uses for this site. Note was made that Staff had prepared 4 alternatives, cutting the property into 2 residential lots. Commissioner Marshall stated that the Subdivision Committee felt the most reason- able solution would be put a residence-like structure on the front lot with limited storage room, while selling the back lot for residential use. He ex- plained that this would allow the applicant to retain this site as a business address and have the use of the site as an estimating office and limited storage area~ as long as a home occupation permit was issued. Mr. Ruffo responded that ithe lots would be substandard and would require 3 variances in order to com~ly 'with' City standards. Commissioner Callon stated that perhaps the Commission should consider a rezoning, noting the potential problems homes adjacent to the high school might have. Chairman Belanger stated that she felt this would constitute spot zoning, and Mr. Ruffo responded that he felt it would be more like buffer zoning than spot zoning. -2- PLANNING COmmISSION MINUTES OF 11-10-76 III. B. UP-315 - Lillian Rodoni - Cont'd Commission Action As there were no further comments, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the pubjj_c hearing on UP-315 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:1S p.m. Chairman Belanger pointed out that had the applicant noted the unsiteliness of this property during the S0 years of business and had taken care of same, this situationwJ. ld not have arisen. Additionally, she stated that if the school district obtained this property, control of the student problem might be more adequately achieved. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission approve in principal the conditions of the Staff Report dated October 22, 1976 relative to application UP-31S, and to direct the City Attorney to pre- pare a resolution on same for adoption at the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1976. The motion was carried; ~C~mlssloner 'C~'I~ V~d~. She explained that her vote was based on the condillon that the entire business be discontinued on or before April 30, 1978, instead of just the storage and unsite- liness problems being eliminated. Note was made that an appeal of this action or any conditions contained in the Staff Report could be made to the City Council within 10 days of this decision. C. UP-S21 - Ver~ Morse, 14403 Black Walnut Court, ReqUest for Use Permit to Allow for the Construction-of a 10-Foot High Tennis Court in Required Rear Yard'at 14403 BlaCk'Walnut'CoUrt The Secretary explained that this use permit application was submitted concurrently with Design Review. Application A-427 for Lot #9 in Tract #SSSS. He explained that thislsite was 'F~at~d~south of Tract #~lS0, and fronted on Black Walnut Court. He pointed out that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this item and that a Staff · Report had been prepared recommending approval Additionally the Secretary made note of 2 letters received on this matter: (1) Letter dated November 9, 1976 from Susan Br0wder, 19625 DouglaSs Lane, objecting to the height of th~ fen6e; and (2) letter dated November 9, 1976 from Dan and Rosalie Hauer, property owners directly across from this site, objecting to the location and height of the tennis court fence. Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-321 at 8:25 p.m. · Rosalie Hauer stated that she did not want to look at a tennis court fence~ .~'=from the front of her home, and she requested that the location be changed. She complained that she had to comply with the strict fencing regulations for Tract 5150, and requested that the plans for this site comply more with the architectural design of the neighborhood. She~fu'F~Her objected to the .6-foot fence on the.pr~pe__r~ty line ~long Douglass Lane, stating thato~h~'h~"s~n'-r 'this fence on the proposed plans· ' ....... Commissioner Marshall explained that if the tennis court was located 4 feet further to the east, a use permit would not be required because the court would fall within the building envelope according to ordinance. Additionally, it was noted that a 6-foot high fence could be placed anywhere on the property without a permit in that this site was within an R-I-40,000 zone which did not have the same constraints as Tract 5150's R-i-40,000 PC zone. Note was made that the tennis court fencingmaterial would be ~f'a chicken-wire nature. Jerry Lohr,:representa~i~'~'~f'S~r~ga Foothills Development Corporation, explained that he was the designer 'of/~his house. He stated that he liked the way this house was laid out in that the ga,age could not be directly seen from either the Douglass Lane or Black Walnut Court sides of the lot. Addi- tionally, Mr. Lohr noted that detailed landscaping plans had been submitted showing the entire Douglass Lane site of the lot landscaped. He added: "So I think this is as an:aesthetically pleasing arrangement as I 4a~been able to work out on the lot." 'He further pointed out that' ~e retained archi- tectural control over Tract #5583, and stated that he would not allow a 6-foot fence along the property line on Douglass Lane.. -3- PLANNING CO~IISSION MI~TgS OF 11-10-76 III. C. UP-S21 - Vera Morse - Cont'd Discussion followed on this matter with note being made that the proposed cabana had been changed from being detached from the house to being attached. Further, it was noted that a plant list had not been submitted to the Design Review Commit- tee as requested on this lot. Commissioner Laden requested that the landscaping and modified location of the cabana be re-reviewed by the Design Review Committee for approval. After additional discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Design Review application on this matter (A-472, Lot #9) be additionally conditioned to provide for review and approval of the landscaping plant list and the location of the cabana by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the public hearing on UP-S21 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the publ&e hearing was closed at 8:48 p.m. Commiss$oner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that application UP-S21 be approved per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated November S, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. D. E-S - Draft Environmental Impact Report, Garcia/Kir~orian Commercial Project, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Prospect Road, 12.22+ Acres (Tentative Building Site Applications SDR-1242 and SDR-124S; Continued from October 27, 1976 The Secretary explained that this matter had been continued in order to allow the EIR consultant an opportunity to respond to comments made on the Draft EIR. Ref- erence was made to the addendum material in the front portion of the Final EIR as being the responses to these comments. Commissioner Marshall advised that M.G.D. figures on page F-17 of this material had been transposed, and recommended that these figures be corrected to "0.01M.~G.D.'' The EIR consultant concurred with this suggestion. Doug Donaldson, representative of EIP, read into the record a statement explain- ing that the addendum material had addressed all comments made to date. Addi- tionally, the statement noted that concerns expressed in 2 letters from Northwest Saratoga Home O~¢ners Association (dated October 1S, 1976 and November 4, 1976) had been addressed, and it also briefly explained the EIR certification process. At this time Chairman Belangerr'~Yp~'ed the public hearing on E-S at 9:00 p.m. Questions were raised relative to statements made on page F-6 regarding t~affic estimates between the proposed food store and shopping center. Also a question was raised as to why a major food store was required a.s an anchor when the EIR estimated that only 10~ additional business would occur from the food store. Pat Gibson, consultant responsible for the traffic estimates in the EIR, ex- plained that he had projected a S% traffic flow figure from the food store to the shopping center "based on the fact that if I went shopping with my wife and we had a car full of groceries, we would not go shopping to another store after we had already been to the super market." Regarding the 10-1S% estimate from the shopping center to the food store, Mr. Gibson stated that he had looked at this as 2 separate projects even though it was analyzed as one site, and he "' added that from a traffic flow standpoint, he felt there would be 2 separate trips made. In response to a question regarding potential traffic jamming .... between the 2 centers, Mr. Gibson pointed out that the 2 driveways had been aligned directly across from each other in order to reduce traffic problems. He stated that he did not~fhe volume over a oneshour period would cause traffic congestion. Regarding exiting from Kirkmont Drive left onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Mr. Gibson stated that he projected approximately S00 cars in a peak hour would be using this access point in comparison with the present 10-1S cars, and he noted the recommendation he made in the EIR that a traffic signal should be required at this intersection. PLANNING CO~'B{ISSION MINUTES OF 11-10-76 III. D. E-S - EIR for SDR-1242 and SDR-124S - Cont'd Concerning the question raised on the reason for needing a food store as an anchor, Chairman Belanger suggested that it could provide a financial-basis upon which the remainder of the shopping center could be developed. John -Cone-._.economic analyst for the EIR, explained that a 104 use was more im- portant than perhaps it seemed in that a 104 increase for many stores meant a profit. Additionally he pointed out that a super market would call' attention to the shopping center by its constant advertising, even though many shoppers would not be going to the super market. · Jim O'Rourke, resident in the Greenbriars Homeowners Association area, suggested that people might turn up into the Blue Hills District in an attempt to find a way to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road if a left-hand turn seemed too difficult. He stated that this would add to the'~xisting~r"~iFFic problems in the area. Commissioner Callon pointed out that that would be approximately a S-mile detour, and stated that she felt people would more likely exit onto Prospect Road and then turn left onto Saratoga-Sunny~ale Road. The Secretary drew attention again to the recommendation made in the EIR that a signal be installed at the Kirkmont/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Ro~d intersection to provide for this left- hand turn. · Connie Tiffany, president of the/Northwest Saratoga Home ~ners Association, stated that they felt the EIR mentioned the problems they were most concerned about, and that they felt these specific concerns should be addressed at a later time. She added, however, that she felt the project would have a signi- ficant impact on the environment, stating: "I think SO0 cars coming in and out of Kirkmont is a significant impact, when only 10 cars now go through." Commission Action As there were no furthe~ comments, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public hearing on E-S be closed. The motion was carried unanimously and the public hearing was closed at 9:2S p.m. Several questions were raised r~lative to the actions required on this item. Commissioner Callon asked whether the motion should include ~eference to the variances that would be needed if this project were approved as presently sub- mitted. The Secretary pointed out that the EIR spoke directly to these variances. Commissioner Marshall asked if it would be possible to waive the economic portion of ~he EIR, stating that he did not want certification of the EIR document to be construed as an endorsement of the economic section. The City Attorney explained that certification of an EIR was not in any way stating approval or disapproval of a project. 1. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the EIR in~h~tter of E-S for applications SDR-12~2 and SDR-12~S be accepted as the Final EIR and be certified as complete. The motion was carried unanimously. 2. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission make the determination that the proposed development will have a significant impact on the environment unless appropriate mitigating measures are implemented, especially in the areas of traffic, traffic control, and the final design and usage of the project. Commissioner Martin stated that he would not be able to vote affirmatively on this motion in that he felt even with the mitigating measures implemented, the proposed development would have a significant impact on the environment. He specifically made note of the increased traffic in the area and the visual impacts the shopping center would have on the surrounding neighborhood. At this time the City Attorney explained ~h~t according to CEQA, a significant environmental impact was defined as a substantial impact and an adverse impact. S. Commissioner Marshall modified his motion by moving that the Planning Commis- sion's determination is that the project will have a significant impact on the environment, but that mitigating measures may be taken to offset those ................... ~mpa~t.s to acceptable levels. .. .- PLANNING CO~{ISS,~ON MIN]JTES OF 11-10-76 III. D. E-3 - EIR for SDR-1242 and SDR-1243 - Cont'd Chairman Belanger stated that she did not feel the project would have a sig- nificant impact on the environment if the proper mitigating measures were taken. She pointed out that anytime there was a change, there would be impacts involved. Commissioner Callon disagreed stating that she felt that- even if mitigating-measures were incorporated, there would still be a signi- ficant impact on the environment. Chairman Belanger pointed out that this area was zoned in the General Plan for exactly this type of use, and she noted that an EIR had been prepared on the General Plan stating that all of the uses indicated therein were appropriate for the way the City was laid out. She asked what could be proposed for these sites that would hot have an adverse impact on the environment. Commissioner Callon stated that the project called for structures that were' not appropriate for this area per t~e General Plan, and she contended that this added to the adverse environmental impacts. .The motion was called for and was not carried: Commissioners Marshall, Zambetti and Belanger voted yes; Commissioners Callon, Laden and Martin voted no. 4. Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission make the determinationthat the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment, but that with appropriate mitigating measures, the adverse impacts could be reduced. Chairman Be~nger~cTntended that the motion was repetitious intthat a mitigating measure by its very nature was to reduce adverse impacts. Commissioner Callon explained that the difference between her motion and that of Commissioner Marshall's was that she felt not all of the impacts could be mitigated to acceptable levels. The motionwas called for and carried: Commissioners Callon, Laden, Marshall, Martin and Zambetti voted yes; Chairman Bealnger voted no. Chairman Belanger made note of the Committeeeef-the-~ole meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 16, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. in the Crisp Conference Room, located at City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. RECESS: 9:45 - 10:00 p.m. . E. up-s19 - Beverly Kohler, 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Azule Shopping Center), Request for Use Permit to Allow an Outdoor, One-Day, Six Times-a-Year Public Event under the Auspices of a Non-Profit Organization in a Com- munity Commercial District, Said Event Being an Antique Show Staff noted that the Subdivision Committee reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval subject to several conditions, one being that Staff make an on-site inspection at the first show before recommend- ing approval for the S subsequent shows. Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-319 at 10:05 p.m. · Fred Tater, 20577 Manor Drive, stated that he represented homeowners in the area, and pointed out that the homemmers were opposed to th~se shows because of the traffic problems they created. He stated that based on past shows held at the. Azule Shopping Center, patrons overflowpd the parking spaces in the center and parked along'Saratoga-~Unnyvale Road and Manor Drive. He explained that these parked cars created sight-distance problems for those residents try- ing to exit onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road from Manor Drive and Gordon Court. He requested the Commission deny this use permit; but added that if they wished to approve this application, to consider the frequency and location of the shows. He suggested the shows be held elsewhere in the City~ sffdH, ,- as Prospect High School or the Civic Center, which had adequate parking. -6- RLANNING CO~[~IISSION MINUTES OF 11-10-76 III. E. UP-319 - Beverly Kohler - Cont'd ® Beverly Kohler, applicant, stated that she chose Saratoga.and th?Azule Shop- ping Center because Saratoga was well kno~m for its antiques and because Mr. Caleb (owner of the Center) donated the site for this use. She stated that they would use the front p_ark__i.n~g l__ot for a maximum of 35 antique dealers, and.'contended that there would be-~fficient parking in the side and rear parking lots, as well as along Sara~oga-Sunnyvale Road. She stated that she held an antique show as a trial run on August 15, 1976, and stated that she received no complaints. Ms. Kohler explained that the profits from these shows would go to the St. Pius X Chapel, a traditional Catholic Church based outside of the City. She explained that the priest did not receive a fee from the Catholic Church because he held masses in Latin, and she pointed out that each Sunday they had to rent=a h'~'il for services. Additionally, Ms. Kohler explained that congregation members supported a private school for their children, and stated that the antique show proceeds would benefit this school. She added that the profits~were derived, after appropriate adversiting charges were taken out, from charging fees for the 35 spaces proposed for these shows. =.® Sandi Cuenca, manager~of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber's Retail Promotion Committee had met earlier this year with?representatives of the City's shopping areas to discuss promotional activities in an attempt to stimulate sales. She stated that merchants in the Azule Shopping Center indicated support of these antique shows because they felt this t}~e of activity gave their area an identify. She expressed support for activities being held on a repetitive basis because "it gives you some real basis for understanding and dealing with problems." She suggested that "no parking" signs be erected in those places that could cause problems for neighbors, and recommended that the applicant provide a deputy sheriff to control an~ additional traffic problems. : Considerable discussion followed on this matter, with many concerns being expressed. Many Commissioners felt that this was not a Saratoga-based organization, and as a result, doubt was expressed as to the benefits the City would gain by allowing such activities on a repetitive basis. The point was made that if the City allowed these shows 6 times a year at the Azule Shopping Center, other promo- tional activities by City-based groups could not be held. It was pointed out that the Temporary Use Permit Ordinance had been created to avoid?~fi~'ttes of this nature being held more than once a year, and note was made that t~e City would receive no fees from these activities other than the initial use permit application fee. Sandi Cuenca suggested that this matter be continued for further analysis. She expressed a concern that if action were taken to deny this application, a precedent might be set for other organizations who might wish to hold events more than once a year. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to close the public hearing on UP-S19, continue .same to the Commission meeting of November 22, 1976, and to refer this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review and report. It was requested that representatives from the Chamber's Retail Promotion Committee be present at this meeting to give their input on the application in particular, and to the Temporary Use Permit ordinance in general. _ ...... F. UP-239 - Boething Treeland N~rsery Company, 7920 Rainbow Drive, Request to Amend Use Permit (UP-259) to Allow for the Expansion of'Existing l~oleaale Nursery Operation into the Proposed West Valley Freeway Right-of-Way Lands North of Cox Avenue " Staff noted that 2 items of correspondence had been received on this matter: (i) letter and petition dated October 26, 1976 signed by 6 residents in the area point- ing out several problems with the existing Nursery use and requesting corrective action be taken; and (2) letter dated November 8, 1976 from Mr. and Mrs. Bahl, 19729 Yuba Court, recommending approval of this use permit. Staff requested that this matter be continued pending investigation of the petition's comments. -7- PLANNING CO~IISISON MINUTES OF 11-10-76 III. F. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery Company - Cont'd Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-239 at 10:40 p.m. ® Art Brokeman, representative of the Greenbriars Homeo~ers Association, stated that in general they were in favor of the requested expansion, but he stated that they were in agreement with the petition's~.concerns. He asked what the length of the applicant's lease was, and the Sec~efary explained that the lease was between the applicant and the State Department of Transportation. He added that the State usually did not grant leases on a longsterm basis, and stated that Staff would investigate this matter. Additionally, Mr. Brokeman expressed concerns that the access road go through the center of the nursery in the area already stocked so that roads would not go around the periphery next to the residents' fences. Further, he requested that no deciduous trees be allowed along neighbor's fences because of leaves blowing into swimming pools, and he requested that the applicant be required to control and to house the loam and sawdust piles better than they have in the past. · George Lee, Soland Drive, asked what kind of jurisdiction the City had over this entire corridor area and the present use. The Secretary explained that the State had jurisdiction over the corridor itself irrespective of the nur- sery area. He added, however, that under the auspices of the use permit, the City could at any time require the applicant to correct deficiencies in the nursery area. Mr. Lee stated that he was not opposed to the use permit, but that he would be opposed to the applicant creating excessive dust by running their trucks through the site during the dry season. · A1Roaten, Ver6nica Drive, stated that when this use permit was initially heard, a City representative and the applicant informed the Greenbriars Homeo~mers Association that this nursery storage was intended for the Marriott Theme~ark. Mr. Roaten expressed concern that access to this extension would be taken off Cox Avenue, and he requested controls be placed relative to the maintenance of this access road. He stated thathe would not be enamored with the applicant's trucks tracking mud all over the City streets during the rainy season. He stated that another adverse impact of the storage areas was that many residents complained that their pool chemical balance had been seriously affected by the nitrogen content of the fertilizer storage, and he asked the City to consider whether they would allow the applicant to create more of these storage piles. : · Commissioner Martin pointed out that there was water standing in the roadway on the site, and he requested that the Subdivision Committee schedule an on-site inspection during its review of this application. As there were no further comments, Chairman Belanger directed that UP-239 be con- tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1976, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for an on-site inspection, further review and report. G. UP-318 - Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Oddfellows (IOOF), 14500 Fruit- vale Avenue, Request for Use Permit in Accordance with the Provisions of Article 16 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 to Allow for the Expansion of the IOOF Lodge to Provide for 1S0 Units of-Senior Citizen Housing Staff explained that this application was submitted for an expansion of the exist- ing IOOF use to include a senior citizen housing project of 1S0 units. The Secre- tary noted that Staff had required an EIR on this application, and recommended that this matter be continued until completion and certification of said EIR. Additionally, the Secretary made note of 2 items of correspondence received on this matter: (1) letter dated November 9, 1976 from Clark Basserr, Jr., 19401 Crisp Avenue, requesting consideration be given to several items of concern; and (2) letter dated November 9, 1976 from Dean Vesling, resident in the area, out- lining similar areas of concern and requesting that consideration be given to same. The Secretary noted that both letters had been forwarded to the consul- tant preparing the EIR for consideration. -8- P LAdqN-ING-CO~fMTSS-ION-MINUTES-Op~i=i=-~i~r=7~5 III. G~ UP-S18 - IOOF - Cont'd Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-S18 at 11:10 p.m. · Jadk Fetters, representative of the Thomas Shea architectural firm, raised questions relative to the intended access roads. He explained that before HUD would give preliminary approval to 'the applicants for federal assistance on ~"' this project, they needed to know whether the City would be requesting public dedication of Crisp Avenue and San Marcos Road. Discussion followed on this request, with the Planning Commission pointing out that they would not be able to give definite answers to these questions prior to reviewing the actual circulation plans of the project. Note was made, how- ever, that San Marcos Road was a private road, and that Crisp Avenue was not in- tended at this time to be extended to provide access for this project. Com- missioner Marshall ;~gded'that the Subdivision Committee had discussedfpos~i~. ble access roadsff~r this project: the extension of/Che~ter Avenue, ~nd the up-grading of the'exiSting p~ivate road now used by IOOF from Fruitvale Avenue. After additional discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to direct Staff to inform HUD that the City was not able to give a definite answer regarding what circulation pattern would be used for this project at this time; and to inform them that the City would require whatever access roads were used to meet all City-street standards relative to safety in terms of circulation and construction. · Jerry Clark, secretary of IOOF, stated that HUD had agreed to lend IOOF fed-- eral funding for this 1S0-unit project with the stipulation that IOOF lay all of the utilities and 'aii of the ~o~d"~i~es up/to the site. He stated that IOOF had no intention of extending Crisp Avenue, but rather, would be willing'to dedicate and improve their existing private road to City-street standards. He stated that they had no intention of cutting across the Community Gardens in the future (noting that they had just renewed the lease with the Community Gardens), and also added that they had no intention of ever defacing the roads leading up to their cemetery. · Clark Bassett, 19401 Crisp Avenue, drew attention to his letter dated Novem- ber 9th, and expressed specific concern that Crisp Avenue not be extended for this project. The Secretary noted that :his letter, along with the letter submitted by Mr. Vesling, had been forwarded to the EIR consultant for review and consideration. At this time Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on UP-318 at 11:40 p.m., and.~'~continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 1977. Staff noted that this matter would be renoticed in the Saratoga News, and agreed to mail individual notices to both Messrs. Vesling and Bassett. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-472 Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Black Walnut Court, Final Design Review Approval - Lots #2 and #9 of Tract #SS83 ...... Commissioner Laden stated that since,po~cern~d ~een:expressed during the public hearing on UP-S21, the Design Review Committee would recommend approval of this application subject to the following added condition: "1. Fencing material and landscaping plans for Lot #9 shall be approved by Design Review Committee prior to issuance of Building Permit." Commissioner Laden moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-4Z2 for Lots #2 and #9 per Exhi-Dit~ "I" and "J" and subject to the Staff Report dated November S, 1976, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously° -9- PLANNING CO.~-~IISSION MINTJTES OF 11-10-76 IV. B. A-529 - W.C. Garcia ~ Associates, ProSpect Road and Saratoga-Sunn}~ale Road, Final Design Review Approval -;1 Lot Commercial; Continued from August 2S, 1976 Insomuch as the EIR on this project had just received certification, Staff re- quested this matter, along with a~plication A-SS0, be continued. ~Note was made -that the Design Review aspects of this_proposed shopping.center wo~id be discusse~_ ;-- ..l~at ~'CommiSSi~n ~ommit~e~-of-the-~ole meeting on Tuesday, November 16, 1976 at " 7'!sO'p.m. in ~ Crisp ~onference'Room. 'd~airman Belanger directed that applica- tion A-S29 be con~inded to the Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 1976, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review, C. A-SS0 - Ira Kirkorian, Saratoga-Sunn}~ale Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Commercial; Continued from'AUgUst 2S, 1976 " In concert with action taken on application A-S29, Chairman Belanger directed that application A-S30 be continued to the Planning Commission meetin~ of December 8, 1976, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. D. A-S3? - Security Pacific National Bank, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review Approval, 1 Lot Commercial~ Continued'from OctOber 27~'I976 "' Staff explained that ~equent to the Council's action regarding drive-up windowed/ no revised plans had yet been submitted from the applicant. Staff recommended that this matter be continued. Chairman Belanger directed that applidation A-537 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1976, and referred this matter to Staff and the Design Review Committee. E. A-543 - Haven Nursery, 12585 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval New Commercial Structure in Accord'with Use Permit #UP-295' Staff pointed out that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Note was made that concerns had been expressed by the Committee members as to the size and expense of the additions proposed with respect to the requirements of the use permit granted to the applicant. It was explained that this issue had been re- solved to the satisfaction of the Committee and applicant, and note was made that the applicant would be constructing a new building to meet the requirements of the use permit. After brief discussion of the specific improvements, Commissioner Laden moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-543 per Exhibits "A" and "B" and subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated November 9, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. V. 'WRITT~ CO[;~NICATIONS A. Environmental Impact Determinations The following Negative Declarations were filed between the period of October 22 and November 5, 1976: SD-1280 - Noorudin Billawala, Afton Avenue, Tentative Building Site Approval 11 Lots ........... - SD-1284 - Wayne Leposavic, Sperry- Lane, -Tentative; B~ildi~g Site Approval - 6 Lots ...... - SDR-1285 - Kelez Investments, Sobey Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 4 Lots ............ - UP-2S9 - Boething Treeland Nursery Company, ProSpect Road to Cox Avenue, Use Permit to Allow for the'Expansion Commercial'USe "' -10- PLAaNNING CON~'IISSION MIN~J' OF 11-10-76 V. B. ~ITTEN CO~B~NICATIONS - OTHER'~ 1. Guidelines for Social Planning for Cities in Santa Clara County, prepared by the Planning Policy Committee of Santa Clara County. 2. Memorandum dated November 8, 1976 from the City Manager requesting the Plan- ning Commission to'~ecdnsider Use Permit #UP-296, particularly Condition 8. Attached with this fnemorandum was a letter dated September 22, 1976 from the City Attorney to Mr. Cardella, attorney representing the UP-296 applicant, regarding Resolution 78S on UP-296. The Staff was directed to agenda UP-296 ~for Commission reconsidera{i~the Commission meeting of November ~2', i976. VI. ORAL CO~{UNIEATIONS A. City Council Report - Commissioner Marshall gave a detailed oral report of the City Council meeting held on November 3, 1976.' A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City Administration Department. B. Other. Y '=~lY"'Ch~%~'~'~iBelanger. expressed appreciation to Ms. Barbara Waltrous and the ~"~'~ ....... .---i ..........Good 'GoVernment Group for serving coffee. ~ :j- .Chairman 'B~l~nger moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission ~e~ing ~f Nbvember 10, 1976 be adjourned'. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m. ~arty Van Duyn, Secretary sko/ -11-