Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12-1977 Planning Commission Minutes '~ OF SARATOGA PL;uNNING CO~II~ MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 12, 1977 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORG~NIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Martin and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Callon B. MINUTES Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 8, 1976 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried; Commissioners Lustig and Marshall abstained. II. FINAL BUILDING SITES : A. iSD~:- Frank Shepherd, Douglass Lane, Final Building Site Approval - 4 Lots B. SDR-1264 - Michael Pestana, Pierce Road, Final Building Site .~pproval - 1 Lot C. SDR-1268 T.A. Jenkel, Big Basin Way,.Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot, Commercial Staff pointed out that all conditions of Tentative Site Approval had been met on all three applications, noting that all necessary bonds and fees had been paid. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission grant Final Building Site Approval to applications SDR-1164, SDR-1264 and SDR-1268. The motion was carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. V-461 - William and Margaret Reid, 21i10 Canyon View, Request for Variance from the Requirements of Section 3.7-2 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 to Allow a Reduction from Sixty (60) Feet to Forty-Five (45) Feet in the Minimum Required Rearyard Setback for a New Two-Story House at 20057 Canyon View Drive in the "R-i-40,000" Zoning District Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V-461 at 7:40 p.m. Note was made that the applicant was in the process of completing revised plans, and Staff sug- gested that this matter be continued pending receipt of said plans. As there were no comments from ~he public., Chairman BelanKer closed the phblic hearing on V-461 at 7:41 p.m., and directed tha~__s~m.e b.e_Con~inued_ ~p_ the p.~a~ing commission meeting '.of January 26, 1977. k. " B. C-186 -! George Day Construction Company, P.O. Box 126, Saratoga, Request for Rezoning of 12.4'0± Acre Parcel from "HCRD" (Hillside Conservation Resi- dential District) to "A" (Agriculture) the One Parcel Designated as APN 503-13-68 Located North of Mr. Eden Road Approximately 600 Feet Westerly of Pierce Road (Ordinance NS-3, Article 18) Staff explained that this was an application to fezone a 12.40± acE~ parcel from "HCRD" to "A" for the purpose of placing said parcel under William~on A~ Contract. It was noted that per City procedures for establishing Williamson Act Contracts~' parcels must first be rezoned to the "A" district before consideration can be given by the City Council for such a Contract. It was pointed out that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending that the Commission approve said Report and forward to the City Council its recommendation for approval of this application. -1- ~ CO~IISSION MINHJTES OF 1-12-77 III. B. C-186 - George Day Construction Company - Cont'd Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on C-186 at 7:42 p.m. As there were no comments from members of the audience, Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public hearing on C-!86 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the publ~ hearing was d~osed at 7:43 p.m. Commissioner Marshall noted that the application was on behalf of a construction company, adding: "which suggests that it is development land;" and he asked'~o whom would approval be granted. The Secretary explained that the City would be grantJ ing rights to the owner of the land, and he noted that the application was sub- mitted under the application name of George Day Construction Company. He added that if a property under WilliEson Act' Contract should change hands, then a new signature by the purchaser would be needed on the Contract. Commissioner Zambetti suggested that reference" in the motion on this application to the Assessor':~ Parcel Nmnber would help to clarify that the owner of record had been granted the rezoning change for purposes of entering into Williamson Act Contract. Chairman Belanger expressed the opinion that there were problems around this property that made development difficult, and she stated: "If this is merely an attempt to dodge taxes until development of the property can be worked out, then I am concerned about the loss of taxes to the City and to the school district." She contended that it could have a significant impact on not only the City, but other agencies on which the City depends. Further, she asked whether loss of this property to "A" would hurt the City's chances for a water assessment district in the City's hillsides. Discussion followed on these statements. The Secretary pointed out that Williamson Act was not a permanent contract but rather, had been established as a holding zone for open space. It was pointed out;bTC~.issioner Laden that there was a signi- ficant penalty of up to 12% for taking 'land out of Williamson Act Contract before expiration of the contract. She expressed the opinion that if the taxes continued to rise at the present rate, the City would be encouraging more rapid development of the hillside~"by not approving such rezonings, and she stated that she felt ~is_ .land would be suitable for Williamson Act Contrac'FL Commissioner Marshall stated that he had no problem with the land going under '~illiamson Act because he felt it would be difficult for the applicant to pull out of the contract too soon. He pointed out that the City Council had not entertained such a notion thus-far, noting that the only way in which the owner could cause the contract to cease would be to .notify the City of his intent, at which time a 10-year period countdm~ would begin for expiration of the contract. He stated: "So at th~ Ver~ least the intent of the ~Ct,.which is to pr~serve_ppen.sp~ce, isl met~'~ In response to Chairman Belanger's inquiries on the hillside water assessment districts, the Secretary stated that entering into Williamson Act Contract would not affect any proceedings that the City would have relative to water assessment districts. He explained that participation in such a district would be based on the potential yield of the property, and he explained that a water assessment dis- trict system would be designed for maximum potential usage of the land in prepara- tion-'for the ev~nt~a~.e~pi~at~0n o~ tb~..Williamson_~ct Contract. -- At this time, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission approve the Staff Report dated January 6, 1977 in the mat- ter of application C-186, and forward to the City Council its recommendation that Parcel #APN 503-13-68 be considered for rezoning from "HCRD" to "A" for the pur- pose of placing it under Williamson Act Contract. The motion was carried; Chairman Belanger ~oted no. C. UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. ~(John and Mary Lyngso), 12405 S, Saratoga- 'Sunnyval~'~ Road, Reconsideration of Use Permit UP-296 to Allow for the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Commercial Use in a Residential Zone in Accordance with Article IS of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 (NOTE: Due to late arrival of the Court Reporter, this appli~at__ipp was postponed to af'~dis~ion of applications V-461, C-186, A-537 and A-349 ) .... ~ .. · -2- ~; .EO~BII~SION MINUTES OF 1-1 7 - III. .C. UP-296 -_~y~_._~so Garden Materials, Inc. - Cont'd It was explained that the City Council had referred this matter to the Planning Com- mission in November 1976 for consideration as to whether or not Condition #8 of UP-296 had been met. Note was made that per City Ordinances, the Planning Commission had con- tinuing jurisdiction over the use permit with the reserve power to modify, delete or make additions to any or all of the conditions of the use permit. It was explained that in order to give consideration to whether all of the conditions of this use permit had been met, including Condition #8, public notice of this matter had been given. Chairman Belanger added that it would be appropriate for the Commission to consider during t~his public hearing not only the issue of Condition #8, but also whether all of the.:bther conditions of UP-296 had b~en met. - ..... Chairman Belanger asked whether the following conditions of UP-296 had been met: - Regarding Condition #3, Chairman Belanger-:pointed out that it was required that a 3S-foot setback from the residential property lines to the west be made for internal vehicular circulation. She noted that p_e~r re~ent correspondence from the City Manager, this setback was72'7"~et. - Regarding Condition #5, Chairman Belanger pointed out that a letter dated December 21, 1976 had been received from James Craig, 20524 Manor Drive, com- plaining that deliveries had been made'b~'tween thehours of 3-S:00 a.m. She noted that Condition #5 prohibited wholesal~.H~fi~eri.es pn weekends and during hours other than 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. She sta~ed that in discussion of this matter'- with the City Code Enforcement Officer, he had stated that the County sherif~'s Department would be policing this area for such deliveries. - Regarding Condition #9, it was noted that only one of the three front loaders on sit'g'hYd'been converted to propane fuel. The point-~.: was made that this condition'required that a~l existing and future mechanical handling equipment be converted to propane fuel: by January 21, 1977. - Chairman Belanger suggested that the following words be added to Condition #10 for clarification purposes: "other than those permitted in a residential zone." She suggested that Condition #10 read as follows: "Except as m az hereinabove be specifically permitted or requir-ed, no additional buildings or structures other than those permitted in a residential zone shall be placed upon, erected or con- structed on the premises." Relative to Condition #11, Chairman Belanger noted that rocks had been placed across the vehicular access from this site onto Manor Drive. She asked what the results of the investigation had been relative to seeking tb'e realignment of the entrance to this site from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road froht~ge. The Secre- tary stated that per correspondence with the State, there was an unwillingness to realign this entrance on the pa~t of the State. He stated that rocks had been placed across the Manor Drive access by the applicant in order to block off this entrance, and he stated that Staff felt Condition #11 had been met. At this time, Chairman Belanger opened 'the public hearing on UP-296 at 8:38 p.m. ®. Richard Gardella, attorney representing Lyngso Garden Materials and John and Mary L)mgso, made the following comments: 1. Relative to Condition #3, he noted that the applicant had landscaped up to the SS-foot setback line,?thus meeting this condition. 2. Mr. Gardella denied that any wholesale deliveries had been made other than at times allowed by the use permit,~and he noted that all wholesale deliveries were logged. He contended that, if there was activity in the rockery between the hours of 3-5:00 a.m., someone was stealing rocks. He expressed apprecia- tion that the Sheriff's Department would be policing this site during these non-working hours. 3. Mr. Gardella assured the Commission that Condition #9 would be fully met prior to January 21, 1977. He explained that one of the front loaders had been converted, and that the other 2 loaders would either be converted by this date or removed from the site. -3- '.EO~B~ISSION MINUTES OF 1-12-~7 -- III. C. UP-296 Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. - Cont'd 4. Relative to Chairman Belanger's suggestion that clarification be made on Condi- tion #10, Mr. Gardella pointed out that prior to the approval of any building permit, the Planning Department would have to insure that all ordinances were complied with and that all conditions of the use permit were met. S. Regarding Condition #11, Mr. Gardella explaified that the State had not been receptive to the recommendation that the entrance from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road onto the site be realigned. He stated that they had interpreted the intent of this condition to restrict access from Manor Drive, and consequently, they had placed the rocks along this access to prohibit future vehicular access. 6. Regarding Condition #8, Mr. Gardella stated that they understood that public agencies could restrict commercial activities and impose time limits, adding: "But we are resentful that we have to sign an agreement that says 'we" desire to go out of business." Commissioner Laden asked if Mr. Gardella felt that by signing this agreement, he would be giving up his clients' rj~ghts to go to court. Mr. Gardella stated that any action the Commissign took should be assimilated with the use permit. He expressed the opinion that to reinforce the use permit with an agreement "only indicates that your legal authority does not think the condition is quite valid and he wants us to give up our right to disagree with the conditions." He stated that there were certain time restrictions on proceeding legally with this matter, and indicated that the issue would be resolved in court "well before 1980." · The City Attorney, Faber Johnston, made the following comments: Me explained that the Zoning Ordinance stated that if a use was conducted wholly within a conforming structure:in a resid~i~l zone, it ~l~last for 10 yearS; however, if a use was conducted in'~he open and was within a residential zone, it must either be removed or housed in a conforming structure, such as a house, within one year from date of the use becoming non-conforming. He explained that since there had been a dispute between the City and the applicant over several years as to which of the uses were conducted in conforming structures, the Plan- ning Staff had recommended in its Staff Report on UP-296 that a compromise be reached whereby a use permit could be granted to this use for a period of 5 years. He noted, however, that the Commission granted the use permit for 10 years, but pointed out that per 2 appeals to the City Council of this matter by Mr-.- Gardella and adjacent homeowners, the Council granted the use permit for a period of 5 years. .. ~d0pting the Staff Report recommendations. Mr. Johnson explained that he had drafted two identical agreements in compliance with this condition, pointing out that Mr. Gardella had indicated per a telephone conversation that he was delighted with the agreement drafted to accompany the Commission's 10-year use permit. Mr. Johnston stated that it was onl~ when he sent they__d agreement consequent to the Council allowing only a 5_-.%e_a_r__permit;: :that Mr. Gardella BFjected to i~' attemp'~d to modify the agreement through h{s cover letters.' The'City Attorney stated that he felt Mr. Gardella was actually complaining about the number of years of the use permit rather than the actual format of the agreement. Mr. Johnston stated that in his opinion the court would not consider the agreement as valid because the cover letters sent along with the agreements stated that the applicants did not agree that there was a compromise on this matter. He stated that in his opinion, Condition #8 had not been com- plied with, and added that he had no problem if the Commission wanted to delete this condition from the terms and conditions of the use permit. He added, however: "But the problem is, if you eliminate the agreement requirement, then you are eliminating the compromise of the dispute and you are back to your basic fundamentals. And the basic fundamentals are that some of the uses are housed in what used to be conforming structures, some of the uses are now in the open and only have a one-year amortization period." He stated that if there was to be legal action filed on this matter, then he would rather see the Commission delete Condition #8 so that court action would take place within the next year and not S years from now. -4- -'CD~IISSION MINUTES OF 1- '7 III. C. UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. - Cont'd In addition to these statements, the City Attorney drew the Commission's attention to the proposed federal civil rights complaint mailed to Mr. Johnston and 3 members of the City Council on December 3, 1976 from Mr. Gardella. Mr. Johnston explained that the complaints were for $420,000 damages against the City Attorney and Coun- cilmembers p~rly~d'h~i~gdo~h~TM~G~Fd~ii'~"h~'d'~'~a~d~h~'~'~ would file the suit if the City Attorney and members of the Council persisted in trying to review UP-296. Mr. Johnston added: "I would like you to know that I don't plan to be intimidated, and if what he tells us tonight is true, that he really means and intends to file a declaratory relief action in the State's courts to see if the action is valid or invalid, then it doesn't bother me so much. I don't want any of you people to take into consideration the fact that I have been threatened perfo~rlywith a large damage suit in anything that you do tonight." ® Chairm..an Belanger asked that if Condition #8 were deleted, would the use permit automatically revert back to the one-year amortization period or could it still continue with the S-year period. The City Attorney stated that the Commission could give the applicant 5 years or more for the portions of the uses which were -~ompletely housed within an enclosed structure, but he stated that he could not see how the Commission could grant a use permit for any other use which was con- ducted in the open for any period of time beyond that which the ordinance allowed. · Commissioner Marshall s~ggested that Condition #8 be modified to give the appli- cant a new date by which to sign the agreement, and if he did not want to sign, then the use permit would revert back to the one-year amortization period. · Commissioner Laden asked the City Attorney whether he felt Mr. Gardella would lose his legal rights to file by signing such an agreement. The City Attorney responded tha~ Mr. Gardella could sign the agreement and still file an action contesting the entire matter. She then asked if a variance from the ordinance regulations could be granted to allow the outdoor use to continue beyond the one-year period. Mr. Johnston explained that the only:way in whi6~hi~ ~l'd'~e accomplished would be if the City Council changed the ordinance. He added: "You have a non-cofiforming use in a residential zone. You can continue it in a non-conforming structure like an old house, or you can pu~ everything. under roof -- but not under a non- conforming structure roof, but a.house roof. The Planning Commission decided earlier that it would be a form of defeatism-'t~uire the applicant to buil'd a house to put his rocks in, so you thought 'we will compromise with these buildings.' Mr. Gardella tells us tonight,=and he has told me in 2 letters that I am aware of that he does not want to compromise~ He does not want to get an extended date. ~I am saying that as far as I can see, there is no compromise agreement now." · Mrs. Sifferman, 12400 Greenmeadow Lane, explained to the Commission that she filed the appeal to the City Council on '~h~f'Ff the hom~owners, and she noted that her appeal followed the appeal submitted by Mr. Gardella. · ~red Tater, 20577 Manor Drive, stated that the homeowners had not changed their position on this matter, adding: "We feel that as we interpret the zoning ordi-' nance, that the Lyngso facility should have been phased out of our residential area in 1975 or 1976 at the latest, and we have not changed from that point." Additionally, Mr. Tater stated that he was not aware of any complaints regarding dumping or deliveries at irregular hours. · Mr. Gardella made several final points: He stated that he had not indicated to the City Attorney at any time that the agreement was acceptable, and he noted that both cover letters sent along with these 2 agreements had stated objection to having to sign such an agreement. He cited portions of the these letters as follows: "As you are aware we object to being required to execute this agreement and do so under protest. We make no waiver of our rights of the present appeal pending before the City Council or any rights for such further review of the use permit and zoning matters conducted in relationship to our property." He stated that he felt they had been consistent on this matter, adding: "We sent this cover letter along with the first agreement and we sent something along substantially similar with the second one. I~nen I say we do not desire to go out of business, I mean we would be happy to be the~e forever. But if you have the power to put a termination date on _.it, we will abide by that termination date conditioned only with our right to -5- ' ;C6,~IISSION MINUTES OF 1-1 7 = '- III. C. UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. - Cont'd " ' review it the court. If the court upholds it as being proper, we will go out of business in 1980, but we do not need an agreement on it. That means that you have had the power to enforce that under your police power authority." _ As there were no further comments made by members of the_p_ubli_c, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on UP-296. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 9:15 p.m. · Commissioner Lustig stated that he would not vote in favor of the cessation of the Lyngso operation. He reminded the Commission that the Lyngso operation was present before the Non-Conforming Use Ordinance was created, and before the de- velopment of the Manor Drive subdivision. He stated that the complaints genera- ted for the cessation of this operation had been caused primarily by neighbors. Commissioner Lustig expressed the opinion that it was unfortunate that the home- o~mers purchased their homes without investigation of the promises which might have been made by third parties with regards to the Lyngso operation, adding: "However, I am not about to vote to correct that for their benefit at the expense of the L)rngsos." (NOTE: %Vith regards to these last two statements, Commissioner Lustig went on record after the evening's recess to state that this was his own opinion, not based on personal knowledge as to whether the homeowners had, in fact, purchased their homes without' investigating the status of the Lyngso land use.) Commissioner Lustig concluded by stating: "I would like to remind the Planning Commission that not too long ago there was a little man with a mustache who legally or illegally put people out of business. I would like to remind you that the result of this was a completely distasteful World War. I am not advo- cating that this particular action will germinate the same conclusions, but we are practicing the same game." · Commissioner Marshall reiterated his suggestion that Condition #8 be modified by indicating a reasonable date for the applicant to execute the agreement. He stated that if the applicant did not wish to sign said agreement, then the use permit wou~d be discontinued from the date of the non-conforming use ordinance and the matter could be brought to court. He indicated that if this issue was to be taken to court, he would prefer seeing it go to court prior to 1980, and he stated that he felt this modification to Coddition #8 could either result in an acceptable signed agreement or a court action within the. near future. · Commissioner Martin stated that he would like the applicant to enter into an unconditional agreement with the City_~ithin a certain time period as Commissioner Marshall had suggested, and that'. if the ~reement was not signed by said date, then the use permit would be terminated immediately. He argued that this would preclude the necessity for another public hearing. Further, he stated that it ..... was true that the homeo~ers moved in after the rockery, but he stated that the rockery had considerably exp~an_ded its use in a residen~i~area since that time. He added: "It is not just~a m~tter of putting a man out of business, but the fact that the business has been expanded." · The City Attorney stated that he had a problem with asking someone to sign an agreement unless lhVhonestly recognized that there was a dispute and that all parties were reaching a compromise; and he'noted that the purpose of the previous agreement was to compromise a dispute. He stated that he doubted that under the ordinance the use permit could be granted to conduct commercial uses completely outside of a residential structure for more than what the ordinance allowed. He further stated that regardless of what the Commission stipulated in the use permit itself, it could not contradict the self-actuated provisions of the ordinance. · Chairman Belanger pointed out that Mr. Gardella had indicated that the applicant was not willing to sign an agreement "because no matter what time we set, they do not agree to go out of business." She favored the position of eliminating · Condition #8 and leaving Condition #1 as it]presently stood. · After a consensus vote, C~mmissioners Belanger, Laden, Lustig and Zambetti favored deletion of Condition #8; Commissioners Marshall and Martin favored the modifica- tion' of:Condition #8 as suggested by Commissioner Marshall. -6- ' -CO~B{ISSION MINUTES OF 1-12 --- III. C. UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. - Cont'd · With regards to Condition #1, Commissioners Marshall and Martin favored a change of the time limit from 5 years to 1 year in order to force any court action which be taken by the applicant. Chairman Belanger pointed out that Condition #1 of the use permit allowed for the continuance of this use for S years, per the City . Council findings that the use could be tolerated for that period if it were regulated by the conditions attached to it. She s~ated that she felt Condition #8 was more of a formality which seemed to be more complicating than regulating. 'ChairSnan Belanger added that in her mind deletion of Condition #8 would not directly affect how the property was being used, only how the property would be phased out, and she contended that the other findings of the Council would stand and would support the S-yearsperiod which the Council found reasonable under those findings to be appropriate to the conditions of the report. She conse- quently expressed support for deletion of Condition #8 and leaving Condition #1 as it presently was. "At this time Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner:.Lustig, that the Planning Commission delete Condition #8 of UP-296 and leave the balance of the use permit conditions as they presently stand. Chairman Belanger requested that Condi- tion #10 be modified per her earlier recommendation so that i~ would be clear that the City would not allow any structures other than of a residential nature to be con- structured on this site to house the-non-conforming uses. L s i~ ~ Commissioner Marshall amended his motion, seconded by Commissioner u t ~,.;that the Planning Commission delete Condition #8 of UP-296 and modify Condition #10 of UP-296 as follows: (10) Except as may hereinabove be spedifically permitted or required, no additional buildings or structures, other than those permitted in a residential zone, shall be placed upon, erected or constructed on the premises." The motion was _~arriedl Commissioner Martin voted "no" because'h'~i~h~dt~d'ffy Condition #8 -rather than delete it. ~ Commissioner Marshall explained that he had changed his position on this issue because October 3, 1980 was rapidly approaching. He stated that he made this motion in the interest of striving for forward progress, and so that there would not be any doubt .__ in the applicant's mind that the _~9_mmi~p~_."__h~d_pF~!__m_u_c~. Unanimity of opinion." RECESS: 10:00 - 10:20 p.m. IVU. DESIGN REVIEW X A. A-537 - Security Pacific National Bank, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review Approval 1 Lot, Commercial; Continued from November 22, 1976 Staff recommended this matter be continued pending receipt of revised plans. Chair- man Belanger directed that application A-ES7 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 1977, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. B. A-547 - James Day Construction Company, Douglass Lane and Taos Drive, Final Design Reviw Approval - Landscaping of Subdivision Entry; Continued from December 8, 1976 Note was made that this application involved consideration of specific landscaping and related improvements of the common area of this 4-lot subdivision, and it was pointed out that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Chairman Belanger raised several questions relative to who would be responsible for paying the taxes on this common area; who would be responsible for paying the water bills and related costs of maintaining-this common.area; ~nd who would be responsi- ble for maintaining the pathway through the area as well ~g being responsible for "' injuries. She sta~d"{5~"'~lthough the initial ow~'m'{ght be amenable to accepting the burden of caring for the subdivision open space, later owners might seek to be relieved of i~.bX dem~na'ing that the City assume the expense. Staff explained that the comanon space would be recorded as an open space easement across Lot #1. Mr. Loewke stated that it was his impression that the County Assessor .... wo~.!4 iOQk upon this as a restrictive use value, and consequently the property owner -7- 'CO~ISSION MIi~RJTES OF 1-12-?? IVan. B. A-547 - James Day Construction Company - Cont'd of Lot #1 could receive a reduction in taxes. [~~t~' however, that there was ~o way 'to guarantee that the assessor would drop the appraisal to It was noted that a tradeoff for maintenance costs, such as a higher water bill, would be the additional 1/2 acre of landscaping installed by the developer which would also act as a noise barrier to traffic. Mr. Loewke pointed out that the individual who purchased Lot #1 would be fully appraised of the economical burdens --- i~ ~e~. of water and maintenance prior to purchasing the lot, and that he would purchase the lot with full knowledge of the consequences..-_Relative to ~h~"i~st point made by Chairman Belanger, Staff explained that it would be the property owner:%s responsibility to maintain the pathway until such time as the City, through its t~&ils and pathways program, would care to take over such responsibility. Mr. Loewke explained that it would be treated much like a sidewalk or a landscaped area within a public right-of-way. Questions arose as to why this common area could not be treated as a separate par- cel under the ownership of all 4 property o~ers. Mr. Loewke stated that.:-it was Staff's feeling that 4 lots was not a sufficient amount to warrent formation of a homeo~ers association to maintain this common area. He stated that it was Staff's feeling that the proposed plan was the most simple and economical way of working out the maintenance problems. He added that this property was zoned "PC", the intent being that a common open space area be set aside. He added that to comply with this intent and to also be consistent with the George Day "PC" develop- ment located to the east of this property, this proposal had been pursued. Commissioner Martin suggested that this common area could be ~ncorpOrated into the homeowmers association of the George Day Tract. He argued that the 4-lot subdi- vision would be sharing in the assessment districts of both subdivisions and also be/b~'n~fTtting from the common area already established in the George Day Tract. " He Stated that'the homeo~merS in the George Day Tract would be relieved by the addition of the 4 property owners in the association. After additional discussion of this suggestion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that application A-547 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 1977, and be referred to the Design Review Committee for review of the possible:xncorporation of the 4-lot subdivision into the George Day Tract homeo~mers as'sociatioH, or that other methods of cooperative holding may be explored. c. A-549 - William and Margaret Reid, 21110 Canyon View Drive, Final Design Review Approval - Single-Family. Reslden?F.~o~ated on Canypn View DriVe As note was made that this application was submitted in concurrence with application V-461, Chairman Belanger directed that application A-549 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 1976, and referred this matter~'.to the Design Review ---fo'~'~urt~_~eview and report. A. SDR-1274 - D. Antovich, Sperry Lane, Request for Reconsideration of Public Works Department Conditions on Tentative Map Approval; Continued from December 8, 1976 Staff explained that per the Subdivision Committee view of this matter on Janu§ry 1i, 1977, it was the recommendation of the Committee that revised tentative maps for both SDR-1274 and SD-1284 be submitted to Staff for review by the Land Development Committee and Planning Commission. It was explained that this woufd~!low for changes in both applications' conditions on road improvements, but would necessitate the approval of revised tentative maps on both applications. It was recommended that the applicants submit revised maps superseding their previous submissions, and that the LDC and PC respectively rescind their approval of the superseded tentative maps at time of adoption of the revised tentative maps. 'COmmISSION MINUTES OF 1-1~ : V. B. Stephen Richard, 20480 Blauer Drive, Request £or Amendment re Inclusion of Real Estate Offices as a Permitted Use in the "PA" (Professional-Administra- tive) Zoning District; Continued from November'22; 1976 Staff noted that the Subdivision Committee reviewed this matter on January 11, 1977, but that a S~aff Report had not as yet been prepared. Per Staff's reconunendation to continue this matter, Chairman Belanger directed same be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 1977. VI. ~RITTEN COmmUNICATIONS A. Environmental Impact Determinations The following Negative Declarations were filed in the month of December: · SDR-1290 - Lauren L. Hulse, Mr. Eden Road, Tentative Site Approval - 2 Lots · SD-1293 - Osterlund Enterprises, Allendale Avenue, Tentative Site Approval 26 Lots · E-186 - George Day Construction Company, Mr. Eden Road, Ehange of Zoning from "HCRD" to "A" · C-187 - Osterlund Enterprises, Inc., Allendale Avenue, Change of Zoning from "R-1-40,000" to "R-1-20,000" B. Other ! 1. Letter dated January 3, 1977 to Planning Director from Paul Kelker, 13783 Fortuna Court, opposing the extension of Fortuna Court. 2. Letter dated December 28, 1976 to City Manager from Commissioner Norman Martin advising the Council that he did not wish to be considered for an additional Planning Commission term, but volunteering to work with the City on its review of the Zoning Ordinance revision. 3. Santa Clara County Transportation Attitudinal Survey dated December 8, 1976, prepared by Santa Clara County Planning Departmen{, Environmental Management Agency. Brief discussion followed on this matter, with Commissioner Marshall noting the poor participation of the 'cities within the County on this survey. Commissioner Zambetti suggested that the poor participation could have been a result of difficulty in understanding and answering the survey itself. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the City~s PPC representativa, Commissioner Callon, be requested to relay the Commissionr%s feeling that the survey questionnaire was poorly constructed and to relay its disappointment in the lack of response. 4. Memorandum dated December 28, 1976 to City Manager from Planning Director re- garding Resolution 653-3, amendments in the Guidelines for California Environ- mental Quality Act. The Secretary stated that there would be a change in ~he procedure now currently being used by the City with regards to filing Negative Declarations and fIRs. He explained that these environmental determinations would be publicly advertised in the Saratoga News, and that actual approval of these determinations would come with approval of the tentative map by the advisory agency. He added that appeal of LDC approvals on tentative building site applica- tions could be made to the Planning Commission, and appeal of Planning Commission approvals on tentative subdivision app~~Yould be made to the City council. 5. Pamphlet re: "One Day Seminar on Public Control of Land Development: National Innovations and a California Update", to be held in San Francisco on February 10, 1977. Commissioner Zambetti indicated an interest in attending this seminar, and it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to direct the Planning Director to request of the City Council that :the registration fee for this semi- nar be paid by the City for Commissioner Zambetti-'s attendance. 6. Letter dated December S1, 1976 to City Council, Planning Commission and Planning Director from Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, outlining Writ of Mandamus ..................... F~ga!~jn_g___t_h_.e_U~R.D z~e and. ordinance. -CO~IlSSION MINIITES OF 1-12-77 VII. ORAL COB-~IUNICATIONS A. City Council Report The Secretary gave a brief verbal report of the City Council meeting held on January 5, 1977. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City Administration Department. The Secretary also drew the Commission's attention to the new~January throug~ July 1977 schedule of Commissioner attendance to City ..... Council meetings. B. Other 1. Chairman Belanger expressed regre~ on behal~ of the entire Planning Commission and Planning Staff to Commissioner Martin on his decision to retire from the Planning Commission. Many heartfelt compliments were paid to Commissioner Martin for his many contributions to the Commission during his tenure. He was requested to remain on the Commission until a replacement had been assigned by the City Council, and Commissioner Martin indicated a willingness to comply with this request if the City Coun~i'i was in agreement. 2. Chairman Belanger expressed congratulations to Commissioners Callon and Marshall for their reappointment to the Planning Commission for an additional 4-year term. 3. Chairman Belanger welcomed Kathy Kerdus, Planning Aide, as a new member of the Planning Department. 4. Chairman Belanger expressed appreciation to the Good Government Group _for · serving coffee. IX. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 1977 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ma~{y Van Duyn, Se ~ary ""'~' ' s k o / <_,,j' -10-