Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-1977 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~BIISSION 'MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 26, 1977 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Martin and Zambetti Absent: None B. MINUTES Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of January 12, 1977 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried unanimously. C. ANNUAL REORGANIZATION 1.~H~. Van ~Uyn opened the nominations for Chairman of the Planning Commission for 'the year 1977: Commissioner Zambetti nominated~. seconded by_Commissioner ~UstiK, CommiSsioner ='Lynn Belanger for Commission Chairman. Com~nissione~ Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, tha~ the nominations be closed for Commission Chairman. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Lynn Belanger was elected Planning Commission Chairman for 1977 by acclaim. 2. Chairman Belanger opened the nominations for Vice-Chairman 6f the Planning Commis- sion for the year 1977: Commissioner Laden nominated, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, Commissioner Gene Zambetti for Commission Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the nominations be closed for Commission Vice Chairman. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Gene Zambetti was elected Vice-Chaii~nan of the Planning Commission fdr 1977 by acclaim. 3. Chairman Belanger nominated~ seconded by Commissioner Marshall, Mr. Marty Van Du~n ~for Secretary o~ the Planning CommiSsion for 1977. ~ommis~ioner Marshall moved, seconded by COmmissioner Lustig, that the nominations be closed for Secretary. The motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Marry Van Duyn was elected Secretary of the Planning Commission for 1977 by acclaim. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Composition of Consent Calendar Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission approve the Composition of the Consent Calendar of January 26, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. B. Items of Consent Calendar° Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning -1- PLANNING CO~-BIISSION MINUTES OF 1-26-77 <. II. CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd Commission grant approval to the following applications: 1. Final Building Sites a. SDR-1269 - John Markulin, Montalvo Road, Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot b. SDR-1279 - Santos Aparicio, Omega Lane, Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot c. SDR-1288 - Warren Held, Quito Road, Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot 2. Design Review a. A-5S0 - S. Aparicio Construction Company, Omega Lane, Final Design Review Appro- val - 1 Lot Residential;' Per Exhibit '!A" and the Staff Report dated Janaury 21, 1977 b. A-552 - Hal Johnston for Argonaut Delicatessen, 12866 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval - Identification Sigh;_ Per Exbibit "A" ~;~ and Staff Report dated January 21, 1977 -d.' 'AiSS3 - Efdr~a kdnk~f,'C6i~ b~i~e, F{~ai D~si'gh ReView 'Approval -'Lot #3 of Tract #5693; Per Exhibit' "A" and Staff Report dated January 21, 1977 d. A-554 - Hal Johnston for Chow's Garden, 12950 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval - Identification Sign; Per Exhibit "A" and Staff Report dated January 20, 1977 The motion was carried unanimously. III. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-1284 - Wayne Leposavic, Sperry Lane, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 6 Lots; Request for Consideration of Revised Tentative Map Commissioner Marshall explained that the applicants for 2 adjacent parcels (SD-1284 and SDR-1274-2 lots) concurrently submitted revised tentative maps which called for a change in the means of access for 2 lots and a revised public street designation. It was noted that the 2 lots of SDR-1274 were to take access from a minimum access road serving no more than 4 lots, and that all of SD-1284 lots would take access from a new cul-de-sac extension ofiSperry Lane. Commissioner Marshall noted that this matter had been re- viewed by the Subdivlsi'on Committee-and Public Works Department, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commis- sion grant tentative subdivision approval to application SD-1284 per Exhibit "A-i" (filed January 14, 1977) and subject to the:a_m.e~ded Staff Beport dated January 18, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. iV', PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-318 - Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF), 14500 Fruitvale Avenue, Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report (E-4) on 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 150 Units of Senior Citizen Housing; Continued from November 10, 1976 Consultant Presentation Marry Abell, representative of URS Research Company who prepared the Draft EIR, was present. He explained that the EIR was prepared because there was a possibility that there might be a significant::environmentbl effect as defined by the California Environ- mental Act of 1970, and he noted that when this condition existed, the law required that an EIR be prepared. Mr. Abell explained that this project was for a 1S0-unit senior citizen housing complex :Sh a~l'~'-=acre site adjacent to the existing IOOF home, and he pointed out that the projedt 'would be financed by a federal loan with HUD in the amount of $4.6 million. -2- PL~NNING CO~ISSION MIN]JTES OF 1-26-77 IV. A. UP-318 - IOOF Draft EIR (E-4) - Cont'd With regards to the Report itself, Mr. Abell made the following comments: 1. Grading.. He stated that potentially the most significant issue was the fact that the site was undulating, and that in order to accommodate the project's prospective residents, the site would require grading. He pointed out that although the consul- tants did not have a grading plan at the time they prepared the report, they did con- clude that sensitive grading and sensitive siting of the structures could mitigate the grading effects to minor levels. Later in the presentation, BIr. Abell pointed out that the architects had made modifications to the plan for which the EIR was pre- pared in December which included a reduction in-t~ p~g~sf~ and' re0rg~nizai ~ion of the structures to accommodate mitigating measures that the consultants had identified. He noted that this included preservation of major existing trees and the rep~rian zone located near the intermittent creek. 2. Circulation. Mr. Abell explained that the circulation would be exclusively tied in to Fruitsale Avenue. He added, however, that the per the General Plan, for any development over 50 units in nature, secondary access must be provided. He stated that this could be provided either via the adjacent San Marcos Road or through a sub- division would was proposed for 2 parcels immediately to the north. He emphasized the fact that there woul~dizbe no necessity:to extend Crisp Avenue ~r any other adjacent streets to provide circulation through thi~ p~oject. 3. Nuisance. Mr. Abell pointed out that this project would be occupied by an older population group which was "generally a pretty quite bunch." He stated that the con- sultants felt that the nuisance factor was minimal for~this type of project. 4. Community Services. He stated that most of the services utilized by the residents would be provided on site with the exception of medical and shopping facilities which were located within a 2½ mile radius. He stated that one of the drawbacks of this project was the fact that the site was not accessible to these outside facilities on foot, but stated that perhaps a shuttle service or car pooling among the residents could mitigate this problem. S. Natural Environment. He stated that the major effects would be attributable to grad- ing and site modification. He stated that the natural attributes showed no evidence of rare or endangered species on this site. Mr. Abell did note that there was a riparian zone around the intermittent stream along the western edge of the lot, and he noted that the Report recommended that this area be unaltered. He pointed out that the Report also recommended that the eucalyptus groves located in the center of the site and along the eastern edge of the site be preserved. 6. Revenue Effects. Because the foundation was tax exempt, Mr. Abell stated that the project would only generate approximately $300/year in taxes. He pointed out, how- ever, that approximately $6,000 in inspection and construction fees would accrue to the City due to this project, and he estimated that no less than $1,000/year in sales tax-='revenues would accrue to the City once the project reached maturity. 7. Conclusion. Mr. Abell concluded by stating that the consultants felt that if the mitigating measures discussed in the Report were implemented, the impacts associated with this project would be reduced to insignificant levels. Commission Response ® Commissioner B~arshall noted that the Report referred to 32 acres of vacant land on this site,~-and he stated that he felt the EIR should address in terms of impact whether this p~oject would tolerate actual development of the vacant land for similar use. Some concern was expressed that this vacant land would be developed relatively soon. Mr. Abell explained that it would be consistent with ~he IOOF's ultimate ob- jectives to eventually develop this vacant land in some form. He added: "However, it is beyond the scope of this effort to speculate on the nature of that development when there is no essential tie in with this project. This project stands by itself; it is independent both as to circulation and existing interfaces with other land uses. It could stand by itself effectively as a viable unit regardless of any ultimate development of the rest of the property, whether it is ever developed at all." -3- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. OF 1-26-77 IV. A. UP-S18 - IOOF Draft EIR (E-4) - Con!d ® Chairman Belanger asked why only 13 acres were being used instead of some of the 32 vacant acres. Mr. Abell explained that the actual size of the project stemmed from HUD requirements relating to lot size. Chairman Belanger asked what the site coverage y~'fH~'b~frdi~gs was, explaining that this term in the City Hid not refer to building plus'~V'ing~ 'M~.' ~6eli"po'inted out thaHhe'Report d~'~0{'contain this information, but stated that this would be provided. ® Commissioner Marshall asked if the 3-story buildings met City building height limits. Staff noted that the structures were within the 30-foot height limitation, and that consideration had been given to the aesthetic aspects of such structures. Public Response Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing ON UP-318 (E-4) at 8:10 p,m. Danforth Apker, civil engineer~ noted that the Channel House in Palo Alto, a tax-free organization, paid an "in lieu" pa.vment to the City of Palo Alto for services supplied by the City, and he asked if consideration had been given to requiring such a payment from IOOF. Additionally, he asked whether the streets in the project were to be pri- vately maintained, and whether there would be a fence surrounding the project so as to reduce police patrol. Mr. Abell explained that the access road would be private and would be an extension of the existing private road. He pointed out that the County She~iff's Department had not indicated a concern over security forces for/pro~ection B~f'~h'is project other than routine.~troli ~e added that~~District had'expressed'~ concern with the 3-story high struet~re"in that the District did not have equipment which could reach that high. However, it was pointed out that per the response from the Saratoga Fire District dated January 10, 1977, the Fire District recommended that a complete fire sprinkler system be installed throughout the project, and added that no aerial equip- ment would have to be purchased by the District if the project did not exceed 4000 GPM fire flow per building. Mr. Abell stated that with regards to the "in lieu" payment suggestion, HUD would not fund this but added that perhaps the City could negotiate such a payment directly with the IOOF. ® Ken Broch, president of the IOOF Board of Directors, responded to the questions on development of the 32-acres of vacant land by noting that the land had been vacant for 70 years and that they would not be "rushing out tomorrow and developing. it. ~ey are using it for the CqmmunitK. Gardens~ and as far as I know, we have no plans to change that." Mr. Brochfal§o. explained that HUD would have preferred the project having less site coverage than 13 acres because one of its requirements was that there be a central dining roomjwhich all residents could reach by walking. Margaret Dunn, Douglass Lane, noted'that West Valley College had recently opened bids for a 6000-seat stadium which included~sound and lighting systems, and she pointed out that this stadium would be only 1/2 mil~' f~om tie I00~ project. She requested that the Final EIR speak to the question of whether this senior citizen housing project would be compatible with such a stadium. Staff noted that the consultant had not been advised of this matter, but stated that7th~~ qp~stion_.would.be ~addressed in the Final EIR. Commission Action At this time Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on UP-318 (E-4) at 8:22 p.m., and continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 1977 at which time the Final EIR for this project would be considered. B. V-461 - William and Margaret Reid, 21110 Canyon View Drive, Request'Trot 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 ~qo-Story House at 20057 Canyon View Drive in the "R-1-40,000" Zone; Continued from January 12, 1977 Note was made that a Staff Report had not as yet been prepared on this item, and the suggestion was made that V-461 be continued. Chairman Belanger reopened the public -4- PLANNING CO~BIISSION MIN]JTES OF 1-26-77 IV. B. V-461 - William and Margaret Reid - Cont'd hearing on V-461 at 8:23 p.m. As there were no comments made, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on V-461 at 8:24 p.m. and continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 1977. C. V-462 - Dan Apker for Saratoga Oaks Homem~mers Association, 1022 W. Hedding, San Jose, Request for Variance to Allow an Increase in the Height Limitation for a Televi- sion Reception Antenna Tower to.be Located North of Stoneridge Drive in' "R-i-40,000" (Vpry Low Density, Single-Family Residential) Zone from 55 Feet to 100 Feet.(Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Section 14.9 Staff explained that presently the condominium residents were recei~int television re- ception via 5 antennas mounted on top of an existing telephone pole'~located on property '~ot owned by'~h~ app1F~ants. However, it was noted that said reception did not provide vie~ihg of' San Francisco stations, and as a result, the applicants were proposing to erect a 100-foot high tower with 3 antennas mounted thereon directed toward San Francisco. Staff_pointed out that the proposed antennas would be located approximately 100 feet north and 40 feet below the existing facility; and it was noted that althg~gb the__p~p~sed fa~i'Ii~5,'~0~ld b'~"~0 T~'e'~'De~'6~'the'existing facility, its overall height would be appro- ximately 5-10 feet higher than the existing antennas. Staff explained that the Variance Committee had reviewed this application, and had conducted a balloon test on the site for purposes of evaluating the impacts said tower would h~ve on the surrounding area. It was noted that a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter. ._ __ The Secretary introduced the following letters of correspondence into the record, noting that all 5 letters opposed granting approval of V-462: (1) Letter dated January 15, 1977 from R.K. Thompson, M.D.', 2986q B~g_.B~sin way; (2) Letter dated January 17, 1977 from I.H. Moore, 21040 Canyon View Drive; (3) Letter dated January 20, 1977 from Aloyse F. Gacs, property owner of a house presently under construction at 21027 Bank Mill Road; (4) Letter received January 24, 1977 from Henry Smith, 21029 Bank Mill Road; and (5) Letter dated January 26, 1977 from Jerome Woodard, 21025 Bank Mill Road. Public and Commission Response Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V-462 at 8:35 p.m. 1. Danforth Apker, civil engineer and representative of applicants, pointed out th'~ there had beenia change sk~ce the original submission with regards to the antenna. He ~R~ained that only one of the antennas would be pointed toward San Francisco, and would be mounted atop the 100-foot tower;'~hat one would be pointed toward Sacramento and mounted approximately 4-feet below the top antenna; and that one would be mounted approximately at the 70~foot level and would be pointed toward San Jose. He stated that one ~E the major considerations in choosing this site was the fa~ tha~ no trees would have'~6'6~ removed, and he'noted that the Association ~ould De'willing to paint the galvanized tower a c61or which would blend in with the environment. Mr. Apker informed the Commission that he had made on-site inspections of the homes :~f'~h~'homes~ow~ed by complaining residents, but stated that he not been able to speak directly to any of these people because none had been at home. He stated that he did not feel that Mr. Thompson (20860 Big Basin Way) could see the proposed an- tenna because of the distance and numerous trees between the two sites. He stated that he thought that the only portion of the tower that the Mooro's (21040 Canyon View Drive) could see would be the lower 50 feet through the trees. He stated that both the Gacs (21027 Bank Mill Road) and the Smiths (21029 Bank Mill Road) would be able to see the tower. Relative to the Woodard house (21025 Bank Mill Road), Mr. Apker stated that he was unable to find the windows that looked in the direction of the tower. 2. George Grummley, the gentleman hired to install said tower, explained that the antann; system had been changed to a higher grade; i.e., Jetold-J-series, all-channel ~TV. He stated that in order to benefit the homemakers he also proposed at the lower level to increase their present coverage from San Jose with 2 additional arrays for Channel~ 11 and 36. "' Commissioner Marshall asked if E&H plane measurements had been taken. Mr. Grununiey responded that they had not been taken, and explained that measurements were taken on -5- PLANNING C0~-~IISSION MINUTES OF 1-26-77 IV. C. V-462 - Dan Apker for Saratoga Oaks Homemakers Association - Cont'd a trial and error basis with an array on top of a 10-foot pole held at the highest"' ground level. In response to a question by Commissioner Lustig as to whether sta- tistics of field-strength measurements of comparative locales had been taken, Mr. Grummley stated that none had been taken. He added that the informatio~ was emperi- cal data and that the best measurements that could be taken would be the actual television reception. Commissioner Lustig stated that he felt the homeowners-asso- ciation should request scientific field-strength readings. Mr. Grummley pointed out that the proposed tower was on a very h'i'lly terrain, and he contended that E&H/plane readings would be meanlngl~sS. He added: "The only_proof of the pudding in this type of terrain is a monitor because you can have very strong signal;strength read- ings and still have ghosting which is not an acceptable picture to view." ' 3. Lee Grey, Vice President of the Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association, stated that the purpose for applying for this variance was to provide the best television recep- tion possible in an aesthetic manner. He stated that the Association had a viewing audience of 200 people out of the 70 members of the Association, and complained that they could not receive any of the San Francisco stations. PIe added that the proposed tower location was located in a wooded area covered with brush and trees. 4. Commissioner Callon asked whether consideration had been given to mounting a similar antenna system atop the existing telephone pole. Mr. Apker explained that the present facility was not on land owned by the Association, and he stated that the Association did not have permission to modify or add to this system. He explained that they were trying to erect an antenna system on land which the Association had control. Judge John.~Longinotti, resident of SaratOga Oaks, explained'{HiF~he present syste~ ..... was on property not o~ed by Stoneson Developmen~ Company. He explained that When -_ the development project had been constructed, it was thought that this telephone pole was on ~and okmed by the McDonalds. He poin~d"0~t t~at permission had b~'~g~e~ by the McDonalds for the homeowners to erect an antenna facility on this pole, but that it had been discovered at a much later date that the pole was actuall~.on-proD- erty owned by the McDonalds' neighbors, the Steffeks. He added that there was no possibility of modifying this current antenna system. 5. Commissioner Marshall asked what the highest point of land was on property which the Association could control. Art Schumacher, part-owner of Stoneson-Development Cor- poration and resident of the condominium development, stated that the highest point on Saratoga Oaks property was about 650 feet, and that the highest point on the Mc- Donald property was about 665 feet. 6. Con~nissioner Martin suggested that the Association obtain permission for erecting'this tower on the McDonald property. He stated that there Would not be a variance required because the height of the tower would not have to be more than 55 feet. Mr. Apker explained that there was only a 12-foot wide portion of the McDonald property on which this tower could be erected, and he expressed concern that damage might be made to the existing retaining wall next to where this facility would have to be erected. Commis- sioner Martin pointed out that a shorter tower would not require as large,~f"Ffoun- dation as was presently being proposed for the 100-foot high tower. 7. Commissioner Callon asked Staff to give a status of the City~s attempts for providing Cable TV. The Secretary stated that up until 2 years ago, the City had been actively pursuing Cable TV, and that'it had established a contract with a carrier for such Services. ~h~'f~e carrier could not meet Fi~ obligation, and that the City had made several attempts unsuccessfully to renegotiate the contract. 8. Commissioner Marshall suggested that the homeowners association explore the possi':-~ bility of creating its own mini-cable TV facility. He stated that the City might be willing to consider routing the inle--~ cable from the antenna-along power poles in much the same manner as CATV groups did. 9. R.E. ~Kaufmann, re~fdii't"~f'{hi~'d~acent Gff~h~ffi~"Cffffd~i~i~ffffd"~reasurer of its Homeom~ers Associat'ion,'stated'that he was representing the Association and himsdlf. He stated that these two condominium developments were located in one of the "black holes" of Saratoga, defining said holes as being a place "where you can't get normal television viewing." He pointed out that the Gatehouse Development did not -6- PLA..~ING CO~BIISSION MIN~JTES OF 1-26-77 IV. C. V-462 - Dan Apker for Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association - Cont'd receive reception from San Francisco either, and explained that they currently had two antennas for Sacramento and San Jose stations. Mr. Kaufmann stated that the delicacy of antenna orientation was such that a difference of onezhaT~ degree threw the entire picture off, and he stated that they had a continuous maintenance problem on their o~m antennas which were located on an 85-foot mast on top of a 35-foot building. :Mr. Kaufmann stated"'tHa~"~'~lt the reason Cable TV had not been successful so far was'because "the City has put a specification out that is absolutely impossible to live with. They want everything for the City and nothing for the contractor. On top of which if you measure the market in Saratoga, you will find a very small market because most of Saratoga is not in a black hole." Mr. ~aufmann personally suggested that the same antenna system be used f0~ both con- dominiums in an eff~o'r~a01Ve"~f~ Of ~he residents' viewing problems. He stated additionally, that the Gatehouse Association did not have "the kind of money that makes it possible for us to hire a helicopter'and go up with a field-strength meter and waive it around in the breezefat i various heights looking for the best line of site; and then take a meter and drop'a signal down to try to pick up the best non~ ghosting area. That costs real money, and most homeo~mers associations have a few thousand dollars that might be used in case a water heater goes bad or some central facility blows. We can't use it to play around with helicopters." He further pointed out that a community antenna system of 250± homes would be under a different set of federal laws, and and he:~da~d that Gatehouse "is totally unequipped to deal with the FCC at this point in time." In conclusion, Mr. Kaufmann urged that before the Commission condemned V-462 on grounds of aesthetics, '~think about the other side of the aesthetics -- people who would like to see what is going on in the world." 10. Henry Smith, 21029 Bank Mill Road, recommended that the Association look into alter- natives before a variance was granted on something that might not be required and! which provided an eyesore to the community. He expressed sympathy with the desire for television, adding: "But why set a precedent for a 100-foot tower, and then some other group who needs this for the same reason gets another variance, and we suddenly have Saratoga covered with .unsitely towers." At this point Chairman Belanger?Wa~ed~j that if an alternative location was chosen which would permit a shorter tower within ordinance requirements and which did not require a variance, it would be possible that the alternative would have a greater jimpact aesthetically ~n the'~0'0~'fo~tower. 11'. John Steffek~ property owmer on whose site the existing antenna facility was erected~ gave a brief history of this situation. He explained that when he had purchased this property he was told by the developer that the television pole was on his property, but was being used by the McDonalds who were elderly. He stated~hat he was told that one of the only forms of entertainment for the McDonalds was television, and explained that he and his wife had made the decision to bear the facility for a finite period of time. He informed the Commission that they currently viewed this antenna apparatus from several major rooms in their home. He pointed out that it was not until the antenna system was being considered for modification that he discovered the facility was being used not only by the B~cDonalds but also by the homemakers association. He urged that other alternatives be investigated prior to the Commission granting a variance. He suggested that the Tollgate Homem~mers Association also be contacted wi~h_.~eg~d~.~o the.joint yent~r.~.' ..................................... 12. Charles Buchwald, resident of-Saratoga Oaks, stated that residents had been ex~l'8'Ffng alternatives for 6 years, and he ~0'ntended that there was a limit to the amount of exploring these people should have to do. 13. Everett Bryan, residents of Saratoga Oaks, stated that when he bought his condominium 5~ years ago, he was assured by the City that Cable TV would be provided. "So 5~ years later I am seeing Channel S in Sacramento and I am getting the most beautiful 'Mr. Umunhum signal on the San Jose station. As what the association is proposing is quite expensive, I think you can assume that we have tried to resolve every single -~b'l~fiFfh~f'fhere coffl'd p'~6~ib~"b~'~d we are very much interested in a very speedy ' decision on your part." ...... -- :_._.."._.jiE ...... i ...................... -7- PLANNING CO~B~ISSION MINIITES OF 1-26~77 IV. C. V-462 - Dan Apker for Saratoga.-'Oaks Homeo~efs Association -'Cont'd"' 14. Gus Francis, president of the Saratoga Oak~ Homeo~mers Association, pointed out that they had a TV committee work on this problem. He expl~ed that the committee'was' instructed to locate a site on Saratoga Oaks propert>~/0ver which the AssociatEOn would have control. He stated: "To me and to the rest of the homemakers, we fe~l rather sure that the present site location would provide TV viewing that we want. Also the type of antenna selected from an aesthetic standpoint is the best we can do. It is certainly much better than each of us placing a 30-40 foot high TV antenna on top of our tovmhouses, which we could do." Additionally, Mr. Francis stated that they would look into the possibility of a joint venture proposal with the Gatehouse Condominium development. 15. Commissioner Martink as chairman of the Variance Committee, sta~d that the Committee f-and the Staff per iFs Report had been led t~ believe that there were previously three : 'antenHas'pr~p6sed'which were entirely different than the three antennas presently being proposed. He stated that he felt the Association should investigate more thoroughly alternate proposals, and then present their findings to the Variance Committee for review prior to Commission action on this application, 16. Commissioner Laden pointed out that most of the complaints on this antenna location -were dhe to the tower 5~ing located'~f~i~'Vt~'~ of man~. homeowners. She ~ug~sted ;'that the tower be moved closer to the condominium development in a location which ' would not be seen so obviously. _ ....... 17. Chairman Belanger stated that she was interested in seeing the Association getting : good television receptio'H'~it"h~l'iiFl~h'~Fic cost to the community as possib~.' - SHe also urged further investigation by the Association. .._ Commission Action Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on V-462 at 9:50 and continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 1977. RECESS: 9:50 - 10:10 p.m. D. C-187 - Osterlund Enterprises, Inc., 59 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, Request for Rezoning from "R-1-40,000" (Single-Family Residential, Very Low Density) to "R-1-20,000" (Single-Family Residential, Low Density) for the Southerly 2.3± Acres of that 10.7± Acre Parcel ~med by the Campbell Union School District .... -Located-o~-North-Side of-:Allend~le Avenue-between-Dolphin-Drive'and'Via AI~O -Court~:(Zoning'Ordinance'NS~3~ Article'18) ....................... Staff explained that this application involved rezoning a 2,3-acre portion of the 10,7 acre Campbell Union School District site located on Allendale Avenue for purposes of developing a subdivision. It was noted that the 2.3 acres were located along the fron- tage of Allendale Avenue and were presently zoned R-1-40,000, while the remainder of the site was zoned R-1-12,500. Staff pointed out that the General Plan recommended that the frontage along Allendale Avenue be medium density; but it was noted that per previous discussions by the Commission regarding zoning to consistency, it was the Commission's consensus that the Allendale Avenue frontage properties be zoned low density. Conse- quently, Staff pointed out that the request for rezoning the 2.3-acre site to R-1-20,000 was consistent with'~be__~ow-density l~-use:designation. The Secretary introduced into the record the following letters of correspondence, noting that all 3 related to the design aspects of the proposed subdivision: 1. Evelyn M. Avery, 13717 Fortuna Court, requesting that the Commission consider other alternatives than extending Fortuna Court. 2. Paul Kelker, 13783 Fortuna Court, objecting to the extension of Fortuna Court, and requesting the Commission to consider alternatives. 3. Charlotte Simpson, 13731 Fortuna Court, opposing the extension of Fortuna Court. Chairman Belanger explained that due to incomplete noticing of this hearing, action would not be taken on this application this evening. She opened the public hearing on C-187 at 10:20 p.m.,'and explained that after testimony was given, this matter would be continued. -8- PLANNING CO~B-~ISSION MINHjTES OF 1-26-77 IV. D. C-187 - Osterlund Enterprises, Inc. - Cont'd e Jim Harper, representative of the applicants from HMH Civil Engineers, acknowledged that the error in public noticing had been made by his clerical staff, and that it amounted to 30 residents on the western side of the site not receiving notices at the same time that the other residents had received their notices. He added that this notice had since been mailed, and he referenced the Commission meeting of February 9, 1977 as its publid hearing date. ® Dan Roberts, 18833 Harleigh Drive, asked whether the change of zoning would affect the routing of Fortuna Court. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that this matter had been discussed by the Subdivision Committee, and explained that in practical fact the rezoning would have no impact on. the street but only on the number of lots. He added that instead of 2 lots, the change of zoning would allow for ~ lo___ts__~--He re- ported that the Subdivision CoMmittee had considered s~veral circulation alE~n~'iVes~ and he expressed the opinion that there was no easy solution. He stated that the ~ alternatives discussed thus far involved the extension of Fortuna Court or a bridge ~ acr6ss the creek. ® Paul Kelker, 1'3~83 For~una Court, stated ~hat Staff had informed him that access from Allendale Avenue to Fortuna Court was paramount, and he asked if said extension would even be considered if this rezoning had not been requested. Additionally he asked whether this rezoning should be considered if the Commission was interested in limiting the number of driveways,On Allendale Avenue. Commissioner'~hall stated that the number of driveways and accesses onto All"~ile Avenue woui'd'b~ ~i~ble, ranging from zero if there was not a street, to two -- one being the street and one being a double driveway serving 2 pieces of property. Chairman Belanger added that the proposed subdivision was for more than 1S lots, and she pointed out that by ordinance a secondary access would be required. She reiterated that even if the zon- !'ing for the 2.3 acre str~'~' land was granted to R-1-20Z~000, only 2 additional' lots · would be added and there would not be much of an impact to the interal circulation 'pa~te~.' ................... Chai.rm~n ~l~Bg~ ~losed the public ~ear~ng__gn.C-187 at 10:38 p,m. and"~'O~i'n~ed same to the Planning CommissiOn'meeting of February 9, 1977. She announced that the Subdivision Committee at its meeting of February 1, 1977 at 4:00 p.m'~ would be reviewing the pro- posed subdivision, including internal circulation; and she invited the public to attend. E. UP-325 - Robert and Lela Gunter, 18838 Casa Blanca Lane, RequeSt for Use Permit to Allow the Construction of an 8-Foot High Accessory Structure (Workshop) Located Within a Required Rearyard Setback at 18838 Casa Blanca Lane; Zoning Ordinance NS:3, Section 3.7 Staff explained that this was a request for a use permit~ for an 8-foot high workshop to be located in the rearyard. It was noted tha~ 'Said structure met all required setbacks and would not visually interfere with the neighboring views because of trees and fences. Staff pointed out that presently the applicant was repairing antique cars in his front yard as a hobby, and it was Staff's opinion that said workshop would alleviate this condition. Note was made that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this application and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-325 at 10:39 p.m. As there were no comments Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti that the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public-.he_a~.~ng'was closed at 10:40 p.m. Commissioner Callon noted that said workshop would be located near neighboring swimming pools, and she asked whether this workshop would help to create noise problems. It was noted that there were no ordinances prohibiting the applicant from repairing cars on his property, and'S~'~ff expressea'~h~'SFf~io"~ha'~fd worksh6p would assist in alleviating present noise and visual impacts. Additionally, Commissioner Marshall pointed out that if ~here were complaints'generated'in the future with regard to this use permit, the Commis- sion had jurisdiction to recall the use permit for further consideration. At this point Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant approval to application UP-325 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated January 21, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. -9- PLANNING COmmISSION MINUTES OF 1-26-77 IV. F. UP-326 - Robert Maxfield, 19459 Burgundy Way, Request for Use Permit to Allow for the Construction of an Accessory Structure (Covered Patio) within the Required Rearyard Setback of a Residence Located at 19459 Burgundy Way (Zoning Ordinance KS-S, Section 3.7-1bl) .......... Note was made that said request Was for a 10-foot high freestanding patio cover which would meet all setback requirements. It was pointed out that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. A note from Mario Belotti, 19401 San Marcos Road, was introduced into the record opposing the bhilding of any structure which was not presently allowed by existing building ordinances. Note was made that City ordinance allowed for such a structure, and that the use permit was required because the height was over 6 feet. Chairman Eelanger opened the public hearing on UP-326 at 10:45 p.m. As there were no comments, Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public hearing on UP-326 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing on UP-326 was closed at 10:46 p.m. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commis- sion grant approval of application UP-326 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated January 21, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. V. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-SS7 - Security Pacific National Bank, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Commercial; Continued from January 12, 1977 Staff explained that revised plans had been submitted, and the recommendation was made that this matter be continued. Chairman Eelanger directed that application A-537 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 1977, and referred this matte to the Design Review Committee for further review and report. B. A-547 - James Day Construction Company,_ DoUglass Lane and Taos Dri~'Finj!.Design Review Approval -,Landscaping of Subdivision Entry; Continued fro~January-26, 1977 Note was made that both the Design Review Committee and the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter relative to concerns expressed at the last Commission meeting. It was poihted out that the proposed plans were considered to be the best solution for this project, and the recommendation was made that this matter be approved. Chairman Eelanger and Commissioner Martin both withdrew their objections regarding how the common open space area would be held. Commissioner Martin~s~d'ih'~H[e developer felt that the CC&Rs would insure that the homem~mer of Lot #1 °wo~ld have to maintain the common open space area even though he may not be the original m,mer. Chairman Eelanger pointed out that there was an agreement that if both the City and the owner wished to change this condition, the owner could seek relief through the City Council. She pre~Y dicted that this situation would arise in the future. At this time-Commissioner Lustig moved,. seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-S3? per Exhibit "C" and the Staff Report dated December 7, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. C. A-549 - William and Margaret Reid, 21110 Canyon View Drive, Final Design Review Approval, Single-Family Residence Located on Canyon View Drive; Continued from 1-12-77 Staff noted that this.-~applicatiOn was related to application V-461 (Item IV-B), and it was recommended that this matter be continued. Chairman Eelanger directed t'~at applica- tion A-549 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 1977, and referred same to the Design Review Committee for further review and report. VI. MISCELLkNEOUS A. Stephen Richard, 20480 Blauer Drive, Request for Amendment re Inclusion of Real Estate Offices as a Permitted Use in the "PA" tProfessional-Administrative) Zoning District; Continued from January 12, 1977 (GF-311) Staff explained that this was a request to allow real estate offices as a permitted use in the "PA"~n~ district. It was pointed out that under the authority createdF~b~~' PLANN,ING C~\B!ISSION MIN~JTES OF 1-26-77 VI. A. Stephen Richard (GF-311) - ConI'd Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission had the power to add permitted uses to zoning districts. It was noted that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Additionally, Staff noted that the issue of real estate offices being located in the "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial) and "C-C" (Community Commercial) zones had been considered by the Subdivision Committee. It was recommended by Staff that further investigation be made relative to making real estate offices a"~onditional use in these commercial zones. Discussion followed on this recommendation, with all Commissioners except Commissioner Laden favoring such consideration. It was noted that a public hearing would be required for such an investigation,/affd'~hif'~he City Council would also have to hold public" hearings on same. Commissioner Laden stated that she felt it would be premature to,change real estate 6ffice~ to a conditional use i~"~h~E-'C~h'd'C~N zones at this,_'ffii, ~'iTin"~he cre~t'i~f'~he 'Viflage Task Foice to review commercial needs in the Village. Commissioners Zambetti and Callon both pointed out that real estate offices used a considerable amount of parking · spaces for long periods of time at the expense of Village merchants, and that people who ~were involved in these real estate activities usually were not interested in sho~_ing_in the Viiiage. Chairman Belanger added that if the City Council did not feel it appropriate to hold public hearings on this matter, the Council could hold up same at the time.thiS 'batter was transmitted to it for review. At this time Commissioner Marshall moved,'.-::seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant appro~&l to GF-311 per the Staff Report dated January 24, 1977 allowing real estate offices as a permitted use in the "PA" zoning aistirct. The motion was carried unanimously. Additionally, Staff was directed to proceed on scheduling a public hearing to consider changing real estate offices to a cond'iTi~ffl use in ~eF"CU~id~'CN'r zoning d'is~-ri?ts. B. PM-77-1 - Ernest Renzel, Cox Avenue, Request for Approval of Minor Boundary Adjustment between Two Parcels (APN 391-14-21 and 24) Commissioner Marshall explained that this wRs a proposed landmqap} which would pld~e the principal access into the Quito Shopping Center in the hands of the shopping center o~mers instead under the ox~mership of the First National Bank, and would place the land behind ~he First National Bank building into the hands of the Bank instead of the shopping cen- ter owners. He pointed out that said landswap was .agreed to by all 4 property owners involved, and that a Staff Report and ResolUtions had been prppared recommending approval. Commissioner Lustig favored this proposal, but he pointed out that approval of such would not automatically grant approval to any extension plans which the Bank might be considering for the future. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commis- sion adopt Resolutions PM-77-1A and PM-77-1B per the Staff Report dated January 24, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. C. EP-9 -Saint. Andrews ~piscppal Church,l.3601 Saratoga Avenue, Encroachment Permit Request for Approximately 330 Feet of Chain-Link Fence Located within the Public Right-of- Way on Crestbrook Drive Staff explained that a temporary fence had been erected by the Church within the right-of-way along Crestbrook Drive. Staff made the recommendation per its Report that this matter be denied, expressing the opinion that there was plenty of space in which to locate this fence outside of the right-of-way. Earl Snary, headmaster for the Church, explained that the fence had been erected because cars had entered the playing field along Crestbrook Drive and damaged the lawn. He ~oted that the contractor who erected the temporary fence had mistakenly placed i~ next to the curb rather than'setting it back 18 inches. He explained that..~ permanent ~e~e was being planned jointly with the Santa Clara Valley lVater District,' and'Mr. Snary stated that such plans should be concluded within a few months. He acknowledged the fence as being an eyesore}'but reque.s't!a.t~.~"Commission.'s indu~g~pce_ to allow the fence PLANNING CO~IISSION MINUTES OF 1-26-77 VI. C. EP-9 - Saint Andrews Episcopal Church - Cont'd until the new fence was erected. He exp'lained that the Santa Clara Valley Water District would be erecting an 8-foot high fence along the creek,--~t which point the Church would be erecting a 3-foot high fence where the temporary fenc~ now was located. Staff noted that if an 8-foot high fence was being proposed, a use permit would be required in that the maximum height limitation for fences was 6 feet. As a result of this information, Mr. Snary stated that a 6-foot high would probably be proposed. Two neighbors residing across from the present temporary fence, Mr. Munce and Mr. Galley, objected to the visual impacts of the existing fence. They both expressed s)~- pathy for the vandalism occurring on the Church's property, but they noted that the present fence did not keep people from entering the site. They requested that the pro- posed permanent fence be erected as soon as possible, and that the current temporary fence Be eliminated. After discussion of this application, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commis- sioner Laden, that the Planni'ng Commission deny the encroachment permit per the Staff Report dated January 21, 1977. This motion was amended by Commissioner Marshall and seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Commission de~y the encroachment permit per the Staff Report dated January 21, 1977, and that the..~mporary fence-situatibn ~"~ ; 'abated within/30 days. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Belanger requested that the stack of graded materials alongside the creek be cleaned, expressing the concern that rain could cause this debris to choke the creek. Mr. Snary agreed to take care of this matter. VI. ~IITTEN CO~-~NICATIONS The following '~te~f correspondence were introduced into the record: A. Letter dated January 14, 1977 to City Council from Mr. Richard Gardella appealing the Planning Commission decision of January 12, 1977 regarding UP-296 (Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc.). The Secretary noted that this appeal would be heard by the City Council at its meeting of February 16, 1977. B. Memorandum dated January 12, 1977 from the League of California Cities regarding "Planning Commission Institute - February 2-4, 1977 in Los Angeles." Discussion followed on' i~lanning seminars; and the Secretary pointed-out ~h'~Hh~ City Council had approved' CommissiOner Zambetti's request to-pay f~ the tuition o~ the "One-Day Seminar on --~ public Con~l of Land Development: National Innovations and a California Update." C. Pamphlet from the University of California Extension regarding "Improving the Design Review Process", to be held April 1, 1977 in Berkeley, California. D. PPC Agenda for the meeting of January 27, 1977. VII. ORAL CO~-~IUNICATIONS A. City Council Report The Secretary gave a brief report of the City Council meeting held on January 19, 1977. A copy of the minutes of this meeting i~ on file at the City Administration office. B. Other 1. Discussion followed on subcommittee assignments, with note being made that Commis- sioner Laden was investigating several alternatives with regards to the Design Review Committee. A suggestion was made that consideration be given to holding more frequen Co..mm!tt~e-of~=~ole meetings to discuss general planning matters, and it was sug- gested that'coh'S~deration be given to placing either time limits on such meetings or holding these meetings during day-time hours. After additional discussion, Chairman Belanger requested that the Commissioners give further consideration to the structure of Commission subcommittees, and she advised the Commission that assignment and - reorganization of..~b~'omm'ittees would be addressed the the Planning Commission meetin of February 9, 1977. "- PLANNING CO~ISSION MEETING OF 1-26-77 VII. ORAL CO~-[~rONICATIONS - Cont'd ....... 2. The Secretary requested that a Committee-of-the-Whole meeting be schedule~to discuss the General Plan amendments, water assessment district, the proposed shopping center at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road, and the Bohlman Road slide area. It was the consensus Of the Commission to schedule February 17, 1977,~.~'0=gT00'-p~. in the Crisp Conference Room as this Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. The Secretary stated that an agenda would be prepared and that time limits would be placed on the discussion of each item. 3. Chairman Belanger .w~l~d'C~Tman Krause to this meeting, and expressed appre- -~'i~f'i~'f6"[~ Dunn and Mrs. Moss of the Good Government Group for serving colleen-. IX. ADJOUR~IENT Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 1977 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the Plan- ning Commission meeting of January 26, 1977 was adjourned at 12:15 p,m. Resp~e~tfully submitted, Ma~t~ Van Duyn,=.Se~reta~ sko/