HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-1962 Planning Commission Minutes S_.XM4ARY OF MINIFIns
.CXTZ OF SARATOGA P. LANNINC CCeeIISSlON
Timel 7'-00 Po I~., F.~naay, October 8, 1962
Place'- Fruitvale Sc:aol, Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, California
Type: Regular
Io- ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Anderson at 7108 P, N,
A. ROLL CALL
Present:Co---~estoners Anderson, Cowley, Crisp, Glenn, Johnson
Kellum.
Absent: Cu~n~Lssioner %~ebste=.
C~--...~esioner itebster arrived at 7:09 P. }1. and Vice-Chairman Anderson relin-
quished the Chair to him.
B. PaNUTES
Ct~uissioner Glenn moved, seconded by C,~..~...lesioner Crisp, that Lhe
of the minutes of the meeting of September 24, 1962, be waived and
the minu~es be approved es prepsred and submitted to the Cu---I ssion; metion
carried ~na~nuslyo
II. PUBLIC
Cbair.~n Webster declared public hearinSs open for the eveninE et ~:11 Po
Ao C-~8 - John Rodrigues, Pierce R~ad - Raqcest fo~ ChanEe of ZoninE from
R-I-~0,000 to R-I-40,000 P-D, R-l-~0,000 to R-I-20,000 axed
R-I-12,~00 to R-l-10,000 - Continued from September 2~, 1962
The Secretary b~iefly r~viewed this application, then reed ~wo petitions
and e letter filed in opposition to this proposed chanSe of zon{~8o He
advised that there were epprox{~tely 30 signat~res on each of the
tions, that most of the people were residents of Surrey Lane, ax~ that
many of the stSn~tures on the ~wo petitions ~ere doplicates. The
Cary f~rther advised that the epplicent had svhm~Cted a revised tents-
tive mep ~hich indicated a street connection ~o Verde Vista Lane to
elimt~ate the possibility of he~y treffic on Surrey Lane.
R~H RA~0NA, representin8 the epplicant, ~Seim advised the Co~,~ssion
2hat there wee e definite chanEe in topography ~etween the proposed ecre
end half-acre lots, He further stated that they had contacted a~other
property owner and arr~nSed for another riSht-of-wey to Snrrey Lane, in-
asmuch as the residents of Surrey Lane h~d expressed concern with reSard
~o the orig{~l proposal for a street connection to Surrey Lane.
~1~
P,lsnnin~ Co~m!ssto~ Mtneu~s - oq=obe= 8~ 1962 - Continued
ROBERT ~, ~'i:"~.:~t~,~ 13405 Surrey Lane, requested That, in fairness to all
collceI'~.3,~,, "-...~ residents of Surrey Lane be given a chance to study the
revised ,.? ~._.' before cementin8 further with regard to this matter.
REX BI~Ir~iT, 13~14 Surrey Lanes stated that he felt the 12,500 square foot
lots sho~:ld be up-grade~ hut that ~one of the K-I-AO,O00 zonin~ should
be cbnn~ed,
11~e' Secretar~ advised That The applicant bad appeared before the City
Council with a request for a statement of policy with reRard to street
~rbdes, and that the City Council had decided to refer this matter to
L~ence LivinEston, .Jr~ ~ PlanninS Consultant for the Cit~ of Sarato~a~
~or st~i~ and, a report.
Commissioner Anderson stated that he had spoken with Cotmcilman
Nayor Brazil, and the City Administrator with re~ard to this matter, and
the~ had advised him of the Council 'e desire that this particular map be
sent to the PlanninE Consultant for review, He further etated that 1)
the revised map, submitted Oetobe~ ~, 1962, showed lesser grades 2) the
Subdivision Committee had discussed this revised map with the Clt? En~i-
nee~ 3) the City Engineer had subnitted recon~ndations based on this
an; and ~) it was his understandinS that The City Administrator ~ould
seed the revised map, toEether wiTh the letter from The City EnEineer, to
the Plann{nE Consultant on October 9~ 1962, and a reply was expected vet?
soon, Coranissioner Andersen also advised that the tentative map could not
be approved at This meetin~ since 1) the zon!n~ had not been approved and
2) it ~outd be necessary to ~it for the recons~aations of the ;lanninE'.
Consul tent,
Conhale,loner Crisp stated that he did not think it advisable to act on
the chanSe of zoninE for the reasons stated by Commissioner Anderson,
Commissioner Johnson, ~ho represented the Cu~uiselon at the last City
Co, m~il meeting, stated that ha felt action on titis matter should be
layed since the Council seemed to feel erronE1y that additional profes-
sional opinions ~ere needed in the development of this hillside area,
Chairman Webster, ~ith concurrence of the Con~nission, directed this mat-
tar (C-~8) continued until the meeting on October 22, 1962, to allew
quate time for The ~lnnn{l~ Consultant to sutnnit his recoranendations
the Subdivision Cd~.-.J tree, Ctt~ EuEluaer, the e~licant spa his enEinee~
to review semeo He also su~Eested That those interested contact The
City Offices before the meetinZ, since it was possible that the Coranis-
sion still miEht not be ready to take action at That time°
REX BUR~EI~ aEaim reminded the C~....-;esion that The point at which the
proposed new street ~ould intersect Surrey Lane ~ould make a dangerous
intersections similar to the one at PIerce Ro~d and Surte~ Lane,
Itdl~H RAHDNA submitted a map of The Hills of SaratoEs (Surrey Lane) to
show that They ~;ere only nenfor~n_~ to the ori~l m~p for this
Subdivision,
P..la~nin~ C~.~..qssion Ninu~.~_.~ - October 8, 1962 - Continued
rr, Be V7223 - ;~.~.e~a Noe~erach, Douglas Lane - Request for Variance in
Za,,~:~,~.'7~'a, .vith Site Area
~he publ_5.c h,~:.:-iug on V-223 was opened at 7:59 Po lie ~a SeCretary a~-
vised ~h.--.~_ 7~;:ices of Hearing had been mailed and read a c~...-~nication
from ~ac~.'; C.:.a'.;lce :in support of this Variance, He also read a letter from
the ap911c~ a~l a Staff Report pertail~in~ to this matters
I~5, NOE~ERA~H explained that the Raneyss ~anted to build a smaller
s~etirement' house on the second lot, s~nce the original house was
too lOrge and they found the two-stories unsatisfactory because of
P-eneyss health, She further advisnd that she trod no interest in the pro-
perty other than being a friend of the lien,yes, ~d had filed the appli-
cation for them only beeaeae Hr, Ran, yes health ~ould not pete his at-
tendance at the meeting° She further advised that thexe vere mmly lots
on Douglas Lane ~r~th less than the required 20s000 square feet°
R15, NE~LL ~/OOD~ 14161 Douglas Lane, seated that she objected to the
granting of thSs Variance since she felt it ~ould set a precedent°
~R4, KOCHs 1~190 Douglas Lane, scared thee he, too, felt that the 8renting
of this Variance height set a precedent and expressed concern because of
the undeveloped p~oper~y in the area,
C~,lssioner Crisp observed that there ~ere a nt~ber of existing lots of
a little less than one acre which ~ould nut lend themselves well to t~o
lots in the half-acre zone, For this reason, he, too, e~pressed concern
x~tth regard to setting a precedent, He ~urtb~r advised that after care-
ful consideration, he felt that the Coz~Lssion could not ~-~e the
required by law for the granting of this Vatinn, co
In ansxeer to a question from Ce~tssioner Cowlays C~-....~ssione= Crisp
vised that there ~re nu lots in this area of less than 20,000 square
feet which had be~n creatad ~rlthin recent years°
· here was no one else presenE who wished to cornant with regard to this
matter, so Cc~nissioner fllenn moved, seconded by Co.~.'..'ssioner Anderson,
that the public hearing on V-223 be closed; motion carried unanimously
and thairan gabstar declared the hearing closed at 8:23 P° N.
· here was a motion by Cv...~tssione~ Crisp, seconded by Con~lssioner ~lenn,
that V-223, lls~Pia Hoeggerath, request for Variance in connection ~rlth
site areas be denied on the hast, of reasons stated earlier in the
motion eartied tw~nt~auslyo
RECESS FR0li 8~25 P° li, TO 8:35 Po H°
~lannln~ C~!~s6~on ~inutes - October 8~ 1962 - Continued
A. SDR-373 - G~orge G. Houstakas, Vesstng Road - BuildinS Site Approval -
3 LR~s - Continued f~am September 24, .1962
~he applicant yes present to discuss the proposed conditions of approval
vith the Commission.
G~..~issioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisps that the
tentative map 2or SDR-373 (Exhibit 'A-2", 2iled September 28, 1962) be
approved subject to the conditions contained in the Buildins Site Com-
mittee Report of October 8, 1962, including condition IX, G, which has
been added, as shorn on the copy signed by the Chai~mn of the Subdivi-
sienCv.-~,]ttee~ motion carried unanimously.
B, SD-376 - John Rodrigues, ~ierce Road - Subdivision - 6~ Lots - Continued
from September 24~ 1962 .
Cornm~Ssionc~r Anderson recomended that this application be continued
for the reasons stated during the public hearin~ in connectionvith the
ChanSe of Zoning application (C-48).
On the basis of this recouneedation, Chair~an~ebster directed SD-376~
John Rodrigues, continued until the meetins on October 22~ 1962.
C, SD~-3~7 - B. l~ankGilXette, Norton Road - Buildin8 Site ~pproval - 1 Lot -
~ontinued from September 24s 1962
Connn~ssionerAnderson advised tha~ the in~rovenent plans requested in
connection with this application had not been received, so recommended
that this matter he eontinnsd.
On the basis o2 this recomendation, Ctmirman~ebster directed SDR-377,
B. Frank Gillette, continued until the meeting on October 22, 1962,
D. .SDR-3~.9 - Edward E. Crecelius, Pierce Road - Building Site Approval -
I Lot
~xe applicant vas present and expressed satisf~ctionv~th the proposed
conditions o2 approval.
~here vasa motion by Co~nissioner Anderson, seconded by Co~missioner
Glenn, that the tentative map for SDR-379, Edx~ard E. Crecelius, Exhibit
'~", filed September 19, 1962, be approved subject to the conditions
contained in the Buildix~ Site Cc~nm~tee Roport dated October 8~ 1962~
motion carried ~mm~fmusly.
~']-.nnl n~ Comm'~esion F. tir, utes - October 8~ 1962 - Continuea
III, E, SDR-380 - Ils~-~ia Noe~efath, Douglas Lane - Buildix~ Site Approval -
1 Lot
Comniss.~.cne= Anderson -~ved, seconded by Ct.--.~i~eloner Crisp, that SDR-380,
lls~,~a ~ive~geraths 1 lot on Douglas Lane, be denied since the applica-
tion for a Variance filed in conJtmction with this buildin8 site spproval
application had been denied; motion ca~ied
IVo D.~.SION REVIEW
A, A-60 - Dies and Voll, Sazatoga-Sunnyvale Road ~ Final Approval - Builders
Emporitnn
A, J, Menardm architect, was presen~ to discuss this matter ~urther ~rith
the Cou~,lssion,
There was a motion by Co~m~(ssioner Glenn, seconded by C~mn(esioner
Cowley~ that A-60, Dies and Voll, Sarato~a-Sunnyvale Road, be granted
final design approval subject to compliance with the specifications
shown on Exhibit 'A-2" and Exhibit ')" of A-60, and submission and spp~o-
val of a color scheme and exterior mterial schedule; ~tion ca=tied
unanimously.
B, A-.92 - Brown & Kauf~m~nnm Inc., Prides Crossin~ - Final Approval - Unit 2
The Design Revie~2 C..~;.~;)ttee expressed concern that all the gareEes ~re
placed fot~ward of the houses so that people drivin~ alon~ the street
wauld seem to see nethin~ ~ept ~arages. They observed that the situa-
tion might be improved with the use of wre curved driveways.
Alex C, Prenticem architect, and Nr, ~auf~nn ware present to discuss
this matter with the Co~mnission, They advised that paint and landscap!n~
would help, but stated that they would be happy to use ~re curved drive-
l~ays and try to comply with any other request the C~,.~,.(ssion miF~ht have,
MITe Keuf~~qnn a18o advised that ~ 15 to 20 foot trees (valued at about
$150.00) would be place on each lot, and discussed various ways that
these could be used to 8ood adventaBe with the curved driveways:
Co~issioner Cowlay stated that it mas not the percentage of curved
driveways that was important, but the effect on the site, Mr. Kaufr~n-u
and lit, Prentice concurred with this stat~nt,
It was the consensus of the Co~=nission that they would like to have the
developer submit a revised plan showin8 8eraSe locations and curved
drive~ays as suggested by 1~, Kauffmann. It was f~ther sugeested that
this revised plan be submitted to the Design Review Co-,nittee at a
maetin~ on 8aturdaym October 13, 1962o
l~r, Kauffn,,xan requested that in the meanttaue they be allowed to proceed
with construction of a few houses so that they could keep the workmen
busy, The Co~.~!.~ssion agreed to this, and tbax~ It=, K~uff-uam for his
cooperation in this totter,
Plmmtn~ C~u~,,ission.Nir~,_~ - October 8v 1962 - ConPtnt~ed,
V. _~ BUSII~SS
~he Sec~e~-7 called attention to a proposed resolution (Vnich had been dis~
ttibuted to the Ccnnnissionets) settint~ forth the policy and objectives of the
City of Saratoga with regard to maintenance of creek channels in their
natural state ~here possible, He advised that the City COuncil had =equeStnd
that the Plafmtn~ C4-~-.~t sston s~bmit an opinion prior to the next City Cotmoil
~eti~g,
Ccexneil,,~- ~- eXplainnd that the Flood Con~vl District had been applyin~
_the same policy in Saratoga as in othew cities in the a=ea, He advised that
at a meet~4nE with representatives of the Flood Control District, it was
that tHey did not know ~n~at the City actually preferred becettse of a lack
co~,n~ention between the District and the City,
C=-.-.~issione~ Crisp su~estnd that this matter be studied for a decision at
the next tegula~ meeting,
Councilman Hettman stated that he could see no teason why the matter could
not be cont~_nu_ad at council level to give the Ct..--.!ssion this additional time,
Chairman ~ebstet requested that each of the ~issionets tevie~ this mattet~
submit his ~titten cof~nt to the PI~_nn~D~ De~at_t~___t prior to the next
meetings and that the Secretat7 btin~ these sonmerits to-the meetin~
discussion,
VI, .OLO ~USI~.S.S
VII, CC~N0~C~..TIONS
1, .S~.312 - E, C,, lneo~ Fruitvale Avenue - Subdivision - 7 Lots -
IrequeSt ~ot Extens. ion
The Secretax~ read a letter request~n.~ an extension of' one year in
connection with SD-312o
There ~as a motion by Ce~m~ssione~ Andersen, seconded by C~--..tssionet
Glenn, that the Cnfm~ssion ~tant an ~tension of one month ~tom the
date of expiration o~ the present a;proval, and that dtwin~ this trine
the Subdivision C~uittee review this mattet to ascertain whether
not chan~es ate needed in the conditions and Vnethet ot not it should
be continued ~urthet; motion carried
2, SDR-304 - Dias and roll, Sa~atoga-S,mnyvale Road - Buildin8 Site
Appto~,al - I LOt - Request ~ot
The Secretat7 read a letter £tom the applicant requestin~ an exten-
sion in connection with SDR-304 to allow time to get final approval
at the next City Cooncil meeting. He advised that this application
had previously been ~an~nd an extension of 60 days.
Plann~ C~,~...i, seion ~inutee - O~tober 8, 1962 ~ Continued
VII, A, 2, SDR-304 - Dins and Voll
~here vas a motion by Connissioner Glenns seconded by C~,,~!iesioner
Anderson, that an extension of 30 days ~om the present expiration
date be ~r--~ed in connection with SDR-304; motion carried unanimously.
Bo OR~
1, Chairnt~- Webster velcomed Councilm~- ~ to the meetinS,
2, Chairm~ Webster accepted Ccmnissioner Glenn~s resignation from ~he
Subdivision C~..-..~ttee, effective October 8, 1962~ and appointed
Comm{ssionar l~lhnn to this C~lttee, effective October 8, 19624
I~ZTII~ ADJOU~ED AT 10~30 P, F~
Respectfully subnitted,
Stanle~ H, WZer, Secretat~
Saratoga Planning Co.',,.',~Lssion
v