Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-1968 Planning Commission Minutes (2)" CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TIME: Monday, '9 December 1968, 7:30 P.M. PLACE: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting · I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION ,. · .. A. ROLL GALL" Present: Commissioners Bacon, Crisp, Kraus, Lively, Metcalf, Norton, and Smith. Absent: None.' --. B. MINUTES ~ Commissioner Smith moved,' seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, that the reading of the minutes of 25 November 1968 meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following changes: page 8. . .paragraph 3. . . under IV. F...line 1.. .delete the word "not" between "was" and "in"; " page 8.. .paragraph 3.. .under IV. F...line 2.. .replace the word "and" with the word "but"; motion carried unanimously. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. V-320 - Dr. Michael Kowitz, Pike Road - Request for Variance in Connection with Front and Side Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from 25 November 1968 " Chairman Norton re-opened the hearing at 7:38 P.M. The Secretary briefly with Mrs. Kowitz and Mr. Tobin (attorney for""~He applicant).' Mr'. George Tobin, present to represent the applicant, stated that 1) the subject lot is a n .... odd shaped lot with irregular contour lines 2) the lot falls off sharply On'the North side and this situation required that the applicant take advantage of the level portion of the lot 3) there are a number of reasons that justify a variance in this case 4) according to the Government Code a variance can be granted for a lot pecular in size and 'shape 5) this lot has special problems which constitute a hardship for the owner 6) a variance of 45-square feet in area is necessary and compares to a total side area in excess of 30,800-square feet 7) in respect to the Front" Yard variance only a portion of the front (a total of 144-square feet shown on Exhibit "A-2" in file V-320) extends into the acquired Front Yard setback 8) there is a much more significant problem involved and that is the easement line on Pike Road 9) all measurements from that easement line to the property line have been computed at 30-feet 10) there is an addieional easement"in favor of Mr. Anderson which extends onto the applicant's property 11) a'letter dated' · " 2 May 1967 and writtln by Mr. Stanley M. Walker, Planning Director, to the applicant which stated that::: "The City of Saratoga can only require setbacks from the .. '. actual minimum access road alignment and not from an · ' existing right-of-way not in use for approved access to .. a property.": .... -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 9 December 1968-Continued II. A. V-320 - Continued Mr. Tobin further stated that if the foregoing statement constitutes the policy of the Planning Commission thaLt there is no Front Yard setback variance required in this situation and the only variance that should -o,'- be considered is the 45-square foot Side Yard vari~nc~ and when considering the 45-square foot Side Yard variance the total side area of 30,800-square. feet' should be considered. . c'ommissioner Smith stated that the 45-squa~/~'~'i'e. omparisonwith 'the .......... ..30,8001sq~a~&. ~.0Ot side'~a~,d iS' ~r~el~y~.nt. as setbacks are measufea"fn " ............. .. lineal feet from the property:line. Mr. 'Tobin.stated that !). he is familiar with the City of Saratoga attitude regarding variances 2) he has been in th% planning business a long time and " 3) the subject application is as aggravated a situation as he has ever witnessed. Mrs. Berg, owner of the property North of the Kowitz property, stated that " 1). when they purchased their home (about 2-months ago) they realized their adjacent property line.was close to the house 2) the realtor informed them .- that a 20-foot setback would be required and they now feel that.a~ything less than'that would penalize their privacy and 3) she and her"husband were opposed · .' to the subject application for variance. · ' Chairman Norton inquired if the failure to approve the variance would make ... the lot unusable or.merely inconvient. .z.. Mr.'Tobin stated 1) it would be a hardship and not just an'.inc0nVi~nc'~'~L. 2) the house was designed to make it liveable for these owners....3). .... the property is located off a private road 4) the 'applicant is ~trying. to build this house in as level a position as possible and 5) he could not see how the public welfare could be affected by'the approval of this variance. Mr. Michael B. Anderson, owner of the property South of the Kowitz property, stated that 1) there is still some question relative to the easement over the Kowitz property despite.the letter written by Mr. Walker dated 2 May 1967 (file SDR-685) 2) the subject easement was purchased from Mr. Wynn (former owner 'of the property) to provide a right-of-way to our (Anderson) residence as well as the Kowitz property 3) if the easement is eliminated the property owners directly South and to the right of the Anderson property will be deprived of a right-of-way to their property and 4) the Planning Commission should consider these property owners when making their decision. Mr. Tobin stated 1) the easement mentioned by Mr. Anderson fs the easement which is parallel to the Kowitz property 2) this easement was granted to Anderson and Kowitz for access to their property 3) the actual roadway is so situated that it would not affect the access of the other property owners in the area and 4) no contention has been made that Mr. Anderson or the other property owners do not. have a right-of-way as far as can be ascertained from the title r'ecord. Chairman Norton stated the Mr. Anderson's point is well taken but it did involve legal advice in order to resolve the problem. Commissioner Crisp read the report of the Variance'Committee dated 9 December 1968"- '.recommending the subject request for variance (V-320) be denied. At 7:59 P,M. Commissioner. Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, to close the hearing relative to V-320; motion carried unanimously. Plannin~ Commission Minutes 9 December 1968 - Continued II. A. V-320 - Continued Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Variance Committee Report dated 9 ·December 1968"t'e-lative to V-320 be adopted and that the request for Variance be ldenie~d since the finding required by Section 17.6 of Ordinance NS-3 canno'f' be made; motion carried unanimous ly. B. PROPOSED TREE ORDINANCE - Hearing on a Proposal to Control the Cutting Down, Rem.o, yal, and Destruction of Trees The Secretary stated that the essence of the proposed ordinance is to ·regulate· the cutting of trees on private property. " ' Chairman Norton "'S~'~ed that the following three (3) reasons listed in the proposed ordinance are sUbStantially why this ordinance is necessary: ........... a) the 'establishment of natural water_shed areas, '." "' .... " b) the control of damage resulting from soil- erosion and flooding,m. and c) the known capacity of ··trees for the production of pure oxygen from ~arbon dioxide by reducing air pollution. No one in the audience wished to comment. Chairman Norton, with concurrence of the Planning Commission, directed that the following changes be made in the proposed ordinance.: page 1.. .paragraph 2.. .sentence 2.. .under Section 8.70.. .change the word "decimating" to "injuring"; · " ·page 1. . .paragraph 2. . .under Section 8.70.L. .reverse sentences "1" and "2"; page 2. . .lines "1" and "4".' . .under Section' 8.73. . .change ~he word "member" to "officer·"; ~ page 2.. .line 10.. .under Section 8.74. . .change the word "Subdivision" '. .... to "appropriate"; page 3. ·..paragraph 2.. .under Section 8.74.. .insert the word "unreasonably" between the words "improvements" and "restricts" and change the word "shall" "may" in line 3.. .and add~..the phrase "floqd control and" to line 5.. .; page 3. . .under Section 8.75. . .line 5. . .change the word "shall" to "should" and add the phrase "and flood control" between the words "capacity" and "at"; page 3. . .under Section 8.76. .-.line 4. . .change the word "your" to "upon"~ · . The Secretary stated that a letter received from Mr.' F. P~ Riddle of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, included the following suggestion for addition to the proposed Tree Ordinance: .; "Any person doing business as a Public Utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and any ~.'constituted public agency authorized to provide and providing utility ' · - :·:serVice, shall be given a permit from the Department of Public Works, valid ·for one year from the date of issuance, permitting such person to trim, brace, remove or perform such other acts with respect to trees growing adjacent to the public streets of the City or which grow on private property to the extent that 'they encroach.'upon such public·streets, as may be ·,necessary· to comply with the safety regulations of said ... Commission' and as may. be. necessary to maintain a safe operation of its' business." -3- PlanninM Commission Minutes - 9 December 1968 - Continued II. B. PROPOSED TREE ORDINANCE Continued · '····· ·· Chairman Norton stated 1) he would agree to the utility company' · ..' trimming zhe trees at their own discretion, but did not feel that a · free hand relative to removal of trees should be agreed to by the City and 2) · the letter from Mr. Riddle should be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration along with the recommendation from .. the Planning Commission. Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, to adopt, as amended, the proposed Tree Ordinance and that it be forwarded to the City Council for enactment as a City Ordinance; motion carried ·.unanimously. C. C-118 - B. T. Galeb and Milan Popovich, Zor·ka Avenue and Ted Avenue - · L Request for Change of Zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-M-3,000" (Multi.Family Residential) - Continued from 12 November 1968 Th~ hearing was re-opened· at 8:20 PoM. The Secretary briefly reviewed this file and stated the following communication had been received: 1) a petition from the Azule Merchants with 30-signatures filed in support of C-118; .. 2) a letter dated 27 November 1968 received from Milan 'M, Popovich urging the Planning Commission to approve C-118; .. 3) a petition (8-signatures).dated 5 December i968 from · .. property owners in the Azule subdivision opposing the requested Change of Zoning; 4) a letter signed by eleven (11) property owners in the Azule area who signed the original petition opposing this application and now state they wish to withdraw their names from that petition; 5) a letter submitted by Mr, A, J, Menard, architect, stating he did 'not feel it was possible to develop '. this property with single family residences; " 6) a letter signed by Mr. Bob Ewing, President of the Saratoga' Chamber of Commerce, stating the resolution they adopted in support of the subject application. 7) a letter received from Mrs, Zorka Ficovich in support of the subject application; 8) a postcard received from Mr, L. R. Alton stating his opposition to the proposed Change of Zoning; 9) a letter dated 12 December 1968 and received from Mr, and. Mrs, Kenneth Horst recommending that the City of Saratoga purchase the subject property and develop it as a park; 10)...a petition (27-signatures)...received from._.resideu=s.of ....................... ..... .'...'...the Azule area and filed...in. suppor~..of.~he prQposed · ~...Change of Zoning. Mr. Bud Beaudoin, representing the applicant, stated that 1) he had · been a resident of Saratoga since 1956 2) the architect, Mr. Elliot, was present to answer any questions the Commission or audience might have relative to the subject application 3) before he agreed to represent Mr. Caleb he talked to the City Council about including the proposed change of zoning in the revision of the General Plan 4) it wa~.suggested at that·time that the route that is now being followed b'e initiated 5) he felt that the proposed apartments would be for t~e best of the community and it does represent logical planning 6) it -4- Planning Commissio~ Minutes - 9 December 1968 - Continued II. C. C-1i8 - Continued would beautify the entire area if these apartments were built 7) this property has not been developed before because of the proposed highway and not through any fault of the applicants '8) he did respect the view- point of the neighbors 9) this property is everyone's problem 10) he felt ~. Galeb has been put on the defensive because of the proposed apartments 11) the neighbors should be made aware' of the type of R-1 housing that could be constructed on this property 12) the Santa Clara County Planning Department stated they did not feel this property would lend itself well to single family residences 13) the City's require- " ments makes it impractical to build ~single family dwellings on this property since the cost would be very high 14) other neighborhoods with expensive homes are surrounded by homes. with comparable value 15) the houses on this property would be built on a strip of land that is bounded by multiple dwellings, railroad tracks and PG&E easements, and commercial property.16) if anyone can suggest a more economical plan to develop this property then the applicant would appreciate hearing it 17) in the 1961 General Plan this property was put into the R-1 zoning district 18) now there are problems with the property and the situation is different 19) the proposed change of zoning would provide an opportunity to beautify an area,. · there is fexibility in ~he design., and the applicant welcomes any suggestions 20) the traffic problem is in the process of being solved 21) Seagull will be going through as part of a subdivision and DeSanka will be extended when the new elementary school is built 22) the applicant does not wish to be at odds with his neighbors 23) this'proposal provides an economic answer and will provide resources to allow a general clean-up of the area and 24) he felt that it was wonderful that in the community there is a City Council and Planning Commission that Can be relied upon to make a competent and fair decision. Mr. Harold Keyes, present to represent the Saratoga Creek Homeowner's Association, presented a petition with o~e-hundred-and-five (105) signatures in opposition to the proposed application and stated that · they p~efer that the zoning remain R-1. Mr. Milan Popovich, resident of the Azule area, stated that 1) he has been a resident of·the valley for fifty (50) years 2) the Azule Improvement Association has initiated many improvements in the area and has dicussed, many times, the problems being discussed at this time 3) this is the first concrete proposal for the subject property that has come up 4) there is a need for Multiple dwellings in Saratoga and 5) the applicant, if permitted to build these apartments, would be improving the subject property and improving the surrounding area. Mr. Daniel Hoffman, 20276 Williamsburg Lane, stated that 1) people in this area rely on the zoning set forth for this area in the General Plan and have a right to expect the Planning Commission to follow the plan established by the General Plan 2) the traffic referred to by the applicant's representative will undoubtedly get worse if the school is built and the subdivision goes in 3) the local Hensen school is already overcrowded 4) there is no guarantee that the apartments will be occupied by older people without young children 5) if the apartments are rented to families with children then there will be further crowding of the schools 6) if they are rented to older citizens they may well vote·against school bond issues and 7) he was not opposed to the development of this property but he did think it should be developed in accordance with the Master Plan. Commissioner Smith stated that in May, 1967 the Planning Commissio~ adopted the Subdivision Committee Report dated 8 May 1967 regarding a policy relative to rezoning of property to '~-~'; which, basically sets forth standards for the Commission to follow in·considering approval or. disapproval of Multi- Residential rezoning applications. -5- PlanninM Commission Minutes - 9 December 1968 - Continued II. C. C-118 - Continued ' Commissioner Smith further stated that 1) the present application (C-118) ~· came up about eight months ago, after the aforementioned policy was adopted 2) it is unfortunate. that it came up when it did 3) the Subdivision Committee pointed out, at that time, to the applicant that the proper · r approach would have been to get the change into the General Plan, but they were too late so it was suggested that the applicant appear before the City Council 4) we believe that the· applicant did appear before the the Council and it was suggested that the applicant request a change · of zoning and the City Council at that time chose not to include the zoning change in the revision of the General Plan. The SeCretary stated the Council was trying to say that the only action "that could be taken would be for "the applicant to apply for a change Of zoning. Commissioner Smith stated the Subdivision Committee has met with the applicant and with. ~thb'~ opponents and there are a number of points that the Committee does not like and one is the access and the other reasons are outline in the Staff .Report dated 9 December 1968. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 9 December 1968 recommending that the subject request for Change of Zoning (C-118) be denied. Commissioner Smith 'stated that 1) there are certain aspects of this application that are favorable and that action on this, other than denial, might be taken if some of the currently approved apartment zoning falls by the wayside and 2) he recommends that the Planning -.' Commission deny c-118 without prejudice so that it can be considered at " the next General Plan Review or if other approved Multiple Zoning expires. '. Chairman Norton stated that 1) this area might' have a better traffic ,.... pattern after development of the Ditz Crane subdivision goes in and if .. .. 'the proposed school goes through .and 2) at the time of the General Plan '- Review another use for this property may be. found. A gentleman in the audience stated that ·1) the· people o~posing this application would prefer that the recommendation to deny C-118 without · prejudice be deleted since this would encourage the applicant not to look for another use for this property and 2) if the applicant again 'proposed apartments for this property then the residents would have to fight all over again. Chairman Norton stated that 1) the Planning Commission would like to see this area developed in a suitable manner and 2) if the applicant comes up with a good idea he would like to hear it. Commissioner Smith stated that in view of all the opposition there has not been one constructive idea brought forth. Mr. Wesco, 12365 Goleta, stated that he has improved his ~r~perty and .. the applicant should do the same. At 9:10 P.M. Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to close the hearing relative to C-118; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved,· seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated 9 December 1968 b_..e_~a_.d__0pted by the Planning Commission and the Change of Zoning (C-118) be d~_n_~d and forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that said application be denied without prejudice since it does not meet the objectives of Section 1.1 of saratoga..zon_i_ng___o~..d..i. na_nce NS-3 and for reasons set forth in said report.· Commissioner. Lively moved that the motion be amended to delete "without prejudice.','. There was no second to the motion so Comissioner Lively withdrew same and the original motion,made 'by Commissioner Smith carried unanimous ly.. .PlanninM Commission Minutes -.9 December 1968 - Continued RECESS AND RECONVENE .. III. SUBDIVISIONS AND BUILDING SITES SDR-767 - M.V.S. Company, Saratoga Avenue - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 25 November 1968 Commissioner Smith stated that there are still some problems that need to be worked out relative to this application and therefore a continuance is recommended. Chairman Norton so directed. B. SDR-790 - Mike Olavarri, Vickery Lane --Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 25 November 1968 Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee would like more " time to review this application and recommend' that SDR-790 be continued. Chairman Norton so' directed. C. 'SD-791 - Neal P. Kirkham, Sobey Road - Subdivision Approval - 5 Lots Commissioner Smith briefly reviewed this application. "' The applicant was present and stated he had reviewed the proposed conditions'of approval and expressed satisfaction of same. ~.'LCommissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner crfsp, that the Subdivision Committee Report of 9 December 19'68, relative to SD-791, be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 19 November 1968) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motioncarried unanimously. D.' SD-792 - Claude T. Lindsay, Chester Avepue.- Subdivision Approval - 8 Lots Commissioner Smith recommended that SD-792 be~continued to allow time for further study of this application. Chairman Norton so directed. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A.. A-300.- Brown and Kauffmann, Cox Avenue - Final Design Review - Tract 4572 - Subdivision Approval Commissioner Metcalf stated tat a Staff Report had been prepared relative to A-300. He then 'i)~L read the Staff Report dated 9 December 1968 recommend- ing that Final Design Review be granted for A-300 and 2) the following changes should be made in the subject Staff Report .... paragraph 1 .... line 5... .delete "given favorable consideration'.' and inSe~t "considered". Commissioner Metcalf further stated that 1) subsequent to preparation of the subject Staff Report the applicant satisfied Condition b) of said · .' report in the form of'a letter dated 5 December 1968 which should be added as Exhibit "E" in paragraph 2.. .line 3.. .of the Staff Report and 2) the Design Review Committee has met and as a result has established two additional "' .conditions as follows: T;c) Subject to specific Design R&view of the landscaping of the four (4) Model Homes proposed to be built. PlanninS Commission Minutes - 9 December 1968 - ~ontinued IV. A. A-300 - Continued d). Subject to specific Design Review of the other three (3) elevations of the single story plans and of the additional elevations of the two (2) story plan not yet submitted.. ~ After· discussion, Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Staff Report of 9 December 1968 be adopted, as amended, and Final Design Review be granted for A-300 as shown on Exhibits "A-i", "B", "C", "D", and "E" and subject to the conditions stated in said report; " motion carried unanimously. V.. CITY COUNCIL REPORT "' Commissioner Smith gave a summary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council· meeting of 4 December 1968, with emphasis on items of particular interest to the Commission. VI. ·OLD BOSINESS A. SDR-784 - George B. Clark, Houston Court - Request for Reconsideration of Conditions - Continued from 25 November 1968 The Secretary stated the Subdivision Committee did go and look at this property and decided they would re-affirm the recommendation made in the Staff Report dated 25 November 1968. · Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Cri. sp9 to reapprove 'the Staff Report dated 25 November 1968 and that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the subject request be denied; motion carried unani- mous ly. B. GEORGIAN HOUSE, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road - Request for Waiver of Underground Requirements - Continued from 25 November 1968 Commissioner Smith stated that this matter was referred to the Subdivision Committee and a meeting was set up with the Committee, the applicant, and a representative from PG&E; howev. er, the spokesman for PG&E fa~ledrLto :attend the meeting. The Secretary explained that the-"applicant did meet with the Committee and he now understands that he has to apply for a variance. He then suggested that the matter be taken off the agenda and wait for the applicant to apply for -a variance under the terms of the emergency underground ordinance. Chairman Norton so directed. C. REQUEST OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO STUDY CONDITIONAL USES IN R-1 ZONES Commissioner Smith briefly reviewed the subject request and' the Commissioners then read the report (prepared by the Subdivision Committee) to themselves. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Subdivision Committee .Report dated 9 December 1968 be adopted..=and.fthe...!reCommendatidn.·~that Conditional uses such as.nursery schools, convalescent homer and chhrches not be "abandoned ~rom R-1 areas be .forwareded.-.to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Commission;/motion carried unanimously. · VII. .NEW BUSINESS ': None -8- PlanninM Commission Minutes - 9 December 1968 - Continued VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN. NOTE FROM MRS. O. W. JOHNSON Chairman Norton stated that he received a note from Mrs. O. W. Johnson acknowledging the letter he had written, on behalf of the Planning Commission, after the untimely death of Commission Johnson. UP-143 - Pacific Shore Properties~ Via Roncole - Request for Extension The Secretary stae&d"'that 1)' a letter requesting an extension of UP-143 was received from Mr. Rodney E. Stark, Manager of Pacific Shore Properties, Inc. for their sales office and the 'administrative office and 2) the subject request should be referred to the Subdivision Committee for study. Chairman Norton so directed. B .. ORAL GUESTS :Chairman Norton acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilman Robbins,TMiss Ramke and Mr. Langwill.of the Good Government, 'and Mrs. Ottenberg of the League of Women Voters. lie, also, thanked....M..i_ss Ramke for the coffee served at recess. IX. ADJOURNP~NT , "-.. The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Stanley M. Walker, Secretary Saratoga Planning Commission .j