Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-1970 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF S~RATOGA PLANNING COI'DiISSION MINUTE S TI~9~: Monday, 26 Januar7 1970 7 30 P.M. - ~ , : PLACE: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale .Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTI.NE ORGANIZAT!Oi{I The meeting was called to order by Chairman Norton. A. '~OEL CALL Present: Commissioners Crisp, Kraus, Lively, Metcalf, Norton, and Smith.· Absent: Co~issioner Bacon. B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the reading of the minutes of the 12 January 1970 meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed subject to the following change:. page 7. .paragraph 3. .be changed to read ~s follows: "Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, to recommend to the City Council that the request relative to Condition II-B as stated in the communication submitted by the applicant be denied; motion carried unanimously."' motion carried with Conm~issioner Lively abstaining. C. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairman Norton opened the nominations for officers for the coming year and stated that there were three positions that x.yould require nominations Chairman of the Planning Commission, Vice-Chairman, and Secretary. Commissioner Crisp nominated Chairman Norton as Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1970, Commissioner Lively as Vice-Chairman, and Stanley M. Walker, Planning Director, as Secretary of the Commission. Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that nominations be closed; motion carried ~i·th Commissioners Norton and Lively abstaining. It was moved by Commissioner Crisp,' seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the Secretary be directed to recor~ a~ unanimous ballot for Chairman Norton as Chairman of the Commission for 1970; Commissioner Lively as Vice-Chairman of the Commission; and Stanley M. Walker as Secretary; motion carried with. Commissioners Norton and Lively abstaining. Con~missioner Crisp mo~ed, seconded by Com:nissioner Smith, that the Commission express its appreciation ..for the services performed in the past year by Stanley .... ...... M. 'Walker, Plannin% Director, Gary A. Bonfiglio Assistant Planner and Joan M. .... L6her, Recording Secretary; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Norton stated tha~ 1) he had received one request for change in committee assignment 2) Commissioner Kraus ~ou!d serve as Chairman of the Variance Con~mittee; thereby, relieving Commissioner Crisp of that position 3) Commissioner Crisp ~.~ill remain !a member of the Variance Committee and 4) if any other committee changes are desired notification should be sub- mitted prior to the next regular meeting. -1- Plannin~ CoMmission Minutes - 26 JanuarX 1970 - Continued II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A C-125 - Kate C. ]~-onoer Lomita Avenue - Re<,u~st for Change of Zoning from "R-1-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) and "R-1-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-1-20,000" (Single-Family Residential) - Continued from 12 January 1970 The hearing relative to C-125 was re-opened at 7:36 P.M. The Secretary stated that nothing new had been added to the file. Mrs. Noeggerath, realtor, and the applicant were both present but offered no further comments. ~o. one else present ~ished to comment. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 26 January 1970 recomme~]ing that the subject request for change of zoning be granted. Commissioner Smith stated that in paragraph 2. '. . line 3... ~....0f the. staff Report. .the Exhibits should be changed t0 ~ad' ""A" and "B" instead of "Aii''. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, to close the hearing at 7:40 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, to adopt the Staff Report dated 26 January 1970. and grant the subject request for change of zoning and recommend same to the City Council for approval since the findings necessary under Section 1.1 of the City of Saratoga ZOning Ordinance NS-3 can be made; motion carried unanimously. -B., V-342 - Grand Auto Store, Prospect Road - Request for Variance to Allow Additional Sigj~ Area - Continued from 12 january 1970 Chairman Norton re-opened the hearing at 7:43 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing ne~,7 had been added to the fil=e. Mr. Barber, present to r~present the applicant, stated he had no further comments. No one else present wished to comment. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 26 January 1970 recommending that the subject request for variance be denied. Commissioner Smith movec], seconded by Commissioner Lively, to close the hearing relative to V-342 at 7:46 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. 'Commissioner. Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, to adopt the Staff Report dated 26 january 1970 ,~ c ~' 'e subject request for C. AMENDi,~IqT TO SIDeDIVISION ORD!I'I?=NCE NS-5 - Amendment Relating to Site Approval ~,~quirements and Exceptions The-public hearing x~as opened at 7:47 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing were published and then briefly reviewed the proposed amendments. Chairman Norton stated that as he understands the proposed ordinance if the same homeox,?ner remodels his home on different occasions and the aggregate of ~ll'remodelings exceeds 50% application for buildin.5~ site approval will be necessary. -2- plannin~ Comn~ission Minutes - 26 january 1970 - Continued Ii, C, Amendment - Continued Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee did review the proposed ordinance amendment and feel that some space of time should be specified after which these improvements can take place without requiring compliance with the proposed ordinance. Chairman Norton agreed and stated th'at the time specified should be an extensive period. (appro>:imately ten (10) years). in order to avoid the po'ssibility of deliberate non-Comp_liance with the ordinance. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, stated that the..pror~osed ordinance would require bui]d~nz site aoproval for any remodelings .'WhiCh ~gg'regate 50% 6r more; ~.~hich ~ould require payment of storm drain fees and ~'0ad ' impr ovemen t s. No member of'the audience wished to comment. Chairman Norton closed the hearing relative to the proposed amendment at 7:55 P,M, for the evening, referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee and continued same to the next regular meeting. III, BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-832 - David L. Mendenhall, Mt. 'Eden Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 12 January 1970 Con~nissiOner Smith recommended that SDR-832 be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Norton so directed. B. SD-839 - Saratoga .Foothills Development Corporation, Miljevich ~ive and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Subdivision Approval - 33 Lots ~ Mike Splitstone 'Associate En~'ineer' f~om'Ge0r~e"No!t'e 'Engineering Firm, Was present to represent the applicant. Chain~n Norton expressed pleasure 'at seeing (after a long absence) Mr. Splitstone once a familiar figure at the Planning Cozmnission meetings. .-..'. ~. Splitstone stated that 1) in reference to Condition 6 of the Subdivision Co~ittee Report dated 26 January 1970 it should be stated that the sidewalks will be for one side only and 2) the proposed subc]ivision ~.~as approved by the Planning Commission previously and Condition 8 was not included at that time. Chair~n Norton recommended that Condition 6 of the Subdivision Committee Report dated' 26 January 1970 be changed to read as follows: "6. Provide pedestrian ~.yalkways along the East side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (6-foot wid~ A,C,) and a 4-foot P,C. concrete sidewalk on one side along G].asgow and Miljevich as approved by Director of Public Works." The Secretary stated that Condition 21 of the Subdivision Committee Report ties in with Conc]ition 8. Chairman Norton explained that once the park mainten~.nce district is formed the maintenance agreement requirement ~.~ould be satisfied, ~, Turgeon, Vice-President of the Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation,. was present and stated that, perhaps, the requirements stated in Conditions 8 and 21 could be included in the deed restrictions. Chairman Norton suggested t?.~.. the idea of such an amendment to the deed restric- tions should be discussed x.~ith an attorney and 2) a formal maintenance district similar to a lighting district may even be a consial'oration and 3) Conditions 8 and 21 be amended as follox~s: -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 26 January 1970 - Continued IIf. SD-839 - Continued Condition 8 shall read as follows: "8. landscape area between fence and highway and provide maintenance for a period of five (5) years or Until a permanent maintenance district is formed as stated in Condition 21 of this report." Condition 21. .line 2. .add the word "permanent" between the words "" and . and a "maintenance". add the following sentence to Condition 21. " ' ' of Format~.on such district shall satisfy Condition 8." Mr. Splitstone further stated that 1) in reference to Condition 11 of the subject Subdivision Committee Report dated 26 January 1970 the property now under discussion was included ~.~hen the orioinal map ~.Tas filed for the first portion of development of the property so that the applicant could be n~de aware of all improvements that x.7ould be required for the entire property 2) Condi%ion 20 is, also, o'fr concem to the applicant since he has already put in a considerable amount of road improvements in .co,nnection with this subdivision and 3) all road improvements should have been stipulated at time of original approval since the entire plan was available to the City at that time. The Secretary, in ans~.~er to an inquiry from Chairman N~rton, stated that 1) the area in question is a confusing crossZsection of road 2) now that this map comes up again it is felt that the high~.~ay necessitates that all improvements take.place on the East side (appticant's side) and 3) if the applicant is not required to provide the additional four-lanes the City of State Highway Depart- ment will have to assume the responsibility to provide same. Mr. Splitstone, in ans~er to an inquiry from Chairman~"Norton, stated that 1) the road improvements would require a considerable amount of grading in addition to the paving and 2) the cost would be estink~ted at approximately $10,000. The Secretary, in ansx-;er to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, stated that if the City developed a park in this area then the road improvements ~.~ould be the y s responsibility. Cit ' Commissioner Crisp recommended'that the Subdivision Coma~ittee Report dated 26 January 1970 be approved and the applicant submit a ~'itten statement requesting reconsideration of the conditions in question. Mr. Turgeon.stated that 'he did not object to providipg his fair share of the road improvements in this area but did feel that other developers in the vicinity should be.required to share in these costs and requirements. The Secretary explained that the C and. I Development Company and the developers of the Pittman property were not required to provide any road improvements since the widening was not required on the side on which their development is located. Commissioner Metcalf stated that Condition 7 does not allow the Design Review Committee any flexibility in that they could not require landscaping in lieu of fencing even if it were considered to be aesthetically more desirable. Chairman Norton stated that if the fencing requirement in Condition 7 is provided it will screen back yards from public vie~.~, prevent children from running into the adjacent street and allow.some privacy for residents in the area. Commissioner Metcalf stated that, he felt, trees or shrubbery ~.~ould be more appealing and serve the same purpose. Chairman Norton explained that if a uniform fence is not required and it is left up to the individual buyer some residences will have shrubbery (~hich will not grow very fast) and some will have their o~m fences, but different varieties and the result ~,~ill be a hodge-podge appearance. He, also, stated that landscaping in front of the fence could be required; thereby, eliminating the corridor like appearance of a large fenced area. -4- ~ Planj~ing Comn~.ission Minutes - 2.6 JanTa~.rv~__!_970 Contin,.:ed III. B. SD-839 - Continued The Secretary advised that the 6-foot height of the fence g~V~'s ..~he corridor like illusion and perhaps the fence should be limited to a 4-foot height. : Commissioner Smith moved, seconded'by Commissioner Crisp', that' the .Sub- division Con~mittee Report of 26 january 1970 relative t0' SD-839 be 'adopted, as amended, and that the tentative.map (Exhibit "A". filed 16 january 1970) bc, approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion car~-ied unanimously. The applicant submitted a letter requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider Conditions 6, 8, and 21. Chairman Norton referreel the aforementioned request to the Subdivision Co;~mittee for further study and directed said request continued to the next regular meeting. IV. DESIGN REVIEW None V. CITY COb~CIL REPOR'F Chairman Norton gave a summary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 21 january 1970 ~,;ith emphasis on matters of particular interest to the Coma~ission. PLANNING POLICY COi,~,~ITTEE REPORT Commissioner Kraus reported on the following items considered at the Planning Policy Committee meeting of 22 January 1970: 1. A Resolution was adopted calling for a mo~atorium of one year on Bayland d.e~elopment, pending a comprehensive study of that area. It was recommended that all Santa Clara County jurisdictions 'participate in the cost. 2. It was recommended that a program be initiated for informing individual cities and the County on the Housing Element report. 3. The City of Cupertino voted to deny the request to locate the Westridge Shopping Center. in their City and took positive action to reaffirm their Master Plan for the foothills. 4. A Resolution was adopted stating that the Planning Policy Committee is opposed to the proposed construc- tion of a marina in Menlo Park. 5. Attention was give to a recommendation from SCCAPO relative to retaining a consultant to study the ecology of the Valley and ~hat effect the increasing population ~,zill have on the ecology. VI. OLD BUSINESS SDR-760 - Myra Benson, Boyce Mne - Re~iuest for Extension Commissioner LiVely moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the Staff Report dated 26 January 1970. be adopted and SDR-760 be granted a' one year 'e'Xten~ion subject to payment '0{"[he'Park and 'Recreation Fee; motion carried unanimous !y. " -5- Planning Con~.n~.ission Minutes - 26.7~nuary ].970 - Continued VIi. NEW BUSII'~rESS : A. SJR-838 - Vincent Figliomeni~ Gienmont Drive - Request for Reconsideration The Secretary stated that ~,k'. Figliomeni has submi'tted a statement request- ing that the Planning Commission reconsider the necessity of the require- n~ents stated in Condition "C" and "B" of the Building Site Committee Report dated 12 January 1970. ~h-. Figliomeni ~.;,as present and Stated that if he i:s required to provide a 15-foot drivex.~ay he would request the City to sign a document accepting t=esponsibility for improve~'~.:nt of the slope easement if the retaining ~.~all should fail because of too much cut which in .~ffect supports the r oa d way. Chairman Norton directed the matter continued to ~R~e next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for study. B. Geological Survey Commissioner Metca].f stated that there were two cou~munication in the Commissioner's folders 1) The first communication dated 15 January 1970 offers an opportunity for the Planning Commission ~to make a visit to the Menlo Park Geological Survey Division in order to ~]iscuss problems rela- tive to hillside development in Saratoga; 2) This communication dated 20 January 1970 recommends a list of references ozm the use of .physical environmental data in Planning and City Ordinances which may be of interest to the Planning Commission. Chairman Norton stated, he felt, a meeting, as suggested, wou]_d be very interesting and he would be available ahnost any af~,ernoon at 4:00 P.M. Commissioner ~ith stated that such a meeting woul~ be a good idea especially to discuss the S~.n Andreas fault. Co~issioner l.letcalf stated that late afternoon ~.~o,~ld be good for him but he would not be .'avai'labl'~ between 6 February !~970 and 22 February 1970. Chairman Norton requested the Secretary to contact the representative of the Geologic Division and arrange for an appoi~'~ment. C. Nursery Schools Commissioner Lively stated that sometime ago the Cit)i.. g..o~m_C.i! Submitted a letter to the Planning Commission regarding ~urs:ery schools in R-1 areas and the Planning Com~nission at that ~ime did not wish to reconsider permitting this use in an R-1 zone. Chairman Norton advised that the'memo stated that 'the City Council felt that.nursery school. applications.were taking up t.~o much of the Commission's time. Cot~issioner Lively stated that these application,.s certainly seem to upset the homeo~.mers in the areas ~.~here nursery s.chools are proposed and he wondered if the Planning Commission should not: '.~econsider the matter ahd '.permit this use in some other ar~a. Chairman Norton stated that the P].~nning Commissisn can add uses to the ordinance, but canno~ easily remov~ them. Co~issioner Lively stated that, perhaps, the use "would be. better accepted in another zoning district. Commissioner Crisp stated that n0 a:~ea 'is availabide in the commercial zone and the "P ~" -. zone would certainly not be a ~ractical location for a nursery school. '. Chairman Norton stated that he ~ould be ~.~illing t'~ accept any suggestions in connection ~.;ith this matter after ~.~hich all the. material could be assiged to an appropriate committee for study. -6- Plapning Commission T..~inutes - 26 January. 1970 - Continued A o ~ITTEN Chairman Norton read a letter inviting him to attend a seK~inar to establish communications betx.~cen school officials and representatives of the' City. He then stated that he would be unable to attend, but would be happy to designate someone as an alternate if anyone is interested. B. OP~L Chairman Norton acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilman ~er, Mrs. Ottenberg of the League of Women Voters, Mrs. Wilberding of Good Government Group, and Mr. Hal Schaeffer of the Los Gatos Time Observer. Respectfully submitted, Saratoga Planning Commission j -7-