The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-13-1970 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAIIATOC,,': PI.~!.I~?I.."iG CO"L?iiSSIC)N NIl'lUTES TIME: Monday 13 Am:il 1970, 7:30 P.H. PL~,CE: City Council Chan:bers, Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting '; ". I. ROUTINE ORGANiZATiON The meeting ~.yas called to order by Chairman Norton. A. ROLL CALL · Present: Co:n~.nissioners Crisp, Kraus, l, ively, Netcalf, Norton, and S~ith Absent: Commissioner Bacon . Mr. Bon'fi5!io the Assistant Pla'~ner, stated that the Secretary is on vacation; therefore, ~,~ill not be in attendance at this meeting. .. ............... - .... B. MINUTES " Commi.ssioner Sm{th moved seconded by Commissioner Lively, that the reading ':. ) . of the minutes of the 23 March ].970 meeting be ~Taived and they be approved as distributed to the Comafission; r,~otion carried unanin~ously. .. C. RESIGNATION OF CO}E, IlSSiONER BACON Chairman Norton stated he had a copy of a letter sent to Mayor Tyler by : Commission6r Bacon in ~J~ich he submits his resignation from the Planning Commission. Chairman Norton further stated that Commissioner Bacon, during his tenure on the Planning Ccn~issicn, made so,~.~ very co,~ tr ' ....... s . t~ve _ . useful tl C contributions and ~.7ould be missed b~ everyone· II. PUBLIC H~RI}iGS A. C-126 - Roger W. Ross, Saratoga Hill.s Road - Request for Chan%e of Zoning from " "R-1-40,O00" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-1-12.500" (Single-Family "Residential) - Continued froLn 23 ~,[arch 1970 Chairman Norton re-opened the .tlearing at 7:35 P.}i., The As~lstan[ Planner stated " ~!~a.t._t. he app!icant__.hF-s submitted a revis?d map as requested by"ti{'e'~ia~ning Commission at the mee.t.ing of 23 I.~rch 1970. Con=nissioner Smith statea that "a Staff Report relative to C-126 had been prepared. The Assistant Planner read the Staff'.Report. dated 13 April 1970 recommending that the subject change of zoning be' granted. Commissioner '.'~ c ,.Lt a!f stated that it appeared as though there ~.zi!l be enough area-' for another 12,500 lot and a on~ acre lot on the other side of this property in addition to the 12,500 square foot lot the applicant intends to use for the presently proposed building site. The aD, I { .p _cane ~.;as present and stated the entire oro~.=rt~ ccnsists of 65 030 square feet and that he did not plan to divide the subject property..inte three bui!~ing sites. · 'Chairs. an ~Icrton stated tb. at if the 12 500 scuare feet the applicant intends to use for his ~uildin~ sit~ ~.;ere. taken. away from the original ~' 000 . f.eet oD, . so,tare there.~.~ould'remain 50,000 square feet and this ~.ou!d not be enough area for a 12,500 square foot lot plus an acre lot. Com~.ffssioner Lively stated that the 196D General Plan line x-;as mcved to codform ~ith the hillside area in connection ~ith this property and if the apolicant does not cua!ifv ~v ter~ns Of the l~,q00 scuarce foot reouirenents' for the tl~ird !or ~' ~ the ness~{~{tv of a third bui!din=r sit3 on this property is e!ininated. ,!f.-..,., · '. :........,~ .:'7' - '-r. '. · ' ' ' ....... ""' ' .... ' .....'~: f":.. ~ .... '~."'~- ' "...l..i. t,~ ' .'. · t'lann:!-?~ Com:~nissi°n ]..U.n,.:tes - ].3 :\Dril ].970 - Cor~t-[p, ued ' Ii~ A. C-126 - Continued Cotnrnissioner Metcalf stated that, he felt, the Staff t~eport sh'ould be amended to prohibit any consideration of a third lot on the subject property in the future. .. Co:mnissioner Smith F~oved, seconded' by Comvnissioner Crisp, to close ~he hearing in connection ~.~ith C-.126 at 7:42 P.M.; r.totion carried unanimously. .Commissioner Smith moved, seccnded by Corc, missioner crisp, that the S~aff Report dated 13 April 1970 be at]elated and the subject request for Change of Zoning C-126 be recommended to .the City Council for approval on the basis the objectives. o~ the City of cara~'eoa Zoning Ordinance NS-3 .... S"~ction !.1, can be achieved and the proposed change is in accord ~zith the " General Plan; motion carried x.zith 'Con~niSSi0ner I'~etCalf abstaining. B. C-127 - Catherine Niven, Madrone Hill P, oad- Request for Change of Zoning ..:. from "R-i-40,000" (Sirrig'iceD;emily Re.sidCntial) to' "R-i--40,000" P-C (Single-Family Residentia'i"Pianned Community District) - ContinUed from 23 I,[arch 1970 Commi'ssioner Smith advised that a report x,;as ready r~lative to this matter but the app!icant's architect, Mr. Wads~..rorth, .presented a letter requesting that C-127 be continued to 27 April ].970 since' the applicant had to fly East to attent to a personal n~a-tter and ~,zould not be able to be here this evening. He further stated tha. t the Subdivision Cor:~nittee has made an appointment x.~ith I,ir. Wads~.zor'ch and his client for Menclay, 20 April 1970 to discuss this matter. No_.one. in the audience wishec~ to comment. Chairman ~!orton,' in view of the foregoing, did not open the public hearing, . directed C-127 continued to the next regular m??ting and referred sa~ne 'to the .Sub'divisiox~ Conu~itt.ee for study. C. C-128 Elgin Capital Corooration', Big Basin ~'~'~ and Sixth Street Request for Change of Zoning fro{n .~-~.~-3,000". Resi~k. ntia!) to "C-V'= (Visitor-Cor. narcia!) - Continued from 23 March ].970 Chairman Norton re .... n.-,~ the h~=~ing at ~:45 P.M The Assistant p].anner . ~ ei~-ed fror~ ~,~. F and Mary Ly~n Dutro ..... stated that ccm:nunications ,.pe-~e rec ~ -- . Daniel S. and Gladys M. Duncan both urging that"'R-i.[" (I.[ulti-Fami!y Residential).. zoning with buffer areas be retained bet~.zeen the' subject property and their private residences. Commissioner Sn~ith assured that should the propose{] development be realized a 30-foot rear buffer area vou!d be required and this ~.~ou!d be greater than would be required if the pro?art~ ~.zere developed under "R-l.[~= zoning. , ....... o ~ stated %,;0uld be reasonable to e:.zaect a certain a~.eunt of landscaping for ~ cot~m:ercial development such as the one proposed an6 Planning Con=atission will en~Jeavor to have the applicant provide sa,na as requ~-ste.~ by. the com:.unications recieved- ~ Tcm Moore was present to represent the a~!{cant ~n~ =rated ~ had no further co.m. ntents, but ~,cu!d ans'{-;:.r any questions th~ Coc~n~ission miSht ~=ant to ask. The Assistant Planner read a con,=m. unicatian subff:Ltted by %,iiss ].:zry ~<oss, 20777 Pamela Way stating that the subj~.ct property is in an inpcrtgnt !oczzi.Dn the Vii[age and shbu!d, perhaps,[be studied by prafessicnz! planners determine the best usa cf the propercy. Chair:t~.en I. ro!-ton stated that the frgnt portion of the applicant 's prop.D!ty is a~re-~r~v zoued 'uT-C:~ (Visitor--Coun~.z, rcia!) an,J. it is only the back of th$ proper[:y that is before the ~x~' .... Co=~-"~ssion for considsration at this ti~e. Mr. Sam Hs. rnandez, local businessr~an, statec~ that !) he ~-;as not really opposed to the subjc~ct application 2) he feels the entire piece of pro- party should ~= studied to deter~t~ine the best use of.same 3) after the zon~n:~ is approvec~ the applicant n~ay ~cant to locnte a business in the commercial center uhich is not al!0x.~ec~ in the "V-C" zone 4) th~ traffic on St. Charles Street is very severe, Y.t i.s a two-uay street, but is really onl7 wide enough for one car 5) he feels St. Charles Street should be made into a one--~ay street going North and 6) he i~j probably in a better position to voice an opinic~n in C.o!U~ction ~-~ith St.. Ch~K!es .s~reet'.sinCe his. prgp?rty backs up to saine~ -. Miss Mary i,loss of 20777 Pa~e~a u~--' stated ...... 7 that if commercial zoning is approved for this property th.z~n the peop!~ on the East side of Sixth Street ~.~ill eventually requ.~st the. same or similar zoning. Oh~i~cman i.!orton stated that th,2re has been a gooc] ~ear of uncertainity in the past about that strip of property located on Sixth ~Street ann fronting on St. Charles Street. "' Co:rL~aission&r Smith rea~ the Subdivision Committee ~eport aatec] 13 April 1970 recommending that action on the subject application be continued anc~ referred to the Gsneral Plan Com. n~ittee an~ appropriate Council Committee for study. Chairman Norton asked C'omu~issioner Lively, Chairvnan of the General Plan 'Committee; to prepare a report re'lative to this matte.r in time for the · next regular r.~eeting if possible. There being no further comments Chairman Norton closec~ the hsaring for the _.~ve.ning at 8:02 P.M..7,'directea C-128 continued t6 the next regular meeting and referred same to the .General..Plan [onL~ittee' "for stLldy and a rep6rt. D. ~P-lS2 - Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints, AlienSale Avenue - Request for Use Permit to Allo~.~ an In~titute Buildin,% Chairman Norton opened the hearing at 8:03 P..M. The'Assistant Planner state~ Notices of Hearing were mailed and then briefly revie~ea the ~ubject cat ion. }It. C~rl Nelson, present to represent the app!i~ant, stated that i) this institute will have the same objectives that wer.e propossa (and ~enied by ~he Planning Co~.azission) for another institute on another piece of property 2). it is to mrovi~e religous e~ucation for stu~en~ of West ~al~o~, Junior Collee.~ and wil'l be open to anyone ~<ho chooses to attend 3) trained teachers will be-provided and the building will be approxi~ate!y 4,500 souare feet in size an~ aT. ple parking will be provided in accorcTance with the ZouinS Ordi- nance 4) if a situation arises ~.;here a~cIitional .parking is necessary the a~jacent church parking cou!~ be u~ed 5) a,~equate landscapin~ and ~esign are 'sho~,n~ on the picture submitt.sd ap.d 6) the building will include a classroom, lounge, an administrative office and a for~na! kitchen. -3- Chairman Norton inquired i'f the meetings in the boilcling ~.mu!d be on a regular or occasional basis? Mr.. Nelson explained that 1) the,. schec~u!c would include a regular proSrain and 2) classes that are now being held elsewhere in scattered loc~tions will all. be. held in the proposed buil~ing. He further stated that two problems ~.;ere brought out' whi]? visiting the ne~,~hbors in connection with the subject application 1) the neighbors wanted to be assured that the dirt and mess from construction x.7ou!d uot inter'fare ~.~iti~ t. hs drainage pattern and it was e>:p!ained that all this ~,muld go back towarc~ the creek 2) traffic that might be caused by' this use and it was explained that the immediate plans were for about tw?nty- five students ~.~ith a maximum growth to seventy-z~ve studen~s {P future vba~S Mr. Nelson then showed the Commission som. e drawings of the proposed building and explained that the idea is to have the building fit in with the surrounc;inS architect and that no classes or activites will be held on Saturday except for an occasional social. The 2~ssistant Planner ,read the Staff tleport dated. 13 April 1970 recommending that the subject request be ap.proved. No one else present wished to comment. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by COmmissioner Crisp, to close the hearing on' UP-182 at 8:11 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Norton stated that l) he opposed this proposal ~.~hen it car:~e up before and not because of its religous use, but because it is destined to serve, '.;est Valley Junior College 2) he has been apprehensive because of additional uses that will be requested in the future with the idea that tb~y will serve the college students needs 3) in this case it is a religous institute in the next case, perhaps, a hamburger be'r, bookstore, etc. and ke, t 4) he prefers that tl~e college and a].l affiliated uses be p to the boundaries of the college. Commissioner Lively advised he shared the viewpoint as stated by Chairman Nor t on. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Coznmissioner Crisp, to adopt the Staff Report dated 13 April 1970 recommending that the subject application be granted on the basis the findings required under Section 16.6 of the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be made and for the reasons included in said report and subject to the conditions stated in the report; motion carried with Chairman Norton and Commissioner Lively voting no. E. UP-i83 - Claude T. Lindsay, DeHaVilland ~rive - Request for Use Permit to ~o~ Home Office Allow a .. ~el Sales Chairman Norton opened the h~.ari~g at 8:15 P.M. The ;[ssisrtant' Planner stated the Notices of Hearing were mailed and briefly reviewed this application. He further stated that 1) the applicant has sold the lot that was formerly approved for the model home sales office; consequent!y, the subject application has been sub- mitted and 2) the proposed model home sales office -~ill serve twenty-five unsold lots in two subdivisions. No' one was present to represent the applicant and no one in the audience wished to comment. The Assistant Planner read the S~aff_Report dated 13 April 1970 recom. nending tha~ the subject ,s~ Permit be cramted. Com=missioner Smith moved, seconded by Cookeries!crier Crisp,. ~o close the at 8:20 P.M.; motion carried una~imous!y. Comn~issioner Smith moved, seconded by Con~missioner Crisp, to aSoOt the Staff Report dated 13 April 1970 reconm~endinS that the Use Permit requested to allow a model home sales office be granted on the basis th~ findings re .uired q by Section 16.6 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be made and subject to the conditions stated in 'said report; motion carried unanimously. II. F. UP-].S.~:. - }laip-a B. Clarke, Canyon Vie:.2 Drive - ReqL:est for rise Pc. trait ~o Chair;.nan Norton opt, ned the hearing at 8:22 P.i.I. The Assistant i~lanl'~e~r stated the Notices of tiearir,.g ~.;er~ mailed and briefly reviewed the' subject application. }Is then read a Statevncmt o.f Reason filed by the applicant 'and a letter received from Emil and i.i~ry Lou Kissel, 2].154 Sullivan ~.~'~ filed in opposition to the subject request. I,brs. H. B; Crutchfield, 20890 Canyon Vie~-~ Drive, stated that she objected to any type of ce:'..~rn?rcial business (SuCh as the one proposed) spa, rating in this beautiful residential area. ~.~'. Gordon i'~orris. 20880 Canyon View I~:ive. stated that 1) he objected to "'t~e establisl~ment of a comn'~c, rcial business in a residential area and 2) he feels the Planning Co'.mnission should take into consideration that the property propesed for said L~se is in the hillside area and ~.;ou].d be dad=rimenta! to the health and .safety of elderly peep].e. Commissioner Crisp, in answ.~r to an inquir'y form Chairman Norton. stated that the applicant indicated she t,you].d transport her patrons ~.jwnever it ~.;as hecessary for them to l$avc~ her ho~w. -' Mr. Sam H~rnandez, local busine~s:.nan, stated %hat he does not live near the · subject prop{~rty, but does feel that if this application ~.~ere approved it could set a precedent for areas all c,v~r the City. chairman Norton explained that the requested use is provided for in residential areas by the Zoning Ordinance. Comnffssioner Crisp informed, as a matter of record, that the Plannin? Co:nmission did approved in th~ last t~,~e].ve yQars one bo~.rding house ~.yhich as since been abandoned. Chairman Norton closed the hearing f~r the evening at 8:30 P.I.i.. directed UP-184 continued to the ne::t regular meeting and refer.red same to the Sub- division Cou~nittee for study. G. V-343 - California Cable TV, Bohlcdan Road - Request for Variance to Allo~,~ Overhead Utilities for an. Overhead Cable - Continued f=ccr~ 23 I~[arch 1970 The Chairman re-opened the hearing at 3:31 P.!.[. The :Assistant Planner read a report submitted by the app!icant's Soils Engineer x.K~ich exp!aided that there existed ,m 'a' le geological cc. nditions on 3ohlx~a~. Road and r~ca~;"~n? ~h~ the TV Cable be attached to the existing PG.&E and Pnj&T poles which are located ~ Bo~ l~a~ Road adiacent to or on.~ Chairman }lot ton stated that the ks, ~ --- . } quest_on seec~s to be not x-~heth?r the so~ is unstable but r.~hether trenchin~ in order to place th~ cable underground would ~.;orsen the soils condition. The Assistant P!annqr, in aasx.yer to an i~quiry fron~ Chairn~an }forton, stated ;:hat the Variance Committee did revic~,~ the revert subn~itted by the Soils ZnSineer. Co~.~.issioner l~aus, Chairman 'of t~;e Variance Ccm~;ittec~, stated that the Van{ante Co~:Littee did stud~, th.~ re,.~drt a~-~ m~k~ an on-s{~ inspection of the property and f~elthe request for Variance in this case is reasonable. }~-. R. B. Taras, o-.nor of t~.~entv acres of County ~ro~. .~v located in this general area; s~ that !) he. is sopssod to the ~rant~'~ of the Variance and 2) he has ~.~crked di'!ilent!y to have the uti!iti.~s put under- ground in this particular area. P]a ~r:in.:r Covna!issio;1 l. Yir'.utes - 13 Aori! 1970 - Co:':tir'.u,:'d' II. Go V-343 - Continued Cb. airn:ar: Nori:on explained that the City does not regulate the area dis-- cusse'j by ri'r. Taras since it is n6t ].ocated withit: the City Limits of Saratoga and if the Variancei~':approved it ~.,,itl only involve the t~tilities placed overhead in Saratoga. Conurtissioner Crisp stated that the Count:y will follow whatever action the P.lanning Commission reconm~ends in connection with the placement of 'the cable. Commissior~er IQraus stated that the Variance Committee would like to see the subject cables placed underground, b~t the feeling is that the require- ment would present very difficult. problems. Cort~mlssioner Crisp advised that P;f&T applied for a similar Variance some time .ago and the Planning Com:nission did gr~nt there a Variance. Mr. Sam Hcrnandez, local businessman, stated that he is in favor of the underground ordinance but in the case of V-343 he feels it x.7ould be a disfavor to the people in the area to require underg~'ound utilities since there is a possibility of unstab].e soil. 1.~s. T. C. W~trren of '16651 Boblinen Road inquired whose approval the appli- ca.nt had to obtain in order to insta!]. the Cable T.V. in the first place? Chairman Norton e:iplairmd that !) Cable T.V.x. Tas given a franchise by the C'ity and 2) since PT&T and PG&E have given their ~rmiss{on to connect cable to their poles no permission other than the subject Variance is needed from the City. : ~s. Warren stated that she has heard that there have been problems on Bohlman Road' with people shootin'S at the PT&T and PG&E poles ancl if this is the case then serious problems: could develop with the Cable T.V. ChairD.~n Norton stated that the dn!y pr:b!em he could foresee is that someone could temporarily shoot out a good share of T..V. in the Valley with one good shot. Com~nissioner 'Lively s~ated that ~) the Variance Conmittee spent a good deal of time looking at this area 2) he is so~.e~.j~at disturbed abcut ,granting the Variance since ~- applicant was told in the vz-.ry beg{nn{~'- that {+ be necessary to put the utilities undgerground knd 3) if this Variance is granted th.~ a2~!icant will be ~el i..;vi, d of certain financial obligations without benefit tc the Ci'ty.' o~,r, issioner Crisp advis;~ tibet 'if this Variance is granted the ~tire Cable C ...... -" T.V. franchise will have to go back to tha City Council for revie~.i. Conm~i.Ssionar Kraus read the Staff Report .dated 13 Aori! 1970 recomm.2nding that the subject request far Variance be approved. Chairman Norton recann:en~ed that on page 2. .of the subject Staff Repart. the ~aragraohs ~{~t~.'~ as (4) and (5) be cba~ ..... ~ to rea.~. ."Cor.,:]itio::s (I) and (2). .and the ~!ota on 2age 2. .be changed to-read as fo!!a~.ys: "Shou!~ the Variance be .~a,-~c] for an .:,verhea~ cable, o ...... then applicant faust still obtain mo~ifica':cion of the Franchise a3re.>mc-nt.'" Co=2~issioner Lively stated that in "Condition (I)'~ on ~ag.a 2. of the subject Staff 'Repo::t. .the :7ord "Structures" should be inser~e~ bati-.,a-:2= ~ _w= . Connissioner T.i-~lv further stated that, .... ~'.~-= in the years to co_he tec'~r,.~ngv ma7 ~d~,-~r,~o to the DO{~ --4~=--~ this uti!"' ' can be p!ac~] und~r~rov_nd sa~:.:; ~hor~2ore, d~ fol. low!~..~ "Condition (~' should be a-'d~-' .... ..=., to paZe 2. .of the Staff Repor~- "~en utilities on common po'l~ are placed underground the applicant's cable shall,also, go underground." pla,._~.ni?.q Cor::mission~'~,r T,l.i.n,.,.t~.s - 13 A!>r'i! I?)70 - Continued II. G. V-.343 - Continu~d Comu~issioner i'.letcalf stated that l) after readin~ the subject Soils R~p~ru submitted by the aD=~i'ca-t' engineer it would appear the biggest problem invo!v.~d in p'uttin~.J this facility underground. is the cost' 2) be could see very little in the ~{eport that rc, al!y stated that undergroundinS% th'e utilities was eor~plete!y unfeasib!e 3) he feels that a good Civil Engineer, property func~.?d, c6u!d accomplish the required under.ground utility 4) the proposed cable does not run across the San Andteas fault or any other major- instability; therefore, there is nothing to convince him that the cable should not go undergrounc~ 5) the Planning Cor.m~ission has an opportunity in this cas? m.-~-~-.'ound utilit{~.s and that it is their responsibility to to require t ..... o ."i.'7.-". do same and 6) he objecte. d to the approval of the subject Variance,. .Mr. Tom Warren of 1665]. Bohlman Road stated that '!) the .~ubject reouest is of great concern to sonm residents wliose property is located in the C. oUnty. adjaq~lnt' to the area in.queStioi~ 2) he"'~ig~'d [he Planninz Commission ..to deny the requeS~ '3) th'~ [~tter shou!.~!,rb~ postponed until it can be determined what the cab] ~ will look like when it is' attached to the exi's'-~ng poles. ' .................. .Chairman Norton stated that [he Saratoga Planning Commission did not ~ea.!ly have any control over .the County areas and the County Planning Comn~ission will have to det:ernxine what th~.y wish to do relative, to this problem in those areas. Commissioner I(raus reconmmu~ded that the following be added to the Note. . on page 2. .of the subject Staff Report: "It is, also, noted that the applicant states that · - no further undergrounding Variances will be reouested" Mrs. Warren inquired why further constr(,ction is allowed in the area when the soil is so unstable? : Con~nissioner Lively explained that 1) the Fueiling's (curr'ently constructing t]~eir home in' the area) are, also, applying for Variance from underground "Utilities 2) they submitte, d 'a~ extensive Soils Report' and the Fuc,!ling's a~'e awar~ of the problems involved with the soil and the engineer has been very careful in the construction of this structure. Mr. Carmen, appiiCant,'~ repre.sentativ~_,. a~vised that the problems involved-. in .constructing an individual. home are 'not. 6s...great as those that vou!~ be ~9.~.~id._~Y the digging of the' 8,000-foot long _~'e~ch required to underground' this cable. .. ~,~. Warren recommended that 6he applicant locate the underground cable in an area' where no stability problems exist Chairman Norton advised that the applicant's franchise allows him to run the subject cable along City streets. Commissioner Smith recommended that this request be continued until the City Council has an opportunity to work out the details involved with the finaucia! adjustments thit will result if this Varianc~ is Commissioner Lively moved, seconded by Commissioner ~'aus. to close the hearing at 9:04 P.H. in connection with V-343; motion carried unanimeus!y. Commissioner Kraus movec~, seconcled by Commissioner Crisp, to-adoot the Sta'~= Report dated 13 Aor[1 ie7;]· as anenJed and grant the subject r~uest for Variance for ov~rb~aJ utilities since the findings .... ~{re~i by Section !7 of the ZoninZ Ordinanc.s NS-3 can be made for tl~ reasons state~ in the Sta'f.f Report and subject to the ac.n~it~o~s a~c~ the l. lo'te stat.c.d'~ sa~ r. eport; motion carried with Cocmission.ars i,letc~.lf and Smith cast{~~ d!ssentinZ votes P].armi;'-.r~ Co!?n~issior.: Minbt:c,.~ -- 13 !=~ri!= ].970 - Cc~ntinuecl II. H. V-344 - Thomas W. Fuc, l!ing, Bohl~.?.an Road - tlequest for Variance' to Allow Overhead Utilities Continued fror,~ 23 }latch ].970 Commissioner Kraus stated that as Chairman of th'e Variance Comznittee I he reco~m~ends that this n~att:e.r be continued since the Staff has been unable to contact the adjoini. ng property o~.;ner for corn:'aex~t relative to this request. . .... In vie~-z of the foregoing; and since therc, x.~as no one present x.J~o wished '. to co:nment the hearing relative, to V-344 ~.~as not opened. Chairman Norton dirc, cted V-344 contin ~ed to the ne>ct regular meeting and referred same to the Variance Committee. I. V-3Z:.5 - John Willjams, Paseo .Cerro'- tlecluest for 'Variance to Allo~.~ E~5t~ansion of Accessory Structure - Continued fron~ 23 ~.iarch ].970 - The hearing, ~.~as re-opened at °:10 P.M. The Assistant Planner statecl nothing ne~,~ had been added to the file. The applicant ~.~as not present. No one in the audience ~.~ished to comment The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated' 13 April 1970 recoranK. nding that the subject' Variance be ~enied. Commissioner Sn~ith n~oved, seconded by Co~:n~issioner Crisp, at 9:12 P.].[. to close the h~aring in .connection ~.~ith V-345; motion carrie~ unanin~ously. · Comn~issioner Kraus moved, seconded by Comv~issioner Lively, to adopt the Staff Report dated 13 Aoril 1970 and ~Eny the requested Variance on th~~ basis the necessary fin[]ings required under Section 17.6 of the Zoning Ordinance NS-3 cannot be n{a~e fSr the reason' state~ in said report; motion carried unanimously. J V-346 - Frances O. Luksetich Verde Vista ~ne - Request for Variance to -Allow Reduction in Site Area Chairman ~iorton opened the hearing at 9:13 ~ ~'[ The Assistant Pta~n'er stated that the Notice's of' tlea~ing x,~ere maile~ and briefly reviewed this applice_tion. IIe. than read a Statement of Reason file8 b~ the applicant. .= Chairman ~ior ton inquired what the zoning wa~ for this property. The Assistant Planner ans~.yered that it is "R-!-12,500" but a few years ago the Planning Commission passea an ordinance that required 20,000 square feet for developnzent of a flag lot. He further state~ that two communications had been submitted by l.'~. and l.~s. L!oy~ N. Case an~ Mr. Brian Gage in opposition to the propose~ Variance. Com~issioner Sz~ith stated the ordinance requiring 20.000 square feet for a flag lot ~.:as a~opted in order to eliminate ~evelopment of lots such as the one proposed by the applicant. ~s .T~a~]v rea~or representinS the applicant state~ that ]) ~.~- and Case ~.:he subraitted the letter objecting to the subject ap2!icat/.~n pre- viously place~ t.heir h.~use on a lot purchased fr~}~:~ .t~he applicant .aE~,-2 2) the applicant ~c~s !e,~ to be!i~ve ~..:h~.n h~ so!~'a ~c. rtion ~f his to the Cases that it wou!~ not affect the future deve!op~ent of the ~n~er discussic, n. _Chair{na~: .?.b.":,rtc, n clos~.d the hearing for the evening at 9:23 P.M., directed the matter continued to the-. n~t"~e~j~']'ar' ~i~eetin~ ~d refe"'red 'V-346 to the Variance Comnxittee for'study. o -... .... . -.- Co~n~nissioner Kraus. on behalf of the Varia.nce Com~n~.ttee. arran~ed ~.~ith the applicant for an o~site inspection of the property at · 9:00 A.M.. Saturday. 18 April 1970. K~. INFOi.~,[<~=L IIEAilT!.IG - Requ,z. st to Acld !~underette to the List of Conclitional or Permitted Uses in the "C-V" (Visitor-Con~mercial) Zon~nc, District Chairman ~iorton opene~ the n~atter for ~iscussion. The Assistant Planner stated the IIotice of Informal }-learing had been published an~ explained that the applicant presently has a launderette at Argonaut Shopping .Center.. There x.~as no one present to represent the applicant. Mr.- Sam Hernanc~ez. local businessn~an. statecI that 1) he felt· that a launderett'e in the '~C-V': Zoning District coul<] provide a much nee~e8 service and 2) he fe'It the mini--bike sh~D in the Villag~ is a' nuisance' since the bikes are parke~ an~ driven on the si~e~.~alk. Chairman Norton.referred the subject request to the Subc~ivision Co:mnittee an~ continued same to the m:~eting of 27 April 1970. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVIS!O%,IS S~, . Char Harden. Sobey Road Duildin~ Site AD,~roval 1 Lot The Assistant Planner state~ that the app!icant's representative has revie~.~ed the propose~ conc]itions of approval an~ expressed satisfaction of same. Eormnissioner Smith no~ed that the turn-aroun~ is not sho~.~n on the Exhibit "A" submitted by the ·applicant. Chairman Norton ~ireCt~ 't!~at' the matter b~ postpone~ until the turn-around area can be deter~..~ined and 'a revised map sub'~itte~ showing same. .. B. SDR-8~-:-4 - Leo Bianci,Jarn?il Avj~n_~:e..- B~ild~n~ Site Approval - I Lot The applicant ~.:as present an~ questione~ Con~i. tions !I-F an~ li-J of ~he Building Site Committee Report date8 13 April 1970. He then stated that he had not been required to mee~ these conditions previously ~.~hen ~pp!ying for Building Site ADprova!. CB. airman Norton e:<p!aine~ that the City now has a Soils ~n~ineer; therefore, '- the subject additional requi~e~.~nts have been a~'e~. He then informed the applicant that if he desires further consideration the matter ca~ be referred back to the Subdivision Co~ittee for further study; other~.~ise. approval can be granted at this tiTn~ and a request for reconsi~eration can b.~ subn=itte~ at a later date. The applicant advised that he wou!~ accep. t th~ reco~.~en~ation for approval at this t~me. Commissioner Smith moved. seconded by Commissioner Kraus. that the Building Site Committee Report· of 13 April 1970 relative to SDP.-Bf~4 Be a~oDted an~ that the tentative mad (Ezhibit "A" filed 3 April 1970) · . be.approve~ subject to the c~n~itions sE.t forth in said report; mot. ion carrie~ unanimously. III% C. SD-845 - G.?ra]_d Kend~:ll,__Sc_Z,!p?~:__i_l_o~.] - Suitdivision Approval - 7 Lots Mr. Bill Heiss, engineer, ~.,'as present to represent the applicant and stated in ansx.~er to an inquiry from Commissioner Lively, that 1) there are two existing homes on the ten-acre parcel'and the applicant proposes to sell on{~of the homes 2) the applicant wishes to sell the land so that i't x,7ill not interfere with future develop~..~ent of the property and 3) their opinion is that they x-~ou!d present this proF~erty in two units a) the soporate parcel that ~.7ill be' sold and b) the remaining property will be submittee; as a subdivisicn. Co:nn~issioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Cornt-nittee did discuss this p~6posal with %.it. Heiss at a' previous Co~vz~ittee meeting. Commissioner Lively indica'-ed he ~.7ould like to see a specific grading plan for this property .... 1,~. Heiss stated that the City Grading Ordinance requires that a Grad'ing Plan be submitted. Chairman Norton recontn~ended ttiat Condition 12 of the Subdivision Committee Report dated 13 April 1970 in 'connection ~ith SD=8~-5 be .. amended by inserting the words "and grading plan" between the ~.~ords "units'~ and "to". ~ Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Co~r~aissioaer Crisp, that the / Subdivision Com~ittee Report dated 13 April 1970 relative t0 SD-g45 ~ be adopted as amended and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A' filed 13 April 1970) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in Said report; motion carried unanimously. D. SDR-840 - Kate C. Pronger, Lomita Avenue - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots.- Continued from 9 March 1970 Commissioner Smith stated that. the Building Site Con~mittee Report for this building site approval ~.:as ready so~r.e~{m.~ ago but the a~p]icant ~,~as required to wait for thirtv ~:avs for her Change of Zoning to go into effect before the Planning Co~znission could act on the,building site approval. ... The Assistant Planner stately the app!icant's representative (~,~s. .Noeggerath) canoe into the Planning Departm9n~ and reviewed the pro- posed conditions of approval and exp~?ssed satisfaction of same. Co~=D{ ssioner Sn~ith m-'~=d, ...... ~. seconded by Conun'issioner Crisp, that the Building Site Ccr~ittee RepOrt of !3 April 1970 realtire to SDR-.340 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit ":'~" filed 17 February 1970) be approved subjgct tO the contritions set forth in said report; motion carried unznir~ous!y. IV. DES!GTI RZVIEW A. A-271 - john. Rodrigues (Sto~eson), Big Basin %.~ay - Final Design Review' - Decorative Fencinz a~ ian.~s~=~D{~c, o'f ~-ro~=~s ~ .....' that this is an application for Final Coz=nissic, ner T.letcalf s ...... .._ Design Approval for iandscapin~ f~ the o~{~sl mocYe!s !us 4 6-inch f~nce aroun~ the front area. Co~=~.issicner LiveTM stated that th~ D!ans sub~{tt~ for review' do not sho~.7 plans for landscaping on street side of fence. " .. Con~issioner I. ietca!f recorznzndecT that the Staff Report d~te~ !3 April 1970 rece{~nen~ing that Final: D~s!~n Appr~ova! 3e ..... ~ for ~-271 be amended to inclucle Condition (c)' as follows: :"'(c) Submit for approval final plans for landsca~{n.~ al.Dn% fenc~ ~ maintenafxce -i0- Co-:-an~issio~ler M°tCa]_f roevet!, sc. cor,.d~'.d b', Com.'.'t~issioner ]~r&t.ls that the Staff Report dated 13 Ai;ril 1970 be ac.',opt:ed, as ar,.,.ended, and that Final Design Api:,rc, val be, granted for A-271 as shown on ~,; sub:act to tt,.e'conditions stated in said repor.t; potion carried unan in~ov s !y. B. A-304 - Sacred Heart Church, Sa'~.'atoga Avenue -- Final Design Review - I~z~.:d scan inf., Co:'nmissiqrier l. ietcalf briefly reviewed this application and stat,:d that the 'S..t. aff Report dated 13 April !9.7Q recom:i:epdec~· that Final Design Approval be granted for A-304. Fir. Duquette, applicant's architect, stated that they intend to scre'e;: Re .-,or but the front air-conditioni:~g unit as recor:~mended in the Staff t t, .Father Geary is concerned with the safety of the children and :.:ou].d prefer a 4-foot ~....'a!l and then plant in front of it to provide screening. Chairman ?~orton stated that if there is a safety element involved then " the wall should be used instead of the mound ind. around .this air-condi-- tioning unit. " Father Geary stated that the plans were subn:itted to the Design Reviev..' Coz,.mittee before he had a chance to review them and therefore, the mounding x:as not removed prior to subr?ittal of the plan. Chairn:an l.lorton stated that'even if the ~..,,a!l ~-;ere used around the air-condition.ing unit a degree, of nlounding would still be attractive. He then recommendec; that: the Staff Report be amended as fol'lo~..;s: Condition (a). .between the words "front" and "air-conditioning" insert tile words "and rear". Con:~:lissioner l.[~tca.!f stated thht the point v:as made that x.:ith the orchar.:d adjacent to the cl,.urch the 15-gel!on trees as required would not be necessary and could be replaced by 5-gallon trees instead since the orchard will be there for so:netir..:e; therefore, Condition (d) should be deleted from the subject Staff Report. Father Geary stated that in reference to Condition (c) of the subject · Staff Report there are draigs in the rear court area and with all the rains he felt the drain would get plugged with mud if the area were landscaped; therefore, landscaping would b~ impractical. After discussion, Chairn~an Norton directed that Conditiom (c) k.r.d (b) be deleted from the subject Staff Report. Comzlissioner Smith inquired .what x;,as being done to sound proof the air-conditioning units. ~ather Geary stated that he did hav2~ the units working Saturday evening and did not notice any noise prob!pm. Chair:'~an ,.';orton adivsed that since the me.tubers of the church would be the most obvio!,s sufferers he did not f~'el the City shculd worry about the noise factor in this particular instance. Co~:?.issioner Metcalf recor.:.~ended that Condition (a) be amended as follows: Add the foliovying sentence: "Submit for approval plans for v;a!ls and .. landscaping. Ensure sound suppression." IV. D. A--30i:- - Co;~tinued Commissioner l'?:,tc.'-~If moved, seconded by Co:nrnissioner Kraus, that the Staff Ileport dated 13 April 1970 be ac~opted, as amended. and that Final Desi[~n Review Approval be granted for A-304 as shown on Exhibit"D" at!d subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried C. A-344 - Willard Thompson, Oah Street and St. Charles Street - Final l)esi%u llevieu - A~art~nent ]k~i!din~., Con~missioner 1-ietca].f stated. that 1) the design as shod. at on the exhibit submitted by the applicant looks pretty good and 2) the apartment building x.~il]. inc~.ude five units. The AsSistant P~ ~n ..... me. stated th,~t 1) the applicant has reviev~ed the Staff Report dated 13 April 1c~70 recommending Final Design A-~roval · for A-344 and 2) the appliaarft requested an~ ~.~as granted Design Review Approval and Building Site Approval for this property about five years ago, but these have both expired. Commissioner Crisp stated that something should' be done about converting St Charles Street into a one-x.~ay street. · ., . Chairman Horton stated that, perhaps, the Subdivision Committee could take a look at the original file to stud), the St. Charles Street matter. Cosznissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Co~nissioner Kraus, that the Staff Report dated 13 April 1970 be adopted and that Final Design Review Approval be g~af~ted for A-3!~4 as shown on Exhibit ;'A" and subject to the conditions stated in said r~port; motion carried unanimously. V. CITY COLqffC!L REPORT Con~nissioner t,%etcalf gave a s,,mma~-.~, of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting on 1 A ri~ 1970 with emphasis on matter of particular interest to the Cotu~ission. PLANNING POLICY CO!,%q!TTEE ~ Con~issioner Kraus state~ that the minutes of the latest meeting of the Planning Policy Co~z~ittee' were in each individual Co~nissioners folder for ." their'-information. gi. OLD BUSI~.fESS A. 5DR-832 David L. Hendenhall, l.lt Eden Road - Re uest for Reconsideratio~. - .. q of Under%roun'd Uti!itv P~esuirement - Continued from 23 ~[arch 1970 The A~iSt~nt:Planner stated' that the applicant and PG&E will have to ,schedule a 'm~eting to discuss this matter before a decision can be made relative to this request; therefore, it is recommended that this matte: be continued to the meeting. of 27 April 1970. '- Chairm~n Norton so directed. .. VII. NE~.Y BUSINESS A. Request of Henry Clarke to ~.dd Pool Supplies to the List of Permitted or .Conditional Uses in the ~:C-C' ~Co~.:ni~v-Cor.~ercial) Zonin,~ District The Assistant Planner read a communication received fro~'I-!r. Henry Clarke re. questing that pool' supplies be adde~ to the list"of or Conditional Uses in the "C-C' Zoning District. Chairman Norton directed th~.t the subject request be scheduled for Informal Hearing at the next regular meeting on 27 April 1970. -12- Pla::nir,% Con':~:~.ission ,'.'.iinutes - 13 April 1970 Conti,,':::ed VII. B. SDR-7(;2 -- Jose~h Foster Fot:rth c~"eet af~d Springer Avenue - Request for !']:-~tension The Assistant Planner statc4d the Staff t<eport.datec'., 13 April 1970 recon'..~;.:t. nds that the request for e>:tension be approved. Com:~issioner Crisp moved, seconded by Coi,.tmiksioner Smith, that ub' the Staff Report dated 13 April 1970 be adopted and the s 3ect. . request for e>:tension to 28 April 1971 for SDR-782 be approved; -... raotion carried unanin.ous!y, C.' SDii-785 Ditz and Crane, Co~: Avenue - Request for Extension of Units 2 and 3 Chairman Norton noted that the Staff tleport dated 13 April 1970 recom[;~ends that the subject ~'eouest for e:<tension be granted. Commissioner Sntith moved. secondeel by Commissioner Kraus, that the Staff Report dated 13 April 1970 be adopted and the subject request for ez-:tension to 27 April 1971 for SDR-785 be approved; motion carried unanimous ly. D SDR-777 - l..lichael Pestana .Wild Oak t,, .... Recuest for E:ntension Commissioner Smith stated that in reference to Condition (b) of the Staff Report dat:ed 13 April !970 it appears that the resic]ents of Wild Oak Wav ~.~anted the ~oad paved at the tifne the or{~{na~ subdivision ~,~as developed and the City did put the roac~ in and the residents have not fo!].ox.yed through i.~ith their offer of dedication for thc~"'si:reet and since the subject property is the only one not y~t developed the Subdivision Comntittee felt' that this ~,as an o.p. portune tithe to obtain an offer of c]edicaticn. Commissioner Smith moved, 'seconded by Com~nissioner Crisp, that the Staff tleport dated 13 Af~ri:]. 1:970 be adopte~ ~-~ the subject request for ezt-ension to 23 ~.Iarch ].971 for SDR-777 be approved; ntotion carried unan imou sly. E. PROPOSAL FOR A!{E~.iCH!LD PROPERTY O!'.i FRU!TVA!.E AVEt.iUE ~. Mike SplitStone, enZinec. r from George No!re EnZineering Firm, introduced ~r~ jerry Lohr and l.lr. Eernie Tu~-c~on of Saratoga Foothills Deve!op:nent Corporaticn ~.-~ ~-~' Morey ~b-~''~ ~n~ineer froc:~ the George ~o!te Engin~ering Fir~::. He then statec/ ~'~ l) ~hev ~.~ere present to infort:~a~y discuss the dev~o,~m~nt of the Arenchi!d ~r~pert~. ].ocatc~d on Fruitvale Avenue 2) they 'have made a nhn~b.er of studies of the prop?try to detern~ine its best .use 3) at the mee~= with the S,,:~divisicn Cor.:~ltte'~ it ~.~as su'ggested that "R t-."0 000 "~ C" Zonin% ~e conside. r'gd. for the .subject property 4)they feel that the memebers of the Co:.~vnission x-~i!l find. that the plan sub;nitted makes better use of the land than the straight :"R;1-1:.0 000" and ~,~ou!d be a fine development in the City of Saratoga. "Chairn~an DIorton stated that the e:thibit shbmitted shows the property to include 42-acres ~.;ith forty-five lots and this cannot be done und.~r. the e:<isting zoning. Cov. uz~issioner l-[.~tcalf stated that the applics. nt clearly has too great a density for this prz. per"'~ Mr. Splitstone stat~.d that the road sho~.~-~ on the e:chibit is a street connection to the adjo{n~n'~ orooerty. Chairman l.ierton stated thit the adjoinin.Z property o~n~er '=,~v :~,,~ co:~:e cop_:.e~ts relative to the -~a:~ shcn-r.l on the Mr Splitstone, ~n ansi.yet to .~ ~na' {rv frcm Chair~.~an Iiorton, sta~ed that the 60 foot roa~ shon.,n ~' ~- -' the midd~ of the property co~.fcrms almost e:.:actly with the General Plan. -13'- iX. ADjO~.F~ZH',Ti.'?.':',!.IT Chairman Norton ad-journc, d the r.~-et~ting at 1].:30 P.i.I. Respectfu]:ly sub~nitted, -15-