Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-1970 Planning Commission Minutes Cll~f OF SAI~TOGA PL~NNING COMMISSION 1.IINUTES TIME: );onday, 9 November 1970, 7:30 P.M. PLAICE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070,' ~PE: Regular l.leeting I. ROUTINE ORGAN!Z/.iTION The. meeting ~.:as called to order by Chairp~n Norton. 'A,. ROLL CALL '. . Present:· Coma~issioners Crisp, ~aus, Lively, Martin, Norton, and .Smith. Absent: Co~missioner Metcalf. B... MIN~ES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, that the reading of the minutes o'f the 26 October 1970 meeting be ~:aived and they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the "' following change: pa~e 7.. .under V!, A.. ,paragraph 4.. .line 5.. ,insert the ~ords "t e p ticular" and "house"; motion carried yp of" between the ~.2ords "ar unanimously. ~ .. .. PUBLIC KF/~RINGS -. A, C-'13~ ~ Van Hoag, Saratoga Avenue - RequeSt for Change of Zoni'ng ·from' · ~ "R-I-IO,O00" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-l-10,000" "P-C" .' '- ... ... (.Single-Family Residential Planned Community) - Continued from · ' . 26 October 1970 " ~hairm~n Norton re-opened the public hearing at 7:36 P.M. The Secretary , advised that nothing new had been added to the file. ~.~ A'I Dossa, applicant~s attorney, stated that 1) he would like to remind the Com~ission of the adverse features connected with this proper~y and the application for change of zoning 2) the property has an irregular configura- " tion, PG&E easements which encros. ch 75-feet into the property, railread tracks located on the site, and a planned free~ay will eventually take a portion of the property 3) the applicant has attempted to create a site development plan that would make the best t, se of the land 4) a~.~are that no ·further "'R-I.[" zoning would be approved by the City the applicant ·changed his application from "R-M" " to "P-C" 5) the applicant has complied with every provision·of the Zoning ~dinance and, also, realizes that special·apprOval is required from the ~o~ission for a "P-C" development and the proposed t~2'o-story, but because ~f.'economics it is necessary to'have some-two-s~ory buildings in the proposed e~Iex 6) the single story buildings are only 5-feet lower than the proposed two-story buildings 7) the two-story buildings will be farther back in th~ ~evelopm~nt abou~ 25-fee~ away from the houses on Dagm=~r ~ive and Casa Blanca ~ne 8) the members of the Planning Conunission are a~.nre that the applicant has considered developing the property as a Retiremen~ Facility; however, the City has not formed a firm policy· relative to Retlrem~nt Facilities 9) a letter ~s ~i!ed, on behalf of th9 applicant, to the requesting that the General Plan hearings be kep~ open until the Retirement ~. Huff answered the Facility S=udy is completed 10) the City l.~nager, , letter and stated that the General Plan has'been accepted by the City Ccuncil vtth the understanding that the'hearing of the ·Retirement Facility segment "' ~f :the General' Plan be postponed to a~it presentation of the infornntion obtained from the Retirement Facility' study and 11) due to economic pressures It is not possible for the applicant to_de..l~.~_ progress·on this proposal for ~.uch a length of time. -1- PlanninJl Commission Minutes - 9 Novotaber 1970 -Continued " II. A. C-134 - Continued Chairman Norton stated it ~as the Commission' s understanding that the applicant jUtcured to develop this property as a Retirement Facility; . . however, it is apparent from 1.~. Dossa's statements that the applicant has now changed his mind. " }~. Dossa answered .that 1) the applicant ~.Tould be willing to review an~' . proposal at the time the City CoUncil re-opens the hearing relative to Retirement Facilities if it would be economically feasible and 2) the present plans would lend themselves well to a Retirement Facility, but the Retir~aent Facility concept has not ·been incorporated into the present plan since it was not determined specifically what the City required along those lines. ' Chairman Norton inquired if Mr', Dossa was suggesting that the Planning Commission grant approval for plans that could be altered and put into effect-at-a later date. ... ~ Dossa explained that 1) f'f such an approval were granted the applicant ~ould' be relieved of the economic pressure and could take time to review ~he study on Retirement Facilities when it is completed 2) the plan under consideration at present is very desirable and it is difficult to say what -.. .. c~n be put on the property if this plan is not accepted and 3) it is felt that the proposed development would enhance the entire area. Co~issioner Smith read the Subdivision 'Com=~ittee Report dated 9 l~oVember '- 1970 reconnnending that the subject application for change of zoning for ~-134 be disapproved. "' NO one else present wished to comment relative to the subject change of zoning C-134. Co~missioner Smith moved, seconded by Com~issioner ~aus, to close the hearing relative to C-134 at 7:46 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Co~'ssioner Smith m~ed, seconded by Co~nissioner'Crisp, to adopt and for~mrd to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning .Com~ission ~he Subdivision Co~mittee Report dated 9 November 1970 ~e.la~y~ C-134 . ~ ~ h ' zecom~endin~ that the chan~e of zonin~ application be dis0.ppr~d' on t e ~. ~asis the findings required under Section 18.6 and 4.~"~"g~')'[f~not be made and the design of the project is no~ satisfactory for the reasons stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. · " B. ~-136 - Cal West Cem~unities~ Inc.. Saratoga Avenue - Request for. Change ' ef Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "R-M-3,000" (Multi-Family Residential) - Continued from 26 October 1970 The h'ea~ing relative to C-136:was re-opened at 7:48 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file. ~. A1 Dossa, applicant's attorney, stated that it was his understanding ~hat there might be some reservations on the part of some members of the .'-Subdivision CoP~nittee as to ~'bether Cal-West can sus=ain. the sales interest ~hey have sho~.~. ~h~irman Norton inq~lred what the" applicant' has accomplished in the ~y ef ~rket Research? He then stated that he understood there was a good 4eaI of demlnd for the type of housing proposed by the applican~ but would like some inforr_t=ion as to how the project is doing financially. .}~. A1 Warnick, president of Cal-I, fest, stated that 1) the applicant has -~ot done a Market Research Survey since it ~s felt' that it would only ~eflect ~-hat was ~lready kno~.m 2) the approach used has been to study , ether areas where the m~rket for this type of housing has proved success- -ful and then choosing a particular area because of its similarity to the area studied and 3) there have been a great number of people ..,ho have ~ontacted the applicant and -left their phone numbers to be.contacted at ~he time the units are ready for occupancy. "' Plannin% Con~-niission"l. linutes - 9 November 1970 '- Continued II. B. C-136 - Continued Chairman Norton stated that there are. a substantial number of vacancies in other apartm?nt and condominium developments in the City. Hr. Warnick explained that 1) the vacancies should be a temporary situation due to the time of year 2) the people wishing to oL~ their o~m home will be interested in the. Cal-West development and design since it is condominium an~ the price is reasonable 3) residency in the Cal-West development will be restricted to people sixteen years old and over and 4) the applicant is anxious for approval a~ this . time in order to enable him to proceed with the sales campaign and obtain approval .from the City Council and the Real Estate Co~m~,issioner. Commissioner Smith stated tha't 1) the Subdivision Committee met with the applicant last week 2) at that time it was agreed that a reco~end- ation relative to C-136 would be made at this meeting; however, the ..Subdivision Committee, after further review, feel that action relative to the subject change of zonfng should be detained until it is determined how the first unit of this development will sell 3) it would be undesir- able to have numerous empty buildings available 'that are not selling and ~). the Gatehouse Apartment complex has only 41% occupancy. at present and Saratoga Creekside has only 46%'and Saratoga Oaks, ~.~hich is condominium, has built twelve and sold eight, but will ultimately bU{ld one .hundred 'and-t~elve units. The Secre~az-y, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Lively, stated that usually a developer ·tries to sell a particular unit prior to construc- tion of same. .. ~..Warnick stated that 1) he was unfamiliar with the financing for the condomintum development at Saratoga OakS; however, the Cal-West financing .iS. constructed to carry an inventory of twenty-six units and Cal-West will not be building ahead of that since it would tie up too much cash 2) Cal-West. "plans a total complex of sixty-three units in the first phase and twenty-six are currently under construction 3) in agreement with the lender no more than twenty-six units will be' available-at one time 4) Saratoga Oaks is in a different price range than the Cal-West development. 5) Cal-West will ~' - not take any firm c0mmittn~nts from prospective buyers until some models are co~leted and ready for inspection 6) some seventy-five nam~ (frora the Saratoga area) have been left with the Cal-West representatives by interested buyers 7) December is a very slow month in the housing business. ...- because of the holiday season and 8) if approval is'not granted at this time it will be well into the middle of next year before construction on the second unit can begin. .: Commissioner Crisp recomh~ended that the m~tter be postponed for. two months. Chair~n Norton stated that it seemed pointless to poStpOne the m~tter Since it would only tie up the developer with his lender and slow up -'the progress on construction. Co~issioncr Smith stated that a thirty to forty~five day dela~ seemed appropriate to determine how well the first unit is selling. ~. A1 Dossa explained that as little as thirty days would create a delay of two months in sales.. Chairman Norton inquired what a thirty day delay would mean in practical terms to the developer? Mr. Warnick explained that 1) the momentum of sales ~,here the consumer gales are built up iS a six-to eight-week period 2) during this time ' enthusiasm for the product is motivated 3) the press, advertising agencies, public relations, and the general community are all involved in the sales' ~romotioa and 4) if two months elapse between the sales built-up and the availability of the produc= it becomes necessary to rekindle ln~eres= -~- Plannin.~ Co:nn:ission Minutes - 9 November 19'70 '- Continued II, B, C-136 - Continued in the product and this can be difficult, Commissioner Kraus stated that 1) he understood that the applicant does not plan to show any models until 1 December 1970 and 2) he would recor~end that the nmtter be held up for thirty days. ~. l~rnick explained that !) the problem is that it is necessary to get this approved by the a) Planning Commission b) City Council and c) Real Estate Conm~ission 2) the Planning Com~nission has. the background of Cal-West and their method .of operation and 3) it is hoped that the Planning Commission thinks enough of the Cal-West proposal to grant approval of C-136 at this time. Chairm~n Norton suggested that, perhaps, the Planning Co~ission could approve C-136 and forward same to the City Council (with the recommendation . that the Council take the sales survey into consideration before taking · action). The Secretary explained that in that case the City Council would not have a public hearing on the m~tter until 2 December 1970 and would not ~ct on it before 16 December 1970; thereby, delaying the matter for · ' thirty days. }~. Dossa suggested that a condition of approval could be to issue building permits for only twenty-six units at one time. Commissioner Smith stated that 1) a certain amount of control could· ~ be m~intained if the applicant would give the City .the assurance that he '~ ~ould consent to grant the City a thirty day extension on subdivision approval and 2) if the applicant agreed to the extension he (Con~issioner ~. Smith).. would be willing to grant approval of C-136 at this time. ~. Dossa assured the Planning Comz~ission that the a~plicant is agreeable to' granting the subject extension~ The Secretary read the Staff Report .dated 9 November 1970 reco~r~.ending ~hat C-136 be recom~mended to the City Council for approval ~omissioner LiVely reco~ended .that Condition (1) of the 'subject Staff Report be amended by deleting 'the last line as follows: "Exhibit "A." to "N" under Design Review A-349." ~oFmissi'cner Smith moved, seconded by Co~=missioner K~rtin,.to close the hearing relative to C-136 at 8:18 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. ~omissioner Smith moved, seconded by Comissioner Martin, to adopt and forward to the City Council as ~he recom=nendation' of the Planning Co~issicn ~he Staff Report da=ed 9 November 1970 reco~_mending that C-136 be approved subject to the conditions stated in said r'eport o'n the basis ~he findings' ~f Section 18.11 of the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be made and the request for change of zoning is in confor~ance with the Saratoga General Plan; motion carried. -4- Pla~nin~ Conunission ].U.~utes - 9 Novembe~ 1970 .-'Continued II. C. C-137 - Alfred F. Dt, m~s, Inc. ,. Prospect Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-i-IO,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-I-iO.000" "P-C" (~pgle-Familv Residential P].annec~ Commu~i~l The hearing relative to C-137 was opened at 8:23 P.M. The Secretary stated the NOtices of Hearing ~.~ere mailed and published, The Secretary read 1) a Statement of Reason submitted by 1.~. Robert J. ~athot on behalf of the applicant and 2) a comaunication received from ~, Arthur H. Grafe, president of Blue Hills Hemco,.mars Association, in rebuttal to the statements made in the applicant's Statement of Reason and stating the associations opposition to the proposed change"of zoning. The applicant %cas present and s'tated that 1) a. "F-C" (Planned-Contmunity) development is ideally suited to the subject property 2) the property has an irregular shape, a freed.ray, and a 55-foot easement. 3) the' property %.~ould not lend itself well to straight "R-I" (Single-Family' Residential) 'zoning and 4) he did meet with members of the Blue Hills · ' ~omeo~.mers Association, " Chairm~zn Norton'noted that the'plans submitted ~-;ere incomplete for what is normally required for a "P-C" development, Commissioner Smith explained that the purpose of the "P-C" development is not to increase the density.of a piece of property; therefore, the plans should not show a greater number of units than ~.~ould be allo~.;ed if the property ~.;ere zoned straight "R-i", Chairman Norton closed the hearing for the evening at 8:37 P,M,; directed C-137 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision. Committee for study, D, UP-19~- Claude T, Lindsay, Norada Court - Request for Use Permit to Allo~.~ a Model Home Sales Office Chairm=~n Norton opened the hearing relative to ~-197 at 8:38 P,M, The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing were r~iled and then briefly revie~.~ed the Subject application, % The Secretary stated that the applicant %~s not present at this time since h'e had been informed the .matter would be continued, No one else present ~.:ished'to comment. Chairm2n Norton closed the hea~ing 'for the evening at 8:40 P,M,, directed ~P-197 continued ~o the nex~ regular meeting and referred same to the Subidivison Committee for study, E, ZONING ORDI.~iANCE ~2.f~D].EN~ - Relating to Maximum Sign Area for }lulti-Family DWellings, Motels, Hotels, or Lodging Houses Continued from 26 October 1970 Chairman ~Iorton re-opened the hearing at 8:41.P,M, The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file. F~, Sam Hern?.ndez, local businessman', inquired how the proposed.amendment would affec~ existing signs. Chairman Norton explained that if an existing sign 'is bigger than ~'ould be allo~.;ed under the proposed ordinance amendn~ent then it would be considered legal. non-conforming' and if an existing sign is not bigger, or as big, as allowed by the amendment the size of the sign could be · . ~ncreased. _plannin.~,~, Co~nmission ~.Iinutes - 9 November 1970 - Continued II.' E. ZONING ORDIb~AI'~CE A1,TEI~'.,'D.i',U~NT -'Cont~.nued The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 9 NOvember 1970 . reconnnending that the proposed amendment be adopted. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Con~nissioner Crisp, to adopt the Staff Report dated 9 November 1970 and recommend. to .the City Council that the proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance b~e~.dopte~;".morion carried unanimously. III. BUILDING SITES A:'iD SUBDIVISiOn.iS A. SDR-849 - Thomas L. Dashiell, Bohlman Road - Building Site Apprval - Revised Tentative '-'~ 3 Lots - Continued from 26 October 1970 Th'e Secretary read a letter received from the applicant requesting that SDR-8~9 be withdra~,m. Commissioner Smith moved, seeonded by Commissioner Crisp, that the .. request for withdrz~,ral be granted and the proceedings relative to SDR-849 be terminated; motion carried unanimously. B. 'SD-870 - Peter Pavlos, Chester Avenue - Subdivision Approval - 9 Lots - Continued from 26 October 1970 The Secretary explained that' the engineers are working out the slope~ density problems in connection with this property; however, the applicant- has not submitted a letter 0f extension necessary to keep the file active. Commissioner Smith move~,~seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that subdivi'sion approval for SD-870 be ~dcnied unless the applicant submits a letter of extension prior to the ~xpi~ation'date of 23 Novem3oer 1970; motion carried unanimous ly. .. .. C. SD-B72 -' Brox,m and Kauffn~_Cox Avenue - Subdivision ADDrojal - 57 Lots .~o~issioner Sraith explained' that this approval. is for construction of · Units 3 and 4 approvcd under a previous.subdivisiOn approval which has ,.i .. expired . · . ~ommissioner }hrtin reco~=~.ended that in Condition 8 of the Subdivision ~o~ittee Report dated 9 Noven~ber 1970 the ~;ording "Planning Director" ~e changed to "Planning Co'ma~ission". Comissioner Martin further stated that' 1) in the applicants other ' developments the required tree planting and the landscaped fence is al~ys the last thing to'be done and 2) .he wondered if a time limit to provide the above items could be imposed. .. The Secretary stated it couid be required that .the landscaping be installed for whatever unit the applicant is working on at the time. -'Chairman Norton stated that 1) the applicant must bond for the landscaping improvements, but some landscaping has been left undone for years an~ 2) he can see the concern for the external appearance of an area, but since bond is posted it is difficult to impose a time limit to mee~ the landscape improvement s. '~missioner }hrtin noted that no mention of a :.~intenznce District is made in the Subdivision Cozznittee Report and he would 'like to recommend that a condition relative to sam? be added to the .report. ... 'The Secretary reco~.~.ended the following wording be used to add Condition 21: "21. Applicant..shall form M~intenance District to n~intaln required fences and landscaping along .. Cox Avenue." Plannin% Ccn~:nis.,;ion ",.lin',,tes - 9 November 1970 - Continued III. C. SD-872 - Continued A represerttative of the Brookside Club ~,:as present and stated that .they intended to acquire some of the applicant's propert), and asked' if it ~.zould be necess:.ry to becom~ part of the l.:aintenance District~ Chairn~an Norton stated that as an"o~a~er of a portion of the property., in this subdivision the Brookside Club ~.;ould be part of the Maintenance District, but in vie~.; of the 'sn:~-ll parcel of land a very rainfinal cost ~ou!d be invo].ved. ~ir. Rose, applicant's representative, stated that it x.:ould be agrceab!e to the applicant to e:-:c!ude the Brookside Club from the I, Iaintenance District since they will purchase only one lo~ from the applicant. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Con~n~issioner Crisp, that the Subdivision Committee Report dated 9 November 1970 relative to SD-872 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "~" filed 30 October 1970) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. D. SI~R-J%~ - George Stathakis, Michaels Drive - Building 'Site Approval - 1 Lot Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-873 be dontinued to allow time for further study. .. Chairman Norton so directed. IV. DESIGN REVIEW Subdivision Identification Si~n The 'Assistant Planner briefly.revie~ed this application and'noted that the Staff Report dated 9 November 1970 recormtends that Final Design .Approval be granted for SS-66. Commissioner Lively moved, seconded by Cor3, issioner l,~rtin, that the Staff Report dated 9 November 1970 be and adopted and Final Design ,' .'. Approval be granted for SS-66 'as sho;.~ on Exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. V. CITY COUZ.;CIL REPORT " Com~issioner Martin gave a summary of items revie~,ed and action .taken at the City Council meeting of 4 November 1970 with emphasis on items of particular interest to the Con~ission and particularly no~ed that the General .. Plan for 1970, as recommended by the Planning Conn~ission, was adopted with the exception of the follo~;ing four items: 1. Park Plan " .-_ ~. Fruitvale Avenue .- 3. Pierce Read-Ashley Way area 4. The Retirement' segment of the General Plan w2s retained by the City Council to a~ait presentation of the Retire- ment Study ~'hich the City Planning Department is conducting. The Secretary s~ated that the Planning Department has hired Mr. Paul }Ioeller to do the Retirement Stud),; ~-hich, should be coff:p!eted for the first Planning Con'm~is'sion meeting in December, 1970. 'Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 9 November 1970 - Continued VI.. OLD BUSINESS ' A. SDR-832 - David L. Mendc~nhall:', Mt. Eden Road - Request for Recor, sidcratio'n of Condition - Continued frora 24 AuI<ust 1.970 The Secretary e:.:plained that the applicant requested ~aiver of the underground utility requirement and has submitted cost esti~r. ates from. PG&E relative to same; therefore, it is recouL~?nded that the m~tter be continued and referred to the Subdivision Con~n~ittee for further study. Chairmnn Norton so directed. VII, NEW BUSINESS -.. .JOINT STUDY SESSION ........... Chairmzn Norton noted that 'the'~yor had r~q~ested that a Joint ..... _i .........Study SeSsion be held with 't~{~'=C~y C~&ncil 'an~'Pl~n{'~g' con~mi~si6~"'~"[t~7'''7 ............ purpose of discussing .~h? po!igX to be followed .by. the CitX.relative to Variances, Cluster development.~, etc. He f~rther' noted that this might be a good ~i[~'~"~0'r"'ti~"'~o~nissioners to bring up other 'items they might ~.:znt to discuss with'.the .City Council. Chairman Norton, after agreement by the Planning Com:nission, requested the Secretary to advise the Mayor that. the Planning Commission ~.~ould be able to attend the Joint Study Session on 30 November 1970. VIII. COi, Df~N!CAT!O~.iS I'TRITTEN C-117 - M.V.S. Co., Cox Avenue and' Saratoga Avenue - Requ'est for Extension Th~ Secretary read a request received from the applicant requesting an .~xtension for C-1!7. The Secretary recoT~ended that the matter be , continued and referred to the. Subdivision Con~nxittee for study. B. 1. SIGN - RF~L ESTATE The secretary sta. ted that 1) l,~s. Nancy.Franckx ~,zanted to make a proposal to the Planning Cor:~ission for a sign for her new Real Estate office on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 2) ~s. Franckx would like to have a sign mounted on an existing pole used for a free-standing ~ign and 3) norm_~lly a Variance would be necessary .for the type of ~ign proposed; ho~;~ver, .the square footage of the sign is appropriate. ~ Franckx was present and stated that when the former tenant had 'a sign for this building ha had a free-standing pole sign and the , poles are still in place. Chairman Norton stated that if the situation is as described by the Secretary then it ~-ould be necessary to apply for a Variance and the Planning Con~,ission is not too lenient in granting Variances. ~. Franckx explain.~d that the structure is basically a house and a ~ign on .its front facade would no~ be very attractive and would be mor~ detrin:ental th~.n the prcposed pole sign. Chairman Nor[on noted that the Planning Commission has not in the past granted a Variance for a sign on the basis indicated by M~. Franckx and in his judgement it is unlikely that any exception would be made in this 'instance. " .. Plannin% Com;!:ission MinL, tcs ~ 9 Novcn:Ler 1970 - Co:..tint, ed VIII. B. 1. SIGN - Continued Commissioner Lively stated that the Planning Com.vaission has been hard .on establislunents and shopping centers that have proposed pole signs in the past and the rigid standards will be adhered to in the future. ' 2. GUESTS Chairm~n Norton acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of .. Councihnan Sanders, Mrs. Wi!berding. and ~.~-. Fra~pton of the Good Government Group, and Mrs. Ottenberg of the League of Women Voters. He, also, thanked 1.~s. Wilberding for the coffee to be served after the meeting. IX .' ADJO~{~.R.iENT Chairman Norton adjourned 'the m~eting at 9:30 P.M, , Respectfully submitted, Secretary · '. Saratoga Planning Commission ] .,