Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-1971 Planning Commission Minutes (2) CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING C(~MISSION MINUTES TIME: Monday, 9 August 1971, 7:30 P.M. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 FruitVale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting '. ******* I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lively at 7:30 P.M. A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kraus, LiEely, Marshall, Martin, Metcalf, and Smith. Absent: Commissioner Fagan. B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded' by Commissioner Kraus, that the reading of the minutes of the 26 July 1971 meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed; motion carried with Chairman Lively abstaining. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-145 - B.~..7'.T. Galeb, Ted Avenue - Request for Charge of Zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Famil:y Residential) to '~-M-5,000" .~.ulti-Famil.y. Resid.ential)~- Continued from 12 July 1971 Commissioner Smith stated that th~ applicant is in Europe and his representatives(Kosich Brothers) 4o not want to do anything without Mr. Galeb's approval; therefore, the matter should be continued for at least thirty (30) days. Chairman Lively, in view of the f~regoing, did not open the hearing relative to C-145, directed the matter continued to the meeting of 13 September 1971 and referred the subject application to the Sub- division Committee. B. C-147 - Clifford C. Beck, Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from '~-1-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to '~-A" (Professional-Administrative) - Continued from 12-Juty"1971 The Chairman, without objection, postponed discussion of this matter until after Item VI. A. on the agenda since that particular item relates directly to any action relative to C-147. C. C-148 - George W. Day, Fruitvale ~venue and Douglas Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from"'A" (Agricultural) to '~-1-40,000" {S. ingle-Family Residential) - Continued from 12 July 1971 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 7:37 P.M. ...- Commissioner Smith stated that this application was discussed at the Joint Study Session of the City COuncil and Planning Commission and no new development..plans have been submitted since that time; therefore, he would recommend that the matter be continued. Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 9 August 1971 - Continued II. C. C-148 - Continued Mr. Victor A. Chargin, attorney representing the Ljepava family, -=stated that he has reviewed the various plans for development of the subject.property and on behalf of his client he would request that in the area of the proposed development two (2) building sites per acre be allowed and if that is not possible then his client has no~further objection to the applicant's original proposal. Mr. Lou Leto, General Manager for George Day and,Company, stated that the applicant would like some decision on the subject property as soon as possible and the applicant would change his application to request '~-1-40,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned-Community) instead of the '~-1-40,000" (Single-Family Residential). Chairman Lively stated that if the zoning request is amended a new Notice of Hearing must be mailed and published .and said request must be submitted in writing prior to any consideration for amending the subject application. Mr. Leto stated that he would submit a.signed written statement to amend application C-148. Dorothy Gay, 234Marshall Street, Redwood City, a realtor representing the Ljepava and Novakavich families, stated that 1) she appeared the Commission on previous occasions and discussed the economic draw- backs to developing the property in the subject area under '~-1-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) zoning 2) developing under said zoning will put the property owner and developer in a difficult position 3) the feeling among her clients is that the economic reasons for two (2) building sites per acre should be carefully considered 4) this would be one way for land to be developed correctly without creating a hardship for the property owner and developer, even though, it would mean a higher density and 5) her clients do not object to the request for a '~-C" development if a straight '~-1-20,000 (Single-Family Residential) zoning is not possible. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:49 P.M., directed C-148 continued to the next regular meeting and referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-904 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue and Douglas Avenue - Subdivision Approval - 15 Lots - Continued from 12 July 1971 Commissioner Smith'stated tha,~ SD-904 should be continued to the next regular meeting since it was filed in conjunction with C-148. Chairman Lively so directed. B. SDR-911 - Willard Thompson, Oak Street and St. Charles Street - Building SitepApproval - 1 Lot - 28 June 1971 The Secretary stated that the applicant has reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. He further stated that Mr. Thompson would have been present at-this meeting but he had to be out of town on another matter. Commissioner Smith stated that 1) action on this matter Was postponed because of p~nding City Council action relative to the possibility of c6nducting a traffic survey in the subject area 2) the members of the Commission were encouraged to make individual on-site inspections of this property 3) this building site was previously approved (but has since expired) and at that time there was some consideration that. St. Charles Street might become a one-way street and 4) the City Council has not acted on the suggestion of the Planning Commission that a traffic study be conducted and the Subdivision Committee feels that it would not. be eqOitable to continue this matter indefinitel~ -2- Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 9 August 19~1 - Continued III. B. SDR-911 - Continued Chairman Lively explained that 1) ~'f this building site is approved it would block St. Charles Street from ever becoming a one-way street and prevent it from ever being widened and 2) the General Plan recommends that any action relative to development on St. Charles Street be postponed until the proposed traffic study is completed. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Marshall, stated that the applicant's property is already zoned for Multiple-Dwellings; so, this would not involve adding ahy new Multiple Zoning. Commissioner Smith added that the Planning 'Commission did recommend in the General Plan Report for 1971 that no changes be made in the Multiple Zoning and that means that the existing zoning be retained for the subject property. Chairman. Lively stated that the Planning Commission did not recommend that the zoning be changed, but the matter can be held in abeyance until the City Council reaches some decision relative to the proposed traffic std.dy for St. Charles Street. Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee is of the opinion that the matter should not be held up any longer gad if the matter is continued the applicant must submit a letter granting the Planning Commission additional time to act on the subject application. Commssioner 'Marshall stated that, he felt, a building site for Multiple- Dwellings should not be approved until after the proposed traffic study is completed. Commissioner Martin stated that the General Plan is still under consideration by the City Council and this application should be postponed until after the Council reaches a decision relative to the subject traffic study. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 9 AUgust 1971 relative to SDR-911 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit '."A", filed 16 June 1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in sZaid report; motion.denied by the following vote: AYES NOES Commissioner Smith Chairman Live_ly Commissioner Kraus , Commissioner 'Marshall " Commissioner ~!kartin : Commissioner Metcalf '\ Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissiioner Martin, to deny the Building Site Committee Report dated 9 August 1971 relative to SDR-911 unless a letter of extension is 'submitted by the applicant and further moved that the matter be continued unt~il the Planning Commission is in receipt of a declaration of intent from the City Council as to whether they intend to pursue the traffic study for St.' Charles Street as requested in the General Plan Report for 1971 that was forwarded to the City Council as the recommend- ation of the Planning Commissiod; motion carried by the following vote: AYES NOES Chairman Lively Commissioner Smith Commissioner Marshall Commissioner Kraus Commissioner Martin Commissioner Metcalf -3- Planning Con~aission Minutes - 9 August 1971 - Continued III. C. SDR-916 - Terry Dallas, Mr. Eden Road - Buildir~ Site Approval - 1 Lot Commissioner Smith stated that A condition relative to water supply should be added to the BuildingSSite Committee Report dated 9 August 1971 relative to SDR-916. The Secretary recommended that the following condition be added to the Building Site Committee RepOrt: '~. Comply with requirements of San Jose Water Works regarding public water supply." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Eraus, that the Building Site'Committee Report dated ~_~gust 1971 relative to SDR-916 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map ~E~h'ib'f~"'~";'ffl~'d' 30 July 1971) be approved subject to the conditions.set forth.in said report; motion carried unanimously? D. SDR-917 - Donald Tenenbaum, Saratoga aud Cox - Buildir~ Site Approval - 1 Lot Commissioner Smith ~stated that this buildir~ ~i~'~hl~been reviewed by the Design Review Committee CommissiOner Metcalf stated that he would like to continue the matter to determine if the sidewalkalong Saratoga and Cox Avenues is in accord with the proposed pathway plan.: Mr..Ralph Ramona, present to re~resent the applicant, stated that 1) his client is quite anxious to begin construction and is eager to obtain Building Site Approval at this time since he has a loan committ- ment 'that is about to expire and 2) he is willing to post a bond for the sidewalk and if it turns out the walk should be on the other side of the street then the bond can be rescinded. Commissioner Metcalf, after reviewing the pathway plan, stated that the sidewalk shown on the tentative map is in accord with the subject pathway plan. Gommissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 9 August 1971 relative to SDR-917 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A","filed 30 July 1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth.in said report; motion carried unanimously. : E. SD-896 - George W. Day, Big Basin Way - Subdivision Approval - Revised Tentative Map - 10 Lots! Commissioner Smith recommended that Condition 20. be added to the Subdivision Committee Report dated 9 August ~971 as follows: "20. Provide Maintenance Agreement or enter into agreement with the City to permanently maintain '~ermanent Open-Space" as shown on the tentative map (Exhibit. '~-1")." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Subdivision Committee Report dated 9 August 1971 relative to SD-896 be adopted, as amended, and that2the tentative map (Exhibit "A-i" filed 30 July 1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in.said report; motion carried unanimously. -4- Plannin~ Con~nission Minutes - 9 August 1971 - Continued IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-362~- M. E. Frazier, Saratoga and Cox - Final Design Review - Commercial Buildin~ Commissioner Metcalf read the Staff Report dated 9 August 1971 recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for A-362 for a commercial building. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Staff Report dated 9 August 1971'be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for the commercial building as shown on Exhibits '~", '~", and '~" subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried.unani- .mously. B. A-377 - Reed's Carpets, SaratogaTSunnyvale Road - Final Design Review - Commercial Buildin~ Commissioner Metcalf read the Staff Report dated 9 August 1971 recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for A-377 for a commercial building. He then amended the subject report by deleting the words '~arking spaces and" from paragraph 1. .line 6. .of the subject report. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Staff Report dated 9 August 1971 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be granted for the comn~rcial building as shown on Exhibits "B", '~", '~", and '~" and subjeat 'to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. LANDSCAPE TREATMENT - For New Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation Subdivision - Tract 4954 -.Fruitvale Avenue The Secretary explained that the.Assistant Planner did submit a report to the Public Works Department stating that the Design Review Committee and Planning Department Staff recommend that the pathway shown on the'.improve- ment ~la"~f~r Tract 4954 be moved from four (4) feet to twelve (12) feet from the property line. Commissioner Met'calf explained that 1) the Public Works Department feels that if the median strip is moved one.(1) oak tree and two (2) pepper trees will have to be removed and 2) the Planning Commi~si6n~Should insist on a twelve (12) foot landscape strip!on this property at least in the area of the trees mentioned. The Secretary explained that 1) ~the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed plan and they do emphasize that if the .planter strip is not provided three (3) trees will be in jeopardy and 2) the developers improve- ment plans have been approved by:the City Council and if they are to be changed they would have to be amended by the City Council. He further stated that the Assistant Planner has prepared a memo stating that if the subject recommendation for a twelve-(12) foot-wide planter-s~rip is adopted by the Planning Commission the r~commendation should be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Metcalf recommended that the aforementioned memo be amended by adding the following to paragraphZ 2. . .line 2. .'~ith the recommendation that they amend the improvement p'lan for Tract 4954." and that the:;~ollowing be deleted from said line 2. ."for its consideration." Commissioner Marshall stated that. 1) if the twelve-(12) foot-wide planter is recommended in lieu of the fou~o(4) foot-wide planter this recommendation would jibe with the applicant's a.rchitect's recommendation and 2) it would be better to have-a meandering planter that is wider; thereby, creating an aesthetically pleasing area. -5- Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 9 August 1971 - Continued IV. C. LANDSCAPE TREATMENT - Continued Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Conmissioner Martin, that the Assistant Planner's memo dated 9 August 1971 (stating the Design Review Committee recommendation that a twelve (12) foot-wide-planter strip be provided in lieu of a four (4) foot-wide-planter strip for the proposed landscaping in front of Tract 4954 on FruitvalezAvenue) be adopted, as amended, and forwarded to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Commission; motion carried unanimously. ~ V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT = The Secretary gave a summary of item~ reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 4 August 197!, with emphasis on items of particular interest to the Commission. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. REVIEW ITEMS FOR 1971 GENERAL PLAN - Referral by City Council Commissioner Metcalf stated that.the General Plan Committee did meet and prepare a report. He then read the General Plan Committee Report dated 9 August 1971 stating the recommendations of the General Plan Committee relative to certain items referred by the City Council to the Planning Commission for review. ~ Commissioner Metcalf them recommended that the following be added to Item 4. .Central Park. .between lines 2 and 3. .of the subject report: : "The seven (7) acre Gore corner of saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue and the two (2) acre strip along Wildcat Creek will be developed as recommended by the 1968 General Pian plus Neighborhood-Park Elements." Commissioner Metcalf, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Kraus, recommended that the subject General Plan Committee Report be further amended on page 2. .line 6. ~by'deleting "100-foot" and instead inserting '~inimum". Commissioner Metcalf moved, secoDded by Commissioner Marshall, to adopt, as amended, the General Plan Committee Report dated 9 August 1971 and forward same to the City Council!as the recommendation of the Planning Commission; motion carried unanimously. B. REVIEW OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Commissioner Metcalf stated that'the General Plan Con~nittee discussed the Planned'Community Development and a report was prepared to reflect that discussion. The Secretary stated that this matter will be presented to the Planning Environmental Committee at their next regular meeting. Commissioner Metcalf stated that~it is his recommendation that the report dated 9 August 1971 relative to Planned Community Development be released to the Planning Envirommental Committee as .a preliminary draft. -6- Planning Commission Hinutes - 9 AuMust 1971 - Continued VI. B. REVIEW OF PLANNED COM~1/NITY DEVELOPMENT - Continued Commissioner Marshall~stated that it has been suggested that when a developer is planning a Planned Community development a310% increase in/~density be withheld and doledOut, as a bonus, only when a developer i:.' is willing to spend a little more money to develop the property ~in other words to give him something if he is willing to do something to beautify the City. Commissioner Smith stated that 1~ the General Plan Committee does not like the word bonus and 2) the City already~gains amenities with a Planned Community development beaause under the "P-C" ordinance open-space and recreation areas are required. Commissioner Marshall stated that, Din his opinion, if a bonus were offered the developer would make more of an effort to come up with something better for the City. Commissioner Martin stated that ~e, also, feels a bonus should be awarded the developer who is willing to invest more money to make a development look like it has more open-space than!actually exists. Some means should be provided to reward extra-effort.. Commissioner Metcalf stated that2the developer should be responsible to provide proof that he can build a suitable Planned Community development that is acceptable to the City without expecting a reward or bonus. Chairman Lively stated that some~consideration should be given as to whether · the community building in a '~-C'! development should be considered as one of the building sites in the development. Commissioner Smith stated that the community building should be considered as part of the amenities and should2not be included as a building site. Commissioner Marshall stated, he ,felt, the community building should be computed the same as a house or building site. Chairman Lively stated that serious consideration should be given the . visual impact of an '~-1-40,000" '~-C" (Single-Family Residential-Planned Community) zoning when it is pla~ed in a '~-1-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) zoned area and what can be done to disguise the appearance of a '~-1-20,000" (Single-Family Residential) are~,=.'~ that would surface with an '~-1-40,000" '~-C" Commissioner. Metcalf requested the Secretary to discuss the following points with the Planning Environmental Committee in connection with a '~-C" development: 1) The disagreement with the concept that '~-C" zoning be used as a bonus. 2) Whether a community building constitutes a building site. 3) The visual impact of a '~-1-40,000" '~-C" (Single-Family Residential-Planned Community) resulting in a '~-1-20,000" (Single-Family Residential) appearance in an area otherwise developed as '~-1-40,000" (Single-Family Residential). Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 9 August 1971 - Continued \ The following item was referred from earlier in the meeting to this portion of the agenda. ~I. ~. C-147 - Clifford C. Beck, Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from '~-1-~0,000" (Single-Family Residential) to '~-A" (Professional-Administrative) - Continued from 12 July 1971 Chairman Lively reopened the heating relative to C-147 at 9:42 P.M. Mr. Gene Fink, attorney representing the applicant, requested that this matter be continued until after the City Council acts on the General Plan because if the recommendation is not favorable to this application it will probably be necessary to withdraw the subject request for change of zoning. . No one else present wished to comment. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 9:44 P.M., continued C-147 to 13 September ~971, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee. ~. AESTHETIC GRADING STANDARDS - Continued from 12 July 1971 The Secretary requested that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directed. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW The Secretary explained that 1) ;the City Council has requested the Planning Commission to review the recommendation of the Special Housing Element for Saratoga in time for!inclusion in the General Plan 2) the Mayor thought that the Planning Commission might review this Housing Element and amend it to suit Saratoga goals and objectives for housing and forward same to the City Council and 3) the General Plan Committee reviewed the Housing Element andmodified it slightly. Chairman Lively stated that this!is probably going to be.one of the most important documents the Planning iCommission will consider and will take some time to review especially since it is going to be part of the General Plan. Commissioner Kraus explained that the Planning ~olicy Committee ~pent months and months preparing the Subject Housing Element Study and he does not feel that it can be revised in time for inclusion in the General Plan for this year. Chairman Lively requested the Secretary to consult with the City Attorney to prepare the proper wording to.allow the Planning Commission to carry this matter over until such time=as the Planning Commission can prepare a comprehensive review on the Housing Element. He then directed the matter continued to the meeting Of 13 September 1971. B. UP-185 - Katherine Cain, Austin Way - Status of Montessori Pre-School The Secretary explained that a condition of Use Permit UP-185 was that after the close of the school year 1970-71 the Planning Department Staff would review the facilities and Service area of the school to ascertain whether the basic educational needs of the Saratoga were being fulfilled. He further stated that the appliqant has complied with all condit.ions imposed and it is the Staff recommendation, with concurrence of the Sub- division Committee, that the Use Permit receive permanent approval from the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes - 9 August 1971 - Continued VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN None B. OR~L~ Guests ~\, Chairman Livel~'~Cknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilman Bridges, Mrs'.' Dorothy Parker and Mr. Wood Frampton of the Good Government Group. He, also, thanked Mrs. Parker for the coffee served at recess. XI. ADJOURNMENT : Chairman Lively adjourned the meeting at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Z 'Stanley M. Wa ecr~ ~ ' ) ;: SSiOn j · . O1~ SARAI~)GA PLA~a~ AGENDA ' TII~E: l~0nday, 9 August 1971 - 7~30 PLACE: City'Council Chambers~ 13777 Fruievale Avenue~ Saratoga~ California 95070 ~E: Regular ~eti~ · : RO~I~ ORG~A~ON A, ROLL C~ A, C-14~ - B~ ~, Galeb, ~ed Avenue '- Request for Change o~ Zoning [rom ~-1~10,000~ (Singl~-Famil~ Residential) to ~-~-5~000~ ~ulti-Famil.~ Residential) - Continued ~rom 12 July B, C-1~7 - Clifford C, Beck~ Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue ~ Reques~ for Change of Zoning from '~-1-10,000~ (Single-Family Residential) [o ~-A" (Professio~l-Administraeive) -Continued from 12 July 1971 C, C-I~ - George ~, Day~ Fruitvale Avenue and Douglas Avenue - Request ~or Cha~e of Zoning ~rom '~A'~ (Agricultural) ~o ~-1-~0,000'~ :(Sin~le-Family Re~iden~i~.l) - ContinUed from 12 Ju~ 1971 ~D-~0~ - ~orge ~, Day~ Fruitvale Avehue and Douglas Aven~ - Subdivi- sion A~roval. ,- 15 ~ts - Contin~ed..f~o~ 12 Jul~ B, SDR-911 - ~illard ~ho~son, Oak S~reet and St, Charles Stree~ - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - 28 June 1971 C, SD~-.916 - Terry Da~as~ ,~t, Ed~p ~ad - Build~.n~ Site App~0v~l - 1 .Lot. D, SDR- 7 - Do~ld Ten~nb~un, Sarato[;a an~.~.Co~ ~ Bui~.~.~i~ Stte ~rova~ ~ 1 Lot E. Sp-89~ - George ~, D~y~ Big Basin ~ay - Subdiv. sion Approval - ~vised · entative ~p..:T 1~ LO.es..'' . .: A, .~-3~2 - ~, E.' Frazier, Saratoga a~d C~x - F~I Design Revie~ -" ~o~ercial. BuildinK .......... . ...... :..: ..... ~. ~; ... ~--' . ': .. cqm~.e.i~ ~.. Build ing ....... .., :....: .. C, ~C~E ~A~ - For New Saratoga Foothills Development CorporatiOn Subdivision - Tra~t ~95~ - Fruitvale Avenue V, CItY ~ClL ~POR~ : ~, OLD BUSI~SS A, ~VIE~ I~.. FOR .1971. GE~E~ PL~ - Referral by City_. Counci~ B, ~S~TIC G~I~G STA~S - Conti~e~ .from 12 July VII. ~ BUSINESS CO~ICA~ONS B. O~