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~