HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-1971 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~DIISSION
,- .............~ MINUTES
TIME: Tuesday, 12 October 1971, 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Saratoga'Y0U'th" Center 13777 Frui[vale 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 Fagan, Lively, Martin, ·Marshall, Metcalf,
and Smith.
Absent: Commissioner Kraus.
B. ~RNU%~S
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Fagan, that the
reading of the minutes of 27 September 1971 meeting be waived and
that they be approved as distributed with the following changes:
page 2. . .paragraph 2. .last line. .change one-third to one-half;
page 3. . .paragraph 9. . .change would to may;
page 10. .paragraph 1. .under VIII. A...line 3.. °change
deceased to sickly; motion carried unanimously°
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-147 - Clifford C. Beck, Saratoga Avenue and Cox - Request for Change
of Zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to
"P-A" (Professional-Administrative) - Continued from 27 September
1971
The Secretary read a communication received from the'applicant's
attorney, Gene Fink, requesting that the subject request for rezoning
in connection with C-147 be ~ithdra~,rn.
Chairman Lively, in view of the foregoing, did not open the public
hearing.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Fagan, to approve
the request for withdrawal of the change of zoning application in
connection with C-147; motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Lively stated that the next two (2) items on the agenda C-148 and
C-149 have become quite controversial; therefore, it might be well to hold
the public hearing on the larger piece (C-149) first.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the public
hearing for C-149 be held before the.public hearing for C-148;'motion carried
unanimously.·
C. C-149 - City of Saratoga, Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass - Request
for Change of Zoning.from '~A" (Agricultural) to "R-I-40,000"
!'P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned-Community) - Continued
from 27 September 1971
Chairman Lively reopened the·hearing relative to C-149 at 7:43 P.M.
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 12 October 1971 - ContinUed
II. C. C-149 - Continued
The Secretary read a communication received from Mr. James C. Sanders
of 19450 Valle Vista, dated 24 September 1971 in which he answers a
letter he received from Mr. Schmaelz.le of 14401Nutwood Lane. Mr.
Sanders letter states that he cannot support nor circulate a petition
opposing C-149 since he cannot agree with any of the points made in the
Schmaelzle letter.
Mr. Don Hershell, representing the property owner at 19570 Douglass,
stated that 1) his client, Mr. Bailey, could not be here at this time
2) Mr. Bailey is opposed.to the proposed change of zoning and 3) there
is little liklihood that his client Would build his home in this area
if the "P-C'! zoning is approved.
Commissioner Smith read a statement in answer to the letter-petition filed
in opposition to the proposed planned-community development. In the state-
ment read by Commissioner Smith it is pointed out that many statements
contained in the letter-petition were erroneous and misleading.
Chairman Lively stated that in view of the fact that the letter-petition
has been published in two (2) different newspapers he feels it must be
answered.
Conm~issioner Metcalf explained that he is in total agreement with the
comments contained in Commissioner Smith's statement. He further stated
it is unfortunate that the drafters of the subject letter-petition did
not take the trouble to ascertain the facts prior to submitting their
comments to the press.
Commissioner Marshall stated he endorses the statement read by Commissioner
Smith and the comments offered by Commissioner Metcalf.
Chairman Lively'directed that the statement read by Commissioner Smith.
be fomcarded to Mr. Schmaelzle (author of the letter-petition),'~nd to
the press as a statement from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Smith then read two (2) reports relative to C-149.
Report No. 1 - Recommended that the proposed subject change
of.zoning for the subject eighty (80) acre
parcel be rejected.
Report No. 2 - Recommended that the Planning Commission.
adopt a.policy restricting future change
of zonings for the subject area to those
which conform with the planned-community
concept and that the area be designated ~
as "very low density, planned community"
on the current revision of the General Plan.
Chairman Lively, in answer to an inquiry from Reverend StraSburger,
stated that the current General Plan revision is still under public
hearing by the City Council.
Reverend Strasburger stated that 1) he would like to go on record
as being opposed to having this property designated as planned-community
on the General Plan 2) a "P~C" development offers a lot of good things
from the City'S point of view, but it is a highly specialized land use
not altogether beneficial to the individual.property owner 3) this
"P~C" concept is kind of a memory hang-over from the days when this'
property was proposed as a Central Park 4) the "P-C" plan might be
good on the other side of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road as a device to
preserve the hillsides 5) he looked at the "P-C" developmen~ in
Monte Sereno and in his opinion it does not have a lot to recommend
it 6) he feels'individual' o~,mership and care of. property is best and
a'conm~on green area would present policing problems and 7) if.Unauthorized
.... .::.. -'- .... "- '~ Z:c.p~: =':.'.zt 1:i:~ ,:~r~a ~.~c-.:].d h:'ve to be fenced; thereby,
~ II7 C. C-149 - Continued
Commissioner Marshall explained that the "P-C" zoning is the strongest
instrument the City has to pre-plan land development and prevent it from
becoming hodge-podge in appearance.
.'
A resident of Shadow Oaks pointed out that there would be many
problems with maintenance of the common green area in a "P-C"
development.
Chairmain Lively explained that it would be the developer's
responsibility to establish a Maintenance District for the purpose
' of maintaining the common green'area.
The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from the audience, stated
that 1) there is an example of.a "P-C" development in Monte Sereno
2) the building sites are one-half acre in size and there is a stable
area in the common green area and 3) the problem with this has been
that all' the people that moved into the development do not necessarily
want to keep horses.
~ Chairman Lively stated that, he.felt, the "P-C" development in Monte
Sereno was poorly planned and unimaginative. '.
Mr. Vartkes Miroyan, 14497 Nutwood Lane, inquired why if a "P-C"
development is such a fantastic idea has it not been done in greater
lengths in other cities? 'W~at experience has Saratoga had with this
type of development and if the one house per acre idea is so bad why
do they sell so many homes in the acre zoning?
The property o~,mer from 20925 Jacks Road was present and stated that
a "P-C" development is one method of maintaining open-space and she
feels every effort should be made to preserve areas in any way available.
Chairman Lively stated he has decided to vote against the Subdivision
Committee Report recommending to the City Council that the area be
designated on the current revision of the General Plan as "very low
density, planned community". He feels the Planning Commission will
be able to examine and control development of this area at the time
individual developers submit their tentative maps for approval under
the existing "R-I-40,000" zoning.
Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1') he disagreed with the opinion
of Chairman Lively and definitely felt that a "P-C" development would
be more suitable than a twenty (20) to thirty (30) acre Central Park
2) this is a problem area bounded as it is by the college, Redwood
School, and Wildcat Creek and 3) he will vote for both recommendations
as submitted by the Subdivision'Corranittee.
Commissioner Fagan stated that 1) he favored the "P-C" development
and 2) he would support a development that does. give the appearance
of open-space and does not have'all its driveways faced onto Fruitvale
Avenue.
Commissioner Martin stated that 1) the "P-C" zoning does not cause
do~.mgrading of an area, but is actually more restrictive 2) there have
been complaints from people about the bowling alley design down other
major thoroughfares in the City and 3) the "P-C" development would
result in making Fruitvale AvenUe a nicer appearing street.
Reverend Strasburger stated, he.felt, a "P-c" development is for
problem areas and he does not see the subject property as that type
of area.
The resident from Shadow Oaks s~ated that eventually the pavement
coverage with recreation facilities may be the same as would be
covered by driveways of private.residences; therefore, the open-space
appearance would be minimized.
-3-
Planning Commission Mi~ .,s - 12 October 1971 - Continued
II. C. C-149 - Continued
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, to close
the hearing relative to C-149 at 8:47 P.M.; motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Fagan, to adopt' the
SUbdivision Con~nittee Report dated 12 October 1971 relative to C-149
recommending that the. proposed change of zoning for the subject eighty
(80) acre land area be rejected by the Planning Commission and that
said recommendation be fom~arded to the City Countil; motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Cormnissioner Metcalf, to adopt
the Subdivision Committee Report dated 12 October 1971 relative to
C-149 recommending to the City Council that the subject area be designated
on the current revision of the General Plan as "very low density, planned
community" and that .the Planning Commission adopt a policy restricting
future changes of zoning for the area to those which conform with the
planned community concept; motion carried with Chairman Lively voting
,, ,,
no .
B. C-148 - George W. Day, Fruitvale ~venue and Douglass - Request for Change'
of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "R-I-40,000" "P-C" (Single-
Family Residential Planned-Community) - Continued from 27 September
1971
Chairman Lively recpened the hearing at 8:52 P.M.
Commissioner Metcalf explained that 1) the 'recommendation made relative
to' this matter is crucial because this is the first parcel in the entire
general a~ea of some eighty ('80) acres that is to be zoned from "A"
(Agricultural); therefore, it is fairly clea, r that the action taken rela-
tive to C-149 will establish the manner in which the .entire eighty (80)
acres will be developed and 2) the question is shall this fifteen (15)
acre parcel be zoned to '.'R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) or to
"R-I-40,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned Community); whatever,
zoning is designated will set the precedent for development in this area·
The Secretary read the S~aff Report dated 12 October 1971 recommending
that the subject request for "R-I-40,000" "P-C" zoning be approved. He
then recommended that the report be amended by deleting the following
from paragraph 1.. ·sentence 1. . .of the subject report· . .
"and any development of this area be substantially in accord
with the adopted Site Development Plan, Exhibit "B"."
After a brief discussion' by the Commission the subject Staff Report
was further amended as follows:
paragraph 2. ·delete the following between the words "approved" and "on";
Reason 4. ·delete the following. . ."~he combination of different
uses in the development will compliment each other and". ...and instead.
· "P' G" planned cormnunity";
insert. . ~ ·
Condition 1. . .line 1. ·change the word "site" to .read "17.3 acres".
Mrs. Seagraves, Saratoga.property owner, stated that if the common green
proposal is approved it will only provide a place for the college students
to congregate and for garbage to collect ~oth of which will create problems
for the City.
Mr. Tony Ban, property owner adjacent to the Day property, stated that
if open-space is created it will attract mini-bike riders and everything
else and the City will be responsible for handling these complaints, that
will be forthcoming.
Chairman Lively explained that 1) the Planning Conmission had a study
Session with the City Council relative to the proposed "P-C" development
2) it was 'discussed at that time whether or not this is what the citizens
of Saratoga wanted 3) the proposed. "P-C" concept in this particular case
was a good one; however, this property is the keystone 'for 'the balance of
some 200 acres and 4) if there is this much opposition it might be well
..... ~- "~'~ Day ,~oo]~ "0 CO;'.~,~- ~ ~.~:'h ~ good "R--!-Z'-O 0~" FSi~l-e-F~milv
~ .... , .............
~ It.= B. C-148 - Continued
!
Commissioner Marshall explained that 1) the reason he favors a "P-C"
development is because he does not favor a subdivider coming in and
developing the property without controls adjacent to major City streets.
2) he did not want to see one more bowling alley street created by.
atrocious fencing all along both sides of a major street in this City
and 3) the eighty (80) acres should be developed in a way where it is
a planned situation"with the highest and best use of the land and at
the same time provide a pleasing atmospherE.
Chairman Lively stated that he will vote against approval of the subject
Staff Report and the recon'mendation stated therein since he felt there
is sufficient opposition and he did not feel the remainder of the property
would ever be developed as "P-C".
Commissioner Fagan stated that a "P-C" development does have its
assets if attractively done and if one area is done very well other
developers may take up the idea.
Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to close
the hearing relative to C-148 at 9:24 P.M.; motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Fagan, to adopt the
Staff Report dated' 12 October 1971, as amended, and recommend to the
City Council that this subject application for change of zoning from
"A" (Agricultural) to "R-i-40,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential
Planned Community) be approved for the reasons stated in said report
and subject to the conditions set forth therein; motion carried with
Chairman Lively voting "no".
D. V-366 - Mrs~ Earle Pickering Smith, Quito Road-- Request for Variance
to Allow Overhead Utilities Continued from 27 September 1971
The hearing relative to V-366 was reopened at 9:30 P.M.
The applicant was present and stated she met with the Variance Committee
and she is agreeable to providing underground utilities if the utility
poles would be removed; however, the u~ility company representative has
'made it clear that if the one pole is removed it would have to be replaced
with ~o other poles. She does not feel she should pay the money for
underground utilities and then sti'll have the poles too.
Commissioner Marshall stated that he made an inspection of the property
with the Variance Committee and it is a fact that one pole would be
removed, but the City would gain two by requiring underground utilities
in this case.
The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 12 October 1971
relative to V-366 recommending that the Subject request for variance
be approved.
No one else present wished to comment.
Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to close
the hearing in connection with V-366 at 9:39 P.M.; motion carried unanimously.
Co~nissioner Marshall 'moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, to adopt
the Staff Report dated 12 October 1971 relative to V-366 and grant the
variance to allow overhead utilities since the finding required under
Section 17.6 of ordinance NS-3 can be made for the reasons stated in
said report; motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes - 12 October 1971 - Continued
II. E. V-367 - John E. Cox, M.D., Jacks Road - Request for Variance to Allow Overhead Utilities
The hearing relative to V-367 was opened at 9:40 P.M.
Dr. Cox, applicant, was present and stated that a picture of a map
of the area made i·n 1948 shows power poles which have since been covered
with shrubbery and this request for one additional pole which could
not be noticed by the public.
Mrs. Jerome Smith of 14795 Bohlman Road stated that 1) her property is
.... adjacent to the applicant's 2) she feels her private view would be
very much hampered if this request for variance were approved 3) the
City should follow its policy of preserving the natural beauty of the
hillside and not allow it to be scarred ·4) she has been watching the
development· of this property and it appears there has been no consider-
ation given to preserving the·environment of this area 5) what was
· once a tree studded hillside is now scarred by cuts and it iS an ugly
site and 6)· she is opposed to the proposed variance and requests that
it be denied unless severe hardship can be proven on the part of the
applicant.
Dr. Cox explained that when a cut is made on the hillside it is 6g!y
for the moment, but the area Will be landscaped with trees and grRss.
He, at'one time, enjoyed the view from his property, but these views
have been eliminated through development and it was not his perogative
to stop this development. The proposed pole and wires will be screened
from view.
Commissioner ~rshall stated that the Variance Committee did visit this
property and were aghast at the amount of cut and fill that had been
done in this area. He then read the Staff Report dated 12 October 1971
recommending that the subject request for variance be denied.
Mr. Burton R. Tunzi, 20920 Jacks Road, stated that 1) the amount of
cut and fill that has been done should have no bearing· on the subject
variance request for overhead utilities 2) it is difficult to see
any existing poles or wires·from his residence and 3) if the under-
ground utilities are put in and the ground shifts the wire could-erupt.
Commissioner Marshall stated that the Variance Comnittee did not note
any particular problems as far as digging a trench in this area is
concerned.
Mr. and Mrs. DUtro, 20825 Pamela Way, stated'·they h~d not had an
opportunity to study the applicant's map and wondered if the Planning
commission would allow themesome time to do so.
Chairman Lively, in view of the foregoing request, called a recess
at this time.
RECESS A~ RECONVENE
E. V-367 - Continued
Mr. and Mrs. Dutro stated they reviewed the subject map to their
satisfaction and have no objection to the p~oposed variance.
Commissioner·Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner MetCalf, to close
the public hearing relative to V-367 at 10:16 P.M.; motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, to adopt the
Staff Report dated· 12 October 1971 relative to V-367 recommending that
this variance be denied on the basis the findings required under Section 17.6
of Ordinance NS-3 cannot be made for the reasons stated in said report;
motion carried unanimously.
planning Commission Minutes - 12 October 1971 - Continued
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SD-904 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass - Subdivision
Approval - 15 Lots - Continued from 27 September 1971
At the request of Commissioner'.Smith, Chairman Lively directed
SD-904 continued to the next regular meeting.
B. SDR-918 - Monty R. Boyd, Arroyo 'de Arguello - Building Site Approval -
1 Lot.- Continued from 27 September 1971
She Secretary explained that this application for building site approval
is denied since the necessary letter of extension was not submitted
by the applicant.
C. SDR-920 - Roman T. Chavez, Beln~p Court - Building Site Approval -
1 Lot -
The Secretary explained that this.building site was approved at the
meeting of 27 September 1971, but due to an oversite was placed on
this agenda.
D. SDR-921 - Neal P. Krikham, Sobey Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
- Continued from 27 September 1971
The applicant was present and stated that he has worked a long time
to develop the best plan for the subject property.
Chairman Lively recommended the Building Site Committee Report dated
12 October 1971 be amended by adding the following condition:
"0. Size and location of road is to be in accordance
with finalized map for SD-791."
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Fagan, that the
Building Site Committee Report dated 12 October 1971 relative to
SDR-921 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit
"A", filed 13 September 1971) be appr0ved subject to the conditions
set forth in said report; motion carried with Commissioner Marshall abstaining.
E. SDR-922 - Dr~ Richard Wallace, P{erce Road - Building Site Approval
3 Lots - Continued from'27 September 1971
Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-922 be continued to the meeting
of 12 October 1971.
Chairman Lively so directed.
F. SDR-923 - Donald Perata, Pike Road - Building Site Approval - 3 Lots -
Continued from 27 September 1971
Commissioner Smith stated the applicant has submitte;I a map showing
the cuts and fill on this property and a Building Site Committee
Report has been prepared for SDR-923.
Chairman Lively recommended that Condition II-B of the subject report
be amended to read as follows:
"B. Widen road paving on minimum access road and all
driveways over 100-feet long to be 14-feet wide,
using double seal oil and screening on 6-inch A.B.
or as specifically required by the Fire District."
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Fagan, that the
Building Site Committee'Report!dated 12 October 1971 relative to
SDR-923 be adopted, as amended,' and that the tentative map (Exhibit
"A-I", filed 27 September 1971) be approved subject to the conditions
set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously.
Planning Cormmission Minutes - 12 October 1971 - Continued
DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-382 - Paul Masson~ Saratoga Avenue - Final Design Review'- Second
Story Addition to Office Wing
The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 12 October 1971
recommending that Final Design Review be granted for the second
story office'addition and Preliminary Design Review be granted for
the future parking spaces~
Commissioner Metcalf mowed, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that
the Staff RepOrt dated 12 October 1.971 be adopted and that Final
Design Approval be granted for the second story office addition
as shox~ on E~ibit "A" and Preliminary Design Revi~ be granted
for the future parking spaces subject to the conditions stated in
said report; motion carried unanimously.
V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Commissioner Smith gave a summary of items reviewed and action taken at
the City Council. meeting of 6 October 1971 with emphasis on items of
particular. interest to the Connnission.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. SDR-914 - Gill Schaper, Hilltop Way - Request for Reconsiderati0n of
Conditions - Continued from 27 September 1971
Commissioner Smith stated he did visit this site and while the road
in question is not real good it is passable.
The SeCretary read the Staff Report dated 12 October 1971 recommending
that the request. to waive road improvements be granted.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Fagan, that the
request to waive road improvements be granted and fon~arded to the
City Council as the action of the Planning Commission; motion
carried unanimously.
B. Possible Revision for Design Review of Single-Family Residences
The Assistant Planner stated that he and the. Chairman of' the Design
Review Committee, Commissioner Metcalf, have reviewed this matter
to some e=~tent and he would recommend that the matter be continued
tO the next regular meeting to allow time for further study.'
Chairman.Lively .so directed.
C.. AES~{ETIC GRADING STANDARDS - Continued from 9 August 1971
The Setretary requested that this matter be continued to the
next regular.meeting.
ChaPman Lively so directed.
VIII. CO~D~% CAT IONS
A. WRITTEN
1. UP-169 - George W. Day,'Fam~ell Avenue - Request for Extension' - Continued from 12'October 1971
The Secreta~ read a request received from the applicant/for a
one (1) year extensionI for the Use Permit for a model home sales
office. ~a Secretary recomnended that the subject request
continued to the next regular meeting.
Planning Cormnission Minutes - 12 October 1971 - Continued
VIII. A. 2. FIRE DISTRICT - Request for Building Moratorium
~]~e Secretary read a communicaeion requesting that a building
moratorium be put into effect in the Bohlman Road-Norton Road
area because of the poor water supply for fire fighting, the
narrow road, ina. dequate turn-arounds for fire equipment, and.
exit roads. The Secretary reconnnended that this matter be
continued and referred to the Staff for further study.
;= Chairman Lively so directed.
· B. ORAL
Commissioner Marshall stated that he would like to bring up the
matter of the grading on the COx property discussed earlier. There
has been extensive cutting on the upper parcel .of this property and
there is. a strong possibility that the driveway may slide during the
winter rains. He requested the Staff to contact the Building Depart-
ment as to what grading has taken place.
%]~e Secretary explained that th.e Staff would obtain the information
from the appropriate department.
GueSts
Chairman Lively, acknowledged ~.~ith pleasure, the presence of
Councilman Bridges and Smith, and Mr. Ellis Howard of the Good
Government Group.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Lively adjourned the meeting at 11:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley M. Walker Secre~a~
S a a ~ ' ' ' '
ar tog Planning Co~xss~on
SB~/j
-9~