Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-22-1971 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~RMISSION MINUTES TIME: Monday, 22 November '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 Bacon, Belanger,, LiVely, Martin, Metcalf, and' Smith° Absent: Commissioner Marshall. B. WELCOM]~- BACK Chairman Lively recognized the re'turn of Commissioner Bacon and stated the Planning. Commission was happy and fortunate to have him back on the Commission. C. MINUTES Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the reading of the minutes of 8 November 1971 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed with the following addition: page 7.. .under Oral. . .add.. '.Commissioner Martin recommended that a Citizens Committee be formed to review inconsistencies in the City Ordinance; motion carried with Commissioner Smith abstaining. D. SCHEDULE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING CODfISSION MEETING Chairman Lively stated that the Secretary has been asked by the City Council to arrange a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission. After a brief discussion it was agreed that 12 January 1971 would be a date when the Planning Commission could meet. Chairman Lively requested the Secretary to communic.ate with the City Council to determine if this date would be appropriate for the joint-meeting. E. CO~fITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Chairman Lively appointed Commissioner Bacon to the Subdivision Committee and the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Fagan resigned from the Planning Commission leaving a vacancy on the Subdivision Committee and Commissioner Martin has been serving on three (3) Committees; therefore, CoLf-L~issioner Bacon will take his place on the Design Review Committee. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS None III~ BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS. A. SD-904 - George Wo Day, Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass - Subdivision Approval - 15 Lots - Continued from 8 November 1971 The Secretary stated that 1) SD-904 should be continued to the next regular meeting and 2) Mr. Leto, General Manager for George Day Company, has some alternate plans available and will submit them to the Planning Department prior to a scheduled meeting with the Subdivision Committee on 2 December 1971~ -1- III.° A. SD-904 - Continued Chairman Lively stated that after attending thelatest City Council meeting it is his opinion that the City Council will accept a P-C zoning if the lot size is not more than 38,000 square feet with the so called common green area left as a perimeter area around the property. Commissioner Smith stated that 1) he did suggest to Mr. Leto that the lots be kept to a 35,000 square foot minimum or maybe a little higher and 2) he did not feel that a "P-C" development should be develDped only as a subterfuge for "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) zoning.by providing only 500-feet per. lot of open space. Comanissioner Be!anger stated th'at she felt the City Council favored the 35,000 square foot lots for the "P-C" development. Chairman Liyely stated that the City must be careful in the design of this "P-C" development since, he felt, 5,000 square feet times. -, ~eventeen lots is a substantial amount of footage. Chairman Lively directed SD-904!continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivisi,on Co~ittee for careful review and consideration. SDR-918 - Monty R. Boyd, Arroyo de Arguello - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued f~om 8 November 1971 The Secretary explained that there is some difficulty in getting this matter resolved since the original owner Mr. Comer has retained some of this property and the City Attorney has asked that the matter be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directed and referred SDR-918 to the Subdivision Committee. C. SD-927 - Ditz-Crane Builders, Inc., Sea'Gull Way - Subdivision Approval - 9 Lots - ContiNued from 8 November 1971 ....... - .... The Secretary explained that the applicant has submitted a letter of withdrawal because the City has'agreed to purchase this property for a park site. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, that the Planning Commission approve the request for withdrawal and terminate the proceedings in connection with SDR-927; motion carried unanimously. D. SDR-930 - Fernando J. Gonzales, Arroyo de Arguello - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary explained that this site is, also, very invQlved with the Comer development but does not have the problems like the Boyd (SDR-918) property. Under the Building Site Approval for SDR-930 the applicant has been asked to improve Comer. Drive'and Arroyo de Arguello. Mr. Gonzales was present and stated that 1) he has an agreement with Mr. Comer whereby Mr. Comer is held responsible for the completion of .the improvements as stated in the Building Site Committee Report dated 22 November 1971 2) Mr. Comer has submitted his improvement plans to the City and these were accepted 3) there is nothing he (Mr. Gonzales) can do until Mr. Comer complete~ the improvements 4) the request for Building Site Approval was made in order that a Building Permit could be obtained from th'e Building Department 5) Mr. Comer cannot start the .stipulated improvements until he completes the bridge and 6) he (Mr. Gonzales) would request that he be allowed to obtain a Building Permit and begin construction of his home prior to completion of the required improvements. -2- THE REPRODUCTION OF THE FOLLOWING IMAGES MAY BE IN POOR ~" CONDITION DUE TO THE VARIATION OF COLOR AND QUALITY OF Tan ORIGINAL Plan'ning Cormnission Mi~.'...,..~ ['. .... ..... .- III. D. SDR-930 - Conti~'~. '=.~ The Secretary e~.~.~ .... . .. .'..iant could go ahead prior to c...~. ! .'~"! .."'.'be if Mr. Gonzales or ~x·!~-. !· ! ~'..'.'. L: .'..=.-these improve- ments would be n~-' ~ " ".~ '~ouncil agreed to waive the bo?;. ...! .. -....-..r.v.~.~. '~ Mr. Gonzales -;...-.!vi .... =. ......... :c .... therefore. the improvemen ts c ou ~ -.- .. · . .. The Secretary e~-:~.~ "'- .... .. L."'.'..:.:'.'.: ~r Comer does not cover all .'_'he, : ...' Mr. Gonzales sic:.._ >--'-~.!~' ~-'2; ....":. :.'.'.:;.i-~:-''.'.:0unders) also. had improven~.ent _' ~,!~-~. ~. :..' "-:~7. r :l .... '.~nent and they are selling their r.'r.- .. ;i"._~.: 't~.~... ".:-"i-hi-i:.7. 'he new owners can proceed wit-i". ..' .. i.c.-.~ "z .;- " ~- the Columbus t Founders people ~'.~.. ~ bo:~',..~i jjzi:t '..- ~'i ,."z: i.;.~ ~ents as required; whereas, Mr. Cc~--t_..2.' '. i'~aiz.'_:~-.. ':,z~:!u~:c ;.-. z'_..'. .. r- ~z~ .z ~...n an amount suffi- Cient to take c~:.-"'. :'~.L].i tl'._'~_.'~! c.~5:~=-,~'i..._-.'......'-"'..'.~':':-.'.s. · - '.' 'a letter of credit credit· ..:.. Mr. Gonzales st?...z.~_..r~ that I) i'.~ 7.'~:.:.. . ..' .. 2=: ~:.d z:. :...~ of land from Mr. Comer and o~n!,;., ~.z~rt of the r'r.z '~i .-~ .~.. r-Ye'.'z...~ .tements are to be done on the Gor.:.z?.!.z...-- land 2) i'.?rl.... ' ' '-"'f ':' '~ an easement over this prop~rtZ.., !~ut he 'i~'_.,t:. {....~. ~ ,qc~=~',~ .~n the easement therefore, he sh~;,'..~i.i not be ~:.c-.:.'~.L~t .... iv. .'= ;~provements and 3) even if he ~,7.:~-,.~2d .to put tzh.7:. nf .... .:-_~.!~ .f.'-: ~oes not think he could, becau~ l'~:n: does not ,nD';;z,~ ..'.'. -'= .'...~:-t~='~2:--..'zty. Chairman Lively s~:.~ted that sip. c.,zF= '...'. jr..-..~:~!.~:?' "' .~4 agreement with held to that agr~:~:~:~nt.. ~e Secretary e~-ztDiained that t'b.~. ~'L. .~-- -; "fj~"L' "'. ....' ........~ -:' ··ling the development and building on this lot; there j:..:y,z.' -.. '~; '7....: his "~;~sibility to see that the Subject f-r'~provements Chai~an LiveIv ~:'~12 !ained that t'~=.~ .~:. ,i'7 ! .' l.' '..'-~ 7.. i ~ii. '~' -' -- 'he applicant to post bond for the: :~ubject im'.Drc; .... - .......... .~,~-.~.-- ='l&tter of credit for s~e. ~ ~ ......................"' ."~.. . ;:i-. ., · ~.~. Co~issioner S~.~i~-]". n~oved. second4~d ... "..'z:-..:!~si_. ..... j.jacon. that the Building Site C;:lx'.'~;"!.t~'~ee Repor'~ ,:~:~LtL~.i '77 i .:.v.z';cl'?: · '?it relative to SDR-930 be adopt.z:.l .:=~nd that thL~ -c:z..'..'....L=.-."z'. '7..=~ .... :~t "A"'. filed · : 12 November 197!1'~ !~=~ approved ~_~5~7:-2,_..:. :.;.'z. ch:~ ~.z.~-... t'bns set forth in said report; mot'T c:.n carried unani::'..~.'_. ~;.'l 7.=., ' ..?~'.. IV. DESIGN REVIEW " '. A. SD-864 - Saratc3:..~?;? i.'oothills Dz-~.'.z~j2.z: ..... --~'- 7":'.'~...'r.. l'j'F:l"Fruitvale Avenue Prelimi'z-~z=-nyv ~)esi~n Rf~vi'.z'~-'. " ........ .r.ment Along Fruitvale Av exl t.t e ... ~e Assist.~.nt P" ........ '~- read p1~ ~:it'z'~:' · i.-~' z .7 ~ - November 1971 reco~ending Prc.! f.~.'~inary Desi,~'n Ai.'.~.:...':'.'..-.: '.:. '.: .u~ ~-. · ~'landscape treatment along jY.'rz.~'( tvale Aven'~_~ ...~:~ -' ~' .v- ,:~=~.i...~. ~-.: ....2~applicant. changin~ line 8 .of para"r'=r~'. it ..... ~:c v~"... follows: "a four (4) foot ~'.igh fence, o~ ~a "'..f7,i.L~ r~'~':z~"".~'wall on the ..~ -3-- Planning Connnission Minutes - 22 November .1971 - Continued IV. A. SD-864 - Continued Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) the Design Review Committee and Staff met a number of times with the developer and landscape-architect and the result of these meetings and eventual'Solution to the problem is described in the subject Staff Report and shox,m on Exhibit "A" 2) the developer has given up some 70-feet of land and has relocated a couple of houses and 3) the Assistant Director of Public' Works has stated that if the land- scape plan were developed as planned it would encroach on the ultimate right-of-way on Fruitvale Avenue~ .~. .!3 The Secretary explained that the'Public Works Department feels that .... ~ if the meandering pathwa~ mounding,and landscaping were installed as proposed it. would seriously reduce'or possibly eliminate the proposed median dividing the eventual four-lane Fruitvale Avenue. Commissioner Smith stated that the Planning Commission previously recommended that there not be a median on FrUitvale Avenue. Chairman Lively stated that everything should be done to prevent the bowling-alley atmosphere on Fruitvale Avenue. He then referred to a memo received for the Assistant Director of Public Works and after a brief review of same recommended that it be returned to Public Works for revision. '~' , .... Mr. Bernie Turgeon, representative 'from Saratoga Foothills, stated that if the median were eliminated a better job of fencing and.landscaping along Fruitvale Avenue can be done. The Assistant Planner stated there is an u.nofficial plan line for Fruitvale Avenue. Commissioner Metcalf stated that., he felt, the applicant's proposed plan for fencing and landscaping is most appropriate for Fruitvale Avenue to set the future tone for Fruitvale Avenue and if the Department of Public Works does not agree they should be made to realize the landscaping that is put in will be there a long time before any four-lane Fruitvale Avenue is realized. Chairman Lively reconmended that. the Planning Commission grant Preliminary Design Approval and then request the Secretary to communicate to the City Council and Public Works Department that there is an apparent conflict between the strong recommendation of the Planning Commission for elimination of the median on Fruitvale Avenue and the tentative plan-line as proposed by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Staff Report dated 22 November 1971 be adopted, as amended, and that' Preliminary Design Approval be granted for the landscape treatment along Fruitvale Avenue as shown on Exhibit "A" in file SD-864; m;3tion carried unanimously. B. A-383 - Corinthian Studios, Big =Basin Way - Final Design Review - Facade Remodeling and Warehouse Addition The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 22 November 1971 recommend- ing that Final Design Approval be granted for A-383. Commissioner Belanger inquired if the applicant will be able to get vehicles through to the rear of.the building to unload their freight rather than continue the procedure on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road after · completion of the subject remodeling and addition. The Secretary explained that there is really no way the applicant can increase the driveway without reducing the size of the building. -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 22 November i971 - Continued IV. B.. A-383'- Continued 'Commissioner Smith stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance the applicant does not have enough pa~king spaces to construct a second floor as proposed. Commissioner Metcalf agreed that With the major reconstruction proposed by the applicant greater parking-~equirements will have to be met. Chairman Lively, due to the complications that have arisen relative to the parking, directed this matter continued to the next regular meeting. V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Chairman Lively 'gave a summary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 17 November f971, with emphasis' on items of particular interest to the Commission. : PLANNING POLICY CO~STTEE Chairman Lively stated .he attended the last meeting of the PPC and has the following to report: 1) There will be a meeting in Los Gatos to discuss Slope Density and other hillside planning !programs. 2) The Plan and Policies for Santa Cruz Mountain Study was adopted. 3)Adoption of the PPC recommendation for County Wide Park and Recreational Plan. ', 4) Progress Report of Baylands.Study. VI. OLD BUSINESS : A. Possible Revision for Design Review of Single-Family Residences - Continued from 8 November 1971 Commissioner Metcalf stated he prepared a draft relative to this matter; however, the Design Review Committee has not had an opportunity to review it; therefore, he recommends that the matter be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directed. B. Development and Building Moratorium for the Bohlman Road-Norton Road Area The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 22 November 1971 recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that a mora- torium on development and building be established for all the mountainous area served by Bohlman Road and Norton Road. The Secretary then explained that 1) the County does not really have an existing building moratorium policy 2) there is only a 2~-acre require- ment for each building site, but even with that there has been some build- ing in the hillside area and 3) l for an emergency ordinance there is a 90-day limitation and then it can be ren~ed for a year; however, at the end of the year some permanent solution must be proposed. -5- Planning Commission Minutes - 22 November 1971 - Continued VI.. B. Moratorium - Bohlman Road-Norton Road - Continued Commissioner Smith'moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff°Report 'dated 22 November 1971, recommending that a moratorium on development and building be established for all the mountainous area served by Bohlman and Nort6n Roads, be adopted and fon~arded to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Commission; motion carried unanimously. C. Prides Crossing South Unit #4 - Revised Map The Secretary introduced the Subdivision Committee Report dated 22 November 1971 that 1) stated, the Subdivision Committee and Staff find no objection to the revisioD in the final map of Prides Crossing South Unit #4 regarding the alignment of Brookglen Drive and 2) recommend- ing that the City Council be advised that futur~ revisions on tentative maps be referred formally back to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. Commissioner Martin stated he is disturbed that the map was changed without-notification to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Smith stated that it should be conveyed to the City Council in some way that the Planning Co~nnission would like to review revisions made by the City Council in connection with tentative maps. Chairman Lively requested the Secretary to fon~ard a communication to the City Council stating that the Planning Commission requests that in the future if there is a revisi~n in;a tentative map it be referred back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation and/or con~nents. D. Prides Crossing - On-Site Inspection Commissioner Metcalf stated thatl he did make an on-site inspection, along with Commissioner Martin, and examined the area along Cox Avenue in Prides Crossing South 'subdivision and found a number of discrepancies that existed there:: 1) The planting that was put in Unit 1 has not been properly maintained and changes that were agreed upon were never made. 2) On the other side of Miller and along Cox Avenue the developer proceeded to put in brick pillars for a fence without getting Design Review Approval and the brick ~illars are now all in and may be slightly closer to the right-of-way than they actually should be. Commissioner Metcalf further stated that it should be stipulated to the developer that he should keep his fence back at least the same distance as the fence on the other side of Miller so there will be two-foot space for planting. As far as sight distance is concerned at the corner of Cox and Miller 'and at Miller and Brockton - in neither case can you make a turn and see to the left because of a six-foot fence and this situation should be reviewed by the Public Works Department. There are telephone cables and three poles at the area of the Cox Garage that serve only one location and seem to pro- vide no other useful purpose and this should be investigated. The Secretary explained that these matters will be given consideration by the Staff and a report submitted to the Planning Commission by the meeting of 13 December 1971. -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 22 N0ve~e~ 1971 - Continued VI. !·E. Amling-Gilmore Wholesale FlorisZt Commissioner Metcalf reported th~t.1)this establishment has been in existence for approximately one '{1) ~ear and still does not have a· legal sign and 2) the decoration on the building and the parking of numerous·trucks with advertis'ingz signs on them is a flagrant violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Conmis'sioner Metcalf suggested that the Code Enforcement Officer be urged to again contact the o~,mer and require him· to abate these violations. ! The Secretary explained that the' applicant has been contacted by the Code Enforcement'Officer andl steps are being taken to force the applicant to abat·e said violations. Chairman Lively stated that 1) this violation is in plain view of many other business establishments on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and these merchants will begin to fe~l that if the florist shop· can get avay with violating the Zoning O~dinance then they should be able to as well and 2) it should be ~ecommended to the City Council that immediate action be taken to eliminate the subject violations. F.' House on Douglass Lane and the C~nningham Houses Commissioner Metcalf, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Smith, stated that a combined inspection with the Health Department and Code Enforcement Officer should be made of the two (2) Cunninghamhouses and the house on Douglass Lane where there seem to be many ·suspicious activities unden~ay. G. C-129 - James F. Wilson, Pierce Road - Request for Reinstatement of Change of Zoning Application The Secretary read a communicati6n received from Mrs. Wilson requesting that the request for Change of ZOning in connection with C-129 be reinstated. He then explained that this application for Change of Zoning·was continued to after th& Completion of the General Plan Review. Chairman Lively requested the Sedretary to set a public-hearing for C-129 as soon as possible and referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee. H. Removal 8f Trees - Our Lady of F~tima Villa The Secretary read a communicatiqn received from the Lady of Fatima Villa explaining the reasons they felt:removal of a Pine Tree from the Villa property was justified. The Secretary explained that 1) ;he has denied the applicant a permit for removal of the tree 2) the permit was requested after two (2) other trees were removed without .a permit 3) several of the neighbors are very concerned and 4) this ~ppeal will be heard by the·City Council at their meeting of 1 December 1971; however, the matter should be referred to the Design Review Committee since they do have jurisdiction over landscaping. Sister Mary A'Kempis, O.P., present to represent the Villa, stated that the subj·ect tree is truly a potential accident hazard and the road is is poor condition and she would like to see the tree removed. Mr. L. A. Philipp, 19660 Glen Una Drive:, stated that 1) his wife has been a patient at the nursing home for two (2) years 2) he has visited the Villa each morning and each evening so he has been in and out of the park- ing lot approximately 1500 times and that makes him somewhat of an expert on the condition of this tree 3). the root system sustaining the tree in a vertical position is ~eak because of narrow bank soil under the tree and a high wind could blow the tree down on top of the building injuring many patients 4) his wife's room is directly opposite this tree and if the tree fell it would fall.right on a high-voltage line and 5) the parking is very limited and if the subject tree is removed the parking can be increased. -7.- Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 22 November 1971 - Continued VI. H. Trees - Continued Commissioner Metcalf, On behalf of the Design Review Committee, made arrangement with Sister A'Kempis'for an on-site inspection of this property for Tuesday, 23 November,1971. VII. NEW BUSINESS None ', VIII. CO~fUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN None Chairman acknowledged, with pleasure, 'the presence of Mrs. Russel Bacon, -...~ife of Commissioner Bacon, Doroti~y Parker and Roger Lueck of the Good Government Group. N6 Councilman was present at this meeting. IX. ADJOLrR~MENT Chairman Lively adjourned the meeting at 9:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Stanley M. Walker, Secretary .Saratoga Planning Commission j