Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-27-1971 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TIME: Monday, 2Z December 1971 - 7:30 P.M. · PLACE:. City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale-Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lively at 7:30 P.M. A. ROLL CALL Present: Cormmissioners Belanger, Lively, Marshall, Martin, and Smith. Absent: Commissioners Bacon and Metcalf. B. MINUTES CommissioF'.er Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the reading oil the minutes of 13 December 1971 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission with the following ch an g e: page 6. .change subject title to read "STOP SIGN AT BROCKTON!'; motion carried unanimously, II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-129 -·James F. Wilson, Pierce Road Request for Change o'f Zoning front "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-i-20,000" (Single-Family Residential)·- Continued from 13 December 1971 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to C-129 at 7:35 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file. Chairman Lively explained that the General Plan was amended to designate this property as two (2) lots in order to create a buffer property between the "R-1-12,500" zoning distirct and the "R-I-40,000" zoning district. CommiSsioner Smith read the Subdivision Committee Report dated 27 December 1971 recommending that the subject request for change of zoning be approved. The ·applicant was not present and no .one in the audience wished to comment. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to close the hearing relative to c-129 at 7:40 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. / Commissioner Smith moved, seconded By Comn~[ssioner Marsha..1. adopt the Subdivision Committee Report dated 27 December 1921----and""recommend · to the City Council for approval of C-129 to a.llow a change 'of ....... zoning from "R-1-40~000" (Single-Fami'ly Residential) to "R-I-20,000" (Single- Family Residential) on the basis the application is in accord with Section 18.6 of City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance NS-3 and the 1971 Saratoga General Plan and subject to the condition stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. .B. C'~140 - Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Saratoga and Cox Avenues - Request for Change of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "P-A" (Professional- Administrative) - Continued from 13 December 1971 · Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to C-140 at 7:42 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file. Chairman Lively explained that the church requested this change of zoning and'the· matter was taken under study as part of the General Plan Review and . the land use was changed to "P-A" (Professional-Administrative) on the General Plan Map and the request now is to change tk:e zoning to conform with the General Plan. -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 27 December' 1971 - Continued II. B. C-140 - Continued "The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 27 December 1971 recommending that request for change of zoning from "A" (AgricultUral) to "P-A" (Professional-Administrative) be approved. The applicant was not present and no one-in the audience wished to cormn~ent. =~Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to close the hearing relative to C-140 at. 7:45 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Cormnissioner Marshall·, ·to adopt the Staff Report dated 27 December 1971 and reconnnend to the City Council that the subject application for. change of zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "P-A" (Professional-Administrative) be approved on the basis the objectives of Section 1.1 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can ·be met and for the reason stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. C-150 - Kunkel-Thomas, Sobey Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-1-40,O00" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-I-40,000" "P-C" · i (Single-Family Residential Planned-Community) Ehairman :Lively opened the hearing relative to C-150 at 7:46 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notice Of Hearing was mailed and published. ' Chairman Lively explained that this is the old Leonard Coates Nursery property. The Secretary read a Statement of Reason filed by the applicant. Mr. Kunkel, the applicant, was present and stated that 1) the "P-C" development would provide a buffer for the school and unique landscaping in the subdivision 2) the normal setbacks for the regular "R-I-40,000" ~ .zoning district will be maintained 3). there will be no actual increase · '~=in density 4) pathways are so d~signed so the children could reach school ~,~ithout crossing streets 5) he met with the Homeowners Associa- tion in the area and explained the "~-C" approach to them 'and pointed out that this development would be of high quality residential construc- tion similar to the applicant's other development in the City and 6) the property can be developed either ·as a straight "R-I-40,000" or "R-1-40,O00" "P-C" but it is felt that a "P C" development would allow for a more desirable community. · Mr. Clyde D. Duffy, 18666 Ravenwood Drive, stated he was present to represent the ~omeo~ers in the subject area and to submit a petition containing one hundred (100).signatures in opposition to the proposed "P-C" development on the basis that the density will exceed that which is sho~,a~ on the ·General Plan. Eommissioner Martin explained that the density of this parcel will be no different than it would be if it were developed under· the regular "R-I-40,000" (Single-Fa~nily Residential) zoning. Mr·.· Duffy observed that if the ox~.~aer of a lot in the proposed development were to request permission to keep a horse the request would have to be denied because he did not have the necessary one-acre required to keep· a h~rs=~; therefore, residents of the "P-C" zone will not be able to do certain things ·that are available to people living in a straight "R-I-40,000" zoning district. Conm~issioner ~·L~rtin emphasized that there will be a great many restrictions placed on this development if it is developed under "P-C" zoning. Mr. Duffy stated that the residents ·of the area were invited to review the plans for the proposed "P-C" development and after doing so a petition, against the proposed "P-C" development ~-was drafted and signed by the residents of the area.. '-2- Planning Commission Minutes - 27 December 1971 - Continued II. C. 'C-150 - ContinUed Dr. James F. Barrett, 20675 Wood~ard Court, stated that the area is now zoned "R-I-40,000" and the adjacent property o~¢ners would like it to stay that way. Chairman Lively explained that ev'en if it is developed under regular '~-1-40,000" zoning there can still be twelve (12) homes on this site. Dr. Barrett. stated that 1) the objections related only to the "P-C" development 2) most of the people o~¢ning property around the subject parcel actually have more than the required 40,000 Square foot lots and .. 3) if a "P-C" development is allowed then other people in the neighbor- hood will try to subdivide their lots. Conmmissioner Martin stated the City could not allow anyone to divide · one acre lots - one reason being that a subdivided lot .of that size would not provide any open-space. Cornmissi,~ner Smith stated that it appeared the residents of the area were ignoring the whole idea of the "P-C" concept. , Chairm:~n Lively stated that 1) a proposal is currently under study that he feels will satisfy everyone and 2) it iS a proposal which is different than the one proposed by the applicant. and is very close to' straight "R-I-40,000" zoning. Mr. Delaplain McDaniel, 14253 Hilltop Way, stated that 1) he felt the subject location was poor for the.type of development proposed 2) a twelve (12) acre parcel is too small for "P-C" and it would simply end up as a subdivision with a swim club 3) the area would appear as a 7denselypopulated area under a "P-C" development and 4) the open-space ,~'ill give the appearance of a flat little park. Mrs. Douglas Hines, 14137 Sobey Road, stated 1) .she lived on a hill overlooking this property 2) she objec~ to the proposed "P-C" develop- ment because she will be looking directly onto this development and if the homes are clustered together as p~oposed it will give the appearance of a densely populated area and 3) this proposal does not go along with the ~ural atmosphere of the Sobey Road area. Mrs. Geraldine Barrett, 20675 Woodward Court, stated there really should not be any controversy since the people have stated they are opposed to the "P-C" concept. ~qly not leave'it at the "R-1-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) zoning? Chairman Lively explained that anyone interested in discussing this matt'er with the Subdivision Committee can'call the Planning Director at City Hall and arrange for an appointment. b~s. Sue Jennings,.14955 Sobey Road, stated that 1) she is in favor of leaying the size of the lots just as they are 2) there will not be that much open-space left after the road improvements are completed and 3) she moved into this area because it is in an equestrian zone and because of the rural atmosphere. 'Mr. Shelley Willjams, 11915 Brook Ridge Drive, Realtor, stated that 1) he represented the sellers of the property and the developer Kunkel-Thomas 2). this is a long narrow piece of land ~ich is difficult to develop 3) a "P-C" development has many appealing features and would enhance the property 4) tennis courts will be provided as part of the open-space and 5) he wondered if the people objecting had looked at the renderings submitted for the development of this parcel. Mr. Clark, 14057 Arcadi~ Palms, stated he signed the petition objecting to the proposed "P-C" development 2) even if the density is not changed the lot sizes will be decreased and 3) the fact still remains that the residents of the area would be looking on a subdivision with smaller lot sizes and he objects to that arrangement. -3- Planning Connnission Minutes - 27 December .1971 - Cbntinued II. C. C-150 - Continued Mr. Bill Christiansen, 18510 Sobey Road, stated he 1) objects to the use of this property for a "P-C" development 2) he feels the proposed tennis courts are just something to make the development more palatable and 3) he has no'L objections to the general development of the property just as long as it conforms to the General Plan of the City. Commissioner Smith stated that 1).special requirements can beimposed on 'a "P-C" development by the Planning Cormnission 2) the houses in a "P-C" development San be spaced as far apart as they are in a regular "R-I-40,000" zoning district 3) to the residents looking.down on this area the houses would appear to be closer together but theL opposition has not'made a careful study of the ordinance to see what requirements must be fulfilled to .have a "P-C" approved by the Planning Commission and 4) if the people objecting did study the ordinance some of the objections might be eliminated. Chairman Lively pointed out that this particular proposal does not fulfill '~he requirements for a "P~C" development Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee did recon~nend to the developer that he not propose a "P-C" for this property. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:28 P.M., directed C-150 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Sub- division Committee for further study. D. C-151 ~ ~rshall S. Hall, Wardell Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-l-15,000" (Single-F~anily Residential) and "R-i-40,000" ~Single-Family Residential) to "A" (Agricultural) qhairman Lively opened the hearing:relative to C-151 at 8:29 P.M. The Secretary stated that a Notice'of Hearing was'mailed and published. He further stated that the applicant wants to turn this property into an Agricultural Preserve under the Williamson Act. Judge Hall, the applicant, was present and stated 1) it is necessary that .the ~roperty be zoned for "A" (Agricultural) to qualify for an Agricultural Preserve and 2) he is not interested in subdividing the property and does not wan~ to be forced to do so. No one else present wished to Comment relative to this matter. Chairman Lively closed the hearing 'for the evening at 8:32 P.M., directed C-151 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subl division Cormnittee for. study. and a report at the next regular meeting. E. V-370 - Raymond W. Daly, Seaton Avenue - Request for Variance to Allow a Decrease in Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Permit Accessory Structure Chairman Lively opened the public hearing relative to V-370 at 8:33 P.M. The Secretary stated that 1) the Notice of Hearing was mailed and the applicant requests that an accessory structure having a 2-foot rear yard setback be allowed 2) this is a complex matter because the structure is already in existence since the applicant was issued a Building Permit due to an error by the Planning Director and 3) the building has never received final building inspection and the City Attorney suggested d~ree (3) alternatives to'correct this situation: 1) Relocate the building to conformwith ,with the ordinance. 2) Eliminate the building. 3) Applicant apply for Variance (~ich he has done). Planning CoFanission Minutes - 27 December 1971 - Continued II. E. V-370 - Continued The Secretary further stated 1) the grade of this property is, also, at issue here 2) the applicant was asked to stop construction until this matter could be resolved, but he chose to finish the building beforehand and 3) there is a petition signed by t~enty-eight (28) persons who are residents of the immediate area stating· their opposition to the proposed Variance. In addition there are two (2) co~unications filed in opposition to the subject request by: 1) Eugene and Eleanor Pallange of 20672 Woodward Court, Saratoga. ~') Mr. M. W. Rasmussen of 20650 Woodward Court, Saratoga. ~. Daly, the applicant, was present and stated that 1) if he had kno~ he was going to cause so ~ch uproar over this building he would not have built it 2) he had purchased a metal building that was quite ugly in compari- son' to the existing one and after starting to ass~ble it he decided it was an unsightly structure and'he retu~ed it to the store 3) perhaps, he should have continued rith his plan for the metal building and ·avoided all the compli- cations he is involved in now 4) he went through the proper channels at City Hall and obtained the appropriate pe~its 5) he was never at any time aware that '.he was in violation during construction of this building and 6) he used .the finest building materials available and he has no intention of moving the bui 1 ding. ~. M. W. Rasmussen, 20650 Woodward Court, was present and 1)..=. ~stated that his property adjoins this subject property and 2) he submitted and read a letter written by him listing his reasons for opposing the requested ~ariance and giving a chronological list of events pertinent to the ultimate applicatio~l..-for Variance in connection with this building which he considers to be illegal under the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Pallange of 20672 Woodward Court stated he did not believe the subject building to be in accord with the City of SaratOga Zoning Ordinance - he does feel the building is an eye sore and will devaluate his property and it should be removed. ~ai~an Lively stated that the Variance Co~ittee will make an on-site inspection of this property to dete~ine 'the Planning CoEission's position in the matter. Co~issioner Martin, on behalf of the Variance Co~ittee, arranged for a meeting of the Variance CoEittee on.Friday, 31 December 1971 at 9:00 A.M. for the purpose of reviewing this application. Mrs. Pallange, '7 20672 Woodward Court stated that she hoped the Variance CoEittee would view this illegal structure from her property in order to better understand how offensive the structure is from their point of view. Mr. John F. Bogas, 20694 Woodward Court, stated that the subject structure should most definitely be viewed from adj'acent properties in order to under- stand the objections of the neighbors. 'Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:54 P.M., directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Variance CoEittee for study. CoEissioner Martin, on behalf of the Variance Co~ittee, arranged with the applicant for an on-site inspection of the property on Saturday, 8 January 1972 at 9:00 A.M. He, also, arranged with Mr. Rasmussen and Mr. and Mrs. Pallange for an appointment to view the subject structure from their properties on Saturday, 8 January 1972 at 9:30 A.M. -5-· Planning Coromission Minutes - 27 December 1971 -.Continued III. BUILDING SITES'AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-904 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass Lane - Subdivision Approval - 15 Lots - Continued from 13 December 1971 Commissioner Smith stated that as a result of the Joint Study. Session with the City Council and the Planning Commission a new plan is required .for this development; therefore, SD-904 should be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directed. B. SDR-931 -Jordan. M. Pennoyer, Via Regina - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from'13 December 1971 Commissioner Smit~ recommended that this matter be continued to allow time for further study of problems pertinent to this building site. Chairman Lively directed SDR-931 continued to the next regular meeting. C. SDR-932 - George Akers, E1 Camino Senda - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from 13 December.1971 Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-932 be continued to the next regular meeting in order to allow time to resolve some Health Department reqhirements relative to this application. Chairman Lively so directed. D. SDR-934 - James F. Wilson, Pierce Road'- Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 13 December 1971 Commissioner Smith read the Building Site Committee Report dated 27 December 1971 recommending that the tentative map in connection with SDR-934 be approved subject to General Condition - I and Specific Conditions - II as set forth in the said report. Mrs. Wilson, present to represent the applicant, stated that 1) she objects to Specific Cor~ition - II-I requiring that the existing stable building be demolished or relocated 2) this is a finely built barn and can be remodeled into a beautiful residence 3) she would like the opportunity to present some plans to the Planning Commission showing the proposed renovation of this barn and ~) after the plans have been presented she feels this condition could be reconsidered by the Commission. Commissioner Marshall stated that this is a hardship lot and difficult to develop, but the Planning Commission agreed to consider it a legal lot, but now the applicant further requests 'the Planning Commission to allow a structure to be converted into a residence that does not conform with the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Smith recommended that the ZBuilding Site Conmittee Report be adopted as written and the applicant be 'allowed to request reconsideration of the condition she finds 'objectionable. Chairman.Lively explained that 1) a portion of this barn will have to be removed or relocated because it sits within the required setback'for this lot. and 2) Mrs. Wilson can meet with the Subdivision Committee to discuss reconsider- ation oB the requirement relative to removal or relocation of the barn. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded'by Conm~issioner Marshall, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 27 December 1971 relative to SDR-934 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 3 December 1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. E. SDR-935 - John L. Richardson, Quito Road'- Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Mrs. Pickering Smith was present and requested that SDR-935 be continued to the next regular meeting since the applicant could not be present at this time. Chairman Lively so directed. -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 27 December 1971 - Continue~ III. F. SDR-936 - John Markulin~ Leonard Road.- Building Site Approval - 2 Lots The applicant'has reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Smith explained that the applicant does not 'have right-of-way over the property he is required to improve under the Building Site Commitee Report. The Secretary explained that the applicant will be able to put in the 30-foot street without affecting the building, .but he cannot provide the 40-foot right-of-way. Commissioner ~rshall stated that via ~he Building Site Committee Report the applicant is being told that if he can meet all the conditions stated then he can develop the property. Chairman Lively recommended that the matter be given further study and a set of conditions be prepared that everyone can agree on or a recommendation for denial e£ Ehe request be made. The Secretary explained that 'the applicant has indicated that he is attempting to obtain right-of-way over the Belcher property; thereby, providing him with frontage on Leonard Road. Chairman Lively referred SDR-936 to the Subdivision Committee and directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting. G. SD-937 - Saratoga Foothills Development, Corp., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Wardell Road - Subdivision Approval -.21 Lots CommiSsioner Smith recormnended that thi;s matter be continued to the next regular meeting to allow time for further study. Chairman Lively so directed. H. SD-938 - Saratoga Foothills Development~ Corp.'~ Saratoga Avenue - 18 Lots Commissioner Smith stated that the Secretary was instructed to inform this applicant' that the Subdivision Committee is hesitant to present this proposal to the Co~nission. The Secretary stated that the Park and Recreation Commission has submitted a memo recommending that this application'for subdivision be denied.,since the proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan in that the Central Park has been designated for this area. Commissioner Marshal]. stated that the Subdivision Committee would like to go on record and state': that they consider this plan to be unimaginative. ~he Secretary stated that the applicant.intends to further discuss this plan with the Subdivision Conm~ittee and the applicant is ~are that'the_plan is unacceptable in the opinion of the'Subdivision Conmittej. 7 Commissioner Smith stated that as a result of this application the City Council will have to decide whether or not. the City ~11 definitely use this area for a Central Park and if the decision is to use'it for a park then ~e City ~..~11 have to make funds available for puchase of said property. Chairman Lively directed SD-938 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for a report at the ne~t Planning Commission meeting. -7- Planning Cormnission Minutes - 27 December·1971 - Continued V. CITY COIrNCIL REPORT The Secretary stated that Commissioner Metcalf Wrote up a summary of the items discussed and the action taken at the City Council meeting of 15 December 1971. A copy of this summary has been placed in each Commissioners folder for their review. PLA~rNING POLICY CO~'~ITTEE Chairman Lively stated that PPC did meet on 16 December 1971 and 1) adopted the Joint City-County Santa cruz Mountain Study ·including the bonus and site density 2) approved A1-20 acre zoning for the Redwood Gulch area 3) made recommendations to urge the Board of Supervisors to allow interim building regulations in the Monte Bello Rdige Mountain Study Area and 4) · discussed Solid Waste Disposal at· great 1 eng th. i ~ VI. OLD BUSINESS A. STOP SIGN - In't·ersection of Brockton and. Miller The Secretary· i~Cated that this matter is under study by the Public Works Department and will be resolved by the Staff. VIi. NEW BUSINESS A. SDR-930 - Fernando J. Gonzalez, Arroyo de Arguello - Request for Reconsideration of Conditions The Secretary read a conm~unication rece{ved from the applicant requesting a reconsideration of conditions as stated in the Building Site Committee Report of 22 November 1971 Chairm..~n Lively directed this request continued to the next regular meeting and referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee. VIii. COP~{UNICATIONS A. WRITTEN None B. ORAL Saratoga Market .. " Commissioner Belanger stated that a plan was submitted to the Design Review Committee which showed a change in the front facade of the Saratoga Market and the Co~ranittee asked the applicant to resubmit a more simple·· plan. The Market has now been repainted a bright yellow and some grill work has been added. The Secretary explained that the applicant still 'intends to submit plans for this remodeling and until then the City. cannot stipulate the colors he is to use on the building. . ........... Earthquake Protection .... · Mr. Bogart, Wardell Road, stated he x.~ould like to emphasize the need for increased earthquake protection i.e. who has jurisdiction to say what water to use or to turn off the gas if and when an earthquake should occur. With the increase in population these matter should be clearly defined. Good Wishes for New Year Chairman Lively ·thanked all the Planning Commissioners and Staff for their assistance and help in the past year and wished them a happy and prosperous New Year. He, also, thanked the Good Gove~mment Group for their continued support and for the coffee they served at each meeting throughout the year. -8- Planning Comnission Minutes - 27 December 1971 - Continued IX. ADJOUP~NI.~NT Chairman Lively adjourned the meeting at 10 16 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Stanley M. Walker, Secretary Saratoga Plannin~ Commission ~9-