Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-1972 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO[~[[SSION MINUTES TIME: Monday, 10 April 1972 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 FruitVale Avenue, Saratoga, Californi'a 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 Belanger, Lively, ~rshall, ~rtin, Metcalf, and Smith. Absent: Conmissioner Bacon. B. ~NUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded. by Commissioner Marshall, that the reading of the minutes of the 27 March 1972 meeting be waived a~d that they be approved as distributed; motion carried unanimously. .II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-2~7 - Brookside Club of Saratoga, Cox Avenue - Request for Use Permit to Allow two (2) Additional Tennis Courts - Continued from 27 March 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the publi;c hearing at 7:35 P.M. The Secretary read the Staff Repor.t dated 10 Xpril 1972 recommending that the subject request for Use Permit be granted. Commissioner Metcalf recommended that the following be added to line 2. . under 6. Design Review. . .on page 2. . ."and for fence-design and location." Mrs. Askew of 12641 Saratoga Creek Drive stated that there are still some areas of property that are not fenced and some areas where the fence is~ very weak. It is her feeling and those of her 'neighbors that the practice schedule of the Club Swim Team should be altered s6mewhat since a great deal of noise is often generated by these sessions. Commissioner Smith 'r~'~ommende~ that under "Hours of Operation". .on page 2. ... the swimming schedule for 'the Club Swim Team be changed to read "June 15 thru September 15". Commissioner Belanger st'ated that She is under the impression the neighbors, also, object to the hours of practice allowed the Club Swim Team. It is annoying to be awakened to a lot of noise in the early morning during the summer months. Commissioner Smith stated that the 'hours can be changed if the neighbors .complain that the hours are unsuitable. - · Commissioner Martin informed Mrs. ~skew that she could contact the Secretary if the rules stated in the Staff Report dated 10 April 1972 are violated. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded bY Commissioner Marshall to close.the hearfng relative to UP-207; motion carried unanimously. .Commissioner Smith moved, seconded ~y Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff' Report dated 10 April 1972 relative, to UP-207 be adopted, as amended, and a Use Permit be g, ranted to allow t~o !(2) additional tennis courts at the' Brookside Club of Saratoga subject to the conditions and rules stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 1972 - Continued II. B. UP-208 -'Clarence Neale, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Reques~ for Use Permit to Allow a Restaurant - Continued from 27 March 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to UP-208 at 8:02 P.M. The Secretary stated that, Mr. Sullivan, would-be owner of the proposed restaurant, submitted a communication requesting that the application for 'Use Permit be withdrawn. -.' Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commi'Ssioner Marshall, to close the hearing relativeto UP-208; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner ~rshall, that the request for withdrawal be approved and that all further deliberations relative to UP-208 be terminated; motion carried unanimously. C. UP-209'- Royce S. Kaufmann, Pierce Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow Private Swim and Racket Club - Continued from 27 March 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to UP-209 at 8:04 P.M. The Secretary stated that the applicant has requested that this matter be continued to the meeting of 24 April 1972. The Secretary then read a communication filed in opposition to the.proposed Use Permit by David Rayse of 13730 Pierce Road. Mr. Bob Dennis of 13384 Surrey Lane submitted a petition signed by sixteen (16') residents of Pierce Road and a second petition signed by fourteen (14) residents of Surrey'Lane. Both filed in opposition to the proposed Use Permit. Mr. Scott Smith of 13145 Pierce Road stated that 1) he questioned the advisability of a club of this type in this location 2) the club would have to draw people from a great distance to fill a facility of the size proposed and 3) a venture - the ~ize of this club - would most definitely constitute a commercial operation.and the property involved is in a "R-i" -(Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee has met with this applicant and the Secretary has requested Mr. Kaufmann (applicant) to submit a list of the proposed memSers and a copy of the by-laws of the club. Neither of these items have been receivedlto date. Chairman Lively raised the question of availability of water-supply and the sanitary-facilities and stated that the applicant should be requested to submit some statement relative to these items. Also, some verification should be obtained as to whether or not this club stands by itself as a single entity as a private or non-private club or if it is indeed linked with other clubs located in the State~ Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:10 P.M., directed UP-209 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Sub- division Committee for study. D. U~-210 Immanuel Lutheran Church~ Saratoga'Avenue an~ Seagraves Way - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Special School for Learning Chairman Li~ely opened the public'hearing for UP-210 at 8:11 P.M. The'Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed. He then rea~ a Statement of Reason filed by Gerald Amundson, Pastor of the Immanuel Lutheran' Church. The Secretary further stated that Mrs. A. Slade of 14220 Loveland Court did contact him to say.that She is in favor of the proposed Use Permit. -2- Planning Commission M~nutes - 10 April 1972 - Continued II. D. UP-210 - Continued Mr. Don ~itehoff, President of t~e Congregation of' the Innnanuel Lutheran Church, stated that 1) he has been the Chairman of the Committee working to set up the program for the proposed school 2) if the requested Use Permit is approved a Director for .the school will be employed 3) hopefully the school can open in September, 1972 - with a screening program for students taking place during the summer modths of 1972 4) it is anticipated that these children will be very well controiled 5) it is the desire of this organization to maintain a one (1) to one (1) teacher-child ratio 6) noise will be kept at a very minimum level, because of the close supervision of the children and 7) he would appreciate a faVOrable response from the Commission. Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee met with the appli- cant and are of the opinion that this would be a very worthwhile use at the proposed location. Commissioner Metcalf stated that he agreed that the idea of such a facility was good and Design Review Approval should be obtained for any additional construction or fencing in connection with the subject use. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:17 P.M., directed the Use Permit request continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for study and a report. E. V-373 - Charla Ann Bro~.m, Canyon View Drive - Request for Variance to Allow Decrease in Front Yard Setback Requirements - Coptinued from 27 March 1972 'C~ir~nan Lively reopened the hea~ing relative to V-373 at 8:18 P.M. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 10 April 1972 recommending that the variance request in connection with V-373 be granted. Mr. Jim D. Morelan, architect for ~the applicant, stated that 1) at the last meeting one of the Commissioners raised the question of why the garage for this house cannot be located at the end of the house and 2) the reason is that the garage at that location would require the cars to back out onto the street; thereby, causing a safety'hazard. Commissioner Metcalf stated that it was not suggested that the garage be placed at the end of the house, but rather that it be placed on the second story. Mr. Morelan stated that at either location the cars would be required to back out onto the street. Mr. Donald R. Roberts 0f 21107 Canyon View Drive stated that his home is located approximately 200-y~rds from the applicant's property and he is opposed to the requested variance. Approval of this variance would improve the applicant's view at the expense of other property o~aers in the area. Chairman Lively explained that the applicant has already moved the location of the house and the house will be 40-feet back from the road. · Mr. Roberts stated that the further back from the r&ad this house is located the more privacy that ~ill be afforded this' applicant. ~ I~hen he moved into the area ands. built his home he was required to meet all the setback require- ments. Mrs. Roberrs ~f!21107 Canyon View'Drive stated that 1) another variance was granted at one time in this area and the neighbors were assured that the height of the house would not exceed the size of growth of some existing bushes on the variance lot; however, it turned out that the house did exceed the the height. of the shrubbery and the view of the surrounding neighbors was lost. 2) she and her husband chose their lot because of. the view it offered and she feels their rights should be protected and 3) she and her husband had to design their house twice in order to come up with a plan that conformed with the setback requirements and it is her opinion that everyone building in this area should build within the established setbacks. Planning Commission Minutes - 10 April 1972 - Continued II. E. V-373 - Continued Mr. Morelan stated that he can see the type of indigent occurring as described by Mrs. Blanca Roberts if a good survey were not.done, but the applicant has a good survey available and it will not be possible to later discover that the roof line would be higher than originally shown on the plan. Mr. Jack Stone of 21060 Canyon View Drive stated that the applicant should be required to build ~he ~roposed house within the setback requirements just as he did when he constructed his house. Mrs. Stone ef 21060 Canyon View Drive stated that 1) the Variance Committee did view the proposed site from the deck of her home; however, she feels that sh'e was remiss in not asking the. Committee to view the site from inside her home in order to understand how her view would be affected if this variance vere granted and 2) if the applicant is allowed to build under the current sub- mitted plan the house will be directly in view from her (Mrs. Stone) dining~room, kitchen, and family room and if the house were moved back on the property her view would not be affected. Commissioner Marshall stated that it is his opinion, after viewing the subject lot from the Stone residence, that if the proposed house were moved bac~on the property the view from the Stone property would be more obstructed. Commissioner Metcalf recommended that perhaps the house could be moved and that would automatically start the2constuction 5-feet lower. Mr. Morelan stated that it is desirable to have the house parellel within the contours and problems would be created if the house were dropped another 5-feet in that it would increase the slope of the driveway and that would be highly undesirable. Mrs.'Roberts stated that' h~r' l~t'has a steep driveway and it has'worked' beautfully for ingress and' egress purposes. Chairman Lively stated that if this variance is granted it is his feeling that numerous similar requests will be forthcoming. Mr. Stone stated that there are a large number of difficult building-sites that are presently b~ing sold at a cheap price and if these.'variances are granted for these lots some inexpensive property will be made very valuable. Commissioner }~rtin stated that the applicant can, undoubtedly, build a house on this property without a variance but it is the, opinion of the Variance Committee that the house without a variance will be undesirable in appearance and will not improve the view for the people living below this.lot. Mrs. Stone stated that the plan submitted was prepared by the applicant and the arcl~itect and based on the premise that a variance would be granted; therefore, if the variance were not approved a new design for the house for the subject lot would have to be prepared. Commissioner Metcalf stated that he is opposed to granting the requested variance. Mrs. Brown, applicant, stated that;l) she feels that the plan currently being considered is a very nice plan and the house in the proposed location would actually benefit the neighborhood 2) it is very costly to build and if this home is carefully constructed she feels everyone will be pleased ~ith the finished product 3) many of the neighbors have been allowed variances for their lots and 4) there is a law stating that everyone living along a stream has an equal share in the water and it is her opinion that the same thing should apply to view rights. Conm~issioner Belanger stated that if this variance is granted the applicant' can be required to submit plans for Design Review Approval. Mrs. RoSerts stated that the applicant can certainly have her share of the view and still comply with setback requirements. The applicant's property faces a view of streams, hil'ls, and trees which she can ~etain withouta variance; however, the Robert's property did have an ugly bank which had to be landscaped and made attractive along with complying with the setback requirements. Planning Commissi.on Minutes - 10 April 1972:- Continued II. E. V-373 - Continued Chairman Lively stated that the decision relative to this variance is important not only as it pertains to this individual lot and neighborhood but as far as setting a precedent for future similar requests. Commissioner Metcalf recommended that this variance request be continued to allow time for further study of this matter. Mr. Morel~n'requeSted that some action be taken relative to V-373 a~ this time rather than delaying the matter. Chairman Lively closed the hearing'for the evening at 8:55 P.M., directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred V-373 to the Variance Committee and requested members of the Planning Commission to make an on-site inspection of this property. F. V-374 - Brookside Club of Saratoga~ Cox Avenue - Request for Variance to Allow Decrease in Front Yard Setback Requirements for Construction of a Chain Link Fence - Continued from 27 March 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to V-374 at 8:56 P.M. The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 10 April 1972 relative to V-374 and recommending that the variance request be approved. Commissioner Metcalf recommended that the subject report be amended as follows: in ~ondition a) .line 2. .and 3. .add "as shown on Exhibitl. "Y" in file UP-207". .between the words i"trees" and "along"; in condition a) .line 4. . .add the word "guenias'mYrtifolia" .between the words "plant" and "in"; cSndition b) and c). .of the subject Staff Report. .delete entirely. Commissioner Smith recommended that the "Note" on page 2 of the report be deleted. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner ~rshall, that the hearing relative to V-374 be closed at 9:00 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff Report dated 10...Ap-ril. 1972 be adopted, as amended, and that the subject Variance be ,~nted~to allow a decrease in front-yard setback requirements for construc~ion-"~f a chain-link fence since the findings of Section 17.6 of the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance can be made; motion carried unanimously. G. ~-375 - Miljevich EnterpriSes, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Request for Variance to Allow"Increase'in Square-Footage Area of Building - Continued from 27 March 1972 Chairman LiVely reopened the hearing relative to V-375 at 9:01 P.M. The Secretary stated that the Variance Committee rec5mmends that this matter be.continued. Mr. James Brown, President of the Northwest Homeowners Association, stated that 1) he 'recently came across Riches Research Report (a study of the subject.area conducted in 1966-67) and in it'it shows quite a specialized us for this entire area and excludes major super-markets and large stores and the report states that C-V (Visitor-Commercial) Zoning would be the best use for this area 2) a letter accompanying the report states the Planning Commission recommended ~o~the City Council that they limit the stores in this area to 12,000-square feet and 3) .-he would again like to request that the subject variance request be denied. for a super~market of the size proposed. -5r Planning Commission Minutes - 10 April 1972 - Continued II. G. V-375 - Continued Mr. Sam tlernandez, businessman on Big Basin Way, s[a~ed that 1) he is in favor of the proposed variance request 2) the property in question has not been'developed because of the restrictive existiug zoning 3) the other super-markets in the area do need Competition and this proposed market would provide that as well as bring in additional tax-revenue and 4) i~ this property were developed as proposed would, also, provide a decent aesthetic view for an entrance tO the City. Mr. Richard Wall, 12260 Via Roncole, stated that 1) he is concerned that if this variance request is gr'anted further violations of the Zoning Ordi- nance may occur 2) the applicant has show~ by exampie, total disregard of City Ordinances; therefore, he should be required to correct existing violations prior to any variance approval 3) it has been stated that Mr. Hamilton,' President of Miljevich Enterprises, Inc., could be relieved of his authority in this matter and the bank will not grant financing,.for a center without a large-market-or+tenant that will draw customers and 4) he is not against the variance, but does feel that some adjustments must be made in order to bring this property into compliance with.City Ordinances. Commissioner Smith stated that this request.should not be considered on the basis of past violations committed on this property by an individual. Commissioner Marshall stated the biggest problem in considering this appli- cation has been that residents of the area have been bringing up things not directly connected with the subject variance. Commissioner Martin recommended, on behalf of the Variance Conmittee, that this request for variance be continued. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 9:12 P.M., directed V-375 continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Variance Committee for study. H. V-376 - Edward H. Stirm, Nutwood Lane - Request for Variance to Allow Decrease in Both Side and ~ear Yard S~backs for Construction of Chain Link Fence - Continued from 27 March 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 9:13 P.M. The applicant was not present. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 10 April 1972 recommending that the subject request.for variance be granted. Chairman Lively stated that the subject report should be amended to allow only an 8-foot height for the fence. Commissioner Marshall advised that.the applicant and his neighbor did discuss building one-joint tennis-court an~ sharing ownership. Commissioner Smith pointed out that in that case neither lot would have the .proper setbacks. ~ Chairman Lively stated that, perhaps, a variance could be granted for the joint tennis-court since not too many other people could achieve this end. Commissioner MarShall explained that the subject lot is located on.a cul-de-sac and the proposed tennis-court could not be seen by more than four (4) residents of the area. ~ Commissioner Belanger pointed out that if a joint-venture for the tennis-courts is realized a lot of beautiful orchard trees would be lost. Commissioner Marshall stated that, in his opinion, the Planning Commission should decide on a policy to eithe~ allow variances for tennis-courts or not to allow them and then comply with that policy. -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 10 April 1972 .- Continued II. H. V-376 - Continued Commissioner Martin stated that the' Variance Committee did consider ~ allowing the variance and requiring the applicant to plant shrubbery to cover the fence. Commissioner Belanger pointed out that the standard size for a tennis court is 60X120 and this court is_5.9Xl18 in s~ze;.so, this court is actually sub-standard Commissioner Smith stated Chat this variance request cannot qualify and meet the findings ~equired under Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Section 17.6 (4). Chairman Lively stated that the applicant could be allowed to build a 6~foot high fence. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that if an increase in fence height is allowed the applicant can be required to place the court in a certain area on his property. Commissioner Metcalf recommended th'at this variance be denied. The Secretary requested that V-376 be continued to the next regular meeting since the applicant was not~ present at this time and he (the applicant) was under the impression that a favorable recommendation would be made at this time. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the variance request to allow a decreas.e in both side-and rear-setbacks--f~r construction of a chainslink fence in connection with V-376 be<d.enie~_~ since the findings required by Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Section 17.6 (4) .cannot be made; motion carried with Commissioners Belanger and Martin voting "no". III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-950 - Dr. Richard A. Wallace, Pierce Road - Building Site Approval - 4 Lots - Continued from 27 March 1972 Commissioner Smith recommended that. SDR-950 be continued to the next regular meeting'in order to allow the applicant time to submit a revised map. Chairman Lively so directed. B. SD-952 - AVCO Community Development', Inc., Cox Avenue and Sea Gull Way - Subdivision Approval - 67 Lots - Continued from 27 March 1972 The Secretary recommended that SD-95'2 be continued to the next regular meeting. A letter from the State Division of Highways relative to this application has been placed in each Commissioner~ folder. This property lies within the proposed West Valley Freeway right-of-way. Commissioner Smith explained that the freeway will gp through the middle of this property. Commissioner Metcalf stated that th.e Planning Cormmission refused to accept another applicant's subdivision map. at one time on the basis it did not comply. with established freeway right-of-way. Commissioner Marshall advised that .the applicant did come up with two (2) plans - one observing the right-of-way and the other not observing the right-of-way. The letter from the State Division of Highways clearly states that they have only emergency funds available; therefore, they will not put forth any monies for the purchase of this'land unless it is approved for development. Planning Cormnissi~n Minutes - 10 April 1972 '- Continued III. B. SD-952 - Continued Commissioner Metcalf pointed out that the City of Saratoga has a General Plan that shows this freeway and until the State Division of Highways abandons any intentions of building this freeway all subdividers in the area of the freeway must conform with freeway right-of-way as is currently shown on the General Plan. Chairman Lively explained that if'the City does approve a plan for development of this property the State will·be forced to take some action on the freeway right-of-way located on this property. The Secretary pointed out that it will be necessary for the applicant to submit a letter of extension prior to the next regular meeting in order to continue this application for subdivision. Mr. Biegle, presant to represent the applicant, stated that he will prepare a letter of extension. He further stated that a tentative map must be approved in order for the State Division of Highways to release any funds for right-of-way purchase. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to deny Subdivision Approval for SD-952 unless a letter of extension is received from the applicant; motion carried unanimously. C. SDR-953 - Charla Ann Brown, Canyon·View Drive Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 27 March 1972 Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-953 be continued to the next regular meeting since the varianc~ request V-373, directly related to this application, has not yet beeh resolved., Chairman Lively so directed. D. SDR-955 - Angelina Arata, Maude Avenue - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 27 MarCh 1972 The Secretary explained that this'request was continued to this meeting in order to allow time for the applicant to submit a revised plan showing development of the entire property owned by this applicant. Commissioner Smith inquired if the applicant plans to develop· this property into two (2) lots. Mr. David Arata, present to represent the applicant, stated that his Mother (owner of the property) does not intend to mak~ any further division of this property after the sale of Lot "A". Commissioner Metcalf sta~ed that presumably this property will have to be divided some day. Commissioner Marshall stated that now is the time to plan the entire parcel for·any future development - it is best to. plan an entire parcel at one time. Commissioner Martin agreed'that i~ is very desirable to have the division shown on one map, but is there an~ comnittmqnt that assures the City that the property cannot be sho~n some other way in the future. Chairman Lively'explained that the Cit~ cannot force an applicant to plan his property for development'if he does not wish eo so at this time. Commissioner Marshall ~tated'there is no reason to create a built-in- problem to be resolved by future Flanning Cormnissions. Chairman Lively stated that it islfairl~ obvious that two (2) lots can be realized from the remaining 2.15 acres of this property. Planning Commission Minutes - 10 April 1972 .- Continued Ill. Do SDR-955 - Continued Commissioner Smith stated that a plan showing development'of the entire property is desirable. Commissioner Metcalf stated that the matter'should be decided by the- Subdivision Committee. Chairman Lively requested the applicant to submit plans showing development of the ent}re'property and directed SDR-955 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for further study. E. SDR-957 Andrew P. Lassen, Sobey 'Road Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 27 March 1972 The Secretary recomrm~eded that SDR-957 be continued to the next regular meeting in order to allow further time for review of driveway-location. Chairman Lively so directed. F. SDR-958 - Jerry C. Henry, Palomino Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 27 March 1972 Commissioner Smith moved, seconded' by Commissioner Marshall, that the Building Site Connnittee Report dated 10 April 1972 relative to SDR-958 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-i", filed 28 March 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. Go SD-959 - Stoneson Construction Company, Big Basin Way - Subdivision Approval 60 Lots - Continued from .27 March 1972 The Secretary stated that the Santa Clara County Flood Control would like to obtain right-of-way for a portion of this property for the purpose of maintaining the creek upstream from the existing bridge. Flood Control does not contemplate any improvements to the channel. Commissioner Belanger stated that the lighting at this development should be reviewed since there have been'complaints received in connection with the existing lighting. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner ~rshall, that the Subdivision Committee Report dated 10 April. 1972 relative to SD-959 be adopted and that the tentative mab (Exhibit '~", filed 16 March 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. , H. SDR-960 - Clara S. Dwiggins, Pierce Road and Surrey Lane - Building Site Approval - Continued from 27 March 1972 The Secretary read a letter received from the applicant's representative requesting that SDR-960 be withdrawn. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the request to withdraw SDR-960 be approved and further consideration for this application be terminated; motion carried unanimously. I. SDR-961 - Osterlund Enterprises, Saraglen Drive - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Commissioner Smi[h explained that'this building site is part of a subdivision previously approved which has expired;therefore, it was necessary to reapply.' Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 10 April 1972 relative to SDR-961 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 27 [~rch 1972). be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes - 10 April 1972 - Continued III0 J. SD-962 - AVCO Community Development, Prospect Road and Scully - Subdivision Approval'- 10 Lots The Secretary stated that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting that the subject application in connection with SD-962 be withdragon. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the request to withdraw SDR-962 be ap~roved and further consideration for this application be terminated; motion carried unanimously. K. SDR-963 - James J. Asher, Kittridge Road ·Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-963 be continued to the next regular 'meeting to allow time for further,study. Chairman Lively so directed. IV.' DESIGN REVIEW. Ao A-271 - Stoneson Homes, Big Basin Way - Final Design Review - Exterior Elevations for Sixth Townhouse Complex Commissioner Metcalf stated that the Staff.Report dated 10 April 1972 relative to A-271 recommends that Final Design Approval be granted for the exterior elevations for the sixth townhouse-complex for Stoneson Homes. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staf~...Re~ort dated 10 April 1972 be adopted and that Final Design Review b.<~!_e~f6r the exterior elevations for the sixth townhouse complex for Stoneson Homes as sho~.zn on E~-~ibit "N" in file A-271 and subject to the condition stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. B. A-387 - Abel M. Carreia, Saratoga-'Sunnyvale Road - Preliminary Design Review - Commercial Building - Continued from 27 March 1972 The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 10 April 1972 recommending that Preliminary Design Approval be granted for A-387. Commissioner Smith stated that the uses proposed by the applicant for this building are not now allowed under the "C-V" zoning ordinance. The applicant must request that these uses be added to the list of either permitted or conditional uses in the subject zoning district. Mr. Arch Menard, architect for the applicant, stated that the applicant felt that the storage and associated electrical-maintenance for a large mobile television-unit (truck) co~id qualify under the use "electrical ~epair" now ~llowed in the "C-V" zoning district. It is difficult to lease rental-space in a building t~at does not have approval from the City. This commercial building did have approval at one time; however, it was allowed to lapse. Conmissioner Belanger stated that ~adjacent properties were allowed to develop under the "C-S" zoning; therefore, this individual piece does not develop well under the "C-V" zoning. u~t le for this Chairman Lively stated 'that the proposed uses seem s ab proposed building and instructed the applicant to contact the Secretary and request that the uses be added' to those allowed in the "C-V" zoning district. He then directed the matter continued to the next regular meet. ing and referred the matter to the Design Review Committee. -10- Planning Commission Minutes - 10 April 1972 - Continued IV. C. A-390 - Osterlund Enterprises, Cox.Avenue - Final Design Review - · Subdivision Approval for two (2) Story Homes - Continued from 27 March 1972 Commissioner Metcalf read the Staff Report dated 10 April 1972 recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for A-390. Commissioner Martin stated that. the subject report should be amended in · ~paragraph ~. '.' .line 4. .by inserting "Unit 3" between the words "subdivision" and "with" and by deleting the words "on cdrner lots" from the one condition stated in the subject report.. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated...-.l'O'lpril 1972 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Review be<~ran~.ed/for A-390, Osterlund Enterprises, Unit 3.as shown on Exhibits"B"""and "C" subject to the condition stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. D. A-391 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass Lane - Preliminary Design Review - Subdivision Approval Commissioner Metcalf read the Staff Report dated 10 April 1972 recommending that Preliminary Design Approval be granted for A-391, George W. Day planned community (16) homes. Commissioner Marshall explained that the location of the houses on these lots were previously approved. Chairman Lively stated that he has reviewed the plans and feels they are completely unimaginative. Commissioner Smith stated that the applicant Was asked to eliminate the house design that allowed a big long house to be stretched across the front of a lot. Commissioner Metcalf stated that what.this'plan proposes is large $100,000 subdivision houses. Chairman Lively Stated that if 'these homes are buiit as currently" 'proposed it will be a means of downgrading the entire area in which they will be located. Commissioner Metcalf stated that the applicant should be required to obtain the services of a architect' that can produce an imaginative plan for this development. Chairman Lively directed A-391 continued to the next regular meeting and referred the matter back to the Design Review Committee with the specific requirement that the Committee request the applicant to produce a more original and imaginative plan. E. SD-864 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Fruitvale Avenue and Crisp Way Final Design Review - Final Landscape Plans .for Land- scaping Treatment Along F%ruitvale Avenue (Tract 4954) The Assistant Planner read the Sta'ff Report dated 10 April 1972 recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for the landscape treatment along Fruit- vale Avenue as shown on Exhibit "B" for Tract.4954. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Metcalf recommended that the following condition (b) be added to the subject Staff Report: "(b) New meandering pathway .to be connected to existing pathway in front of Ring property. In addition,. provide plantings' between path- way transition and new fence along north end of property." -I1- Planning Conmission Minutes - 10 April 1972 - Continued IV. E. SD-864 -. Contihued : Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff Report dated 10 April 1972 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be granted for the !landscaping-treatment as shown on E~ibit "B" subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Metcalf gave a brief summary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council'meeting of 5 April 1972, with emphasis on items of particular interest to the'Commission. Commissioner Metcalf pointed out one. particular item of {nte~est relative to the cdtting of an oak tree on Fruitvale Avenue (at the George W. Day'Pranned-Co~nunity site) proposed by the Public Works Department. Chairman Lively recommended that a memo be drafted to the City Council stating that the Commission is opposed to removal of the subject tree. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Planning Commission endorse a memo to the City Council stating that the Commission is definitely opposed to removal of this oak tree for any reason or under any circumstances; motion carried unanimously. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. SDR-943 - John T. Stone, Mt. Eden Road - Request for Reconsideration of Conditions of Building Site Approval - Continued from 27 March 19'72 The'Secretary read the Staff Repore dated 10 April 1972 recommending that the subject request for exception of conditions of building. site approval be disapproved. ~ The applicant was present and explained that he has two seperate maps that include all the information necessary and in order to have an engineer put~the information together on one map a cost of $750 is involved. The Secretary stated that the Public Works Department feels it is necessary to include the information required on one map. Commissioner Marshall stated that the fee quoted seemed a little outlandish for the small amount of effort that would be required. Commissioner Smith stated that the'same surveyor that did the original maps could ~ranspose the information to one map ~ery simply. The applicant explained that the o~iginal surveyor has moved from this area and he has been ~ttempting to locate him. Commissioner Smith explained that the Subdivision Ordinance requires that the.City obtain a Record of Survey'for any piece of property granted building- site approval. z Commissioner Marshall recommended that the Staff ~epo~t be ~mended by deleting the last sentence of paragraph 2. ...and in%tead inserting the following: "The Planning Commissioner has no alternative but to deny t~is request under the terms of the Subdivision Ordinance and thinks that the predicted cost. of the survey is exhorbitant and excessive for the amount of information obtained." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded,by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff Report dated 10 April 1972 b~ adopted, as amended, and that the planning Commission recomnend to the City ~ouncil that the subject request for extension be disapproved under the terms of the Subdivision Ordinance, but ~p~e~al c~nsiderati~n ~e g~.ven t~ the c~st ~.~volved' to obtai~ th~ s~rvic~ required to include the required information on one map; motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission'Minutes 10 April 1972 - Continued VIo B. SDR-931 Jordan M. Pennoyer, Via Regina - Request for Reconsideration of Condition of Building Site Approval - Continued from 27 March 1972 The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 10 April 1972 recommending that the Planning Commission deny the requested exception of building site conditions. The Secretary stated that the City.feels the road improvements should be completed on Via Regina prior to any further construction on Via Regina. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded'by Comnis·'sioner Marshall, that the .Staff Report dated 10 April 1972relative .to SDR-931 be adopted and that 'the request for exception be disapproved and the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that.the subject conditions be reaffirmed; motion carried unanimously. C. Report Relative to a Possible Amendment to the Visitor-Commercial (C-V) Zoning District The Secretary advised that the Assistant Planner prepared a report relative to a possible amendment to the Visitor-Commercial (C-V) Zoning District and a copy has been distributed to each Commissioner. Chairman Lively requested the'members of th~ Commission to review and study the subject report. VII. NEW BUSINESS None VIII. CO~Ib~JNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 'SDR-829 - Edward T. Wild, Fruitvale Avenue Request for Extension The Secretary re~d a 'letter received from Mr. Wild requesting that a one'.(1) year extension be granted for SDR-829. The Secretary explained that the subject tentative approval has already been .extended for one (1) year; therefore, he would recommend that the current request for~.extension be denied and the applicant be required to refile for building-site approval. Commissioner smith moved, seconded .by Commissioner Marshall, that the request for a one (1) year extensio'n of SDR-829 be denied; motion carried unanimously. ORAL General Plan Review Chairman Lively inquired if any decision had been reached relative to the General Plan Review for 1972. The Secretary explained that the City Council has not yet decided whether they desire a major five (5) year review to begin at this time or if they want to go ahead with an annual review. Chairman Lively suggested that, perhaps, a joint study-session with the City Council and Planning Co~ission can be held in May to discuss this matter. -13:- Plannin5 Commission Minutes-- 10 April 1972 - Continued VIII. B. Miljevich Property - Variance Request Commissioner Martin stated that 1) the Variance Committee had a long session with Mr. Hamilton (President of Miljevich Enterprises, Inc.) and his associates 2) Mr. Hamilt=on made a very good presentati. on of the plans and/or status of this property 3) it was the consensus of the Variance Committee that this request to allow a 28,000-square-foot grocery store should not be considered under a vari'ance application but a change-df-zoning application wo'uld be more appropriate and 4) this entire area, including surrounding properties, does not really lend itself very well to "C-V" (Visitor-Commercial) development. Chairman Lively stated that if the matter is not 'considered a·s a · 'Variance then the ~pplication for variance should be acted upon'b'y 'the·Commission and a study of thi's area should be conducted at the time of the General Plan Review. As 6f n6w, the property must be considered as "C-V" since that is the zoning designated on the General Plan. Commissioner Metcalf stated that 'a variance application should not have bee accepted for this request. The applicant should have been informed that his request really involved a change of zoning because the type of shopping-center proposed is standard-comme·rcial. Chairman Lively stated that he would have found it necessary to vote against a change of zoning for the subject proposal since it would have been contrary to the General Plan.. Commissioner Marshall stated that· in the opinion of some of the Commissioners this proposal for a 28,000-Square.-foot market is similar to the 28,000-square- foot food market and shopping center proposed by Garcia and Associates - on the other hand some members of the Commission feel it is entirely different. Chairman Lively stated that when the Citizen's Committee recommended ·"C-V" zoning for this area in 1968 theyI felt it would not develop well under the "C-S" (Commercial-Service) zoning and they wanted high-quality shops in this area of the City. Conmissioner Metcalf stated that ·the zoning was changed to "C-V" but develop- ment continued in a manner·similar to "C-S". Commissioner Belanger stated that' 1) maybe a change of zoning was not necessary for what is desirable for this area 2) the result that is actually desired is a shopping center that is in keeping with the area and the only thing that is different ls that the one proposed is in need of a large super-market to support the~shopping center and/or draw customers and· if the area is rezoned there is the possibility that a "Westgate" center could be created. The Secretary explained that the 12,000-square-foot limitation on the super-market was put into the "C-V" ordinance primarily to protect Blue Hills Shopping Center Market. Commissioner Smith recommended that both the Garcia proposal and the Miljevich proposal be developed under the General Plan. Each parcel is currently zoned "C-V" and if they need a key tenant they c6uld be incd~porated into the first unit of development. Commissioner Marshall stated that'he did not feel that a major tenant would be needed on both sides of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Commissioner Metcalf suggested that the zoning in the area revert back to "C-S". Commissioner Martin stated that, perhaps, conditional zoning could be considered for this property. It was the consensus of the Commission that the variance application be acted upo5 and the matter be studied at the time of the General Plan Review. -14- Planning Commission Minutes.- 10 April 1972 - Continued VIII. C. Guests ' Chairman Lively acknowledged, wi[h pleasure, the presence of Mrs. Mencacci of the League of W6men Voters, and Mrs. Wilberding of the'Good Government Group. He, also, thanked Mrs. Wilberding for the coffee served at recess. IX. ADJOURNTINT Chairman Lively adjourned the meeting at 12:30 AoM. Respectfully submitted, Stanley M. Walker, Secretary Saratoga Planning Commission j