HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-1974 Planning Commission Minutes OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISS
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, October 23, 1974 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers: 13777~'Fruitval~ Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
********************
'I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni and Woodward
Absent: iCommissioner Smith
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded byCommissioner Woodward, that the reading
of the minutes of October 9, 1974 be waived, and that they be approved as dis-
tributed to the Commission subject to the following corrections:
(1) Page 3, Item IV-A: Commissioner ~atteoni seconded Commissioner Woodward's
motion
~ (2) 'Page 5, Paragraph 3, Last Sentence: The recording secretary was asked to
recheck the tapes of this meetingZto verify this statement, &~d to correct
same if necessary
(3) Page 7, Item VI-I: Correct spelling of Mrs. McGuire's name
The motion to adopt the October 9, 1974 minutes as amended was carried unanimously.
C. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Chairman Marshall gave an oral report of the City Council meeting of October 16.
Of special interest to the Commission ~as the' following:
1. Request by Willard Lynch, 14260 Lutheria Way, to refund fees paid relative to
SDR-1001 and SDR-1139. The Council directed the City refund Mr. Lynch's
drainage fees but not to refund the building site application fees. The
matter of demolition proceedings was scheduled to be discussed at the next
City Council meeting.
2. Mr. John Weir, 12~43 Arroyo de Arguello, requested the General Plan be modi-
fied to clarify the Zoning issue 6f the Fremont High School District site.
The Council requested the Planning CommisSion review the General Plan as to
the zoning of this site and whether it should be in the slope conservation"
zone. ..:~
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-171 - Mel DeSelle, Fifth Street, Change of Zoning Request from R-M-3,000
(Multiple Residential) to C-C (Community Commercial); a .2024 acre parcel;
Continued from September 11~ 1974
The Secretary stated that due to changes made to the Village Plan by the City
Council, Staff would recommend C-171, C-176 and C-177 be continued. He stated
that preliminary plans had not been submitted by any of the applicants, and that
Staff would be scheduling meetings between these applicants and the Subdivision
Committee prior to the next Planning COmmission meeting.
There was no one present who wished to comment on C-171, C-176 and C-177, and
consequently public hearings were not Opened. Chairman Marshall directed C-171,
C-176 and C-177 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 13,
1974, and referred these matters to th~ Subdivision Committee and Staff for
further review. He directed Staff notify the applicants of this action, and to
request"~:they submit preliminary plans prior to the November 13th meeting.
'
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23
" B. C-172 - Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch)., Prospect and Stelling Roads, Change of
Zoning Request from R-1-40,00q (Single-Family Residence) and "A"
(Agriculture) to R-I-40,000 PC (Single-Family Residence Planned Community)
a 218 acre parcel; Continued from July 24, 1974
The Secretary explained that this matt:er had been continued from the Commission
meeting of July 24, 1974 in order not lto lose track of it. He pointed out, how~
ever, that insomuch as the EIR portion of this application hadjnot presently been re-'
solved, Staff recommended C-172 be continued to January. He added that after the
Planning Commission approved an EIR on this matter and forwarded it to the City
.Council, it could open public hearingsZ on the change of zoning request~if necessarl
!concurrent with the City CoUncil hearings on the EIR. He pointed out, however, that
Commission action could not be taken on the change of zoning request until certifi-
~ cati0n was m~de__~f_~h~.E!R by.the City CounCil'.
Mrs. Mary Lou Greely, representative of Friends of Painless Parker, asked when
the next Planning Commission public hearing wou!d be scheduled on the EIR. The
secretary' stated thl&.t ENVIROS had not yet submitted the £i~al response, but indi-
'cared that as soon as this was ~eceived the publ'ic hearing would be noticed.
Chairman Marshall directed'C-172 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of January 22, 1974.
C. C-176 - Gene Zambetti, Oak Street, Chahge of Zoning Request from R-M-3,000
(Multiple Residential) to C-C l(Community Commercial); Continued from
September 11~ 1974
See Item II-A
D. C-177 - Mary Jane Brown, Third Street,.Change of Zoning Request fromR-M-3,000
(Multiple Residential) to C-C .(Community Commercial); Continued from
September 11~ 1974
See Item II-A
E. V-414 - James Dinkey, Mt. EdenCourt, R~quest for Variance to Allow a 14-Ft. Roof
Overhang into a 20-ft. Sideyard Setback in Lieu of Allowed 3-ft. Overhang
(Ord. NS-3,Sec. 14.7); to Allow a 'Sideyard Deck to Extend into Required
20-ft. Sideyard Setback a Total of 6-ft. in Lieu of Allowed 3-ft. (Ord.'i
'NS-3, Sec. ~.7); tO Allow for 26-ft. Setback in Lieu o'f Required 30-ft.
Frontyard Setback to Accommodate a Front Entry Canopy (Ord. NS-3~ Sec.3.7)
The Secretary stated that the applicant decided to withdraw his application for a
Variance and requested a refund of his:application fee. He added that a written
request for withdrawal had not been received as yet, and recommended the applica-
tion either be denied per the Staff Report, or continued pending receipt of a
written request for withdrawal.
Commissioner Martin st~ed that the Variance Committee agreed with the Staff Report
recommending denial of this application. It was noted that this matter had been
publicly noticed and that the Variance:Committee and Staff had inspected this on-
'site. It was further noted that thereiwere no hardships or extraordinary cirdum-
stancles 'existing on ~.~e site w~ich would justify granting the Variance in accordance
/with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordfnance. It was pointed out that extensive
grading had taken place on the site no~ in accordance with tentative map approval,
but that a grading permit had been issued by the City Building Department. Dis-
cussion followed on the merits of the Variance application, and Commissioner
Belanger stated that she would see it fit to deny this application and not extend
privileges of withdrawing because the application had consumed enough of Staff's
time to use up the fee.
Mr. Burt, Assistant Planner, stated that the applicant would be filing for design
review approval, and the Design ReviewzCommittee might!see the need for a possibleI
._V_a~iance. It was suggested that the application be denied without prejudice in
order to allow Mr. Dinkey to reapply for a Variance if necessary. However, the
~Secretary stated that insomuch as there were no specific hardships involved her!~,'
'~g'f~l~ the application S~6~l~d"b'~. denied.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER
E. V-414 - James Dinkey - Continued
Corf~f~issioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission deny application V-414 per:the Staff Report dated October 23,. 1954.
The motion was carried unanimously.
F. V~415 - Edward E.Crecelius, 13750 Surrey Lane, Request for Variance to Allow 3-ft.
Rearyard Setback in Lieu of Required 25-ft. Rearyard Setback, and 17-ft.
and 18-ft. Sideyard Setbacks in Lieu of Required 20-ft. Sideyard Setback
to Accommodate 10-ft. Tennis Court Fence (Ord. NS-3~ Sec. 3.7)
The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted a written request withdraw-
ing his applications for Variance and ZUse Permit, and requested his application
fees be refunded.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission accept the request for withdrawal of V-415. The motion was carried
uanimously.
G. UP-257 - Edward E. Crecel.i__U_s,. 13750 SUrrey Lane, Request for Use Permit to Allow
Construction offTennis Court and Fencing of Said Court with a 10-Ft.
C~.~lone Fence (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.4)
It was noted that it was the applicant's intent to abandon the tennis court entirely,
~nd that it"~as proper to abandon this. application.
Chairman Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that UP-257 be
abandoned in light of the request for ,withdrawal of V-415. The motion was
carried unanimously.
H. UP-2~6 - Osterlund Enterprises, Fruitvale Avenue, Request for Use Permit to Allow
for Use of Lot #1"~. Tract ~5011 to Construct Model Home Located on Fruit-
vale Avenue (Ordinance NS-3~ lSection 16)
The Secretary stated that this was an 'application for a Use Permit to allow opera-
tion of a model-homes sales-office on Fruitvale Avenue. He stated that a Staff
Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted.
The public hearing on UP-256 was opened at 8:15 p.m.
Commissioner Martin asked how Condition (4) regarding parking was to be enforced.
Discussion followed on same, and Commissioners Belanger and Martin expressed con-
cern of the location of the sales office in light of the possibility that it might
create a hazardous traffic situation. Chairman Marshall explained that enforcement
would be left up to whether or not the City or local residents complained about
traffic hazards or parking problems; if co~p!~ints were issuedr the aRplicant
would be required to correct the problem. Mr. Ter~in{, aRplicant's repK~sentative,.
.stated that it was their intent to use Burgundy Wa~_..f~.p~ki_n_g_~__n_.ot Fruitvale
~'A'~ue, and that it was their preference not to use Fruitvale Avenue for
'at all. It was recommen_de_j.__that a. parking .si_g~_p~_.~r~cte~ _~ith. a~_.arrgy .pointing
towards'Burgund~yWay. Mr.T~rcini.'indicated acceptance of this recommendation, and
stated a design review applicatio~ f~r' an identification sign would be filed
._yi.tDotbe_~ity shortly.
it was pointed out that the'house had been built prior to a Use Permit appT~catlon
requesting this be a model home, and Chairman Marshall counseled the applicant
that in the future~p~ans mu~t be submitted prior to erection of a house as a model-
homes sales-office. Mr. ~T.~.9~i~]iapologized for this occurrence', and stated that
it had not been the intent to start building a house and then ask for a Use Permit.
He explained that it was the only house that was being built to spe6ification,
and that it was on a site which could be readily s~en without having to drive
through the subdivision. He stated that the reason they had not pre-selected the
model home~.site was that they previously had an existing model home in the City
(which has~ since been discontinued), and it had been formerly agreed with the
City that the developer would have only one model home site in Saratoga.
~. .~MI___NUTES OF OCTOBER 23
H. UP-2"'~6 - Osterlund Enterprises - Conti'nued
Commissioner Matteoni stated that he was not opposed to voting in favor of the
model-homes sales-office as disignatedZ, and added that he felt Osterlund Enter-
prises had acted in goo.~ faith; however, he agreed with Chairman Marshall in warn-
ing the applicant about future Use Permit applications for model-homes sales-offices.
Commissioner WoOdward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the public
hearing on UP-256 be closed. The motiZon was carried unanimously, and the public
hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m.
Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission approve application UP-2f~'6 per the Staff Report dated October 23, 1974.
The motion was carried: Commissioners' Belanger and Martin voted no.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SD-1147 - Osterlund Enterprises, Radoyka Drive, Subdivision Approval - 13 Lots;
(Expires October 26~ 1974);: Continued from October 9~ 1974
The Secretary stated a Staff Report ha'd been prepared recommending approval be
granted. He added that the Subdivision Committee had met with the applicant and
had come to an agreemen~ regarding the, cul-de-sac on San Palo Court. It was noted
that the Moreland School District would be dedicating the streets adjacent to the
elementary school to the City for public streets with the exception of the trian-
gular portion oneSan P~o Court. ~
Mr. Dick Cecchi, representative of the. applicant, reported that~at a recent meeting
of the Moreland School District, the members had indicated the SD-1147 plan was
acceptable to them, but that they would be requesting the City of Saratoga main-
tain the tr-i.angular portion at the end of San Palo Court. He added that he had
informed them the City of Saratoga wou.ld not be willing to take on the maintenance
responsibility of this School District'-owned land.
Discussion followed on this matter, anH it was the consensus of the Planning
Commission that a further condition for tentative map approval be that the mainte-
nance of the triangular parcel b~' the.responsibility of the School District as
well as the double cross-hatched area as shown on Exhibit B-l, dated October 22, 1974.
Commissioner Belanger expressed concern as to why the sh'ort cul-de-sac concept
had not been used, and it was explained that a longer cul-de-sac helped to solve
a majority of the school district land. problems by the City taking on the mainte-
nance responsibilities of a longer street. Commissioner Belanger further ques-
tioned Condition (d) of the Staff Report relative to the surface drainage pattern,
stating that she would like to see this condition rephrased to include the rela-
tionship between this subdivision's drainage pattern and the surrounding vicinity.
It was pointed out to her that Condition (m) stated that existing topography must
be retained to avoid excess lot fills.'
Chairman Marshall moved, seconded by COmmissioner Matteoni, that the Planning
Commission approve application SD-1147. subject to the Staff Report dated October 23,
1974 and Exhibit A-l, with the further! stipulation that Exhibit B-1 dated
October 22, 1974 be adopted as treatment of the triangular portion of San Palo
Court with the stipulation that this portion of the Court be the maintenance
responsibility o'f the Moreland School District. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. SDR-1148 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires
October 29~ 1974); Continued from October 9~ 1974
The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval
be granted. Mr. DeGrange, applicant, was present and indicated acceptance of the
Staff Report.
Chairman Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission approve application SDR-1148 and Exhibit A subject to the conditions
of the Staff Report dat~'d October 23, 1974. The motion was carried unanimously.
-4-
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23,
C. SDR-1149 - Russell Reed, Saratoga-Sun~yvale Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
(Expires November 8~ 1974);' Continued from October 9~ 1974
The Secretary stated that several of the applicant's neighbors had expressed con-
cern over this development, and a meeting had been arranged between the Planning
Staff, the applicant and these neighbors to discuss the plans. He added that in
light of this, Staff recommended SDR-t149 be continued, noting that a letter of
extension had not as yet been submitted by the applicant.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded ;by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission deny application SDR-1149 Until written extension had been received.
The motion was carried unanimously.
RECESS: 9:20 - 9:35 p.m.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-446 - Thomas Walker, Pierce Road, Final Design Review - Single-Family Residence;
Continued from October 9~ 1974
Mr. Burr, Assistant Planner, stated that .re~.i.sed plans as requested by the Design
Review Committee had not been submitted, and recommended this matter be continued.
Chairman Marshall directed A-446 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of November 13, 1974, and referred this matter to the'Design.Review Committee for
further review.
B. A-448 - AVCO Community Developers, Cox Avenue, Final Design Approval - Single-
Family Residence~ Tract ~5855~ Lots'#1-20; Continued from Oct. 9~ 1974
Mr. Burt stated that revised plans as 'requested by the Design Review Committee
had not been submitted, and recommended this'matter be continued.
Chairman Marshall directed A-448 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of November 13, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for
further review.
C. A-454 - Royce Kaufmann, Canyon View Drive, Final Design Approval - Single-Family
Residence
Mr. Burt stated a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be
granted.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded .by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission approve application A-454 per the Staff Report dated October 23, 1974.
The motion was carried unanimously.
D. SS-77 - AVCO Community Developers, Cox Avenue, Final Design Approval - Subdivision
Identification Sign
Mr. Burt stat.~d that the applicant had been requested to submit another color
schedule for the sign, and recommended this be continued until receipt.of same.
Chairman Marshall directed SS-77 be continued t~ the P~anning Commission meeting
of November 13, 1974, and referred this matters'to the Design Review Committee for
further review.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1043 - Bernard Klein, Pierce Road .- 1 Lot; Request for Extension of Tentative
Building Site Approval
'The Secretary stated that this was the first request for a one-year extension,
and recommended approval be granted to the request.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded .by Commissioner Woodward, that a one-year
extension be granted to the request. .The motion was carried unanimously.
"?~"'~j'~.~MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATIONS
There were no environmental impact determinations filed for the period of October 10
thro~h October 23, 1974.
VII. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN
The following writtencorrespondence was {ntroduced into the record:
A. Letters dated September 5, 1974 and October 10, 1974 from James Dunn, 19521
Douglass Lane, to the Board of Trustees of West Valley College, expressing con-
cern over the new parking lot~and tenTis courts at West Valley College.
B. Letter dated October 10, 1974 from Chairman Marshall to Roland Robinson, 20534
Sevilla Lane, in response to his letter dated September 30, 1974 regarding the
Osterlund Enterprises development on Sunnyvale-Saratoga Avenue.,
C. Letter dated October 8, 1974 from Will;ard Lynch, 14260 Lutheria Way, requesting
a refund of building site application 'fees regarding SDR-1001 and SDR-1139.
Chairma~ Marshall noted that the City Council refunded the drainage fees but not
the application fees.
D.Minutes and agendas of September 26, 1Z974 and October 24, 1974 respectively of
the Planning Policy Committee of Santa= Clara County.
E. Memorandum from the City Manager dated' October 18, 1974 relative to possible amend-
ments to the 1974 General Plan. The memorandum stated that the City Council did
not agree ~n the action.~"h~d'~een taken on Re adoption of the General Plan
regarding the proposed Fremont High'School District property located in Saratoga
because there was some ambiguity in the text. The Commission was requested to
review the following questions: (1) whether or not the school site should be
located inside or outside the slope conservation zone; and (2) what specific
zone should be applied to the school site if it were not to be developed for
school purposes.
A question was raised ~s~ to whether this would require reopening of public hearings
on the General Plan by the Planning Commission. It wa~ determined that if the
Planning Commission felt the General Plan should be revised, public hearings would
be reopened. It was noted, however, that the Commission could be very specific in
i'ts notice for public hearing so as to exclude public testimony on other portions
of the General Plan.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this matter be reagendized
to the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on Thursday, October 31, 1974 at 7:30 p~m.
in the Crisp Conference Room.
VII. COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL-
A. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, addressed the aforementioned school-site
matter. He stated that it had been his groupj%.s understandingiat the final City
Council public hearing on the General plan that this area was't6 be in Area A
as well as the slope conservation zone~ adding that the Council had not specifically
said no to their question of whether it was to be within this zone., He further
supported his argument for placing this school-site property in the slope conser-
vation zone by pointing out that the C0'~nty HazardouS', Map categorized the western
portion of this property as DS which showed a high potential for earthquake in-
duced landslides, with the other portion of the property being in the D-S1 cate-
gory which was defined as being highly!susceptible to lurch crack formation. He
further noted that the County map showed the Shannon Fault going through the property.
Discussion followed on this, and Chairman Marshall stated that it had been the
Planning Commission's unanimous consensus that this property was in Area A and
had not been intended to be in the slope conservation zone. He further noted
that every site within the City in excess of 10% slope was subject to the slope
conservation formula~'2 He stated that the Planning Commission had already taken
public testimony on this matter, and added that, this m~ter had been reagendized
L. to the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on Thursday, October 31, 1974 .at 7:30 p.m.
~in ~he Crisp Conference Room. =
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Continued
B. Commissioner Belanger stated that she had heard there was some development activity
in the County portion of the Madrone Hill/Peach Hill Road area, and asked if the
County had advised the Planning Staff'of same.
Mr. Trinidad, Public Works Department,. stated that the developer had met with City
Staff several weeks ago on this matter, adding that the developer indicated he
was planning to ask for annexation~ the City of Saratoga, and tO. apply for
subdivision approval. He added tha!t the developer stated he would be drawing up
more detailed,plans for discussion with the Subdivision Cormnittee, but reported
that none had been submitted as yet.
C. Mr. Trinidad reported that more problems had arisen concerning the ~mergency access
road on the Jim Day Subdivision on Woodbank Way and Quito Road. He stated that he
wanted to alert the Planning Commission that Mr. McCullough, the adjacent property
owner, was not agreeable to permitting an emergency access through his property.
The City Attorney noted, however, that it was not illegal to build an emergency
road up to someone's fence line; and that the emergency access could have a crash-
through barrier for emergency police and fire access. Commissioner Belanger re-
quested Staff report on the progress of this matter at the next Planning Commission
meeting.
Do Chairman Marshall requested Staff look at the possibility of changing setbacks and
area coverage in higher density areas. Discussion followed on the use of "rubber
setbacks" and Staff was requested to review this matter.
E. Discussion of Planning Commission meetZings during the holiday season followed, and
the consensus of._the Commission was that the second Planning__Commission meeting
in November'~e'.set jfor' cn.November 25, 1974,~'~d"~ second meeting in December
would be cancelled entirely.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Planning
Commission meeting of October 23, 1974 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
RT~I/mitted'
/~rEy Van Du/n~
r?,, ,~'. ./ (,._..y