Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-1975 Planning Commission Minutes OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSI MINUT. ES TI_ME~: Monday, No~eb~2'47'~975 - 7:30 p.m. ' ~t'~'F~ ...... Clty 'CounCil Chamberst- 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE': .' Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION : A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Callon, Marshall, Martin, Woodward and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners Belanger and Lustig "' B. MINUTES Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 22, 1975 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission, subject to the correction of the spelling of the word "condominium" on page 1. The motion was carried; Commissioners Zambetti and Marshall abstained. Commissioner Woodward moved, secondedby Commissioner Martin, that the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of November 12, 1975 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission, subject to the follow- ing correction: page 3, John Tilton is one of the owners of Parker Ranch Property, not Blackwell Homes. The motion was carried; Commissioner Zambetti abstained. II. FINAL BUILDING SITES/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-1211 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 13 L.ots (Expires December 11, 1975); Continued from November 12~ 1975 Staff noted that there were revisions. to the application being made by the appli- cant, and the recommendation was mad~ to continue this item. Chairman Marshall directed SD-1211 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ordinance, an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning Ordinance, by Establishing a Hillside Conservation District Zoning Classification by Adding Article 3-A Thereto;'Continued from November 12~ 1975 '- Note was made that various parts of the draft ordinance were being revised per the latest Planning Commission Committee-of-the-Whole meeting held on November 20, 1975, and the recommendation was made by Staff that this matter be continued subsequent to additional public testimony. Chairman Marshall re- opened the public hearing on GF-301 ~t 7:55 p.m. Citizen Response · Dick Wilkinson, with the firm of Ruth, Going and Curtis, Inc. and representative of the Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association, made the following points with regard to the latest ordinance draft: - Relative to the slope density table options, the Association felt that with slopes over 15%, the lower density table should be used. -- -1- MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24, ~1975 III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ordinance~ Citizen Response - Cont'd - The Association felt that the 75-foot setback on major streets was excessive and could cause such things as 0verly-long driveways. - Mr. Wilkinson noted that one of~the purposes of this draft ordinance was to create a zoning district which could be combined with a "PC" or "PD" district. He pointed out that if the draft ordinance was adopted, it could be combined at this point with the existing City "PC" or "PD" ordinances, and he noted that one of the permitted uses under the existing "P,C" ordinance was multi- family dwelling units. He expressed objection on behalf of the Association against any permitted use in this proposed zone other than detached single- family units. Chairman Marshall explained that it was the Commission's intent to allow only detached single-family units in the p~oposed hillside zone, and additionally, that it'was also their intent to establish a new ordinance which would take the place of the existing "PD" and "PC" ordinances. However, Staff noted that Mr. Wilkinson was correct in his observation, and stated that additional review of this matter would be made. - Relative to the geologic studies required by the draft ordinance, Mr. Wil- kinson contended that in most cases, trenching or l~boratory work was not necessary in preparing preliminary geologic studies and soils reports, and he stated that he did not feel that such in-depth reports should be required unless the engineering geologist preparing the reports felt it was necessary. Staff pointed out that the City~s geologist was presently reviewing this section of the draft, and comment from him would be made at a later date· - Mr. Wilkinson Stated that it did not make sense to allow development of land with a 40% slope and limit'the grade of the driveway to 187o because it could force extensive grading, and he suggested that this driveway slope restriction be raised. Staff explained that this was a Fire District re- quirement based on the adequacy of their hillside fire-fighting equipment to conquor 207°+ grades without damaging the equipment. Chairman Marshall sug- gested that the Association raise this point with the Fire Districts for their consideration. - Mr. Wilkinson suggested that the 60-foot road-width requirement for cul- de-sacs be reduced to 55-feet in order to allow for more than 3 lots on a cul-de-sac. He stated that he felt cul-de-sacs were a good device as a land use and that they should be encouraged° Staff noted that the 60-foot requirement had been taken directly from existing City ordinances, and that if the draft ordinance requirement was reduced to 55 feet, one could still not produce more than 3 units on a cul-de_~sac. - A concern was expressed by Mr. Wilkinson with regard to the use of the word "variances" in the section on MOdifications. He pointed out that the var- iances by law required that certain findings be made, such as a hardship, and he .stated that he did not feel it was the City's intention to have to find a hardship in each variance case. - Commissioner Woodward asked Mr. 'Wilkinson for an explanation of his use of the' word "we." Mr. Wilkinson explained that when he said·."we," he made reference to the Association's 6oncerns and feelings, and when he said "I," he was speaking of his opinion as an expert witness. o Russell Crowther, representative of the Arguello Homeowners Association, made the following points: - He stated that he felt the title of the proposed ordinance should be as designated in~he General Plan; i.e., Slope Conservation Zone Ordinance. .'iHe stated that they objected to 'the open space portion of the ordinance 'title because they did not feel private open space satisfactorily designated open space. He explained that ~ost of the open space within the proposed district was more common area t.67 which the general public did not have MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 ~75 III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ord.~ Citizen Response - Conttd access, ~nd that t~e uses ~f the open space could open up questions regard- ing the way the land was assessed by the tax assessor. Staff noted that n~ither the General Plan nor the Conservation Element thereof made reference to the specific kinds of public. open space in this district. - Mr. Crowther stated that they did not feel that the c~teria being considered relative to density were adequate enough; and additionally, he questioned why the slope density table options, listed acreage above 40% since lots could not be developed above that level. 'Staff explained that the City Attorney had expressed a concern of legally being able to defend that section of the ordinance which applied to proh:ibiting any development on a lot merely be- cause the average slope exceeded 40%. Consequently in order to make the language of the ordinance more 'realistic, slopes over 40% had been included in the density table options. zStaff emphasized, however, that this was distinguished from the prohibition in the draft ordinance of actually being able to construct on a building' site with a slope which exceeded 40%. - Mr. Crowther urged the Commission to give additional consideration to the slope density table offered by .the League of Women Voters which reflected 1-10 acre minimum density as sp'ecified in the General Plan, and he submitted a.hyperbolic curve of same. Mr.. Crowther stated that they felt it would be very difficult to control densi'ty based on the criteria specified in the draft, such as geological factors, and he felt that a lower density should be adSpted as part of this ordinance. - He suggested that the Commission give consideration to the County policy in determining how much information should be provided in geologic studies and soil reports. He explained that the County ~eferred to a general geologic hazards map which zoned the var'ious geologic areas within the County into areas of low or no hazardous zones, medium and high hazardous zones. - Relative to the 18% slope restr~ictions on driveways, Mr. Crowther stated that they had no objections to this =restriction. Additionally, he stated that he agreed with the use of the word "variances" as referred to under the section on modifications. Commission Response Commissioner Martin noted an error on Table 1 relative to the 36% slope figure: it should have a minimum acreage qf 2.67 instead of 2.68. Additionally, he pointed out that in plotting the curves on Tables 1 and 2, that Table 2 had an unusual C~rve which seemed to penalize to a greater degree those properties with slopes around 25% rather than those with slopes closer to 40%. He strongly recommended that 'the application of the ordinance should be in accordance wi~h a slope density equation rather than a table, but with a table included in the ordinance fQr illustration purposes. Further, with regard to the 75-foot setback requirement in the draft, Commissioner Martin requested Staff provide information relative to how many collector and arterial streets within the hillside district would be affected by this requirement. o Commissioner Callonmade the following points: - She requested that Staff answer Questions #2 and #3 ov the November 20, 1975 .-. letter from the League of Women Voters. - She stated that the use of the ~ord "variances" under the Modification section of the ordinance might lbe misleading, and she suggested that the City Attorney review this matter. - She suggested that eonsiderati0n be given to Mr. C~ow~her's suggestion relative to providing a geologic hazards map for determining the degree of geological and soils inforn~tion needed on each application. Staff noted that the City geglogist Was in the process of reviewing the draft .ordinance, and that he would be asked to make comments on this suggestion. -3- MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 1975 III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside conservation District Ord., Citizen Response - Cont'd Commission Consensus At this time a Commission consensus o~inion relative to the slope density-table options was made as follows: Commissioners Belanger, Woodward, Marshall and Martin expressed favor for Table 1; Commissioners Callon and Zambetti expressed favor for Table 2. · As Commissioner Beianger was not p~esent, a letter ~rom her was ~e~d into the record giving the reasons for her choice that Table 1 provided: - a fair density for landowners to opeorate under; - Cit ' a tested density in that it mos[ closely approximated the y s previous slope density curve and that of. the County~s; - a transistion into similar density applied in adjoining County develop- ments which would eventually be annexed to the City; - a much lower density than appeared on the face of the Table in view of the effects which other .restrictions in the ordinance were likely to have. Her letter %~n'c'~d~'d: "The ordinance must be read as a whole, not as a mere density tabie,'~' 6ertainly nothing in it is likely to increase lot yield." At this point Ms. Margarite Chapman, 21221 Canyon View Drive, expressed dis- appointment in the Commission's consensus favoring Table 1, and asked those in favor of Table 1 on what basis ~hey made their decision. Ms. Chapman stated that she had become disillusioned with the planning process, that she felt the Commission voted for Table 1 for personal preferences, and that she felt the Commission was Bot representing the wishes of the community. Besides the above-mentioned opinion by Commissioner Belanger, the following .= explanations were given: e Chairman Marshall stated that Table 1 was the County's ordinance as well as the current City ordinance; addling that he was in favor of Table 1 because: "My view is that of the things this Commission and previous Commissions have done about density in the hillside offsets going to a higher number, Table 2 for example, because we have already accomplished that by other means." © Commissioner Martin stated that he had tried to take into account all of the input he had heard to date,2 and "to the best of my ability apply it so I can see that it is in accordance with other~zneighboring cities and the County. The fact is that it is even more stringent than some of the neigh- boring cities. 'I 'feel after s~udying this that this should be my expression on this particular matter, and .hopefully it has taken into account all of the input I have heard." e Commissioner Woodward stated that she felt that one of the functions of the Planning Commission was to take all of the facts available, along with what was the fairest thing to do for all residents of the City, and apply it to- wards the best planning for th~ City. She stated that she was in favor of Table 1 because it was a proven formula of the County and was consistent with what the City had done in the past. Further, she stated that the draft ordinance prpvided for additional, stiffer requirements and regulations which would further cut down the density. She stated that she could not vote for Table 2 because 'she felt it was too drastic. · C~m~issioner Callon took exception to Ms. Chapman's a~le~ation that the Commission, in making its consensus opinion, was pulling things out of the air. She state~: '~e have listened to all kinds of points of view"~f'~h'~ ~ ?public, plUS w~ h'~ our own professional Staff, plus an outside planning consultant the City hired, plus professional planning consultants hired by outside groups for additional input, plus each of us has our own landuse philosophy. I think that we have listened to the public, and that we have each come forth with an idea that we believe expresses public input, plus the leadership of planning." MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24...1975 III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conser~atiOn District Ord., Citizen Response - Cont'd At this time Mr. Crowther indidated support of Ms. Chapman's views. He stated: "We are not getting through to yourand I would like to express what we feel. Our General Plan states 1-10 a~resivariation in the slope conservation zone. We just feel that you are not ~rotecting the people's best interest; that you are going to higher density than the prior General Plan. Our message to you Gene ! , thought that was what this ordinance is please implement our ra~ Plan. We was supposed to do: to provide mihimum density in the slope conservation zone. Mr. Crowther contended that th~ slope density equation reflected in Table 1 was the same table the City had in~1973, and that the other factors specified in · . r ct . · the draft ordinance rest · ~ng density were not adequate enough He gave as an example of these inadequat~factors approval of the Hunter subdivision (SDR-1037). With regard to th~s ekample, the Commission pointed out that the tentative map approval had bee~ gr~nted several years ago .and that request for. ....... ~e"xten~ion by ~he applicant l~e year Commission. Further, note was'm~d~ that the applicant had appealed this decision successfully to the Cit~ Council, and that a 6-month extension had been granted pending updating the applicant's subdivision plans more in line with the then-current City standards. Mr. Crowther asked the Commission if they felt the draft ordinance was imple- menting the General Plan where it stated a minimum range from 1-10 acres. Chairman Marshall stated that he p~rsonally felt that'~no~_o~y__~a~' the Plan- ning Commission implementing the General Plan, but that they were totally consistent with State law. He stated: '~e have been accused by various bodies as being the most consistent city in the whole Santa Clara Valley as adhereing to the General Plan. I believe we'are consistent with the General Plan." At this time Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on GF-301 at 9:45 p.m., and continued this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1975. B. UP-290 - Phil Shiota, 14270 Old Wood Road, Request for Use Permit to Allow a Tennis Court Fence in Excess' Of 6 Feet in Height to Extend into a Re- quired Rear Yard (Ordinance Ns-3, section 3.7-1) Note was made that this application r'equired additional review, and Staff recom- mended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed UP-290 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for f'urther review and report. IV. DESIGN REVIEW . A. A-447 - George Day Construction Company, Taos Drive, Final Design Review Approval 2 Lots (.Tract #5408~ Lots ~2 and #4) Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Wood- ward gave a brief explanation of the 'specifics of this application, with special attention given to the pre-planning of a proposed tennis court on Lot #2. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-447, Lots #2 and ~4 of ~ract #5408, per Exhibits "E-i'! and "L-i" and subject to the Staff Report dated November 20, 1975. The motion'was carried unanimously. B. A-502 - Dividend Industries, Carnelian Glen, Final Design Review Approval - 2 Lots (Tract #5575, Lots #6 and #14) Staff noted that the Design Review.~Commi6tee had reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared 'recommending approval. Commissioner Wood- ward.~'~d', seconded by Commissioner .Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant finai design review approval to ~Rpl~cation A-502 per Exhibits";"C" and "D" and subject to the Staff Report dated November 19, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. -'5- MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24~ 1975 IV. C. SS-81 - Ad-Way Signs,· Inc., Cox and Szaratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval - Temporary Subdivision Sign Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared. recommending approval. Conm~issioner Wood- ward explained that the applicant had 6 units yet to se~l, and had consequently requested an extension of this sign p'ermit. She noted that the sign had origi- nally been displayed illegally for on~ year, and that the City Code Enforcement Officer had removed the sign. Commissioner Martin expressed concern that the City might not have adequate control over insuring that the applicant did not abuse this extended use permit, and he suggested that a bond be required to insure that the sign would be removed. Brief discussion followed, and Staff suggested that if the sign was not removed at the end of its expiration date, the applicant's business license would be revoked. It was the consensus of the C~mnission that Staff relay to the applicant the Commission~s feelings that if said sign was not removed at the end of the 6-months· period, the applicant's business license would be °Commissioner Woodward·moved, seconded'by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Corf~f~ission grant approval for a sign permit extension to May 24, 1976 on application SS-81 per Exhibit A and subject to the Staff Report dated November 19, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. V. MI S CELLANEOUS A. A-483 - James Skinner, Chiquita Way (Off Pierce Road), Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot - Change of Conditions Staff explained that subsequent to Commission approval of this Design Review application, the developer (Mr. Cocciardi) had done extensive illegal grading in the area encompassing this lot.. Additionally, note was made that this grad- ing had significantly altered the top0graphical conditions upon which this design was passed; and as a result, Staff considered approval of A-483 technically void until such time as grading corrections and/or plan alternatives had been approved. Staff drew the Commission~s attention to a letter dated November 21, 1975 to Mr. Cocciardizregarding this matter, and noted that a meeting had been scheduled with City Staff, Mr. Cocciardi and the property owners affected...b_v this grading on November 25, 1975,~ Staff indicated that a r_eport of this·mee~- ._ing would be made at the next CommiSSion meeting. ' B. SDR-1208 - Da~idA·.· Ritter,· Bohlman R~ad, 1 Lot - Request for Reconsideration of Conditions· Staff noted that additional review wa~ needed on this request, and the recommenda- tion was made that this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1208 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1975, and referred this matter to the·~_Subdivision Committee and Staff for review and report. VI. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Environmental Impact Reports - No Negative Declarations Filed. B. Other 1. Letter dated November 20, 1975 fr6m Judy Corliss, President of the League of Women Voters of Los Gatos/Sara~oga, requesting clarification of General Plan designations. Staff was directed to make this part of the file on GF-301 and address the questions raised in the letter. 2. Letter dated November 24, 1975 frqm Russell L. Crowther, Arguello Homeowners Association, requesting the 1974 General Plan be implemented in the Slope Conservation Zone Ordinance. Attached to the letter were the following: (a) Letter dated November 14, 1975 from John Weir and Russell Crowther to the City Council; (b) Letter dated November 17, 1975 from John Weir and Russell Crowther to the City Council; and (c) Letter dated April 8, 1974 fremN. Perry Moerdyke, Jr., attorney at law, to the City Council. Staff was directed to make this part of·the file on GF-301. -6- MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24. 19.75 VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Chairman Marshall gave a brief report on the tour taken by the Commission of the proposed Hillside District on November 22, 1975. He reported that the tour was very informative and thorough. Witb zregard to this regi%n, Chairman Marshall expressed concern that the County was! allowing development within the City's urban service area that was inferior to City standards. Brief discussion followed, and the suggestion was made that Staff review the possibility of pre-zoning this area. B. Chairman Marshall pointed out that o~e of the tennis courts on Pike Road had lighting, and Staff was requested to have the City Code Enforcement Officer review this matter. C. Commissioner Callon requested Staff check into the City-owned property on Glenbrae Drive for possible landscaping plans of the storage building erected thereon. She complained that the ar~a was unattractive and needed landscaping. D. Chairman Marshall welcomed the presence of Councilwoman Corr. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded byZCommissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Conmission meeting of November 24, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~o~'ld'~R. Bu~,A~ing ~'~cr~tar~y''~ skw/ :