Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 12, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners King, Laden, Marshall, Schaefer, Siegfried, Williams and Zambetti (Commissioner Zambetti arrived at 7:43 p.m.). Absent: None Minutes The ·following ·corrections were made to the minutes of February 27, 1980: On page 1,.under UP-424, the third paragraph should read: "The public hearing was opened at 7:43 p.m." On page 3, the last sentence under UP-424 should read: "CommiSsioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried, W-i'~h "Cdmm'is~e.'~='.~!'~.'i'~S '.~'~:~S~.i~g!' ..... "On'.~a.g~'~4', "_und~' GF.~ ~25, the last sentence Should read: "The City Attorney stated that the 'District Court of Appeals has ruled that, in spite of the fact that the regulations suggest that certain elements of a General Plan should have an EIR, they are categorically exempt." With those corrections, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Williams, to waive the reading of the minutes of February 27, 1980 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR It was requested that Item 5 (Negative Declaration for UP-442) be removed for discussion. It was moved by Commissioner Siegfried, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar items listed below. The motion was carried unanimously. 1. SDR-1408 - Brad Renn, Marion Avenue, 2 lots, Final Building Site Approval 2. SDR-1417 - Albert Spears, Sobey Road, 2 lots, Final Building Site Approval 3. V-502 - Jena Burgher, 13387 Christie Drive, Request for One-Year Extension 4. Negative Declaration - SDR-1452 Robert Cirell Discussion followed on the Negative Declaration for UP-442. It was pointed out that the Memorandum from the Planning Director states that the tennis court would have an adverse impact on the natural setting of the site in relation to Wildcat Creek in the same manner that Dr. Lampros' original tennis court proposal did. Therefore, the finding of a Negative Declaration seems to be inconsistent with that statement. Staff explained that the Negative Declaration is the appropriate document for this project, and by the mitigation measures, the Grading Ordinance, and the conditions which are applied to the use permit, the impact on the environment can be mitigated. Discussion followed, and it was determined that the Negative Declaration would be addressed after the proposed use permit had been discussed. - 1 - Planning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 3/12/80 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. C-196 - Osterlund Enterprises, Inc., Request 'for Rezoning from "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial) to "C-V" (Visitor Commercial) the 3.778 acre parcel located at 13535 Quito Road, to ultimately allow the construction of 24 multi-family con- dominium units as a conditional use Staff explained that a major issue involved in this application is that the General Plan does classify a portion of this area as the West Valley Corridor. It was noted that CalTrans has submitted a letter, indicating the possibility of available funds and emphasizing that the corridor should remain open. Staff also commented that the final approval or denial of this matter would be made by the City Council. Discussion followed on the Avco case, which involved a subdivision within the corridor. It was pointed out that the court ruled that the Planning Commission and City Council did not have the right to deny a particular project because of the corridor since it had not been activated; the tentative map and final map were then approved and the State then stepped in and purchased the necessary right of way. It was clarified that the underlying zoning in this case was Single Family Residential. Commissioner Marshall stated that he felt this matter was entirely different because this proposed use of C-V was never intended by the City. He commented that in this case the applicant proposed to take a zoning which has been dormant for a number of years and use it as a vehicle for maximizing the economic yield from the land. Commissioner Marshall stated that he felt the matter of the corridor should not be addressed, but rather the use of the zoning as it stands. Letters. received in opposition of the proposal were noted into the record. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Richard ~oust, the architect representing the applicant and the owner, described the history of the property. He stated that the owner' feels he should be able to utilize the rear section of the property in a more appropriate manner than at present. Mr. Foust added that the neighborhood is primarily Single Family Residential (R-l), and they feel the more appropriate use would be residential, with moderately priced units which Saratoga is badly in need of, as opposed to very expensive homes. Mr. Krashinsky, 18717 Metler Court, stated he would not oppose the property being rezoned as the rest of the area is, that of single family dwellings. He added that there is very little commercial in the area. Mary Cox, 18529 As.pesi Drive, stated her opposition to the project, since their property backs up to the railroad tracks and there is so much noise at present from Quito Road and the tracks. She added that she felt the corridor land should remain open for the intended use. Andy Faber, the attorney representing the developer and owner, stated that, 'since CalTrans has not purchased the land, there is a serious question of whether they will ever do this. He commented that he felt the Commission's consideration should be governed by land use policies, plans and the Zoning Ordinance, and not be influenced by the State's request that the corridor be kept open. Mr. Faber indicated that if the request for rezoning is denied it will probably be developed com- mercially. However, he explained, they would. like to put in condo- miniums to fulfill a need in that area. - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 · Meeting Minutes 3/12/80 C-196 (cont.) Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would have no great problem with this zoning being changed to residential to build two or three homes, but not to build condominiums. Staff stated that the project recently approved in Los Gatos, which involved part of the corridor, had a zoning which was consistent with the General Plan and did not require a zoning change. Mrs. Kenneth Hopefelt, 18553 Aspesi Drive, stated that they live in back of the proposed project. She indicated that they do not wish low rent housing in the area. Mrs. Hopefelt commented on the heavy traffic at present on Quito Road. She stated that she would prefer to have residential housing, or e.ven commercial there, as opposed to 24 units. Bruce Dobor, 13495 Souza Lane, stated that the area is now very ly andhe would like it cleaned up. He stated he would like to see single family homes built and not condominiums. Commissioner Marshall moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Marshall gave the history of the site and explained that the zoning was set up to recognize the fact that it was a neighborhood entity because the shopping center was there. He stated that he felt misusing the zoning of C-V to permit multiple unit housing would be a basis for rejection. Commissioner Marshall stated that he would like to see the finding No. 1 in the Staff Report be amended to read: "The proposed rezoning will not be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Saratoga, nor with the intent of the C-V zoning, nor with the addition of the use permit procedure to add R-M to the zoning." Commissioner Siegfried stated that he agreed with Mr. Faber's comments that the action taken by the Commission should not be based on whether or not the freeway will ever be built, but rather on the basis of what is an appropriate use of the property. He added that he felt that the point that the zoning is C-N because it happened to be commercial at the time.the zoning was adopted is important, because if the zoning were established at this time it would be residential.. Commissioner Marshall moved to recommend denial of C-196 to the City Council, with the modification to Finding No. 1 in the Staff Report as outlined. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. (Commissioner Williams left the meeting at 8:15 p.m.) 7. SDR-1452 Robert Cirell, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, 4 Lots, Tentative Building Site Approval Staff reported that a major issue with this project is the location of the two-stories. A letter from. Mr. Ron Becker, on Cunningham Place, was noted into the record, which indicated concerns regarding the existing cul-de-sac bulb, drainage, two-stories and setbacks. Dis- cussion followed on the existing turnaround bulb and the removal of it per the condition listed in the Staff Report. The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Dick Kier, civil engineer for the developer, stated that they did not have any problem with the conditions in the Staff Report and would be willing to remove the cul-de-sac bulb and put the street through. Commissioner Zambetti commented on the cul-de-sac bulb and stated he Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 3/12/80 SDR-1452 (cent.) would like to see the bulb remain. He also indicated that he would prefer to see single story structures rather than two-story. ' Commissioner King..comm_ent_e.d..tha.t ~'idf. b.'_i'_o.'_d~'~b_n"~.'.b.'~j--~je~_~.a~2_n'i~.~"'i~bn 7'~'fGb~'s"'~fe: extended are.unsightly, and C~.o.mmissio.ner"Marsha~l_ ?. :' ~:ffd:.i'd'~f~'d'-thaF' ~hb' bt~'i'~ '~THohld be rem0v6d.. because' of-.safety. reaS~Ons It was the consensus of the Commission that the cul-de-sac bulb should be removed per the condition in the Staff Report. The pad elevations were discussed in relation to the height of the homes, along with the drainage problem and the location of the two-stories. It was determined that Condition VII-B should read: "No two-story homes permitted on Parcels B and C. The feasibility of two-stories on Parcels A and D will be deter- mined at the Design Review stage. It was also determined that Condition VII-A should state that the Design Review Approval will be by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kier discussed the relationship between the fence and the property line. It was determined that a condition will be added to read: "The structures on Parcels B and C shall be no closer than 10 ft. from the proposed fence." Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve SDR-14S2 per the Staff Report dated March 6, 1980, as amended. Commissioner Siegfried _.. seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. 8. UP-442 Lowell Morse, 14403 Donna Lane, Request for a Use Permit to 'allow the construction of a tennis court on a lot with an average slope greater than 10% Commissioner Laden stated that the public hearing would be opened and testimony taken, but the matter would be continued in order to allow an on-site inspection. It was determined that the inspection would take place on March 18, 1980 at 4:30 p.m. Staff reported that the applicant was proposing a tennis court on a lot with an average slope greater than 10%. The area immediately under the tennis court is approximately 22% slope; the flatter portion of the lot itself has been taken up with the existing residence. .Staff added that they had discussed this project with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, who had indicated they were opposed to it since the fill area would encroach into their easement. Staff stated they were recommending denial because the findings cannot be made. The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. The applicant stated that he had notified all of the neighbors and had given them a copy of the plan. He commented that he had not received a negative letter from any of them. Mr. Morse further indicated that he had discussed the proposal with the Water District and he now intends to build a retaining wall instead of encroaching into their easement. He added that he would submit a revised plan reflecting that. He was also requested by the Commission to show the total height from the toe of the wall to the top of the fence, and to stake the property for the on-site visit. Mr. Morse stated that he felt there would be no adverse visual impact from this proposal. It was directed that this item be continued to March 26, 1980. Break - 8:55 9:10 p.m. - 4 - Planning Commission Page Meeting Minutes'~.=3/1.2./80 DESIGN REVIEW 9. A-704 - Ronald Haas, Camino Barco, Single-Family Residence, Final Design Review Approval Commissioner Laden stated that she felt this item should be continued or denied because there are some very definite questions as to the design of the house. She added that she felt the applicant had not complied with the directions he had previously received from the Commission. Staff reported that the applicant had indicated there would be a bridge across the swale rather than a breezeway. The possibility of increasing the elevation of the upper pad was discussed by the Department of Inspection Services Staff. It was directed that, since the applicant was not present, this item Would be continued, ~n order that the following concerns could be addressed: the elevation of the upper pad the bridge and swale the placement of the trees on the property the massiveness of the structure It was directed that this item be continued to March 26, 1980. 10. A-705 - Parnas Corporation, Congress Springs and Pierce, Landscaping Plan, Final Design Review Approval Staff stated that they were suggesting to the applicant that he prepare a barrier similar to that used in the Parker Ranch development, to prevent motorcycle access to the equestrian trails. They stated they were recommending approval subject to conditions of the Staff Report. The plant material was discussed, wi. th regard to fire resistant materials. Staff was directed to ask the Fire Chief to give a pre- sentation to the Commission on his criteria. The construction and materials for the entrance wall were discussed with Mr. Heiss, the engineer, and the architect. It was.the concern of the Commission that this wall be made of a material that would ensure permanency. It was determined that the material and con- struction for this wall should be similar to ~hat used for the retaining wall. Condition No. 12 was added to read: "The entrance wall shall utilize a split face block in its construction. A sample of material shall be submitted for staff review and approval." Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-705 per the amended Staff Report dated March 4, 1980. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Copy of the ruling in the Fremont High School court case. Oral 1. Commissioner Schaefer gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on March 5, 1980. A copy of the minutes is on file in the City Administration Office. - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes 3/12/80 2. Chairman Laden thanked the Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Zambetti moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Siegfried second the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Secretary RSR:cd