HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-1980 Planning Commission Minutes?' "~:~ -. Z' CITY O.F SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
) MINUTES '
-.
DATE: 'We'dnesday, October· 22, 1980 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chamber's, 13777 ·Fruitvale·Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular.Meeting
..'.7 ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
" Present: Commissioners La. den,.Marshall., Schaefer, Siegfried, Williams
and Zambe~ti (Commissioner Zambetti arrived at 7:.34 p..m.)
AbSent: Commissioner King
'Minutes ' ..-
Cdmmisst0ner Marshali m0.ved,.'seconded by Commissioner Williams;' to waive
'.th& reading o'f the minutes.of October 8, 1980 and approve as distributed.
.:.The'motion was carried, with Commissioner Siegfried abstaining since he
was not present at the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR -:. .. ..
1.' 'SDR-1409 - David Ri. tter, Bohlman Road, 1 Lot, Final Building Site
.' ApproVal.'
· '2. A-7'42 Montalvo-AssociatiGn, 15400 Mon~alvo Road, 2,000 sq. ft.
.addition to an .existing gallery building (whiCh could be
used.for cla-ss.rooms), Final Design Review Approv'al
'Commissioner' Siegfried'moved, sec'onded by Commissioner Schaefer, to
:appr?Ve the 'above.items on the Consent Calendar. The 'motion was carried
unan.~mously. -'
-TENTATIVE BUILDING. SITE'A'PPROVALS-.
3.. 'SDR'-14.7-7 '~' S~ratoga Baptist Ch'urch, Prospect Road, 1 Lot, Tentative
· ... '.Building'Site Ap'pro'va'l
S.taf~"desc"rib.e'd the: pfds:ent-propo~a.'l an'd stated' 'th~y..were recommending
approval. CommissiOner Siegfried moved to approve SDR-1477; per the
Staff Report.date'd' October' !3', '1980.. Commissioner ~arshall seconded
the motion, which w~s-'-carried unanimousl-y..
4. A-'797'.: "Mendel's0hn Lane 'DeVelGpmen~ COrporation, Mendelsohn' Lane,. I_,ot-6,
"Final Design' Review Approval (Tract 6531)
· ". Staf. f explained that a grea~ deal of'effort had beeH.put into this sub-
" "' division.by the Commi.ss'i'on, St.aff. and. citizens to develop buildi.ng site.
· ' envelopes around the numerous tree~. They commented that thAs is the
· . third of four structures that have had'some modification.. Staff stated
that, if there is concer'n by' the Commission about future.modification to
..the building envelopes., the developer c0uld be required to subm'it modi-
.fications for all sites at this time.
· Commissioner Marshall commented that he was displeased. z~L~6'd~kp:.;'.~aT.E~X~'~k
the impaCt'of one lot u~on another cannot'be seen.. 'He stated that,.as
lo.ng as. des.i'gn review of each and every house occurs, and as long as the
applicant understands that he.may be planning a. house wh~.ch, in the eyes
Of: the Commission, is not compatible with what surrounds it, then he has
'no probl. em. He indicated that he has no problem with the developer
violating the envelope.because the physical characteristics of the site
.. have changed, i.e., an Oak tree blGw down. However, he added, if the
- 1 -
· ~ ,~P;lan':~i'ng Commiss ion. "~ Page ~'2
'M..inutes 10/22/80
A- 7'37 (cont.)
developer thinks he can come up with allythe changes he wants a.s he
-. so chooses, then he is wrong.
It was. the .consensus of the Commission that the develoPper should
· submit a map showing future modifications and should also submit a
revision to the Site Development Plan of'the subdiVi-sion.
Staff described the current proposal-.and also th~ criteria addressed
in this application. Staff stated that the Commi'ssion Should keep in
mind how they wi'sh to develop twO:-stories in th'i.s subdivision' and what
cri'teria they wish to utilize in the future' two-'stori. es. They commented
'that'in.the building S.ite approval'the Commission.,did not approve
· ' spec'ific~locations' of..two-stories, but ~h.e ordinance i'ndicates that
:' . only~ 50% o~.the subdivision can'be .two-stories.
"' .The'p~b.lic hearing was opened at 7.:45-p.m...
· "" :' '.Mr. Gallo the'developer, addr'essed'the COmmission and d~scussed the
'. locatiOn'of proposed .two-.Stor.ies. Mr..Gallo stated that they were
"'..: ~-trying to place two-'stori'es in 'areas.away from the trees, and he clari-
"'~'... .... fied ~hat he would consider it'reasonable to submit a map showing the"
.location of '~uture two-st'ories. :
"' COmmissioner Siegfried commented that he would hate tO see 19 lots
.."".: .with houses' of this re'ass in th. at area. Mr. 'Gallo stated that o'n the
lots .facing Mendelsohn the homes are cons.iderab'ly smaller.
· .Chairman Laden indicated that the Commission'.would like a re'vised plot
.-.., plan showing the chang.es made to date and.the anticipated two-st'ory
homes, So that the next design review 'will have that with 'it.' She'
· ,:, stated that, after' the two-story ordinance has been revised, this plan
should'be reviewed.to ensure that'the homes are'in harmony.
· , Commissioner ..Marshall stated that he felt the front of .this house is
strictly a. "Hollywood set"' and the s.tyle has not b'een followed. through.
· he.re'was'a'.consensus that ~f'a house can be seen from more than one
side,-it should be' architecturally treated on more than one side. The
~indows were discussed, and Mr. jGa!lo st~ted that it was his intention
· t'o:build' the house in the round and will use exact.ly. the same type of
.,. .. -.finish-all. the way around the'house. It was. determined that a condi-
tion' should be aaded to'read: "The exterior treatment of the .front
elevation shall also be used on all other elevations of t.he structures,
including. window details."
~' CommiSsioner' Zambet'ti-moved to close the. pub'lic. hearing. Commissioner
Marshall seconded the motion, .which was carried unanimously. "
-'. Commissioner Marshall moved. to approve A-~'.Z~, per the amended Staff
Report dated October 16, 1980; with the stipulation that a"~"-~i~.6wing
"' C,g~"~o~r ~'~'~i~' se~8~d'~'g""'~h("~'t'fG'E';'~hich was carried'unanimouSly,
DESIGN.REVIEW .. '.
' 5.. A=732 Ronald Haas., Camino Barco, Single-Family Residence, Final ..
Design Review Approval; Continued.from October 8~ 1980
Staff. reported 'that this item had been continued to'allOw the Archi-
tectural Review Committee to r~iew the plan. Staf. f described the
present proposal. They commented that the Committee had approved thiS,
plan but-had reaffirmed that they felt the. previous'design was superior.
.. Staff commented that a condition should be added to the Staff. Report
.~q.a-nnxng Commissj. on' Page 3
M4. nutes 10/22/80
· A-732 (cont.)
". to. read: "No driveway shall Be placed on any portion o'f the Balbo'ni ':
.... propert.y.""
-The City Attorney 'commented .that'he had reviewed the situ~tion.regard-
~=~"'."."'.=.j i'ng the C'orreSpondenc.e from the' law offices of Hutchins~on and Stewar~',
:". "' and he sees no problem as relates to this.application. ..He stated that.'
" the-H~nry propert~ has an access piece leading up to Camino Barco,
and that. access does not d.&pend on .the easement as part of th.e approval
of ~his application. .He stated'that a. comment should be added to 'the'
S.~aff* Report, .noting tha~-. anyone 'buying the. Haas property may 'have
..: joint access through a common dr. iveway with the Henry property-. ..
· Commiss~one.~ MarSh'all. stated th'at the. heigh't'. is now. lower than that o~
".. =.. the previous de.sign,..and'he considered this design t'o' be' far superior.
· ...... . C'0mmissi~'ner Siegfried. commented .that a great' deal"of time has been' :.
.. .Spent on this' site., and this design answers al.1 t.he concerns Of the."
"' various bodies. He moved to approve A-.732,. per .'~he amended Sta'fLf. "
"' 'Report dated September 18, 1980 and the Addendum dated.-October .18, ".
: ... 1980. 2[t was noted. that' .the five criteria'addressed in ~his 'appl'ication.
sho~,~ld. be 'added to the 'Staff. Report. Commissioner Marshall seconded ,the
motion.. · ....
":.;- C'omm~Ssioner wil.~iams stated'that he fel~ this design was an improve-
... 'ment over th~ last one. He. commented that"' ther.e a~.'three. adjacent
~ .two-story homes.' Commissioner Wi..ll'iams added that the house 'is now
one-hal'f the height 'of the' ~ree.s.
.- Cha'irman Laden"-po.i'nted out that any .report .t0 'the 'City' .C0~ncil' should
ind:i'cate..that th.e Ar'chitectur.al Review Committee d.'id 'meet and the
'..- Planning Co'mmissi'on did .'feel their pro. f.esS.ional opinion should.be '-
· =. foil. owe'd; that cert'ai.n.modifications were made in the plan.; and that
t. he.Commission's determination.was that the Committee is the best-
· aUthority on this design...
.." -.The. V~te was taken on. the motion. It was.carried unanimously.
..."6 A.2736'- Bl'aCkwell Homes, Unit .~2-Landscapi'ng, F~nal-Design Review '.
· . Approval. '
Staff. dascribed th'e pr0j'e~..~nd c0mm~nted'thdt' thi~ p~-.oject falls
.~ ... within' the Measure A ar&a. The City Attorney ~ta~ed. ~hat 'the applicant
'is voluntari!y mo.ving forward .with the request 'that th~s plan be
":".. approved pursuant to' the .aireCtive. from the City co~n. cil. that, not-
. withstanding the moratorium, 'th&' proces'sing 'o'f ~e~'tati.'v~ maps may
'nevertheless continue .up to but not including final approval stage.
"'..... in a way,. he expl. ained,. the ,applicant ~ay be wast. j:ng. his time to the
. :" ,.. extent the Specific 'Plan" may: render this ..invd!~.d.. He ' added that, if
..... · . the Commissi,0n apprGveS'this plan, there ought 'to b'e a very expressed,
Clear stipulation"in' the approval that,' upon enactment of the Specific
.Plan;' and any regu. latiohs adOpted-.pUrsuant to .th~ Specific Plan to the
.- .extent that the plan or regulations are in ' any'. way inconsistent with
.-. this plan, it 'is no longer valid. The City"Attorney commented that he
did not feel..it has .any necessary.'impa~t-on the pending litigation
because ail'the Commission is doing .iS prOcess. ing.a tentative map which
was directly 'affe.'cted by the moratorium and the' applicant cannot proceed
...:- with ffina. 1 approval';. ~he is. just doi'ng the. preliminary processing. He
.. stated that, from' the point o~ =adoptiGn of the Specific Plan, any
.'.. further i.nve.stme'nt. in the. p.roj~c.t 'th6 appl. ica. nt makeS-is w.i. th knowledge
"' o~ the moratorium and the fact ~ha't he is prohibited from building..
.-.'~. Staff indica.ted that the Ci.ty COuncil has given the applicant permission
to. maintain landscaping. Commissioner Mars. hall stated that he was
concerned that grading has occurred on site arid. preservation of that'
' land is needed to keep erosion from destroying or causing'a problem.
3
%lan~i-ng Commission Page 4
~'nuteS - 10/22/80
A-736 (cont.
Bill Heiss, civil engineer for the project, stated that there is work
going on in Unit #1, which has been approved by the City Council.· He
added' that there is replanting in certain areas, and some minor correc-
tive grading is going on. He commented t'ha·t the applicant is taking
st~ps to preserve··what is there.
The'bridge was disc'ussed, and it was:noted that the Staff Re·port Suggests
a .fill and culvert·type, as .oppQsed to a dte~arspan bridge.. Commissioner
Marshall commented that he had no problem with the concept of a culvert,
provided that the· culvert 'is of· an appropriate size. He stated that he
would like to see cro~s-sec·tions which illustrate the point with respect
to the creek flow and figures ·regarding what the 100 year flood might
do and·whether the culvert is sized·for that.
Mr. ·Heiss described.th.e culvert system and stated that they had. decided
to build the culvert system because there are· some very unstable bank
conditidns on both ·sides wi:thin·this region. He explained that they felt
they would create a· better looking environment with the culvert system.~
It was the consensus of the Commission'tha~ they had no problem with ·th·e
culvert as long a·s it i·s of sufficient size.
· The conditions'of=the Sta·ff·Report were d'iscussed. Jim Larbow, the
landscape archlteCt·~ discussed the landscaping. He stated that he felt
a two·-year·irrigatio'n system would be more than adequate'. Commissioner
Schaefer stated that she would like to see projects that have been watered
for two years, to determine if that time will be sufficient.
· ~ It was th'e consensus of the· Commission that they would like to see the
culvert trea·tment at a study .session, wi·th a design that will show-that
-.· the ·figures support the proposed design. At .that time the Staff Report
should r~flect-the changes· discussed in the conditions, and also
Commissioner Schaef. er's concerns about the irrigation system can be
addressed.
· .Bob· Sch'rader addressed the Commission, expressing concern regarding the
bridge versus the culvert system. He stated that'he felt there should
be a deta'il·ed engi·neering system study in that area. Chairman Laden
explained that there have been geology studies done on· this project,
and she also noted that the tentative maps are sent· to the various
agencjies and they respond with their requirements on·the project. She
pqinted out that the Santa Clara Valley Water'District would be involved
-in the ·subject project.
It· was' directed that this item be continued'to a studycsession on
November 18, 1980·at 4~30 p.m. and the' regular meeting of November· 26,
i980.
M~ SCEI;LANEOUS
· ""~. Tract.5454, Gerald Kendall, SObey Road, Tentative. Map Approval, Request '-
.for One-Year Ext'ens'ion
.Staff noted that the' Staff Report.h~s been reviewed and there are no
additional cOndi-tions required' a't this time for a second one-year exten-
sion. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried,
"'to 'approve a second one-year..'extens.ion for TraCt 64S4. The motion was
carried unanimously.
.~...
COMMUNICATIONS
Writt'en
1. Letter from Roger Haag, dated'OCtober 17, 1980. Staff reported.
'that. Mr. Haag, who operateS. the Saratoga Hardware, was asking to move a portion'
of their present st6re to another' loc~tion on Big Basin ~ay, where they will.
- 4 -
Planning Commission .- Page 5'
'~}&~nm.~s'- !0/22/80 "
...~.. ,.. .. ..
Written 'COmmun'iCations.(cont.) ..
· sell moped.s .and skooters." Staff commented that, under the existing 'ordinance,
motors'skoo. ter sales' is not an allowe'd use. -'. .'
Mr... R0ge~' Haag, owner· Of the Saratoga HardWare .eXplain"ed that his busines'~
is expandi'ngl and for the'dlast four years they'.have'been Selling and repai. ring
mopeds and s.kooters.' He stated that they have'had no disagreement with. their
-.-fell0w merchants or 'the ·customers in their.operatiOns during t.he last four
.years. .. ,'. ,..~
Cbmmissioner Marshall commented that he felt there is a 6~g difference between
Mr. Haag's c. urrent operation and what he is proposing,'-~t}ich asks'the C0mmis~
sion to .modify the permit s'tructure. He stated that he.(,woUld have di~'ficulty
with this, si. nce he has heard' for years from'the Ci~X'po'licy-makers that they
'don' t want gas stations ' garages ,' ;-o~:~h~"':~g~'~'~'v~'~:g~?~'Om~Tt6'~=fE'~t:he City..'
Commiss:toner'[,aden stated'that she would not' have a pr'ob'lem if the operation
were. contained in the. b'ui'lding, wi'th maybe a display.outside. of one 'or two
',.mopeds 'or gkooters. She indicated.thdt she would like' tO see some stipulations
..set up, if it were a. ppr0ved~ wh'ereby the Commission has. contr01,'over it,
Commissioner Siegfried commentea t~at 'he was"not particularly dis'turbed"by the
proposed use, but would like 'to see more detail.
Commissioner Zambetti commented that he has 'n0 problem with the proposed use.
He stated that he has watched that site remain vacant .for-'a numbei~ of years,
.and it is now a collection Of dust, dirt and papers. He added that h.e' would
no't mind 'the disp'laying if Mr.. Haag ·uses the same restraint that he Has ~se'd'
i-n the past.
Staff'reported-that this use was not list'ed in. a' C-C district;·. however, the
Com'missi"on can, by resolution·, add par.ticular uses. Chairman Laden' stated
-."'tha{,.if.the Commission added i't as .a'use .in-the 'C-C.zOne,-it is not Certain
'.. '.that. .Mr ,.".Haag will alwayS· be" the person running the operation; however, .if it..
were .un'der a use ·permit the Commission Wou'ld ha~e control.
C0mmisgiondr Ma. rshall. po'in.ted out that more detail is re'qu'ired,' a'nd indicated
that a .use .permit. might be the ideal way to control it, since that woul'd allow
.a pul~lic hearing so th'at public t.estimony could be taken from the citizens;
"Mr'.' ~aa'g was requested to expand upon the details· of his' proposal, and Staff
· "'. was aSke. d to work on. proper conditions for the pro'je.ct. It was directed that:'
-thZis item· be .c'ont.inued toZ a '~tudy session on November '18,. 1980, and would be
.noticed in .~.h-e newspaper' gor'a publ'ic hearing on November 26, 1980.
0r.a 1 " "' · ·
..:. i-. C'~'ty.Council Report - Commissioner. Siegfried gave a brie.f report on
the 'C'it.y.'Coun'cil meeting on October 15, 1980. A 'copy o~ the minutes of this
'meeti.ng;C"Z~"s~ on-fi.l'e in th'e City· Administration Office
:.' .. ':" . 2.. 'Chairman Laden thanked Counci'lwoman Clevenger for attending the
'meeti'.ng, and the Good· Government. Group'for attending and serving coffee.
'A D.JOURNME'NT .' ".
Commi'SSioner Siegfried moved·, ·seconded by. Commissioner Z~mbetti;"to adjourn
: the meet~n.g'... The' motion w. as. carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned
at. 10:'17 p.m.
...-:2 . 2.....
· ::.
... Respectfully submitted '
Secretary
RSR:.cd .,. .. · ·