Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-1982 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA pLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 24, 1982 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Laden, Monia and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Schaefer Minutes The following changes were made to the ·minutes of February 10, 1982: On page 1, the spel ling of Mr. GodleWski ' s should be corrected. On page 2, the first paragraph, "addressed" should be replaced wi. th "opposed" and "problems" replaced with "'provisions" Attached housing and mass grading should be added to the list of subjects discussed. Th.e following should also be added: Mr. Hunkizer also stated his opposition to the planting of new vegetation to shield structures. He indicated that'he did not see how the ordinance could be cons :i stent with the Measure 'A' dictate of preserving the rural character if jt permitted mass grading. On page 2, the second paragraph, it should be. added: Mr. Kohl'er' explained that he believed the current ordinance draft was inconsistent with Measure 'A' adopted by the voters. The third para- graph should be changed to read: The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the draft ordinance must be in compliance with the Specific Plan. Commissioner Crowther commented· that, at the last meeting, Mr. Smith, the City Attorney, ha.d indicated that the Specific Plan must be consistent with Measure 'A', and if it is inconsistent it should be .changed. :Tn the last paragraph, it sh. ould be added: St~ff stated that the .City Geologist was una. ble to complete an evaluation because the site specific work was not complete. On page 3, the seventh paragraph, "not" should be deleted from the sixth sentence. In the last sentence, "as a condition under design review''· should be deleted and replaced with "except in the case 'of major) thorougbfa'res". On page 5, the sixth paragraph under V-570, "in the City" should be replaced with "along the same side 'of the street". On page'6, Item ~4 under Oral re Manufactured Housing, it should be added: The nec'essity of rapidly responding to this new law was questioned on the basis that the City still· has not complied with State Open Space laws which were enacted before 1974. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he had been advised that the interpretation by th'e former City Attorney basically was that .the HCRD Ordinance was intended as the Open Space Element. Commissioner Crowther asked how that would take care of open space school sites and other areas of the City that are not in the hills. The Deputy City Attorney stated that that ordinance was apparently intended to satisfy the State requirement. He commented that he did not necessarily agree wi'th 'th:is approach and felt that a specific Zoning Ordi- nance for Open Space would be 'appropriate. Commissioner Laden moved, seconded by Commissioner Monia, ~o.-w'aive the reading of the minutes of February 10, 1982 and approve as amended above. The motion was carried unanimously. PUBI~I'C HEARINGS 1. Consideration of Amendments to the 1974 General· Plan of the City of Saratoga; 'c ont in'ued' ·from Feb:ruary' '10' ,' 1'982' ' Staff requested· the Commission to consider a future sch. edule regarding the General. Plan, in order to further advertise it in the newspaper. Several letters were noted into the record regarding changes to the citizen i. nput for Areas J and C, and also a letter received suggesting a change in land use for the Teres'i/Hagan property. The public hearing was opened at 7:48 p.m. Frank Behnke, 14666 Oak Street, addressed the letter he had written regarding the property at 14590 Big Ba. sin Way and 20656 ,and 20660 5th Street. He ex'plained thaLt the'y are presen'tly zoned. Commercial, and - 1 - · -~Pt.a~ing Cornmiss ion Page 2 L-~ee~ing Minutes - 2/ 2 General Plan (cont.) he would like that zoning to remain. Sanford "~e¥Zi'~'[i"," Planning Consultant representing the Kosich Brothers, asked the' Commission to consider a: chango 'in zoning for the property owned by them on Saratoga Avenue, which is now zoned R-l-10,000. He described the site and the area and stat. ed that he would submit a letter to Staff, providing further' information. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, spoke for Margaret Russell, the repre- sentative _for the area' in which the Kosich site is located. She stated that the majority of the GPCAC agreed that this site should remain. R-.l'--10,000.' She added that she could see many possibilities for R-I--10,000 zoning, and the only thing suitable for the property is single family detached rosidential. She indicated that high density would not be appropriate because of the traffic problem. Staff stated that the draft of the ~'pecific elements and maps will be available for the 'Commission's next regular meeting. It was directed that this ·item be continued to the'regular meeting of·March 10, 1982, at whZi·ch time a schedule for study~sessions will ·be set up. 2. GPA 82--1-~D -·· Saratoga Horticultural. Foundation, Consideration of chang- ing the General Plan Designation from Private Open Space to Medium Density Residential (Equivalent to·R-l-12,500 zoning or a maximum of 3.48 dwelling units (net acre) on th·e 5.72 acre parcel' designated in the Santa Clara County Assesso'r's Book as APN 503-.20-091, located at 20605 Verde ...... . V .i's t a'. Lane '. ....... Staff gave 'a report on th. is item, describing the request. The various options for the property were discqssed. Commissioner Crowther asked why the option· ·of low density residential had not been considered. He stated that h.e felt that low density residential would be just as consistent for the site as multiple family residential; in fact even more so. He noted that there is some R-l-20,000 and R-I-40,000 zoning in the area, and it would seem that Dossibly a lower density might be appropriate because of the layout of·. the site. Staff clarified· titat at tlY.iS'l~Lti'me the Parks and Recreation 'Commission ]~as made no recommendation to pu'rchase this 'site. The' public hearing was opened at 8:·08 p.m. Fran Mills, 20552 Verde Court, requested that this parcel. be designated as R-1-.12,500, as single family detached-so it is consistent with the existing neighborhood. She stated 'that she was speaking on behalf of a group of residents in that immedi'ate area. She indi'cated that they would not be' opposed· to a lower density. Jim Staythe, 20624 Sevilla Lane, sta:ted that he' was speaking for his neighbors,· and they would support t'he request with the clear stipulation that 'the zoning could not b.e changed to any higher density than witat th. ey have requested'. Commissioner· Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia se·conded the motion, wh·ich was carried unanimously. Commissioner. Laden commented that the neighbors most affected seem to be in favor of the request, and to be consistent it would seem appropri- ate 'to agree wi'th the applicant's· r.equest. Commissioner Crowther inquired abou:t the four lots di. rectly adjacent. Staff explained that those are on minimum access roads; therefore they need to be one-half acre. Commissioner Crowther commented that R-i-20,000 would therefore be consistent wi·th those lots. The statement in the report regarding open space or in lieu of fees was discussed. It wa·s determined. that this would be deleted from the report. Commissioner Zambetti moved to adopt Resolution GPA 82-1-D, making the findings, and recommend to the City! Council that the 1974 General Plan Land Use· Element be amended to medium density designation, R-1-12,500. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. The motion was then amended to state minimum lot size 12,500. The vote was taken on the motion, 2 ..'~'Pl~hn~ing Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 2/ 2 General Plan (cont.) which. was carried, witl~ Commissioner Crowther dissenting, stating that he believes it is too dense for th. is pa. rticular si. te and it is inconsistent with th.e directly-adjacent lots. He added that he feels this site 'sh'ould be R--l--20,000.' 3. GF-.330 '-- Consideration of an ordinance 'of the City of Saratoga. repeal:ing Section 3.3(g) of Article. 3 of Appendix B, the Zon:ing Ordinance of the Cod. e of the City of Saratoga, and amending Section 3.2(g) of Appendix B, the Zoning Ordj. nance of the Code of the City of SaratOga for the purpose of establishing Animal. Control Regula- '. t'ion's';' c'ont:inu'ed from JanUar'y" 2'.7',' 1982 Staff eXpla. ined' th.a't thi's ordinance will clarify some of the concerns and problems that we're occurri. ng in the Sobey-Quito Road area. Changes in the ordinance we're di. scussed and made, Commissioner Crowther strongly recommended that items 1 throu. gh 6 be deleted from the ordinance and replaced wi'th the generic statement which cover what they are trying to achieve. The publ.ic hearing wa's opened' at 8:21 p.m. Thom Upson, the City's' Code Enforcement Officer, discussed the complaints that had been. rec'eived.. He stated,that this ordinance would get rid of a. ll of the ambi'guities in the exist-i. ng ordinance, and it would be easier to enforce. The Deputy City Attorney commented.that what is being done in this ordi- nance is to translate the present language of reasonable numbers into specific 'numbe'rs and to specify setback req'uirements and minimum lot sizes for' cer'tain. types of animals, Clarification of th.e language of the ordina'nce followed and changes were made.' Commissi. oner Crowther stated that he has no problem with the sections of the ordinance that deal with the larger animals, but would pre'Ee'r to see 's'ome 'generic statements for the others. Commissioner Monia moved to adopt Res'olution No. GF-330 as amended and recommend approval to the City Council. Commissioner Laden seconded. the motion. Commissioner Zambetti ':commented that he would vote against it, Since he feel's it is too specific. ']'he vote was taken, which resulted in a split vote, with Commissioners Crowther, Bolger and Zambetti dissent- i. ng. It was directed that this item will be reagendized for the meeting of March i0, ].982, when a full Commission will be present. 4. Consideration of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance and the 'Grading Ord:inance "for the Specific Plan Area; con- tinu'e'd from'. 'Feb'r'ua. ry' .10, .]_982. ' 5. GF--333 -. Con'si'derati'on o.[ a ReVisiOn to the Slope Density Formula in the HC-.RD District to a 2--10 Acre St'raight Line Formula; continued .. from'. F'ebrua'r'y 10'., '198'2 Staff gave a report on these items, stating that they have submitted a revise'd draft ordinance on the Specific Plan, which includes the most recent comments. The 'public hearing was opened. at 8:40 p.m. Since 'no one 'appeared to address the Commission, it was directed that the public h.earing will be continued to Ma. rch 10, 1982. Commissioner Crowther stated that he had traced the ridgelines that cup the City and. asked Staff to review t]~em. He indicated that he had revi. e~ie'd. the Spec'ific Plan, specifically looking for areas where the draft ord:inance 'might not be .complying with it. He suggested addi. tions or changes' regarding clustering,. agricultural uses, definition of dwelling units, density, grading, geologic maps, terracing steps, indivi- dua.] lot pools ,' storm drains, street improvements and special assessment districts, offers of dedication and standards for site maintenance, and fees for storm drainage and. erosion control outside the site. Commissioner Monia indicated that the number of times per year th'a-t - 3 - · F'l'~n~ing Commission Page 4 ~"Meeting Minutes 2/ 2 Specific Plan (cont.) the Specific Plan can be 'amended should be determined. Discussion followed, and Commissioner Monia stated that he would recommend that it be written in the ordinance th. at the Commission review no more than once per year.any changes to the SpeCific Plan. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the' 'State law has a rest'riction on the number of amendments' to a General .P'lan, and probably the Specific Plan, as being an element of the overall plan, would be subject to that limitation. He added that he would take the 'pos.ition that if, in the future, th. ere wa's some amendment to the' 'Speci'fic Plan, thereby one of' the three amend- ments for the 'year is used' up. He indicated that if that amendment necessitate'd a correspondino change. in the Zon~ing Ordinance to bring it into conformity, then there would Have to be a change in the Zoning Ordi- nance as well. Commissioner Monia stated that he felt it would be appropri- a. te, because of the' sensitivity and involvement, to limit amendment to the 'Specific Plan to once a year. Commissi'oner' Crowther was requested".' to put his changes in writing for the' study session on M~rch ~ 1982 It was directed that these items be continued' to the' regular meeting. on March 10, 1982. Brea~ - 9: 15 9: 30 p .m. 6. A-806 - Parnas Corporation, Request. for Design Review Approval for the construction of a·two-story family dwelling on Lot 24, Congress Lane';' 'c'on't'i'nUed' 'from 'Februa'ry' 10', 1982 Staff reported that the· applicant had requested that this item be con- tinued to the meeting of March 10,' 1982. No one appeared to address the Commission. It wa's directed that this item be continued to the meeting on Ma'rch '10, 1982. 7. A-810 -. Parnas C.orporation, Request. for Design Review Approval to con- struct a two-.story single family residence on a hillside lot on '. Vintag~e La'ne ;' co'n't.in'ued 'from' 'F'ebrua'ry 10, 1982 Staff reported that the applicant had also requested that this item be cont-~nued. NO one appeared to address the Commission. It was directed that this item be· 'continued to the meeting on March 10, 1982. 8a. Neg'at'ive' 'Decl'aratio'n' -.' V- 5.7.2. -- P'..'. San'fil.ippo 8b. V-.572 -. P. Sanfilippo, Request 'for a Variance to reduce the parking reqU~rement(.s) for a bank to be constructed at the Argonaut Sh.opping Center on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; continued from ..... · Feb'r'u'ar'y'. '1'0 ,. '1'9'8'2' ' ' · '..' Staff described' the proposal, stating that there has been a clarifica- tion that a variance is not needed for the height requirement on th~is item, since the height in commercial zoning is measured to mi.d-poi. nt, and it thu·s complies wi·th ordinanc~ requirements. Staff noted that Condition 3 in the ·Staff Report sho'uld read: "Enter into Defer'red Improvement Agree- men't 'and provide 'bond for payment of. pro rata share (50% of share not funded by State) of traffic light for Blauer/Brandywine/'Sh0~ping"..Center 'en~c~j-'Ag~eeme'n~O'f.-'~o'nd to run 5 years after completion of a. ll site public improvements prior to issuance of building permits. The public hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m. Bill ~ron, one of the primary organizers of the ban~, gave a presemtation and discussed the cha'rter of the bank. He indicated that the conference room of the bank is really a "~0"~'~,~' ~nd if it were removed, it ~oul. d not lower the height of the building." Bob Egan, one o~ the d.~rec~'~r~s'!F'6f.'~the ban~, discussed the vehicle study that had been done. A discussion also follo.we~ on parking. Jack Chewning, 20330 Chateau Drive, spoke in opposition to the bank. He asked that the Commission reject the variance because (1) the appearance of the building does not fit into the overall o'eneral plan or appearance of the shopping center', and (2) the variamce '~or parking spaces should be .2~(~fi~ing Commission Page S Meeting Minutes - 2/Z 82 V-572 (cont.) rej'~c·te'·d .' because the parking plan ·~.s such that quite a few of the parki·h'g' spaces will be unusable because of their location, or they will be used by cars which will pull in at such. an angle that they will take up two spaces. Dane Christen'sen', 201~1 Pierce Road, stated that he did not know whether he was for or against the bank project at th·is time. FIe indicated that he had just learned about it and wo·uld like more time to review the proposal. He added· that he felt the. people in the Argonaut area should be advised about it, and possibly the Homeowners Association review' '-' it. .:M.,,:~LeFe~e~=128.5]. Woodmont, stated that his initial thought had been that th:~'S 's"&'emed like 'a good idea in principle; he is not against a bank-in Argonaut. HoweVer, he added, he is not convinced that this is the best answer. He requested that the neighborhood._~..a_b.!.~.._~.o.make an ~gtelligent presentation for or against the 'proposal..-'Mr. LeFevre s~.~.~' th. at.'~'~"did not believe thgre was a parking problem, but he thought the CG'hd.~h'.'~lof ~he' pUblic.~rOadwky:'.a:t-..Bl~u~r'_an.d 'Saratoga-.Sunnyvale perhaps would be impacted with the increased traffic flow. He added that that intersec- tion, without a signal, is particularly dangerous during heavy traffic hours. Shelley Williams stated that his office was one of the first in the center. He commented that he did not feel the're was a parking problem. He added that be felt the bank should be more centrally located in the center, and he is in favor of a bank in the center. He discussed the traffic conditions and stated that he feeIs it was a mistake for Pierce Road. to have be closed off a.t the center~ . He indicated that the opening of this entrance to the center should be considered for the long term best traffic movement around. the entire shopping center.- Mr. Williams added that he felt the Argonaut main entrance to the center is where the stop light should go. Mr. Christensen and Mr. L'eFeV~e Bo~h ~pp0~"~d..tl~e opening up of Pierce Road to the shopping center. Jerry Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyv:ale Road, stated that he felt the bank should be on the corner. He added. that he believes this is an opportune time to resolve a problem of ingress and egress over the overflow creek which divides the shopping center and the vacant land between that creek and Cox. He stated that he feels :an easement or right-of-way should be neg'ot:['ated :For convenient traffi. c 2flow for e'ither pedestrian or vehicle in preparation for future dev'elopment of this land. Mr. Kocir spoke in favor of the bank in that location because it is on a flow of traffic and there is ample parking. Nea'l Cabrinha, one 'of the organizers .of the bank, reiterated their desire to work With the City on this proj2ect. He discussed the proposal and the findings that must be made for the variance. Mr. Cabrinha stated· that they we·re all concerned with the circulation of traffic and discussed the parking. Regarding the condition for the applicant to join into a joint ·access easement with the 'prQperty that lies to the north, he stated that this creates some very practical problems. He explained that Mr. Wong's pla.ns are not known· at this time. He indicated that he feels th.at that condition. could. be' imposed on Mr. Wong at the time he came in with plans to develop his ·property. Mr. Cabrinha added that he feels it would be untimely and unpractica. 1 to impose that condition at this time. Commissioner Laden stated that she felt, with that condition, that Staff was looking for a future ability to have a circulation pattern adjoining that piece of property, if it is so deemed when that land is developed. Commissioner Crowther commented that, regarding the additional traffic generated by the proposed use, banker's hours are such that they are unlikely to create a traffic peak~ at the time when traffic is normally peaking at th.e 'sh'opping center. Commissioner Zambetti commented that perhaps the C-N district has now become the center of the sales community over the years, rather than - 5 - 'FIa"'h~'ing Cornmiss :ion Page 6 ="-'~4eeting Minutes - 2/2 .V-572 (cont.) th.e C-C district. He explained' that, even though there are no parking districts in the C-N districts, we may have developed an area that is the center of the community, and yet we' 'may be doing a disservice to the parking by not using the ratio that 'has been used in the parking districts. He suggested that perhaps the ordinance should be reviewed. Staff clarified that banks are not ~onsi'dered commercial structures, and therefore the storage area' has been.computed in the parking. Commissioner Monia commented that he would like' to have Staff recompute the' parking and consider the storage area, since the storage area of a store is not considered' in the parking. He 'suggested that perhaps a condition that might be imposed is the restriping to accommodate smaller cars. Commissioner Laden also reCommended:that the 1400 sq. ft. of storage ~!~Tea. be' subtracted in the consider'ation of usable space. She added that perhaps the 'Dep'uty City Attorney could reword the condition about the easement, so in fact 'a delineated' easement is not required, but some access' to the northerly property at a time Wh'en it may come in for development .' Commissioner' Bolger ex'pres.sed his concern about the traffic flow', stating that he would like the traffic count a.t Brandywine and Blauer. Commissioner Crowther stated that he di.d not feel that parking is a major issue. He commented that he felt the' Commission should look at some of the other issues, wh'ich he fee'l's 'are 'the real issues related to this proposal. Cornmiss ioner' King sugges'ted that the applicant look at the ingress and egress features of the traffic flow~ in regard to the main and secondary ent'rances of' the center. , It was 'directed that th:is item be continued to a study session on March '2, 1982 and the regular meeting of March 10, 1982. 9. SDR-15il -- C. Neale, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval_ for 2 lots in the R--M-.4,000 Zoning District at 14230 Saratoga- 'Su'nnyva.le "R'oad;' cont'inued fr'om 'D'e'c'ember 9 ,' 1.981 Staff described th.e proposal. It was determined that Item II-B of the Staff Report, regarding the turnaround, should be deleted, since Staff does not feel.' that it is necessary because there is an. emergency access to Walnut. It was 'clarified that the existing structures on. both parcels will h.ave to be' 'brought up to code. The 'public h.eari. ng was opened at 10':40 p.m. Mr. Nea'le,' the applicant, discussed bring the building up to code. He indicated that he has permits from .the 'City showing that the duplex on the one parcel is up to code. The easement which 'he has given to the Flood Control was discussed, and also the conditi.ons of the Staff Report. * Charles Reed submitted' a letter' wh'i'ch he had written in opposition to the project. Mr. Reed stated that h.e feeIs a handsome looking building is needed' on the property, and what is now th'ere is a terrible eyesore, and it is only 80 'ft. from where he lives. He discussed the cul-de-sac and the number' of homes on it. · Mr.. Reed added that the water district hill is somewh'ere between 19% and 2'0% slope. He indicated that the creek is a real problem in that location. tie expressed his opposition to the houses' on the 'lot. The' Deputy City Attorney clarified :that the houses that are on the lot were houses 'removed from the ch'urch.property that was developed. He explained' that th.e' 'si'tua.tion ther'e '~s that they were perhaps salvagable and Mr'. Neale h. ad an arrangement wi'th the 'church 'to acquire the houses for possible use on th.is site'. A written a. greement was prepared and executed betwe'e'n the 'City and the applicant, which. pr'ovided th. at he had permission to temporarily place the houses 'on this site, with the very clear under'standing that ,' by doing so, the 'City was not approving the homes;' that he WOuld have 'to comply wi'th all building codes, with design review. He added.' tha. t, if at that 'time 'the 'City d~e.rm._ine.s'_the homes are Dot suitable_,' for one reason' or another', then h.e will be required to · Vice-Chairman King ~minded M~'.' Neaie several times that he had indicated at the study session that he ..understood and agreed with the terms of the Staff Report. .4~l~nt~ing Commission Page. 7 "'-Meeting Minutes - 2/ " SDR-'iSll (cont.) have the structures removed., "" Mr. Reed stated that the bank is giving away on both sides, and always has. and will continue to .do so; yet there aren't any requirements in .the Staff Report from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. He indicated that one of the lots is 70.% in the flood zone. Grover Steele, 20410 Walnut, spoke in opposition to the p'roject. He stated that he had' d'isagreed with the rezOning on this site because Walnut could not h~ndle both 'the ingress' and egress that the applicant ~roposed. He 'stated th:at he strongly objects to the fact that the proposed road across the Water District property is on a steep grade of land and portions of that cross .his' property. He noted that the're is a petition on file by 100% of the residents on Walnut objecting to this. Staff explained to Mr. Grover that there would be an emergency access that would be g~f~ '~t both'..&'hdS';.and would not be for through circula- tion. They indicated th. at it WouldZbe an 18 ft, wide road. Mr. Steele stated th'at the property is only about 25 Feet wide, and the road would have to cross his property. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would like to see the following addressed: '(1) if the road does cross Mr. Steele's property or not, ( · ~) if the slope of the hill is 19% to 20%, it would violate the Fire Code, and (3) the issu'es brought' 'up by Mr. Reed should be resolved with th.e Water District. Mr. Neale 'stated that there is a retaining wall the full length of his property, which the Flood Control has accepted as being sufficient to keep any water from coming onto' his property. He noted that the wall has been th.ere for 46 years. Mr. Neale indicated that the County Engineer had said that the road was a 15% slope. Staff pointed out that both the 'City Engineer and Fire Chief were out on site and felt '.that a road could be engineered which would be to their standards.' It was noted that Condition V-A adequately deals with the emergency access road and states' the conditions which would be accepted. Staff clarified that there haZs been .a letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District list'ing conditions, ~hicb are included i.n the Staff Report. The timeframe 'for the dedication of'an additional 15 ft. was dis.cussed. It was noted' that t!~is wi'll be done 'when the structures are being removed. The encroachment of the carport into the property lj. ne was discussed. The 'Deputy City Attorney stated tha~ the encroachment of the carport wo'uldn't neces'sarily change the boundary line of the parcel map. He stated that it was his understanding that there is no plan by the appli- cant to remove the 'duplex; in that event the 15 ft. dedication to the Water District would not be 'trigger&d. Cmmissioner Zambetti stated that h~ feels the Staff Report addresses the con. ce.r'ns. He moved. to approve SDR-.1511, per the Staff Report, as amended. Commissioner King seconded th.e motion. A time limit for the ho'uses to be removed from the site Was discussed. The Deputy City Attorney commented t'hat he did .not have the agreement with him and did not recall if there was a time 'limit. "EB~m:E~Si0ner '.~¥Fi'~j v~{~lke.~il'yi;f,'.lFi,F'WGfi'i'a."b'& "a"p.p'.r0'D'~'i]~le "to t'i~".{H the "fi'fial approval "~ f .. ~tlYiS'lot s~lit'to.Z-the fact that'these in-~ome pe~i-od 'Gf""{im'~";"' :'~':". '~7i. 11.'. c0'~{~"~7"~ 6" ~.0de": Sta{'f' &'iar'l'fi'e~d' th~ 'it.' ~o'Ufd' bO ~o~'d'i't{"6~'ed ~'!~t ......... Design Review Approval be obtained prior to Final .Approval. Commissioner Laden stated that she has a concern for approving a tenta- tive map when in fact she does not believe she has seen the entire map. She indicated that she has a problem not seeing the secondary access needed. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the oddity here is that the access is actually going to be' constructed on the Water District pro~er~y... '-~i;s- -&~'~ion ~f61~Bwela on CO~di_~.i0h' V-.D 'adfdreS.~iHg.'{]~"'.~mergenCy .a.ccess. 'Th~ '~Siq~:.~'~""~.i'~'~'A'~:torney' stated'~hat he' 'felt the condition actually has to be' phrased in terms 'of a document to be 'rec'o"rded; it would actually be a grant of an easement from the Wate.r District covering its property and finding where 'that ooes' He added that, since it is property belonging ,,- ..... ....... .......-.. ........, _ ......... '2 .,:. . - .7 - _~l~n.,~ing Cornmiss ion Page 8 -.' 'Meeting Minutes -'2/ SDR-1511 (cont.) to the district, the' first issue is just to define where that access is located, and establ'ish eVidence~'of the' availability of this access from the Water District'. He added' that that may be something granted to the City itsel'f. rather than Mr. Neale.' An easement may not be nece- ssary if the 'right' is 'between the 'district and the City, for example. Commissi'oner Zambet'ti amended hi's motion to include an amendment to Condition V--D to rea'd that a recorded document showing right-of-access across the 'Santa Clara Valley' Water' District is required prior to Final Approval. Tha't 'con'dition was also added as Condition VII-F. Condition' VIII-B' wa's amended to read: "Design Review'Approval on Parcel B required' on' project prior to issuance of permits. Condition VIII-D was amended' to rea'd: "Design Review Approval is required on Parcel A prior to final map. Setbacks shown on map are not approved at this time." Commissioners Zambetti and King accepted those conditions as part of their motion. The vote 'was taken on the motion. The motion was carried, with Commis- sion'er Laden dissenting, stating that she did not feel there is a sufficient map showi'ng the proper subdivision of this property. Mr. Neale' stated that the project will be a good looking one, and the senior citizens wi'll benefit from the project. 10. SDR.-.1515 --Fisher/Gomez, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for 2 lots in the 'R-i-..20,000 Zoning District at 14586 Aloha " '. '.' AVenUe Staff des'c'ribed the proposal, explaining that there was a previously approved lot split wh.i'ch has expired'. The 'public hearing was opened. at 1i:30 p.m. A let'ter from the 'neighbors, in opposition, was noted into. the record. Cor Bregm'an, 20'330'Saratoga--Los Ga~os Road, expressed his opposition to the 'project. He 'stated that he considered thi's to be a third dwelling on the prop'erty. tie added that he:and his neighbors do not feel that anoth.er dwelling would be in the best interest of the area. Malcolm Wilson., 20318 Saratoga-.Los Gatos Road, agreed with Mr. Bregman. He stated that there are large ho'uses in that area set in approximately one-'acre lots, and he did not want to see them split. Keyin Fisher, en'ginee'r for Mr. Come.z, stated that he felt making Aloha Avenue one-w.ay will help the traffic situation. He indicated that he feels the project is 'compatible with the zoning. He' added that there . . . are many trees 'and shrubs' on the 'proper'ty to act as a buffer between :Mr. Gomez"' property and the' neighb'ors or Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Cozet'te Cermak,' 14585 Aloha Avenue,.stated that she did not object to the Mr-.-'.:Gomez. dividing his property. However, she does object to the closing of Aloha Avenue and she believes that the law prohibits the closing of' such a street. She indicated that her husband has had his practice on the"corner' for 30 yea'rs, and this will be a detriment to his practice. She"added that she' did not feel that the street is more dangerous th'.an any other intersection. Mrs. Cermak expressed concern regarding the turnaround which has been proposed, which goes into her driveway. Commissioner Monia moved to close the' public hearing. Commissioner Laden seconded the' motion, which wa's carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the' closing'of Aloha Avenue, and it was clarified that.there will be ingress'on'e way. Commissioner' Laden moved to approve SDR-1515 per the Staff Report. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the. motion. Commission'er Crowther stated that he was opposed to the project on the basis of the input from the 'neighbOrs.' Commissioner Bol'ger stated that .... 1"'~.'_"-' -"," ...~-~-=. -_ -.' -. 8 -. Pj!~a~nH~ng Commiss ion Page 9 .~ MZe~eting Minutes 2/2 SDR-1515 (cont.) he alS. o would be voting against it. He explained that he had not been in favor of the propose'd house, since 'it was too large for the lot and is al'so too close 'to this road, wh'ich has a great deal.of traffic. The vote was taken on the' motion, which 'resulted in a split vote, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissenting. It was directed that this item be 'continued' to the"meeting on March 10, 1982, when there will be a full Commission. 11. .GF-331 -. Consideration of an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga adding Article 24 (.appeals) to Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance, and repe.aling and amending various inconsistent and superseded s'ec't'i'onls"o'f.'the' Zo'nin'g'.O'rd'in'anc'e The Deputy City Attorney discussed the revised ordinance. The public hearing was openea' at 11:45 p.m. Since no one appeared to address the"Commissi'on, Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hea'ring. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the 'motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner' Laden moved to adopt Resolution GF-331, recommending approval to the City Council. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS 12. V-.541 -~' R. Madd'alena, 90-day Revi'ew of Variance Do'ug Adams, attorney for the applicant, gave the history o.f the project and discussed the process' they have gone through to find the required parking. FIe indicate'd that there h~ve been no recent objections to the variance, and he would ask the' CommissiOn to grant 'it on a permanent basis. Commissi'oner Laden commented' that she feel's it is being realistic to realize 'that the 'parking is not going to be available ..... She stated that everyone has enjoyed Ups. ta'irs-Down's'~airs, and ~.~.'~ go out 'of business. She"sUggested that it might be appropriate., if the Commission' wi'shes' to grant the 'variance, since it goes with the land, that a stipulation be tied' into the variance that no modification of any of the' buildings' on the land can be done without reappeari. ng before the Commission, in order to not intensify any of the uses that are on.that property to create a worse 'parking problem. '~ng'spaces. Ross M~ddalena, the applicant, read a letter from the Saratoga Village Association, in favor of the project, ~e also read the letter he had submitted, proposing seven' new 'parking spaces to be designated for Upstai.rs--'Downst'airs. He 'explained that he had received his business license in good' faith and thought' that Staff had checked out the parking requiremen'ts. There was a consensu's 'that 'the matter will be dealt with at the end of the one yea'r period. It was directed that it be renoticed for a public hearing for' the May 12,'1982 meeting, to allow 'the'Village property owners to express' thei'r thoughts at 'that time. C OMMUN I CAT I ON S 'Oral 1. Commissioner Monia reported that the City Council had requested the Commission to 'formally make a motion' for reconsider'ation of the Manufactured Housing Ordinance, if it so des'ires'. He ex'plained that he had asked the Council at the"meeting last night 'to allow the Commission to reconsider the ordinance, base'd' on the 'fact 'that 'all of ~he opti'ons had not been known. He indicate.d' that one of the options that the' Commission had not~"considered is to make a new .zoning district or zone sp'e~ific parcels for manufactured hous- ing. Commiss'ioner"Monia added' th'~t ~h'e'r'e~are at least six other pieces of legislation that have be'e'n pass'e'd which 'speak to Manufactured Housing, and he would like the 'Deputy City Attorney' to='review them. He commented that he P,~Cl~r~ing Commission Page 10 Minutes,-, 2 Oral (cont.) feels the Commission should look at this as a whole Zoning Ordinance based' on all of the bills, rather than rec'ommend an ordinance today .that does not comply wi'th 'some other piece of State legislation in six months. Commissioner Monia moved to request' the City Council to return the Manufactured Housing Ordinance to the Commission for reconsideration. It was noted' that the' majority vote has to make such a motion. Commissi'oner' Laden moved to request the City Council to 'allow the Planning Commission' to rec'onsider' the 'new information that has been brought to th.em on' the' Manufactured Housing Ordinance. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion'.. Commissioner King stated that he would be voting against'~the motion. He explained that it appears that,...~hile one side prevailed at the Planning. Commission and~tH~ Oth~ ~i~e p~ev'a~led at the City Council, he wonders wh'~ the Commission'should reconsfder, since the 'City Council is 'obviously going to do it the way they want it anyway. Commissioner' Laden stated that she thinks Commissioner Monia is indicating that. if the're is so'me new 'information that changes the structure of what the 'parameters are, then that information should be considered'. The 'vote Was taken on,the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner King di. ssenting. ~ The Deputy City Attorney not'ed that.the Commission has a letter from him regarding the 'legal interpretation from the State Department of Housing and Community Developmen't., which raises some of'the issues referred to by Commissioner Monia. Commissioner Crowther requested the"Deputy City Attorney to obtain'the 'six legislative.bills for review land conSi'deration'. The Deputy City Attorney was also asked to determine 'to wh'at extent SeCtion 2 of SB1960, regarding the building standards for mobile homes', et'c., affects the ordinance. 2. Vice--Ch.airman King thanked the Good Government Group for attend- ing the meeting and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner' Zambetti moved to adjourn the 'meeting in honor of Rene Jones, wh'o h.ad served on the Parks and Recreation Commission and had been instru- mental in the reh'abi'litation of Hakone Gardens. The motion was seconded by Commissioner"Monia. .The motion was 'carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at'12:20 .p.m. Resp'ectfully submitted, Secret'ar~y RSS:cd