Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-1982 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COY~ISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, April 28, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners B01ger, King, Laden, Monia~.and Schaefer Commissioner Zambetti arrived after the break Absent: Commissioner Crowthat Minutes Commissioner Laden made the following change to the minutes Of March 24, 1982: Citing Commissioner Crowther's question as to whether the.de- veloper whom Commissioner Laden represented had .ah-.'~'~'~'6~mic.' interest, Commissioner Laden indicated he did not. Commissioner Monia moved to approve the minutes of ~ri]i- 6, 1982, waiving the reading. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, the minutes of '3i6'rll 6 were approved. Commissioner Monia moved to approve the correction of the minutes. Commissioner Laden seconded.~the motion. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner Schaefer determined that A-818, A. Berman, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a one-story building over 22' in height on Via Tesoro Court (Lot 2) in the R-1-40,O00 zoning district be cor,~tinued at the May '2'6th .meeting~ due to a request for a one- month continuance. Commissioner Schaefer announced that. testimony for the Moreland School District v~ould begin tonight and fur_.ther announced that the issue would be continued to the session of May .18 for a study session in which areas D and F would be discussed. She stated there would be another public hearing on this item. Commissioner Schaefer reviewed the discussion of the April 20, Regular Adjourned Meeting concerning the 1974 General Plan, Areas A, C, B, and part of J, indicating that no vote was taken and further indicating that a vote will be taken following discussion of .a'i.'.i·. of the areas. At the meeting of May 4 Areas B, G, H and I will be discussed. Further discussion of the 1974'G-eneral Plan was delayed until after 8:00 p.m. 2. GPA 82-1-B, Moreland School District, Consideration of changing the General Plan ~esignation from Community Facilities- Elementary School to Medium Density Residential on the 11.57 acre parcel designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN 386-10-60, and known as Brook- view School Staff reviewed the proposal indicating that the school district wishes to have the Community-FaCility School Site designation amended to allow for Medium Density Residential development. The Area D representative expressed that it is the consensus that the area should be zoned R-l-20,000. Staff noted several letters were submitted in opposition to the request, indicating their desire to keep the school site open as much as possible to provide recreational opportunities and private schooling. Planning Commission 4/2 2 Commissioner Schaefer called attention to several qdestions posed by the residents. ~ Commissioner Schaefer recommended that since E1 Quito is owned by Moreland School District, this proposal be discussed in con- junction with the Moreland School. 3. GPA 82-1-C, Moreland School District, Consideration of changing the General Plan designation from Community Facilities- Elementary School to Planned Development-Residential Parcel designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN 386-14-4, and known as E1 Quito Park School at 18720 Bucknall Road,. Saratoga Staff'outlined the E1 Quito Park Sclhool proposal. Staff noted residents' opposition to the proposal indicating they wished a lower ~ensity designation. Commissioner Schaefer called attention to letters received indicating the desire for single-family designa- tion because of traffic conditions. The public hearing was opened at 7~42 p.m. Bob Black, 12750 Paseo Presada, representing the Quito Park area~'..'~. urged the Commission to deny th~ petition for PD zoning, since in his opinion the proposed changes would make the area undesirable and not in compliance with the area. Kathy McGoldri'ck, Area representative to the CitizenS!.. Advisory Committee to the General Pla~ reiterated the consensus of the E1 Quito Park Area in their opposition to the commercial or condominium dwelling because of poor traffic conditions. Terry Griswold, representative from the Quito Area, called lthe atten'tion to a prior staff decision in the Teresi property, which. was to have set the precedent for the area. This report showed single-~to~y'-' zoning along Bucknail and the side of E1 Quito Park. Griswola feels the present zoning proposals of staff are, therefore, inconsistent. Margaret Russel, representative'member of the Citizens' Advisory Committee from Area D, requested that no action be taken on the school site issue until the General Plan is approved, since all of the sites are addressed in the General Plan. John Anderson, representing the Moreland School District, presented a.history of the school district and its community committees. He outlined the proposals of the several commissions all of which in- dicated the desire that the Brookview and E1 Quito Schools be sold in order to reduce the indebtedness of the community and to secure future tax reductions. Anderson cited declining enrollment as the primary reason for the proposed!school closings. Mr. Asby, speaking on his own behalf and that of several neighbors in the Saratoga Woods area, expressed the opinion that maintenance in the desired fashion of a school site ~rimarily with open space is not an expense to the Moreland School District. Dan Guiter~ez, resident of the Quito area, reaffirmed the opposition to the PD zoning. '~Thi,s.. ma't~'e'~'~aS 'Co~i~ed to the', me~etin,g of May tSth in ,the' ~ 1. Consideration of Amendments to the 1974 General Plan of the City of SaratoEa: continued from April 14, .!982 In referring back to the General Plan, it was decided to review all elements dealing with all areas including circulation, land use and all other open space, Areas B, G, H, and I would be continued at the May 4th meeting, and discussion of Areas D, E, F, L, and'K -.2 - " Plannino Commission 4/28/8'~ would be continued at the meeting of May 18. The public hearing was opened at 8:14 p.m. Clarification of item #29 in the Quito area was requested from the public. It was reconfirmed that a study session would take place on May 4, together with a regular adjourned meeting, complete with minutes and a possible vote on Areas B, G, H, and I, if deemed necessary. The Moreland School sites would be topic for discussion at the May 18th meeting, and the May 12th meeting would be a regular meeting. 4a. A-809 V. Bellomo, Request for Design Review Approval and a Variance 4b. V-570 to erect a sign which exceeds the maximum allowable area at 18~70 ProSpect Road; continued from March.24, 1982 Staff reviewed the proposal andSrecommended that the application be denied. The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. Through interchange with the applicants and the Commission, the Commission recommended to the applicants the conditions of an acceptable sign would include: maximum size of forty square feet, .removal of the existing sigp., the height not exceeding 13'4", and2tH~t .. the t~ sign be ,"a(~t ur~' t6n'e ~nd ?.inc.l~h'de '!.oh~.y "the ~n~me. F..a~d addreSS ;.:of:.. the:. center. -' -=The ~' setback .:~ust b~ ".,as ..'pe.r.,'-~he :~.ordi.n..an:ce Commissioner Schaefer proposed the possibility of changing the name of the center for increased exposure. 5. SDR-1458, John Rankin, Request for Tentative Subdivision approval for 4 lots on Glen Una Drive; continued from April 14, 1982 Staff noted the corrected maps were now in compliance with the Commission's directions and the'parcel has been subdivided into 4 lots. The public hearing was opened at 8=50 p.m. John Rankin and the surveyor appeared on behalf of the proposal. Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Laden moved to approve SDR-1452 as per the Staff Report dated 4-14-82 with the conditions a~ listed, and with the map "B-i" dated 4-23-82. Commissioner Monia added the condition that the line on the map which appears to be a property line be removed. Commissioner Solget added the ordinance trees that are affected by grading be boxed. A call for the motion was made. The motion passed unanimously. 6. SDR-1516, Imperial Savings, Request for Building Site Approval to 1 lot' (consolidation of 3 lots) to allow construction of a bank on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road near Oak Place; continued from April 14~ 1982 Staff reviewed letter received from applicant, confirmed Staff findings with City Attorney indicating that site approval is -3- ~' P].anning '6' Commission 4/28/82 necessary and, therefore, the application is timely. The public hearing'was opened at 9:00 p.m. Mro Adams restated Imperial's position and indicated that Imperial cogld proceed with development as long as #2 is eliminated and tha~ #3, sections N'and 0 also be eliminated.. Angelo J. Scampini, Northern California Counsel for Imperial Savings and directly in charge of processing this application, asked that the obligation imposed on Imperial Savings to improve another's property be eliminated. He advised the Commission that if such elimination were not made, Imperial Savings would not undertake the development and would spend their money in another community. Mr. DiSalvo, representing Mr. Hacketa, the property owner, explained Mr. Hackett's position in not wanting his lots consolidated, and requested explanation from Staff about the need for consolidation. Staff clarified that consolidation was not necessary, rather a parcel map must be obtained to show the representation of the exist- !ng lots. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m. .Discussion.followed_ahou~.the_qusstion .off. ownership of the alleys, whether they are publicly or privately owned° Commissioner Laden moved to approve SDR-1516 as per Staff .Report for the CormmissiOn, dated 4-14-82,.with the elimination of the following conditions: Section 2, D-4 and Section 2-0, with .all other conditions to remain in effect. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. Commissioner King moved to amend the motion to reinstate condition 0. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. The ~6ti~h to '~m~nd"'carried with Commissioners Laden and Bolger dissenting. The vote on the amended motion carried with Commissioner Bolger dissenting.' .... bi~cusSion about'ownership of the alleys prevailed. The app.licant reviewed his right to use the property. Staff reminded the Com- mission %hat the map Which created these two alleys indicated not true public ownership. Rather,:he pointed out, in 1906, these alleys were offered for public dedication, pointing out further that, to his knowledge, the alleys were never accepted by any public body. : The City Attorney expressed doubts about private ownership, and suggested to the CommisSion that since the land has already been offered for dedication,'if it becomes necessary, the City could accept the dedication. Thus, if such a claim is made, the road ~Utd be made public since the dedication is irrevocable. COmmissioner. Monia moved to reconsider the motion.. He stated he was under the impression the only private area being dealt with was the alleyway. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Staff indicated they were not certain exactly where the Cal-Trans State of California ~ight-of-way is along the frontage. The City Attorney recommended that the requirement of the paving be conditioned upon a determination that that area is part of the public right-of-way. , Commissioner Monia moved to approve SDR-1516 as per Staff Report, eliminating Section 2, D-4 and requiring that 2-0 have a clear description as to whether or not the property which the Staff E'eport is requiring be approved shows that it is either offered for dedication for a public road or that it is within a public right-of-way. Commissioner King seconded the motion. The motion carried with Commissioner Bolger dissenting and Commissioner Zambetti abstaining since he was not in attendance at the public -4 - would be continued at the meeting of May 18. The public hearing was opened at 8:14 p.m. Clarification of item #29 in the Quito are was requested from the public. It was reconfirmed that a study session would take place and-that the sign be a ~eutral tone and include only the name and address of the center. The setback must be as per the ordinance which is 10 feet. "' '~' ' L '.. ':' ~'L'. ....' .... ~": "7 .."2': ":'~. .'. "~"" ..~":' .~' - .:. .'~ ...-. ' '.. . "" "' .'. 'F'. ~' " ~ .... ... ..... { ', ,._. ,:'.~. . ~ ..: .. . -,... . i:. Planning Commission 4/28/82 hearing. ?a. A-817 M. Gera, Request for Variance and Design Review Approval ?b. V-574 to construct a two-story dwelling at 19120 Springbrook Lane which exceeds the standard floorsarea ratio by 14.7% (where 5% is the maximum.allowed) in the R-i-40,000 zoning district Staff reviewed the proposal noting the correction made in reviewing the square footages. The Agenda states the square footages to be 14.7%, and the Staff Report indicates the square footage as 13.5%. Staff noted the actual square footage is 23.3% over the standard floor area ratio, Staff further stated they could not make the findings to grant the variance for the structure, so they could not recommend approval for the design review. The public hearing was opened at 10:10. Sophia Ostoya, the designer of the home, described the house design and proposed uses of the rooms in the house. 'She explained that she did not feel the home'was a two-story dwelling since it was not visible as~suCh-.frOm the street. George Gera, explained that the existing properties to either side of the applicants' proposed home.was under the ridge restriction. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded, the motion carrying unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 10:19. Discussion followed regarding why the two-story house next door was allowed when the subdivision was conditioned 6n.'.single-story dwellings. Further discussion followed regarding whether the proposed house is a single-story or a two-story house. It was the consensus of the Commission that the floor area ratio is too large and that the applicant decrease the floor area ratio. The City Attorney stated he felt the applicant should also be given clear direction as to the one-story issue° He stated it might effect their decision as to whether they wish to appeal or just revise the plan and resubmit it to the Planning Commission, The matter was continued to May .12, in order to review the:.final map approval. 8. A-813, F. Charters-, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second .s~ory' addition-at".21011 Canyon Viewf Drive~ in ~he .... · R..l~40 i O0D ZoningldiStriCt. ~:'.. f .!:..i'. '... 'L~ '. ':-. ..... n.~.' '~.':~ . ' ...., Staff explained that the structure is compatible with the area and does not impede anyone's view sine& there is ample.vegetation between the parcels. Staff further explains the addition ms within the standards of the Design Review Ordinance, thus recommends approval. The public hearing was opened at 10:45. Jim Morelan, lO0 W. Rincon, Campbell, the architect for the-ap- plicant, requested approval. Carl Munsey, 20971 Canyon View Drive, adjoing property owner, ex- pressed concern for privacy because of the removal of some vegetation between the properties. Mr. Charters, the property owner, spoke in his own behalf explaining that the removal of the vegetation was for maintenance and survival purposes. Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded. The motion carried unanimously. -5- Commissioner Laden moved to approve the Staff Report A-813 as dated 4-28-82, with the addition of Staff approval for any needed landscaping for privacy on the easterly side of the property as per Exhibit B. If so determined, applicant must either add ad- ditional landscaping or the Staff can determine that the present landscaping will thrive. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion. The motion carried with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining, feeling she had incomplete information. 9. A-818, A. Berman, Request for D~sign Review Approval to construct a one-story dwelling over 22' in height on Via Tesoro Court (,Lot 2) in the R-l-40,000 .Zoning district :(To be continued) No one 'appearing to speak, the matter was continued. 10. UP-517, W. Gilbert, Request for'.Use Permit Approval to construct a gazebo at 20065 Glasgow. Drive over 6' in height in the required rear yard in the R-l-12,500 zoning district Staff explained that it was a use permit to construct a gazebo over 6' in height which is allowed under use permit proceedings. Staff recommended approval. The p~blic hearing was opened at ll:05. The applicant was not present. :'Commissioner Zambetti moved to close .the public hearing. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the use permit 517 and make the following findings: 1-3 approved per staff report dated 4-22-82, with Exhibits B and C. Commissioner King seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. M I S CELLANEOUS " 'C~m~sioner S~h~efe~"~'~fe~ed to a request f6r reconSide~a¥i'6'n ...... of a previous item by Mary Boscow, 14611 Big Basin Way. The reason for the request stemmed from the fact that some of the persons in the condominiums had not been noticed since their names were not listed in the assessor's book, =.No appeal had been filed by the applicant° The item was not brought up for reconsiderationo ll. Land Development Committee The Commission discussed the Land Developm~ht..Committe~=o .'Commisbner King moved to recommend to City Council that they r__einstat_.e the Land_...D.e- velopment Committee with the suggestion that it' 'consist oT th~Oe ime~bers, two C~mm~ss~oners an~ one staff person, and'that Items 1, ~3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Staff Report be handled by the Land Develo_pme_n.t \ ~Co"'~ittee, wit~'Yh'F'P~anning 'Eommission remaining the advisory agency~ !for all Tentative Subdivision Maps. Commissioner Monia moved to amend the motion to sZpecify who would be serving on the Land Development Committee. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion. The motion as amended carried with Commissioners King and Bolger dissenting. Commissioners Laden, King and Zambetti volunteered to serve on the Land Development Committee on a rotating basis. C OMMUNICATI ONS Written Oral 1. City Council Report The City Attorney reported that Codncil gave its second reading on the NHR Ordinance and it becomes law in thirty days.. - 6- In answer to Commissioner Moniai's question, Staff stated the subject of the Design Review Ordinance will be discussed on the 26th. A discussion followed ~egarding~the procedure of the General Plan review. Commissioner King moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at ll:50 p.m. to a regular adjourned meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~ ert S. Shook Secretary -7 -