Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: October 22, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: - Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call; Present: Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Harris, Siegfried, Guch, Pines, Callans, Tucker. Approval of Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 1986, the following change was requested by Commissioner Tucker on page 7, third paragraph, delete the second sentence and add, "She stated eliminating the age restriction would open the City to duplexes in districts zoned R-I." PINES/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 1986, AS AMENDED. Passed 6-0, Commissioner Harris abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS; None. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. SDR- 1454 John DiManto, request for a one-year extension and modification of condition VIII-G (relating to stone facing for the new retaining walls) of tentative subdivision map approval for 5 lots between Madtone Hill and Peach Hill Roads, in the R-l-40,000 and HC-RD zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. 2. SD-86-001 Goni, request for building side and design review approval for construction of DR-86-003 a new two-story single family dwelling at 14080 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., in V-86-004 the R-l-10,000 zoning district. Also consider granting variance approval for a carport to be located 9 ft. from the front property line where 25 ft. is the required setback at the above address per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to November 12, 1986. SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS; 3. AZO-86-001-(Saratoga Avenue Associates), consideration of amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking lots as a conditional use in the residential zoning districts. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. Planning Director Hsia summarized the Memorandum dated October 22, 1986. The City Attorney stated that information presented was not a proposed formal ordinance; rather, the information was presented to the Commission for discussion and recommendations regarding possible Conditions. He suggested that a proposal be drafted by the Staff and presented to the Commission for consideration; the City Council could then act upon an Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING , Page 2 OCTOBER 22, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Attorney stated that the concern of the City and the' reason the Council was not inclined to deannex the site, is that the City wishes to retain some control over the development of the parcel in San Jose. This is a jurisdiction issue; the City of Saratoga wishes to insure that the proposed building is appropriate to the site and the neighborhood. One possibility offered by the applicant was the execution of a recorded contract stating that before construction of the parking lot, the City would review and approve the building to be built within the territorial limits of the City of San Jose. This allows Saratoga the assurance that the building is appropriate for the site and that parking is adequate. Commissioner Harris asked whether allowing the Applicant to obtain a Use Permit for the parking area would intensify the use of the property in San Jose; the City Attorney replied that this is the reason Staff recommended a Conditional Use Permit and he suggested that a recorded agreement be used to further buttress the Conditional Use Permit. Once the City approves the building, any modification intensifying the use would result in a revocation of the use permit for the parking site. The City wishes to set up the circumstance whereby the City can approve, even if indirectly, the structure to be built on the San Jose property; this would be accomplished by: - Use Permit - Contract with a Condition of the City's right to design review of the proposed structure - Restriction that once approved, the structure cannot be altered by the applicant without approval of any modification by the City. The Planning Director stated that the City Manager and the City Council are currently considering, in conjunction with the City Council of San Jose, an exchange of property between the two cities, so that the Applicant's project would not be in two jurisdictions. No decision has been reached at present. The City Attorney advised the Commission not to base their decision of the Application on whether such an adjustment may or may not occur. Planner Caldwell noted that parcel 386-23-39 is landlocked and explained that this was one of the reasons Staff wrote the ordinance amendment as presented. The Staff did not want residential property to be converted to commercial use nor did Staff wish to see numerous requests to make similar changes; thus the requirements for the amendment of the Code were very exact. Chairwoman Burger read into the record the following names of individuals opposed to an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance: - Mr. and Mrs. James Russell Mr. and Mrs. A1 Burden The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 P.M. Mr. John Gatto, representative of Saratoga Associates, stated that the Staff Report and the background information given was accurate and the Applicants concur with information presented. The Applicants are attempting to find a solution to an unusual problem in that the property owned is parfly in the City of Saratoga and partly in the City of San Jose. The property is configured in such a way that it be developed as one property; access to the site is very limited. The Applicants are not anticipating nor asking for a judgement on the project; they are seeking a mechanism to present the project to the Commission at a later date. Initially, the applicants approached both cities to allow the project to be developed within the boundaries of either one or the other of the two cities; however, both cities wished to maintain their boundaries. The only logical way to proceed was to request an amendment of the Zoning Code allowing a review of the situation due to the unique circumstances,. Mr. Gatto stated it was critical the Commission understand that the City will have control. The Applicants are seeking, and the mechanism will provide, a Conditional Use Permit Review; Applicants fully intend to present project plans to the Commission and the Council of Saratoga. He assured the Commission that the City would have the same control over development of the entire property as if the property were located in the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 OCTOBER 22, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Chairwoman Burger's question, Mr. Gatto stated that the 1.8 acres of property are undeveloped at present. In response to Commissioner Tucker's questions, he stated that Saratoga Avenue Associates is a partnership of individuals with interest in the property; Cypress Properties is composed of the same individuals. He affn'med that the property could be developed commercially without the addition of the other parcel; however, this property is landlocked. Commissioner Siegfried noted that in such an instance the City would have no control over the commercial development of property in San Jose which abuts residential property in Saratoga. Mr. Tomio Imai, 186517 San Palo Court, Saratoga, stated that he was unprepared since notice of the hearing was only received earlier in the day. He stated that his concerns center on security and noise generated by the proposed building. With respect to security, he noted the stipulation prohibiting ovemight parking and asked for an additional condition requiring that the parking lot be closed off when the office building is not in use. He cited examples of problems that have occurred from individuals trespassing on his property. With respect to both security and noise, he asked for information on the fence or noise barrier to be installed between the office site and the adjoining three residential homes. Commissioner Siegfried noted that by allowing parking on the site in question, the City gains the possibility to control development of the entire site. Even though most of the site is not in the City, concerns expressed by the speaker can be addressed by the City if the City allows this development to proceed as proposed. This is the uniqueness of the proposal under consideration. SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Siegfried stated that initially he was very concerned when reading the Staff Report; however, upon reading the entire Report and making a site visit, he realized that this is a unique and credible answer to a difficult situation. In addition, the City will have some control of the development to address the concerns of neighbors. The City would not have control otherwise. Chairwoman Burger concurred but noted her concern that amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking in the R-1 zoning district may be an extreme measure. Commissioner Tucker concurred with the Chairwoman; she added that considering the General Plan, the parcel in question should remain R-l-10,000 zoning for single family dwellings. Commissioner Siegfried stated that only through use of the Saratoga parcel as a parking lot can the City have a vehicle to control development of the comer parcel located in San Jose. Commissioner Tucker stated that she would prefer to have a vacant lot to the rear of residential properties rather than a parking lot. Commissioner Pines stated that in the situation presented, the City has a choice between a vacant lot or working cooperatively to gain sonhe control over the development of the San Jose commercial property. He concurred that if there were another way rather than an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, he would favor such; however, he felt that a similar situation would not occur again in the City. Chairwoman Burger summarized that some of the Commissioners were not so much opposed to the proposed plans, but rather, an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance allowing parking in the R- 1 zoning district seemed extreme. Planner Caldwell stated that a General Plan Amendment was considered also; this was considered an even more extreme measure. In response to comments by Chairwoman Burger, the City Attorney stated that the problem is that if the City rezones the property commercial (parking in any commercial district is a permitted use), the City would then have given away control over the adjacent parcel. In reviewing the alternatives, Staff felt the most rigorous form of control was the Conditional Use Permit. This is the only vehicle which would give the City continuing jurisdiction, even though it would involve amending the zoning ordinance. The City Attorney stated that if a Use Permit is recorded, it would not have extra territorial authority beyond the limits of the City; thus a separate agreement would be recorded between the property owner and the City so that the agreement would obligate the property owner by contract to comply with the conditions of the Use pennit--this recorded document would be the vehicle to extend the jurisdictional authority of the Use Permit to the San Jose property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 OCTOBER 22, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried requested that in the Memorandum, Recommendations, a., be amended to read "The parcel to be used for parking shall abut one or more parcels zoned commercial not under the jurisdiction of the City of Saratoga." The City Attorney added a con .dition, stating that a contract shall be recorded acknowledging the conditions of the Use Permit. SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 12, 1986, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, A., TO READ, "THE PARCEL TO BE USED FOR PARKING SHALL ABUT ONE OR MORE PARCELS ZONED COMMERCIAL NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, AND CONDITION I., ADDED TO READ, "THE PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WI'~H THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT COMMERCIAL SITE NOT OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF SA.R~ATOGA TO BE SUBJECT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCES AND DESIGN REVIEW BOA, RD~' Passed 4-3, Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Guch, Tucker opposed. Cha'.n-woman Burger noted the principle involved and stated that she cannot accept a revision of the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking in the R-1 zoning district under any condition. Commissioners Tucker and Guch stated for the record that they concurred with the abo.~e. Commissioner Siegfried stated for the record that this is a unique situation; it is a vehi.cle which enables the City to have control of the development of a commercial site of which otherwise the City would have no control whatsoever in this development. The City A ' tto,rney concurred with Commissioner Siegfried. In response to a question of Mr. Imai, the City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission can impose such conditions as may be necessary to protect adjacent residential property. It was the i~tention of the City Attorney to add specific language requiring fencing and screening the parld, ng area from adjacent residential. MIS. CELLANEOUS: 4. Discussion to the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance re: Vehicle Storage [See. 15-12.160 i(1-3)] (Continued from October 14, 1986) Planfling Director Hsia confumed that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance reg~ding Vehicle Storage is in the discussion stage. Planner Caldwell summarized the history of th~ proposed amendment and stated that the question is whether the Code needs to be ametided or not. The Planning Director called attention to the Report of the Community Sen4ces Officer; Chairwoman Burger stated that she will accept the three recommendations p es~ ted. Commissioner Guch questioned the reason for decreasing the allowable storage r n time ~rom five days to three days and noted the difficulty of enforcing such a requirement. Comlnissioner Siegfried noted that at present the Ordinance may be complied with by individuals who use their R-V's on the weekend. 'The City Attorney questioned the use of the term~ "oral notices" and "attractive nuisance." Commissioner Callans suggested that Mr. Lapic~, Community Services Officer, be present at the Commission hearing so that Commissioners could address the above concerns. Consensus of the Commission was that the Combfission did not object to the proposed three recommendations; however, further information was desired with respect to the purpose of the proposed recommendations. Planning Director Hsia suggested a meeting between Planning Staff, the City Attorney and Mr. LapiQ to review the proposed recommendations and make any necessary changes or clarifications. The proposal will then be presented to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 OCTOBER 22, 1986 COMMUNICATIONS; Written; 1. Planning Commission forum, October 30, 1986. Commissioners Harris, Guch and Tucker planned to attend; Commissioners Pines and Callans would attend if possible. 2. Memo re: Senior Life Care Facilities Tour. Chairwoman Burger, Commissioner Tucker will attend; Commissioner Harris will attend the Los Gatos portion of the Tour. 3. Letter from Jean Bogosian re: roadwork at 20650 Lomita Ave. Staff recommendation that letter be referred to the City Engineer for a response has been initiated. 4. Letter from Russ Crowther re: grading at Freemont School Site. Letter has been referred to Building Inspection Department for response. Planning Director Hsia reminded the Commissioners of the October 28, 1986, 7:30 P.M. meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission; prior to this meeting is the 7:00 P.M. meeting to discuss the McCormick application. Oral by Commission; 1.. City Council Report: Commissioner Tucker reported on the City Council Meeting of October 15, 1986. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey Recording Secretary