Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-1957 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF.SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION TIME: Monday, April 8, 1957, 7:40 P. M. PLACE: Fireman's Hall, Oak Street, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Bennett, Crisp, Cameron, Higgins Absent: Pasetta, Webster B. MINUTES Commissioner Bennett moved that the reading of the minutes be waived and that said minutes of the previous meeting be approved. Carried unanimously. II NEW BUSIi~ZSS A. N~EW ZONYNG PETITIONS None B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None III PbBLIC HEARINGS A. REZONING None B. USE PERMITS 1. V l0 - Willis Rodoni; The Secretary brought the Commission up to date and read the amendment submitted by Willis Rodoni, #V l0 said amendment dated March 22, 1957. Willis Rodoni Marshall Hall of San Jose, attorney for the opponents stated that this new amendment should be renoticed and resubmitted as a new case. Following this state- ment he recited a number of arguments against the quarry operation and stressed these facts: 1. The opponents will not condone approval with conditions or without conditions. 2. The proponents should furnish documented proof of lease of the land instead of the letter which was submitted. Wade Hover, Attorney of San Jose reiterated Mr. Mall's arguments and charged the commission that if they allow this quarry many others will be established in Saratoga, and conversely that a denial of this quarry would act as an implement to deny other quarries. Chairman Crisp asked Mr. Hall whether or not the Commission could. have a copy of the minutes as taken by the public stenographer who was present at the request of Mr. Hall. Mr. Mall replied In the affirmative. H. E. Bailey, of 21810 Mt. Eden Rd., stated from the floor that according to the new map submitted the quarry was operat'ing on his property and that he was losing $500.00 to $750.00 an acre because of this. He stated further that the landslide which destroyed the chutes did not cease the operation but, as a matter of fact, the tractors now used in loading the trucks were much more of a nuisance than the chute. Borris Stanley of Cupertino, attorney for the pro- ponents, recited a number of arguments rebutting Mr. Hall's statements, the main points of which were: 1. The Rodoni interests do not intend the quarry beyond the limits~shown on the submitted map. 2. Mr. Hall's argument that proper notice of hearing had not been given to the interested peoples did not seem to stand up, as all people interested, particularly the opponents, were in evidence at this hearing. Mr. Marshall Hall rebutted. some of Mr. Stanley's statements from the floor. A motion ~as made by Chairman Crisp that the matter be taken under advisement for a decision to be ren- dered on April 22, 1957, the next meeting. Carried unanimously. PuBlic hearing c~oSed~on Rodoni. 2. V 13 - Chrisman Homes: The Secretary read the application for this use permit and also read a letter from George H. Hassett, '18515 Farragut Ave., Los Gatos, Calif., who owns property in the immediate area. #vl3 Chrisman After a limited discussion Commissioner Bennett Homes moved that since he and his committee, composed of Chairman Crisp, Commissioner Anderson and himself,- had looked over the properties effected in the petition for the use permit he felt that the variances should be granted. Unanimously carried. 3. V 15 - C. L. Taggart: The Secretary read the file.'LC~mmissioner Bennett stated that he and his committee had looked at the v#15 C~L.Taggart property involved and because of this peculiar to~ographical nature of said lot the request for a variance seemed most reasonable. He then so moved. Carried unanimously. 4. V 16 - Frank C. Dinapoli: The Secretary r~ad the application. Mr. Dinapoli stated from the floor that his #V 16 Frank C. architect, Mr. Harter, was present and could Dinapoli speak more fluently regarding his desires. Mr. Harter of San Jose stated that the structure in question was so designed for more functional type of living and ties in much better with the surrounding homes but in doing this it was necessary to reduce the side yard setback. John Rodrigues, Brookview Realty, Cupertino, Calif., stated from the floor that they have been success- ful in having several variances for similar pro- blems in connection with corner lots approved. CommissiOner Bennett stated that he and his committee had investigated this variance and found that the neighborhood was in no way harmed and moved for granting of the variance. Carried unanimously. 4. V 12 - Brookview Realty: The Secretary read this application for a variance on 23 lots in this Recorded SubdiVision. John Rodrigues of the Brookview Realty stated that the minimum of 8,000 sq. ft. was set by the County when this subdivision was started but that the remaining lots in the subdivision now average 9,300 sq. ft. #V 12 Brookview The Secretary read a letter of opposition from a Realty Mr. Barnard, 19006 Brookview Drive, Saratoga, Calif. Chairmen Crisp explained the ordinance to Mr. Barnard, who was present at the hearing. Mr. Barnard of 19006 Brookview Drive, Saratoga, Calif., stated that the notice sent him was not explicit as to the situation and felt that with the explanation afforded by Chairman Crisp he did not feel that opposition to the variance was necessary. Commissioner Bennett stated that he and his committee had looked over the lots in question and felt that this variance should be granted. Carried unanimously. 5. V 14 - Walter Seagraves: The Secretary read the petition for a use permit. Maurice Rankin', attorney of San Jose, §rated that he was present representing Mr. Seagraves. He claimed that the subdivision was approved by the County Planning Commission in 1956 with lots running between 8,000 and 9,000 sq. ft. He felt that Mr. Seagraves had taken care in constructing houses that were presentable and that therefore the use permit should be permitted. He felt that Mr. Seagraves was a very reasonable man and would acquiesce to any reasonable suggestions on the part of the Saratoga City Planning Commission. A letter from Miss Florence E. Cunningham, of 14065 V 14 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, Calif., in opposition to Walter Seagraves the granting of the use permit was read. Donald Miner of Saratoga, Calif., stated from the floor that he was in ~pposition to the granting of the use permit and insomuch as precedent is very important in a community Just starting up and since these houses or lots do not come up to the mimimum standards of the community and since it was not a were occupied true subdivision insomuch as the houses/by Mr. Sea- ~raves employees, that the use permit should be denied. He also stated that the approval of the subdivision by the County was a result of a highly questionable procedure before the Board of Super- visors. Stephen A. Menzemer of 840 Bird Ave., San Jose, stated that he owns property adjacent to the Sea- graves property and while he could add nothing to said what Mr. Miner had/already except that there is nothing to indicate that Mr. Seagraves would not continue building the entire acreage with the type homes already placed in the subdivision - he felt the use permit should be denied. Mr. Rankin stated in rebuttal that Mr. S~agraves bought the property as a ranch and a year ago when neighbors insisted that he make a subdivision rather than a so-called labor camp he went along with the neighbors and subdivided it. Mr. Rankin did not feel however that either the neighbors or the City Planning Commission could dictate the architecture of the dwellings to be placed on the subdivision· He felt that other lots of the subdivision would ~eet zoning requirements and that there was no good legal objec- tion to the issuance of a permit. Chairman Crisp asked Mr. Rankin whether or not Mr. Seagraves would. be willing to make the front lots conferm to a 85' minimum. Mr. Rankin replied that he believed that the Commiss= ion would find Mr. Seagraves most reasonable. Commissioner Higgins asked whether the back lot frontage could hotlberincr~ased. Mr. Rankin stated that it could not be done unless he lost one lot. Commissioner Anderson stated that the type of homes on the subdivision were in his opinion, poor, and that it was most unfortunate that it was necessary to have this type homes in the community. He stated under Section 34-7 of the Zoning regulations the City does have architectural control. Assistant City Attorney Clark read Section 34-7 of the zoning regulations. There followed a brief discussion between members of the Commission and Attorney Rankin regarding the possibility and-or the advisability of architectural control on the 3 lots in question. Commissione.rrAnderson moved that the matter be taken under advisement until April 2~, 1957 and that Mr. Rankin should convey the thoughts of the opposition to the type structures erected to Mr. Seagraves and that Mr. Seagraves ge~ together with the Architectural Site Control Committee. Carried 'Unanimously. C. VARIANCES 1. V 7 - Samen Mo~senco: The Secretary read the application for a variance and also S letter from Mrs. Dorothy A. Monagan, Paul Andrews, Henry E. Monagan, Mrs. Viola Andrews, all of 14904 Sobey Road, said letter being in opposition to the variance request. #V 7 Samen Mr. S. T. Moisenco spoke briefly in favor of his Moisenco request for a variance. Mr. A1 Moisenco, who identified himself as a son of the petitioner, stated that the parties on Sobey Rd. who complained by letter regarding the variance were not in the immediate vicinity of the property since it fronts on Quito Rd. He stated further that the variance was a matter of convenience to the tenants. Chairman Crisp asked how many rental units were in- volved. Mr. A1 Moisenco replied, 7 units. Chairman Crisp asked how many acres were involved with building of the non-conformiDg houses. Mr. A1 Molsenco replied that the front 5 acres were involved. Mr. Davenport Brown of Oriole Way stated that about two years ago a similar application was made to the County Board of Supervisors and it was turned down. Mr. A1 Moisenco stated that two years ago the petitioner applied for a variance at the behest of the Planning Commission, which was eventually turned down but thcugP~t~felt that this application did not affect. the same type question. Commissioner Miggins stated that the County Planning Department had submitted a ~port as to their findings and read portions of said report. He then made a motion to deny the variance on the basis of the study made by the Architectural and Site Control Committee. Commissioner Bennett amended the motion with a request that the existing work already done be removed~ Mr. A1 Moisenco asked whether or not he could get a decision as to whether an awning co~ld be used instead of a wood carport. Chairman Crisp replied that he could get such a decision if he would apply in writing. The Motion of Commissioner Higgins was carried unanimously. IV I~TTERS HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT C i - George Oldham Commissioner Bennett stated that the master plan is going to take a good many months for completion C I and if we grant the request of Mr. Oldham that George Oldham hence forth every denial will make the same request. that if He stated further/the new master plan zoned the area inqquestion P-O he will get a permit automatically; if the master plan does not zone this area P-0 he will have to apply for a new change of zoning. Commissioner Bennett moved that the request be denied. Carried unanimously. V COMMITTEE REPORTS A. ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE CONTROL None B. SbBDIVISION 1. SDR#19 - Dr. George Phi~ips; The Secretary read the application for a Record of Survey and stated that although the Health Dept. had submitted certain conditions the engineers felt SDR #19 Dr. George that the matter should be held over until they could Phillips secure further information regarding the location of a creek in the immediate area. Chairman Crisp moved that the matter be deferred until the next meeting. Carried unanimously. 2. SD #16 - Sevrens and Derrick; Chairman Crisp explained that the County Engineers had objected tc the condition set out by the Saratoga Plannin~ Commission that an access road be made from Herriman into the subdivision and that they felt that SD #16 Sevrens and they could not approve the final map if such an access Detrick road were permitted. Chairman Crisp directed the Secretary to write a letter to Se~rens and Detrick explaining that the County Euglneers will not agree to an access road on Herriman so that this condition must be eliminated by the Saratoga Planning Commission. Commissioner Ben~ettlmo~ed for adjournment at 10:25 P. M. Carried unanimously. Present 50, Press 3