Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-1962 Planning Commission Minutes S_.XM4ARY OF MINIFIns .CXTZ OF SARATOGA P. LANNINC CCeeIISSlON Timel 7'-00 Po I~., F.~naay, October 8, 1962 Place'- Fruitvale Sc:aol, Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, California Type: Regular Io- ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Anderson at 7108 P, N, A. ROLL CALL Present:Co---~estoners Anderson, Cowley, Crisp, Glenn, Johnson Kellum. Absent: Cu~n~Lssioner %~ebste=. C~--...~esioner itebster arrived at 7:09 P. }1. and Vice-Chairman Anderson relin- quished the Chair to him. B. PaNUTES Ct~uissioner Glenn moved, seconded by C,~..~...lesioner Crisp, that Lhe of the minutes of the meeting of September 24, 1962, be waived and the minu~es be approved es prepsred and submitted to the Cu---I ssion; metion carried ~na~nuslyo II. PUBLIC Cbair.~n Webster declared public hearinSs open for the eveninE et ~:11 Po Ao C-~8 - John Rodrigues, Pierce R~ad - Raqcest fo~ ChanEe of ZoninE from R-I-~0,000 to R-I-40,000 P-D, R-l-~0,000 to R-I-20,000 axed R-I-12,~00 to R-l-10,000 - Continued from September 2~, 1962 The Secretary b~iefly r~viewed this application, then reed ~wo petitions and e letter filed in opposition to this proposed chanSe of zon{~8o He advised that there were epprox{~tely 30 signat~res on each of the tions, that most of the people were residents of Surrey Lane, ax~ that many of the stSn~tures on the ~wo petitions ~ere doplicates. The Cary f~rther advised that the epplicent had svhm~Cted a revised tents- tive mep ~hich indicated a street connection ~o Verde Vista Lane to elimt~ate the possibility of he~y treffic on Surrey Lane. R~H RA~0NA, representin8 the epplicant, ~Seim advised the Co~,~ssion 2hat there wee e definite chanEe in topography ~etween the proposed ecre end half-acre lots, He further stated that they had contacted a~other property owner and arr~nSed for another riSht-of-wey to Snrrey Lane, in- asmuch as the residents of Surrey Lane h~d expressed concern with reSard ~o the orig{~l proposal for a street connection to Surrey Lane. ~1~ P,lsnnin~ Co~m!ssto~ Mtneu~s - oq=obe= 8~ 1962 - Continued ROBERT ~, ~'i:"~.:~t~,~ 13405 Surrey Lane, requested That, in fairness to all collceI'~.3,~,, "-...~ residents of Surrey Lane be given a chance to study the revised ,.? ~._.' before cementin8 further with regard to this matter. REX BI~Ir~iT, 13~14 Surrey Lanes stated that he felt the 12,500 square foot lots sho~:ld be up-grade~ hut that ~one of the K-I-AO,O00 zonin~ should be cbnn~ed, 11~e' Secretar~ advised That The applicant bad appeared before the City Council with a request for a statement of policy with reRard to street ~rbdes, and that the City Council had decided to refer this matter to L~ence LivinEston, .Jr~ ~ PlanninS Consultant for the Cit~ of Sarato~a~ ~or st~i~ and, a report. Commissioner Anderson stated that he had spoken with Cotmcilman Nayor Brazil, and the City Administrator with re~ard to this matter, and the~ had advised him of the Council 'e desire that this particular map be sent to the PlanninE Consultant for review, He further etated that 1) the revised map, submitted Oetobe~ ~, 1962, showed lesser grades 2) the Subdivision Committee had discussed this revised map with the Clt? En~i- nee~ 3) the City Engineer had subnitted recon~ndations based on this an; and ~) it was his understandinS that The City Administrator ~ould seed the revised map, toEether wiTh the letter from The City EnEineer, to the Plann{nE Consultant on October 9~ 1962, and a reply was expected vet? soon, Coranissioner Andersen also advised that the tentative map could not be approved at This meetin~ since 1) the zon!n~ had not been approved and 2) it ~outd be necessary to ~it for the recons~aations of the ;lanninE'. Consul tent, Conhale,loner Crisp stated that he did not think it advisable to act on the chanSe of zoninE for the reasons stated by Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Johnson, ~ho represented the Cu~uiselon at the last City Co, m~il meeting, stated that ha felt action on titis matter should be layed since the Council seemed to feel erronE1y that additional profes- sional opinions ~ere needed in the development of this hillside area, Chairman Webster, ~ith concurrence of the Con~nission, directed this mat- tar (C-~8) continued until the meeting on October 22, 1962, to allew quate time for The ~lnnn{l~ Consultant to sutnnit his recoranendations the Subdivision Cd~.-.J tree, Ctt~ EuEluaer, the e~licant spa his enEinee~ to review semeo He also su~Eested That those interested contact The City Offices before the meetinZ, since it was possible that the Coranis- sion still miEht not be ready to take action at That time° REX BUR~EI~ aEaim reminded the C~....-;esion that The point at which the proposed new street ~ould intersect Surrey Lane ~ould make a dangerous intersections similar to the one at PIerce Ro~d and Surte~ Lane, Itdl~H RAHDNA submitted a map of The Hills of SaratoEs (Surrey Lane) to show that They ~;ere only nenfor~n_~ to the ori~l m~p for this Subdivision, P..la~nin~ C~.~..qssion Ninu~.~_.~ - October 8, 1962 - Continued rr, Be V7223 - ;~.~.e~a Noe~erach, Douglas Lane - Request for Variance in Za,,~:~,~.'7~'a, .vith Site Area ~he publ_5.c h,~:.:-iug on V-223 was opened at 7:59 Po lie ~a SeCretary a~- vised ~h.--.~_ 7~;:ices of Hearing had been mailed and read a c~...-~nication from ~ac~.'; C.:.a'.;lce :in support of this Variance, He also read a letter from the ap911c~ a~l a Staff Report pertail~in~ to this matters I~5, NOE~ERA~H explained that the Raneyss ~anted to build a smaller s~etirement' house on the second lot, s~nce the original house was too lOrge and they found the two-stories unsatisfactory because of P-eneyss health, She further advisnd that she trod no interest in the pro- perty other than being a friend of the lien,yes, ~d had filed the appli- cation for them only beeaeae Hr, Ran, yes health ~ould not pete his at- tendance at the meeting° She further advised that thexe vere mmly lots on Douglas Lane ~r~th less than the required 20s000 square feet° R15, NE~LL ~/OOD~ 14161 Douglas Lane, seated that she objected to the granting of thSs Variance since she felt it ~ould set a precedent° ~R4, KOCHs 1~190 Douglas Lane, scared thee he, too, felt that the 8renting of this Variance height set a precedent and expressed concern because of the undeveloped p~oper~y in the area, C~,lssioner Crisp observed that there ~ere a nt~ber of existing lots of a little less than one acre which ~ould nut lend themselves well to t~o lots in the half-acre zone, For this reason, he, too, e~pressed concern x~tth regard to setting a precedent, He ~urtb~r advised that after care- ful consideration, he felt that the Coz~Lssion could not ~-~e the required by law for the granting of this Vatinn, co In ansxeer to a question from Ce~tssioner Cowlays C~-....~ssione= Crisp vised that there ~re nu lots in this area of less than 20,000 square feet which had be~n creatad ~rlthin recent years° · here was no one else presenE who wished to cornant with regard to this matter, so Cc~nissioner fllenn moved, seconded by Co.~.'..'ssioner Anderson, that the public hearing on V-223 be closed; motion carried unanimously and thairan gabstar declared the hearing closed at 8:23 P° N. · here was a motion by Cv...~tssione~ Crisp, seconded by Con~lssioner ~lenn, that V-223, lls~Pia Hoeggerath, request for Variance in connection ~rlth site areas be denied on the hast, of reasons stated earlier in the motion eartied tw~nt~auslyo RECESS FR0li 8~25 P° li, TO 8:35 Po H° ~lannln~ C~!~s6~on ~inutes - October 8~ 1962 - Continued A. SDR-373 - G~orge G. Houstakas, Vesstng Road - BuildinS Site Approval - 3 LR~s - Continued f~am September 24, .1962 ~he applicant yes present to discuss the proposed conditions of approval vith the Commission. G~..~issioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisps that the tentative map 2or SDR-373 (Exhibit 'A-2", 2iled September 28, 1962) be approved subject to the conditions contained in the Buildins Site Com- mittee Report of October 8, 1962, including condition IX, G, which has been added, as shorn on the copy signed by the Chai~mn of the Subdivi- sienCv.-~,]ttee~ motion carried unanimously. B, SD-376 - John Rodrigues, ~ierce Road - Subdivision - 6~ Lots - Continued from September 24~ 1962 . Cornm~Ssionc~r Anderson recomended that this application be continued for the reasons stated during the public hearin~ in connectionvith the ChanSe of Zoning application (C-48). On the basis of this recouneedation, Chair~an~ebster directed SD-376~ John Rodrigues, continued until the meetins on October 22~ 1962. C, SD~-3~7 - B. l~ankGilXette, Norton Road - Buildin8 Site ~pproval - 1 Lot - ~ontinued from September 24s 1962 Connn~ssionerAnderson advised tha~ the in~rovenent plans requested in connection with this application had not been received, so recommended that this matter he eontinnsd. On the basis o2 this recomendation, Ctmirman~ebster directed SDR-377, B. Frank Gillette, continued until the meeting on October 22, 1962, D. .SDR-3~.9 - Edward E. Crecelius, Pierce Road - Building Site Approval - I Lot ~xe applicant vas present and expressed satisf~ctionv~th the proposed conditions o2 approval. ~here vasa motion by Co~nissioner Anderson, seconded by Co~missioner Glenn, that the tentative map for SDR-379, Edx~ard E. Crecelius, Exhibit '~", filed September 19, 1962, be approved subject to the conditions contained in the Buildix~ Site Cc~nm~tee Roport dated October 8~ 1962~ motion carried ~mm~fmusly. ~']-.nnl n~ Comm'~esion F. tir, utes - October 8~ 1962 - Continuea III, E, SDR-380 - Ils~-~ia Noe~efath, Douglas Lane - Buildix~ Site Approval - 1 Lot Comniss.~.cne= Anderson -~ved, seconded by Ct.--.~i~eloner Crisp, that SDR-380, lls~,~a ~ive~geraths 1 lot on Douglas Lane, be denied since the applica- tion for a Variance filed in conJtmction with this buildin8 site spproval application had been denied; motion ca~ied IVo D.~.SION REVIEW A, A-60 - Dies and Voll, Sazatoga-Sunnyvale Road ~ Final Approval - Builders Emporitnn A, J, Menardm architect, was presen~ to discuss this matter ~urther ~rith the Cou~,lssion, There was a motion by Co~m~(ssioner Glenn, seconded by C~mn(esioner Cowley~ that A-60, Dies and Voll, Sarato~a-Sunnyvale Road, be granted final design approval subject to compliance with the specifications shown on Exhibit 'A-2" and Exhibit ')" of A-60, and submission and spp~o- val of a color scheme and exterior mterial schedule; ~tion ca=tied unanimously. B, A-.92 - Brown & Kauf~m~nnm Inc., Prides Crossin~ - Final Approval - Unit 2 The Design Revie~2 C..~;.~;)ttee expressed concern that all the gareEes ~re placed fot~ward of the houses so that people drivin~ alon~ the street wauld seem to see nethin~ ~ept ~arages. They observed that the situa- tion might be improved with the use of wre curved driveways. Alex C, Prenticem architect, and Nr, ~auf~nn ware present to discuss this matter with the Co~mnission, They advised that paint and landscap!n~ would help, but stated that they would be happy to use ~re curved drive- l~ays and try to comply with any other request the C~,.~,.(ssion miF~ht have, MITe Keuf~~qnn a18o advised that ~ 15 to 20 foot trees (valued at about $150.00) would be place on each lot, and discussed various ways that these could be used to 8ood adventaBe with the curved driveways: Co~issioner Cowlay stated that it mas not the percentage of curved driveways that was important, but the effect on the site, Mr. Kaufr~n-u and lit, Prentice concurred with this stat~nt, It was the consensus of the Co~=nission that they would like to have the developer submit a revised plan showin8 8eraSe locations and curved drive~ays as suggested by 1~, Kauffmann. It was f~ther sugeested that this revised plan be submitted to the Design Review Co-,nittee at a maetin~ on 8aturdaym October 13, 1962o l~r, Kauffn,,xan requested that in the meanttaue they be allowed to proceed with construction of a few houses so that they could keep the workmen busy, The Co~.~!.~ssion agreed to this, and tbax~ It=, K~uff-uam for his cooperation in this totter, Plmmtn~ C~u~,,ission.Nir~,_~ - October 8v 1962 - ConPtnt~ed, V. _~ BUSII~SS ~he Sec~e~-7 called attention to a proposed resolution (Vnich had been dis~ ttibuted to the Ccnnnissionets) settint~ forth the policy and objectives of the City of Saratoga with regard to maintenance of creek channels in their natural state ~here possible, He advised that the City COuncil had =equeStnd that the Plafmtn~ C4-~-.~t sston s~bmit an opinion prior to the next City Cotmoil ~eti~g, Ccexneil,,~- ~- eXplainnd that the Flood Con~vl District had been applyin~ _the same policy in Saratoga as in othew cities in the a=ea, He advised that at a meet~4nE with representatives of the Flood Control District, it was that tHey did not know ~n~at the City actually preferred becettse of a lack co~,n~ention between the District and the City, C=-.-.~issione~ Crisp su~estnd that this matter be studied for a decision at the next tegula~ meeting, Councilman Hettman stated that he could see no teason why the matter could not be cont~_nu_ad at council level to give the Ct..--.!ssion this additional time, Chairman ~ebstet requested that each of the ~issionets tevie~ this mattet~ submit his ~titten cof~nt to the PI~_nn~D~ De~at_t~___t prior to the next meetings and that the Secretat7 btin~ these sonmerits to-the meetin~ discussion, VI, .OLO ~USI~.S.S VII, CC~N0~C~..TIONS 1, .S~.312 - E, C,, lneo~ Fruitvale Avenue - Subdivision - 7 Lots - IrequeSt ~ot Extens. ion The Secretax~ read a letter request~n.~ an extension of' one year in connection with SD-312o There ~as a motion by Ce~m~ssione~ Andersen, seconded by C~--..tssionet Glenn, that the Cnfm~ssion ~tant an ~tension of one month ~tom the date of expiration o~ the present a;proval, and that dtwin~ this trine the Subdivision C~uittee review this mattet to ascertain whether not chan~es ate needed in the conditions and Vnethet ot not it should be continued ~urthet; motion carried 2, SDR-304 - Dias and roll, Sa~atoga-S,mnyvale Road - Buildin8 Site Appto~,al - I LOt - Request ~ot The Secretat7 read a letter £tom the applicant requestin~ an exten- sion in connection with SDR-304 to allow time to get final approval at the next City Cooncil meeting. He advised that this application had previously been ~an~nd an extension of 60 days. Plann~ C~,~...i, seion ~inutee - O~tober 8, 1962 ~ Continued VII, A, 2, SDR-304 - Dins and Voll ~here vas a motion by Connissioner Glenns seconded by C~,,~!iesioner Anderson, that an extension of 30 days ~om the present expiration date be ~r--~ed in connection with SDR-304; motion carried unanimously. Bo OR~ 1, Chairnt~- Webster velcomed Councilm~- ~ to the meetinS, 2, Chairm~ Webster accepted Ccmnissioner Glenn~s resignation from ~he Subdivision C~..-..~ttee, effective October 8, 1962~ and appointed Comm{ssionar l~lhnn to this C~lttee, effective October 8, 19624 I~ZTII~ ADJOU~ED AT 10~30 P, F~ Respectfully subnitted, Stanle~ H, WZer, Secretat~ Saratoga Planning Co.',,.',~Lssion v