HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-1969 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAP~ATOGA PLA~iNING CO>R. IISSIOM
MINUTES
TIME: Monday, 9 June 1969,' 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: City Council Cb. amber~, Fruitvale Aven~e, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
The meeting was ca'lle~ t~ order by Vice-Chairm~n Lively.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bacon, Crisp', ~.aus, Lively, Metcalf, and Smith.
Absent: Cor~nissioner Norton.
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Smith'moved, seconded by Com~issioner Crisp, that the reading
of the minutes of the 26 [~y 1969 me~eting be waived and they be approved as
distributed to the Commission; motioh carried unanimously.
II. .PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. V-329 - Edward T. Wild, Fruitvale Avenue - Request for Variance in Connec- tion with Lot Width Reo_~uire~ents - Continued from 26 MaX 1969
Chairman Lively re-opened the hearinzg relative to V-329 at 7:34 P.M. The
Secretary stated that nothing new he'd been added to the file.
The applicant was present and stated he had no further conLments.
seak relative to this matter
~o one else present wished to p . ·
The Secretary read the Staff R~port dated 9 June 1969 recom~ending that the
subject Variance be granted.
At 7:37 P.M. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Ce'~issioner Metcalf, to
close the hearing relative to V-329~ motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded By Co..-raissioner Kraus, that the Staff
Report dated 9 June 1969 be adopted:and the subject ~zriance (V-329) be
granted on the basis the findings under Section 17.6 of the City of Saratoga
Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be made a~d subject to the conditions stated in
said report; motion carried unanimously.
B. V-330 - John Richardson, jr., Via Ranchero - Request for Variance in Connec-
tion with Side Yard and Bet~een Structures Setbacks for Construction
of a Chain Link Fence - ConCinued from 26 ~Tav 1969
'The hearing relative to V-330 ~.zas r~sumed at 7:40 P.M. Chairman Lively
briefly reviewed this application. ;The Secretary stated that a new Notice
of Hearing had been m2iled in order to inform the ne:: property oz.mers in
the subject area of the proposed Variance.
There ~s no one present to represent the applicant.
~o'one in the audience offered any ~o~_~ents in connection with this application.
The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 9 June 1969 reco~ending that the
subject Variance be denied.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Co~issloner Crisp, to close the hearing
relative to V-330 at 7:42 P.M.; motion carried unani~:ously.
planning Co~.ission Minutes - 9 June 1969 - .Continued
II. ~. V-330 - Continued
Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that 'the Staff
Report dated 9 Jun~ 1969 be adopted· and the subject Variance be denied
for the reasons stated in said report; motion carried unanimously.
C. V-331 - Thomas W. Fuelling, Bohlman Road - Request for Variance in Connection
with Front Yard Setback ReqUirements - Continued from. 26 I,!ay 1969
Chairman Lively re-opened the hearing relative to V-331 at 7:43 P.M. and
briefly reviewed said application. ',The Secretary stated nothing new had
been added to the ,file.
The·applicant was 'present and stated he had no· further con~.n. ents.
No one in the audience wished to comment relative to V-331.
Con~missioner Crisp read the VarianCe Committee Report dated 9 June 1969
recommending that the subject Variance (V-3.31) be granted.
At 7:46 P.M. Commissioner Smith mov.ed, seconded by Com~nissioner Crisp, to
close the hearing relative to V-331'; motion carried nnanimously.
Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded gy Commissioner :<raus, that the Variance
Co~n~ittee Report dated 9 June 1969 be adopted and the subjectreque. st for a
Variance for a 5-foot front yard setback be approve,~ in accordance ~;,ith
said· report and since the findings required by Ordinance NSi3, Article 17.6
can be m~de; motion carried unanimously.
D. S.~RATOGA AVE~UJE PL~N LINE - Including Consideration of Alternatives at
La Paloma, DoUglass T~an~ and Herriman Avenue
- Continued from 26 Ma}~ 1969
The Chairman re-opened the hearing ~t 7:47 P.I.I. The Secretary stated nothing
new had been added to the file.
Chairm~n Livel); stated that at the meeting of 26 I-~_y 1969 several people
requested that time be allowed.. for review of the proposed plan by interested
citizens.
The Secretary stated that 1) some people did 'review: the plan during the
recess of the last meeting 2) the Staff suggests tb_='t the matter be continued
to allow time for the Public Works Department to reF,Drt on alternate plans
concerning retention or removal of ~rees and the possibility of a different
alignment of Saratoga Avenue and 3): after completion of the report the Public
Works Department should meet with the General Plan C'Dr~ittee to discuss their
recomnendations made in said report.
Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening a% 7:49 P.M., directed
the Saratoga Avenue Plan Line continued to the meetfng of 14 july 1969 and
referred same to the General Plan Co~.ittee for revfe~z.
E. GENE.P~*.L PLAN REVIEW - Public Hearin~ on Annual General Plan Revie~¢ for 1969
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 P.M. The Se.cretary stated that one
communication had been received from L. R. Alton of '2'0219 Williamsburg Lane
stating that he '..o;as opposed to the aFar truant zoning ',~roposed for the Galeb
property located in the Azu!e area.
Plannin~ Commission .Minutes - 9 June 1969 ~ Continued
II, E, GENERAL PLAN REVIEW - Continued
Chairman Lively stated that 1) he hope.d 'everyone interested in the General
Plan Report had obtained one of the copies that ware available at City I!ali
2) everybody will be given a chahce to be heard, but that he would ask that
if there are groups present relative to one special item they appoint a
spokesman in order to avoid redun~ncy.
The Secretary stated that a limited number of General Plan Reports
available for distribution,
~. ~nlel Hof'f~n .(attorney present to represent the residents of the
Azule ahd Saratog~ Creek area re ~he Caleb property) of 20276 Williamsburg
Lane stated that 1) the 1969 General Plan. Committee Report, , ,page 2. ,
recommends that the Multiple Zoning remain at the same location as sho~.~ on
the 1968 adopted General Plan with one exception an~ that is the Caleb property
2) it should be noted that there were many requests for Change of Zoning to
allow apartments and the ~leb request is the only ~ne being honored 3) he
could find no justification in th~ subject General Plan Report for the pro-
posed change 4) he had examined ~he Caleb file and .could not determine any
change from the plan proposed and ~recommended for denial in
the Staff Report adopted by the Planning Com~issiom dated 9 December 1968 in
file C-118 and the plan presently 'being recomm.~nded by the General Plan Committee
for Multiple Residential Zoning 5) the Planning ~ittee of the City Council
concurred with the recommendation '.for denial of the Change of Zoning for C-118
(B, T, Caleb) and the City Council on 15 January 1~69 denied, x-~ithout prejudice,
the proposed Change of Zoning from R-l-10,000 to R-2~-3,000 for the subject
property 6) all the City agencies seemed to be unani~nously in their recommend-
ation for denial 7) there have been many petitions for denial and ~,hile there
are some differences of opinion the overwhelming m~jority seemed to be opposed
to the proposed Change of Zoning for the subject pr.sperty 8) letters opposing
the subjet apartment zoning were submitted by varic~s homeo~.mers associations
. and private citizens along with ndmhrous petitions 9) a recent petition con-
raining seventy-two (72) signatures was submitted ~n opposition to._the proposed
apartments along with map 10) he 'had an enlargeme~% of the subject map' and
explained that the area colored in red represented {he seventy-two. (72) home-
o~mers opposed to the apartment zSning, the green represented rentals
by ~, Caleb and the white represented homeox.~ers re.fusing to sign the petition
and the blue represented members 6f the Galeb~mii~7 0~..~ed properties 11) among
the numerous petitions submitted there was one from.. the Saratoga Creek area
with one-hundred-and-five (105) signatures and ano~er with one-hundred-and-
twenty-four (124) signatures from the residents of Ted and Zorka Avenues
12) the main objection to the proposed Change of Z~ning is that it will
a) create safety hazards beca:rase of the
increase in traffic;
b) tax the already overburdem~ schools
with additional students;
· c) decrease property values; and
d) apartments will be unsightly,
~. Hoffm~.n further stated that 1) if an exceptiom is made in this case and
the apartment zoning is approved ft will open door~ for other similar zoning
in other areas 2) he and his ~!ie'nts urgently request that the Planning
Co~ission not recommend the apartment zoning for a~proval and that the
fine zoning work accomplished by so many fine efforts be continued in the
City in order to keep Saratoga a fine residential cc=n~unity 3) the 119
parking spaces proposed for the ap'artm~nts woul~ a~ that many cars in the
· ach day to the existing traffic which is already t~0 heavy 4) the additional
traffic would creata hazard for the children ~'alklng to school 5) the sugges-
tion that this development will ho'.use adults only ~s not been verified 6) in
a Citizens Committee Report (a Co~mittee of ~ich :-~. Caleb was a member)
~'itten for the 1967-68 General Plan Review relativ~ to Problem Uses in the
City it is stated as follows:
-
.
._
~!anninS Commission Minutes 9 June 1969 , Continued
II.' E. GENERAL PIJN REVIEW - Continued
"The City should designate the exact location in the General
Plan giving careful co~{sideration to physical boundaries so
as not to infringe into adjacent single family residential
areas. Careful consideration shoul'd be given to prevent any
undue burden on, or impair the safety of adjacent residential
streets."
~. Hoffmzn went ~n tO'--state that' 1) the residents of the Azule area
are not insensitive to 1.b. Galeb's problems and they ~.;ould like the subject
property improved, but not at the %expense of their oxm properties.2) there
would be many affected if the proposed apartments were approved and developed
and these people would sustain a big loss in property values and would feel
that the kind of living they sought ~en coming to Saratoga would be lost;
so, it is urged that the Planning Cop~ission recommend that the zoning for
the property remain R-1 single-family residential and 3) a large number
of the residents of the area that were opposed to the Change of Zoning were
in attendance at this meeting. =
Chairman Lively advised that 1) this hearing was not for a change of
zoning application, but rather a hearing on the proposed General Plan
Connnittee Report for 1969 in which a recommendation is made that the
Caleb property be used for R-M Zoning in the lowest density in order that
the development of this property Will be compatible with adjoining duplex
properties and nearby single famil'y residences and 2) the o~.mer of the
..subject property will be required ito request a Change of Zoning at a future
date if the report is adopted.
Mr. Milan Popovich.of 12335 Goleta Avenue stated that 1) he urged adoption
of the R-M-5,000 Zoning for the Ga.leb property as recommended by'the General
Plan Com~mittee Report based on thez fact that the property is bounded on one
side by duplexes 2) the original 'zoning on the balance of the property
facing Zorka and Ted Avenues ~.;as zoned R-2 duplexes prior to incorporation
of the City of Saratoga and 3) his o~.m portion of the property was originally
zoned for duplexes and was changed to R-1 Zoning under the original Saratoga
~ster Plan. "
The Secretary, in answer to an inqhiry from ~. Richard Greene, 12350 Goleta
Avenue, stated that 1) the recoma~endatioon for duplexes as made in the
General Plan Committee Report is n'ot the ordinary type of duplex and 2) the
formula proposed would require 5,0b0 square feet of land for each unit;
thereby, providing a low density s{mi!ar to that of duplex zoning.
}~. Greene stated that he felt if the proposed apartments were constructed
directly on Highway 85 there would not be the present opposition, but the.
present proposal is unacceptable to the neighboring residents.
F~. Fred Adolph of 20255 Seagull W~y stated that I) he failed to see the
logic of the Change of Zoning for this property 2) the people opposing
the apartments are not insensitive to ~.~. Galeb's problems 3) the home-
o~mers in the area cannot agree to the Galeb proposal at the expense of
their own property values and ~) ~o go contrary to the General Plan is
alien to everybodys thinking.
-4-
planning Commission .'Minutes - 9 June 1969 i- Continued
II. E. GENERAL PLaN REVIEW - Continued
~. Bud Beaudoin of 1320 Pierce R6ad stated that 1) he represented the
Galeb people 2) many times it is';.easier to find people opposed to a plan
than it is to find somebody for it 3) this problem area was not created
by ~c. Galeb so he is not asking the con~unity to solve the problem 4) out
of 4~-acres about eight (8) or ni~e (9) R-1 lots would be realized 5) it
~.~ould take a philanthropist to invest money in R-! Zoning that is bounded
on the north by single family homes and duplexes fronting on Zorka Avenue,
on the south by the Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks,on the east' by Ted
Avenue and on the west by Neighborhood-Commercial Zoning 6) the fact that
}~. Caleb serV~d~on the Citizens Co~n~ittee for Problem Uses for the 1968
General. Plan' Review and signing the report referred to by I,~ Hoffman
indicates his interest in bettering his community 7) ~.~. Caleb o~.ms more
property in the area than anyone else ~.~y would he do anything to do~-mgrade
the values in the area 8) his o~,~ home' is in the area and' he is interested
in m~intaining the values of properties in this area 9) the property is
not gaining any revenue for ~.[r. G~leb and is costing him a substantial
amount of taxes each year and 10); a good development in this area will
ultimately benefit everyone and he suggests that the recommendations made
in the General Plan Connittee RepOrt of 1969 be adopted.
~s. Ilia Sheets of 12444 Ted Avenue stated that 1) the property
in the Azule area are aware of th~ propert'y o~,~ed' b]~ ~.~. Galeb 2) the
property on the othe~ side of the railroad tracks is being developed as
R-1 by Ditz-Crane 3) the Ditz-Crane subdivision has the homes facing the
railroad tracks with a road in be[wean to provide access 4) }~. Beaudoin
indicated it was not feasible to build homes on the Galeb property and
yet the Ditz-Crane development is:a .similar proper~ and ~,[-. Galeb could
possibly have sold his property to be developed in conjunction ~.?ith the
Ditz-Crane tract and 5) the property o~,r~ers in the area feel the General
Plan should not be changed to .proyide R-M Zoning far the Galeb property.
~s. Alvin Johnson of 12620 Fredrlcksburg ~ive stated that I) her family
lived in Campebll for many years prior to moving to Saratoga 2) her dream,
for many years, had been to move to Saratoga 3) they ~nallv made the move
and since then have done nothing but fight because of the proposed
Zoning for the Galeb property 4): they did not look forward to this type
of situation everytime someone proposed a Change in the }~ster Plan and
5) she begged the Planning CommiSsion not tO adopie the recommendation'
~de in the General Plan Committee Report.
Commissioner Metcalf stated 1) he is one of the members of the General
Plan Com~ittee that was largely guided by the fact the the subject property
is bounded by duplexes, the railroad tracks and the commercial zoning of
the neighboring property 2) the ~eneral Plan Report is not a recommendation
for change of Zoning and the Co~!ttee does feel that the recommendation
made in the General Plan Committee ~eport is reasonable and logical.
~. Hoffman, in ans~.:er to an inquiry from Commissioner ~aus, stated that
the chart presented earlier in the meeting represented ninety-four (94)
families. He further stated that 1) with the knowledge that the formal
application requested R-M-3,000 but the General Plan Connittee Re or
p t did
strongly reco~end that the zoning be R-M-5,000 and 2) the lower density
would not really solve the problem because once the barrier is let dox.~n it
invites further changes and his clients are oooos~ to R-M-3,000 and R-M-5 000
zoning since they. feel it should remain R-1.
Commissioner Crisp stated that, in his opinion, 1) Saratoga already has
all the apartment zonin~ it can use 2) ~/nile the recommendation in fhe General
Plan Conu~ittee Report is not a change of zoning it is one step up the ladder
and 3) the matter of zoning should be settled on the basis of a formal appli-
cation.
-5-
plannin8 Co~n~ission Minutes.- 9 June 1969 - Continued
II, E. GENEi~L PLAN REVIEW - Continued
}~. Beaudoinr-.2 stated th~.t 1) Mr. lGaleb came in at the time of the last
General Plan Review and ~.:as told t.o make a formal application; which,
was ultimately denied 2) then it was pointed out that ~. Galeb should
bring the matter before the General Plan Committee at this time and now
it is suggested that another application be ~de 3) 1.~. Galeb and I
think there is only one decision and that is to do ~-fnat is good for the
community 4) the General Plan Committee Report dated 19 ~y 1969 should ~
be adopted and supersede any other~ recommendation 5) he urged the Planning
Commission not.~ refer this to a 'change of zoning application and then
eventually re'fer 'it' again to the General Plan ReView for 1970 6) Ditz-Crane
was not'.interes~ed in purchasing .tzhis property as indicated by Mrs. Sheets
7) Ditz-Crane can economically develop property located' in this type of an
area becasue they build them along with other homes at the sam~ time 8) ~.
Caleb was told not to develop this' property at the time he developed the
existing subdivision, because of a~ proposed freeway vhich.will not be
constructed now.
~. Hoffman stated that because of the R-1 designation for the subject pro-
perty a lot of people moved into the area on the' assumption it would remain
R-1 Single-family residential.
}~. Caleb stated that 1) he would like to make the one point clear and
that is that he did everything he '.could to inform his neighbors that he
did not intend to develop this property as R-12) ~any discussions were
held to talk about this problem ar;ea 3) he has been waiting a long time
for a proper use for the subject ~operty and 4) the matter is in the hands
of the Planning Commission and he '.can only ask that it be given careful
consideration. :
~. John B. Mooney, 12385 Ted Aven~e, stated that t} he did not come
prepared to speak but the point wa~s brought out that the. subject property
is bounded by duplexes, railroad t~acks and commercially zoned property;
however, the matter more important-to many people is that the subject
property is, also, bounded by sing'le-family residential 2) the objection
of the homeo~.~.~ers stems from the fact that almost th~ entire traffic flow
from the apartments will be channeled through their residential area
3) he has lived in his home on Ted Avenue for seventeen years and he can
afford a better house but this particular one~ is his home and 4) permitting
R-M Zoning in this area would benezfit only ~. Galeb.
CEPd. L~K, D~mSFv DUERELL, O~ L%DY OF FATI~.LA AND CEY OF SAI~TOGA PROPERTIES
A resident of the subject area,x.J~ich is bounded by Ss. ratoga-Los Gatos Road
on the north, Aloha Avenue on the east, Oak Street c,n the west, and residential'
development on the south, stated that 1) he ~,~s present to make inquiries about
the one-acre plot on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road' next to ~. Cer~k's office
2) he lived on Aloha just dox.~ the street from the property and is quite
concerned about the future plans for the property 3) any traffic that would
be generated would have to exit on. to Aloha because of the high wall on Saratoga-
Los Gatos Road and 4) egress on to Aloha would be very dangerous since two cars
cannot pass one another.
Chairman Lively stated [hat 1) this again is not an application for dhange
of zoning but merely a recommendation as stated in the General Plan Committe
Report dated 1~ I. iay 1969 and 2) t~e General Plan Ccr2nittee felt that P-A
Zoning for this property would be ~omnatible with the existing uses in the
area.
The Secretary explained that P-A Zoning would allo~.~ for medical and dental
offices, attorneys, accountants, insurance agents and would, also, allow
apartments at a certain density.
-6-
P_lannin~_~, Commission .I.[inutes 9 June 1969 + Continued
II. E. GENERAL PL~'."I REVIEW - Continued
Chairman Lively 1) advised that the City Zoning Ordinance contains a
fairly long list of uses permitted: or conditional uses ··in the P-A Zone'
and 2) recommended that anyone in"terested in seeing the complete list come
into the City offices and read the:. complete liSt.-
Dr. Lewis Sullivan of 16265 Aloha ~stated 1) his property bordered Dr.
Cerm-~k's 2) Dr. Cermak has his office in his home 3) he could see no
reason for rezoning the property e, specially since there is no feasible
means of access 4) P-A Zoning ~;oUld be. a step toward Multiple Zoning
and 5) the co~n~ercial creeping arong Saratoga-Los Gatos Road should
be stopped. -';
Mr. Edgar C. Wrig[t, Jr., of 14781; Vickery Avenue stated that 1) he and
the people he represented ·wished to express ~heir complete disapproval of
any apartment zoning in the area and 2) they could see no reason for
extending the commercial facilities in the area since there seemed to be
a sufficient number already.
1~. Phares Brubaker of 14725 Aloha Avenue stated that 1) the traffic
generated by any commercial development of this property would be
channeled to a very dangerous corner 2) it is now impossible to make
a left hand turn at the subject intersection 3) a school bus m~kes a
turn at this corner of Aloha and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and when it
does the traffic situation is eve'n more dangerous. ..,
Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) he would like to make a point that
may not be kno;.n~ to those protesting the change in the plan line 2) the
proposal made by the General Plan Repo~ would limit the further extension
of commercial establishments in this area 3) the residents of the area
should be made aware that a 7-11 Store almost w_~nt into the property next
the library under the existing zoning and 4) if this area is designated
for P-A Zoning it will not be possible to develop further as commercial
prop er t y.
Chairman Lively stated that 1) the General Plan Co~j~.ittee felt that this
property had fairly well defined boundaries and 2) it would certainly be
considered spot zoning if one par~icu!ar lot only ~-..-ere changed to· P-A.
~. David J. Bro~.z~. of 14704 Aloha ~Avenue stated that access should be a
major consideration for this property since {t is landlocked.
~. Porter stated that 1) there are one-hundred children going to the
Oak Street school 2) there are, also, ~ny children tb. at ~·:alk to the
library and up Saratoga-Los Gatos 'Road 3) to increase density would be
dreadful mistake in this area and 4) the property is best for R-1 develop-
ment.
~r. Phares Brubaker stated that the present General .Plan is only a year
old and cost the City a fortune and he cannot unders~tand why it is necessary
to change it. :
Chairman Lively stated that 1) the Planning Comma_as.ion and City Council
have been very careful of the amount and quality of rezoninz granted and
that careful consideration will continued 2) the problem areas must be
discussed and a decision made 3) there .has been a great deal of concern
indicated and some recon:mendati'ons must be made r'e!at'iva~ to the Gateb
property since this property cannot re~3in an island 4) the P-A Zoning
for the property on Saratoga-Los Gatos Read is difficult because of the
access; however, the General Plan Committee felt that P-A Zoning would
be of overall benefit to all.
There being no further comments from the audience C~t, airman Lively continued
the General Plan Review to the meeting of 23 June 19'69 and closed the hearing
for the evening at 9:20 P.I.L and r'eferred the matter back to the General· Plan
for further study.
-7-~
planning Commission-'. Minutes - 9 June 1969 ~ Continued
II. F. C-124 - City of Saratoga, Big Basin Way - Request for Change of'Zoning
fro:n "P-A" (Professional-~.~dministrat, ive) to "C-V-"' (Visitor-
Commer c ia 1 )
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:21 P.M. The Secretary stated the
Notices of Hearing ~.~ere mailed and published. tie further stated that
this Change of Zoning is being initiated by the Planning Commission for
the property on both sides of Big Basin Way (betWeen Fifth Street to the
large southerly turn on said Big Basin Way) to "C-V" (Visitor-Commercial).
The Secr'etar~.th~n read 1) a communication received from Dorothy Webb,
attorney for ~'. Walter R. Caldwell, requesting that the subject rezoning
be. continued to 1 October 1969 and, also, stating her opposition to the
proposed change of zoning and 2) a letter received from ~. Ann V.
Fitzsimmons, also, requesting that C-!24 be continued to October, 1969.
~s. Dorothy Webb, attorney for ~s. Caldwell, stated that her client
was ill and did not realize in sufficient time that her .property would
be 'involved in the proposed change of zoning..
At 9:25 P.M. Commissioner Lively ~losed the hearing for the evening, directed
C,124 continued to the meeting of 13 October 1969 and referred same 'to the
Subdivision Committee for study.
RECESS AND RECONVENE ..
III. BUILDING SITES AND 'SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-817 - Jones and Davidson, Quito Road and Woodbank Way - Building Site
~oval - 4 Lots - Continued from 26 Ma.v 1969
Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-817 be con:tinued since the applicant
is not yet prepared to proceed with this applicatf..on.
Chairman Lively so directed.
B. SDR-818 - Franco's B. Anderson,. p.ig Basin Way % ~uf.lding Site ApproVal - 1 Lot
Commissioner Smith stated that the conditions of approval for the addition
to the Plumed Horse Restaurant were ready for revf=ew.
~. Warren Heid, applicant's architect, stated he ~ad reviewed the proposed
conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction of same.
The Secretary stated that the ~.~ords "payment of Park and Recreations Fees"
should be deleted from the Generel Conditions of the Building Site Committe
Report since the payment was not .applicable in this instance.
~. Heid stated that, he thought~ the storm drain fee for this area had
been paid and the condition relative to payment of same should be deleted
from the General Conditions as well.
The Secretary stated that some Seerm drain fees were paid in 1959 and that
he would look into the. matter.
Con~issioner Smith moved, seconded by Com=~issioner Bacon, that the Building
Site CoTm~ittee Report of 9 June i969 relative to $DR-818 be adopted, as
amendsd, and that the tentative map (Er-:hibit "A", filed 28 May 1969) be
approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried
unanimous ly.
C. SDR-819 - William J. }[~rtin, Jr., Canyon View ~ive - Building Site Approval
- 1 Lot
The Sscretary stated that the AsSistant Director of Public Works reviewed
the site development plan that x.~as submitted and found it to be adequate.
. i .......: ='---'--v..-~.-.-=....~=.-,.--~..-= .........~=.-.. .........i-i.- ~ -- ....: ..............,~ ...._l ........: ....................~=.~ ............f_i ........................~
.....~ .......~ ..............- .....L_ .' ......
planning Commission Minutes - 9 June 1969 -: Continued
III. C. SDR-819 - Continued
Commissioner Smit. h stated that th'e Subdivision Committee did not have
an opportunity to reviews: the subj'ect site development plan since it
~ms submitted late this afternoon'; therefore, the matter should be
continued to the next regular meeting..
~. Garcia, applic~_nt's architect., stated that he and the applicant were
not informed,' until today, that the additional plans were required.
The Secretar~"e~plained that 1) it was anticipated at the time/the
applida, tion' wa~ ,submitted .that all the necessary information was included
and 2) at the Subdivision Comrgit'tee meeting of Thursday morning, 5 June
1969, it was decided that the site development plan should be provided.
Mrs. }~rtin, applicant, stated that the Staff should have notified them
on Friday, 6 June 1969, of the additional information required.
Commissioner Smith stated that the applicant could have made an appoint-
ment with the Subdivision Committee to discuss this application.
Com~missioner Crisp stated that the City of Saratoga Ordinance requires
that any building site that has a slope of 10% or greater is required
'to have a site development plan review by the City and it is not the
responsibility of the Staff to notify the applicant of same.
The Chairman stated that the Subdivision Committee puts in long hours
and should not be required to reach a ~ecision on this matter without
a thorough review of the site development plan.
The Secretary explained that'thiS matter could be continued to 23 June
1969 and then be processed in time for the 2 July 1969 council meeting
for final building site approval.
Chairm~n Lively directed SDR-819 continued to the meeting of 23 June
1969 and referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee for further
study.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW '..
A. A-294 - Grand of California, ProSpect Road - Final Design Review - Final
Landscape Plans
Commissioner Metcalf briefly reviewed the subject application.
The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 9 June 1969 recommending
that Final Design Approval be granted for A-294.
Commissioner ~:etcalf stated that. the Staff Report dated 9 June 1969. .
paragraph 2o .line 3. . .should be amended to include "Exhibit "A".
Com_missioner Metcalf moved, seconded b'y Co~issioner Bacon, that the Staff
Report dated 9 June 1969 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design
Approval be granted for A-294 on' the basis of Exhibit "A" .and "E" and sub-
ject to the conditions stated ,in said report; motion carried unanimously.
.Plannin_g Com~nission Minutes - 9 Jnne 1969 '.- Continued
IV. B. A-304 - Sacred 'Heart Church, Sara, toga Avenue - Final Design Reviex.: -
Modification of Material
Commissioner l,Ietc. alf stated that .the Design Review Co.~.~.ittee Was not
satisfied with the sample of roof.ing material submitted by the applicant.'
Father Geary, Pastor of Sacred He'art Church, and the architect, 1-~r. William
L. Duquette were present and I,~. Duquette stated t'hat !) the roofing material
must be Class "A" or "B" in order' to meet the Fire District requirements
2)· the material recommended by the Commission was checked and it is
heavier, but it is not fire rated'· and is not acceptable to the Fire District
3) the John ~.n.ville roofing mat~erial is 2.65 in weight and it is closely
related to t~e .d'eslred color and has a Class "A" fire rating and 4) the
roof line will not be visible from Saratoga Avenue since it will be obscured
by trees.
The Assistant Planner read the St~ff Report dated 9 June 1969 recommending
'that Final Design Approval be granted for the modification of design and
materials relative to A-304.
Co~n~issioner Metcalf stated that it is the feeling of the Design Review
Connnittee that they prefer the John ~Lznville material and further recommend
tha~ th·e Staff Report be amended as follows:·
paragraph 3. . .lines 4, 5,-a~d 6' be changed to read. . . ..0
"be seen from Saratoga Avenue due' to the church building. The shingles
shall approximate the same color; as the metal trim and are inferior in
weight compared to other composition Shingles."
paragraph 4. ...lines 4, 5, and ~ be changed to read. .
"and 'the second modification' (su~s'titution of roofing m_aterial) be granted
on the basis of the' John ~'~Ianvil~e 25 year Class "'A" Fire King (color
autumn) roofing material submitted."
Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff
Report dated 9 june 1969 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design
Approval be granted for A-304 for the modification of design and materials
in accordance ~.,Tith said report; m~tion carried unanimously.
C. A-315 - Ditz-Crane, Sea Gull Way and Cox Avenue .- Final Design Review -
Subdivision Approval - Continued from 26 ,'.-ray 1969
The Assistant Planner read the St~ff Report dated 9 June 1969 recomaending
that Final Design Approval be granted for A-315.
Commissioner Metcalf briefly reviewed the subject application which included
the models not approved at the meeting of 26 May 1969 and then read Condition
"G" of the Staff Report dated 9 JUne 1969 relative 'to a park maintenance
district for an entrance area.
The Secretary. stated that 1) the maintenance district would be administered
as an assessment district to be collected by the City Administrator and the
condition should possibly be amended to read "as approved by the City Attorney"
and 2) George Day has been requi.~ed to participat~ in the formation of an
assessment district.
Com~issioner Metcalf stated that every buyer in this subdivision will be
responsible for maintenance of the entrance area.
Conm~i~sioner Lively stated it might be best to eliminate the sentence.
"Said maintenance district to be administered by th·~ City of Saratoga."
from Condition "G" since it is misleading and might be misconstrued to
mean that the City will m~intain the entrance.
-10-
.Planning Commission Minutes - 9 June 1969 ~ Continued
IV. C. A-315 - Continue~
The Secretary stated that 1) it xs not the intent of the report to
imply that the Cfty will maintain= the entrance and that Condition "G"
of the subject report is intended to mean that the City will collect
monies and hire someone to do the .work 2) the only thing the City
Council will do is act as the governing'board for the subdivision
entrance and 3) the same thing could be accomplished by a homeo~aers
group.
Commissioner.~,Ietcalf stated that in Condition b. . ·line 2. .of the
Staff Report. 'the words "all second" should be inserted between
the words "on" a~d "story"; and
in Condition f. ,line. 2. . ,"B-i" should be deleted and in line 3. .
"C-I" should be deleted.
Mr. Jerry Johnson, present to represent the .applicant, stated that in
connection with Condition "G" he had been instructed to ask that the
subject be postponed until the matter could be discussed ~ith the City
Attorney.
ConLmissioner Matcalf stated that 1) the policy relative to the subject
entrance was pretty well established at the last City Council meeting that
unless an assessment district is established in the beginning when approval
is granted for the subdivision it z is impossible to do it later 2) it is
best that the purchasers of the p~operty are made aware of ~,faat their
responsibility relative to the entrance area will be.
Chairnmn . =": Lively stated that 1) he felt there should be some conversation
with the City Attorney relative to this matter and 2) he would just as soon
see the matter icontinuedl to allow time for further study.
Mr. Johnson stated that they wanted only Condition "G" continued.
Chairman Lively explained to 1,[r. ~ohnson that the Planning CommissiOn
could approved the report, but leaving Condition "G" as presently stated
in the Staff Report and then the applicant .can apply for reconsideration
of Condition "G" at a later date~
Mr. Johnson stated that this prop6sal would be agreeable as long as he.
had the privilege of requesting~reconsideration of Condition "G".
Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissione~ ~aus, Staff Report
dated 9 June 1969 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Review
be granted for A-315 on the basis of Exhibits "A" through "F" and subject
to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously,
.A-31~ - Bro~...~a and Kauffmann, Cox and ,'..filler Avenues - Final Design Review -
Permanent Subdivision Si~.~
Commissioner Metcalf explained that the subject sign'would be a permanent
sign,
~, Stevenson, applicant's representative, state~ that 1) the sign will
be located perpendicular to Co:~ ~:~Venue and approzi_-.ately 52-feet west of
the property line along T. liller Avenue 2) the sign viII be on private
property anc~ ~.~il! be designed as Rart of the fence .and 3) the sign extends
2~-feet above the 5.~-foot fence,
Chairman Lively stated that a fenc'e limitation of 6 f~ does exist and no
exceptions should be made for the "subject sign,
-11-
Plannin% Conunission Minutes - 9 June 1969 - ContinUed
IV. D. A-316 - Continued·
Commissioner Metcalf stated that ehe point brought up by Chairnmn Lively·
is valid and the' Design Review Committee requests· ·that the matter be
continued to allo~.; time to study this n,.~tter further.
Chairman Lively so directed.
E. A-317 - Frances B. Anderson, Big Basin Way and Fourth Street - Final
Design ~eview - Restauran~ Bui.ldin5
Commissioner. ~{et~alf read the Staff Report dated 9 June 1969 recomnending.
that Final Design. Approval be granted for A-317.
Chairman Lively stated that it had been previously suggested that the
applicant provide a second-story window as stated in the subject Staff
Report and the architect had indicated this was not acceptable.
~. Warren Heid, applicant's architect, satated that 1) it ~.ras his.
opinion that the building as prop6sed would require a certain number "
of sheer walls along the front; th~ereby, m~king it difficult to pro-
vide windows 2) a false window ~...-as considered, it 'was recoF.._m. ended that
this consideration be eliminated 3) a window could be placed in the
interior of the building, but it will not really' serve any practical
function 4) the applicant is hopeful the building ~,zill be ready for
Christmas and time is already running short; therefore a ~decision should
be reached.
The Secretary suggested that Condi. tion a) as stated be deleted from"the
Staff Report and instead the following Condition aD.' be inserted:
"a) Provide architectural treatment for second story,
west elevation, as approved by the Design Review..:
Co~n~ittee."
Commissioner ?,Ietcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner tCraus, that the
Staff Report dated 9 June 1969 be adopted, as amended, and that the
request for Fip-al Design Appr. oval be granted on the basis of Exhibits
"A" through "D" and subject to the conditions state.d in said report;
motion carried unanimously.
F. A-318 - Alan A. Alameda, Saratoga-.Sunnyvale Roacl_ - Final Design Review -
Identification Sign for Fu.nera! Home
Chairm~.n Lively, after reviewing the exhibits, stated that he did not feel
the name Saratoga-Cupertino Funeral Home was a pro?er name for the' subject
funeral home since it was located in Saratoga and not in Cupertino.
Commissioner BacOn stated that 1) the applicant d--'d inform the Design
i?,lo ri ' e
Review Committee that it ~.:as ~e .at~v that he use the proposed name on
the sign since he'was registered under that name width the State of California
and in order to change the name it' would be necessary to go before the Los
Angelos Board at some considerable2 e:~'pense and trouble 2) there is really
no ~.:ay that the applicant's right to use the subject name on the sign can
be denied. :
The Secretary explained that tie applicant makes t~.',.e point that there is
no such facility in cupertino; therefore, he will b~ serving both areas.
Chairman Lively stated that since the facility is in Saratoga it should
not include Cupertino on the sign..
Co~n~issioner Kraus stated that he Concurred with t~..e opinion of Chairman
Live ly. :
Commissioner l..[etcalf inquired if i~ was the unanim,~,~:us opinion of the Planning
Commission that the sign should no~ be allwed to re:ad Saratoga-Cupertino.
_12.L
· " ~ ' ri .............. _~.. i....j ...... ~__~..j..,~ ....... · ....i.._~ ..............."':= . ....... "'~" ............. ~--="~- ..................' .........' ............
,~,...~.~. ......2.._..,..=.... '....,L... l__i ....j._~ __.' .... '.....'~ .....'
Flannin5 Com~nission Minutes - 9 June 1969 .- Continued
IVj F. A-318 - Continued
Commissioner Bacon ·stated that he~ did not feel the Planning Commission
could prohibit th~ applicant from: using SaratogaTCupertino on the pro-.·
posed sign.
Com_missioner Metcalf 1) stated that the Design Review Co~.ittee can
meet with the applicant and discuss this'matter and 2) reconz~_.ended that
the matter be continued.
Chairman Lively ~so, directed.
V. CITY COD]',~Cit REPORT
Commissionher Smith gave a su~?.ary of items reviewed and action taken at the
lengthy City Council meeting of 4 June 1969 with emphasis on items of particular
interest to the Com_mission.
VI. PL~-~q!NG POLICY CO}D~ITTEE REPORT
No repor t.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
A. SDR-782 - Joseph Foster, Fourth StZreet and Springer Avenue - Review of
Revised Site Plan Relative to Access - Continued from 26 May 1969
The Secretary read the Staff Repor't dated 9 June ·1969 recommending that the
request for revised access be approved.
Commissioner Smith recommended that the Staff Report be amended in
paragraph 2. .line 2. . .to read as follows:
"and the Director of Public Works, that the revised access be reconunended
to the City Council for approval as sho~,rn".
Connnissioner Smith moved, seconded by Con'~missioner Crisp, that the Staff
Report of 9 June 1969 be adopted, as amende'd, and that the revised access
be recommended to the City Council for approval as sho~,,,.~ on Exhibit "A-I"
and subject to the conditions set! forth in said report; motion carried
unanimous ly. ~ ·
B. SD-8!2 - David R. ·Franklin, Sevilla Lane and Sarahills Rbad - Request for
Reconsideration of Conditions Continued from 26 Ma~y· 1969
Commissioner Smith read the Subdivision Committee Report dated 9 June 1969
recommending that the original conditions as stated in the Building Site
Committee Report of 12 ~L~y 1969 be·reaffirmed.
Mr. Franklin. applicant, stated that 1) he was concerned primarily with
Conditions 7 and 8 of the Building Site Committee R~=port 2) he cannot
afford to develop this property as !required by Conditions 7 and 8
3) the requirement to construct a storm drain line on the back of three
lots which have an open creek' area is unreasonable since no adverse
affect from the rain or water run 6ff has been sho~..~ 4) it is not fair
that he should be required to c'iose UD the ditch on the subject oroDerty
when there will still be an open ditch on the neighboring properly ~) the
requirement to install a drop inle~ at the· start of the drive~..~.v is not
necessary since there is very little water coming from that direction
6) Condition 8 requires a 20-foot :radius return with a 30-foot radius
at the face of the curb 7) this d_~iveway comes to a very sharp point and·
there is not enough property to provide a 20-foot ra,.~ius return and 8) he
would request the Planning Coma~ission to reconsider this requirement and
allow a 15-foot return with a 20-foot radius at face of curb.
-13-
plan_____ning Commission Minutes - 9 June 1969 - Continued
VII'. B. SD-812 - Continued
Commissioner Smith stated that 1) it was unfortunate that Mr. Franklin
did not attend his appointment with the Subdivision Committee to discuss
this matter 2) the Public Works Director feels. ve. ry strongly that these
conditions shouh] be imposed and 3) the City will be installing a storm
drain line on the opposite side of the street from the Franklin develop-
ment. '.
}~r. Franklin stated that 1) the ireason the Public Works Department is
requiring hi.re. t,o install the storm drain line on his property is because they
intend to t~ut one' in on the other side of the street and 2) .he preferred
the matter be 'referred to the City Council if he cannot reach an agreement
with the Planning Commission.
Chairman Lively stated tha't he preferred that another meeting be scheduled
with the Subdivision Co~nittee and the applicant to discuss this matter.
He then.directed the matter continued and referred SD-812 to the Subdivision
Committee for study and a report at the meeting of 23 June 1969o
C. SLOPE DENSITY REPORT
Commissioner Smith stated that a copy of a report (prepared by Commissioner
Bacon') on Slope Density Development has been placed in the folder of each
Commissioner for their consideration prior to ~he study session relative "
to Slope Density scheduled for 4:00 PoM., 11 June 1969. "
VIII.' NEW BUSINESS ;
UP-151 - James Davi, Souza Lane - R'equest .for Extension and Modification of
Cond i t ion s
The Secretary explained that 1) the ':applicant has requested modification of
the conditions relating to road impr6vements in connection with UP-151 and a
years extension for same 2) the Subd'ivision Com~mittee did meet with the appli-
cant and decided it would be best to continue the matter until the applicant
submits a formzl proposal.
Comanissioner Smith stated that 1) the Subdivision Committee would request
that the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshal ta.]-:e a look at this
property prior to making any recommen'dation 2) there is some question relative'
to the sincerity of the applicant since he has been granted one extension already
and it was indicated at that time, by the applicant (in 1966), that he was in a
great hurry to begin construction on this project and ..no work has been done to
date.
Commissioner Crisp stated that 1) eventually there will be approximately
200-hundred beds in convalescent hospitals on Souza La--ne plus six or seven
houses, nurses and visitors 2) this will generate considerable traffic
which in turn necessitates road improvements as requir.~d by the conditions
stated in UP-15! 3) the applicant claims he cannot obtain the property to
provide the road improvements and indicates 'the City Council could obtain
the property through condemnation proceedings and 3) ~he Fire Marshal may
be able to obtain further information relative to this: matter.
Chairman Lively directed UP-151 continued to the meetLng of 23 june 1969 and
referred s'ame to the Subdivision Committee for study.
IX. COi~£,f~,i!CATiOi, FS
A. I.RITTEN
Letter re Parks Received from ~.~sl William T. Duff~;
Commissioner Crisp stated that a ietter had been received from ~.~s. Wi!lian.
T. Epaffy x.~ich was addressed to the ~.layor and disc~2ssed at the City Council
meeting and then referred to the Planning Commissfcn.
-14-
Planning Commission Minutes - 9 June 1969 .~ Continued
IX. A. Duffv Letter - Continued
The Secretary read the letter received from I~s. Diffy recom~..ending an
access road (sho:.~a on a sketch attachec'., to the subject letter) for a
park south of Fruitvale School in'. the event the park eventually becomes
a reality. :
After discussion, Chairman Lively.referred the matter to the Subdivision
Committee for study and a report.
~MO FROM CI~% AD.'-.~N!STRATOR
The SeCretar~ r.e'ad'a memo received from the City A~ministrator pertaining·
to a study to co~,:pare NS-5 (City of Saratoga Subdivision Ordinance) to
the new County Subdivision Ordinance and the Monte Sereno Ordinance. He
then stated that the Staff could ~.xork out the comparison and present them
to the Subdivision Committee for review.
Chairman Lively referred the matter to the Staff for study and directed
same continued until such time as l the Staff has completed their study
and the Subdivision Connittee has '.finished their review.
B. ORAL
Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilman-
Robbins, T.'~s. Owen of the Good Governm,_~nt Group, !.L.-s. Ottenber of the
League of Women Voters and ~.~. Norman ~.[artin of the Prides Crossing Home-
o~.mer's Association. He, also, thanl~ed [.lrs. Owen for the coffee' served
at recess. .
X. ADJOIJR~.~.~NT :'
Chairman Lively declared the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary Planning ConL.~ission
-15-