Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-22-1969 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAP~TOGA PLANNING CO~R~IISSION MINUTES TI~: Monday 22 December 1969 7:30 P..M. , , PLACE: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORG~NIZAT ION The meeting was called to order by Chairman Norton. .. ... A. ROLL ~LL . Present: Commissioners Crisp, Kraus, Lively, Metcalf, Norton, and Smith. AbsenK: Commissioner Bacon. B. MIN~ES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Co~missi0ner Metcalf, that the reading of the minutes of the 24 November 1969 meeting be ~ived and they be approved as corrected'and distributed to the Co~ission; motion carried unanimously. 8 December 1969 - Minutes Commissioner Smith ~oved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, that the reading of the minutes of the 8 December 1969 meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following changes: page 5. . .under II. E. . .paragraph 1. . .line 4. . .change the word "natUral" to "normal; page 7.. .under III. A. . .change:.pa~agraph '6 to read as follows: "Co~issioner Metcalf stated that, '.for most of these lots that require cutting and filling, the cut and fill angle exceeds the two to one ~atio that is .as high as should be permitted in earthquake territory -.Which this tract is." page 9.. .under IV. C~ . .paragraph 6. .line 4.. .correct the spelling of the word "'compatible"; motion carried unanimously. ~--~ II. - P~LIC H~.RINGS A. PROPOSED A>ZND~NTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE NS-3 - Re 1) Dedication of Common. Green Areas in a Planned Community (P-C) Development 2) Elimination of Multi-Family Residence.' in Profes- sional-Administrative (P-A) Districts 3) Definition of Duplex and 4) Clari .. : fying the Term "Camper" - Continued from 8 December 1969 , .. The hearing ~s re-opened at 7:36 P.M. ~e Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file. Co~issioner Smith read the Subdivision Committee Report dated 22 December 1969 recommending that the proposed ~ordinance amendment be approved. -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 22 December'1969 - Continued II. A. Proposed Amendment - Continued : Commissioner Crisp questioned ~ther the hearing'held in this matter'would ..... meet the ordinance requirements £or a'cha~ge'of ~oning.' ..................... ~'l ...."' .......... Chairman Norton stated that 1) this is not a proposal for a change of zoning for any specific piece of property but is a revision in the Zoning Ordinance and 2) a change of zoning and this proposal are technically two different things. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner ·Crisp, to close the hearing at 7:43 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded'=.·~ by Commissioner Crisp, that the Sub- division Committee Report dated 22 December 1969 be adopted and that the proposed amendmen~ to Zoning Ordinance NS-3 be approved and the subject report be forwarded to the City Council as.the recommendation of the Plan- ning. Commission; motion carried unanimously. B. UP-178 - Joanne Ernandes, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Day Care NurSery Chairman Norton opened the hearing relative to UP-17~ at 7:46 PoM. The Secretary· stated the Notices of Hearing were mailed and briefly reviewed the subject application. He further stated that the applicant did submit an explanation of operation outlining the student enrollment, 'currlcuiom and procedure, classes, future plans and a daily plan for the proposed nursery school. The applicant was present and stated that 1) she hoped a need would be sho~.m in the area for this type of opera.tion 2) she is a student teacher and would finish in January, 1970 and 3) she has no previous experience in operating a nursery school. Mrs. Jean Machado, Teacher at San Jose State College, stated that 1) she has been advising the applicant in this matter 2) there are not very many qualified, licensed people ~J~o will go into-this type of operation and 3) the applicant is very interested in .p~efitti~g children and will be taking further ~courses in this field. Mr. Bud Morgan, 13121 saratoga-sUnnyvale Road, stated that 1) the neighbors in this area regard the proposed'venture as a commercial endeavor 2) there have been unfortunate incidents_~z~ith ~is property o~mer before 3) the proposed nursery school would de~r~.t' from the'economic value of the neighboring properties and 4) other neighbors indicated they would be present· to protest this matter but for some reason they were unable to attend. Chairman Norton explained that there· will be another public hearing in connec- tion with this matter at which time the neighbors mmy attend and state their views or they can submit letters .~0i·~ng'·their objections or approvals. }~. Ray Cunningham, 13186 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, stated that 1) he does not find the nursery school itself objectionable 2) the access road; however, will be a problem 3) every property owner in that area must use his (Cunningham) driveway ~ich has become extremely dangerous because of the excess use 4) there have already been several near accidents and 5) he does not ~,mnt an accident on his drivexmy _·e.spe~i.a.~ one involving nursery-school passengers. Chairman Norton recon~mended that.the Public Works Department look into the problem of }~. Cunningham's driveway. There being no further comments,'Chairman Norton closed the hearing for the evening at 7:56 P.M., directed UP-178 continued to the meeting of 12 January 1969 and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for study. -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 22 December 1969 - Continued III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-831 - Ralph Anderson, Quito Road - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from 8 Dece~ber 1969 The applicant was present and stated he had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval. Commissioner Smith stated that two reports had been prepared relative to this application: 1) The Building Site Committee Report dated '~" 22 December 1969 stating the conditions relative to SDR-831 and 2). A Staff Report dated 22 December 1969 reconunending that the subject applica- tion and map be approved subject to the conditions, in particular condi- tion II-B, as stated in the Building Site Committee Report· The Secretary explained that Condition IiiB is the one the applicant finds objectionable since it woul~ cause the elimination of some very old trees. Chairman Norton stated that he did not feel this application should be apprOved Since it is not required that a developer be permitted to cut down trees solel. y for the purpose;of developing property. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, stated that it is the-opinion of the City Attorney that if the Planning Co~m~ission once approves a tentative map that iS improper it cannot be changed. Mr. Anderson stated'that, he felt, the trees should be left in their natural statel and the road width'requirement be waived in this case especially in the areas where the 'trees are located. The Secretary stated that 1) in Order to serve the potential lots in this area it is felt that it would be important that the public street width be maintained in this case and 2) there is, also, the possibility that a piece of property to the West of the Anderson property may have to be served by the subject road. Commissioner 'Smith stated that the applicant has offered to replace the trees which would be eliminated by the road widening. The Secretary explained that 1) the trees in question are very old, very aesthetic, and quite large in size 2) it would be possible to remove just one row of trees and 3) the applicant has indicated he does not want to see the road improved to public street standard. Mr. Anderson stated that 1) all the residents of the area served by the subject road have stated they do not want the street dedicated to the City and'do not want the trees removed 2) these people have moved into the area because of its seclusion (provided by the trees) and beauty and 3) he would be willing to widen the road further dow~ and avoid taking out any trees. CommiSsioner Smith noted that all. traffic going into this area will have to come in the entrance but only part of it will go all the way down to the end. Chairman Norton.advised that the Subdivision Committee feels that the width of the road is necessary and that way the trees must be removed. -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 22 December 1969 - Continued III. A. SDR-831 - Continued Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Ordinance of the Ci._ty._.O.~ Saratoga stipulates certain. streetTwidth' requirementS,.. .... . Chairman Norton observed that, perhaps, the trees could be cut do~rn on the one side and be'replaced further back where they would not interfere with the road. Con~issioner Lively' stated that 1)'2 the trees are the desirable aspect of this general area and every effort should be made to avoid removing them.and 2) he would hesitate to approve the Building Site Committee "Rep0~t since it would make it mandatory that the trees be removed. Chairman Norton indicated that in his opinion the road should be widened further down at a point where the trees would not be affected. Mr. Anderson, in answer to an inquiry from Con~nissioner Kraus, stated that 1) the present 15-foot road is owned by an adjoining property owner ([~r. Flatter) and 2) the additional road width is required in order that fire and other emergency equipment can be brought-in when needed. Con~issioner Smith stated that approval Co=Uld' be granted on the basis of the front lots only and approval of the rear lot be denied. Chairman Norton stated he would be' willing to risk the width of the road since the only alternate would be to specify that only one row of trees be removed. The Secretary pointed out that the;; Public Works Department would be very much opposed to having this street.. offered for dedication unless it the standard 26-foot width. Commissioner Metcalf stated that, he felt, that the street should be improved and brought up to standard only at the area ~ n 'the trees. The Secretary advised that the Pub'.!ic Works ~bt would be opposed to accepting any street that did not have curb and gutter. Chairman .Norton stated that the Public Works Department would have to go to the City COuncil and they would then have to m~ke the final decision whether to save the trees or to require the road width as stated in the Building Site Committee Report. Commissioner Crisp stated that 1) it appeared tO him that the Cormmission is opposed to cutting down the trees therefore, he sugge. sts that no action be taken at this time and 2) action should be, postponed until a proper plan is submitted since the. one presently .being considered is not satisfactory. Chairman Norton explained to the applicant that 1) the Planning Commission would need further time to make a 'decision relative to this matter and 2) it will be necessary for him to grant the Commission an extension of time or the application will be rejected. Mr.' Anderson stated that he would .grant the extension required but ~,7ould like the matter settled as soon as possible. Commissioner Smith stated that the entire area should be considered at one time rather than on a piece-meal basis as sho~;m on the map submitted. Chairman Norton noted that 1) the Planning Commission would like as many trees as possible saved and this could be accomplished if a complet~ map showing the proposed development of the entire area were available and 2) the Subdivision Committee has done a good job in studying this matter and now the Con~mission has .indicated they would like some flexi]~ility. LIIo A. .S.DR-83!- Continued Commissioner Smith moved seconded by Commissioner Kraus that the subject application for Building Site Approval be e~d,~enied unless. the appl~cant subS·. mits a letter tonight grantin~ the Planning C.?.m_miS~_i_o_n. an .ext-~n".s. ion-- ~f-not. than thirty d~ys;mo[ion' carr'ied unanimously. Chairman Norton stated that in the event the letter of extension is received SDR-831 will be continued to the meeting of 12 January 1970 and referred to the Subdivision Committee. B. SDR-832 - David L. Mendenhall, Mt. Eden Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 8 December 1969 Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-832 be continued to allow time for further consideration of the tenta. tive map. Chairman Norton So directed. C. SDR-834 - Burke and Moe Realty, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road -·. Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 8 December 1969 The Secretary stated that the applicant haj. reviewed the proposed conditions of approval. It was noted that the additional side setback would require some change in ·lay-out from that already given preliminary design approval. ..... Com_missioner Smith moved, secDnded by ConLmissioner Crisp, that the Building Site· Copm-nittee Report of 22 December 1969 relative to SDR-834 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 28 November 1969)'be app<oved~sub- ject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried una~imously. D. SD-835 - Columbus-Founders Savings and Loan Corporation, Arroyo de Arguello - Subdivision App~oval - 10 Lots - Continued from 8 December 1969 Mr. Bob Falk, ·Brian·Engineering Company, was present to represent the applicant and stated that i) Condition 5 as stated in the Subdivision Committee Report dated 22 December 1969 prohibits the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy prior to all street improvements being completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and 2) he wondered if this coHdition is necessary since at times two or three months pass before a street acceptance is accom- plished. The Secretary explained that Condition 5 simply means that the City wants the street improvements completed prior to occupancy of any· residence, not. formal acceptance. Co~Lmissioner Metcalf brought up the question of whether the proposed lots met the slope density ordinance. Commissioner Smith stated that 1) the Public Works-Department indicated that these lots were all entirely satisfactory and 2) this is a reapplication for a portion of this subdivision. Mr. Bob Falk stated that there is. a surplus of land available in this sub- division which can be applied to Slope density and the lot lines could be readjusted, but the lot lines sho~.,~ on the tentative map are most compatible with the terrain. Chairman Norton stated that, in other words, the subdivider could have just as many houses if 50,000 square feet were required per building site since the additional land is available. Con~issioner Metcalf stated that, he felt, a n~w subdivision map should be submitted showing how the lot lines could be changed. Commissioner Crisp disagreed and stated that the tentative map submitted fulfills all requirements. Chairman Norton stated that he could not see that anything could be gained by a new map. _5i Planning Commission Minutes - 22 December ].969 - Continued III. D. SD-835 - Continued Con~nissioner Met~alf noted that 1)' it has not yet been properly demonstrated that this subdivision can, in fact, meet the slope density requirements 2) the slope density table is part of a Resolution and he did not feel the Planning Coma~ission should start out departing from this and 3) the smallest lot in the subdivision is, also, t~e steepest. .~0m~is~iO~er' 'Smith"stated that 'ev'e~ if ~h'e i0t'lines are '~h~n-ged· the location of the houseS' to"'be conStrUcted 'w{',ll n6't 'be"'C~a~ged. Mr, Falk, in answer to an inquiry 'from Chairman Norton, stated that the "'-total acreage involved is approximately twelve acres. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from .c~-~mi~sion~_r...i~_iY~_y_i,i~..St.~i~'~e_d-~.Tth~t the Flood Control requirement' ~.nyo!v~S. pr__o_yidi_ng..a_._cer~_a~n a.s___.~_hp_wa.. _pn___the tentative map. ~._nd__ ~hiS right'°fTw'aY ~'an be provided in easement form rather than fee title. Commissioner Lively inquired if a flood plan'' concept could be used in connec~ tion with this subdivision. The Secretary explained that Flood ContrOl has' been..'asked to review these matter on a flood plain concept in the past. Chairman Norton noted that it might be wise to give ithis matter further study and halve the lot lines redra~.m and. perhaps give some, consideration to the idea of the flood p!ain.~, concept. The Secretary stated that if the concern is for the flood plain concept it would be best to postpone action on the matter. Mr. Falk urged that tentative approval be granted at this time and the flood plain concept'be studied between the time of tentative and final approval. Commissioner Smith stated that he did not believe t~at the property under discussion is in reality hillside property. Chairman Norton pointed..out t.ha~_ t.he Flo_O~.' C_ont:-~O!. lrin~_ We~ map some years ago and_..~he_.Secretary.sugg_eSts_t_hat hie. Could giVe.a_n_ opinion on these lines if the matter were postponed. Commissioner Smith stated that he Would agree to have the matter continued to study the flood plane concept, but did not fe~l he could agree to a continuance to consider this subdivision as a hills~de development. Commissioner Metcalf stated that he felt it should, most definitely, be considered as a hillside development, Commissioner Lively stated he ~s a little conce~ne~ .about one lot and it seemed, to him, that the slope density ordinance was adopted to eliminate this~ sort of Chairman Norton noted that there seemed to be enough interest in discussing this matter further; therefore, SDR-835 will be continued to the n~.~t regular meeting and referred to the Subdivision Co~n~ittee amd Staff to meet with the developer and his engineer to consider altering the lot lines and discuss the flood plain" concept. -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 22 D~cember 1969 - Continued III. -E ......SDR-836 -.L~,rfence Orlando,. Vaquero Court - Building Site Approval 1 Lot The Secretary explained that 1) .the applicant has done a very good job on the tentative map and 2) Conditions II-F and ii-D as stated in the Building Site Committee Report have almost been co~_pleted. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the Building Site Coma~ittee Report of 22 December 1969 relative to SDR-836 be a~_Q~ted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "~", filed 12 Dece~oer 1969) b~prg~Ved sub- ject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carrie~-nanimously. F. SDR-837 - G.S. Forbes, Williams A~enue.and Saratoga-SunnFale Road - Building Site Approval - 3 Lots The Secretary stated ~hat 1) this property is under one o~ership and has been a legal-non-conforming use 2) the property o~mer now wan~ to re-subdivide and construct three houses where four used to be and 3) this would result· in bette. r lots and the matter has been discussed with the City Attorney and he feels that this application can be approved. Commissioner Smith moved, seconde~ by Commissioner Crisp, that the Building Site Committee Report of 22 December 1969='relative to SDR-837 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 12 Dece~er 1969) b~'~'~'p~d sub- ject to the conditions set forth in said report; mo'~ion carried"'Unanimously.' RECESS AND RECOI~ENE. IV. DESIGN REVIEW Ao SS-65 - Kunkel-Thomas Co., Sobey Road and Old Wood Way - Final Design Approval - Temporary Subdivision SiSn Commissioner Metcalf 'introduced the Staff Report recommending that the two temporary subdivision signs be granted Final Design Approval. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Staff R.e. por-t-dated 22 December 1969 be ~dopted and that Final Design Approval be · ~ranted' for two temporary subdivision signs as sho~..~. on Exhibits "B" and "C" s b to ~u· ject the condition s~ated in said report; motion carried unanimously. B. A-330 - Elgin Capital, Big Basin Way '.~ Final Desigr~ Approval - Modification of Roofing Material - Continued from 8 December 1969 Commissioner Metcalf stated that the Design Review Committee met with the appl'icant to discuss this request~ He then introduced the Staff Report dated 22 December 1969 recormnending that the subject.req,,'est for'modification of roofing materials be approved. Cormnissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Staff Report dated 22 December 1969 be adopted and that the request for substituting heavy composition-shingles .in place of the originally proposed metal roofing m~-terial b,e~anted as sho~ on Exhibits "D" and "5~'~; motion carried unani- mous ly. C. A-3'38 - Yves G. Casabonne, Big Basin Way - Preliminary Design Approval - Remodeling of Conmercial Building Commissioner Metcalf stated that ~his is the buildimg that formerly housed a delicatessen. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Crisp, stated that additional parking can be required under a change of use and this request does not involve a change Of use since it will remai·n a co~.~ercial use. Chairman Norton stated that assumi~ng the applicant expands the use, but ·not .necessarily changes the type. of use would this make any difference in the parking -requirement? Planning Commission Minutes - 22 December 1969 - Continued IV, C, A-338 - Continued The Secretary a:~Swered that 'i~., that case' an increase in parking would be required. ' ............ l,Lr. Don Gerth, Building Designer, ~..~as .present to represent the applicant and stated that 1) they intend to remodel the left side of the front building to conform with tbe right side 2) he. hoped the Commission would. grant Final Design Approval at -this time and 3) the applicant will lose his lease option if a decision relative to this matter is not made at this time. -.-Chairman Norton indicated he is willing to approve only what is shox,m on the exhibit submitted since the Planning Commission has no ~my of enforcing verbal committments especially in matters where a question relative to park- ing is involved. He further stated that perhaps the Comnission would grant preliminary Design Approval at thi~ time. Comm{jsioner Metcalf stated that 1) the applicant did meet with the Design Review Committee and they informedz him they would not grant Final Design Approval since they objected to the non-conformity in the two sides of the front of the building 2) ~. Gerth has now suggested that they intend to remodel the front to make the two sides Conform; however, this is not sho~m -on the exhibits submitted and he w~uld recommend that the following be added to complete the exhibit: "typical on both. sides". Commissioner Lively inquired about'the running of mini-bike engines and if any arrangements have been made for noise buffers. ~. Don Gerth stated that a four hour fire wall'will take care of some of the noise and there is an air space between that and the existing wall and then there is .the wall of the building next door and all these combined will eliminate practically all noise. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, stated that a requirement to keep the door close~, to prevent noise escape, should be covered under Design Review Approval. Chairman Norton stated that he felt, two "parking Spa~eS 'Should 'be ........................... provided. : · · Co~issioner Crisp reconmended that sound proofing of the building be required. Commissioner Kraus and Co~issioner Lively recommended that some control.be maintained relative to testing of equipment outside the building. After further discussion and agreement Chairman Norton recommended that the Staff Report dated 22 December 1969 be amended as follows: paragraph 2. .line 2. . .change "Preliminary" to "Final" and in line. 3. . . after "B" .add "(as modified)"; after Condition 2. .add Conditions 3, 4, and 5 as follows: 3) Provide two parking. spaces behind "buf'l~.~'nk;' pak~n~ aS"'approved by Director of Publ[ic Works. 4) Building to be sound. proofed and mainta{ne~' "t0""pr~nt escap~ of noise. of ]engines and .equipment.' 5) No testing or demonstration of mini-bike or similar equipment outside the building. Comissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Staff Report dated 22 December 1969 be ad;opted and that the request to remodel the subject tommezcial building be ~an~'d Final Design Approval as sho~ on Exhibits "B", "C", and "D" and subject to the conditions stated in said report; ..... motion carried with Co~i~S~.oner C~is2 voting N~ -8- planning Commission Minutes - 22 December 1969 - Continued V. CITY COIE, qCIL REPORT Commissioner Metcalf gave a summmary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 17 December 1969 with emphasis on matters of particular interest to the Co:m~ission. VI. OLD BUSINESS Rodoni Corporation Yard- saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Chairman Norton reminded the Secretary: that he would like to see a maximum time- limit imposed for the elimination2 of the Rodoni Corporation Yard operation. VII. NEW' ~U'~INESS SDR-769 - Pete Barulich.~ P.alomino Way - Requ.est for ·Extension The Secretary read the Staff Report da~ed 22 December 1969 recommending that that the subject request for a one yea~ extension for SDR-769 be granted. Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Comm~issioner Lively, that the Staff Report dated 22 December 1969 be adopted and that a ·o~ year extension for SDR-769 to 12 February 1971 be granted; motion carried unanimously. VIII. CO~,'FONICATIONS A. WRITTEN The Secretary stated that a co~mmunication had been received from the City Manager relative to the appeal filed by George Day in connection with his fifteen lot subdivision which was denied· approval by the Planning Commission. (A copy of the appeal ~s attached to the communication for anyone interested in reading same. ) B. O~L City Code The Secretary informed the Commissioners that the City Code has been amended and updated and if each Commissioner will bring their individual copies to City Hall the subject amendments will be added. Guests Chairnmn Norton noted, with regret, the absence of a Councilman and acknowledged ~th pleasure, the presence of ~s.' Ruth Owen and ~. Woody Frampton of the Good Government Group. He, also, thanked Mrs. Owen for the coffee served at recess. X. ADJOL~R~NT Chair~n Norton declared the meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Saratoga Planning Co~ission j -9.-