HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-1970 Planning Commission MinutesT]'ME: Monday, 27 April 1970, 7:30 P.bI.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, ].3777 Frui,tva]e Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070
~PE: Regular Meeting
1. ROUTINE OR~ANIZAT]-C)N
The u~eeting was called to order by Chairman Norton.
A. ROI.L CAI.L
Present: Commissioners Cri~p, Kraus, 1.ive].y, Met:calf, Norton, and Smith.
.Absent: None.
B. MINUTES
Comm~.ssioner Smith moved, seconqlcd by Commissioner I. ivel~, that the
.reading of the minutes of the 13 April 1970 meeting be waived a'nd they
be approved as distribt~:ed to the Commission subject t'.o the fol'lowing
change:
page 6. .last: paragraph. .line 1. .change "polls" to "poles";
motion carried unanimously.
C. ANNUAL GENERAL PI,AN REVIEW
Chairman Norton stated that: l) it is time to start: thinking about the
annual General Plan Review 2) it has been s~fggested that it may be
pos.tponed until after the Congrhss for Community Prog~'ass has finished
its deliberations; which, should be about the end of ~Iay 3) a. stud~
session could be scheduled for the first week of JGnc.-and any civic
· group interested in att:ending clan do so.
After a brief discussion the Commissi. on agreed that ]. June 1970 would
be an appropriate time for a Study Session for the annual Genera]. Plan
Review.
Chairman Norton requested the Secret'ary to 'schedule a Study Session for
Monday, 1 June ].970, publish a Notice of Hearing and arrange for a meeting
place.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-127 - Catherine Niven, blad, rone tlill Road - Request for Change of
Zoning from "R-I-40,'000" (Single-.Family Residential) to.
"R-i-40,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned Community
District) Continu, ed from 13 April 1970
The hearing was re-opened at 7:39 P.M. The Secretary stated that the
applicant submitted a communication requesting that' the subject appli-
.cation be withdrawn until a later date. Due to unforseen circumstances
~he is unable to pt, rsua the matter at this time.
: No one was present to represent the applicant.
There were no comments from the audience.
Commissionc~r Smith too reel, seconded by Commissione~ Kraus, to terminate
the public bearing rc..~ative to C-.~27 at 7:40 P.M. and approve the request
for withdrawal; motion cartLed unanimots]y.
B. C-128' - E].g~n Capit'.a~ Co~porati'on, Big ~ash~ Way and S~xth Street
Request ~or Change o~ Z:onin~ from "R-.M-3,000~ (MulLS-Family
~es~dential) to "C-V" (V~sit'or-Con'~u~erc~a~) - Continued fro;n
13 April ~970
Chairman ~orton re-opened the hearing at
Commissioner Lively stated that the Oc..ne~a~ P~an Com~ai~tee did not have an
opportunity to meet: and prepar6 a report relative to th~s ~at'ter; therefore,
.~t is .re. commcmck~d that C,-~28 be continued t.o the next. regular m.e~i~gT .......
~. Tom l.~oore~ t:he app~Lcantts r~,prc.:;entat~ve, ~.,as present, but ma~e no
s e~k re].atLve to this
co:~ent~;. ~o one ~n the audience, ~i~hc, dte p ·
Chairman ~orton c~osed the haaring for the even~n~ at 7:42 P.H.., direct. eel
~-.1~8 cont~nue-d to the next re~Lu]ar meetLn~ and referred same to the General
P~an Committee for st:u~]y and a report.
C. C-]_29 -. Oan~es F'~' WL~son, eL al, Pie~:ce Road Request for Change o~ Zoning
from "R-].-40,O00" (Single-Family Rc~s~e. ntLa].) to "R-~-20,O00"
Chairman ~orLon opened the hearin~ at 7:43 P.M. The Secretary stated the
Hotices of HearLnD werc~' ma~ed and published and b~ef~y reviewed'
~equest.
Chairman ~ort:on explained that this application consists o~ a group
individual prop'ert:y owners in th~s area w~th a common request to fezone
their p~operty.
The Secretary st_at:ed that a petit:ion ~.~t:h t:wenCy--e~ght signatures was
f~ed in opposition to the requested Chan~a of Zoning. He further staLe~
that a copy o~ a ].ett_er wa~ in the ~i]_e which was set~.~ Lo the Sara~-o~a
Hews by Mrs Daisy I. ~'f o (one o~ the property owners involved ~n the
subject Oban~e o~ Zoning) s~:atin~ she objected t.o the use o~ the word
"subdivision" used relat'iVe to the subject app].ica~on in 'the Saratoga
Hew s.
Commissioner Smith stat. c,.d that the fo~ow~n~ p~oposa]. was made by the
~ ~anu~n~ Comn~t_tee o~ the C~ty CoLmc~ a~ter a meeting w~th so~e o~ the
/ , ~pp]~cants and the Oene~a~ P~aB Committee o~ the P~annin~ Commission:
"Ho chanDe should be considered ~n the ~ens~ty designated ~n the -.
Genera~ P~an unt~ ~t ~s demonstrated that a satisfactory plan
can be made to guide developmc'nt. It is suggested that the petitioners
develop such a plan ~.~ith guidance from the Planning Department prior to
the beginning of the Annual. General Plan Revie~ in the spring of 1970."
CommiSsioner Smith then stated that, he felt, the Change oi Zoning
a'pplicat~on is premature at this time.
Mr. James Wilson was present to represent the app].icants and stated that
1) he noted with interest the objections raised by the twenty-eight
people who .signed the petition 2) the objections relating to develop-
me~t of a subdivision on this .prope.rty is unfounded since no proposal
for a subdivision has been mentioned 3) the reference made in' the Saratoga
News in connection with a subdivision for this property was ~ncorrect
information since no subdivis{on is p].anned 4) each individual property
owner wishes only to develop ~heir property .to ~ts fullest use 5) there
are at least two property o~.7ners that do not wish to immediately develop
their property but do want the privilege of doing s~ if they so desire
6) he failed to see the argument stated in the petition that the approval
of the subject request for re-zoning would decrease the value of the adjoin--
ing property 7> his taxes ar~ going up every year ~0ithout development and
-.,i ...................... -... . .
he assumed tLhis ~.:as true of the residents who signed the petition
8) the City Ordi~ance doe. s allow for change in zoning and i.f no
chan[~es are to be made then the ordj. nance provi. sS_on for sa~ue are
need]_ess 9) the traffic that .would be gav~erat:ed by four or five
new residences j.n the area woti].d not: result in any great: hazard
in tZhis area and 10) in submitt:ir~g the subject app].ication ,the
app].icanLs are fo].]owin~% the recomLuanda t: ion of the City Councf-l'
and wa request tthe utmost con~idera~:ion of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Norton 'explained tha~ any ~plit in property (no matter how
lari%e or small) has t-o be con~Ldered a subdivisi. on.
Fir. Clarence Roessl of 12850 Foothill I,ane 'stated that 1) under a
previous application a proposal. for a cul-de-sac at the end of Ashley
i.lay x. zas submitted 2) there- are' already two cu].-da-sacs in the area
(Ashley Court. and Carniel COurt) 3) if a third cul-da-sac is realized
at the end of Ashle. y ~./ay i.L will become a through street: to I'i_erce Road
and the residents of Ashley ~qay have always been opposed to extending
Ashley Way even though it is shown on the General P],t:z~ and 4) he hoped
the residents on Ashl.ey ~.!ay would not-. be required to cont. j. nua]lly fight
to keep Ash].ey ~qay a short'. dead end street.
Chaj. rrnan Norton stated that: i'f the resj. dents fel. t strongly enough
about keeping Ashley ~a)' in its present· st·ate they would .undoubtedly
have to continue to be vigilant to proLe. ct: their position.
Fir. Roess] stated that: a pet. ition submitted in oppositi'on to another
proposal for expansi. on of Ashley ~.1ay shou].d be made a matt. er of record
. and referred t.o in the eveut .of future proposals for Ashley ~qay.
~'he Secretary, in ansi.mr to ~n inquiry from Chairsnan Nort. on, stated that
" .if the Change of Zor~ing is approved the appl-icantl can app].y collecti. ve].y
or indj. vidt~ally for approval to deve].op their property.
Fir. Bernard ]]orow, representtinl~ I,h:s. Daisy ~[organ (one of the property
owners invol. ved in the subject rec~uest) stated that !.) t. Ther~ his father-in-
law bought his property there was no Ashley Court r:c~:! ha did not approve
of its going, in 2) there has never been any inte. t~t on Ehe part of the
}iorgan family to connect Ashley ~.7ay to Pierce Road 3) the only intent
is to make use of the land that they own 'and ~) the Fiorgan property
dead ends into Ashley ~'lay and they prefer to keep it that ~ay.
~ Firs.· Gen$.e ~ilson stated that 1) they like the idea of a large lot,
] and intended to utilize the land and have a horse, but the nei-ghbors
c6mplained because the horse-flies refused to stay within the confines
of the property 2) the hor.se is now gone and the bar~ stands idle .bet
cause' they like to get along with the neighbors 3) instead of enjoying the
property t'hey spend the weekends cutting weeds so the neighbors will
sot complain and so they can' enjoy the open space 4) she felt the
neighbors should purchase thp additional property and pay the high taxes
and keep the open space to enjoy 5) her family enjoyed living in the
Saratoga area and x.~ant to get along ~.yit-h the neighbors, but she, also,
.feels the neighbors should make sop.~e att'empt to get a].ong ~.~ith them.
Commissioner l, ively stated t7hat this problem of ··land division in this
area has beet~ brought up many tithes before and he did feel that it woC~Id
be premature to make a report prior to the annual General Plan Review.
Qairman Norton stated that .he is reluctant to drag this matter on
indefinitely and felt that ~he matter should ba considered at the
6eneral Plan Committee level.
. c .9- -. t:d.
At 8:09 P.FI., CJtaiTtnatl Norton ~]osed the hearing for t.i~e evening,
referred C-129 to the General t"].an Coutmittee for study and directed
same cont:inued 't.o the next regu].aY meeting.
I). C-l~0 - Saratoga Foothills Dev6]op:'nent Corpo~:ation, FruLtvale Avenue -
Request for Chatxge of Zoning from "R-i-~,0,000" (Singl. e-Family'
Reside. nt/.al) to "R-i-40,000 .... }'-C" (Si.r~gle-Famil. y Reside~tial
Pl. annctd Comtnun i t'y).
The Chairman optbed the hearS.ug at 8:].1. P.N. The Secretary stated the
Not ices of tlea ring were n~S iled. and pub]. ished.
Hr. Jerry I, ohr and Nr. Bernie Turgeon, ov2ndrs of Saratoga Foot;hill. s
Development CorporatS_on, were present and presented exhibits of the
proposed de. velopE, ents.
}lr. l,ohr explained that 1.) they looke'd at this propertTy n~any ti.n~es
over the last: two years 2) i_t' v~as decided that. the proposed "P-C"
development is the best way of'. utilizing this propert. y and 3) the
property consS_sts of approxi. mat. e].y 42.5 acres.
Chairman Norton stated that he can see the subject property frora his
front windory so if it has to be develgped he ~.zould like to see it
done in the best_ possib].e way.
Adtniral Carmick of 1.9231 Valley Vist'.a was present and s.t:ated he was
opposed to the devel. opmc:t~t of t'his properly and want. ed 'to knovz the
exact. definitj_on of "P-C" zoning.
Chairman Norton explained that in a "P--C" devel. op~i~;::~e. the numt~er of
homes a].lovre~ for the property. are arranoed in one a~::':.~ and the ren~ai. ning
acreage is deS" tc.d ~s coa~:-:'~on green a:cea ~.~ith Z~Cz=l'k~.Liea for the rc, sidcnts.
Hr. James R. Co~rq~ton of ]5060 Orio].e Road ~:as present ~.nd stated
that the subject application is pre;~mt:ure because he receiVe'd his Notice
of Hearing only three days ago and the exhibit referred to in the .notice
~as not included.
The Secretary .explained that the ordinance does not requi~e that a map or ex-
'hib~.t be included, but iE is usually provided as a matter of courtesy;
however, in this case it was unintentionally oraitted.
F ·
' Adm.' Carmick stated that he received the stateEent of publication of this
/ notice, but it vTas very incotnplete and he called a nun~ber of people and a
lot of them did not receive the notice.
Chairman Norton explained that only property within 500-feet of the
property are required to receive a notice.
Admiral Carmick stated that years ago the General Plan was adopted and
that ~,,as it and now in a series of piecen~eal motions a good plan will be
ruined.
"Chairthan Norton explained tha6 the Planning Co:7,mission generally does
not make pi. ecen~eal changes bC~t that does not mean they do not make changes..
Commissioner Sn~ith stated that it should be brought out that g~e proposed
zoning is in accord with the General Plan.
'Admiral Cartnick sugoested that the matter'be put to a public vote since
there are a great nun~ber of people that ~.~ill be affected.
I ].. D. C - 130 - _C o t_2~_t.i tJ!].p_d_
Chairman Norton c>:p]ained that .thi. s property will not remain undeveloped
and can bc developed as "R-I-40,000" at anytime without any special per--
mission from the Planning Commission.
}it. go?.~pton stated that the residents of the area feel this property
is really too beautiful in its nat:ural state to be spoiled b)~ develop:nont.
Chairman Norton e>:plained that 1) the ot~]y way to keep the property
from being developed is for the individua']s oilposed to the development
to purchase it and pay the. taxes and 2) if..the property is deve].opc:d
as proposed at least a oood portion will be left in its natural. state.
Mr. Charles ChristiansQ. n of 1925]. Val].e Vista Drive stated that
1) he was opposed to the proposed deve].opn~ent ~nd 2) this type of develop-
ment wot~]d deflate the value of his property-and take away the privacy
aud beauty they now enjoy.
Chairman Norton stated that the owner has property rights and'cannot be
denied the right to make use of his property.
Dr. Willis Watrous of 14995 Fruitvale AvenUe ~.Tas present and stated that
1) apparently the homes that will back on to Fruitvale will be fenced
all along Fruitva].e. and that x.yi].l provide birn with a view of a fence
~nd he finds that very objectionable 2) there are two lanes of traffic
on Fruitvale Avenue and if t:hi.s development: goes in h.:. will be required
to dedicate additional propert:y for the expansion of ~'rUitval. e Avenue
and 3) he is concerned about what this. development could do t.o the long-
.range plans for open space in 'this area.
Chairman Norton st'atcd that: this property is not in the area of the
Central Park, but the golf course may involve some. of this property'..
The Secretary stated that the golf course is still under study by the
ConsultLent'. engaged by the City and before the subject application is
acted on there may be some answers relative to the golf course.
~. Watrous stated that the' tax'rolls show this property to have
thirty-nine acres and yet the applicant s. tated the property has a
total of 42.5 acres.
}k. Mike Splitstone, George Nolte Engineering Firm, stated that checking
out the boundaries on paper it is apparent the property consists of a
~otal acreage of 42.5 acres.
~. Louis J. Ruschin of 13890 River Ranch Court ~zas present and stated
that 1) he owns a lot on Three Oaks Way ~-hich is located next to.the
~Zatrous property 2) as he understands the subject-proposal 33,000 people
~ould all'be moved into one area of the City and the remainder of the
land could be used as open-space 3) he finds the idea of a fence along
Fruitvale Avenue very offensive and 4) he has seen some areas fenced
in a similar manner and they are unattractive.
· "Chairman Norton explained that it has been the policy ~Then houses back
-. 'up to a road that a fence be put up between the houses and the road.
}Its. Ruschin stated that 1) she felt if the proposed development ~ent
in it would appear to be a tract development and no tract homes exist
in the area at present and 2) if the "P-C" zoning ~ere not allowed,
'p~rhaps, the developer could not get as many hoaes on the total acreage
Because the topography of the' property ~,ould not be suitable.
Chairman Norton explained that the engineers ~ould undoubtedly find some
way to utilize the property to realize the maximum num[er of lots.
The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Mrs. Ruschin, stated that there
is a feasibility study under ~Tay for this area to deterraine the best possible
~se for this particular property.
-5-
II. I). C-130 - Continued
~Irs. ]~tt.sc|ti~ stated thc;t 1) she would reco~rnend that no action
be taken relative to this app].ication until the feasibility stu'dy
has been completed and 2) she feels the Planning Convuissio:l is
.- trying to make it easier for the developer if they approved the
subject Change of Zoning..
Chairman Norton stated that 1) he considered the "P-C" deve!opr:~c.z~t
..... better than a regu].,~r subdivision and 2) his family has o~.med their
property since ]-939 and if this property is to be developed he ~.,ould
prefer it be done ~.~ith the least amount of damage to the natural
setting. '.
1.~s. John Hall of 19231 Monte Vista I~ive stated that 1) she ~.'as
not opposed to devclop:nex)t of the subject property, but ~:as opposed
to a "P-,C" treatu~ent of the. area and 2) all the residents of. the
area have lovely open spaces on their'property because they are all
on individual lots.
Chairman NOrton,. in answer to an inquiry from Mrs. Watr6us, stated
that the applicant ~.:ill hav~, to prov~de,~,zithin the boundaries of the
· ' subdivision..l~O.O00--s~uare feet (in ad~ition.~o s.treet area) for each
~.~proposed ho~e site even thc, uy~h each house night be built on a hal. f-acre;
therefore, in rea].ity the density will not be increase~.
Mrs. Watrous stated that'she did not ~ee! the ~eveloper is contribu'ting
............ anything to the City' ancj he h~.s everything to gain' and ~,~ill make a
'Considerable ar,~ount of mc~ac.y.
Chairsnan Norton stated that 1) he did not like to be put in the
position of defending the developer since t',ze (dc~,,=elo~er) ~il]. not get.
.. a~ything that any other .property o~ner is'not ,~.-...!tied to receive 2) he
.(applicant) ~.~i'll leave a good deal of open spac;, and 3)' there will
not be any more hous?s than the acreage wi].l allow.
Mr. Kenneth A. Zadwick of 15013 Fruitvale k~enue inquired if there
has ever been a plan submitted and approved for this property?
Chairman Norton ans'~.~ere~ that 1) a plan (:.~argot A. 'Arenchild, SD-639)
was submitted and given approval for a subdivision on this property
and 2) the present applicant, Saratoga Foo~i':Ciis Deveioi~ment CorporatLon
submitted several plans foL- revie~ by the S~bdivis/on Committee prior
, : to submittal of the plan currently under discussion.
/
~r. Ruschin inquired if 1) he or his neig~bors had extra property
could they also apply for "P-C" zoning for their property an~ 2)
there ~,ere some way that the proposed fenced' area along FruiLvale
cou].d be [~ndscaped?
Chairman Norton explaine~ that if five or more acres are available
"P-C" zoning may be requested.
Co~kissioner Sn~ith advised that under the "P-C" ordinancd' the sub-
, .. divider must enter into an agreement with the City to landscape anJ
maintain the area (including the fenced ar~a) until 51% of the houses
are sold and then the residents must maintain it or be taxed to
accomplish same.
Dr. Ruschin stated that he ~as originally opposed to the subject
· application but after discussing the m~.tter he feels the proposed
plan has considerable merit and he is in favor of it.
~Jr. Chris~.iansen inquire~ what other developments these developers
have accomplished. :
}k'. ].,Ohr c>:l-,].ainc'd that 1) the Supratoga Foothills Dc, vc].opment
Coroporat:ion has cou~p].eted dcvc].opr~cnts in Saratoga, Santa Clara, and
Cupertino 2) it has not been the intent to increase the density of. the
su~>ject prol>erty 3) the ~uajor concern has been.to retain sense open space
4) the propc, rty lends itself '~o the type of dcvclop~m~ent proposed 5) a
c. om~unity stable and co:n::~unity club with s~.:imming pool is planned 6) the
homes ~.2i].1 range from 575,000. to $100,000. in price and will all be
custor,~-built ho~nes af~d 7) the proposed plan would be consistent ~ith
the General Plan for open space ancl the best plan to utilize this.
particular site.
~;r. ~oseph Krajeska ~,'as'prc. jent and stated th'at there are many opc, n
space areas in s6uth'ern California that becavae very clesirable after
ever thing else ~.~as built up.
Oomv:~issioner Metcalf stated that. 'it is his intention to be absent for the
next ~nont:h and he ~i].l submit a letter stating his vie~s on the subject
application.
Chairman ].~orton closed the hearing for the evening at 9:20 P.M.., continued
~-130 to the next regular t~eeting and referred same to the Subclivision
Committee for Study.
E. ~--131 - Erncjst T. B~rco, 3r., ~l].enclale Avenue -. Request 'for Change of
%onj. ng fro:n "R--i-./:0,000" (Sing].e-,Fan~ily Residential) to "R-M-.3.000"
"P C" .~._j~:i~Z~J~:ljL t~c, sic!ential Planned Cor.::nunitl)
Chainnnn Norton opened the hearing at 9:22 P.M. The S~cret~ry stated the
]~otices of llearing ~.:z~s n~ailed and publishc, d ancl bric, f:i~ reviewed the appli-.
cation. }Ie ft~rt:hc, r stat'.ed that the app.licant clid suL~'~it a St'atement of .
Rc, a s on,
Mr. Barco~ applicanL; was present and stated that ]). in !940 he and his
father purchased the subject property 2) this property will ;,rovide housing
for the Senior Citizens of Saratoga and 3) he has studied Scnior Citizen
housing for the last three years and believes he caE'~ now build one of the
finest of its kind.
.
Chairman Norton Stated that.. five acres were necessary in order to apply
for "P-C" zoning and he wondered how it is possible for th~ applicant
to apply with only 4.10 acres..
The Secretary explained that the applicant will be required to apply
for a Variance from the five-a.cres requirement.
Commissioner Lively suggested :that C-131 be considered on its own merits
at this time.
Commissioner Crisp stated that the Zoning Ordinance permits the Planning .
Commission to give an automatic Variance if the-Change of Zoning'is granted.
'Conm~issioner Kraus recoma~ended that the applicant be advised to request
a Variance prior to any Change of Zoning consi.~erat~on.. ..
.~r. Barco stated that 1) he 0rig~nally intended to apply for a Variance at
the same time he submitted the Change of Zoning application and he .coul~'.submi;
the Variance application within forty-eight hours 2) he is 'su~'e the Planning
Commission is aware of the Senior Citizen housing problem in Saratoga and
. the need for same 3) it is approaching the' point where it will become
economically unfeasible to develop such a project 4) the subject property
~s* bounded on one side by a creek and on another by the Church of bqtter ~ay
~aints and on approximately One and a half sides by the West Valley College
'
.. ,C ....................= ................. : .......................... ' ............................................... : J.-' .........: ..........................................
........................................................ ':'
5) 'tt'xe t,p'per part of the land'has beat;tifUl vie~.j of the entire: Co~,nty
6) accc. ss can be acc. o:m~[~l. ished'by two rfgl~ts-of-~.:ay' int-o the proper~y
7) the proposed development will not have shy affect on traffic because
s].]. -the occupants will be re~il-ed or semi-retire. d; therefore~ there will
not be a s~dden increase in t.r~ffic 8) this will be a n~uch needed develop-
merit and tLhe rural atmosphere will be preserved 9) most of the land s~,itable
for this type of projec~ is no longer available and 10) he will contintxe
control over the developmenn after iLs completion.
Commissioner Kraus seated' that'.. there are apa.r~ments avail. able in Saratoga
and there are more k, nder constn, ction.
Mr. Barco stated tha~ these k~n.its are noL designed to accomodate Senior
Citizens, for instance, they have' flights of stairs to climb which is no~ good
for a group of Senior Citizens~ on the other hand the units he. proposes will
be one-story or split-~level.
'Commissioner Lively inquired about the ownership of. the perimeter road in
the area of this property.
Mr. Barco explained that it belonged to the West Valley Junior College but
he has made arrangements with .them to use the road in case of 'emergeucy.
Commissioner Metcalf inquirecl if the aoree~nent with the college for the
~se of the road would continue if the apartment'- complex were realized?
y~ ::.- ..
Mr. Barco informed that the proposed development would not alter the agree-
merit relative to the use of the subject road.
Dr. J~,].ian P. tlenry of 18998 A]. ]. enda l e Avenue stated th.qt 1) he owned the
property to the East of the app].icant's 2) this.'~ype of project is not
. suitable in an area of "R-I" and 3) he is opposed to any development of
this type in his neighborhood.
Mr. Donald Feak of 18945 Allendale Avenue was present and stated that
-' 1) the proposed project would represent a fantastic change from the
original plan for this.area 2) he is wondering what age would an adult
: community be catering to? :
Mr. Barco stated that the Senior Citizen'Community would cater to people
" sixty-two years of age and over and according to statistics the occupants
will be mostly women. ..
Mr. Bill Casteel of 13710 tlarleigh Drive stated that he has five children
and if this application is approved he feels compelled to move elsewhere.
Mr. Spillane of 18944 Allendale Aven~e stated the"noise f'rom the college
wo~ld be. very offensive to Senior Citizens and he wished to voice his
objections to the proposed application.
Mr. Walter Muir was present and stated he owned property to the South of
...the applicant's and he wished to register his opposition to the subject reque:
Chairman Norton closed the hearing for the evening at 9:47 P.M., directed
C-131 continued to the next regt~lar meeting and referred same to the Sub-
division Committee for study and if they see any possible mef{t in it they
should refer the matter to the General Plan Co~aittee for further study.
II. F. Ui'-I. SA - Raina B. Clarke., Canyon View Drive [',cqucst for Use l'crmit
to Allow Lod_i;ing House. - Continued from 13 A}2ri]. 1970
Chairman Norton re--opened the ~caring at 9:50 P.M. The Secretary read
a cominunicatio:~ sk{b:nitted by W. R. Sx. Tain in opposition to the proposed
app].'.ica t ion. ',
The applicant x.:as not present.
Mr. Norman Cocksha~.: of 20995 Canyon View. Drive stated tha~ 1) he is
opposed to the subject request since the homes in the area are nice
residences 2) a t~se of this t)',pe sliould not.-be allo~...'ed in an "R-I" zone
3) if the request i.s approved it x.:i].l encourage others to r.~ake similar
requests 4) there are other places in the City where the proposed use
could be more ideally located 5) Canyon View Drive is not capable of
bearing the traffic this L~se x.:oC~].d generate and 6) it is the request of
the neighbors that this Use Permit be denied.
Mr. Louie Giusti of 20905 Sk~].livan Way stated that 1) he was opposed
.. "' to the location' of the subject.k~se in a residential area 2) Canyon View
Drive is not- very wid~ and the tx.;o school buses that ~se it d~'ily have
a diffi. ck~lt time and 3) any additional traffic would further hamper
traffic.
The Secr~:tary read the Staff Report dated 27 April 1970 r.eco:nmending that
the s~bject req~!est be denied.' "
Chairman Norton re. com~i,.ended that Reason 1. .line P.. · .of the subject
Staff Re[}ort. .be amencled by] changjng the word "r.... '.'-.~xces" to "residence"
and adding the x.:ord "areas" to the end of the sent~'.':,ce.
Co~r~"aissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Live].y, to close the
hearing at 9:56 P.Mj; motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner S.~nit-h moved, seconded by Con~.~issioner Crisp, that the Staff·
Report dated 27 April ].970 be adopted, as amended, at-;d the subject request
for Use Permit to all. o,..: a lodging house be denied ore the basis the findings
required under Section 16.6 of Ordinance NS-3 ca.nnot be made for the reasons
stated in said report; .motion carried unanimously.
Corm2~issioner Smith recommended that, in view of the action taken relative
'to this request, the Secretary be instructed to proceed with removal of
"Boarding [louse" from the list of Conditional Uses in the "R-I" Zoning
District. :
Chairman Norton instructed the' Secretary to consult with the City Attorney
to determine what action is necessary to accomplish deletion of"Boarding
llouse" from the list of Col~dit'ional Uses in the "R-I" Zoning as recommended
by Com_;nissioner Smith.
G.. UP-185 - Katherine Cain, Austin Way Request for Use Permit to Allow a
Montessori Pre-School
Chairman Norton opened the hearing at 9:59 P.M. The Secretary stated the
'-Notices of Hearing were mailed and then briefly revie;.;ed the subject appli-
cation. He further stated that the applicant did submit a Statement of
..... Reason.
The applicant was present and read a portion of the Statement of Reason
explaining the subject request. She then state.J that· 1) she has a
Montessori School now, but she must relocate since the property iS for
sale and 2) she will serve a different group of people than the Catholic
~Iontessori School already operating in the City since there are different
age groups involved. .-
.:
7. J-.o. v~' - i. 8 5 - _c__o._~.!._~:_,_~L,?._~x_
~l'i~e app].~.canL, in aL~s:,ier to a~ .i. nc~u~y/ITont Con~t~j.s~Lot~e~ I,~ve]y, sta~ed
that ].) the p~;opc}sed p].ay ya~;d ~.s u~fenced at p~-ese~L bu~ ~z~.11 be fenced
peDd~tl~ appl-oval o~ the Use Pe~'u~Lt and 2) tt~e State ,~ency a~d tt~e
Dei~artu~ent ~eel th~.s j.s a t}~-o[~e~' ].ocaL~o~ ~o~ thLs use.
~Xt-..John ~.XLn~,~e~ o~ 19099 t~ust~.n ~,lay stated that t~e ~s opposed to
request becausc'. o~ ~.t~e h~Dh t'a~es they a~e reSuLted to pay ~n thLs ne~.~hbo~'-
hood he ~.zould p~e~e~: ti~e.a~-ea re~aLn st:~ctly res~den~-al.
~X~. Dan ](~ag o~ ].57C)5 l~az~caste~* stated t-haL 1) he ~.las not in ~avot- o~
th~s recluesE and he felt. a]_l the ne~ghbot's felt the sa;~e vzay 2) the~e
very ~e~,z s~a].]. chL].cl'~-en ~n th~s a~ea so the ~Y~Lld~'en ~.z~11 have ~o be
brought j. nto the a~-ea; thereby', c~eat~.ng un~.~anted tra~j.c.
Cha~r~nan No~to~ explaLned thaL tt~e o~.lne~ o~ th~.s prope~ty has the right
to rent thj. s bu~].cl~ng fo~ so~,~e type o~ use oE~et' ~ha~ ~'R-~tY s~nce ~
has been used co~t~e~:cj. al].)' s~ce be~o~-e t~e CLty x-:as ~nco~'po~ated.
Gha~.r{~an ~o~o~ ~eQuested the Sec~et~aTy to consu]_t ~:~th the C~.ty Attorney
to dete~L~ne ~.~hat ~he st. aLus oE the subject bu~.]d~ng ~s as fa~: as non-co~fo~-
i.n~ use j.s contea-ned..
At 10:1]. Charlatan Norton c].osed che hea~*~z~ ~o~ the even~ng~ d~.rected '
Ut~-]85 conL~nued to the nex~ regula~ n~eetLn~ and re~et-~ed sa~ae ~o the
Subclj. vj.s~ot~ Com~.LEee ~o~' study.
U~}-].86 -]~a~.~-ence E.' F0rdyce, Sa~;ato~a ~venue tte~uest ~ot-.Use PermLt to
A].].o~.y Conva].esce~t'
The hea~_ng relative ~o U~'-186' ~.~as ope~ed at 10:12 ~;.'.~. !'he Secretary
stated the No~.ces o~ ~lea~:~.ng ~ze~e ma~led and the~ b;'.L.:~:Ly rev~e~.2ed ~he
subject a~i~l~caE~on-
:~'he aL~plj. cant x,zas p~eset~t and st:ated that 1) he had ~oE beeu a~.za~e
that the ]?~atl~.n~ Co~l~.ss~.otl ~lou].d consider Lh~.s at th~s t~me; therefore,
the a~Ch'~cec~. ~s not p~'esen~ 2) the s~.Le 'p~posed ~o~ the convalesceDE
hosp~.ta]- ~.s app~ox~r~aEely ~ou~ ac~es ~ sloe and very suitable ~o~ ~he
~e~uested use and 3) ~ng~e~s 'and egress ~,zou].d not be a~[ec'Eed by the
ix~te~sect~.on at Saratoga and F~u~tval. e ~ve~ues s~ce the' t~a~ELc ~.zould
be m~n~u~al. :
Cha~.r{t~an No~Lon stated that co~s~de~able t~a~c u~ay be generated by
supply t~uc~s, etc. go~.ng ~u and out o~ the a~ea.
I
Cou~m~ss~oDe~ G~.sp ~n~u~red vzh,~ the a~l~ca~t 'planned to sta~
developn~a~t:
~r. Ralph B~o~.z~, spea~ug ~o~ the applicant, seated that the
.. just recently re-sub~Eted a revised plan to the SEa'Ee ~o~ a~p~oval add
~,hen that ~s returned they hope to proceed ~.th the subject development
as soon as possible. ..
Comm[ss~ot~e~ C~sp advised that the C~ty has one convalescent
· and another. appl~cat~on ~o~ sa~e ~hat has been app~oved ~or coast~ucE~on-
~. Bro~.zn stated that they are a~,:a~e o~ these othe~ ~ac~l~t~es, but have
]earned that they ao not of~e~ a se~v~.ce as complete as the one that
be o~ered by the appl~ca.nE.:
Christian No~co~ ~nCouEled the a~pl~cant that the proposed s~te ~s design;ted
under the General Pla~ ~o~ a .par~ s~te.
~. Sau~ }]a~nandez stated that, he ~elt, th~s type o~ fac. Lt~ty belonged
anothe~ a~ea such as ~l[gh~ay 85. ' .. ..
Chairman No~to~ closed the hea~n~ ~or t~e evening at 10:21 P.~., d~ec~ed
UP-186 cont~t~ued to t. he next r~ula~ 'u~eeting and .re~e~ed sama to the Sub-
d~v~s~on Com~t~ttee fo~ study and ~ they see an}, merit in the ~ro~osal they
~re requested to refe~ the n~atte~ to the General Plan Co~u~.ttee ~or .study.
" -10-
-.
~-.
~-:,.
:_..; .- ....... '. ~ ...' ......................................
: .......: ............................................. __..
II- 'l'.. V_3A./~ - Thorhas W. Fuelling, Bohlmdn Road Request for Variance to A]].ow Ovc, rhead Utilities $ Cot~t. inued from 13 A[]ril 1970
Con,dnissioner Kraus requested that' this matter be continued until after
~ ..
the recess.
Chain'man Norton so directed. '
J. V-346 - Frances O. Luksetich, Verde Vista Lane - Request for Variance to
Allow Reduction in Site Area Continued from 13 April 1970
The hearing relative to V-3~6 was.rc~opene~ at 10:23 P.M. The Secretary
stated nothing new had been added to the file.
The applicant was not present.
No one in the audience wished to'comment relative to this matter.
The Secretary read the Staff Report date-d 27 April 1970 recommending
that the subject Variance be denied.
Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, to close the
hearing relative to V-3~+6 at 10:26 P.M.; motion carried unanimo[~sly.
Commissioner Kraus moved seconded by Commissioner Lively, that the
Staff Report~a-ted 27 Ap~'ii 1970 be'adopted and the subject request for
Variance be denied ~n the bas~.s the necessary f ndinos required under
%_ ' ' ~ % NS-3 cannot be
" Section ]7. f~ City of Saratoga Zoning Ord~nanc
made for the reasons stated in said report; motion carrYed unanimously-
RECESS AND RECONVENE ,
I. V-344 - Thomas W. Fuelling, Bohlman Roa'd - Request for !.'-::.'iance to Allow
...... Overhead Utilities Continued from 13 April
The hearing was re-opened at 10':49 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new
had been added t.o the file.
The applicant was present and stated he had no further commen~s. ..
Chairman Norton stated that he understood the Variance Committee had
an oral report relative to this matter.
Cox~issioner Kraus stated that after consultation with the applicant'and
a representative from PG&E the .Variance Co~ittee would recommed that the
subject Variance be denied since it is felt that there are other means of
providing power to the property and the Variance Con~ittee will prepare
a written report stating the aforementioned recommendation- ...
Chairman Norton closed the ~earing for the evening at 10:52 P.M., .'r.eferred
V-344 to the Variance Committee and directed same c'ontinued to the next
. regular meeting.
K. INFOD[AL HEARING Request to Add Launderette to the List 0f Conditional
or permitted Uses in the "C-V" (Visitor-Commercial)
.. %onin.[Dist:rict Continued from 13 April 1970
Chairman Norton opened the mat.ter for discussion The Secret.~r'' stated
nothing new had been added to .the file.
There was no one present to represent the applicant.
No one in the audience wished 'to comment.
Commissioner Smith read the SUbdivision Co~n~ittee Report· dated 27 April
]970 recommending that the subject request be denied. ' ·
There being no further con~ents .Chairman Norton directed the discussion
relative to this matter be terminated.
]' 1. K. ],AUNI.)ERE'I:TE Con t: j. nued
Conlntissj. oncr Smith moved, seconded by Con~missioncr Crisp, that the
Subdivision Committee Report dated 27 April. 1970 be ado[}ted and the
subject request [-o add Launderctte to the list of Conditional or
Perm.i-t'Ce'd Uses in the "C-V" '(Visitor-Commercial~ Zoning District- .
be 'denied for the reasons stated in said report; motion carried unanimousi-y.
L. INFORMAL HEARING Request to Add Swimming Pool Suplilies and Repair to the
List of Pern{itt'ed or Conditional Uses in the "C-C"
" Zon in[.p i s t r j.'c t
..... Chai.rman Norton opened the matter for discussion. The Secretary stated
a ).lot-ice of Inforinal Hearing ~7as pub].ished and then read a letter subznitted
)[r. }]enry Clart2e:.:plaining the reason for the subject request. The Secretary
then stated that l,jr. Clarke understands that this request ~,¢il]. be continued
and referred to ConLntittee.
Chairman Norton state<l that Saratoga being a community that has a good
many pools it ~7ould seer.~ appropriate that a pool supply and repa~.r shop
be located in the City.
After discussion, Chairman Norton closed the cliscussion for the evening,
directed the s~tbjc. ct request continued to the next regular meeting and
referred same to the SubdivisiOn Co~nntittee for stud)'.
III. BUILDING SITES At'H] SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-843 - Charles Harden, Sobey Roa<! - Building Site Atjproval - 1 Lot
- Continued fron 13'April 1970__
Commissioner Smith stated that the natter of the turn-around ztrea relative
to this building site has been resolved .and the appiicsn~ h~t~: subntitted a
Tevisod ma.p sho~.ying same.
The Secretary stated that the app].icant has reviewzeal the proposed conditions
of approval and e>fpressed Satisfaction of same.
Commissioner Stnith moved, seconded by Cou',aissionor Metcalf, that the
A ril 1970 relative to SDR-843
Building Site Cor;'~n~it:tee Report of 27 p
be. adopted and that the tentative map. (Exhibit "A-I", filed 27 April
1970) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said repo~t;
motion carried unanin~ous ly.
'B. SI)R-846 - William J. Bennett, Vaquero Court - Building Site ApprOval -
1 Lot
Cormnissioner Smith stated tlmt a report has been prepared relative 'to
this building site and th~ date of said report should be changed'to
read 27 April-1970.
The applicant ~,as present and after reviewing the proposecl conclitions of
approval stated the Building Site Connnittee Report expressed satisfaction
of ,same.
"Commissioner Sml. th moved, scconcled by Comznissioner C~isp, that the Building
'Site C0maittee Report of 27 April 1970 relative to SDR-846 be adopted, as
and that the tentative map (E:<hibit "A", filed 17 April 1970)
' ' amended,
be approved subject to the conditions set forth in sai. d report; motion
carried unanimously.
. ~'_!_f:!!.:_!~_.,,,;,._5~..,C~..'_'.!._!:.'-..:_:;_._~_,'-.~._. :~.....~:.. ..........: .......:.. -.:..- _~__:~..~ _:...: .......~....:.:..:_: ..:..
III. c. si)}{-8!~7 - Ken Ha~:ts~ Far~:ell ~\,e~ue - t;uil. dh~.f.~ Site Apj.~rovctl - 1 l.ot
~'he apl'}].icaxlt was present and' after x'cview~.u~ the t,roposed coi-iditic,!!z of
atopreveal c, xplTcssc. d satisfacti'oll of
toxnn~issio~'~c'r S;'aith rc, cc,~acndc.d theft the Building Sit:e Cor.~ittce Report.
........ "" dejte relative to this n~at t:er be ch~.xiged to read 27 April. 1970.
Conimissioncr ~Ictc~.lf reco:~ncnded that s~'ae r~Iontion relative to trees
be n~adc 5-~1 the subject repo~'t.
Chairwoman Norton directed that Con~litg. on II-1. be ~tdded to the subject
Bui].ding Sg. te Com~it:tee .Report as fo].lows:
"L. A'll trees shown o~ the tentative x~ap shall be rc'ta~-nod.~'
Con~.ssioner Sr~ith x~ovod, seconded by Coz~issionor Hercalf, that the
Buildg.~lg Site Co~.rnittee Rcpo~'t of 27/:pril 1.970 relative to SDI~-~67
be adopted, as o.x~iended, and ~:het the tent~tive ~zp (Exhibit "A" filed
17 ~.pril 1970) be approve, d subject to the conditions set forth in seid
report; n~otion carried u~!e.i'tit~iously.
D. SDR--St~8 - Donald Con~cr, Arro)'o de ArZucllo - Building Site/~pproval -
2 Lots;
~he applicant x.~as present ~nd stated th~.t he coppcrat. ed' ~-:ith the adjo~.~j. ng
prop?rty oi.:iler o. nd subdividc~ (Colu~lbus Fou~dcrs Servings and Loan) b}f
permitsring hg.~,~ v. right-of-~-:o.y th~-oug;h the subject: i~.'o!~crty. '}It. Cor:~or
further stated thett the co~ldj. t$.ons in the Buildit~Z'. Site. Ccn~mittec P. eport
require that he d~.dicate e. xid i~'nprove the subject !'ight-of-~qay in gddg. tioii
to the requirei~ents that wotl~.d no~:rr:ally be n~,cess~:¥y for his property.
· The Secrete. ry explag. nc, d that ].) a].l applicants p~:v,?ozing a building
s$.t:e ~.~ the Cg. ty v. rc roqu$.red to in!prove the rc.o.d c,~! ~,:hich their property
fronts grid 2) in this case .(SI)l~-Se~8) the app].icatlt should nogogiate with
Colur,!bus Fenriders Sovqnc, s ~.n~l Lo~.~l to sh~re the roo. d ita~i'ovcrllents since the
improvcq'~ents ~ill bc to theii' bcxlcfj. t ~.s well as that of the applic~nt's.
Comn~issio~ler Sraith rocomp~cndcd that the app!icar~t wo. it for Colur~bus
Founders Savings ~.~d 'Loan to bcgi~ construction ~.nd then the applicant
could ncgogiate with thc-m to share the cost of the required ir,~provc:~ents.
~Ir. Con~cr sty. ted that he had been worki~g with 't.lr. Bob Faulk the representa-
tive for Co!oxzibus Founders Savings e. nd Loan. ~lr. Co~.er further stated
that he would be agreeable to pay for street $mproven~ents for one access
to the two lots, but not for t~.7o septrate accesses and he will endeavor
to cooperate with Colur, ibtts Founders Savings and Loo. n to finnish k~rroyo de
"~rgue]_.lp with ~rr~.ngemen~s for Columbus Founders .~0 finish the..~ergoncy ~.cce
to Pierce Road.
.
..
~'he Secretary, in answer to an inquiry froxn Co~missioner Smith, stated
that Colu~abus Founders Savings and Loail has boon bonded to provide the
~lfni~':Iu:~l access rozd :from the develop~.~cnt to Pierce Road.
~. Bob Fzulk ste. ted that C61u~x~us Founders Savings and Loan d.id subn~it
'~'final plans to the City for fulfillment of the second access road require-
" mont. He then suggested, perhapS. ~n assess~ent district could be for~p. ed
including all the property owners that will be using this road in order to
,
bring the said road up to C~ty Street Stand~.rds. }It. Faulk further stated
that, .pe. rh~-ps, the root of. the probleln for $n:provcn~ent of the subject road
" could be solved by requiring an extensive bridge. which is difficult to
justify for one property o~ler, but could be feasible if a cooperative
~rrangcn~ent could be worked out with adjoining property 'ox.mers.
III, D. SI)R--SI~8 - Continued
Chairman Norton stated that the applicant can accept the conditions'
~f approval as stated in the Building Site Cormnittee Report and request
reconsideration at a later date and then meet .with the Subdivision
Co~nittec to further discuss the requirements in question or the.
'entire matter can be postpo~ecl to the next regular meeting.
: .
The applicant stated he wou~d agree to accept the'proposed conditions
of approval at this time and request reconsideration at a later date.
Comn~issioner Smith moved, seconded by Co:~missioner Crisp, that the
Building Site Committee (~.J~{ch should be amended to be dated 27 April
1970) relative to SDR-848 be' adopted, as amended, an~ that the tentative
map (E>:hibit "A", filed 17 April 1970) be approved subject to the condi-
tions set forth in said report; motion carried unanin~ously.
E. SDR-8?~9 - Thomas L. Dashiell, Bohlman Road - Building Site Approval -
B Lot s
Co~mnissioner Smith stated that SDR-849 is a nex-~ application and he
recommends that it be continued since the matter will require a
good ~eal of sEudy.
Chairman Norton so directed;
IV, DESIGN REVIEW
~one
V. CI].~' COUNCIL REPORT
Chairman Norton stated that a copy of the minutes of the, City Council
meeting of 15 April 1970 were in each Cor~issiOners folder for their
r~vie~.z and inforn:ation.
VI. OLD BUSINESS "
SDR-832 - ~vid L. Mendc. nhall, M~. Eden Road - tlequest ~O~ P. econsideration
of Underg~'jund Utilit~I Reouirement - COntinued from 13 A~ril 1970
The Secretary recoupmended that SDR-832 ~hould be continued off the agenda
since the applicant is still x.~orking with PC~E and will be for sometime.
~ Chairman ~iorton so directed.
VII, 'NEW BUSINESS
IlILLSIDE DEVELOPbfEN~ COI.~.~ITTEE
Chairman Norton stated that C~nnissioner Metcalf has agreed to fill' the
vacancy left on the Hillside Development Committee ~'hen Russel R. Bacon
resigned from the Planning Connnission.
VIII. CO~.P.[UNIC~TtONS
.
... ~, ~IITTEN
~one
-14-
VIII · B. OI,'JxL
Chairman Norton acknowledged, with pleasure, tile presence of
Councilmen D~:ycr, Sanders, and Smith, Hrs. Parkcr and Mr. b?.ngwill ..
of the Good Govcrn::~en~ Group, and ].~s. Ottcnberg of the lz~ague'of
WOmen Voters. He, also, thanked Mrs. Parker for the coffCe ser{?cd
- at recess.
IX. ADJOURI'DfE~T
Chairman Norton adjourned the m~eting at 11:3~ P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~anley M. Wa~ker, Secretary
Saratoga Planning Co~i~ission