Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-1970 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~ISSION MINUTE~ TIME: Monday, 24 August 1970, 7:30 P.Mo PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Chairman Norton. A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Crisp,. Kraus, Lively, .Martin, Metcalf, Norton, and Smith. · Absent: None. B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the reading of the minutes of the 10 August 1970 .meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following changes: page 1. . .under I. B.o.paragraph 2. . .line 2. . .correct the spelling of the word "waived"; under II. A...pazagraph 6. .line 4. . .delete "used for parking" and instead insert "changed to "C-V""; under II. A...to para- graph 7. . .add the following: "The Secretary advised that the Council is giving a traffic survey active consideration."; page 2. .under II. A...paragraph 5. . .to the last line add ",bUt that as much as fifty percent of the Billawala property might be involved."; under II. A...paragraph 9. . .to line 5. . .add ";although the figures are marginal."; under II. A...paragraph 11. . .line 3. . .delete "building'more" and instead insert "widening"; under II. A...paragraph 10. . .line 1. . .correct the spelling of the word "figures"; page '3. . .under II. A...change paragraph 4 to read as follows: "Chairman Norton stated that the State ~w has required that there be some definite language in the General Plan. Commissioner Lively suggested the following amendment:"' under II A. paragraph 11 line 2. .correct the spelling of the word "Allendale" page 5. .under II. A...paragraph 11. . .delete the last sentence and instead insert "He further stated that he disagreed with the proposed change in the parks section. "; page 6. . .under II. A...change paragraph 3. . .to read as follows: "Chairman Norton stated that 1) what low-cost housing for senior citizens really amounts to is the City setting up a project with Federal assistance and he did not feel the citizens of Saratoga would give a project of that type a majority vote and 2) maybe recognition should be given to the fact that Saratoga is not an in- expensive place in which to live." page 7. . .under II. B...paragraph 4. . .line 1. . .delete "was present" and instead insert "did not"; II. C...paragraph 3. .line 3. .change the word "Quick" to "Q ~i "'; t t page 8. .under II. D...last paragr~aph. .line 1. .change the word "girl" ...t~ .".woman"...a~ delete "would be" and instead insert "employ"; " page .9. . .under II. D...paragraph 3. .line 2. . .delete "employee" and instead insert "employ" and in paragraph 11. .line 2. . .correct the spelling of the word "building"; page 11. . .under III. B...paragraph 3. .line 1. . .insert the word "amended" after the word "the"; -1- ~.- Planning Commission Minutes - 24 August 1970 - Continued I. B o Minutes - Contint~ed page 12. . .under Planning Policy Committee. . .line 2. .add "in favor of a Joint Planning Agency." pages 12 and 13. .delete paragraphs 1. . .under VIII. B...and instead insert the following: "Conm~issioner Metcalf stated that 1) there needs to be collaboration by General Plan Committee and Design Review Committee with the Subdivision Committee, before such a project comes before the Planning Commission as a whole 2) the end result should be a subdivision map, a building site approval, design review elevations of all structures, and at least a preliminary landscaping plan 3) when a developer thinks "Planned Con~munity", his first step should be to have a qualified architect and a qualified landscape architect examine the actual and adjacent terrain, sketching out access, building elevations and locations, and landscaping..- then and only then should a c, ivil engineer be brought in on building sites. and 4) we will be ahead in the long run if we spend a little more for further development of Beck's land-use plans for the 450-500 acres between Fruitvale and Sobey Road."; and page 13. . .under VIII. B...line 3. . .change "consideration" to "considering"; paragraph 6. . .line 3. . .correct' the spelling of the word "flexible"; paragraph ].2. . .line 6. .add the following: "suggest changes in the "P-C" Ordinance"; motion carried with Co~n~issioner Martin abstaining. IIo PUBLIC HEARINGS A. GENEPJ~L PLAN REVIEW FOR 1970 - ContinUed from 10 August 1970 Chairman Norton re-opened the hearingat 7:48 P.M. Commissioner Lively, in answer to an inquiry raised by Commissioner Kraus at the last meeting, stated that 1) there are a total of 72]. apartment units developed or scheduled for development in the City 2) there is a question of how many apartments should be considered for Saratoga if we are to stay within the population limit set for the City 3) it is true that there is property de.signated for a possible 490 units 4) the apart- ment develop:nent (Saratoga Foothills) next to the Village is unden~:ay with 24 units 5) the Stoneson property is under construction and is under one ownership comprising approximately 120 units at this time 6) Cal-West is currently developing 112 units on ten' acres of the total seventeen acres formerly known as the Abrams property. and 7) that only leaves the remain- ing seven acres of the Abrams property with no immediate plans for develop- ment. He further stated that there is a doubt in the minds of the General Plan Committee if the demand for apartments really exists in Saratoga. He then advised that a new paragraph has been added to the General Plan Committee Report under II.i~B..2.as follows: "In response to the Council's request to the Planning Commission and our discnss'ion with interested citizens, the Com~nittee recognizes the need for housing for Senior Citizens. Because of the complexity of the problem, the philosophy of the City with respect to total population and the, as yet, undemonstrated demand for apartments, the Committee intends .to continue its study of the matter for inclusion in the Genc~ral Plan revision of 19711" Commissioner Lively went on to say that the need for Senior Citizen Housing had been considered and discussed by the General Plan Committee with only one possible-source and the location proposed appears inadequate and it is felt,. by the Committee, that other so~mrces should be consulted and considered; therefore, it is recommended that the' study relative to Senior Citizen Housing be continued throughout the coming year in order to obtain a conclusive decision. -2- .P.lanni__ng Commission Minutes - 24 AuBust '1970 - Continued II. Ao General Plan Review for 1970 - ~ontinued Comznissioner Lively then stated' that no changes are recommended for Sec- tions II. , III., IV., V. ,VI.,and VIi.; however, Section VIILhas been added to'the report as follows:. "VIII o GENERAL The Committee ~ecommend~ that the Saratoga General Plan be observed both in fact and in spirit. Neither zoning changes nor uses' should be permitted which are not in keeping~with the general character of the neighborhoods for which' they are proposed." Commissioner Lively went on to say that the General Plan Committee realizes that the additions made to the report may not be direct answers to specific requests but under the circumstances that is the only opportunity that the General Plan Committee will have to continue the study and make an appropriate designation next year. Mr. Ernest T. Barco, Jr. (applicant proposing Senior Citizen Development under C-131) stated .that since the agenda was lengthy he would be brief. He then read a letter (written by Mr. Barco) containing 1) the recom:nendations of the Committee that studied Senior Citizen Housing in 1966 2) the conm~ents of Mr. Barco rela- tive to the said recommendations and 3) a request that no postpone- ments be considered at this time and urging the Planning Co~r~nission to take some positive action at this time. Chairman Norton then read SectiOn IV. of the General Plan Committee Report and recom:nended that in line 6. ."affirmatively meet" be changed to "meet affirmatively". He, also, read Section VIII. and invited anyone wishing to comn~ent relative to this matter to do so. Mr. Noorudin Billawala stated that at the last mee_ting he requested a delay in order for his attorney to attend the meeting to discuss their request to allow medical offices along with the proposed convalescent hospital on the Billawala property on Souza lane. ~hairman Norton explained that the report, at this p~int, does not approve the subject request. Mr. Billawala stated that 1) he met with the General Plan Comn~.ittee and informe~ them that a Use Permit for the convalescent hospital had been filed an~ the request to add medical offices had been dropped _ 2) he. was, also, told that just because the General Plan does not in- dicate medical offices along with convalescent hospitals in this area does not necessarily mean the General Plan Committee is opposed to the idea. Chairman Norton stated that 1) he still disagreed strongly with the proposed change made in Section VI. relative to parks and his opinion is supported by the City Council request that the park plan notbe altered from the plan adopted in 1969. Chairman Norton then moved that on pages 3 and 4. . .everything in VI.A...bedeleted and on page 4. . .Vi.B...be changed to read as follows: "We recommend no change to the General Plan until the next major General Plan Review." The aforementioned motion did not carry due to lack of a second. Chairman Norton continued that the City Council request is entitled' to more consideration than it has received, but apparently the Commission cannot be persuaded. -3- planniL% Con~ission Minutes - 24 August 1970 - Continued IIo Ao General Plan Review for 1970 - Continued Commissioner Martin inquired if the recommendation to further study Senior Citizen Housing means that just because no decision is made at this time a change of zoning for same cannot be brought up again prior to the 1971 General Plan Rev. iew? Chairman Norton explained that 1) the Planning Commission is reluctant to consider a change of zoning that is not part of the General Plan 2) ordinarily a proposed change of zoning inconsistent with the General Plan would be postponed until the next General Plan Review and 3) by. and large the General Plan is reviewed only once ',each year. Commissioner Martin stated that he is concerned about the fact that the matter of Senior Citizen Housing will be 'continued for further study for an entire year when it may not take a whole year to complete the study. Chairman Norton stated that if the City Council requested that a report relative to Senior Citizen Housing be brought in earlier it could be done. Commissioner Lively expressed the hope that 1) the 1971 General Plan Review. could be started earlier, perhaps, in April 1971 2) while doing the proposed'study different sites for Senior Citizen Housing could be reviewed 3) various people and.agencies could be contacted in order to obtain information and facts relative to the best location, facilities,- etc. most suitable for Senior Citizen Housing and 4) the General Plan Committee will have some additional time to do the intended studies and will do a thorough job. At 8:04 PoM., Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the public hearing relative to the 1970 General Plan Review be closed; ' motion carried unanimously. : Con~nissioner Lively moved, seconded by Comnissioner Smith, that the General Plan Report dated 24 August 1970 be adopted, as amended, (including the list of meetings related to the 1970 General Plan Reviews, recorded on the sheet attached to said report) and for~.Tarded to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Co~n~ission; motion carried with 'Chairman Norton voting no.'. B o ORDINANCE A~.HjNDMENTS - Amendment to Ordinance NS-3 to Eliminate Lodging Houses From the List of Conditional Uses in the "R-i" (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District and Amending Certain Provisions Relating to Off- Street Parking Facilities Chairman Norton opened the hearing at 8:14 P.M. The Secretary stated 1) the Notice of Hearing was published 2) that Section 1 of the pro- posed ordinanct. amendment would eliminate lodging houses from the list of' conditionaluses in the "R-I" Zoning Districts and 3) Section 2 of the subject amendment relates to off-street parking facilities for different commercial uses. He further stated that this would mean that a use that had existing parking that was less than the amount required by the ordinance and then the use was changed and the building remodeled the Planning Commission could require sufficient off-street parking in accord ~.Tith the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, any change from one commer- cial type of use to another co~mercial use the off-street parking would be changeel to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary, in ans~er to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, advised that without the ordinance amendment the use and appearance of a building can be changed and yet the City cannot require sufficient parking to satisfy the probable need created by the new use. -4- Plannin..~ Commission Minutes - 24 August 1970 - Continued IIo 33. Ordinance Amendment - Continued Chairman Norton stated that 1) the ordinance amendment involves two fairly minor changes to the Zoning Ordinance 2) if the Planning Commnission takes affirmative action relative to the proposed amendment it can be forwarded to the City Council and another public hearing will be held 3) in his opinion a written report recommending approval of the subject amendment should be prepared .and sent to the City Council and 4) perhaps, the Secretary .could be authorized to write said report. Commissioner Smith moved, second'ed by Commissioner Kraus, that the hearing relative to the proposed ordinance amendment be. closed at 8:22 PoMo; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Co~.mmissioner Crisp, that the ordinance amendment be approved by the Planning Commission and the Secretary be aughorized to write a report forwarding same to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning C6mmission; motion carried unanimously. C. ORDIBLa~NCE A-~EENDMENT - Amendment to Ordinance NS-3 Relating to Time Extensions Under Conditional Zoning Classification Chairman Norton opened the hearing at 8:25 PoM. The Secretary stated that the Notice of Hearing was published and then explained that the proposed ordinance amendment would allow the City Council to grant a longer extension than the Planning Commission recommended on a condi- tional re-zoning. Chairman Norton explained that anyone that goes through the proper channels of Planning Commission procedure relative to a time extension for conditional zoning and does not feel satisfied with the extension granted may, under the proposed ordinance amendment, take the matter up with the City Council. He further stated that, in effect, the proposed amendment would be limiting the power of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Metcalf questioned whether it would be wise for the Planning Commission to approve such an amendment? Chairman Norton explained that 1) the City Council is an elective body and basically the Planning Commission is an advisory board to the Council 2) the City Council should have the last word and the proposed amendment would allow them to control or change time extensions under conditional zoning classification granted by the Planning Commission. 'Co~mn~.issioner Metcalf requested an explanation of the phrase "matters of grace only" as stated in Section 1. .paragraph 3. .line 3. .of the proposed amendment. Chairman Norton e>~plainc~d that this simply means that the applicant does not have the right to demand a time extension and the City Council is not required to grant such an extension if they do' not feel it is warranted. Commissioner Lively reqt~est~d that the matter be continued to the next regular meeting to allow time for further study. No one in the audience wished to 'comment relative to this matter. Chairman Norton, at 8:30 P,M., closed tb.e hearing for the evening, directed the subject ordinance amendment continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Subdivision Con~nittee for study. -5- Fl~anni~!g Conm~ission Minutes - 24 August 1970 - Continued II. D. C-132 - Tire Service Company, .Prospect Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-!-10.000" (Single-Family Residential) to "C-N" (Neighborhood-Commercial) - Continued from 10 August 1970 Chairman Norton re-opened the.hearing at 8:31 P.M. 'The applicant was present. Chairman Norton advised that the subject property is one of the remaining parcels 0~,med by the Saratoga Avenue Baptist Church. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission did ask the Staff to analyze the parking plan proposed for the subject property and in doing that it was found that there are 1.296 square feet of retail sales area proposed which would require'seven parking spaces plus one parking space for each employee and it is assumed there will be six employees; therefore, a total of thirteen parking spaces will be needed. He further stated that 1) the applicant proposed to provide thirteen uncovered parking spaces 2) the applicant would like to count the two parking stalls inside the building as part of the required parking but this would not be in accord with the Zoning Ordinance; however, the applicant will have sufficient parking to serve the subject building as it is presently laid out and 3) similar requirements were imposed on the Grand Auto St~re; however, they had more retail sales area. The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 24 August 1970 recommending that the subject request for change of zoning for C-132 be granted. Chairman Norton stated that 1)' there is a bare-dirt strip along the back of the subject property that still belongs to the Baptist Church and is used by the Church for 'additional parking and 2) if left in its present state it could become a sight-and safety°hazard. The Secretary stated that the unimproved strip could be put to some use at some later date, but the applicant could be required to improve same under Design Review ApproVal. The Secretary, in answer to an. inquiry from Chairman Norton, stated that the applicant could be req~ired under Building Site Approval (but more appropriately under Design Review Approval) to pave the existing strip. ~. Stieber, applicant, stated that 1) the strip of property under discussion does not belong to him and he has nothing to do with develop- ment of same and 2) the City should not ask him to pave an area of the adjacent property. Chairn~n Norton explained that the City can require the applicant to improve the subject strip of property in order to improve a sight-and safety-hazard. The Secretary, in answer to an inqniry from Co,rmnissioner Lively, stated that' vehicular traffic did have access to the 60-foot strip.and a fence along the back of the applicant's property would be a good idea. Commissioner Lively stated that a fence could be required along the back of the applicant's property; thereby, creating a cut-off from the applicant's property and the st, bject 60-foot strip. -6- Planning Com:nission Minutes - 24 Au~ust 1970 -- Continued II. Do C-132 - Continued Chairman Norton inquired if the Church had indicated what they intended to do with the 60-foot strip? The Secretary stated that the only thing it could really be used for is an access road. Co~mnissioner Smith stated that this st~:ip woul~ provide a secondary means of access to the church property. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, to close the hearing relative to C-132 at 8:44 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, secohded by CommiSsioner Lively, to adopt the Staff Report dated 24 AuguSt 1970 relative to C-132 and grant the subject request for change of zoning on the basis the application is in accord with Section. 18.6 of the City. of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance NS-3, the 1969 General Plan, and is compatible with action taken on similar property within the ar~a; motion carried unanimously. E. UP-191 - Brown and Kauffmann, Brockton Lane - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Model Home Sales Office - Continued from 10 August 1970 The hearing relative to UP-191 was re-opened at' 8:46 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file· He ft~rther stated that the mode] home sales office is still operating, illegally, and the appli- cant is present to explain the" circt~mstances of this illegal ~se. Mr. Sam Kauffmann, presidenl: of Brown and Kauffmann, stated that his company did have a Use Permit for a model home sales office at another location and then they moved the ,.'nodel home sales office to a new location and through an over--sightdid not apply for another Use Permit. Chairman Norton inquired if this explained the reason Brown and Kauffmann is operating a model home sales office without a Use Permit after they were informed it was illegal. Mr. Kauffmann stated he was not sure as to ~.~hen the City notified them about the illegal use,., but the new complex was just comple~-ed in the last month. Chairman Norton stated that ].)' the applicant went right ahead and operated the model home sales office ~,;ithout a Use Permit even after a warning from the Planning Director and 2) he did not fee]. that the City was t~nreasonable in reqL~irin. g a Use Permit for said use. Comn~issioner Martin stated that l) he had some comments with respect to Brown and Kauffmann 2) on 23 June 1969 L~nder their previot~s Use Permit (UP-165) there is an agi'eement with some conditions which the applicant has not co;nplied with in spit:e of the fact that these condi- tions have been called to their attention an'd 3) he would like to ask Mr. Kat~ffmann if he intends to.abide by the subject conditions. Mr. Kauffmann stated that he would like to know at what poini the subject conditions were! called to his attention. Chairman Norton stated that, perhaps, such matte~swere too small to be brought to the attention of Mr. Kauffmann. Mr. Kauffmann stated that this matter is important to him and that is why he is present at this meeting. -7- P].annir2.g Commission Minutes - 24 Au.aust ].970 Continued II. E. UP-191 Continued The Secretary stated 1) it was a condition of a previous Use Permit that Brown and Kauffmann make arrangements with ttne Prides Crossing Homeowner' s Association to provide for mainte. nance of landscaping and the £ence for the sign. at the entrance to Prides Crossing South 2) he understands there has been a lot of misunderstanding on both sides and 3) some conditions have been met and the information relative to same is x, ith a former member of' the Homeowner's Association that has since lost contact x.;ith the pe. ople involved. Chairman Norton stated that he was aware the Quit Claim Deed for the entrance way had been handl~.d, but the water hookr. pp and additional ligbt had not been taken care of.to date..' He further stated that..the City is really conce~:ned, at this point, with the illegal model-home sales-office and the requested Use Permit for same. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 24 August 1970 recommending that UP-191,:request for model ho:ne sales office, be denied. Commissioner }:,ar't'in stated' it was his understanding that other sdles'offices(suc'g as the one proposed) have been used and permitted in residential areaS; therefore, he would like to ask for clarification of reason No. 3 as stated in the subject Staff Report. The Secretary explained that reason No. 3 was included in the Staff Report as a general conclusion. Commissioner FIetcalf stated tha~, in his opinion, reason No. 3 is not valid since that statement could be made about any sales office in any "R-i" area. Commissioner Fiartin inquired if the applicant could provide some parking 6n BrOckton Lane. Mr. Kauffmann explained that 1) additional off-street parking could be provided and 2) there has not. been that much traffic recent].y to ~,?arrant additional parking. Commissioner ~lartin. pointed out that op- Sunday aft. ernoon there has be. en quite a crowd. He then recommended that the matter be continued to deterr..'~ine if additional parking can be provided. Commissioner Smith pointed out t'hat the subject. application has been continued two times already. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, stated that the additional parking could be provided on two vacant lots locate~ toward Titus Avenue. Commissioner Metcalf agreed that the 'matter should be continued with the,. clear understanding that the applicant di. scontinue the i].leoal use until some 'decision is madE:. Chairman Norton stated that the applicant could always apply for another Use Permit if UP-191 were denied. The Secreta~:y explained that the applicant would be required to wait for a year, after denial, before applying again for a Use Permit un]:css i.t was denied without prejudice. Mr. Kauffmann stated that if it is the request of the Planning Com~i~.ission ttiat the model home sa].es office be closed it shall be close. d and he apologized for any misunderstanding that has been caused by his company. Chairman Norton c].osed the bearing for the evening at 9:03 P.H., directed UP--191 continued t:o the next regular meeting and referred same to the Sub- division Committee for study. -8- Planninf~ Commission Minutes - 24 Auggust 1970 - Continued II. F. UP-19__2 - St. Patrick Fathers Missiouary Society, Eric Drive - Request for Use Permit to AlloT,; a Priest Parish House - Continued from 10 August 1970 The hearing relative to UP-192 was re-opened at 9:04 P.M. The Secretary read a letter dated 23 August 1970 signed by seven residents of the Prides Crossing area and filed in opposition to the subject application. Chairman Norton stated that the subject use is not directly connected with a parish; therefore, it is not quite clear what a parish house, in this case, would involve." The Secretary explained that the term parish house was chosen since it was considered to be most similar to the type of use proposed. He then read a petition signed by seventy-four residents of the area and filed in favor of the proposed Use Permit. The Secretary then read a report dated 24 August 1970 containing the opinion of the City Attorney r. elative to the subject request. Father Dillon, applicant~s representative, stated that!the house in question belongs to the St. Patrick Fathers and not to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese as indicated in the petition filed in opposition to the proposed Use Permit. Chairman Norton asked for a show of hands and it indicated that more people were present in support of the subject application than those present to oppose same. Father Worrier, pastor of Church of Ascension, stated that ].) he feels that a lot of opposition to the subject Use Permit came about because of some misunderstanding betx.Te'en two factions 2) it 'is true that the church o~.ms the property across the street from the St. Patrick Fathers on Eric Drive and the plan is tO have ~ sexton, janitor, ~:nd gardner live there eventually 3) some people have stated they were concerned that the residence would be used for something other than a residential use 4) in any case Father Dillon has nothing to do with this house 5) People Communications West is, also, involved in this matter in that a considerable a;,~nount of controversy arose while its location was proposed to be on the Church of Ascension property 6) the residents of the area and the Homeowner's Association have promised to work with People Conm~u- nications West to find a more suitable location for this use; therefore, a Use Permit will n6t be filed until everyone concerned agrees on an appropriate locat ion .. and 7) as to the definition of a parish house - it is simply the place where the priest of a parish lives. Chairman Norton stated that the question is if a private individual attempted to carry on the activities carried on by St. Patrick Fathers · in their o~.ra home would the Planning Corm~.~ission grant them a Use Permit? Father Worner explained that 1) this is a residence from which corres- pondence is mailed 2) in any residence invitations and/or insurance payments, etc. are mailed. Chairman Norton stated 1) the~e are facts in this case that make it impossible to apply the Home Occupation Clause stated in the Zoning Ordinance especially the fact that an employee is on the premises plus the garage alterations and 2) if the Home Occupation aspect is eliminated the subject use is an office in a basically residential area. Mr. Mike i~mbert,' resident of the. area, stated that something of a more professional nature should not be permitted in an "R-l" area; however, the . S~:bject use is more of a us~ normally conducted from any home. -9- Planning. Com:nissio;~ Min:~nes - 24 Aufaust 1970 - Continued IIo F. UP-192 Continued Chairman Norton stated that if .the Red Cross or United Fund conducted their campaigns from 'a home it certainly would not be considered a Home Occupation. Mr. b~mbert explained that professional golfers and tennis players certainly conduct some of their activities at home; therefore', the St. Patrick Fathers should be able .to do some of their work at their resi- dence. Chairman Norton stated that 1) it seemed that the applicant's do the nmjor portion of their work from the subject residence 2) all religous communities are required to obtain a Use Permit for schools, churches, or community centers and 3) the question here is x.~hether the proposed use is above and 6eyond that of a residence. ~cs. Esther Bl.~oii'ely~' resident Of the area, stated' that 1) she is a member of the ChUrch of Ascension and has' attended the services there since the church opened 2) sh~ has taught religon there 3) the St. Patrick Fathers home looks like any other normal house in the area and 4) she probably does as much ordering from her home as they do from theirs and has handled the selling of Girl Scout cookies from her home without a Use Permit Father Dillon stated that nobody comes to their residence for the purpose of conducting business'. ~ir. Richard Wells Stated that the requested use will not create any additional traffic and the subject Use Permit should be granted. Mary Da].y stated that 1) there are fe~.~er cars parked at the applicants residence than there are at some homes ~,~here club meetings, etc. are held 2) everyone who is acquainted with the St. Patrick Fathers is ax.;are of the good ~..~ork they are doing and 3) considering all the facts the Use Permit should be granted as requested by the applicants. she is nex,; in the area and has walked by Mary Turvill stated that .. the. applicant's residence many times and did not realize that there ~,;ere missionary priests living there and certainly never noticed anything unusual or any indication that an office existed. Mr. Richard Miller stated he did not feel the proposed use wou]d be injurious to the neighborhood even if it is in a residential area, but, if approved, the Use Permit may open the door for other similar uses in the area. Elizabeth Cornelius stated that the City Attorney's opinion stated that a Use. Permit cou].d be granted and this ~;ould apply to the St. Patrick Fathers and their proposed use on].y. Chairman Norton explained that if the Use Permit is granted it could, perhaps, establish a precedent. }Lr. C. G. Chal~.;ick, 1555' Bonnie Joy, San Jose, stated that 1.) he represents a number of' publishing companies in the State of California, the United States and internationally 2) he artended the Subdivision Committee meeting of ].7 Augt~st 1970 3) he objected to the idea that the Committee could eliminate people from these meetings and have them stand outside and 4) he x,~ould like to recommend that a larger room be arranged to acco.'.nodate all the people. Chairman Norton explained that legally the meetings of the Planning Commission are open to the public and the meetings of the Sub-Con~nittees are not considered public hearings; th. erefore, large crox.,.'ds are not usual].y anticipated at the Com~nittee meetings. PlanninJ~. Commission Minutes - 24 Au~.ust 1970 - Continued II. Fo UP-192 - Continued Chairman Norton closed the hearing for the evening at 9:48 P.M., directed UP-192 continued to 'the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Com:nittee for further study. G. V-351 - St. Patrick Fathers Missionary Society~ Eric Drive - Request for a Variance to Allow Conversion of the Existing Garages for a StudV - COntinued from 10 August 1970 The Secretary, in view'of the continuance of the foregoing application, reco~ended that V-351 be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Norton so directed and did not open the public hearing' relative to V-351. H. V-350 - ~wrence L. Abruzzini, Old Tree Way - Request for Variance to Allow a Reduction in Side Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from 10 A~ust 1970 Chairman Norton re-opened the hearing at 9:49 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file. No one in the audience wished to comment relative to this matter. .Con~missioner Kraus read the Staff Report dated 24 August 1970 recommending that the subject Variance be granted forc the reasons stated in said report. He then recomme~ded that in r~ason No. 3. '...line 1. .the word "generally" be inserted between the words "are" and "in". Commissioner Lively moved, seconded by Commissione. r Kraus, to close the hearing relative .to V-350 at 9:50 P.M.; motion carr'ied. unanimously. Commissioner Kraus moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, to adopt~ as amended, .the Staff Report dated 24 August 1970 and to grant the Variance on the basis tile findings required under Section 17.6 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be made for the reasons stated in said report; motion carried unanimous ly. I. V-3~J. - R. M. Klepinger, ~nar'k Drive - Request for Variance to Allow Insta].lation of a Utili~J Pole Chairman Norton opened the hearing in connection with V-352 at 9:52 The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing ~.~ere mailed and explained that the present arrangement of the wires and pox.~er poles cause the wires to traverse on a portion of this lot and in effect eliminate the possibility of a swimming pool because of a wire clearance requirement. by PG&E; therefore, in order to allow more room for the desired pool a new pole is necessary. · [~. Klepinger, the applicant, ~.~as present and stated that without the requested Variance a pool ~il! be almost impossible. tie further stated, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Metcalf, that they did consider putting the facilities underground, but found it would affect eight other properties and ~ould require elimination of a lot of beautiful laDd SCab in~ Mr. Wood, 19950 Bonnie Ridge Way, inquired if the Variance ~.~ould affect the adjacent property in any way? Chairman Norton explained that there is going to be a new pole and conceivably it could affect ~.~hoever lives across the applicant's back fence. Mr. R. Brandon, 19966 Bonnie Ridge Way, stated that he lived behind the applicant and he does object to the proposed Variance. planning Commission Minutes - 24 Au~ust 1970 Continued IIo I o V-352 - Continued The Secretary explained that PG&E will submit a detailed map showing the proposed location of the new power pole and lines. Chairman Norton closed the hearing for the evening at 10:00 P.M., directed V-352 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Variance Committee. Con~missioner Kraus, on behalf of the Variance Committee, arranged for an appointment with the applicant for an on-site inspection of the property for 9:00 A.'M., on Saturday, 29 August 1970. RECESS AND RECONVENE III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-849 - Thomas L. Dashiell, Bohlman Road - Building Site Approval - Revised Tentative Map__- 3 Lots Continued from 10 Auf~ust 1970 Commissioner Smith recomanended that SDR-849 be continued to the next regular meeting to await the submittal of a revised map. Chairman Norton so directed. B. SDR-861 - Conrad Stieber, Prospect Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 10 Au~ust ].970 Commissioner smith stated that the conditions of approval relative to SDR-861 were ready? 'The applicant was present and ]stated he had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction of same. The Secretary.stated that Cond'ition II-L. should be added to the Building Site Committee Report dated 24 August 1970 as follows: "L. Improve Prospect Road to provide a 60-foot half-street for entire frontage of 20-foot ~,;ide frontage of access road running along Eastern boundaries of the property." The applicant stated that the Grand Auto Store had already improved the area referred to in Condition L. Chairman Norton inquired about the remaining 60-foot strip belonging to the Saratoga Avenue Baptist Church ant! if pavement of same should be required ~.~nder the subject application. The Secretary stated that, he felt, it ~.7ould be more of a Design Review requirement. 'Commissioner Metcalf stated that a representative of the church was present and could, perhaps, answer some questions relative to the plans for the subject 60-foot strip. Chairman Norton asked if the church representative ~.Tas familiar ~..~ith the property unc]er discussion? tle ~.se~xt on to e~.~p!ain that the Planning Commission is concerned that the 60-foot strip x~il! remain a bare dirt strip used by unauthorized traffic. The representative for the Saratoga Avcnue Baptist Church stated that in the long range plans the church plans to ].andscape the 60-foot strip and make it into an entrance ~o the church property. Chairman Norton stated that, ~e~:haps, some representative from the chruch could attend the Design Review Com~nittee meeting at the time the appropriate application for Design R.i. vie~.~ Approval is filed by Mr. Stieber. PlanninZ Commission Minutes - 24 August 1970 - Continued III o Bo SDR-861 - Continued The representative from the Church agreed that arrangements could be made to have someone from. the church attend the Design lieview Committee meeting and then stated that the church is not eager to erect a fence along the 60-foot strip, but will cooperate to arrange something satisfactory.for the improvement of the subject strip. Commissioner Smith moved, se'conded by Commissioner Crisp, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 24 August 1970 relative to SDR-861 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 17 July 1970) be approyed subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. SDR-862 - John A. Zabielski, Mt. Eden Road - Building Site Approval 1 Lot Continued from 10 AuB. ust 1970 Connnissioner Smith stated that 1) · the Subdivision Committee did meet with the applicant and discussed the proposed conditions of approval ~s stated in the Building Site Committee Report dated 24 August 1970 2) it was decided that Condition II-D of the subject report could be elin~inated since the utilities are already in 3) Condition II-C could be elminated if the applicant did not have to widen the road; however, the road is required to be widened 4) this applicant was granted building site approval (for this property) about eleven years ago and he fulfilled the conditions of the approval 5) new ordinances have been adopted since then that apply to new site approvals;. therefore, it is recommended, by the Subdivision Conm~ittee, that the conditions remain as stated' in the Building Site Committee Report dated 24 August 1970. 1/o~. Zabielski stated that he' is not in a position to afford both the house addition and the road improvements Chairman Norton explained that the applicant is concerned with the road improvements required in Conditions II-A and II-B of the Building Site Committee Report. The applicant explained that l) over the psst ten years he has ira. proved his property a great deal 2) if he uses his money for the road improvements he will not have the money for the house addition and 3) if the road improvements are required he can only withdraw his request for building site approval. Chairman Norton explained that 1) if the application is withdrax,m then the matter cannot be appealed to the City Council and 2) if the application is approved and the applicant requests reconsideration and the request is denied by the Planning Conm~ission the applicant can appeal the request to the City Council. ~k-. Zabielski requested that SDR-862 be continued in order to allow · time to consider the matter. In vie~,: of the foregoing, Chairman Norton directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting. D. SD-863 - Saratoga Foothil].s Development Corporation, Arroyo de Arguello - 23 Lots The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, stated that tb.c road extension to the adjacent property would work as well if the property were developed as a school or another ~ubdivision. The Secretary then read the report of the Fire Depart:nent stating their requirements relative to SD-863. Commissioner Smith exp!a.:~.ned that the Subdivision Co~mnittee is con- cerned with the secondary means of access to tb. is property.. Plannin~LCommission Minutes - 24 Au.,-%Ust 1970 - Conti~ued IIIo Do SD-~863 - Continued Mr. Jer~:y Lohr, applicant's r~presentative, in ans..;..,er to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, stated that the property has an average grade of about 8% with a small slop~ at the end of the cul~de-sac that would have to be cut. Mr. Lohr further e>rplained that 1) the Planning Commission approved a tentative map for this property in March, 1970 for another developer and he chose not to go ahead 2) the applicant has tat{en over and redesigned the lay-out of the property 3) the new developer is a proponent of wide, large lots 4) the northerly east-~;?est street is just a temporary turn-around and 5) Dr. ~.Ioore, the ox.mer of the subject property, is an elderly gentlemen and ~ants to sell this property now and the remaining portior~ in t~..,o or three year s. · The Secretary explained that a letter had been submitted by l. lr. and Mrs. Knapp (adjacent property ~wners) requesting that the secondary access street be placed where it wou].d not interfere with their property. Commissioner Smith moved, seconc]ed by Commissioner Kraus, that the .. Subdivision Coma~ittee Report dated 24 August ]-970 relative to SD-863 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-i", filed 24 August 1970) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in. said report; motion carried unanimously. E. SDR-857 - Cal-oWest Con?nunities, Inc., Saratoga Avenue - Request for R__e2_Approval of Tentative Mai~' The Secretary stated that cal-West has requested the Planning Co~.~:mission '~ ..... to consider a revision in their tentative map. Chairman Norton stated that the' applicant has already obtaineel condi- tional final site approval and it is too late for any chanc, es in the tentative map. ~ The Secretary explained that it. is a technical matter in that it .relates to a condominium requirement of the State of California - the requirement being that the boundary lines of the subject develop- merit must be sho~...n on the. tentative map and these lines are shown on the map submitted as E>zhibit "A-.2~:.. Mr. l.'/arnick, applicant~s representative, stated that he understood that tentative map approval cannot be granted after final approval is granted by the City Council; 'therefore, tb_e new e.~:hibits wi].l have to be given an approval date previous to the final approval. Co~m~issioner Smith reco.~n:nended that the Planning Cor..z. nission simply approve the amended map as of 22 June ]-970 (date of original tentative map approval). Commissioner Smith, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Lively, stated. that the property lines have not been changeel - the change simply involves the internal boL:ndary lines of the property. Fir. Warnick, in answer to an inquir); from Cormnissioner Metcalf, stated that Cal-.West does not present].y ox.n~ the adjacent piece of property, bt, t does have it covered uncier option. -14- Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 24 .Au[-~ust 1970 - Continued III o E. SDR-857 - Continu~d Con~nissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that Exhibit "A-2" for SDR-857 be.approved and substituted for tentative map Exhibit "A-i" previously approved on 22 June 1970; motion carried unanimous ly. IVo DESIGN REVIEW A. A-349 - Cal-West Communities', Inc., Sara'toga Avenue - Final Design Review - Condominium' Apartment Con~..p_lex The Assistant Planner .stated that the applicant has prepared a complete model of the proposed ap~.Irtment complex for the Planning Commission to study. ~[r. Layton, applicant's representative, explained, thoroughly, the mode]. prepared by the applicant. He further stated that the color .samples 'were on file. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, to adopt the Staff Report dated. 24 August 1970 and grant Final Design Approval for the condominium apartment comple>: as sho~.a~ on Exhibits "A" through "N" and subject to the conditions stated in Said report; motion carried unanimously. B. A-352 - S. L. Tyler, Big Basin Way - Identification Signs for Commercial Buildin.g ! After a brief discussion relative to this matter, Commissioner Metcalf. moved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, to adopt the Staff Report dated 24 August 1970 and grant Final Design Approval for the ident~i-' fication signs as sho~;~ on Exhibits "A", "B", and "C"; motion carried unan imou sly. C. A-353 -- Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga AVenue - Identificati__on Si~L~n for Apartment Complex Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) he would request the applicant's pardon and ask for a continuance for A-353 2) the Design Review Co:.nmittee did not have an opportunity to reviex.~ the present e>:hibits prior to this time 3) the size of the sign is higher than he likes to see and there is, also, a. question of the legality of the size and 4) the matter should be referred to the City Attorney for an opinion. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission has, in the past, on the basis of the City Attorney's opinion allm..~ed larger signs on subdivision entrance signs. Commissioner Metcalf stated that in the applicant's favor is the fact that the apartment con~.p!ex next: door has a sign equally as large as the one proposed by the applicant. The applicant reuqested that, perhaps, the sign could be granted temporary approval until some decision is made. The Assistant Planner explained that this is a pern~anent sign and there is no provision for a ten~.porary sign for apartments in the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary explained that the applicant could apply for a temporary construction sign.. Mr. Lohr ezplained that a regular four-square foot sign as allox.:ed in the ordinance for apartn~-ents would not be adequate for the subject location since there are trees at the entrance that would obscure a smaller sign. -15- Planning Con~nissior~ Minutes - 24 Au.~ust 1970 - Co~inued IV. C. A-353 - Continued Conunissioner Metcalf recommended that A-353 be continued in order to allow time for the Staff to discuss the matter x,2ith the City Attorney ~nd obtain'a'iegai opinion. Chairman Norton so directed. D. A-33~ - Iramanuel Lutheran Church, Saratoga Avenue - Request for Approval of Cban~le in Roofing Materials The Secretary stated that this applicant obtained approval for a shake roof and it has.now been learneel that the Fire Marshal will not approve a shake roof such. as the one approved previously.by the Planning Commission. Pastor Amundson was present and stated that 1) about three months have been spen~t in locating an asbestos-shake roofing~piterial (as required by the Fire Marshal) similar to the color of the shake roofing previously approved and 2) the asbestos tile will cost about $].900. more than the regular shake-roof. He then brought i.n a piece of the material proposed to be substituted for the material originally approved. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, to approve the J'ohn 1,~anville Cc, lor--bestos Western shake roofing for the church Sunday- School bCtilding in' lieu of th~ originally ~pproved shake roofing.-material; ,.~otion carrie~t' unanimous ly. V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Chairman Norton gave a detailed summary of items reviewed and action tak~n. at the City Council meeting of 19 August 1.970 with particular emphasis on the Joint Planning Council proposal. The Assistant Planner stated that' Santa Clara County will make a full presentation relative to this proposal on 7 October 1970. Commissioner Kraus requested that' any further discussion or report be postponed until after the 7 October presentation. Chairman Norton so directed. VI. O1~ BUSINESS A. SDR-799 - L. R. Guist, Belnap Drive - Request for Extension - Continued from 10 Au~J~st 1970 Commissioner Smith moved, seconc]ed by Comn~issioner Kraus, that a one (1) year e>ztcn. sion be granted for SI)R-799 (new expiration date to be 10 August 1971); motion carried unanimously. B. SDRi832 Davicl L. Mendenhall, Mt. Ec]en Road - Request for Reconsider- ation - Continued from 27 April 1970 The Secretary stated that the P].anning Department is still awaiting confirmation from PG&E relative to this request; therefore, the matter should be continued to the next regular meetin~ Chairman Norton so directed. VII. FIEW BUSI~'.iESS A. UP--17! - C & I Development Company, Kirkbrook Drive - Request for Extens io,jl Commissioner Smith stated that this is a routine request for e>:tension of a model-home sales-office and a Staff Report prepared in connection with this matter reco~nmencls that a one (1) year extension be grantred for UP-171. -1.6- P].annin:J Cornn~ission Minutes 24 Aug. ust 1970 - Continued VII. A. UP-171 - C.';::tinued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Staff.Report dated 24 August ].970 relative to UP-171, be adopted, and that UP-171 be granted a one (1) year extension (new expiration date to be 8 September 1971) subject to the condition stated in said report; motion carried unar~imously. B. UP-173 - Franklin Homes~ Seviila J~ne - Request for ExtenSion The Secretary recommended that this matter be continued to allow time for further study. Chairman Norton so directed. C. UP-176 - Ditz-Cran__E., Yuba Cburt - ReQuest for Extension 'The Secretary stated that this extension is requested in order to complete the sales of appro~:imately forty-five (45) new homes in the applicant's si>:ty (60) lot subdivision. He further stated that the Staff Report dated 24 August 1970 relative to UP-176 recommend~ that a one-year extension be granted for UP-176. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Staff Report dated 24 August 1970 relative to UP-171, be adopted, and that UP-176 be granted a one (1) year extension (ne~,~ expiration date to be 8 September 1971) subject'to the condition stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. D. REVISION OF SLOPE DEbiS!TY STANDARDS The Secretary explained that this is a matter that x.~as brought up '. at the last ~neeting and he recommended that it be continued to the next regular meeting to allow time for further study. Chairman Norton so directed. VIII. COb~NICATiONS A. I~i ITTEN 1. SDR-796 - Ai L.j.jps_~i Do]__j?hin I)rive - }lefluest for Extension .... The Secretary stated th.at the applicant submitted a letter requesting an extension' for SD11--796. Ile then recomn~ended that the matter be continued to tb.e next regular meeting. Chairman Norton so directed and referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee for study. 2. SDR-806 - Ed Williams.,. Ten Acres Roac] - ReQuest for E~.~tension The Secretary .read a letter received from ~.'~-. Wi!liams requesting a one (1) year extension for SDR-806. He then recommended that the mattc~r be continued to the ~neeting of 14 September 1970. Chairman Norton so directed and referred SDR-806 to the Subdivision Com~nittee for study. 3. Cro~.2ds Breec! Slums Ne~.~s.RaDe~/.~].~_~i~_!g. The Secretary stated that a ne~.~spaper clipping entitled "Cro~,,c]s Breec] Slums" was s~hmitted by Dr. Barbara Stofer for the informaion of the Planning Comn~ission. Chaj.rman Norton requested the Secretary to make copies of the article for distribution to the Commission at the ne>:t regular meeting. -17- P!~a. nn_i3~g Con:~--.',ission Minutes - 24 Au~.~ust 1970 - C~>ntinued VIII. A. 4. Communication from Sa{nt Andrew'~! Episcopal Church The SecreEary read a communication received from Frederick M. Bock, Jr., Treasurer and Business Manager for Saint Andrew's Episcopal Church, suggesting that the City develop a piece of prQperty adjacent to the church as a public playground. Chairman Norton advised that this is a matter for the City Council and Park an~ Recreation Commission; therefore the communication should be retained in a reference file. B. ORAL : Guests Chairman Norton acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of . Councilman Smith, Mrs. Ottenberg of the League of Women Voters, and b~s. Parker and ~. Binkley of the Good Government Group. l:{e, also,. thanked Mrs. Parker for the coffee served at the recess. IX. ADJOURN~.~ENT Chairman Norton adjourned the meeting at 11:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, j -18-