Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-1971 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAI~\TOGA PLANNING CO~IISSION MINUTES TI/~E: Monday, 9 August 1971~ 7:30 PoMo PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 .TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION " The meeting w~s called to order by Chairman'Lively at 7:30 P.M. A. ROLL CALL 'Present: Conmnissioners Kraus, Lively, }~rshall, Martin, Metcalf, and Smith. Absent: Connnissioner Fagan. B. MINUTES '. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the reading of the minutes of the 26 July 1971 meeti.ng be ~aived and they be approved as distributed; motion carried with Chairman Lively abstaining. II. .PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-145 - B. T. Galeb, Ted Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-i-10,O00" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-M-5,000" ~lMulti-Famil,y Residential) - Continued from 12 July 1971 Comm'issioner Smith stated that the applicant is in Europe and his representatives (Kosich Brothers) do not want to do anything without Mr. Galeb's approval; therefore, the matter should be continued for at least thirty (30) days. Chairman Lively, in view of the foregoing, did not open the hearing relative to C-145, directed the matter continued to the meeting of 13 September 1971 and referred the subject application to the Sub- division Committee. B. C-147 - Clifford C. Beck, Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-I-iO,O00" (Single-Family Residential) to "P-A".(Professional-Administrative) - Continued from 12-Julx 1971 -The Chairman, without objection, postponed discussion of this matter until after Item VI.. A. on the agenda since that particular item relates directly to any action relative to C-147. C. C-148 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue and Douglas Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "R-1-40,O00" (Single-Family Residential) - Continued from 12 July 1971 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 7:37 P.M. .- Commissioner Smith stated that this application was discussed at the Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning Commission and no new development plans have been submitted since that time; therefore, he would recomnend that the matter be continued. -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 9 August ].971 - Continued II. C. C-148 - Continued Mr. Victor A. Chargin, attorney representing the Ljepava family, stated that he has reviewed the various plans for development of the subject property and on behalf of his client he would request that in the area of the proposed development two (2) building sites per acre be allowed and if that is not possible then his client has no further objection to the applicant's original proposal. Mr. Lou Leto, General Manager for George Day and Company, stated that the applicant would like some decision on t~e subject property as soon as possible and the applicant would change his application to request "R-I-40,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned-Community) instead of the "R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential). Chairman Lively stated that if the zoning request is amended a new Notice of }tearing must be mailed and p.Ublished and said request must be submitted in writing prior to any consideration for amending the subject. application. Mr. Leto stated that he would submit a signed written statement to ~ amend application C-148. Dorothy Gay, 234 Marshall Street, Redwood City, a realtor representing the Ljepava and Novakavich families, stated that 1) she appeared before the Co~nission on previous occasions and discussed the economic draw- o,' backs to developing the property in the subject area under'~-l-40,O00" ~ (Single-Family Residential) zoning 2) developing under said zoning will put the property owner and developer in a difficult position 3) the feeling among her clients is that the economic reasons for two (2) building sites per acre should be carefully considered 4) this would be one way for land to be developed correctly without creating a hardship for the property owner and developer, even though, it would mean a higher density and 5) her clients do not object to the request for a "P-C" development if a straight "R-i-20,000 (Single-Family Residential) zoning is not possible. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:49 P.M., directed C-148 continued to the next regular meeting and referred the matter tO the Subdivision Committee. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-904 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue and DoUglas Avenue - Subdivision Approval - 15 Lots - Continued from 12 July 1971 Co.mmissioner Smith stated that SD-904 should be continued to the next. regular meeting since it was filed in conjunction with C-148. Chairman Lively so directed. B. SDR-911 - Willard Thompson, Oak Street and St. Charles'~treet - Building Site'Approval - 1 Lot - 28 June 1971 The'Secretary stated that the applicant bas reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. He further stated that Mr. Thompson would have been present at this meeting b~t he had to be out of town on another matter. . Commissioner Smith stated that 1) action on this matter was postponed because of pending City Council action relative to the possibility of C0~duc['ing a traffic survey in the subject area 2) the members of the Conm~ission were encouraged to make individual on-site inspections of this property 3) this building site was previously approved (but has since expired) and at that time there was some consideration that St. Charles Street might become a one-way street and 4) the City Council has not acted on the suggestion of the Planning 'Commission that a traffic study be conducted and the Subd~.vision Committee feels that it would not be equitable to continue this matter indefinitel- -2- III. B. SDR-911 ~ Continued Chairman Lively explained that !) if this building site is approved it would block St. Charles Street from ever becoming a one-way street and prevent it from ever being widened and 2) the General Plan recommends that any action relative to development on St.-Charles Street be postponed until the proposed traffic study is completed.- The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Marshall, stated that the applicant's property is already zoned for Multiple-Dwellings; so, this would not involve adding any new'Multiple Zoning. Commissioner Smith added that the Planning Connnission did recommend in the General Plan Report for 1971 that no changes be made in the Multiple Zoning and that means that the existing zoning be retained for the subject property. Chairman Lively stated that the Planning Commission did not recommend that the zoning be changed, but. the matter can be held in abeyance until the City Council reaches some decision relative to the proposed traffic study for St. Charles Street. Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee is of the opinion that the matter should not be held up any longer ~nd if the matter is continued the applicant must submit a letter granting the Planning Commission additional time to act on the subject application. Commssioner Marshall stated that, he felt, a building si~e for Multiple- Dwellings should not be approved until after the proposed traffic study is completed. Commissioner Martin stated that the General Plan is still under consideration by the City Council and this application sbould be postponed until after the Council reaches a decision relative to the subject traffic study. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 9 August 1971 relative to SDR-911 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit '~", filed 16 June 1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report.; motion denied by the following vote: AYES NOES Commissioner Smith Chairman Lively Commissioner Kraus ~ Commissioner 'Mars~ail Commissioner b~rtin Commissioner Metcalf Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissiioner Martin, to deny the Building Site Committee Report dated 9 August 1971 relative to SDR-911 unless a letter of extension is submitted by the applicant and further moved that the matter be continued until the Planning Commission is in receipt of a declaration of~intent from the City Council as to whether they intend to pursue the traffic study for. St. Charles Street as requested in the General Plan Report for 1971 that was forwarded to the City Council as the reconm~end- ation of the Planning Con~ission; motion carried by the following vote: AYES NOES Chairman Lively Commissioner Smith Commissioner Marshall Comnissioner Kraus Con~issioner Martin Commissioner Metcalf -3- Plannin~ Con~nission Minutes - 9 A~,gust 1971 - Continued III. Co SDR-916 - :~erry Dallas, Mr. Eden Road - Building. Site Approval - 1 Lot Commissioner Smith stated that a condition relative to water supply should be added to the Building Site Committee Report dated 9 August 1971 relative to SDR-916. / The Secretary reconnnended that the following condition be added to the Building Site Committee Report:. "K. Comply with requirements'of San Jose Water Works "regarding public water supply." Conmissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner KrauS., that the Building Site Committee Report dated 9 August 1971 relative to SDR-916 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative nmp '(E}zhibit""~", filed 30 July 1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth.in said report; motion carried unanimously. D. SDR-917 - Donald Tenenba.u.m~ .Saratoga ~nd Cox - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Commissioner Smith stated that' this building ~ite has been reviewed by the Design Review Committee Commissioner Metcalf stated that he would like to continue the matter to determine if the sidewalkalong Saratoga and Cox Avenues is in accord with the proposed pathway plan. Mr.. Ralph Ramona, present to represent the applicant, stated that 1) his client is quite anxious to begin construction and is eager to obtain 'Building Site Approval at this time since he has a loan committ- ment 'that is about to expire and 2) he is willing to post a bond for the sidewalk and if it turns out the walk should be on the other side of the street then the bond can be rescinded. Commissioner Metcalf, after reviewing the pathway plan, stated that the sidewalk shown on the tentative map is in accord with the subject pathway plan. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 9 August 1971 relative to SDR-917 be adopted and that the tentative 'map (Exhibit "'A", filed 30 July 1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. E. SD-896 - George'W. Day, Big Basin 'Way - Subdivision Approval - Revised Tentative Ma~ - 10 Lots Commissioner Smith recommended that Condition 20. be added to the Subdivision Conm~ittee Report dated 9 August 1971 as follows: "20. Provide Maintenance Agreement or enter' into agreement with the City to permanently maintain "Permanent Open-Space" as shown on the tentative map (Exhibit "A-i")." COmmissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Subdivision Committee Report dated 9 August 1971 relative to SD-896 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-i", filed 30 July 1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. Planning Comnission Minutes - 9 August 1971 - Continued IV. DESIGN REVIEW 'A. A-362 - M. E. Frazier, Saratoga and Cox - Final. Design Review - Connnercial Building / Connnissioner Metcalf read the Staff Report dated 9 August 1971 recommendiag that Final Design Approval be granted for A-362 for a commercial building. Com~nissioner'Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Mar.tin, that the Staff Report dated 9 August 1971 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for the commercial building as shown on Exhibits '~", '~", and "G" subject to the conditions stated in said repor t; mot{on carried unani- mously. B. A-377 - Reed's Carpets, Saratoga~Sunnyvale Road - Final Design Review - Commercial Building Commissioner Metcalf read the Staff Report dated 9 August 1971 recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for A-377 for a commercial building. He then amended the subject report by deleting the words '~arking spaces and" from paragraph 1. .line 6. .of the subject report~ Commissiop3_r Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Staff Report dated 9 August 1971 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be granted for the commercial building as shown on Exhibitso~. "B", "C", '~", and "E" and subject to the conditions stated in said report~ motion carried unanimously. C. LA~IDSCAPE TREAtmENT - For New Saratoga Footbills Development=Corporation Subdivision - Tract 4954 - Fruitvale Avenue The Secretary explained that the Assistant P].anner did submit a report to the Public Works Department stating that the Design Review Committee and Planning Department Staff recommend that the pathway shown on the improve- ment plan~ for Tract 4954 be moved from four (4) feet to twelve (12) feet from the 'property line. Com~nissioner Metcalf explained that 1) the Public Works Department feels that if the median strip is moved one (1) oak tree and two (2) pepper trees will have to be removed and 2) the Planning Commission .should insist on a twelve (12) foot landscape strip.' on this property at least in the area of the trees mentioned. ~.= The Secretary explained that 1) the Public Works Department has reviewed .the proposed plan and they do emphasize that if the planter strip is not provided three (3) trees will be in jeopardy and 2) the developers improve- ment plans have been approved by the City Council and if they are to be changed they would have to be amended by the City Council. He further state~ that the Assistant Planner has prepared a memo stating that if the subject recognmendation for a twelve-(12) foot-wide planter-.strip is adopted by the Planning Commission the recommendation should be forwarded to the City Council. C6m~nissioner Metcalf recommended that the aforementioned memo be amended by adding the following to paragraph' 2. .line 2. .'~ith the reconmendation that they amend the .improvement plan for Tract 4954." and that the following be deleted from said line 2. ."for its consideration." Commissioner Marshall stated that 1) if the twelve-(12) foot-wide planter is recommended in lieu of the four-(4) foot-wide planter this recommendation would jibe with the applicant's architect 's recommendation and 2) it would be better to have a meandering planter that is wider; thereby, creating an aesthetically pleasing area. -5- Planning Connnission Minutes - 9 August 1971 - Continued IV. Co LANDSCAPE TREATMENT - Continued Co~mnissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Con~nissioner Martin, that the Assistant Planner's memo dated 9 August 1971 (s-rating the Design Review' Committee reconnnendation that a twelve (12) foot-wide-planter strip be provided in lieu of a four (4) foot-~.Tide-planter strip for the proposed landscaping in front of Tract 4954 on Fruitvale Avenue) be adopted, as amended, and forwarded to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Commission; motion carried unanimously. V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT The Secretary gave a summary of items revie~,~ed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 4 August 1971, with emphasis on items of particular interest to the Commission. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. REVIFiW ITEMS FOR 1971 GENERAL PLAN - Referral by City Council Cormnissioner Metcalf stated that the General Plan Committee did meet ~ and prepare a report. He then read the General Plan Comanittee Report dated 9 August 1971 stating the recommendations of the General Plan Conunittee relative to certain items referred by the City Council to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Metcalf them recormnended that the following be added to Item 4. .Central Park. .bet~een lines 2 and 3. .of the subject report: "The seven (7) acre Gore corner of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue and the two (2) acre strip along Wildcat Creek will be developed as recommended by the 1968 General Plan plus Neighborhood-Park Elements." Conm~issioner Metcalf, in answer to an inqui.ry from Commissioner Kraus, recommended that the subject General Plan Connnittee Report be further amended on page 2. .line 6. .by deleting "100-foot" and instead inserting "minimum". Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Connnissioner Marshall, to adopt, as amended, the General Plan Conm~ittee Report dated 9 Augu·st 1971 and forward same to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Commission; motion carried unanimously. B. REVIEW OF PLANNED CO~.~IUNITY DEVELOPI~ZNT Commissioner Metcalf stated that the General Plan Committee discussed the Planned Community Development and a report was prepared to reflect that discussion. The Secretary stated· that this matter will be presented to the Planning Environmental Committee at their next regular meeting. Commissioner Metcalf stated that it is his recommendation that the report dated 9 August 1971 relative to Planned Community Development be released to the Planning Environmental Committee as a ~reliminary draft. -6- planninFi Con~nission Minutes - 9 August 197]. - Continued VI. B. REVIEW OF PLA~]ED CO~E4UNITY DEVELOPMt~NT - Continued . Commissioner Marshall stated that it has been suggested that when a developer is planning a Plat;ned Com,nunity development a 10% increase in density be withheld and doled out, as a bonus, only when a developer is willing to spend a little more money to develop the property ~ in other words to give him something if he is willing to do something to beautify the City. Cormnissioner Smith stated that 1) the General Plan Co~mittee does not like the word bonus and 2) the City already gains amenities with a Planned Conmunity development because under the "P-C" ordinance open-space and recreation areas are required. Commissione~: ~arshall stated· that, in his opinion, if a bonus were offered the developer would make more of an effort to come up with something better for the City. Commissioner Martin stated that he, also, feels a bonus should be awarded the developer who is willing to invest more money to make a development look like it has more open-space than actually exists. Some means should be provided to reward extra-effort. Commissioner Metcalf stated that the developer should be responsible to provide proof that he can build a suitable Planned Communi. ty development that is acceptable to the City without expecting a reward or bonus. Chairman Lively stated that some consideration should be given as to whether the conununity building in a "P-C" development should be considered as one of the building sites in the development. Comzaissioner Smith stated that the cormmunity building should be considered as " part of the amenities and should not be included as a building site. Commissioner l,~rshall stated, he. felt, the community building should be computed the same as a house or building site. Chairman Lively stated that serious consideration should be given the visual impact of an '~l-1-40,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential-Planned Cor,~nnunity) zoning when it is placed in a "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) zoned area and what can be done to disguise the appearance of a '~t-1-20,000" (Single-Family. Residential) area that would surface with an "R-I-40,000" '~-C". Conunissioner Metcalf requested the Secretary to discuss the following points with the Planning Environmental Committee in connection with a '~-C" development: 1) The disagreement with the concept that '~-C" zoning be used as a bonus. 2) Whether a conm~unity building constitutes a building site. 3) The visual impact of a "R~l-40,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential-Planned Community) resulting in a "R-1-20,O00" (Single-Family Residential) appearance in an area otherwise developed as '~-1-40,000" (Single-Family Residential). -7- The following item was referred from earlier in the meeting to this portion of the agenda. VI.' ~. C-147 - Clifford C. Beck,' Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to '~P-A" (Professional-Administrative) - Continued from 12 July 197]. Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to C-147 at 9:42 P.M. Mr. Gene Fink, attorney representing the applicant, .requested that this matter be continued until after the City Council acts on the General Plan because if the recomanendation is not favorable to this application it will probably be nece, ssary to withdraw the subject request for change of zoning. No one else present wished to comment. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 9:4.4 P.M., continued C-147 to 13 September 1971, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee. P. AESTHETIC GP~DING STANDARDS - Cohtinued from 12 July 197], 'The Secretary requested that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting. Chain~n Lively so directed. VII, NE~'~ BUSINESS A. HOUSING ELEI~gNT REVIEW The Secretary explained that l) ~he City Council has requested the Planning Co~nission ~o review ~he recon~mendsCion oE ~he Special Housing Element for Saratoga in time for'inclusion in ~he General Plan 2) the Mayor ~hough~ ths~ the Planning Commission migh~ review this Housing Elemen~ and amend i~ ~o suit Saratoga goals and objectives for housing and Eorwsrd same ~o the City Council and 3) the General Plan Con'nni~tee reviewed ~he Housing Element and.modified i~ slightly. Chairman Lively stated that ~his. is probab].y going ~o be One of ~he most important documents the Planning Con~ission will consider and will ~ske some time ~o review especially since i~ is going to be par~ of ~he General Plan. Co~issioner Kraus explained tha~ 'the Planning Policy ComiCtee spent months and months p~eparing the Subjec~ Housing Elemen~ Study and he does no~ Eeel General Plan Eor ~his year. Chairman Lively requested the Secretary ~o consul~ with the City Attorney to prepare the proper wording ~o allow ~he Planning Comission ~o carry this matter over until such ~ime :as ~he .Planning Comxission can prepare a comprehensive review on the Housing Element. He ~hen~.directed ~he matter continued to the meeting of 1~ September 19~1. B. UP-18S - Katherine Cain, Austin Way - S~atus o~ Montessori Pre-School The Secretary explained that s condition of Use Permi~ UP-18S was tha~ after' the close o~ the school year 19~0-~1 the Planning Departmen~ s~af~ would review ~he ~acilities and service area oT ~he school ~o ascertain whether ~he basic educational needs of ~he Saratoga ~.~ere being Eulfilled. He further s~a~ed Chat ~he spplidsn~ has complied with all conditions imposed and it is ~he Staff recomenda~ion, wi~h concurrence of the Sub- division Committee, .~ha~ the Use Permi~ receive permanen~ approval from ~he Planning Co~ission. -8- p]an__jning ~Commission Minutes - 9 August 1971 - Continued VIII. CO.~R4UNICATIONS A. I,,T~ITTEN None . Guests Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilman ..... Bridges, 14~s'.' Dorothy Parker and Mr,. Wood Frampton of the Good Government Group. He, also, thanked Mrs. Parker for the coffee served at recess. XI. ~JOUR~NT Chairman Lively adjourned the meeting at 10:00 P.M. ReSpeCtfully submitted, -9-