HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-1971 Planning Commission Minutes (2) CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
TIME: Monday, 27 September 1971, 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: ·City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale AvenUe, Saratoga, California 95070
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lively at 7:30 P.M.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Fagan, Kraus, Lively, Martin, Marshall, Metcalf,
and Smith.
Absent: None.
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner KraUs, that the
reading of the minutes of 13 September 1971 meeting be waived and they
be approved as distributed; motion carried unanimously.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-147 - Clifford C. Beck, Saratoga Avenue and Cox - Request for Change
'.' of Zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to
"P-A" (Professional-Administrative) - Continued from 13 September 1971
The Secretary stated there was no reason to open the public hearing
relative to C-147 since any discussion of the matter is contingent
upon City Council adoption of the 1971 General Plan.
The applicant was not present and no one in the audience wished to
comment relative to C-147.
Chairman Lively did not open the hearing, and directed the hearing
relative to C-147 continued to the next regular meeting and referred
same to the Subdivision Committee.. .,
B. C-148 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue and DougIas- Request for
Change of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "R-I-40,000"
"P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned-Community) - Continued
from 13 September 1971
Chairman Lively directed that all comments made relative to C-148
also apply to C-149 the next item listed on the agenda and pertinent to
change of zoning application for C-148.
Chairman Lively reopened the hearing ~elative to C-148 at 7:37 P.M.
Mr. Otto SchmaelZle, 14401 Nutwood Lane, stated he.mailed a memo to
each individual Commissioner and the Planning Director stating objections
to the proposed change of zoning. He then submitted a petition signed
by seventy six (76) residents of the subject area .·and further stated that
of the total eighty (80) acres involved forty one =(41) acres belong to
the people objecting to the change of zoning and t~e other thirty nine
(39) acres belong to the applicant.
Chairman Lively stated that he did receive the memo referred to by Mr.
Schmaelzle and he felt that some of the informati~·n contained therein
was less than accurate; therefore,'he would ask the Planning Director
to present the necessary maps at this time and expl. ain the particulars
relative to the particular "P-C" zoning request. ~e further stated that
1) the subject property was designated for a CentL~al Park and it was
considered that, perhaps, "P-C" zoning or open-space might be a better
use for the said property and that is the only rea~son for the proposed
~h=~ ~f ~ ~quesC ma~e Dy Mr. Day ~G-148) a~d the City o~
Saratoga (C-149).
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 27 September 1971 - Continued
II.. B. C-148 - Continued
Chairman Lively further stated that 1) the intent of the "P-C"
zoning Is not to force residents of the area to sell their property
2) the building sites.'under-a "P-C" zoning would be half-acre sites
but the remainders of the property (the other half acre) would be
put into open-space and would therefore create. less building-sites
than under regular development of "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential)
and 3) the traffic in the area will be the same with a "P-C" community
as it would be with straight acre-zoning.
The Secretary stated that 1) the area under discussion is the eighty
(80) acres bounded on the North by the Redwood School, Fruitvale Avenue
on the East, Douglass Lane on the South and Wildcat Creek on the West
"- 2) the City's original intent for this area was for a 30-acre Central. .~
.Park and then have straight "R-i-40,000" zoning for the remainder of
the area 3) the applicant,. George Day, originally presented a map for
straight "R-I-40,000" zoning for his property 4} in discussing the
development of'the straight acre-zoning with Mr. ~eto (General Manager
for George Day and Company) the possibility of a "P-C" development was
brought up 5) the City has had the "P-C" ordinance on the books for
....................... many years 6) two "P-C" developments have been approved in the past
.. neither of which have even been developed 7) the 'idea behind "P-C"
i~ to'cluster buildings in one area on slightly ~naller sites and
leave the balance of the property as open-space ~r common green; which
can be left in its natural state.or developed with co~f~nity buildings
and swimming pools or landscaped and used by the people residing in the
"P-C" development 8) the intent in this case would be to develop 65 to 69
"building sites and then have thirty (30) acres of common-green area
9) everyone in the development would be responsible for maintenance
of the co~laf~on green area 10) the advantage of a ~ommon-green area is
that more interesting street patterns can be developed and common-green
areas would be available to everyone in the development 11) the disadvantage
would be to insure that the common-green area wo~ld be maintained forever
and that historically people like to have their ~n residential lots and
not be involved with.other people in utilization ~'f the common-green area
12) a standard subdivision would yield very close to the same number of
lots as a "P-C" - maybe more 13) an effort would be made to have all the
residences accessible to all common-green areas 14) these ideas were
developed working with the applicant and Mr. Beck (Park Consultant) and
15) some "P-C" developments in other areas show ~ery small building-
sites with more interesting street patterns and m~ch more open-space
but it was felt that for this property one-halfa~re lots were large
enough for the average type home.~Ua!ly. f0Un~...~__~h~_.a¢.~~ _~.o~e~ .........
and still give enough yard space and have one-third of the area remain
as common-green.
Mr. Leto, General Manager for GeOrge Day, in ans~rer to an inquiry, stated
that the homes for the proposed development will ~e priced at approximately
$75,000. and on upland will be individual custom-built homes.
Chairman Lively, in answer to an inquiry from a member of the audience,
stated that there would be the same number 6f chilIdren in a regular
........ "R-I-40,000" development as in the proposed "R-I-40,000" "P-C" since' "'
the.number of houses will not be increased and wo~td still be only
one house per acre, but the homes would be clustered in one area on
one-half acre sites.
Mr. James C. Creel, 14230 Douglass Lane, stated t~at he lived on Douglass
Lane and is concerned with the increase in traffic on this street and
there has been no mention made of any improvements for Douglass in conjunc-
tion with this development.
The Secretary stated that assuming that some property would be developed
then some portions of Douglass would have to be improved.
-2-
Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 27 September 1971 - Continued
II. B. C-148 - Continued
Reverend Roy W. Strasburger, 3 Quail Acres, stated that 1) he did
not feel that the area should be rezoned to "P-~' since no one other
than George Day and the City has requested a ch~ge from the "A" or
"R-I-40,000" zoning in the area and 2) on the binIsis of land costs
in this area the figure of $75,000. per dwelling ~quoted by Mr. Leto
seems a little low.
Chairman Lively explained that this request for·m "P-C" development
differs greatly from a previous "P-C" applicaticmmwhich gave the visual
impact of one-half acre zoning throughout the en~rire development.
Commissioner Martin explained that another adva~jt~age of a "P-C" zoning·
is that the City would have complete control of g~chitectural design
and landscape design.
Jenny Pulver, Nutwood Lane, stated that 1) her' ~amily recently moved
to Saratoga from Cupertino and did so because the. y desired to live on
an acre of their own land 2) an acre building-s~e is now difficult
to find in Santa Clara County and 3) she felt it was very important
to maintain the quality of zoning as it now exis~t:s in the subject area.
Mr.·Vartkes Miroyan,,14497·Nutwood Lane, stated ~3aat 1) he has lived
at his Nutwood Lane residence for three years 2) he has experienced
developments of this type from the standpoint of ~eal-estate and law
practice for fifteen years 3) this business of ~ommon-green being
maintained by the residents of the development is'really a great deal
of wishful··th·inking 4) in his numerous experiences he has h~d with
common-green developments the maintenance has al.~ays been a problem
5) a common-green area would simply provide a p~ace for loitering
6) he called the City a number of times and ple~'~ed to have a lot
of dirt and debris removed that had been piled b~ind his home by
George Day 7) he would like George Day to show ~m a single home
they will sell for $75,000. in their developmentz ~n Farwell Avenue
8) under the proposed "P-C" program the developmsnt would devaluate
the subject property and other properties in the ;area 9) the traffic
pattern that this development wo~ld create woul~ ~·e hazardous for
buses and the schools in the area 10) the West ~alley Junior College
provides a common-green area which is seldom use~ ·iby anyone and 11) he
paid a considerable amount of money for his home~and would not like to
see a decrease in value because of the proposed ~evelopment.
Mr. Don Hershell, representing the property owner .at 19570 Douglass
Lane, stated that 1) his client is opposed to tS~e proposed change of
zoning since he feels the zoning would cause vast ~economic erosion
2) because of the decreased lot sizes. property ~atues would drop
-and 3) his client (Mr. Bailey) intends to·build. Ibis personal residence
in this area at a cost of approximately $250,000.. :·and therefore he feels
that any type of "P-C" concept would seriously e~.de his property and
create a "white elephant" in the area and requests that the subject
request for change of zoning be denied.
Commissioner Martin stated that the common-green.~a.rea would be entirely
maintained by the people living in the developmerit and if it is not
then the City would take over and via taxation of ~the property owners
involved the City would maintain the area.
Reverend Strasburger stated that 1) he is opposm~ to the "P-C" zoning
proposal 2) the common-green area would be almost unpoliceable and 3) the
common-green area would only attract people that ~id not belong there at all.
Commissioner Metcalf explained that the only other alternative for a
portion of this property would be a Central Park.
Reverend Strasburger stated that a park would be ibis first preference
for this property and his second choice would be ~'o have the zoning
remain "R-1-40,O00" (Single-Family Residential).·
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes - 27 September 1971 - Continued
II. B.· C-148 - Continued
Mr. George Simpson, 19742 Douglass Lane,. stated he ·is a new property
owner in this area and he has not heard one arg~ent that makes him
in favor· of the proposed "P-C" zoning.
Mr. Leto stated 1) he would like to clarify a ~ew points and go
back and explain the original application submit~,ed by the applicant
2) the original application was for straight "~-1~1-40,000" subdivision
but the City of Saratoga felt that the property-,~ould be ideal for a
"P-C" development; therefore, the applicant went through the time and
expense and had maps drawn for a "P-C" devel0pm~rt 2) the applicant
made it known at that time that he did not want~ [~,o experience the same
problems as another developer who proposed a "P-<C!'' development on
Fruitvale Avenue and then the plan was never ·accepted by the City and
the zoning was left as "R-I-40,000" 3) it makes 'very littie difference
to the applicant under which zoning the property ris developed and 4) he
feels the City should take the responsibility am~ say that it is the
City who is promoting a "P-C" development for t'.I~i-s area.
Mr. John Powers, 14101 Shadow Oaks Way, stated tS~·at he is concerned
about the accidents that could occur on the unin~p,roved portion of
Douglass as a result of the increased traffic if ~this development
is approved.
Chairman Lively stated 1) ' the applicant has beem ·~ery patient .....
the processing and hearings of this entire matt-------------------~r 2) 'the representatives
of some of the other property owners in this area recently proposed
"R-I-20.000" (Single-Family Residential) zoning Nor this area and/or
. a park and 3) on the basis of these requests tSE City decided to
look into a long-range plan for development of ~,~is area that would
be beneficial to the City and so all the Sacks ~f the houses would
not back up to one street like they do on Cox'A~nUe.
Commissioner Marshall suggested that 1) the Sec~etary be requested
to write an answer to the communication submitte°~ ·bY Mr. Schmaelzle
which contains erroneous statements and 2) the· ,~.~ecretary could supply
Mr. Schmaelzle with the factual material.
Commissioner Smith stated that the petition subn~Lit. ted states the
objections of the residents of the area, but it ~de·es not contain
any of the inaccuracies contained in· the letter ~s~bmitted by Mr.
Schmaelzle.
Commissioner Kraus stated that while he did not· Eeel it was necessary
for the Secretary to answer the ·letter received L~om Fir. Schmaelzle
he did feel there were many inaccuracies stated z~,n the subject communication.
Commissioner Fagan stated that 1) the Subdivision Committee did
encourage and request the applicant, George Day. ·~to request "P-C"
zoning for this property instead of the ordinary grid· of lots
2) the General Plan shows a park in this area ~i)) the "P-C" approach
is something in the middle of the park and grid-~[ot appearance
4) under the "P-C" proposal green area would be ,'.adjacent to Fruitvale
Avenue ·and wouId be very attractive for the co~,,.~nity of Saratoga .......
5). there are inaccuracies in the communication. submitted by Mr.
SChmaelzle 6) the City should go on record and· may that the City
did encourage the applicant to try for a "P-C" d~e,velopment on the
grounds that it was felt by the City that this t~pe of development
would provide something more attractive than the ~ordinary grid
development.
Commissioner Martin stated he would like to go ~m record as being opposed
to the statements made in the letter submitted BSy ·Mr. Schmaelzle since
many of them were not factual.
Commissioner Smith stated that he felt the Schma'c~,lzle letter containing
the erroneous information should not be made a mantter of public record.
-4-
Pla~nin~ Commission Minutes - 27 September 1971 - Continued
II. B. C~148 - Continued
Chairman Lively directed that the letter be left unanswered and not be
considered a matter of public record and that the petition submitted
stating the official objections of the residents of the area be made'
a matter of permanent record. He then closed the hearing for the
evening at 8:48 P.M., directed C-148 continued to the next regular
meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee.
C. C-149 - City of Saratoga, Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass - Request for
Change of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "R-I-40,000" "P-C"
(Single-Family Residential Planned-Community) - Continued from
13 September 1971
Chairman Lively reopened the he~ring at 8:49 P.M. and directed that all
comments made relative to C-149, also, be recorded and applied as part
of the foregoing hearing for C-148.
C~m~issioner Smith, in answer to an inquiry from Reverend Strasburger,
stated that 1) the Subdivision Committee has spoken in favor of this
change of zoning 2) at two previous public hearings representatives
of other property owners in this area strongly suggested that this
area not be developed under the "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential)
lots because of the college and.because of the economic situation and so
in order to avoid a "hodge podge" development for the total eighty acres
a "P-C" development has been proposed and 3) the representatives of
other property owners in the area suggested "R-I-20,000" (Single-Family
Residential) zoning or a park site for the area.
'. Reverend Strasburger stated that 1) he did not feel there was any real
danger that the subject property would develop as "R-I-20,000" (Single-
Family Residential) since the General Plan does not designate said zoning
for this property 2) he realized that the "P-C" zoning has been in the
ordinance for quite some time, but he just does not feel that the subject
area is the best place for a development of that type and 3) there could
be several alternatives to the alignment of the lots along Fruitvale Avenue
and Douglass Lane.
Commissioner Martin explained that if the property is developed under
regular "R-I-40,000" zoning then the developer can arrange the subdivision
as he chooses.
The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Lively, stated that
1) he did contact the Assessor's office to inquire if the taxes for the
subject property would change if the zoning designation were changed
even though no actual development or construction took place and 2) the
Assessor's office stated that any change from "A~' to either "R-i-40,000"
"P-C" or to "R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) would definitely
affect the assessed value of the property and w~ld increase taxes.
Reverend Strasburger stated he is opposed to C-14.9 on the basis that some
property owners may be taxed off their property' that had planned to live
there all the rest of their lives.
Con~f~issioner Smith stated that the matter should 5e continued since this
tax matter throws a different light on the matter.
Chairman Lively stated that the Planning Commission recommendation relative
to this property is under consideration by the City Council as part of
the General Plan and this matter should be continued until the City Council
makes a decision relative to the General Plan.
Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the even'.zm, g at 9:16 P.M., directed
C-149 continued to the next regular meeting and. meferred same to the Sub-
division Committee.
Planning'Commission Minutes - 27 September 1971 - Continmed
II. D. C-139 - Malachy J. Moran, Saratoga Avenue - Request ~f Change of Zoning
from "R-1-20,O00" (Single-Family Residential} ~to "R-l-15,000" (Single-
Family Residential) - Continued from 13 September 1971
The hearing relative to C-139 was reopened at 9:16 P34.
Commissioner Smith stated that he had a call from the ~applicant stating
he could not be present at this meeting. Commissioner Smith further stated
that he feels the Planning Commission should proceed ~ith this matter since
it has been continued numerous times.
Chairman Lively stated that the Planning Commission ~nnot continued to drag
this application on indefinitely since there are othear people, residents of
the area, concerned with the Planning Commission decLion in connection with
C-139.
Commissioner Kraus stated that the Planning Commissiom plainly stated at the
last meeting that there would be no more continuances ~of C-139 and that some
action would be taken at this meeting.
Mr. Joe Zerboni, 19951 Lannoy Court, stated that he t~a-s been coming to the
Planning Commission hearings relative to this matter' ~or about a year now
fo~ the hearings relative to C-139 and the Planning Csmmission stated at
the meeting of 13 September 1971 that a decision wout~ be made this evening.
Mr. Alan Margulis, 19961 Lannoy Court, stated that 1~ he flew up from Los.
Angelos this evening to be present for the decision ~dheduled to.be made at
this meeting relative to C-139 2) the applicant has mequested two different
change of zonings and has tried to have the General ~'an changed 3) the
applicant bought his property at the same time he (Mrs. Margulls) purchased
his'and both parties checked the zoning at that time ~) some people buy
and hold properties in certain zoned areas with the i~ea that the zoning
will be changed from what is shown on the General Plmn and other people
buy in good faith thinking the.zoning will not be ch~ged and 5) he urged
the Planning Commission to take some action at this time and make a decision
relative to C-139.
Commissioner Smith read the report of the Subdivisiom iCo~f~ittee dated 27 September
1971 recommending that C-139 be denied.
Comissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kra.,~s, to close the hearing
relative to C-139 at 9:27 P.M.; motion carried unanim~susly.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kmaus, to adopt the Sub-
division Committee Report dated 27.September 1971 relmftive to C-139 and deny
'the subject request for change of zoning for the reas'~ns stated in said
report and that the subject report be fon~arded to thee=City Council as the
recoff~f~endation of the Planning Commission; motion ca~ed unanimously.
E. V-366 - Mrs. Earle Pickering Smith, Qulto Road - Requ'~st for Variance to Allow
Overhead Utilities
Chairman Lively opened the hearing at 9:29 P.M.
The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing were maiIed and then read a
coffm~nication filed in oppostion to the proposed varf~ance by the following:
1) Robert C. Jones
2) Barbara L. Jones
3) Paul Davidson
4) Christina L. Davidson
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes - 27 September 1971 - Continued
II. E. V-366 - Continued
Mrs. Smith, the applicant, was present and stated that 1) the
pole in question does not serve the property in question 2) there
is one pole on this acre and she was informed it was placed there
to support all the lines on the east side of Quito 3) the pole
now located on her property was moved there so Quito could be
widened 4) the pole will remain even if she is required to
underground the utilities, but the pole will not be used for
her property and·5) she feels that since the City did require
her to dedicate 20-feet instead of the custemary 10-feet for
the Quito Road widening and then pave further than any other
property owner it is not fair to ask her spend an additional
$2,000. for underground utilities when the power pole will not
be moved fromher property, but will be used for properties
other than her own.
No one in the audience wished to comment relative to V-366.
/
C~f~fLissioner Kraus, on behalf of the Variance Committee, arranged
for an on-site inspection with the applicant for Saturday, 2 October
1971 at 9:00 A.M.
Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 9:37 P.M.,
directed V-366 continued to the next regular meeting, and referred
same to the Variance Committee.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
III7· BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SD-904 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass ~ Subdivision
Approval - 15 Lots - Continued from 13 September 1971
Commissioner Smith stated that SD-904 should be continued to the
next regular meeting since it has been filed in conjunction with C-148.
Chairman Lively so directed.
B. SDR-911 - Willard Thompson, Oak Street and St. Charles Street -
Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 13 September 1971·
CorfafLissioner Smith recommended that SDR-911 be continued off the agenda
since the applicant submitted a letter granting the Planning Commission
a six (6) month extension during this time the traffic study for this
area should be completed and then a decision relative to SDR-911 can be
made.
Chairman Lively so directed after thanking the applicant for his cooperation.
C. SDR-918 - Monty R. Boyd, Arroyo de Arguello, Building Site Approval -
1 Lot - Continued from 13 September 1971
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, to deny
building site approval for SDR-918 unless a letter of extension is
received from the applicant; motion carried unanimously.
D. SDR-920 - Roman T. Chavez, Belnap Court - Building Site Approval -
Lot - Continued from 13 September 1971
Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) this lot does not comply with
slope-density standards but the area has already been subdivided
sometime ago 2) if slope density were applied to this lot it would
have to be at least about 2~ times as large and 3) the Planning
Commission should be allowed to stipulate wha·t kind of a house is
to go on this property.
The Secretary stated that 1) a site-develop~nent plan showing the
building location, etc. could be requested ~D the property ~ner has,
in fact submitted a specialized map for a specific type of home and
3).. it would not be at all unreasonable to a~k for ~ very detailed
map for this building site. ..
-7-
Planning Commission ~nu!~es - 27 September 1971 - Continmed
III. D. SDR-920 - Continued
Chairman Lively recommended that the Building Si~e Committee Report
dated 27 September 1971 be amended by adding.the following condition:
"L. Submit for final approval detailed site-development plan
showing foundations, floor plan, elevations, and location.
of septic-tank system and driveway."'
ConmLissioner Smith moved, seconded Commissioner 'Kraus, that the
Building Site Committee Report dated 27 September 1971relative to
SDR-920 be adopted, as amended,.and that the temtative map (Exhibit
"A", filed 13 August 1971) be approved subject ~o the conditions set
forth in said report; motion carried unanimously..
...... E. SDR-921 - Neal P. Kirkham~ Sobey Road - Building zSite Approval - 1 Lot ............
Coa~f~issioner Smith rec~Lm~ended that SDR-921 be continued to allow
time to review the road in connection with this 'Suilding site.
Chairman Lively, in view of the foregoing, directed SDR-921 continued
to the meeting of 12 October 1971.
F. SDR-922 - Dr. Richard Wallace, Pierce Road - B~ding Site Approval - 3 Lots
Commissioner Smith rec~m~ended that SDR-922 be continued to the next
regular meeting in order to allow time for the. applicant to submit
further information relative to trees and the c~eek right-of-way in
connection with the subject lots.
Chairman Lively so directed.
G. 'SDR-923 - Donald Perat~ Pike Road - Building Si~e Approval - 3 Lots
Co~issioner ~rshall asked how many cubic yards of cut and fill would
be necessary for this subdivision.
Co~m~issioner Smith stated that the Assistant Diractor of Public Works
should be'present at the Planning Commission meetings'when this type
of information is necessary since he does write ~p the conditions and
has the information necessary to answer such que'stions.
Commissioner Marshall requested that some infornna,tion be obtained
relative to the amount of grading that will be mecessary for this
construction.
Chairman Lively directed SDR-923 continued to t~,e next regular meeting
in order to allow time for a review of the grading and to obtain a larger
map from the applicant.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-369 - Sisters'of Notre Dame, Bohlman Road=- Fimml Design Review - Landscape Plan
Cor~issioner Metcalf read the Staff Report dated ~.7 September 1971
relative to A-369 recommending that Final Design ~pproval be granted
for the landscape plans.
Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the
Staff Report dated 27 SeptemTDar 1971 be adopted amd that Final Design
Approval be granted for the landscape plans as sh®~n on Exhibit "G"
in file A-369 and subject to the conditions state~ in said report;
motion carried unanimously.'
-8-
~ iii.*'.":j~i~9_'~ Con~,~ission 1,1~ ........... --._27 September 1971 - Cont
IV. B. A-373 - Alfred F. Dumas, Inc., Prospect Road - F~nal Design Review -
Planned Community Development
Commissioner Metcalf read the Staff ~eport dated ~.27 September 1971
relative to A-373 recommending that Final Desigm ..~pproval be granted
for the houses and decorative fencing and Preli~nary Design Review
be granted for the landscaping.
Connnissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissisner Martin, that the
Staff Report dated 27 September 1971 be adopted and that Final Design
Approval be granted for houses and decorative femcing as shown on
Exhibit "D" and Preliminary Design Approval be groanted for the land-
scaping as shown on Exhibit "D" and subject to t~.'e conditions stated
in said report; motion carried unanimously.
V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Chairman Lively stated that the minutes of the Council meeting of the
15th of September 1971 were in each Commissioner's f~lders and requested
that they be read when possible.
VI. PI~aNNING POLICY COMMITTEE
Commissioner Kraus reported on the following items f~,om the meeting of
23 September 1971:
1) A public hearing'will be held on 4 No~nmmber
1971 regarding the final report of Phase I
of the Hillside Study.
2) Appointments to the reconstituted Hillsi·de .
Sub-,gommittee to oversee Phase II of tTn'e
. Hillside Study were approved, It wilI.'~e
necessary for Saratoga to appoint someshe
from the Planning Commission to serve ~n
this Committee,
3) An alternate from the City'of Sarat~ga~to the
Planning Policy'Committee should be appointed and
some Cities have already made their appeintments,
Commissioner Kraus stated he would prefer not to
serve again.
4) A progress report of the Solid Waste S~b-Committee
was given and a request made that the ~'anning
Policy Committee allow the sub-committ~'e to work
with industry to investigate for a Clas!s I toxic
waste-disposal site.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
A. SDR-914 - Gill Schaper, Hilltop Way - Request f~m .,Reconsideration of
Conditions - Continued from 13 Septemb~ 1971
The Secretary stated that some time ago this appl~.cant received Building
Site Approval in order to remodel his existing ~sidence and the applicant
requests that the condition requiring resurfacing of Hilltop Way be
waived~or that the time for the resurfacing the ~oad be determined by
mutual agreement of the residents who have rightmT, of-way over the road
and are responsible.. for its maintenance.
Mr. Schaper was present and stated that 1) Dr. ~yosnick and Mrs. McDaniel
the two other property owners that have legal access to this road agreed
to attend this meeting in support of his requesteR) the three resident-
owners have an agreement to maintain the road 3) ':the present condition of
the road can be repaired by patching 4) the roa~ ·will be resurfaced at a
later time when it is necessary and 5) it is urnfair to expect the
other property owners to pay for resurfacing at ~his time since it is
really not needed.
-9-
Planning·Commission Minutes - 27 September 1971 - Continued
VII. A. SDR-914 - Continued
Dr. Wyosnick, property o~ner on Hilltop Way, stated ~at 1) the residents
of this street realize the road is in need of repair~ but not in need of
complete resurfacing 2) as soon as Mr. Schaper finishes construction
the necessary repairs can be made 3) the residents of Hilltop Way will
maintain the road and repair it when Mr. Scl~aper completesconstruction
and 4) right now just does not seem to be the proper ·time for resurfacing.
The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 27 September 1971 recommending
that the request to waive the conditions requiring road resurfacing be
denied.
Mr. Schaper stated that 1) FHA did an appraisal for' ~his property and
they made no mention of requiring this road improvem~at and they would
have done so if they thought it to be necessary 2) ..tl~ere has been no
complaint from the Fire Department relative to getting fire equipment
down ·this road 3) only the three (3) property o~,mers on Hilltop Way
will be affected by these road improvements; therefome, it should be up
to them when the improvements are made and they have an agreement to
maintain that road when improvements are needed.
Chairman Lively directed the matter continued and re~erred it ·to the
Subdivision Committee and requested them to go out a~d take a look at
this road and review the matter with the Public Works'Department and
the Fire Department°
B. UP-191 - Brown and Kauffmann, Brockton Lane - Reques.t for Extension -
Continued from 13 September 1971
The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 27 Septembe,r 1971 recommepding
that a one (1) year extension be granted for UP-191.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner K~aus, that the subject
extension be granted for a period of one (1) year (new expiration date would
be 14 September 1971) subject to all previously impos;ed conditions; motion
carried unanimously.
C. SD-607 Douglas P. Hines, Pierce Road - Access Roa~ - Continued from
13 September 1971
The Secretary recommended that this matter be contirr~ed off the agenda·
indefinitely since the applicant is revising his app~Dach.
'·Chairman Lively so directed.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Eucalyptus Trees
The Secretary stated that 1) the two (2) eucalyptus ~ees at the intersection
of Ten Acres and Sobey Road will have to be removed s~.nce one is dead and
the other is deceased 2) Brian Gage (Tree Consultam~I) recommends that both
trees be removed and the Director of Public Works is ~aking steps to have
them removed.
Chairman Lively requested the Secretary to obtain a ~econd opinion before
removal of the trees actually takes place to make abs,~lutely sure everything
has been done to save these trees.
B. Kunkel-Thomas Map
The Secretary explained that ·the applicant has a more=detailed map available
for review by the Planning Commission.
Conm~issioner Smith stated that the map shows a subdi~·~sion composed of twelve
(12) lots.
-10-
VIII. B. Kunkel-Thomas Map
Mr. Kunkel, in answer to an inquir~ from Chairman Lively, stated three
(3) lots have more than the required 40~000 square feet 'and the rest
are right at the required 40,000 square feet.
Chairman Lively stated that in view of the opposition voiced by the
citizens to any "P-C" (Planned-Development) zoning it is best to stick
to a standard subdivision.
IX. COM}~NICATIONS
A. WRITTEN
None
B. ORAL
1. Possible Revision for Design Review of Single-Family Residences
The Assistant Planner stated that 1) no other City in California
requires design review for single-family residences and Saratoga
probably has some of the strongest regulations for design review
and 2) he has prepared a report which is in each Commissioner's
folder.
Chairman Lively requested all the Commissioners to read the report
and submit comments relative to improved methods of screening of
single-family residences. He referred the matter to the Design
Review Conmittee for study.
2. Request from Dr. Cox to Allow Overhead Utilities
Dr. Cox was present and stated 1) the cost of development of the
building site on Jacks Road has far exceeded expectations 2) he
requests the Planning Commission to allow PG&E and PT&T to extend
the existing overhead electricity-and phone-lines about 200-feet
toward the corner of the property being developed and then go
underground from there to the property sites 3) this would require
only one (1) power-pole and 4) this is a request for variance and
he would like an answer at this time.
Chairman Lively explained that a variance does require a public
hearing and an on-site inspection of the property by the Variance
Committee; therefore, it would not be possible to make a decision
relative to this request this evening.
Commissioner Kraus, on behalf of the Variance Committee, arranged
with the applicant for an on-site inspection of the property at
9:30 A.M. on Saturday, 2 October 1971.
3. Fire Chief Request
Commissioner Smith stated that 1) the Fire Chief has requested a
moratorium be put on all building in the Foothills until the water
situation is resolved and until the Hillside Co,L~nittee completes
their report and 2) the Fire Chief was asked to submit his request
in ~riting and the Planning Commission would consider it and make
a recommendation to the City Council.
Chairman Lively directed the matter continued until such time as-a
letter is received from the Fire Chief.
-11 -
Planning C~ission Minutes - 27 September 1971 - Continued
IX. B. 4. Guests
Chairman Lively, acknowledged with pleasure, the presence of
Councilman ~yer, and Mrs. Belanger of the Good Government Group.
.- He, alsa, thanked Mrs. Belanger for the coffee served at recess.
X. ADJOUP~NMENT
Chairman Lively adjourned the meeting at 12:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
S[anley M~ ~alke[,
Saratoga Planning Commission
SM /j
-12 -
AGEI']DA
~.~: Monday, 27~ Sept~ber I~71 - 7: 30 P .M.
~CE: C~ty C~ncil ~ers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, SaratoEd, California 95070
~E: Re~lar ~etinE
A. RO~ ~
B.
A. C.-~ - Clifford C. Beck, Saratoga Avenue ~d Cox - Request for ~anZe of
Zoni~ frm "R-I-10,O00" (SinSle-F~ly Residential) to "P-A"
.(Professtonal-A~nistrative) - Continued fr~ 13 Sept~ber 1971
B. C-148 - GeorEe W. Day, Fmitvale Avenue and Douglass - Request f~ ~anEe
of Zoni~ fr~ '~A~' (ASrfcultural) to "R-1-40,000" "P-~"
F~m~ly Residential Planned-C~ntty) - Continued fr~ 13 Sept~ber
1971
C. C-149 - City of S~atoSa, F~itvale Avenue and D~Slass - ~equest for
ChanZe of Zonin~ fr~ '~A~ (AZricultural) to "K-1-40,000"
(SinSle-F~ily lesfdenttal Planned-~u~nity) -. Continued
13 Sept~her 1971
D. C-139 - ~lachy J. Moran, SaratoEd Avenue - Request for ~anSe of Zonin8
(StnSle-F~4~7 Residential) - Continued frm 13 Septe~er ~971
E. V-366 - ~s. Earle Picke~inS S~h, Qutto Road - Request for Variance to
A~I~.~ ~erhead Utilities
III. BUILDING SI~S ~D S~DIVISIONS
A. ~D:gp~- - GeorSe W. Day, F~itvale Avenue and Do~Slass - Subdivision Approval
- 15 Lots - Continued from !3 Sept~ber 1971
B. SD~-911 - Willard ~son, O~¢ ~treet and St. ~%arles Street - BuildinS
Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued fr~ 13 Sept~er 1971
SDI{-918 - M~nty ~. Boyd, Arroyo de Ar~ello - BuildinE Site Appr~al -
,~ Lo~ - Continued fr~ 13 Sept~er 1971
D. SDK-~20 - R~ T. ~avez, Belnap Court - BuildinS Site Approval - 1 Lot
- Conrimmed fr~ 13 Sept~er 1971 .
E. SDR-921 - N~I P. Kir~.~. Sobey ~oad - Bui~dln~ Site Approval - 1 Lot
F. SD~-922 - Dr. ~ichard Walla~ p~erce ~oad .- Build~}~ Site Approval - 3 Lots
G. SDK-923 - Do~ld Perata=. Pike Road - B~ildtn~ Site Appr~al - 3 Lots
IV. DESIGN P~VI~
A. A-369 - Sisters of Notre DM, Bohlmn ~oad - Final DesiSn K~f~ -
L~dscaRe
B. A-373 - Alfred F. ~Ms, Inc. ~ Prospect ~oad - ~'inal Desf~ F~vf~ -
Planned C~,n~:ty Develop~nt
V. CI~ CO~,]CIL ~PORT
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. SDR-91~. - Gill Schaper~ Hilltop Wa~ - ~e~uest for P. econsideration of
Conditions - Continued' fr~ !3 Septe~er 1971
-i-
Planning Cov, m~sSipn ..~Eenda - 27 September 1971 - Continued
'VI. B. UP-igl - Br~n a~d I{auff~ann, Brockton Lane - Request for Extension -
Continued ~ 13 Sept~ber 1971
C. SD-607 - DouElas P. Hines, Pierce ~oad - Access Road - Conti~ed fr~
13 September 1971
'VII. i,~Y BUSI~SS
VIII. C~CATIONS
A. ~I~N
B. O~
~. ~O~NT
-2-