Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-1971 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~~~ISSI~N MINU%ZS TIFf: Tuesday, 26 October 1971 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga Youth Center - 13777 Fruitval~ Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTIRZ ORGANIZATION Th~ meeting was called to order by Chairman Lively at 7:30 P.M. A .'~ ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger,·Fagan, Lively, Martin, Marshall, and Metcalf. Absent: Commissioner Smith. B. WELCOME Chairman Lively welcomed Lynn C. Belanger (first lady Planning· Commissioner) to the Saratoga Planning Comissi6n and stated that Commissioner Belanger haS.'6~n a resident of Saratoga for eleven (11) years and has taken an active part in many community affairs;and was graduated sumna cum laude from Lawrence ·University, Appleto~, Wisconsin. C. MIR~TES Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissi.o~er' Marshall, that the reading of the minutes of 12 October 1971 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed; motion carried unanimously. D. NEW. CO~.~IITTEE ASSIGNMENTS .. Chairman Lively rearranged the Committee Assignments as indicated below: SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE GENERAL PIJaN CO~XITTEE Commissioner Smith, Chairman Commissioner Metcalf, Chairman Conm~issioner Fagan Commissioner Martin 'Commissioner Marshall Commissioner Smith Alternate: Alternate: Chairman Lively Commissioner Marshall VARIANCE CO~vE[TTEE DESIGN REVIEW CO[D%TTEE Commissioner Martin, Chairman CommiSsioner Metcalf, Chairman Commissioner Belanger Conmissioner Belanger · Commissioner Marshall Commissioner Martin Alternate: Alternate: Commissioner Fagan Commissioner Marshall PLANNING POLICY CODEITTEE HILLSIDE SUB-CO~R.~TTEE PHASE I! Chairman Lively -:' Commissioner Metcalf Alternate: Commissioner Metcalf -1- ~planning~.Conmission Minutes - 26 OctOber 1971 - Continued .II PUBLIC HEARINGS A'. V-368 - John Constantin, Oak Street - Request for Variance to Allow an Increase in lkqelling Units Per Site Area. Chairman Lively opened the hearing relative to V-368 at 7:40 P.M. The Assistant Planner stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed. He further stated that 1) the applicant's parcel is presently zoned "R-M- 3,000" ~ich requires 3,000-square feet per apartment unit 2). in the last unit.of the proposed apartment he could have 90% of the 3,000-square feet and 3) the applicant is short just 450=square feet of that 90% requ'ired by the ordinance; therefor-e, he has.made this request for variance. · Mr. Constantin, the applicant, was present and stated that he'would like to complete this third unit and the apartmenm ~ould be convenient for the'tenants since they would be within walking distance to shopping areas and the Village. The Assistant Planner, in answer to an.'inquiry,' from Chairman Lively, explained that this. lot (No. 9) was recorded in 1870 under the'to~.m of McCartysville. . .-,:,,! . , .. '- NO one else present wished to cormnent. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:46 P.M., directed 'the matter continued to the next regular meeting, and referred V-368 to the Variance Committee'for study and a report· Comnissioner Martin, on behalf of 'the Variance .Committee, arranged with the applicant for an on-site inspection of the property on Saturday, 30 October 1971 at 9:00 A.M. B. V-369 - Louis S. Frankel, Montewood Drive - Request for Variance to Allow an Increase in Accessory Structure Height The hearing was opened at 7:47 P.M. 'The Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed. He then read communications filed in opposition to the requested variance by the following residents of the area: 1. Mr. J. R. Templeton, 18788 Montewood Drive, Saratoga. 2. Mr. Charles N. Odineal, 18634 Mont~qood Drive, Saratoga.. 3. Dr. and M~s. Fred Kurm.~eil, Jr. 18667 Montewood Drive, Saratoga· Mr. Frankel, the applicant, was present and stated that 1) the application. is strictly concerned with the height limitation'of the building and the keeping of numerous animals (as objected to in the various communiqations received) is not really the issue 2) he, also, ox,ms'property on AuStin Way that backs UP to the subject property and 'is in the. City Limits 'of Monte Sereno 3) he 'has obtained all the proper permits from Saratoga and Monte Sereno. for the keeping of all his animals 4) there are variations in the property that makes it necessary to request this variance 5) the stall for the keeping'of the horses has already been approved and construc- tion started, but he Would like permission for an increase of an additional 8-feet in building height for storage 6) he has a foundation on the building that would be adequate for the additional height 7) the Building Department has indicated that he would not be in violation by storing hay in on the roof of this structure if the storage area is enclosed according to specifica,tions 8) in any case he could store' h~y'on..t.op =-': of this roof and ,cover it with a tarp, but for aesthetic reasons he wanted to build a frame around it to screen the storage from vie~.~ 9) the Health Department inspected the property a~d found no existing health problems 10) the storage bin would not be visible from Monte~ood and it would not be de[rimental to anyone and 11). if the variance is approved it would allow him to,buy and store hay in greater quantity. -2- .:' II. B'. V-369 - Continued Mr. Frankel, in answer to an inquiry from Comnissioner Fagan, stated that 1) the adjacent undeveloped properties are at about the same grade as the subject property 2) it'would be useful to have the hay stored above the building since it is easier to feed if you can drop the hay do~,n~ into the feeding area and 3) if the hay cannot be stored in the suggested manner then an 8-foot building will have to be constructed elsewhere on the property. Mr. Moore, 15474 Monte Vista, at'torney representing residents of the i subject area opposed to said variance, stated that 1) the applicant's reasoning that he can stack material on his building and th~ cover it with a tarp is re.ally not valid since that reasoning would allow anyone storage on top. of a building and then build a building aroun~ it and 2) the applicant has not sho~,~ good reason why he cannot build within the limits allowed by the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Lively advised Mr. Moore that if his group wishes to meet with' the Variance Committee to discuss this matter he can make arrangements to do so by contacting the Planning:DepaTtment Secretary. . ' Chairman Lively then closed the hearing for the evening at 8:16 P.M., directed V-369 continued to the next regular meeting and referred the 'ma~tef to the Variance Committee'for'study and a report. Commissioner Martin, on behalf of the Variance Committee, arranged with the applicant, for an on-site inspection of the property for Saturday, 30 October 1971 at 9:30 A.M. ~" III. BUILDING SIt~S AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-904 -.George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue'and Douglass - Subdivision Approval - 1.5 Lots - Continued from 12 October 1971 Chairman Lively directed SD-904 continued to the next regular. meeting to allow time for further study of the matter. B. SDR-922 - Dr. Richard Wallace, Pierce Road - Building Site Approval - 3 Lots - Continued from 12 October 1971 The Assistant Planner recommended that SDR-922 be continued to the next regular meeting to allow the applicant time to submit a revised map. He further stated that the application should be continued subject to receipt of a letter of' extension from the applicant'. Commissioner Fagan moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to deny building site approval for SDR-922 unless a letter of extension is received from the applicant; motion carried unanimously. C. SDR-924 Ned Richmond~ Sunset Drive - Building Site Approval.-- 1 Lot The applicant stated he reviewed the proposed 'conditions of approval"' 'and expressed satisfactio~ of same. Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) a detailed site plan for Lot "A" should be required and 2) Design Review Approval should be required for the type of structure that may be built on this site. Commissioner Marshall noted that according to the map three (3) trees are to be removed and he wondered if another means of access could be arranged to save the trees. Mr. Richmond explained that there are so many trees on the property it will be necessary to remove some trees to save the good trees. Commissioner Marshall suggested that, perhaps, the driveway could be moved and some ~esser trees be removed. -3- - Plan~ing Conm~ission Minutes - 26. October .1971 - Continued III. C. SDR-924 - Continued Mr. Richmond explained 1) he is ~oi~g to. sell the property; therefore, it is difficult to determine what type of home the new owner would decide to build 2) the topography on the map looks different on the map than what it actually is 3) there is'only one area of the property that is suitable for a home and 4) it will not be necessary to bring any fill onto the property. Connnissioner Metcalf stated that the concern of the Planning-Commission is that the house be built to conformwith the land rather than the land being cut t6 suit the house. It was the consensuS'of the Commission that it might be well to continue this matter and allow time for the Subdivision Committee and.Design Review Committee to make an on-site inspection of the property. Chairman Lively, in view of the foregoing, directed SDR-924 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to.the Subdivision Committee. D., SD-925 - Ditz.-Crane Builders, Inc., Cox Avenue - Subdivision Approval - 61 Lots Mr. Dick Cecchi, MacKay and Somps engineer representing the applicant, stated that the applicant'has arranged with Mr. Galeb for purchase of the adjacent property. ;~ Commissione,r 'Metcalf recommended that an emergency. fire access be required through to DeSanka Avenue. , _ Mr. Cecchi explained that a secondary turn-around for fire protection has been provided for and it would be awkard to have an emergency access road through this lot. Commissioner Martin stated that from his observation in some tracts a lot of developers are not putting in the required number of trees in the front yard and he asked Mr. Cecchi what the applicant's policy was regarding tree planting in subdivisions. Mr. Cecchi explained that 1) he was, in fact, only the applicant's representative, but he assumed the applicant would meet the require- 'ments of the City of Saratoga 2) Ditz-Crane is a reputable builder and always tries to meet all the.conditions of approval. Commissioner Martin stated that there are many homes that do not have the required number of trees and the developer should be required to provide them before any future approvals are granted.. Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) the Planning Commission is ipdebted tO Commissioner Martin for again bringing this, matter to their attention 2) this is about the third or fourth time that the matter Of tree'plant- ing has been brought to the attention'of a subdivider who is seeking final..approval 3) this seems to be a facet of the Subdivision Ordinance that is neglected and. it is time that the 'subdividers are made aware that they must provide these trees for the people that buy the homes in their subdivisions 4) he would recommend .that SD-925 be continued to the next regular meeting until the applicant submits a plan and a letter stating his intent relative to the planting of trees in the proposed subdivision and other 'existing subdivisions. Mr. Cecchi stated that 1) Ditz-Crane is building $50,000. homes in this development and if the City requires them to plznt trees they will comply 2) the City is holding a bond which they do not have to release until the applicant meets all the requirements and 3) the applicant would like approval .at this time since they are' anxious to get the subdivision recorded. -4- planning Commission Minutes - 26 October 1971 - Continued III. D. /SD-925 - Continued Commissioner Martin stated that some process should be worked out whereby ~e powe~ to hold up the bond is exercised if the applicant does not meet all conditions. Conmissioner Marshall recommend'ed that· the Subdivision Committee Report be amended instead of coptinuing this matter. After a brief discussion, Chairman Lively reconLmended that the subject Subdivision Conunittee Report dated 26 October 1971 be amended by adding the following. conditions: · "17. ProVide street tree planting in accordance ~ with Paragraph 4.7 of Subdivision Ordinance NS-5." '~18. Final map approval may be·deferred pending· receipt of plan and schedule of street tree planting for all units." Commissioner Fagan moved, seconded by Connnissioner Marshall, that the Subdivision Committee Report dated 26 OctOber 1971 relative to · SD~'gj5 be··adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-i", filed 26 October 1971) be approyed subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. 'IV.' DESIGN REVIEW Commissioner Metcalf stated that Sa~atoga·Eoothil!s submitted a tentative landscape plan for their subdivision on Fruitvale·Avenue and the Design Review Conm~ittee did review the plan and returned it to the developer for further revisions and with the recommendation that they provide a 4-foot fence instead of a 6-foot fence. V. CITY COUNCIL ~PORT ·· CommisSioner Fagan gave a surmmary of items revia~ed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 20 October 1971, with emphasis on items of particular interest to the Commission. · Commissioner Martin stated that the·Bro~,m and Kauffmann Unit #4 final map (approved by the City Council) is substantially different than the map approved by the Planning Commission. Councilman Smith was present and stated that the reason the applicant was allowed to change the map is that the residents of the area petitioned to redirect the street in this subdivision; therefore,·the map had to be changed. Chairman Lively requested that the revised map be made available for review by the Planning Commission. VI. OLD BUSINISS A. POSSIBLE REVISION - Design Review of Single-Family Residences The Assistant Planner sta~:ed that the Staff is still working on a study relative to this matter and it should be continued to the next regular meeting. · Chairman Lively so directed. B. AES~{ETIC GRADING STANDARDS - Continued from'12 October 1971 The Assistant Planner stated that Ernie Kraule,Fire Chief, Saratoga Volunteer Fire' Department, was present and had some comments to make. VI. B. AESrI~iETIC GRADING STANDARDS - Continued Chief Kraule explained that 1) he is relieved that something is being· done to establish road widths in the hillside areas 2) mountain .. turns can 'be difficult and a 14~foot road' width in the mountain area would .be· acceptable 3) he would prefer a 32-foot radius circular turn-around rather than a hammerhead shape since it would be easier for a 'fire engine to turn··around than it would be· for the fire engine to back up and 4) it would be best if cul-de-sac streets and private driveway.lengths were not in excess of 500~feet since if it is necessary to be any further away from a hydrant a fire hose has some function loss. Cormnissioner Martin suggested that, perhaps, a hydrant shouid be added if the cul-de-sac or' private drive exceeds 400-feet in length. The Assistant Planner stated that the standards will have to be written up in resolution form before they can be recommended for approval. by the · Connnission. · Chairman Lively referred the matter back to the Staff and requested they put the Aesthetic Grading Standa. rds into a proper format by the next regular meeting. VII. NEW BUSINESS None VIIi. CO~R~UNICATIONS A. WRITTEN· 1. UP-176 - Ditz-Crane~ Yuba Court -· ~equest'for Extension The Assistant Planner recommended that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting. · Chairman Lively so directed; · 2.· UP-169 - George W. Day, Fan, xell Avenue - Request for Extension - Continued from 12 October 1971 The Assistant Planner recommended that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directed. Bo ORAL TREES Commissioner Martin stated that 1) he has made a survey and has found there are many areas in the City where the required trees have not··been planted by the subdiVider 2) in the Brown and Kauffmann subdivision, Unit #3, the residents stated the developer was required to. Supply each house with two (2) trees 3) in many cases there were no trees provided, in some cases there was' only one (1) tree furnished when a specific request ~as made to the developer by ·the homeo~,rner 3) as a result of this negli- gence many people have gone ahead and planted=their ox,m trees and 4) in addition to planting·these·trees the developer is to be responsible for maintaining them for a year and this has not been accomplished either. Chairman Lively stated that a letter will be required from the developer saying that the trees have been planted and some system must be established foran on-site inspection to make sure the trees are planted. The Assistant Planner stated that the·developer's bond is not released until the developmentis inspected by the Public Works Department and this might be the 6pportune time to check and· see if the trees are indeed planted. -6- ..... ~l~nn~ng Connnis sioner nes - 26 October 1971 - Continued VIII. B. TREES - Continued Chairman Lively reqested the P1zanning Director to write a memo, on behalf of the. Planning Cormmission, to the Public Works Director recon~nending that the Public Wo"rks Department carefully check to see that all required trees are' planted by the developer prior to release of the bond. GUE S TS Chairman Lively, acknowledged with pleasure, the presence o.f Councilman Smith. tie, also, thanked the Good Government GroUp for the coffee provided. IX. ~JOU~'~NT Chai~an Lively adjou~ed the meeting at 9:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, '.,.~.'.~.,~. .,"' ,. / ,."., , / ..... "~ Stanley M. }'%alker, Secretary Saratoga P~anning Co~ission s /j -7-