Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-24-1972 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAP~TOGA PLANNING CO~MISSION AG EN DA . . ******************** TIME: Monday, 24 April 1972 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 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 Belanger,'Bacon., Lively, Marshall, Martin, Metcalf, and Smith. B. · MINUTES Cormmissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the reading of the minutes of the 10 April 1972 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed with the following changes:' page 5. .under G. V-375. .paragraph 3. ~ .line 4. .change th'e word "us" tO " use; page 12. .under VI. A. SDR-943 .paragraph 9 line 1 correct the spelling of the word '!separate"; motion carried with Cormnissioner Bacon abstaining. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-209 - Royce S. Kaufmann, Pierce Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow Private Swim and Racket Club - Continued from 10 April 1972 Chairnmn Lively reopened the hearing for UP-~09 at 7:37 P.M. The Assistant Planner stated that the applicant has requested that this matter be'continued to the next regular meeting. .. Commissioner Smith stated that applicant is still in the process of preparing plans and information requested by the Planning Commission relative to by-laws for the club,'proposed membership list, water supply sanitary facilities, and a statement classifying this proposed club as either private or non-private. Commissioner Marshall recommended that the Secretary inform this applicant that the Planning Commission will continue. this matter until the next meeting only - if no further information is received by that time the matter will be acted upon on the basis of a recommendation by the Subdivision Committee. No one in the audience wished to comment. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:40 P.M., directed the matter' continued to the next regua!r meeting and referred UP-209 to the Subdivision Committee for study. B. UP-210 - Immanuel Lutheran Church,'.Saratoga Avenue and Seagraves Way - Request Use .Permit to Allow a Special School for Learning - Continued from 10 April 1972 The hearing relative to UP-210 was reopened at 7:42 P.M. The-Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 24 April 1972 recommending that the Use Permit to allow a. pre-school at the Immanuel Lutheran Church be approved. '~" Mr. Don Whitehoff, President of th~ Congregation of the Immanuel Lutheran Church, stated the co~d'itions stated in the Staff Report are acceptable and would'pre- sent no problems for the proposed ~re-school. Planning Commis.sion Minutes - 24 April 1972 Continued II. B. UP-210 - Continued Chairman Lively recormn. ended that the subject Staff Report be amended by changing condition 3. of the report to read as follows: 3. ttours 6f operation shall be as follows: From 9:00 A.M.. to 12:00 Noon (First Session) and 1:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Second Session) Conm~issioner Smith'moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to close the hearing relative to UP-210 at 7:44 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith' moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated 24 April 1972 relative tO UP-210 be adopted, as amended, and a Use Permit be granted to allow a pre-School for children between the ages of 2 and 6 years who have learning disabili. ties} subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. UP-211 - John P. McLaughlin, Via.Regina - Request to Allow %~o (2) Building Sites on Less than the Site Area Required Under Ordinance'3E-8 Chairman Lively opened the hearix~g relative to UP-211 at 7:45 P.M. The AssistantsPlanner stated that the Notice of Hearing was .The applicant was present and stated that 1) he bought the subject property 'prior to the City's incorporation and just recently decided to sell same 2) to his grea~ surprise he discovered a five (5) acre parcel minimum is necessary to divide property in this area 3) the terrain on his parcel is less'steep than the Pike property which is just across the boundary line and not included in the Monte Bello .Ridge Study Area and 4) adjacent properties are all one (1) acre sites. Chairman Lively explained that the City has adopted an Emergency Ordinance t0 limit development in the hillside area and this property happens to be 16cated in that area. Commissioner Smith stated that the ordinance has a provision for the appli- · cant to apply for a Use Permit to'allow development of his property with less than the required five (5) acre minimum. The Assistant Planner stated that this property is in 'the Monte Bello Ridge Study Area. Mrs. McLaughlin, wife of the applicant, questioned whether this Emergency Ordinance should apply to the subject property since the Monte Bello Ridge Study Area includes large parcels proposed for subdivision and this ~roperty does.not qualify. Chairman Lively stated that the point is the appii[ant proposed to take a single property that is now one (1) lot and divide-the parcel into two (2) ~ots. 'Mrs. McLau~hlin explained that 1)= she and her husband purchased this property many years ago in order that the property could be sold at the appropriate time to pay fo~ the college education of their two .(2) daughters 2) if this property cannot be sold as two (2:) separate parcels then the college funds will be restricted and 3) the subject land was contemplated and planne~ before the City was inForporated.l Commissioner Smith stated that proposed ~econd, lot does not front on a public street; therefore,'it would be established as.a flag lot. -2- Planning Commission Minutes 24 April 1972 -'Continued II. C. UP-211 - Continued Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:56 P.M., directed UP-211 continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for study. D. V-373 - Charla Ann Brox~n, Canyon View Drive - Request for Variance to AllOw Decrease in Front Yard Setback Requirements - Continued ~rom 10 April 1972 The hearing relative to V-373 was reopened at 7:57 P.M. Chairman Lively explained that at the last meeting of the Planning Conmission it was decided that prior to any action in connection with V-373 another on-site inspection.would be made by each individual Commissioner. Chairman Lively stated that he hoped each Commissioner did have an opportunity to look at this site, The neighbors above and below this site feel that if a variance were granted the proposed house would be situated in such a way that their views would be ruined and they feel the applicant would have a lovely view with or without the variance. The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 24 April 1972 reconm~end- ing that the subject request for.variance be granted. .Commissioner Metcalf stated that it appeared the applicant's architect has made no attempt to design this house to fit the lot. Chairman Lively stated that the applicant should be required to build this house in conformanQe with the setback requirements stated in the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance NS-3. In.a few years, with proper, landscaping the proposed house can 5e screened from view. Commissioner Metcalf stated that'he is not really concerned about anybody's view but only with the subject varianceo.~equest itself. It is feasible to bC~ild the proposed house and still conform to the setback requirements of Zoning Ordinance NS-3. There is no hardship tO consider in connection with construction of this residence. Chairman Lively stated he agreed.a variance is not necessary for this lot since the applicant was well aware of what the property and the setbacks consisted of ~en the property was purchased. If this variance is granted it could set-a precedent for other similar variance requests. Commissioner Marshall stated that 1) the precedent has already been set by variances that were granted to less-deserving properties than the'one under discussion 2)~. in the same.area there are a number of situations that have already had variances and 3) there are not many sites like the appli- cant's that set 40-feet'back from the road; therefore, there will undoubtedly not be many similar requests for variance. Commissioner Smith stated that there are a number of irregular lots in the City and.if some relief is not granted these lot's will be unbuildable. Mr. Robert Louden, 21110 Sullivan Way, sta~ed that 1) he lived at the rear and adjacent to this property 2) there is a difference between this request for variance and the other variances that have been granted in this area that appear to be similar 3~ the subject variance is being sought in a built-up neighborhood and the view the neighbors have paid for will be affected 4) the existing variances were granted years ago before the area was ~uilt-up and 5) the fact that the neighbors object to this variance and the possibility that this house can be built without a variance put~ this request in a completely different category. -3- Flanning Commission Minutes - 24 April 1972 -'Continued II. Do V-373 - Continued Commissioner Bacon stated that it is his opinion after making an on-site inspection of this property that there would not be anv obstruction of view of any of the neighbors if this variance were granted. Chairman Lively stated that from.the stand-point of the neighbors the view will be affected. Commissioner Martin stated that ~he neighbors would like to see the house set way down in the lot away from the road in the area the previous owner considered as his location for the house. It is his feeling that the pro- posed residence will be more objectionable to the neighbors view without the variance. Chairman Lively stated the owner bought 'this lot knowing how steep the lot was and the situation with respect to the setback requirements and it is possible to build a house that will comply with the Zoning Ordinance and he feels the variance should be denied. Commissioner Metcalf stated that ==1)..he~..'i~ further objecting to the granting of this variance because it has not been showa unfeasible to place a house on this lot and still comply witli setbacks 2) he did visit this site and looked at the plan and believes Chat the further the house is set back on the lot the easier it is to build; therefore, he considers the variance request unjustified on the basis no hardship exists that would justify altering setback requirements. Conm~issioner Marshall stated that such an argument suggests that the Planning Commission should stick with bureaucracy just because it is legal. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, to close the hearing relative to V-373 at 8:14 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff Report dated 24 April 1972 be adopted and that the subject Variance be granted to allow a decrease in front yard setback requirements on the basis the findings under Section 17.6 of Ordinance NS-3 can be made and said Variance to be subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried with Chairman Lively and CormniSsioner Metcalf voting "no". E. V-375 - Miljevich Enterprises, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Request for Variance to Allow Increase in Square-Footage Area of Building Continued from 10 April 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to V-375 at 8:16 P.M. The Assistant Planner stated that. Mr. Hamilton (representative for the applicant) has submitted a written document explaining the plans for this property and a map showing the food market closer to the highway and. elevations looking from the house on the adjacent lot at the back of this property into the shopping center. Mr. Hamilton was present and stat'ed that in the document referred to by the Assistant Planner under the Section designated Trash Removal there is noted a revised plan to cover objection's previously listed relative to noise caused by a truck running its motor at high speed to raise garbage bins completely over the truck for the purpose of emptying said bins at the Blue Hills Shopping Center.- The proposed shopping center on the Miljevich property will use the more expensive 18-yard bin service - collectable once a week - no emptying or compaction to be done on the premises and the bins will be exchanged by a truck operation that requires no high speed operation of its motor. The storage area for these bins will be built into the center. Removal will be scheduled for once a week and can be arranged for after 8:00 A.M. on a week day morning according to Green Valley Disposal. · Commissioner Martin stated that he has not had an opportunity to review the additional material submitted by the applicant; therefore, he would reconnnend the matter be continued. tte further suggested that a meeting be arranged with a City Council Committee and the Planning Commission to discuss this matter especially since the City Council has not ruled on a similar variance in this area denied by the Planning CommiSsion and appealed to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes - 24 April 1972 - Continued II. E. V-375 - Continued Commissioner Smith stated that based on the Planning Commission decision of the variance denial on the Garcia property (variance request similar to V-375) he feels the same acti6n must be taken for the subject variance. Chairman Lively ~tated he agreed with Commissioner Smith that to grant this variance when the Planning Commission denied another similar variance essentially across the street would be totally inconsistent. Commissioner Marshall explained that if one looks closely at the Miljevich plans they would see that they are quite different from the Garcia plans. Perhaps, if the Miljevich proposal had been presented first it is entirely possible that the Planning Comnission would have found itself in a different position at this time. He would'agree that a meeting with a City Council Committee is in order to discuss "C-V"'(Visitor-Commercial) Zoning on both sides of the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and to determine what type of deyelop- ment for this property would be to the best interest of the City of S~ratoga. Chairman Lively stated that discussion of "C-V".···.zoniBg should actually be discussed at ·the time of the General Plan Review. Commissioner Smith stated that the matter of the General Plan Review was discussed at the last City Council meeting and the Secretary did request an early priority meeting with the City Council for the purpose of discussing the General Plan. Chairman Lively stated that the problem lies within the variance and a recommendation must, eventually, be made and a decision made as to whether o~ not it is wise to protect other shopping centers in the area by limiting the size of food markets in the "C-V" Zoning Districts. Commissioner Martin stated that it is his opinion the Planning Commission should wait to see what the City Council is going to do on the Garcia Variance Appeal before taking any action on the Miljevich Variance Request. Just because the Planning Commission denied one does not necessarily mean they have to deny the other - these are t~o (2) different proposals. Chairman Lively staled that he did not feel they were different. Mr. Hamilton stated that 1) there are no objecting homeowners present at this meeting and he has talked with them and the majority of them now feel this center would be an addition to the value of their property 2) this center would be setback 400-feet from the nearest neighbor in the back and over 300-feet from the nearest neighbor on the side 3) the Garcia Center food store and adjoining buildings was as'·close as 100-feet to the nearest neighbor and a lot of trees would'be lost with development of the Garcia parcel 4) the Miljevich family has owned this property since 1920 and their whole future d~pends on approval or disapproval of this variance and 5) the Garcia property has been purchased for the purpose of speculation. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:30 P.M., directed V-375 continued to the next regular meeting and referred the matter to the Variance Committee for further st·udy and a report at that time. F. V-377 - John P. McLaUghlin, V~a Regina - Request f~r ~ariance to Allow r Reduction in Lot Frontage Requi'~'~nt ........................................................... .Chairman Lively·opened the hearings relative to V-377 at 8:31 P.M. The Assistant Planner stated that the Notice of Hearing was mailed. Mr. McLaughlin S.·~ated that if he called this a corridor lot it would not be necessary to get a Variance; however, the lot would not be attractive' as a corridor lot with'a wide driveway involving extensive grading and the removal of trees. Lot "A" is served by a private driveway. -5- Planning Commission Minutes 24 April 1972 - Continued II. F. V-377 - Continued Chairman Lively explained that if the applicant chooses to call the first lot a corridor lot he would not have to have a variance but there is a question as to whether the rear lot is a legal lot. Commissioner Marshall stated that the access to the front lot if it were served by a corridor access from the rear lot it would be legal but then there woutd be three (3) flag lots off of one access road. The Assistant Planner explained that presently there are many flag lOts served off of that one access 'ro~d. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry. from Commissioner Smith, stated that the configuration of this lot has never been changed and it is legal non-conforming as a lot; however, it is being divided and changed so a Variance is required for the lot frontage requirements. Commissioner Smith explained that as long as the applicant uses this property as a single lot he has no problem but when he divides it he has this compound problem of illegal size lots with insufficient frontage on a public street. What was a legal nonjconforming lot originally becomes illegal when you try to subdivide this property. Chairrnan.'Lively .closed the hearing for the evening at 9:37 P.M., directed V-377 continued to the next regular meeting and referred the matter to the Variance Committee for study. Commissioner Martin, as Chairman of the Variance Committee, made an appointment to meet with the applicant for an on-site inspection on Saturday, 29 April 1972 at 9:00 A.M. G. C-154 - Thomas D. Kidson, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road - Request for-Change of Zoning from "R-l-lO,O00"'(Single-Family Residential) to "C-C" (Community -Comme rc ia 1 ) Chairman Lively opened the hearing relative to C-154 at 8:39 P.M. At the request of Chairman Lively all people (total of approximately 100) stood and stated they were present to voice their opposition to the pro- posed change of zoning. The Secretary stated that the Notice of Hearing was mailed and published. He then read a Statement of Reason filed by the applicant. He, also, read the following communications: 1) A petition containing 102-signatures of the homeowners in the area stating their opposition to C-154. 2)A petition containing 7-Signatures, also, filed in opposition to the proposed change of zoning. 3) A letter from the homeowners group in the area ~~ing the subject change of zoning. Signed by Fred and Margaret 4)~Letters filed by the following residents in opposition to the proposed change of zoning: Mrs. Betty Lou ~as'of 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Mr. and Mrs. Virgil Campbell of 14482 Oak Place. R~Saleen and Albert Spears of 14561Westcott Drive. Alex Horvath of 20330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Mr. and Mrs. Clarence Asplund of 14600 Westcott Drive. Mr. H. E. ~thias of 14527 Westcott Drive. Mrs. Harold Hodge of 19875 Park Drive. -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 24 April 1972 Continued ~I. G. C-154 - Continued Mr. Bruce J. Pohle:of 14466 Oak Place. Mr. and Mrs. James'V. Hargis of 20281 Orchard Road. Helen L. Brozda of 14900 Montalvo Road. Leona Avidiya of 14571Westcott Drive Dr. Terry Maas of 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. ' Cliff Mass of 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Mr. Tom Kidson:. applicant, stat'e~ that 1) the property at this location and the building are beautiful landmarks in Saratoga 2) his thoughts were that since it had been used as an antique store for many years and it is an expensive piece' of property and looking around at the house and gardens it is his opinion that it would be ideal for a restaurant and would fill the need for an elegant restaurant in Saratoga 3) he has been working with the owners of Ernies Restaurant of San Francisco to coordinate this project 4) he is aware there are certain problems in connection with traffic and he intends to do every- thing possible to cope with this problem 5) he has employed Warren Heid, local architect, because of his excellent reputation as an architect and because of his awareness of Saratoga and its environment 6) Mr. Heid has done a beautiful job in designing the plans for this proposed restaurant 7) it is the intent to preserve and enhance this property and 7) the major portion of'the restaurant will be used for the purpose of elegant dining. 'Mr. Warren Heid was present and stated that 1) the proposed plan has been submitted to the Planning Commission for review and he displayed a colored rendering for review by the audience 2) Mr. Kidson did extend an invitation to property owners in the area toZreview this plan 3) he is aware of the many problems the Saratoga community is faced with and the biggest problems have to do with commercial property 4) the subject parcel is now used for legal-non-conforming commercial 5) the present occupants have been located here for the past nineteen years and even though it has not been used as a restaurant it has still been involved in a coxmmercial venture; therefore, the commercial feeling has been established 6) he has prepared an information report and he will provide each Commissioner with a copy 7) the applicant will only locate at this site if all the details can be worked out properly 8) the traffic situation on Saratoga-Los. Gatos Road will be dealt with and will be beneficial to the community 9) the trees will be maintained and the landscaping controlled with'the cooperation of the Planning Commission and Planning Staff 10) the applicant is concerned with the lack of pedestrian and bicycle walks in this area 11) a 4-foot wide p~ved sidewalk along the entire front of the property is planned as shown on the plot plan 12) a sidewalk across the street would be difficult due to the nature of the retaining wall 13) there'is only one entrance to the property and the Fire Chief has stated he will be able to 'get his equipment in through this driveway if necessary 14) deliveries will be made through this entrance 15) basically the produce and meat will be selected by-.hand and delivered by an employee in his own car 16) normal supplies will be delivered 17) the parking for this development meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with 67-spaces for patrons and 16-spaces for the employees equaling a total of 83-spaces 18) the total seating capacity is for ll0-patrons 19) cities all over the United Stated have fine homes (like the one under discussion) that have been converted to restaurant use 20) all parking of cars will be by valet so that the. movement of cars and noise will be non-existent '21) a private security guard will be on duty from 9:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. every day of operation 22) exterior lighting will be kept to a minimum so that it will not.be visible ~o neighbors 23) electronic grease and odor filters will be installed to filter any possible Odors and smoke from the structure 24) Green Valley Disposal .has submitted a letter stating they would schedule their pick-up for after 8:30 A.M. in the morning for this restaurant establishment - a garbage disposal and commercial compressor will, also, be used 25) there is a possibility that a recept,ion room could be installed underneath this building, which would not be part of the main function 26) the whole intent is ~o create a feeling of an elegant restaurant equal to the atmosphere of any in the country -7'- Planning Commission Minutes - 24 April 1972 - Continued II. G. C-154 - Continued Mr. Heid - Continued 27) signs will be kept to a minimum since the atmosphere and fine cuisine will speak for itself and 28) land values in the area have grown even though this property has been used co~nercially. Mr. Kidson~ in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Smith, stated that at present no plans are included for use o.f the existing cottage and barn on this property. Mr. Robert Van de Torren of 14555'Horseshoe Drive stated that 1) he would like to discuss this matter realistically and inquire y it is necessary to have a restaurant of this nature in Saratoga 2) this would be a drawing card and that means that this particular restaurant does not have to be located in Saratuga and could be out somewhere because people would seek it out if it were indeed a fin% elegant restaurant with fine cuisine 2) the placement of this restaurant at this location wo~ld be contrary to: a) The ';C-C" (Community-Commercial) concept .since this use would not only serve the people o·f Saratoga~ but would draw from a great area~ b) The Master Plan since this transition would involve a change from an exclusive antique-store use to the highest density use allowed under the "C-C" zoning district. c) The proposed use would be contrary to the wishes of the residents of the ar6a. Mr. Van der Torren further stated· that 1) there is an existing traffic problem here and there is no way that additional traffic could benefit this area 2) he wishes the applicant were proposing this project for another piece of property since it would be very nice to have a first-class restaurant but he feels Saratoga is casual and this type of elegant restaurant does not particularly belong in the heart of Saratoga 3) he does not see the urgent need to save the Georgian House since he does not feel it urgently needs saving - there are many houses on two-acre parcels that cost far more - the price for the Georgian House does not seem unreasonable for a single-family residence of this stature and 4) he believes the owner has the right to make a profit from this property but he does not feel that it is an over-riding right over the objections that have been stated via the numerous communications and petitions. Mr. Fred Becker of 14452 Oak Plac'e stated '·that 1) he is a Saratogan by evening - - - he flies to L.A. each day because that is where he works 2) he and his family settled in Saratoga because it seemed to be the'type of co~nunity that was interested·in maintaining its delightful atmosphere of beautiful trees and quiet privacy and was not interested in becoming a neon-jungle 3) if this use is approved there will be a substantial increase in.noise and pollution and 4) and as a result of a use of this type in this area the ·existing wild-life will be disturbed. Mr. Nobel Tucker, 14434 Oak Place', stated that 1) ~hile the proposed restaurant and the "high class" intention sound very nice there is really no guarantee that this restaurant· will really be special and 2) at this time the Planning Con~nission must consider this proposal to be just another 'restaurant. Chairman Lively·closed the hearing for the evening at 9:40 P.M., directed C-154 continued to the next regular meeting and referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee for further. study and a report. -8- Planning Commission Minutes - 24 April 1972 - Continued III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS' A. SDR-950 - Dr. Richard A. Wallace, Pierce Road - Buildin~ Site Approval - 4 Lots Continued from 10 April 1972 The Secretary explained that this property lies within the Monte Bello Ridge Study Area and is therefore affected by the Emergency Ordinance and the applicant has revised his map to comply with said Ordinance. He further stated that the applicant did review the proposed conditions of approval and-' expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Metcalf recommended that Note "3" Of the Building Site Committee Report dated 24 April 1972 be amended by adding the word "total" in line 1. .between the words "lots" and "will".~ Commissioner Smith'moved, seconded by Conmissioner [~rshall, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 24 April 1972 relative to SDR-950 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-i", filed 13 April 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. B. SD-952 - AVCO Community Development, Inc., Cox Avenu~ and Sea Gull Way - Subdivision Approval - 67 Lots - Continued from 10 April 1972 Commissioner Smith stated that the Planning Commission has no alternative but to refer this matter to the City Council and request a definition or interpretation of the word "consistent". The City Attorney in his letter of 22 March 1972 states that: "Section 11549.5 provides.the City Council shall deny approval of a final or tentative subdivision map if it makes a finding that'the proposed map is not "consistent" with applicable general and specific plans." "Government Code Sect{on 65860 provides in substance that all city zoning ordinances shall be "consistent"'with the General Plan of the City by 1 January 1973." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the AVCO tentative subdivision map be referred to the City Council to either review and determine whether or. not the proposed AVCO map is "consistent" with the General Plan or decide. to authorize the Planning Commission to make such a determination; motion carried unanimously. C. SDR-953 - Charla Ann Brown, Canyon View Drive Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 10 April 1972 Mr. James Morelan, architect.representing the applicant, stated that he along with the applicant did review the proposed conditions of approval and found them acceptable. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 24 April 1972 relative to SDR-953 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 25 February 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. D. SDR-955 - Angelina Arata, Maud Avenue Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Continued from 10 April 1972 The applicant~s representative was present and stated he did review the p~oposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner S~ith mo~ed, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Building 'Site Committee Report dated 24 April 1972 relative to SDR-955 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-3",.filed 21 April 1972) be approved subject to [he conditions set forth 'in said report; motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission M{nutes - 24 April 1972 - Continued III.. E. SDR-957 - Andrew P. Lassen, Sobey Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 10 A~ril 1972 The Secretary explained that the applicant did revise the driveway for this lot and has purchased the proper property for the driveway from an adjoining neighbor. Chairman Lively stated there is.some question as to whether or not the property grade or slope, as required by the Fire Department, can indeed be realized. Mr. Lassen, applicant, state·d· that 1) the area for the driveway is almost level; whereas, on the original map the slope down toward Sobey ROad was considerable 2) there,have been a number of changes in this area - the area is now on sanitary sewer and no provision is needed for septic tank and/or drain field 3)·Mr. Kirkham has changed his mind and has different plans for his driveway than what he had two (2) or three (3) months ago 4) he would like some approval to fit his property into the scheme of things that might appear within the next two (2) months 5) there is one plan that would eliminate the Kirkham road completely and have the traffic.go down Old Oa~ood Road and in that event he (Mr. LasSen) would be left in a difficult position. Commissioner Bacon stated that the Building Site Committee Report dated 24 April could be approved and then the applicant would be required to meet the conditions of the Fire Department relative to driveway slope as stated in Condition II-I. of said report. ~hairman Li~ely recommended that the Building Site Committee Report be amended by adding the following condition: ~ "K. Planning Staff shall approve'Grading Permit.." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by ~ommissioner Marshall, that the Building Site Comnittee Report dated 24·April 1972 relative to SDR-957 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-i" filed 24 April 1972) be'·'approved subject to the conditions set forth in said c~Yr~ed unanimously. report; motion ~ F. SDR-963 - James J. Asher, Kittridge Road ~ Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Continued from 10 April 1972 Commissioner Smith stated that in view of emergency moratorium adopted by the City Council at their last meeting this applicant will have to apply for a Use Permit for this building site. The Secretary explained that the emergency moratorium ordinance will not apply to this site.since it was a legal-non-conforming lot and was not purchased for the purpose of subdividing and lots existing prior to adoption of the emergency ordinance can 6btain building site approval. ·The Secretary· r'ecommended that SDR-963 be continued to the next regular meeting in order to allow· additional time to'review the appropriate conditions to imp.'?se on this lot. Chairman Lively directed that SDR-963 be continueh to the meeting of · 8 May 1972 and referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee for study. G.. SDR-964 - A. L. }]ansen~ Dolphin Drive - 5ailding Site Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary:explained that the applicant had reviewed the. proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. COmmissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 24 April 1972 relative to SDR-964 be ado~t.e·d and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 13 April 1972) be~pprove·d·subjec~ to the conditions set forth in Said report; motion carri~'d'~'animously. Planning Commission Minutes - 24 April 1972 - Cont. inued III. H. SD-938 - Saratoga Foothills Development, Corp., Saratoga Avenue - Subdivision Approval - 18 Lots - Continned from 10 April 1972 The Secretary explained that the City of Saratoga has submitted a formal offer to the o~mer of this property for purchase of the land involved. The City is interested in purchasing this property for park use, but to date there has not been an acceptance of the offer by the owner. CommissiOner Smith stated that it will be necessary for this applicant to submit a letter of extensionzin order'to continue this matter. Mr. Bernie Turgeon, present t0 represent the applicant, stated that he would submit a letter of extension at this time. Chairman Lively directed the matter continued to the meeting of 8 May 1972. IV. DESIGN REVIEW : A. A-369 Sisters of Notre Dame, Norton Road - Final .Design Review - Final Landscape Plans The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 24 April 1972 reconm~ending that Final Design Approval be granted for the final landscape plans for A-369. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff RepQrt dated 24 April 1972 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be g~antedjfor A-369, Sisters of Notre Dame, for the landscape plans in fronF'6Y'~e chapel as shown on Exhibit "J" and subject to the condition stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. B. A-392 - Sunshine Hill Antiques, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road - Final Design Review - Identification Sign The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 24 April 1972 relative to A-392 recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for two (2) new identification signs. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff Report dated 24 April 1972 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for A-392, Sunshine Hill AntiqUes, for two (2) identification signs' as shown on Exhibits "A" and "C" and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. SS-71 - Osterlund Enterprises, Cox Avenue and Homes Drive - Final D@sign Review - Identification.Sign The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 24 April 1972 relative to SS-71 recommending that Final Design Approval be.granted for a temporary subdivision sign. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff Report dated 24 April 1972 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for SS-71, Oster!und Enterprises, for a temporary subdivision sign for Tract 4574 as.sho~n on Exhibits "A" and "B" and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Smith gave a brief summary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 19 April 1972, with emphasis on items of particular interest to the Commission. -11 - Planning Commission Minutes - 24 April 1972 - Continued VI. OLD BUSINESS ' A, Possible Amendment and Further Study of the Visitor-Commercial "C-V" Zoning DiStrict The .Secretary advised that the Staff has prepared an amended report as requested by the Planning Commission relative to a possible amendment and further study of the Visitor-CommerCial "C-V" Zoning District, A copy of that report has been placed in each Conm~issioners folder for review. He then recor~nended that the matter'be continued and a complete review of the "C-V" Zoning Ordinance be undertaken during the upcoming Saratoga General Plan, Chairman Lively so directed, B. VARIANCES Commissioner Metcalf suggested that each member of the Commission read again the letter of 8 January 1959 written by Mayor Burton R. Brazil to Mr. R. Bennett, Chairman of the Planning Comannission at that time, relative to variancero. definition and the powers of the Planning Commission in connection with approving or disapproving variances. He further stated that it is his opinion that the Planning Commission is drifting into a situation where it is easy to grant variances. A variance should be something the Commission grants only in rare circumstances. VII. NB~ BUSINESS A. SDR-874 - Dr. Hector N. MacKinnon, Glen Una Drive - Request ·for Extension The Secretary explained that the applicant has requested a one year extension for SDR-874. The Secretary then recommended that the Connnission grant the requested one year extension. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the request for extension in connection with SDR-874 be granted for one year and the new expiration date be noted as 23 May 1973; motion carried unani- mously. B. Abel Carreia, Saratoga-Sunnyvale .Road - Request to Add Certain Uses to the List of Permitted or Conditional Uses in the "C-V" (Visitor- 'Cormnercial) Zonin5 'District The Secretary explained that 1) the. applicant has requested that "bicycle o ", , . sh p "picture framing shop" "Watch and.· clock repair", "nurSeries and garden supplies", "television mobil unit base station", and :;storage - antique automobiles" and 2) the matter should be referred to the Subdivision Committee to determine whether or not this request is to be set for informal public hearing. Chairman Lively directed the matter continued tO the next regular meeting and referred said request to the Subdivision Committee to determine whether or not this request is to be set 'for informal public hearing. C. Westbrook Annexation - Request for Report from City Council Chairman Lively noted that the Staff Report dated 24 April 1972 recommends that the Planning Commission reaffirm their stand and recommend to the City Council that the Westbrook area be annexed to the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Staff Report dated 24 April 1972 (reaffirming the Planning Commission proposal that Westbrook be annexed· to the City of Saratoga) be adopted by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Commissign; motion carried unanimously. -12- Planning Commission Minutes - 24 April 1972 - Continued VIII. CO~DYUNICATIONS A. WRITT~Iq None B. ORAL Bridge at Corner of Pollard and Quito Road Chairman Lively explained that the bridge at Pollard and Quito Road should ~be improved some way without taking out all the trees since there have been serious accidents at this location. Sign at Neales tiollow Commissioner Belanger stated that there is a sign at Neales Hollow which has not been submitted tO the City for approval. Resolution for Mayor Robbins Chai~an Lively reco~ended that the Planning Co~ission prepare a Resolution for, Mayor Robbins co~ending him for his work that he performed .as Mayor of the City of Saratoga. Co~issioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Secretary be authorized, on behalf of the Planning Commission, to prepare a Resolution for Mayor Robbins for signature by the Chairman of the Planning Co~ission; mo'~ion carried unanimously. Plannin.g Commission meeting with Cit~ Council Co~issioner Martin stated that· since the City Council now plans to meet as a Co~ittee-of-the-whole he would reconmend .that the Co~ission meet with them 'and get their thoughts on ~he Miljevich request for Variance, the. Garcia Variance Appeal, the "C-V" Zoning District, and the Genera]. Plan Review - Major or Annual. Co~issioner Belanger Stated that if the "C-V" Zoning District, especially the Miljevich Property, is referred to a Citizens Co~ittee for the General Plan Review it may be a while before a decision is made and the financial situation with the Miljevich property is such that a lengthy time lapse may be disastrous. If a new o~er were brought into the picture he might not be as cooperative. .Co~issioner Metcalf stated that the Planning Commission has only one consideration relative to the Miljevich ~ariance and that is the Variance itself. He feels it is too late for a Major Review for this year and an Annual Review should be started at this time. Guests Chairman Lively acknowledgad, with pleasure, the presence of Mr. Lueck and Miss Maas of the Good Government Group. He, also, thanked M~'. Betty Maas for the coffee she served at recess. IX. ADJOUrnmeNT Chai~an Lively adjourned the meeting at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Stanle~ M. Wal~er, ~e. cret~y Saratoga Planning Commission j -13-