HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-26-1972 Planning Commission Minutes19'72,, -,
CITY OF SARATOGA PLA~rNING CO~v[ISSION
MINUTES
********************
TIME: Tuesday, December 26, 1972 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE:' Regular Meeting
********************
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners LiVely, Marshall, Martin, Metcalf, and Smith.
Absent: Commissioners Bacon and Belanger.
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
reading of the minutes'of the December 11, 1972 meeting be waived and
they be approved as distributed with the following change: page 2.
in the title for V-389. . line 2- .' .correct spelling of "reduction";
'motion carried With Commissioner Metcalf abstaining.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. UP-221 - Mobil Oil Corp., Highway. 85 and Big Basin'Way - Request for Use
Permit to Allow Reconstruction of Service Station - Continued from
December 11~ 1972
Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to Up-221 at 7:32 P.M.
The Assistant Planner read the St~f.f Report dated December 26~ 197'2 ......
recommending that the subje~'~"~s~'!~er~i[ be granted.
Mr. Neil K. Chase, present to rep.resent' the applicant, sta.ted that 1) he
ha~ been in contact with the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District and
they informed him that the restrictions on new construction have been
lifted 2) the District will draft a list of requirements for construction
-of new gas stations 3). among the requirements will be a. provision to provide
air vents for all underground tanks and the new station will be required to
have a new discharge valve (when it is perfected) to replace. the present
gauges 4) the District's governihg Board will meet January 6, 1973 at which.
' time a proper language will be ar.ranged listing the restrictions for new
construction 5) it is the Boards feeling that there is no hurry for them to
approved the Big Basin Way Mobil Oil Station since the City has not granted
approval and 6) it is the applicant's urgent request that approval for
UP-221 be granted at this time as recommended in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Metcalf explained that the Architectural Advisory Committee did
review the design of the proposed station and submitted a number of suggestions
to 'the Design Review Committee and 2) it is his (Commissioner Metcalf's) per-
sonal belief that a suitable design can be developed for this station - one that
will be in keeping with the surrounding area and especially in keeping with
the fire station located across the street from this gas station.
Commissioner Smith commented that'the new station will be set further back
on the property and the parking in front of the Cottage Cocktail Lounge will
be eliminated.'
Commissioner M~rshall recommended that the Staff Report relative to
UP-221 be amended and that reason a) ge changed to read as follows:
,,a) Reconstruction of existing station would not
have an adverse impact upon the environment."
~1-
Planning Commission Minutes - December 26~1··1972 - Continued
II. A. UP-221 - Continued
Mr. Chase explained that 1) the new ·station will be,only 150-square feet larger
than the. old station and this area·will be used primarily for storage area;
however, the station site itself will occupy twice the 'amount ·of ground 2) the
property at present is an eye-sore·and everybqdy coming into the Village area
is exposed to the visual impact of this station - since it is located at a
very important entrance to the City 3)·the Mobil Oil Corp. has offered to
put in its most expensive·station'at this corner and·to cooperate with·the
City in any way 4) he (Mr.· Chase) is not"on.any type of retainer from the
applicant, but simply represents the lessee in this matter and 5) ·he-is a-
resident of Saratoga and feels it. is time to clean-up this unsightly corner.
Commissioner Smith recommended that condition (c) of the Staff Report relative
to UP-221 dated December 26, 1972. be amended to read as ·follows:
") Comply with requirements of Bay Area Air
c
'Pollution Control District."
Chairman'Lively added condition (f) to the subject report as follows:
"f) Hours of operation to be approved by Planning
Commission."
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Ma.rshall, to close
the hearing relativ~ to UP-221 at·7:46 P.-M.; motion carried·unanimously.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall,-that the Staff
Report dated December 26, 1972 be'adopted, as amended, and the subject request
for Use Permit to allow reconstruction of the service station at Highway 85
°. and Big Basin Way be approved on the basis the findings required by Section 16.6
of Zohing Ordinance NS-3 can be made for the reasons stated in said report and
subject to the conditions set 'forth therein; motion carried with Chairman
Lively voting "no".
B. C-163 - James W. Day, Woodbank Way and Quito Road - Request for Change of
Zoning from "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-i-40,000
"P-C" (Single-Family Residential - Planned Community)
Chairman Lively opened the hearing relative to C-163 at 7:48 P.M.
The Assistant Planner stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed and published.
He then read communications filed in opposition to the proposed Change of
, Zoning by the following:
! 1) Karl F. Peterson of ~8600 Woodbank Way.
2) Forty-nine Saratoga residents - a petition.
3) R. E. Walsh of 18640 Woodbank Way.
Mr·.. Ed Kolstad, realtor present to represent 'the applicant, stated that
1) the tentative map and the plans were presented to the Subdivision Committee
2) this is the second plan that has been submitted - the first plan was a
straight subdivision with 'one-acre sites as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance
3) after the presentaion of that plan there was a recommendation made to
develop the subject property as P~C and the current plan was submitted as
a resdlt of that recommendation and 4) the developer is open to developing
the property either way - P-C or straight "R-I-40,000.
· Chairman Lively explained that with a P-C development the City can have further
controls and additional open-space. Chairman Lively then inquired if the
developer has made ·any provision for the existing equestrian trails on this
property? If these trails were eliminated the East-West and North-South
connection for equestrians would be cut-off.
Mr. Kolstad stated that "No Trespassing" signs could be posted to keep the
riders out; however, if the trails were a condition of approval then the
necessary legal proceedings to establish legal horse trails could be arranged.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes.- December 26~ 1972 - Continued
II. B. C-163 - Continued
Chairman Lively stated that some provisions for access to the trails should
be provided around the edge of this property.
Commissioner 'Smith asked if the existing City Trails Map shows horse trails
on this property? If not then there is no reason for the applicant to
arbitrarily provide same - since the equestrian.' crossing would create
.. a trespassing situation.
Chairman Lively stated, he felt, some allowances should be made tovretaln the
existing trails.
Mr. Kolstad explained that the matter of providing horse trails could be
worked out with the developer.
Commissioner Marshall explained that there have been several different plans
submitted by the developer for this property. This is a very difficult site
to develop because of lack of access.
Commissioner Martin asked who would be responsible for maintaining the open-
Apace in the event a.P-C development were approved for.this.property?
Mr. Kolstad explained that a Maintenance District would be formed with the
property owners in the development paying for the maintenance of the open-
space.
Commissioner Metcalf inquired if the Subdivision Committee felt satisfied
with the lay-out of the proposed P-C plan?
Commissioner ~rshall explained that 1) the current plan is the best of
all those submitted 2) the simplest plan would be a straight "R-I" sub-
division and that would require nO public hearing and 3)' with .an "R-I"
development the City would not have as much control as it would under
.a P-C development.
Commissioner Martin pointed out that (if owned by the City).th'e white area
shown on the map should be included in the open-space area and in the'Maintenance
District. :
Mr.'Dan Trinidad, Assistant Director of Public Works, explained that judging
from the boundary lines he would suspect that the area referred to by
Commissioner Martin is not in the City Limits of Saratoga.
Chairman Lively requested the Subdivision Committee to meet with the ..... ,
Department of Public Works and determine the o~er of th~ shbject parcel
, of land.
Commissioner Martin recommended that the matter of equestrian trails on this
property be referred to the Park and Recreation Commission for.study.
Mr.. Kolstad, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Metcalf, explained that
the 'landscape plans for this development have been discussed with Taro Yamagami
on an informal basis.
Commissioner Metcalf stat'ed that since this is a particularly difficult piece
of property he would recommend that the lay-out be drawn by a landscape architect
rather than by a civil engineer.
Mr. James A. Rodriquez of 14975 Quito Road stated he would like an explanation
of the difference between a P-C development and a straight "R-I-40,000" develop-
ment.
Chairman Lively.explained that in a P-C development the subdivider allows
for open-space areas in the subdivision and is thereby allowed a reduction
in each'individual site i~rea - in this case 36,000-square foot maximum lot
sizes with 32,000-square. foot minimum lots. In a straight "R-i" sabdivision
the City does not have the same controls as they do in a P-C subdivision. An
example of a P-C is at the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass Lane.
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes - December 26~ 1972 - Continued
II, B. C-163 - Continued
Commissioner Marshall stated that under a P-C development the'architectural
controls are kept by the City and the subdivider must adhere strictly to the
approved plans for each house and.if he wishes to change the plans he must
obtain approval from the City. rl~e fencing can, also, be restricted in a
P-C development-.
Mr. Raymond Vernon of 14904 Sobey:Road stated that on the minus side of a
" P-C development is the fact that the residents of such a development would
be restricted from keeping horses or taking part in 4-H projects dealing
with larger four-legged animals.
Mr. John Mascal', resident of Woodbank Way, made the following inquiries:
1) Who will maintain the Open-Space area?
2) Will the' Open-Space be open to all Saratogans?
3) Will there be the typical two-pillar brick
'entryway at the subdivision'entrance?
4) Will the City grant the residents of this
area a variance so t~ey will be able to
keep horses.
=Mr. Mascal then stated that most of the residents of the area enjoy
keeping horses and purchased property where horses would be allowed.
The proposed P-C development does not concur with the overall Master
Plan.for the City of Saratoga. The existing zoning has. been established
for the area and should remain as shown on the ~ster Plan.
Chairman Lively answered the inquiries as follows:
1) The residents of the subdivision will o~n the
Open-Space and will pay taxes or a fee to main-
tain the area under a MaintenanCe Agreement.-
2) The residents of the subdivision may or may
not allow others to use the Open-Space area.
3)It is possible that some type of entryway to
the subdivision will be provided.
.. 4) Unless some ~pecial'provisions are made residents
of the P-C area will not be ~llowed to keep horses.
Chairman Lively expressed hope that the trees along Quito Road in the
area of the subdivision would be retained and that equestrian.trails be
provided along the Northand West boundaries of the subject property.
Commissioner Marshall .explained that 1) equestrian right-of-way could be
arranged and 2) there are limitations that can be enforced on fencing -
the equestrian trails could be considered at the time the fencing is reviewed.
Mr. Mascal,. in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner }{artin, stated that the
overall area is equ. estrian and if a P-C development is located here the move-
ment of equestrians will no longer be as free as before.
Mr.'Peterson of 18600 Woodbank Way stated that 1) judging from the proposed
plan it appears that the homes will be clustered on the back end of the pro-
perty 2) he would like to see a plan with a subdivision lay-out under the
current zoning in order to compare the two plans and 3) the P-C zoning, in
his opinion, would appear to be a higher density than the straight "R-I"
zoning.
Chairman Lively explain!l~d that the density under either zoning world be
exactly the same.
Planning Commission Minute~ - December 26~ 1972 - Continued
II'. B. C-163 - Continued
Commissioner Marshall explained that development under the current zoning
would not allow for any open-space, but under the P-C zoning a certain
amount of open-space can be retained.
Mr. Vernon. stated that P-C developments, restricting equestrians, would
cause more restrictions on people who do have and enjoy horses. He and
his wife obtained forty-nine (49) signatures of people who do not want a
P-C development at this location.
Mr. Robert Middleton of 14971Quito Road. stated that the drainage for this
property is extremely poor and he requested the Planning Commission to give
this matter careful consideration.
"'Mrs. A. Larson of 14810 Sobey Road explained that she is not i~ favor of
" 'allowing her property to be swallowed up'in small lots such as proposed by
the subject.developer.
Chairman Lively emphasized that there will be the same number of lots as in
a straight "R-i" development and a P-c would provide a nice visual impact.
Mr. Gene. Zambetti, member of the the Park and Recreation Commission, recommended
that this matter be referred to the Park and Recreation Commission for study
relative to pathways, open-space,.horse trails, and visual and environmental
impact. ,
Mr. Rodriquez stated that 1) while he realized there will be development of
this property he Would like to see the rural aspect of the area maintained
2) he feels this could best be done by developing the property under straight
"R-l"'zoning 3) there are lots in the area that exceed 40,000-square feet in
size and 4) the residents of the area are clearly opposed to this P-C develop-
men t.
Mrs. ~ry Skibbie of 14750 Sobey Road stated that 1) the Planning Conmission
and builders should remember the quality of life that now exists in Saratoga
and this should be the prime consideration 2)' the rural atmosphere of Saratoga
is. being chiseled away and 3) she moved to Saratoga because it.was her desire
to have her children look out on something other than roof tops. Future resi-
dents of the proposed P-C development would start complaing about horses already
i~ the area.
Commissioner Marshall, in response to an inquiry from Commissioner Martin,
· stated that 1) a plan showing co. nsiderable detail for a straight "R-i"
subdivision was submitted and 2) this applicant has spent a fair amount
of time and money to produce an acceptable development plan for this property.'
' Commissioner Metcalf stated that :1) conditi.ons attached to a P-C ordinance
become ineffective if they are in conflict with another ordinance 2) it could
be stipulated that the residents of the P~C area are allowed to keep horses
3) a good example of a straight ."R-I" development is located at the corner
of·Fan~ell Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue - it is a twenty (20) acre tract and
sixteen (16) of the lots have.six (6) foot fences around them and 4) after
looking at the aforementioned tract a P-C development would seem very attractive.
Mr. Gerald C. Jacobsen of.14960 S. obey Road explained that many residents of
this area have more than one-acre sites and he would suggest that the subje.ct
property be divided into two (2) acre parcels.
Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:50 P.M., directed..
C-163 continued 'to the next regular meeting. and referred same to the Sub-
division Comnittee and the Parks .and Recreation Commission for study and review.
~5-
· plannin5 Commission'MinuteS'- DeCember 26~ 1972.- Continued
II.' C.' C-164 - Ruth C. Peck, Pierce'Road - Request for Change of Zoning from-.'
"R-1-40~000" (Single-Famil~ Residential) to "A" (AgriCultur'al)
Chairman Lively opened the hearing. relative to C-164 at 8:51 P.M.
The Assistant Planner stated that the Notice of Hearing was mailed and
published... ...
Commissioner Smith recommended that C.-164 be continued to the next
-. regular meeting to allow time for further study. '-
The applicaht was present and explained that the County Board'of
Supervisors will not act on the request to establish an Agricultural
.. Preserve. until. the City of Saratoga grants approval. for-the subject y:':.
Change of Zoning.
Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:55 P.M., directed
C-164 continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Sub-
division Committee for study and a report at that time.
~. C-165 - Anthony Cocciardi, Pierce Road - Request for Change of Zoning from
"R-1-40~000" (Single-Family Residential) to "A" (ASricultural)
Chairman 'Lively opened the hearing relative to C-165 at 8:56 P.M.
The Assistant Planner stated that the NotLice of ttearing was mailed and
'published.
The applicant was 'not present and .no one in the audience wished to comment.
Commissioner Smith recommended that C-165 be continued to the next regular
meeting.
Chairman Lively closed the hearing for.the evening at 8:57 P.M., directed
" C-165-continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Sub-
division Committee for study and a report at that time'.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-996 Manuel Costs, Quite Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot -
Continued from December 11~ 1972.
Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-996 be continued to the next regular
-meeting to await a comment from the State Division of Highway relative to the
road right-of-way relative to the this property. .,
Chairman Lively so directed.
B. SDR-994 - Jonathan Rueloffs, Woodbank Way.-. BuildingSite Approval 1 Lot
Continued from December'll~ 1972'
Commissioner Smith stated that this applicant has requested that SDR-994 be
continued to the meeting of January 22, 1973.., It is his (Commissioner Smith's)
recommendation that 'the applicant,'s request.be granted.
'Chairman Lively so directed.
C. SDR-1002 - Mobil Oil Corp., Highway 85 and Big Basin Way - Reconstruction of
Service Station - 1 Lot - Continued from December.ll~ 1972
The Assistant Planner stated that the applicant did review the proposed
conditions of approval and expres'sed satisfaction with same.
· Mr. Dan Trinidad., Assistant Director of Public Works, recommended that the.
Building Site Conm~ittee Report relative to SDR-iO02 dated December 26, 1972
· be amended by adding the following condition:
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes --December 267 .1972 - Continued
III. C. SDR-1002 -. COntinued
.. "T. Participate with Big Basin Underground District
to the extent of 50% of the cost of underground-
ing main feeders under Highway #85."
Chairman Lively directed the Staff to write the applicant a letter and inform
.him of the additional condition and inquire if he ('tie 'applicant) has
any objections to same.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
Building Site Committee Report dated December 26, 1972 relative to SDR-1002
be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed
· '~ November 2, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said
report;. motion carried with Chairman Lively voting "no".
D. SD-IO09 - Saratoga Foothills Dev. Corp., Big Basin Way and Sixth Street -
Subdivision Approval - Condominium - 29 Units - Contfnued from
December 11~ 1972
Commissioner. Smith reconnnended that SD-IO09 be continued to the next'
regular meeting.
The Assistant Planner pointed out'that the applicant must submit a letter
of extension in order for SD-1009 to be continued.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
request for Building Site Approval in connection with SD-1009 be denied
unless a letter of extension is received from the applicant prior to the
..eXp~i~~ da_te on the tentative'map; motion carried unanimously.
E. SDR-1012 - Edward E. Lee, Bella Vista Avenue - Building Site Approval -
1 Lot - Continued from December 11~ 1972
~e applicant was present and stated he. had reviewed the proposed conditions
of approval and expressed satisfaction with same.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Co~nnisSioner Marshall, that the
Building Site Committee Report dated December 26, 1972 relative to SDR-1012
be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed December 1, 1972)
b~ approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion
carried unanimously.
F. SDR-1014 - La~rence J. Guy~ Saratoga Hills Road - Buildin8 Site Approval - 1 Lot
Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-1014 be continued'to the next
regular meeting.
Chairman Lively so directed.
IV. DESIGN REVIB~.
A. .A-407 - Osterlund Enterprises, Saratoga and Cox Avenues - Final Design
Review - Subdivision Approval
%~e Assistant Planner 'read the Staff Report relative to A-407 dated
December 26, 1972 recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for
A-407.
Commissioner Metcalf stated that the City Council did overrule the Planning
Corm-nission on a former recommendation that a two-story structure not be
allowed in certain locations.
Commissioner Martin explained that in certain areas Saratoga residents have
built one-story homes and should not now be subject to new construction
allowing two-story honL'as simply because the City has changed its policy.
Planning Commission Minutes - December 26~ 1972 - Continued
IV. A. A-407 - COntinued .'
Chairman Lively'explained that the City.Attorney's clearly states.
in a letter pertaining.to a similar situation, that Design Review Approval
does not fuji with the land and there is'no time limit on D~sign Review
Approval.. Perhaps the entire Design Review Ordinance should.be'reviewed.
Chairman Lively, after a brief discussion, referred this matter to the
.. Design Review Committee for study and review and to determine if there
.... are any other two-storyresidences in the area of the proposed subdivi-
sion development.
B. George Day~ Fruitvale Avenue and. DoUglass Lane .....
Commissioner Metcalf commented that the George Day Planned Community on
the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass Lane presently shows two-story
homes for two (2) of seventeen lots. A request has'been submitted to change
one of the proposed two-story homes to a one-story. His (Commissioner
Metcalf's) recormnendation is to deny the request. He is disappointed in
the way this development is shaping up because the structures seem to be
simply large houses spread across the front of each lot; there£ore, the
two-story houses are needed in the development to break-up the routine
design.
C. Saratoga Foothills Development Corp.~ Sixth and Big Basin Way
Commissioner Metcalf explained that the Design Review Committee did meet
with the representatives of Saratoga Foothills Dev. Corp. to review the
plans for thier Sixth and Big BaSin Way development. These plans appear
to be the beginning of a better design and more information will be available
by the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
V. ciTY COUNCIL REPORT
Due to the fact that no member of th~ Planning Co~mnission was able to attend
the City Council meeting of December 20, 1972 there was no City Council Repbrt
made at this time.
OLD BUSINESS
None
VII. NEW BUSINESS
None "'
VIII. COM}fONICATIONS
A. Written
1. Shearson~ Hammill and Co.
Letter complimenting the members of the Planning Commission on
doing an admirable planning job.
2. Saratoga General Plan Open-Space Element
Memo from %~om Ford, Secretary of the Parks and Recreation Con~nission,
stating ~hat the P & R Co~.nission has reconmended that the firm of
Royston, Hanamotoa, Beck and Abey be commissioned to review and update
the 1969 Parks and Recreation Study. ~is review to include open-space
lands.
Planning Commission Minutes -December. 26~ 1972 - Continued
VIII. A. 3. Letters from Mr. Rolston Johnson and D. W. Graham
Letters submitted by Messrs. Rolston Johnson and D. W.
Graham requested that their property be added to the
property owned by Mrs. Peck for the purpose of qualifying
for the provisions of the Williamson Act. -..
The Assistant Planner explained that these requests
must first be referred to the City Council before
any action by the Planning Commission.
B. ORAL
Summerplace
Commissioner Martin stated that one (1) building site in' the
Summerplace Subdivision has be'en called to his attention. This
particular site appears to have construction in process and the
structure is too close to the side yard. It is difficult for
him to determine just how Zthe plan was stamped for approval to
allow a building permit.
Chairman Lively directed that a Staff Report be' prepared in time
for the next regular meeting to explained this matter.
Guests
Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of
Councilmen I~yer and Kraus, Mrs. Casey and Mrs. Stark of the
Good Government Group.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner'Smith, to adjourn
the Planning Commission meeting of December 26, 1972 at 9:40 P.M.;
motion carried unanimously.
Respedtfully submitted,
Stanley M. Walker, Secretary
Saratoga Planning Commission
j
.-9-