Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-1973 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .~.~,¢****************** TIME: Monday, January 22, 1973 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 137'77 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meet ing I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present:Commissioners Bacon, Belanger, Lively, Marshall, Martin, and Smith. Absent: Commissioner Metcalf (for the first half of the meeting only). B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the reading of the minutes of January 8, 1973 be waived and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following change: page 2. .under C~163. .paragraph 1. .delete lines 3 and 4; motion carried unanimously. C. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Smith nominated Commissioner Lively -for!~Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1973. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that nomina'tions be closed; motion carried with Commissioner Lively abstaining.· It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Marshalibi that the Secretary be directed to record a unanimous ballot for Commissioner Lively as Chairman of the ~ .... Commission for 197.3; motion. Carrie.d.with Commissi,'oner Lively abstaining. CommiSsioner Bacon 'nominated commi'ssi0ner Met6aif"a~"Vice-chai~man of Commission for 1973. Commissioner: Marshall ~Sved, 'seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that nominations be closbd; moti6n carried unanimously. It was moved by Commissioner BaCon, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Secretary be directed to record a unanimous ballot for Commissioner Metcalf as Vice-Chairman of the Commission~ for 1973; motion carried unanimously. Conmissioner Smith nominated Stanley M. Walker, Planning Director, as Secretary of the Commission for 1993. Commissioner Marshall moved,. seconded by Commissioner Martin, that nominations be closed; motion carried unanimously. It was mo~ed! by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Secretary be directed to record a unanimous ballot for Stanley M. Walker as SeCretary of the Commission for 1973; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lively explained that the: Committee Assignments usually made at this time will be postponed to the~ meeting of February 13, 1973 in order that the Commissioners may further. discuss'~the matter. He would appreciate a call from any Commissioner having a particular preference in connection with the Committee Assignments. -1- .Plannin5 Commission Minutes - January 22~ 1973 - Continued II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-156 - Saratoga Foothills Dev. Corp., Saratoga and Bucknall Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-l-lO,000"(Single-Family Residential) and "A" (Agricultural) to "R-M-4,000" (Multi-Family Residential) - Continued:from January 8~ 1973 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to C-156 at 7:37 P.M. The S~cretary read a communication filed .~by Mr. and Mrs. John PavlpviC, Jr~~ ~.o~ 18944 Mellon Drive in opposit{on to the propo~d Change of Zoning. The Secretary, also, read a Staff Report dated January 22, 1973 recommending thatl._~ the subject application for Change of Zoning be denied, without prejudice. and the future land use of this property be referred to the 1973 General Plan Review for further study. Mr. Jerry Lohr, present to represent the applicant, stated that 1) at the last Planning Commission meetingZit was suggested he check with the present owners of this property to find out if they would give up their existing residences on the subject property 2) the owners desire to stay on the property in their present residences at least for the remainder of their life time 3) they (the owners) have no objection to including, in the plan, the property now occupied By their present residences, but they prefer that that portion of. the property be exempt from development at this time 4) the applicant is in a position to purchase the property and develop it as an "R-!-IO,000" (Single-Family Residential) development; however, it is felt the property'is not a suitable location for an "R-i-iO,000" (Single-Family Residential) development 5) this property has been under study for many years and sooner or la~er the City of Saratoga must decide what can reasonably be done with%it and 6) it is the applicant's request that a decision not be postponediuntil after the 1973 General Plan Review, but instead some action be taken:at this time. Chairman Lively explained that since this is at key property in the City no action can be taken in connection with the subject Change of Zoning until after the 1973 General Plan Review. Commissioner Marshall stated he ~ould recognize the owners desire to stay on the property; however, as long as the applicant tries to develop around the existing residences on the p~operty it will be a piece-meal plan. The result of a development of the t~pe proposed is that there will be two (2) fairly old houses in the midst of a new development and he would be against any development of the property dnless it was a total development. Perhaps, the owners could move into one o~ the new units that will be created by~i'the proposed development. Mr. JOhn Smith, son of Mrs. Smit~ (one of the property owners), stated that 1) he doesn't know if his Mother would be predisposed to move off of the property at this time; however, ~f that were a condition of approval she may consider moving into one of the new unfts offered by the developer and 2) he feels it would be a good idea to postpone further study of this property until the 1973 General Plan Review. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the hearing in connection with C-156 be closed at 7':45 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff Report relative to C-156 dated January 22, 1973 be adopted and forwarded to the City Council as the recommendation of;the Planning CommisSion and that the subject request for Change of Zoning (C-~56) be denied without prejudice on the basis the objectives of Section 1.1 of!Zoning Ordinance NS-3 cannot be achieved for the reasons stated in said report; therefore, the matter of retirement development generally and the future land use of this prpperty specifically 'is to be referred to the 1973 General Plan Review; motion carried unanimously. .2- Planning Commission Minutes - January 22~ 19'73 - Continued II. 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) - Continued from January 8~ 1973 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to C-163 at 7:54 P.M. T~e..Secretary read a communications received from Thom Ford, Secretary to the Parks and Recreation CommiSsion, recommending dedication of an easement of at least ten (10) feet along the nor·ther.nie'dge df~thel.p·rqp·os·.e~ planned-community at the southwest corner of Woodbank Way for use as an unimproved pedestrian/equestrian trail. Mr. Ed Kolstad, realtor present to represent the applicant, stated that 1) he and the applicant have met!with the Subdivision Committee on numerous occasions 2) efforts have been made to reach a compromise between two (2) maps - a plan 'showing an "R-l·~·40,000'' (Single-Family Residential) development· and the other an "R-I-40,000" P-C.development (Mr. Kolstad then showed, on the overhead projector, and explained the different plans) and·3) a 10-foot easement can be provided for the horse people provided another trail can be connected to the proposed easement; otherwise, there would be no use for the proposed 10-foot dedication. Commissioner Smith inquired if the equestrian trail proposed by the Parks and Recreation Commission led to ~nother trail? The proposed trail does not show on the Master Plan for Trails and Pathways; therefore, the matter must be continued until after the.1973 General Plan Review. Chairman Lively asked if the second access road (shown on the applicant's plan) would be blockaded by barriers or if it would be open at all times? Commissioner MarShall explained t~at this road could serve double duty 1) as a riding trail and pathWay, through the green area and 2) an emergency access. The developer has made an offer relating to an east/west trail providing that the City of Saratoga or the Horse Association can gain per- mission to continue the Use-of thel.trail across the adjacent property. Mr. Kolstad explained that someone will have to be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed trailL Chairman Lively explained that these trails have been used extensively in the past and the residents of the area are used to riding on these trails. Commissioner Bacon explained thatzone plan involved a road coming in from Woodbank Way, going up the valley.with three cul-de-sac areas and the emergency access road to the east came off'of one of the cul-de-sacs. He felt this planwas better than th~ oth~'rs. Chairman Lively stated he would like to see an "R-I-40,000" P-C development using the pattern described by Commissioner Bacon. Commissioner Martin inquired how many lots would be under 40,000-square-feet in size using the plan referred 'to. by Commissioner Bacon? Mr. Kolstad stated that this would involve fifteen (15) lots out of a total of seventeen (17) lots. He~further explained that there will be an area that will not be included.in this development because the owners are living there and they do not intend to move. Commissioner Bacon inquired of Mr. Kolstad if all the lots could be made 40,000-square-feet in size by sacrificing one lot and retaining the same green area and the three (3) cul-de-sac arrangement. Mr. Kolstad explained that 1) they could allow 40,000-square-foot lots by eliminating one lot and this would be an idealistic solution to the problem; however, it would be a losing proposition financially and 2) it may be best to withdraw the "P-C" proposal and instead proceed with a regular "R-i" sub- division; thereby, eliminating the problem of a hor~e trail easement across this property. -3i Planning Commission Minutes - January 22~ 1973 - Continued II. B. C-163 - Continued : Chairman Lively stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission is asking that an equestrian/pedestrian trail be established across this property and the Planning Commission wouldzrather not see a straight "R-I" develop- ment for this property; therefore, every attempt should be made to work out and complete a "P-C" development. Commissioner Marshall explained that the real problem arises, not from the street pattern, but with the difficulty coming up with an "R-i" P-C develop- ment with 40,000-square~foot lots. Commissioner Martin suggested that the portion of property presently excluded from this development be included~even though t[ey will not be developed at this time. Chairman Lively suggested the applicant submit a revised plan and me~t with the Subdivision Committee to discuss same. Mr. Ray Vernon of 14904 Sobey Road stated that he is not opposed to any plan for development of this property as long as the lots are 40,O00-square- feet in size because with smaller lots the keeping of four-legged animals will be restricted. Commissioner Bacon suggested that a :'.!P~Cl.~:'.~ubdivision could be conditioned to allow four-legged animals. Mr. R. E. Walsh of 18640 Woodbank~Way stated he would like to know why the Planning Commission is pushing so.hard for a "P-C" development for this property. Chairman Lively stated that the reason the City is so interested in a "P-C" development is that it would help retain' the country-like atmosphere in this area. The developer does have the option of proposing a straight "R-i" sub- division and in that way the City would lose the controls possible wi~h a "P-C" development. Commissioner Belanger further explained ~hat a "P-C" development would keep the area rural and keep it from looking like a City development. Mr. Elwin M. Stocking of 18674 Woodbank Way stated that his four'.(4) children all walk to school down Woodbank Way and the proposed subdivision would result in an increase in traffic; therefore~ he would recommend that a condition of this subdivision approval should ge that a pathway be put in on the south side of Woodbank Way. z Chairman Lively closed the hearing for~n'the.~evening at 8:37 P.M., directed C-163 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Sub- division Committee and encouraged :the developer to submit a revised plan for a "P-C" development. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-994 - Johnathan Rueloffs, Woodbank Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from December 26~ 1972 The Secretary read a request from the applicant asking that SDR-994 be '/withdrawn. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the subject request for withdrawal of SDR-994 be approved; motion carried unanimously. B. SDR-996 - Manuel Costa, Quito Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from January .8~ 1972 The Secretary ~eada communicationZ received from the Statel..~Highway Department relative to SDR-996 stating.'~that 'this property will be required in its entirety for the proposed freeway Route 85 and that funds for right-of-way acquisition are not anticipated within the next five (5) years; however, if economically feasible the property would be acquired on a "protection basis' -4- Planning Commission Minutes - January 22~ 1'973 Continued III. B. SDR-996 - Continued The Secretary further explained that the City Attorney was contacted in connection with this matter and it is his ~(.Cit~··Attorney's) opinion that the City would be on somewhat loo~se ground in denying buildingssite·approval; however, the Planning Commission .certainly ·could deny the request. COmmissioner Marshall explained that the cautioning note in the 'letter received from the State Division of Highways indicates that if approval for additional building is grante'd for this property some emergency funds could, perhaps, be made available: for purchase of the subject property. Commissioner Belanger pointed out that it seems the property owner is left at the mercy of the State Hi, ghway Department and the··Ci.ty of Saratoga since he must continue to pay taxes and yet cannot use the property. Commissioner Martin stated the-City should take some action relative to this · request since the applicant is in a bind un'til some decision is made. Chairman Lively stated that the proposed freeway is shown on the General Plan and the State Highway Department has always assured thetL'City that this property would be required for freeway right-of-way. Commissioner Marshall suggested that the feeling of the 'Planning Commission be forwarded to the State Highway Department and, perhaps, urge them ·to take some positive action in connection with this property. \ Mr. Atherton, attorney present to represent the applicant, stated that 1) the only way the State Highwaly Department will purchase the land at this time is if the City approved this property for further development 2) the State Highway"'·'i,' Department should be required to take some action at this time and should not be allowed to wait the fifteen (15) years as indicated in their letter 3) the applicant should not be asked to hold this property in abeyance for fifteen .(15) years 4) the only way the State will take action is·if the ~ity allows the applicant to use his property and 5) obviously if the City does not permit the applicant to use his property he (the applicant) will be forced to take the matter to court. Commissioner Smith stated that, perhaps, the freeway should be removed from the City of Saratoga General Plan. He would recommend that SDR-996 be continued to the next regular mee.'ting and that a report be prepared after receiving an opinion from the City Attorney. Chairman Lively pointed out that construction of a liquor store was approved for this property about four (4)'.or five (5) years ago; so, essentially this applicant did get 'a~·'additi.~nal use for this property. It was felt at that time the State would make funds ~vailable to purchase the subject property. it is finally purchased by the State. Mr. Atherton, in answer to an inquiry from the Secretary, stated he would submit a letter of extension for SDR-996. Chairman Lively directed SDR-996 .continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Commission for further study and a report. C. ./SDT10·09.- ·Saratog~ Foothills Dev.. Corp., Big Basin Way and Sixth Street - Subdivisi6n Approval - Condominium - 29 Units - Continued from January 8~ 1973 The applicant was present and stated he had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. _i5 _ Planning Cormnission Minutes - January 22~ 1973 - Continued III. C. SD-1009 - Continued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Subdivision Committee Report dated January 22, 1973 relative to SD-1009 be adopted, as amended, and that]the tentative map (Exhibit '~-1", filed January 18, 1973). be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimousiy. D. SDR-iO15 - Dr. Edwin I. Pinto~ U~per Hill Drive - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The applicant was present and stated he 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 January 22, 1973 relative to SDR-IO15 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed January 12, 1973) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. RECESS AND RECONVENE IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-377 - Open Hearth Restaurant, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Final Design ReView - Decorative Flame for Restaurant The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for the decorative flame for the Open Hearth Restaurant. Chairman Lively stated that, in his opinion, the proposed decorative f'lame constitutes an illegal pole sign., Commissioner Bacon state~ he did 'not agree that what the applicant proposed constitutes a sign at all. Commissioner Marshall stated thai this applicant has tried in many ways to obtain additional sign areasfor his business establishment. Mr. Pat O'Day, Concepts West Sign Company, stated that the applicant referred to by Commissioner Marshall is the owner of the building but is not the owner of the business currently under donsideration. He is not aware of any variations from the original sign proposals made by the owner of this business. What he has presented at this time is the installation of a decorative gas flame and is not a sign. Chairman Lively explained that under the Zoning Ordinance this decorative flame consititutes a sign and must be considered as such by the Planning Commission,."'~ Commissioner Belanger stated that she felt the proposed decorative flame is more of an architectural feature than a sign since it does not have lettering on it and it is decorative. Commissioner Marshall stated that' this decorative flame is an "attention getter" and the definition of signs in the Zhning Ordinance should be very carefully considered. Commissioner Bacon stated that in his opinion the decorative flame is well designed and is in keeping With the general nature of the exterior appearance and he would be in favor of granting approval for same. Commissioner Smith stated that he did not feel this decorative flame would have gained approval under the original Use Permit for this restaurant. Planning Commission Minutes - January 22~ 1973 - Continued IV. A. A-377 - COntinued Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Design Review Committee Report da~ed January 22, 1973 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for A-377 as shown on Exhibits "F" and "G" and subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion did not carry and the following vote was recorded: AYES . NOES ABSTAIN Commissioner Belanger Chairmah Lively Commissioner Martin Commissioner Bacon COmmissioner Marshall · COmmissioner Smith Commissioner Metcalf arrived at this time. B. A-391 - Robert Norton (George W. Day), FruitvaleAvenue and Douglass Lane - Final Design Review - Revision of Plan for Lot 7 - Continued from January 8~ 1973 The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated January 22, 1973 recommend- ing that Final Design Approval be 'granted for Lot #7 in Tract 5150 as shown on Exhibit "K". Commissioner Metcalf stated that i%t is his opinion that'the original .stipulation that a two-story house{.be built on this lot should be adhered-to and the subject request.'fbr ~'one-sto~y be"de~ied.. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commission Bacon, that the Staff Report dated January 22, 1973 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for Lot #7 of Tract 5150'as shown on Exhibit "K" subject to the condition stated in said report; motion carried with'. ~'C~fn~iss'ioner Metcalf\ · "no" ~ot .: C. A,403 - Mobil Oil Corp., Saratoga-~unnyvale Road - Final Design Review - Reconstruction of Service Station The Secretary recommended that A-403 be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directed. V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT The Secretary gave a brief summary of items reviewed and action taken at the'City Council meeting of January 17~ 1973 with emphasis on the following: Reappointment ~f Commissioners Lively, Marshall, and Martin to the Planning Commission for:another four (4) year term. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. SD-986 - Saratoga FoothillsDev. Corp.~ Saratoga Avenue - Revised Tenative Map The Secretary explained that SD-986 was initially approved in October, 1972. The reason this matter has been br6ught before the Commission at this time is because in the final calculations it was found that Lots 6, 8, and 9 of the tentative map did not conform substantially with the tentative map; therefore, a revised tentative map has been submitted. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded.by Commissioner Bacon,' that the Building Site Committee Report dated January 22, 1973 relative to SD-986 be adopted and that the 'revised tentative (Exhibit "A-4", filed January 12, 1973) be approVed subject to the conditions!set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. -7~ Planning Commission Minutes - January 22~ 1'973 - Continued VII. NEW BUSINESS A. SDR-593 - Rolston Johnson~ Pierce Road - Revision of Conditions B.~" SDR-618 - Jordan M. Pennoyer~ Pierce Road - Revision of Conditions C. SDR-716 - Fred Z. Irany~ Pierce ~oad - Revision, of Conditions The Secretary explained that 1) 'these three (3) items are all related 2) these properties are all located on the access road near the inter- section of Pierce Road and Mr. Eden Road 3) the bridge some years ago fell in and a new one was put 3)~this development was purchased'for subdivision and it was required to put in an access road and to put in a new bridge 4) Mr. Pennoyer came along later but he has never built on his property; however, he did :initiate a request to the City Council to waive the requirements for a). improvement of the access road to 18-feet b) a new bridge and c) the road improvements in front of the Penn0yer property 5) the City Council did not agree to waive any of the require- ments; however, they did agree to allow certain conditions of the Build- ing Site Committee Report to be placed under a deferred improvement agreement, without bond, until moire than twelve (12) building sites are served off the access road. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by CommiSsioner Marshall, that the amended Building Site Committee Reports relative to SDR-593, SDR-618, and SDR-716 be approved and the relat:ed tentative maps be approved in conformance with the conditions of the indivfdual Building Site Reports; motion carried unanimously. D. URBAN SERVICE PLAN The Secretary displayed maps in c'onnection With the Urban Service Areas showing how Saratoga and Saratogaz's Sphere of Influence will be developed in the next zero to five years. E. Planned Shopping Complex in a "C-V" (Visitor-Commercial) Zoning District The Secretary explained that an oZr~inance relative to a planned'shopping complex in a "C-V" (Visitor-Commercial) Zoning District has been placed each Commissioner's file for review. This ordinance does apply to' two (2) specific properties and speciffc plans should be ready by the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively stated that if the plans ar.~ =ready before the next meeting the Secretary is directed to ~present same to th'~'~b'di~i~ion ~'~ittee -for review. F. West Valley Junior College - Warehouse Maintenance Project - SaratOga Campus The Secretary explained that a l~tter drafted' on behalf of the Planning Commission to the WeSt Valley Junior College Governing Board regarding the Warehouse Maintenance Project at the Saratoga Campus has been placed in the individual..Commissioner's folders. A study session relative to this matter was held with interested p~rties and the West Valley College Staff personnel. The neighbors attende~ this meeting and they were quite vocal in their criticism. Commissioner' Marshall explained that the report ~ubmitted by the college. was. high- !y biased to reflect the ob3.ections ~y the faculty over relocation into "ehefr" areas of the subject buildings. ,The recommendation of th~ report to retain site l~had not been reviewed by the Governing Board; consequently, we mus6' view the recommendation as a Staff input. The Staff, ultimately, was directed to further explore the matter. -8- Planning Commissioner Minutes - January 22~ 1973 - Continued VII% F..WVjC - Continued Chairman Lively directed the Secretary to mail the letter dated..January 22, .7'i'~7BYthe Warehouse Maintena~c~ PrOject to the Governing Board of the West Valley JUnior College. VIII. COMMIINICATIONS A. WRITTEN West Valley Junior College The Secretary read a communication filed by Ernest T. Barco, Jr. explaining his feelings and objections to the use of Site "A" for the Maintenance- Warehouse Building at the West V~lley Junior College - Saratoga Campus. B. ORAL Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Mayor Smith, Councilman Kraus, City Manager Mr. Beyer, Mrs. Owens and Dr.. Sitney of the Good Government: Group. 'He, also, thanked Mrs. OWen for the coffee served at recess.. IX. ADJOURNMENT i CommiSsioner Bacon~moved, seconded by; Commissioner Marshall, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 1973 at 10:30 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Saratoga Planning Commission j