Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-1974 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE'S. TIME: Thursday, February 21, 1974 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Saratoga Youth Center - 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Continuation of Regular Meeting of February 13, 1974 *************** I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Chairman Marshall stated this meeting Was a continuation of the regular meeting held February 13, 1974. The principal purpose was to continue discussion of the Sphere of Influence porti'on of the General Plan. A. ROLL CALL .Present: C~mmissioners Belanger, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, Smith and Woodward Absent: None The Chairman suggested the Commission begin discussion with Item III, Building Sites and Subdivisions before opening the public hearing on the General Plan. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS ' A. SDR-~7~'i- Southland Corporation (7-11 Food Store), Big Basin Way - Building Site Approval - 1 lot ~lContinued from February 13, 1974 The Secretary read a letter dated February 19 to the Commission from the applicant which canceled request for a 7-11 store on Big Basin Way. No comments were made. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the request for cancellation of building site approval relative to SDR-1092 be granted'and current deliberation cease on the subject. The motion was carried unanimously. B. SDR-1092 Roger F. Mairose, Woodbank Way - Building Site Approval - 1 lot Continued from February 13, 1974 CommiSsioner Smith stated the Staff Report dated February 13, 1974 had been adopted at the February 13 regular:meeting subject to review by the Subdi- vision Committee. He stated the Sdbdivision Committee had met last week to review this matter, and that it was ~·H~ir opinion the S~aff Repgrt da~ed February 13, 1974 be reaffirmed. ~ Mr. Mairose, the applicant, requested Specific Condition L regarding design review be withdrawn. He submitted .Exhibit A to the Commissioners for their review, and requested approval of his design be made this evening. Commissioner Belang~r stated that as a condition for approval, the windows~should be iwrapped with w6~.od trim. It was noted Exhibit A depicted wood wrapped windows. The Secretary suggested Specific C~ndition L be amended to read: ld~n ite plans are appro~ed if they are in substantial accord "Bui ' g s , with plans introduced as Exhibit A." There were no other comments made. 21, 1974 Minutes B. SDR-1092 - Roger F. Mairose cont'd Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that action taken at the February 13, 1974 regular meeting relative to SDR-1092 be reaffirmed subject to General Condition I and Specific Conditions~ilI, with Item L amended as read. The motion·was carried unanimously. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. General Plan Review - Continued from February 13, 1974 The Chairman op..ened the public hea'rings relative to the General Plan, Sphere of Influence portion at 7:47 p.m. Mr. Ironside, representative of Wiilliams and Mocine, introduced the revised green copy of the General Plan Objlectives, Policies and Actions which reflected ·revisions made at the February 13, 1974 meeting. A preliminary draft of the Sphere of Influence Plan was distributed to the Commissioners for review, along with the Criteria Chart ·for Slope Conservation Development. Mr. Thomas Sawyer of 20790 Norada Court and Mr. Russell Crowther of 20788 Norada Court requested clarification of SC-10 zone relative to Area A of the General Plan. Chairman Marshall,~rred the Commission to a letter dated February 8, 1974 to the Planning CommissiOn from M~. John Weir, Mr. Thomas Sawyer and Mr. Russell CEowt,her, representatives of the Greater· Arguello Home Owners Association, ~hich asked for spec{fic requests for action in the General Plan. The Chairman informed Mr. SaWyer and Mr. Crowther the General Plan had been adopted at the February 13 meeting, but that he was willing to clarify any misunderstandings. He explained,·in answer to their question, in 1968 the General Plan Review suggested certain portions of Mr. Eden be zoned SC-10, but the suggestion was never put into effect. Consequently, the basic zone in this area was presently R-1-40~O00. Mr.~Crowther inquired about the area's past zoning history and requested a copy of the 1972 General Plan referred to in Area A of the General Plan. The Secretary'.suggested·the property had been R-1-40~000 densit~ at the time the City became incorporated~ Note was made ~ha~ ~in~.§_°f the !772 General Plan map were available at the City Planning Department. Mr. Ironside expl~i~ed at this point that·a General .Plan does not h'aVe any·' force regarding law; it is a statement of intent and all suggesti·ons made require_.·enforcement by City ordinances. He expia, i~ed the 1968 General Plan had recommended this hillside area have a lower density, but that reCommen-=~ dation had never become a zoning ordinance. ·He·stated, "We are looking at this same area and reviewing the history of planning in the City·, and we feel this previous recommendation was a go~d one and should be recommended again." Mr. Crowther then inquired if the~Commission Was in favor of cluster housin'g in the Parker Ranch area. The Chairman state~ .that the consultant, the staff and the Planning Commission all endorse cluster housing as a means by which land ban be developed in the hillside area in order to preserve the natural environment. He explained~the property had the slope i conservation formula applied to it and t~e'b'a~'~°~f.'·"the maximum ~number of houses which could be b6ilt on th'e' property He stated it is an upper boundary~ but tha~ variDUs factors and conditions could conceivably lessen.the number of houSes-actually built in this area. Mr. Sawyer invited the Commissiongrs to attend t~e Grejter Prospect Road owners Association meeting onZFebruary 24, 1974 at.6:30 p.m., at the 'S~ratoga Country Club relative to!the PaCker Ranch Me stated the fi~'~' ~ates running for city council seats would be'present for questions. / ~/"~..~'; 'F.e~r~_uary 21, 1974 Minutes A. General Plan Review - Sphere of Influence cont'd Chairman Marshall directed the StaFf to review.the subject letter from the Greater Arguello Home Owner's AssoCiation, prepare a summary of comments, and forward a copy of these comments to the City Council. He also suggested Mr. Ironside review Item 5 of the ietter relating to slope density formula. Attention was turned to discussioniof the Chart on Criteria for S19pe Conservation Development revised February 5, 1974. Ms. Monroe, representative of Will~ams and Mocine, stated the Chart was a summary of the conditions discussed at the February 5, 1974 meeting. She stated that "arterial capacity" hah been added as a factor'and stated if this arterial capacity was not adequate i~ an area,~ the~area could go back to open space. /Commissioner' Martin stated there should be adequate access roads as well as arterial capacity. Commissioner B~langer added that what one might consider as adequate capacity, someone else;might consider a~ 'inconvenience. She concluded the term was difficult tb define. Chairman Marshall suggested a/glossary be Attached to.'the Chart which would give a common framework by which tb relate. A question was raised from the aud:ience as to safeguarding that the open space mentioned in the Chart is no.t rezoned. The Chairman stated this open space area could be rezoned at·any time the City.and its residents deem it prudent to do so. He added, "The Lsame protections are here today." Ch'a·~·rman Marshall suggested the Chart be amended to reflect 31-40% category instead of just a 40% category as ~it is now. Questions were raised as to the pqrpose of the Chart, to which Mr. Ironside replied that it was not intended Co be a scale of standards but merely a procedure to follow. Chairman Marshall added that the Chart was a general guideline document using R-1-40,0QO as an example where slope conservation could be applied as well as wateri~and sanitation-conditions consistent with ~ounty requirements. Commissioner Matteoni recommended !that we should strive for consistency for measuring density With the C dnty in that the County has ultimate o. authority over the Sphere of InflUence. Commissioner Belanger stated she felt the purpose of the Chart had changed. Originally, the chart was to be an example hf factors involved in the Sphere of. Influence and _suJ~stions as to how to use them. She felt the Chart now was more like;a City ordinance tying into similar County requirements. Mr. Ironside stated that they were asked to prepare a graphic plan of the Sphere of Influence reflecting land-use designation. He stated that really they did not know enough about the Sphere of Influence to suggest where or where not development should be. .He stated that they are suggesting with this Chart caution and to take th~ngs a step at a time. He fherefore felt it was not intended to be a chart;from which planned development could be administered. Ms. Monroe added that the numbers~in the Chart could be altered to reflect whatever was desired. She stated;that the Chart now reflects a bias toward environmental control. Commissioner Matteoni commented "Consistency" was not the right word, but that in order to communicate with'the County, the City and the County should be on the same wavelength. He explained that this did not necessarily mean having the same ordinances, but merely a glossary of terms to define what was meant. A. General Plan Review - Sphere of I~fluence cont'd Commissioner Belanger requested a istatement be added which states the Chart does not have the force of an ordi:nance but is meant only to suggest factors involved in making a-decision. Commissioner Smith recommended the Chart's title be reworded to "Guidelines for Slope Conservation Developmen[ for Saratoga's Sphere of Influence," and suggested it be posted for public ~review as a sample of what factors developers and the City must consider. The Chairman added that if the Chart becomes a part of the General Plan, the text should state the numbers are :flexible. There were no further comments. The Preliminary Draft of the Sphere of Influence Plan was next discussed, and the following amendments were made: Social - Objectives (2)i To accommodate_development, when appropriate, for a broad range of income levels. (4) To allow access for County r~sidents to a broad range of park, recrea~ tional, camp and trail resources. Environmental - Objectives (3) To insure the protection of rare or endangered plant and animal species. (5) To regulate development in o~der to mitigate its undesirable effects. Policies (3) Assign uses and densities to the land as an inverse function of geological, topographic, seismic and public health hazards. (4a) Discourage scattered single family units. (This was the proposed wording, but Chairman Marshall requested the consultants to reword this if necessary.) (6) Temporarily restrict development in areas not served by public services, roads, and schools until adjacent areas having these services are developed. (7) Regulate and limit the manner of development in the Sphere of Influence based on Slope Conservatio~ Guidelines,e~g.,findings of topography, geology, s6ils, safety, conservation, public facilities availability, and access. (8) Withold public services in areas not suitable to be developed. (14) Encourage zoning in conforma~ce with the policies and objectives of this Plan. (16) Areas without large trees s 'uld have first priority for underground utilities. (17) Encourage Street Construction Standards designed to keep cut- and fill- scars to a minimum and to prevent erosion. (19) Protective measures on County scenic roads should include architectural and site control, limited access, control of signs, landscaping development standards. ~4- A. '..General Plan Review - Sphere of Influence cont'd (21) Trail plans should be ~o__nsistent with the Santa Cruz Mountains Plan, ~nd Open Space Element Pla~_ (23) Areas with an unacceptable leyel of environmental risk should not be developed unless or until the' hazards are reduced by corrective action. (25) Areas subjected to increased hazards as a result of proposed develop- ment should not be developed. Developments that are likely to cause or increase hazards should not be permitted. Ms. Monroe was asked to have the amendments, made at this evening..'.s meeting, prepared for the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. The Chairman directed the public hearings be closed, to be continued at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 27, 1974. The public hearings were closed at 10:40 p.m. IV. DESIGN REVIEW V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT A. Discussion of City Environmental Impact Determination Procedures Chairman Marshall directed this It'em ~e reagendized to a Planning Commission meeting where adequate time could be given to its discussion. He also directed, per CommissionerzMatteoni's suggestion, that the Staff prepare a statement outlining their thoughts on setting forth Environmental Impact Report criteria. VI. MISCELLANEOUS VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. Written B. Oral VIII. ADJOURNMENT iCommission..er Mart~in moved:, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the continued ~ .regular meeting of February 21, 1974 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10T55 p.m.~ Charles R. Rowe Acting Secretary -.5- OF SARATOGA PLANNING COM}~ AG EN DA TIME: Thursday, February.21, 1974 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Saratoga Youth Center - 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Continuation of Regular Meeting of February 13, 1974 *****~*********** I. ROUTINE ORGAjqIZATION A. ROLL CALL II. PUBLIC HI~RINGS .. : A. General Plan Review - Continued from February 13,.1974 III. bUILDING SITE AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1079 - Southland Corporation (7-11 Food Stores)', Big Basin Way - Building Site Approval - 1 lot - Continued from February 13, 1974 B. SDR-1092 - Roger F. Mairose, Woodbank Way - Building Site Approval 1 lot - Continued from February 13~ 1974 IV. -DESIGN REVIL~ V. ~]VIRONbIPiNTAL IMPACT REPORT A, Discussion of City environmental impact determination procedures VI.MISCELLANEOUS VII.COM~RINICATIONS A. Written B. Oral VIII. ADJOUP~'iENT