Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-1974 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - TIME: Wednesday, March 13, 1974 - 7:30,p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 FrUitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting : **********~********** I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Chairman Marshall at 7:33 p.m. A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, Smith and Woodward '- Absent: None B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by .Commissioner Martin, that the reading of the minutes of February 21, 1974 and Eebruary 27, 1974 be waived and that they .be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following corrections cited by Commissioner Woodward and Chairman Marshall: 1. February 21 - page 2, last paragraph should read as follows: "Mr. Sawyer invited the CommissioNers to attend the Greater Prospect Road Homeowners Association meeting on :February 24, 1974 at 6:30 p.m. at the Saratoga Country Club relative to ithe Parker Ranch. He stated the five candidates running for City Counci;1 seats would be present for questions." 2. February 27 - page 3, 10th paragraph should read as follows: "The Secretary pointed out that thDse applicants who had contracted with an architect had obtained recommendation for approval, while those applicants who had drawn the plans themselves. had received recommendation for denialj" 3. February 27 - page 8, 4th paragraph, first and second sentences as follows: "The Chairman reported he artended' the Greater Prospect Road Homeowners Association meeting on February 24: at'the Saratoga Country Club. He stated approximately 130 people attended Zthe meeting to hear five candidates who were running for office on the City Council Board, and to discuss the Parker Ranch matter." C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Martin introduced a written report of the City Council meeting of March 6 to the Commission. A copy of this report is on file in ~he Planning Department. Chairman Marshall stated he artended a! meeting of the Policy Planning Commission on February 28 and commented on the following items of interest: 1. The amended bylaws, which reflect ~he smaller cities' viewpoints, were adopted. 2. A subcommittee was directed to investigate the noise element county-wide program. 3. The open-space action program was ~pproved and draft copies of this document were to be circulated to all citie~ concerned. -1- · ? l~. · !iM,~inutes of March 13 ~ 190' II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-171 - Mel De Selle, 5th Street, Cha~ge of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000" (Multiple Residence) to "C-C".(Community Commercial); a 2.024 acre parcel; Continued from October 23~ 1973 The Secretary recommended this matter ;not be opened at.this time. He explained rezoning of this request was contingent upon the completion of the proposed Village parking distrct. He therefor~ felt the ~item should be continued off the agenda and reopened at the Planning Commission meeting of May 8, 1974. The Chairman directed this matter be c'ontinued to the May 8, 1974 meeting. B. C-175 - Stoneson Development Corporation, Springer & Fieldstone Streets, Change of Zoning Request from "R-i-40,000" (Single.Family Residential) to "R-M-5~000" ~Multi-Family Resi. dential)~ 10 lots The Chairman introduced a letter from 2the applicant dated March 12 which requested the matters of C-175 (change of zoning=) and SDR-1097 (building site approval) be continued off the agenda until further2 notice. The applicant stated in his letter he wished to review these matters further prior to a public hearing. Chairman Marshall announced insomuch t'here were many people present in~e audience who wished to comment on these matters', public hearing would be opened even though the applicant was absent. He opened the public hearing relative to C-175 at 7:45 pm. Mr. Phil Jackland, 14436 Esterly Drive', questioned the reason for granting the applicant's request for a continuation in that the applicant's letter was received March 12. He stated a considerable amount of time had been invested in organizing opposition to this matter, and added those present would like to "go on record to denounce the change of zoning request.i" He requested the Chairman set a definite time for the next public hearing on this matter, and urged that action involving this be taken at that time. He further requested timely notification of the public hearing be given. : In reply to this, Chairman Marshall explained the applicant had requested a con- tinuation because "he suddenly became 'aware of the large opposition." He further pointed out this matter would be continued off the agenda until such time as the applicant wished to come before a pubfic hearing, and added this public hearing would be~poS~..~'~h~ewspaper 10 days prior to its occurrence.7 Ms. Sue Ferber, 20870 Fourth Street, introduced a copy of a petition containing 57 signatures opposing this issue to the Commission. She stated there would have been more signatures on the petition h'ad there been more time. The Chairman informed Ms. Ferber'the original petit!ion .had been received by'..the Planning Commission earlier in the week. Mr. Joe Escobar, 21030 Canyon.View DriVe, introduced into the record a petition containing 6 additional signatures'pro!testing this matter. Mr. Ed Burdick, 20850 Fourth Street, c'ommented that if these additional multiples were added to the area above the Village, no one would benefit from it except the applicant. He contended the people of Saratoga, the wildlife and the environment in the area would all be adversely affected and cited the following reasons: (1) traffic flow would be increased; (2) no sidewalks; (3) it would provide discon- tinuity in the area; (4) the area slop.es 30-50 feet which would require the removal. of many trees; (5) grading would be required with much packing of the land; and (6) the land is very loose and drainage is poor in the area. He concluded by stating Saratoga is a ."semi-rural area for people to look at." He stressed if the people of Saratoga wanted a multi-community like that of Mountain View and Sunnyvale, this would be the way to accomplish it. He urged the City to maintain the status quo in this area. -2- Minutes of March 13 B. C-175 - Stoneson .Development Corporation continued At this point a 12-year old child addressed the Commission and indicated she was representing the children of the neighborhood in question. She stated t.h'atvif:'ltrees were cut down in this vicinity, there 'would be no place for the children to play. Mr. Dave Stephens, 21290 Glenmont DriVe, asked the Chairman what the applicant could offer to offset this obvious public opposition. Chairman Marshall replied the fact the applicant had requested a continuation for further review was enough to know that this opposition was being heard. Mr..Dan Apker, a civil engineer from dampbell, voiced his desire to present the other side of the story. He indicated the opposition was well taken in most respects, but felt the matter was being taken too emotionally. He pointed out the matter of density was a serious matter which should be taken up as a density matter. He added that to disallow an owner to idevelop his own property in the way he saw fit was contrary to ~egal statutes"-' .'~. ~. A point~~ of information was taken at this time protesting Mr. Apker's right to speak insomuch as he was not a resident of Saratoga. The Chairman cited previous occasions at which non-residents had been permitted to voice their opinion, and upheld Mr. Apker's right to do the same. Mr. Ronald Miller, 15000 Springer Avenue, stated he hoped the Commissioners would insure developers follow the criteria ~of the realistic objectives set by the "et Planning Commission in order to guarantee that the citizens of Saratoga g what they want done in the City." Mr. Buckwald, a resident of the presen. t Springer Avenue Stoneson development, claimed if this project was .granted approval, the additional density created would add to the already present traffic.": problem on Springer Avenue. Mr. Thorn Mayes, 21120 Sullivay Way, i~ndicated he had been a resident of Sara. toga for 10 years. He observed the people '.of this community were not being miserly about condominiums in that several had been constructed in Saratoga, but objected to the granting of the applicant's request in that if would mean destroying rr~any trees which would d~tract~. from the beauty of the area. Ms. Bird, a resident of Fourth Street, recited several advertisements from the Saratoga News regarding condominiums i~n Saratoga which ~ere-'.'desdribed as having "real country atmosphere." She pointed out according to these advertisements this "country atmosphere" was considered a worth-while asset. She claimed that by granting this project approval would mean destroying the very thing the developers,in their advertisements,were supposedly trying to accomplish. Mr. Hans Ferber, 20870 Fourth Street, '=stated people moved to Saratoga for its "compatible living," and emphasized that he felt the people of this City did not want the community changed. A questionlL~ i'was raised to Item III-E-1097 on the agenda. The Chairman explained this item would be contingent upon th~ action taken on the C-175 matter. Ms. Carol Jackson, 14436 Esterly Drive., reported there had been workmen on this site marking trees, and expressed concern that these trees might be removed. Chairman Marshall assured Ms. Jackland that no trees could be removed without a permit, and explained that the markin~ of trees by the developer was a preliminary action to determine girth, exact location and species of the trees. At this time Commissioner Woodward suggested the Commissioners make an on-site inspection of the area in question before the next public hearing, and the Chairman enjoined the Commissioners t0 do so. This request was met with applause from the audience. 23- B. C-175 - Stoneson Development Corporation continued Chairman Marshall observed the Staff had recommended this item be continued off the agenda, which would entail subsequent public hearings be renoticed 10 days prior to the public hearing. He assu~ed those present every effort would be made to insure adequate notice. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the public hearing relative to C-175 be closed, and the .matter be continued off the agenda until the applicant wished to proceed further. ~The motion was carried unanimously. The public hearing relative to C-175 was close&i at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Williamson Cunningham, 21070 CanyQn View Drive, requested the Commission guarantee the next public hearing held on this'matter be a decision-time, and the Commission assure a request by the applicant for postponement be denied. Chairman Marshall replied the applicant had asked this matter be continued in the light of this opposition, and stated the Commission could not guarantee Mr. Cunningham's request. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1093 David N. Grant, Canyon View Drive, Building Site Approval, 1 lot; Continued from February 27~ 1974 Mr. Trinidad, Public Works Department~ stated the applicant had submitted a new map on March 12, and explained the SuBdivision Committee had not had adequate time to review it. He observed that the time limit on this matter would expire before the next Planning Commission meeting, and recommended that, unless a written request for an extension was received~ SDR-1093 be denied. The Secretary stated the applicant had submitted a letter requesting this exten- 'sion. Mr. Apker, representative of the applicant, adknowledged he was aware of this request. The Chairman directed SDR-1093 be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission on March 27, and referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee for review. A neighbor of the applicant residing'at 20995 Canyon View Drive protested that the applicant's building site would be only 8 feet from her lot. She expressed con- cern with the slope of the property ih re~ard__l~ ~b~_~ra.~aJ.~ ·~ftb~. l~nd,and requested the Commissioners inspect this~ property before taking action. Chairman Marshall pointed out this wa~ a legal non-conforming lot, and all the Commission could do was to insure the.building on this lot met the legal require- ments. He thereby directed this matter be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 2~. B. SDR-1094 - Church of Ascension, Prospect Road & Miller Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 lot; Continued from February 27~ 1974 The Secretary introduced a letter fro~ the applicant's architect which requested this matter be continued.· The Chairman directed SDR-1094 be continued to the March 27 meeting, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. C. SDR-1095 - Peter Matulich, Marion Avenue, Building Site Approval; 1 lot; Continued from February 27;~ 1974 The Secretary stated the applicant had been asked to make a minor revision to his plan,and suggested this matter be continued to the next meeting of the Commission. -4- · '? ~= Minutes of March 13. C. SDR-1095 - Peter Matulich - continued Mr. Matulich, the applicant, informed [he Commission this revision had been made on the City's copy of the plan, and requested that action be taken now. Chairman Marshall advised Mr. Matulichito have the architect make the revision on the Velum master of the plan and su~mit this revised plan to the Subdivision Committee. He directed SDR-1095 be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 27, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. D. SDR-1096 - Thomas Ezarsky, Montewood Drive, Building Site ~pproval; 1 lot; Continued from February 27~i1974 Mr. Trinidad informed the Commission h~ had met with the applicant's architect on March 12, and advised the Subdivision Committee a new map would be submitted shortly. Me recommended this matter be continued. The Chairman directed SDR-1096 be continued to the meeting of March 27 and referred this matter to the Subdivision'Committ&e for further review. E. SDR~1097 - Stoneson Development Corporation, Springer & Fieldstone Streets, Building Site Approval; 10 lots Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that this matter be denied subject to the receipt of a reqpest for extension and contingent upon action taken in the matter of C-175. The motion was unanimously carried. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-391 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue - Final Design Review; Single-Family Residence ~Lot ~16~ .Tract #5327) Mr. Don Burt, City Planner, read the Staff Report dated March 13 and explained the proposed site of the house had resulted in a major revision from Exhibit A-3 in that the house faced Montauk Drive instead of Montauk Court. He stated this had necessitated major changes in setbacks~ but each setback had conformed with the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He added the Staff Report recommended approval of the request subject to a condition which stated the subdivision's deed restrictions include a clause which re~uire~ the design and location of all interior fencing and/or pools for Tract #4768 b~ submitted to the Design Review Committee for approval. Mr. Leto, representative of the applicant, stated the wording of this condition had been forwarded to Sacramento for approval, but a reply had not been received. Commissioner Belanger expressed concern that until this clause had been incorpora~ ted into the subdivision's deed restridtions, no further construction should be. allowed. Mr. Leto explained the corporation had passed only two titles in th~s'. tract, and assured her.'. there was no n~ed for concern. Mrs. McGuire, a resident of Saratoga, ~ointed out this was the third George Day tract to be constructed in the area, and complained there were more fences in the area than she had envisioned, especially perimeter fences. She inquired whether these illegal perimeter fences would be taken down. Mr. Leto informed the Commission a statement had been issued with the deed to the homeowners which explained fence restrictions. Chairman Marshall advised Mrs. McGuire since these fences had alreadyZbeen constructed, they would .not be re- quired to be torn down. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated March 13 relative to A-39i, Tract #5327, Lot #16 be approved and the request be granted subject to Cond{tion (a) of the report. The motion was carried unanimously. Minutes of March 13 B. A-391 - George ~l..'Day, Fruitvale AvenUe - Final Design Review; Single-Family Residence (Lot ~8, Tract #5327) Mr. Burt read the Staff Report dated M~rch 13 relative to this matter which recommended approval of the request subject to a condition thatl~a clause be added to the subdivision's deed restrictions; stating the design and location of all interior fencing and/or pools for Tract #5327 be submitted to the Design Review Committee for approval. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded ~y Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated March 13 relative to A-391, Tract ~5327, Lot #8 be approved and the request be granted subject to Cond'ition (a) of the report. The motion was carried unanimously. C. A-425 - Osterland Enterprises, Fruitvale Avenue ~ Allendale Avenue - Final Design Review; SinSle-Family Residence (Lot ~5, Tract #4768) Mr. Burt read the Staff Report dated March 13 which recommended approval of the request subject to conditions: (a) all' windows and doors be wrapped with wood trim; and (b) a statement be included in the subdivision's deed restrictions stating the design and location of allI interior fencing and/or pools for Tract #4768 be submitted to the Design Review Committee for approval. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated March 13 relative to A-42:5, Tract #4768, Lot #5, be approved and the request be granted subject to Conditions (a) and (b) of the report. The motion was carried unanimously. D. A-425 - Osterland Enterprises, Fruitvazle Avenue & Allendale Avenue, Final Design Review; SinSle-Family ResidencZe (Lot ~6~ Tract ~4768) Mr. Burt read the ~taff Report dated March 13 which recommended approval of this request subject to conditions: (a) all windows and doors be wrapped with wood; and (b) a statement be included in the subdivision's deed restrictions stating design and location of all interior fencing and/or pools for Tract #4768 be submitted to the Design Review Committee'for approval. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated March 13 relative to A-425, Tract #4768, Lot #6 be approved and the request be granted subject to Conditions (a) and (b) of the report. The motion was carried unanimously. RECESS - 8:55 p.m. MEETING REOPENED - 9:15 p.m. Commissioner Belanger informed the Commission that Mr. and Mrs. Vance who own the adjacent property next to Lots 5 and 6 have requested the fences which will surround these lots conform to their o~n 5 ft. fence. Mr. Trinidad assured her these lots Would be in conjunction with any adjoining lots. Commissioner Belanger asked if a penalty was enforced whenever trees were removed illegally. Mr. Trinidad explained that plans may show some trees marked "to be removed" and some trees marked "~roposed to be removed," there being a fine !line of distinct~pn between the two. ~e reported there had been a sli~g,h~ problem in this tract when 3 palm trees ma=ked."proposed to be removed'!.had been torn down. He informed Commissioner Belanger that while there was a ~enalty for re-.= moving trees illegally, in this case, ;it would have been difficult to enforce insomuch as these 3 trees would have h'ad to be ~emoved anyway. E. A-412 - West Valley College~ Fruitvalei and Allendale Avenues - Final Design Review; Laboratory and Audio-Visual Buildin8 'The Staff Report dated March 13 ~elatiVe to this matter was read which recommended approval of the request. It was noted that Exhibit "C" had been revised and now reflected the laboratory and audio visual facility attached to the library. -6Z- - ~ ~Minutes of March 13, E. A-412 - West Valley College - continued Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded :by Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated March 13 and Exhibit "E"~relative to A-412 be approved and the re- quest~ be granted. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Marshall requested Dr. Lowry,! the applicant's representative, to deter- mine if an Environmental Impact Repor~ had been prepared, and if it had, were copies of this report circulated to the appropriate agencies for review and comment. He noted a particular area of concern was the parking lot, and stated he felt an EIR should be required regarding this. He informed Dr. Lowry the law stated EIR reports should enjoy the widest circulation as possible, and questioned whether the various public agencies cqncerned with EIR's had been notified. Dr. Lowry stated the college had followed precisely the legal council on this matter, and believed all requirements !of the law had been met. He requested a copy of the March 13 minutes in order to comply with Chairman Marshall's request. Commissioner Belanger requested Dr. L'~wry to ask Mr. Keller, Supervisor of Facility Planning and Construction, to respond :to the request that parking lot lights be lowered so they would not reflect into neighboring homes. Mr. Burt replied that Mr. Keller had explained the reason these lights could not be lowered~was'.to~.'..avoid damage whenever trucks passed underneath. Chairman Marshall reiterated the re-. quest that Mr. Keller contact Mr. Bur~ regarding this matter. V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATIONS A Committee-of-the-Whole meeting was set for Monday, March 25 in the CRISP Conference Room to discuss environmental impact legislature. Commissioner Matteoni requested the Staff to submit a written.outline of existing and proposed EIR procedures. The Secretary noted this request. VI.. MISCELLANEOUS A. Amendment to SDR-1076 - Almaden Develqpment Corporation; Big Basin Way; 1 lot; Request for Alteration of Specific Condition; Continued from February 27~ 1.974 Two letters dated March 5 and 6, 1974 lwere submitted to the Commission from the applicant which requested Specific Condition "D" be amended. Mr. Franklin, the applicant, suggested the following amendment per his.letter of March "It is my desire that the improvement of Oak Street be a condition for the development of Parcel ~'A and that the development of Fourth Street and the stairway be a condition'ffor developing Parcel "B". Commissioner Smi_t_h~noted the time for .reconsideration of this matter had expired i in November, 1973,jand recommended th~ applicant be required to submit a new 'application relative to this matter. Mr. Franklin made the following comments: 1. There had been an error on the 6riginal application which had not been realized at the time. He stated he did not think he was trying to get away from building the~e steps,But he did not feel the steps had anything to do with the half-street in t~at when he purchased the property it was not anticipated a street would be required. 2. He stated if he was not able to ~construct the walkway immediately upon improving the townhouses, he~wOuld~.'be. willing to bond for it. 3. He felt that if he was required!to construct a 'stairway, the owner of the property adjacent to this area ~hould be required to pay a prorated share of the building costs at the time the owner develop~'d'his property. Minutes of March 13 A. Amendment to SDR-1076 - Almaden Development Corporation - Continued 4. MrL~.i Franklin stated he felt the cost of constructing the stairway should offset the Parks Assessment fee. Chairman Marshall explained to Mr. Franklin that it was not for the Commission to determine if the cost of the stairway ~ould offset the Parks Assessment fee, only the design thereof. He advised Mr. Franklin the Parks Fee would be 'a matter for the City Council to determine. The Chairman suggested the applicant's; request~ be reworded as follows: "It is my desire that the improvement of Oak Street and the stairway be a condition for the development~of Parcel "A", and that the develop- ment of Fourth Street and the design interface of the stairway be a condition for development of Parcel "B". Mr. Trinidad suggested the Planning Commission treat this request as a unit- handling of a site approval which would call for improvements within each unit. He recommended Parcels A and B both have an interfacing responsibility for the stairway which could be included as a clarification statement of the original Staff Report. He noted this would not~modify the original report. Chairman Marshall determined that the ~inutes of this March 13 meeting would be sufficient written record in that this:clarification statement did not alter the original Staff Report. It was directea, therefore, that the improvements of Oak Street and the stairway be a condition for development of Parcel A, the develop- ment of Fourth Street be a condition for development of Parcel B, and both Parcel A and Parcel B have the join~ r~sponsibility for interfacing of the stairway. It was noted that the applicant would be required to take out a bond for the stairway development. B. SDR-'991 - Richard Rutowski, Sobey Road', Request for Extension of Tentative Building Site Approval~ 2 lots A letter was introduced to the Commission from the applicant dated March 1, 1974 which requested a one-year extension r~lative to this matter. Con~nissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the~.'request for a one-year extension relative to SDR-991 be granted. The motion was carried unanimously. C. County Referral: Arterial Bus System Report Chairman Marshall requested the Commissioners review this report for a meeting with the City Council. He added that he felt the report was not particularly relative to Saratoga, to which Commissioner Martin agreed. Commissioner Belanger objected stating she felt the City should not close their minds to these somewhat "innovative" proposals. D. County Referrals: Land Development Committee Matters The Secretary reported the Stanley R. Lee appeal had been continued on the basis that a motion was made and seconded to. uphOld the Saratoga appeal, but a quorum had not been present to validate the motioh. He stated he felt the Saratoga appeal would be denied, and suggested the Cit~may wish to appeal to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Matteoni remarked that the County had heard similar appeals from the City of Los Gatos; Los Gatos, he noted., had successfully appealed Planning Commission deci'sions to the Board of Supervisors.! He concluded that even if Saratoga's appeal was not granted, it would serve a good~purpose in that the County would be required to review their ordinances. D. County Referrals: Land Development Committee Matters - Continued The.l~,Secretary informed the Commission .two other referrals were in the process of being heard before the LDC: ~he Wirkkala and Madden building site requests. He stated that Staff suggested that if th'e conditions cited at the LDC meeting were met,".~th~ City,~opl'd.'n~t have to appeals'these matters. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. Written The following written communications were introduced to the record: 1. Memorandum dated March 8 to the Planning Commission from the City Manager which requested the Disclosure Statement with the County Clerk be filed -.i" by April 1, 1974. 2. Letter dated March 1 to the Planning Commission from Dennis and Peggy Paldi cormnending the Commission for its work on the 1973 General Plan. 3. Memorandum dated March 1 to the City Manager from the Acting Planning Director which forwarded the adopted 1973 General Plan and Sphere of Influence Plan to the City Council. 4. Memorandum dated March 13 to the planning Commission from the Acting Planning Director regarding the review of Planning Department fee schedules. The Commissioners were asked to review this and submit any suggestions to the · . Staff. 5. Complete General Plan which was s~bmitted by Williams & Mocine. Chairman Marshall suggested the Commissioners review this document to ascertain if it contained the Planning Commission's viewpoints. The Secretary advised the Commissioners that a luncheon had been scheduled for May 20, 1974 at the Mere Michelle in Saratoga to honor Stan Walker. He stated details would be presented at a later'time. Chairman Marshall thanked Mrs. McGuire of the Good Government Group for furnish- ing coffee. He also expressed an appreciation to the Planning Department students from West Valley College who ~'~'~t'~'~d~d the evenin~'s meetihg. VIII.ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the meeting of March 13,1"t97.4 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Charles R. Rowe, Acting Planning Director