Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-28-1974 Planning Commission Minutes CI SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TIME: Wednesday, August 28, 1974 - 7:30 p%.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 FruitVale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: ·Regular Meeting ***********~******** I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni and Smith Absent: Commissioners Callon and Woodward B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the reading of the minutes of August 14, 1974 be waived, and that they be approved as dis- tributed to the Commission with the following correction~ page 4, paragraph 2, delete the word to. The motion was'carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT The Secretary gave an oral presentation of the City Council meeting of August 17, 1974. Of special interest to the Commission were the~following items: (1) Appeal of application V-409 was denied. (2) Authorization was given to the City Manager to hire DeLeuw-Cather and Company for the Hillside Traffic Circulation Study. (3) Commissioner Belanger reported. that because the legal position of the City in reference to the preservation of the Douglas Lane pathway was in doubt insomuch as the maps were defe&tive in not reflecting the location of the path on the George Day property, the City Council had to relinquish this pathway. She stated in light of this action, she would not be willing to' vote approval "on any map which d6es not specifically reflect pathways or things which 'are mentioned in conditions of Staff Reports that can.'n~6..Be· enforced unless they are on the maps." A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file in the Administration Office. II. PLrBLIC HEARINGS A. Village Plan - City of Saratoga - Hearing on Adoption of Village Plan Element of 1974 Saratoga General Plan Mr. Ironside, representative of Wil~iams & Mocine, gave a brief presentation of the Village Plan Element of the 1974 Saratoga General Plan. He stated that the Plan covered the analysis of the se~ting of the Village, its role in the community, some analyses of the demography and:economy of the City, and the relationship of its role in comparison to other shopping centers relative to landscaping, park- ing, circulation and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Ironside stated that the conclu- sion of the Study was there were many assets of the Village as well as liabili- ties such as lack of any organized and uniformmanagement, lack of parking access, conflict with through-traffic on Big Basin Way, need to have better- organized and more visible parking,'and the need to increase pedestrian opportunities. He pointed out that the Village Plan was not an ultimate or master plan, but instead an initiation of a planning proTess for the Village. He stated that the overall recommendation was to establish an organization which could engage in the continual organization of the Village and to establish a vehicle for. improvements. He enumerated some of the specific recommendations such as widening" Big Basin Way by removing on-street parking, Widening sidewalks to provide for plantings and increased'pedestrian movement,'.and collapsing activities into a smaller portion of the area With the idea of developing more shopping intensity. -1- -, 5., MINUTES OF AUGUST 28 ~ 1974 A. Village Plan Element - Continued Chairman Marshall opened the public! hearing at 7:45 p.m. on the Village Plan. The Chairman explained that the Commission had previously walked through the Plan with the consultant and as a r'esult, its consensus was to adopt same subject to public input and to forward the Village Plan to the Council for adoption. Commissioner Belanger stated, "it Might behoove the City to draw up some of the ideas illustrated here in a more particular fashion so that when it comes to design-review matters, or the like,i tha't we have a scale by which to do it instead of a vague artistic concept of what ought to be done, and I would like that suggestion passed onto the Council." Mr. Larry Tyler, Village businessman, rem~rk'ed "I think the Village Plan is ' great!" There were no further comments. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the public hearing on the Village Plan Element of the 1974 General Plan be closed. The motion was passed unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 7:48 p.m. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Village Plan Element of the 1974 Saratoga General Plan be approved and forwarded to the City Council for review and adoption. The motion was passed unanimously. B. V-411 - Steve Stevens, Quito Road -z Request for Variance to Allow Construction of 10-Foot Fence within 6-F'eet of the Side Property Line in Lieu of the Required 20-Foot Setback (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7-1) Chairman Marshall opened the public~ hearing on V-411 at 7:50 p.m. The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended denial. 'H['~lii~'d"~hYt even~though the tennis court could be constructed within the Ordinance ~equirements, the lO-foot fence would be 6-feet within the setback, and that a 20-foot sidey~r~ J=. setback was required for any structure"' exceeding 6-feet in height. He pointed out that the sideM~r'd ~' property-~ine abutted an existing 18-foot paved driveway, and although the additional ~feet of fence height~ should. 0n!y. have a. minimal effect, Staff felt .t~___e Variance did not demonstrate any peculiar or practical difficulty with'the land no~ any specific .i.':physical hardship, and that strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would not deprive the owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties within the area. He pointed out, however, that there presently existed no specific definition of a tennis court nor criteria for its allowance or restriction as a use, and determination of a hardship or practical difficulty and deprivation of a privilege was 'founded upon vague criteria. Mr. Don Beardsley, representative of the applicant,Stated that the fact there was no policy governing the construction of a tennis court was a good point. He stated that the applicant's side yard was adjacent to a 20-foot strip of land held in fee by the'owner of the lot to the rear which had a paved driveway thereon. "If you read the Ordinance in view ~f the fact that there is a lack of policy relative to tennis courts, we have tried to meet the intent of the Ordinance by saying that instead of measuring. the next side~ardC=setback from the property line, we are actually measuring it from 26-32 feet"S'ihce that strip of land will remain a driveway and will never be constructed upon. I am citing the defini- tion of a yard; that is, the area that remains unobstructed and the intent of the side yard setback is to keep this area unobstructed. Since the driveway is there, the next structure is actually 46-feet away." At this time Mr. Beardsley submitted a letter dated August 24,. 1974 from Maurice L. Martin, owner of the above-mentioned property, which strongly recommended approval of Mr. Steven's application. Also introduced to the record was a petition dated August 26, 1974, containing 7 signatures of residents on Quito and Vessing Roads urging the approval of the applicant's request. Commissioner Martin explained that none of the five conditions cited in Section 17.6 of the Zoning Ordinance relative to granting a variance had been met.r-- and based on that the Variance Committee had to recommend denial of the request. Chairman Marshall added to this that granting a variance here would constitute a special privilege, and could set an undesirable precedent".'7--H~ -2- MINUTES OF AUGUST 28~ 1974 B. V-411 - Steve Stevens - Continued suggested the applicant modify his application by changing the size or location of the court and thereby eliminate the need for a Variance. It was further noted that if the applicant met thel setback requirements of an accessory struc- ture which was 25-feet from the rear property~{l~'~'~. a Use Permit would not be required. Mr. Beardsley requested this matter; be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting in order to enable the applicant to revise his plans. It was pointed out that if the tennis court complied with all Ordinances and consequently no ,longer necessitated a Variance or Use Permit, the applicant could withdraw his application and same would be removed from the next Commission agenda. Col. Leroy Broun, 18584 Vessing Road, stated that he was also speaking for Dr. Robert McCoy, 18594 Vessing Road, who could not be present. He stated that anything that might interfere with the view on the intersection of Vessing and Quito Roads would be very objectionable to them, and they would definitely be against it. Another gentleman in the audience pointed out that the pavement on the court infringed upon the drainage ditch as shown on the map. Mr. Beafdsley explained that there was an existing 18" C&P culvert across Quito Road which drained the sw~i~'~into the creek, and the owner proposed to extend that culvert over to the corner of the court. Chairman Marshall closed the public. hearing on V-411 at 8:30 p.m., continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee for further review. C. UP-245 - Steve J. Stevens, Quito Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow Court Fencing within Required Setbacks (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1); Continued from August 14, 1974 As this matter relates directly to V-411, Chairman Marshall continued UP-245 to the Planning Commission meeting Of September 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee. for further review. D. UP-248 - P.H. Morton, Old Wood Roadi- Request for Use Permit to Allow Tennis Court Fencing within Required Setbacks (Ordinance NS-3, Sect. 3.7-1); Continued from August 14, 1974 Vice-Chairman Matteoni opened the public hearing on UP-248 at 8:30 p.m. The Secretary stated a Staff Report hadZbeen prepared which recommended approval be granted. The applicant was presentSand indicated acceptance of the Report. Commissioner Belanger stated she felt a more positive statement was needed in Condition (2) of the Report, adding.that the condition should state the type of fencing allowed not the type of fencing not allowed. She further added that the trend of the Commission was to discourage the boxing-in of large properties, and anything that added to the closing up of the feeling of open space would be detrimental; she suggested an open-Weave type fence be used. The applicant noted that Exhibit A specified cyclone-type fencing. After discussion of the type of fencing which should be allowed, Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the public hearing on UP-248 be closed. The motion was c~rriedzunanimously. Vice-Chairman Matteoni closed the public hearing at 8:40 p!.m. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission approve application UP-2~8 and accept Lthe Staff Report dated August 28, 1974 and Exhibit A, subject to Conditions (1) and (3) of the Report, and subject to the condition that the fencing around the tennis courtyB~'~i~'~- type fencing or an equivalent open-weave type fencing. The motion was carried unanimously. E. C-171 - Mel De Selle, 5th Street, Change of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000" (Multiple Residential) to "C-C" (Community Commercial); a .2024 acre parcel; Continued from July 24~ 1974 .~ M~.~UTES OF AUGUST 28~ 1974 F. C-176 - Gene Zambetti, Oak Street, .Change of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000" ..(Multiple Residential).to '~C-C" (Community Commercial);.Continued.-from July 24~ 1974 G. C-177 - Mary Jane Brown, 3rd Street, Change of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000" (Multiple Residential) to "C-C" (Community Commercial); Continued from July 24, 1974 The Secretary stated that application CZ-171, C-176 and C-177 were'within the Village Plan area, and were consequently subject to recommendations made in the Plan. He recommended these applications be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 1974, and that the applicants be advised to submi. t plans for the proposed development of each site. Commissioner Belanger stated that the Planning Commission had told the three applicants to wait until the Village Plan had been completed, and that it seemed premature to be asking for specific plans prior to Council action. She stated that in fairness to'the applicants, the, Commission should wait until the Village Plan had been approved by the City Council before requesting plans. The Secretary stated that Staff was trying to agendize these matters until action was taken by the City Council, and that Staff was basically putting the applicants on notice that specific plans would be required.z Chairman Marshall directed C-171, C-176z and C-177 be continued to the Planning COmmission meeting of September 11, 1974, referred same to the Subdivision Committee for further review, and requested Staff notify each applicant that the Village Plan had been forwarded to the Eity Council for approval. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1115 - Marvin Kirkeby, Saratoga~Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots~ Continued from August 14~ 1974 ~Expiration extended to Aug. 28) The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted a letter granting extension to the Planning Commission meeting Of September 25, 1974. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1115 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. B. SDR-1116 - Roger Ross, Saratoga Hills Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 14~ 1974 (Expiration extended to Aug. 28, 1974) The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted a letter granting extension to the Planning Commission meeting Of September 25, 1974 pending completion of additional work on his plans. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1116 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee'for further review. C. SDR-1133 - Barrett Anderson, Jacks Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 14~ 1974 (Expires August 29~ 1974) The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. He added Condition (P) to the Report which specified that design-review approval be required. Dr. Anderson was present and indica[ed acceptance of the Staff Report. He ex- pressed concern with the Fire District's letter of July 12, 1974, stating, "I was wondering if there was some way.where this could be modified if the San Jose Water'Company changes the size~of the water line." The Secretary explained that it had been agreed to by the Fire District that when the San Jose Water Company had sufficient water capacity, this requirement would not be necessary. He added that the Fire District stated that when this happened, it would inform the Commission to rescind this condition. · Commissioner Belanger pointed out that this area was badly scarred with asphalt roads, and each addition to it was a detriment. She stated that she would like to mask the extension of pavement with landscaping, and suggested that this be a condition of design_review approval. She further stated, ~I also was hoping for a few Monterey'pines along the driveway. In the past we have not been ~4- '~; MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 1974 C. SDR-1133 - Barrett Anderson concerned enough about preserving the naturalness of that knoll, and if it is possible to restore some of the natural beauty of that and if it is appropriate to do that under design revi'e~, I would like to suggest that too." Commissioner Matteoni stated that he would be satisfied with the addition of Condition (P) to the Staff Report, and a note to the file that attention'should be given to landscaping of the driveway area at the time of design review. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission approve application SDR-1133 and accept the Staff Report dated August 28, 1974 and the tentative m~p (Exhibit A filed July 10, 1974) subject to General Conditions I and Specifi~ Conditions II (a) through (p) of the Report. The motion was carried unanimously.= D. SD-1135 - Barbara Caldwell, Big Basin Way, Subdivision Approval - 6 Lots; Continued from August 14~.1974 (Expires September 10~ 1974) The Secretary stated that the SubdiVision Committee had reviewed this applica- tion which involved'conversion of 6, non-conforming rental units to single-family condominium units. He stated that this property was 'zoned PA in the past, and during that time did not allow certain mUltiple-family structures. However, in 1970 the Ordinance was amended to allow these structures subject to a condi- tional Use Permit, and consequently!, the structures were now legal non-conforming. He stated that the Subdivision Committee had questioned the ability to act on this without first det. ermin'~g'~ the'nature of an appropriate land'use'Classifica- tion, either a conditional Use Permit or rezoning. He added that the file was not complete, and Staff recommended~ this matter be continued. The Secretary pointed out that the Commissionhad a set of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which were proposed for this property, and the applicant had requested the Commission, Staff and City Attorney to review same. Questions were raised as to whether!the parcel was to be sold'or rented changed the use, and what restrictions could be placed on it by the Commission if it was a legal non-conforming use. Mr. Johnston explained that under Section 16.10 of the Ordinance, a conditional Use Pe.rmit was permitted in this zone, and added that in his opinion the fact that the applicant sells a space to somebody rather than rents a space does not change the use of the property. He further stated that the question of legal non-conforming use was an aside because the applica- tion was for tentative map approval for subdividing under the condominium law. He stated that the party could not Sell without complying with the subdivision requirements. Commissioner Belanger asked if a co~dominium-use would impose maintenance problems, to.which Mr. Johnston replied that control of this could be had through the CC&R's. He stated that PA zone'could be subdivided to any of the uses per- mitted in a PA zone, and added that. the CC&R's related to the control on how the property was to be handled and maintained in the future, adding that these CC&R's provided that there could be'no modification without consent from the City. Commissioner Smith asked if a PA zone permitted a residential subdivision. Mr. Johnston explained that one could subdivide commercial, industrial, residential and PA zones. .He stated that the questions of change of zoning or conditional Use Permit were questions of 100% planning~"'add{ng "as it stand~ now,. the party can legally do what she is requesting to do. It might be good planning to rezone this property to something else, or good planning to amend the Ordinances to require a Use Permit for this type 0f thing, or good planning'~o develop a set of specific regulations governing c0ndominiums, but we do not have that now. I can only look at it from the standpoint of the way the Ordinances read now." Commissioner Belanger expressed concern that if approval was granted, would the Commission be creating a large number of small non-conforming lots. Mr. Johnston agreed that this would be true if condominiums envisioned creating divisions of the surface of land, but added thatDthe State law says condominiums constitute subdivisions of 5 or more units and!are divisions of air-space as distinguished from divisions of surfaces of land.: -5- ..... M_~I~UTES OF AUGUST 28~ 1974 D. SD-1135 - Barbara Caldwell - ContinUed Commissioner Smith expressed concern that if this tentative map was approved, "how can the Planning Commission gee around the Subdivision Ordinance which says that all provisions of Part 3 pf this Ordinance must be complied with before they can sell unless we rezone it to something else which complies with Ordinance NS-5. One says we cannot~sell a piece of land without complying with all of the subdivision laws, but unHer the PA zone she can sell individual units if we approve the tentative map." Mr. Johnston stated that the Subdivision Ordinance stated the subdivision of parcels of ground would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, and the Zoning Ordinance stated that if a residential use had been established for a time when it was a permitted use, the fact that the zoning had thereafter been changed to make it a prohibited use did not prevent that use from continuing." He added, "with a residential use, you will'flnd the Zoning Ordinance says that contrary~to most non-conforming uses, a person may add, reconstruct or remodel a resid~ntial~se even r~'ii'is a non-conforming use and even though you may not do it to a non-conforming commercial, industrial or PA use. There is more latitude to a legal non-conforming residential use thah. there is for any other non-conforming uses. The only narrow legal question is whether or not the change of ownership of the use is going to change the use, and the answer is' no." Dorothy Webb, attorney for the·applicant, stated that·_by. reading the CC&R's she'.felt all of the questions r~ised would'be answered. She stated that the CC&R's have been worded to make the!~~?~ irrevocable, adding "and I do not think you will find there are many things you 'could get any other way that you do not get in the CC&R's o~ this application." She stated that the homeowners association would be composed of 6 owners of condominiums and would be a non-profit corporation, would be b=eachable, and would probably be the most ideal solution for continuing the l~fe and maintenance of the property. She stated that the Planning Commission. would find "we are very cooperative in any modification you might want to make~in the CC&R's." Commissioner Belanger asked if the State Code on condominiums specified the way they were to be handled. "Does'this also include specifications like fire hydrants, water meters, etc. or does that have to be done in a separate City Ordinance." Mr. Johnston stated that the State Civil Code had been amended to provide for condominiums, and at the same time the Business and Professions Code was amended to provide for a host of regulations that related to sales, the internal workings of the association as to maintenance, the requirements of the CC&R's, and the requirements~that a subdivision map be approved as if it were a land division. He stated that ~s far as construction was concerned, there was no difference between apartments and condominiums. Ms. Caldwell, applicant, stated "after having the property for 17 years, I don't think any of you realize what it looked like before that time and how dilap~ldated that whole end of Big Basin was. I think I was able to show Saratoga that something could be do~e with old buildings, and ·'~·0~·~liy ·fee~'-I was instrumental in leading the whole move for renovation on Big Basin·Wayi·'' She assured the Commission "not one leaf on that property is to be changed or ever can be changed during my lifetime." Mr. Lynch stated that as an adjacent property owner, he felt it was important for the Commission to consider relative to the fears certain Commission members have concerning condominiums in the area, that there were other condominiums nearby "and the same fears and problems that have come up tonight have been solved with these other condominium~." Chairman Marshall directed SD-1135 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of September 11, 1974, referred.this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review, and requested the City Attorney review the CC&R's by the next meeting. E. SDR-1136 - A.H. Brolly, Fruitvale A~enue, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots; Continued from August 14~ 1974 (Expires September 10~ 1974) The Secretary stated the applicant had submitted a letter granting an extension to the Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 1974.~ Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1136 be continued to the Planning commission· meeting of September 11, 1974 and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. MINUTES OF AUGUST 28~ 1974 F. SDR-1137 - Frederick Keep, Garrod Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Continued from August 14~ 1974 (Expires September 11.~ 1974) The Secretary stated a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. He modified the Staff Report by adding Condition ('d) which specified design-review approval was required, as well as deleted Condition (~) of the Report. The applicant was present and indicated acceptance of the Report. Commissioner Belanger stated that there had been discussions relative to whether adequate water was available to the site, and noted there had been a letter from the Fire District which. addressed this problem. She stated, "however this property is within the City bu~t it lacks all essential City services, and I wonder what is the preced~nt'.nfor turning down applications in the urban-ser- vice area and the sphere~of~influence area which also lacks the essential City services. On what basis dO we 'deny~'hrban-~ervice area and sphere-of~influence area applications when they have a 1" water main and nothing else. We are violating our orderly plan to extend City services in a regular pattern, so that· development takes place in a regula~ pattern. By allowing this one, we open up the next lot and the next into the urbane'service area and sphere~B~influence area without requiring first the basic City services." It was noted that City Council policy was not to allow development unless and until each property had sufficient/sewer- and water-lines to service domestic and Fire District use. The Secretary pointed ·o~"~· in't~{s ~ase the ~'ire District felt a 1" water line for normal household use was adequate, and that the !5,000-gallon water tank provided for the Fire Distri~['s requirements. Commissioner Matteoni added that' the property was W~hln the'Ci[y'i{mits, and this implied to him that the City could service that property. He added that the water problem had been worked out and met the Fire District's requirements. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission approve application SDR-1137 and acceptSthe Staff Report dated August 28, 1974 and the tentative map (Exhibit A filed July 23, 1974), subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (u), and subject to the deletion of Condition (q) oflthe report. The motion was carried unanimously. '.BREA~;~,. 10:00 p.m. REOPEN: 10:15 p.m. G. SDR-1138 -'AVCO Community Developmefft, McCarthy Place, Building Site Approval, 3 Lots; Continued from August 14, 1974 (Expires September 12, i974) The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. Commissioner Belanger asked if the p~destrian/bicycle path had been reflected on the map. Mr. Trinidad, Public Works Department, explained that this was part of a previously-approved 18-lot subdivision, and the pathways and streets had been bonded for and were reflected on the other subdivision map. Commissioner Belanger stated that she would not vote in favor of this application in that she had been opposed to the 9riginal subdivision application on the - freeway right-of-way on the basis that it required a number of variances, adding "I cannot vote yes on a part of something of which on the whole I disapprove of." Commissioner Martin agreed stating that he had voted agains'~"~he~"~g~al'."~bd~Vi- sion because he felt there was not adequate secondary:~access, and by approving .... 3 ~ore lots the access would be worse. Chairman Marshall' agreed to these argu- ments stating that he felt the original subdivision was a bad subdivision situation and the addition of 3 more.lots would~'~'~"the situation. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Planning Commission approve application SDR-1138 and accept the Staff Report dated 'August 28, 1974 and the tentative map (Exhibit A filed July 24, 1974) subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (1) of the report. The motion was not passed; Commissioners Belanger, Martin and Marshall voted no. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission deny application SDR-1138 'and reject the Staff Report on same. -7~ ~ ~'~=; M!,NUTES OF AUGUST 28~ 1974 G. SDR-1138 - AVCO Community Development - Continued The representative of the applicant2 stated that he understood the expressions of negative feelings against a tract which had already been approved. "However, we cannot go back in time, and I d~ not think it makes sense to close the iron door after the cows have been left 'out." He pointed out that these 3 houses would be closer to the secondary ac2cess and that they were not going to lengthen the street. He then added that he ~felt the applicant had time to spare, and re- quested this be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission in order to obtain a full vote by the Commission. After discussion of what com- prised a majority vote, it was determined that a majority of a Planning Commission quorum was sufficient to. pass a motion. The motion to deny application SDR-1138 was passed; Commissioners Smith and Matteoni voted no. Chairman Marshall advised the applicant of his right to appeal to the City Council within 10 days after the Commission's decision. H. SDR-1139 - Willard Lynch, Big Basin'Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued frumAu~ust 147 1974 (Expires September 18~ 1974) The Secretary gave a brief history of this application as follows: In 1972 the City and Mr. Lynch were directed by. the Fire Department and the Building Depart- ment to either remove the two buildings located on this site or bring them up to Code. Subsequently, Mr. Lynch applied for and received Tentative Site Approval (SDR-1001) on November 27,. 1972 with three Commissioners voting denial. All fees and bonds were submitted but completion was delayed due to difficulty in recording a Final Map; however, said Record of Survey has since been com- pleted and filed. Since expirationlof SDR-1001, Mr. Lynch has reapplied for Tentative Building Site Approval for his lot, and if~approved, th~s application would be immediately forwarded to the City Council for Final Building Site Approval. He stated' that Staff had'prepared a Staff Report on this which recommended approval be granted, and pointed out that a major consideration of the Report was a requirement that construction be initiated within 6-months from the date of Tentative Map Approval.~ Commissioner Belanger stated that s~e felt the applicant was essentially re- building an old building in that over 50% of the building was to be replaced. Mr. Lynch stated that the 50% figure was based on a monetary value due primarily to the cost in restoring the building's foundation. He stated that he had: met all of the requirements of the Fire Department; had hired an on-site manager to look after the property and tofup-keep the y~dwork; had arranged to have two garbage cans collected weekly to insure garbage was not thrown into the creek; that the Health and Flood Control requirements had all been met; that the drainage fees had been paid to the City; that ~ye_!tests had been run twice by the Sewage Department tO determine if the property was hooked-up to sewage lin~s, which they were; that architectural plans had been drawn up; and that $1~00 worth of surveys had been done on the property. Mr. Lynch further explained that in order to restore these buildings, he had been forced to sell a piece of property on La Paloma AVenue, form a corporation ~'d'~"~h~monies ~nto a ~ , trust for the specific purpose Of r~storing this p~6p'e~t~"tha[ his'buSineSs partner had had a heart attack in the meant~,~'. and the corporation now refused to return the money he put into the trust to make these improvements. He ex- plained that the Survey Maps he turned over to the City had not been recorded, and during the time it took to record the maps, time expired on his original application; consequently, it had been necessary to pay additional fees and submit a new application. He stated that he would appreciate approval on this application, and that the condition that work begin within 6 months was accep- table because he could then get his:money back from the corporation. Commissioner Belanger stated that she was divided on this. "If this was truly a residence with a minimum disturbance of the historical value, I might be in favor of it. However, I see things.on the plans which are entirely new and imitative of a historical building. In that case I am tempted to say why create a new legal non-conforming use when we could get the same appearance by converting that second building into something like a garage for the first building." Chairman Marshall agreed stating "if the intent is to preserve an -8- MINUTES OF AUGUST 28~ 1974 H. SDR-1139 ~ Willard Lynch - Continued historical building that is one thing, but if it is merely to bring it up to Code as rental units, it becomes income property and I personally have no interest in maintaining the buildings." Mr. Lynch stated that a garage would not be economically feasible for him, but added that something like a floral shop might. He stated that to restore the building to what it was originally would be difficult, explaining that'the original building had been part of Saratoga's skid row. The Secretary stated that this property was now non-conforming in the sense that single-family residences were not allowed in a CV zone. He stated that the applicant would have to submit plans which reverted to a CV use not a residential use, and pointed out that this was discovered after the applicant had submitted his plans to the Commission. Mr. Lynch pointed out that the Commission couId approve an accessory structure if/i?~'i~dT-giving as an example an apartment which was aBOv~ a commercial building for police-protection purposes. The Secretary pointed out that the applicant must first have a principal structure in order to have an accessory structure, and the princip~i': structure had to be associated with.the intended use of the zone. Chairman Marshall stated that he would like to see revised plans which showed the renovation of the original structure which attempted to obtain the original flavor, which met the Code for renoyations, and the intended use of a CV zone. Commissioner Smith raised the.~point tha~h'~"0~inance .required .-· minimum site to be 10,000 square feet with each Site having 60-feet frontage on a public street. It was noted, however, that even though there were two buildings on a single lot, it was considered onei·,p~rcel and the frontage thereof was 62-feet. The question~f~ting the recommendations of the Village Plan was raised, and page 24, paragraph '3 was cited as follows: "West of 5th another 800-feet of Big Basin Way is zoned Visitor Commercial but has not yet been developed in retail use. It is not accidental that development has not occurred; it may be fortunate. The shopping area al- ready lacks intensity. Extending it another 50% in length would have a negative effect on the economi~ vitality of the Village. On the other hand, encouraging apartments and perhaps permitting offices would add customers and increase activity. From the investor's point of view, apartment property that can bezmerchandized is more valuable than commer- cial property that cannot be. .If this segment of Big Basin Way remains in Conmnercial Zoning, chances are that only marginal, free-standing types of uses will develop; uses that will not have a positive, supportive effect on the Village. Recommended iS small-scale housing and offices with reten- tion of existing buildings as ~ar as possible to protect historic con- tinuity and Village character.; Where needed, parking should be provided as inconspicuously as possible~" Mr. Lynch stated "we are dealing with the present Ordinances. Now you are telling me it should be made residehtial and in the future you might change the Ordinance." He said that he feit the most attractive use for the City was to have the property a single-family residence, but that the present Ordinance · stated that it should be commercial. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1139!be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of September 11, 1974, referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review, and requested Mr. Lynch submit revised plans which met the intended use of the CV zone. He further requested Mr. Lynch review that section of the Village Plan cited earlier. I. SDR-1140 - Michael Conn, Vacquero Court, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from AuSust 14~1 1974 (Expires September 19~ 1974) The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. Mr. Conn, applicant, pointed out that Condition (m) of the Staff Report was based on a misinterpretation of the· te plans by'the Santa Clara Water District. -9- ;~' ~M~.~TES OF AUGUST 28~ 1974 I. SDR-1140 - Michael Conn- Continued He stated that the creek that bordered his property was actually a tributary of Calaveras Creek, and there was a 30-foot drop-off from his property. He stated that consequently, the statement made by the Water District relative to this site being subject to flooding was incorrect. He further pointed out that since there was such a drop-Off from his property, the requirement that he must dedicate a right-of-way.~'~d%-~'6"b~%s. He stated, "'[h'~is no subject right- .of-way designation on the property,!and I cannot' see the justification of that kind of requirement. How can I resolve it?" Chairman Marshall advised Mr. Conn that he should contact the Water District regarding any problems, and informed him that the Planning Con~nission would need a letter of clarification from .{t ...... ~-- modifying any requirements. Mr. Johnston stated that when the W~ter District had proposed changing."~7~ ..... Ordinances to create a vehicle whereby they could create a flood plain'., and say that because a site was within the flood plai~".an offer of dedication would be required, "we asked them are youlsure you are not going to use this as a Mick~Mouse vehicle to get dedications of land without paying for it." He added that the District had assured the City/f['would only use this device in the event there was a serious chance of flooding. Commissioner Belanger asked for clarification of Condition (o) relative to a future recommendation for a pathway from the Parks & Recreation Commission. She stated that she was eager to leave the condition in, but felt it was unfair to the applicant in that it lacked specificity. The Secretary explained that the Parks & Recreation Commission was to have had a specific recommendation by their August 19th meeting but had been unable to do so; consequently, a recommen- dation would be ma'~e at~S'!~m~ting on September 9th. Mr. Conn added to this that in speaking with Barbara Sampson, he was told that a specific recommen- dation may not come until after completion of the Trails & Pathways Committee's study in December. The Secretary agreed that the condition was vague, and sugge~.ted that it be deleted entire~y from the Staff Report. Upon further , d'i'~'~ss~i-on of same, it was suggested that the Planning Commission ask for an ~ffer'of Dedication with a specified cost, and if the Parks & Recreation Commission found it did not need this, the condition could later be rescinded. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1140'be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 1974, referred this matter to the Subdivisicn Committee 'for further review, and requested ciarification of Conditions (m) and (o) of the Staff Report. J. SDR-1141 - Ronald Pack,.Saraview.Coqrt, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 14, 1974 (Expires September 19~ 1974) The Secretary stated a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. There were no further comments. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission approve application SDR-1141 and accept the Staff Report dated August 28, 1974 and the tentative map (Exhibit A filed July 31, 1974), subject to General Conditions I and Specifi~ Conditions II (a) through (p) of the Report. The motion was carried unanimously. K. SDR-1142 - W.C. Garcia & Associates,l Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires. September 27~ 1974) The Secretary stated that the files were not complete on this matter, and recommended this be continued. Mr. Garcia, applicant, stated that in speaking with the Subdivision Committee earlier, it had been indicated that insomuch as this application was for a temporary use, there would be no problems in granting approval this evening. He explained that the proposed development was for E1 Camino Savings and Loan, and in order to obtain a charter from the State, the bank must be in operation by November 1, 1974. He added that the portable buildings had been leased, and as soon as approval was given, the applicant would be ready to move in. .~ '-~;'~ MINUTES OF AUGUST 28~ 1974 K. SDR-1142 - W.C. Garcia & Associates - Continued Commissioner Belanger stated, "I think it was very clear that this chartering situation existed and if it was going to be possible for him to have his temporary u~e at all, it would have to be timely. The Subdivision Committee advised Mr. Garcia to immediately get in touch with Public Works Department to see if access was adequate. Now~we are saying we are not ready, and I'm not Understanding this." The Secretary pointed out that Staff had not heard from Department of Public Works nor from the Santa Clara County Water District; consequently, the file was not complete and a Staff Reportihad not been prepared. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1142'be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 1974, and ~eferred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. L. SDR-1143 - W.R. Hamsher, Sobey Road~ Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires September 27, 1974) The Secretary stated that the file was not complete on this, and recommended it be continued. Chairman Marshall.directed SDR-1143 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. M. ~SD~1144 '- Beck Enterprises, WalnutiAvenue, Subdivision Approval - 7 Lots; (Expires October 3~ 1974) The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted a letter dated August 28, 1974 withdrawing his app!ication~ IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-443 - Yves Casabonne, Big Basin Way, Final Design Approval - Expansion Commercial Buildin~ Mr. Don Burr, City Planner, stated ~hat the file was not complete and a Staff Report had not been prepared. Chairman Marshall directed application A-443 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. B. A-444 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue, Final Design Approval - Temporary Construction Sign Mr. Burt stated that the file was n6t complete and a Staff Report had not been prepared. Chairman Marshall directed application A-444 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting 'of September 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for fureher review. C. A-445 - Hubbard and Johnson, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Final Design Review - Identification Sign; Continued fromAugust 14, 1974 Mr. Burt read the Staff Report which rec~f~ended approval be granted. Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission approve application A-445 and accept the Staff Report dated August 28, 1974 and Exhibits A and B, subject to Conditions (1), (2) and (3) of the Staff Report. The motion was carried unanimously. D. A-446 - Thomas Walker, Pierce Road ~ Final Design Approval - Single-Family Residence Mr. Burt stated that the file was n~t complete and a Staff Report had not been prepared. Chairman Marshall directed application A~446 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. -11- M~UTES OF AUGUST 28, 1974 Eo A-447 - George W. Day Construction Eompany, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Approval - Single-Family Residence (Tract 5408~ Lot 14) Mr. Burr read the Staff Report into the record which recormnended approval be granted. It was noted that the location of the house had been altered, and in order not to lose the feeling of open space in this tract, the sideyard setback of Lot 13 would have to be increased from 20-feet to 50-feet between Lots 13 and 14. Mr. Royal, applicant ' s representative, indicated acceptance of._t_hi_s ~' Commissioner Martin requested Staff mark in yell6w the new placement of Lot 14 on the Site Development Plan of Tract 5408~ Mr. Royal requested that one section of wood~strip wrap on the rear portion..of garage be deleted in that it could not be seen from the' street. The Commission found this acceptable. Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission ~ant application A-447, Lot 14 of Tract 5408 final design approval, and adcept the Staff Report dated August 28, 1974 and Exhibit A, subject to Condition (1) of the Staff Report, and subject to the additional condition that Lot 13's sideyard setback requirement be increased from"2_0'-fee~_~-. as shown on the Site Development Plan to allow at least 50-feet between Lots 13 and 14, and that this be reflected on Tract 5408's Site Development Plan. The motion was carried unanimously. F. A-447.- GeD~.ge W~ Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue Final Design ApprOval - Single-Family ReSidence (Tract 5408~ Lot 3) Mr. Burr read the Staff Report into !the record which recommended approval be granted. Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission grant application A-447, Tract 5408, Lot 3 final design approval, and accept the Staff Report dated August 28, 1974 and Exhibit "B" subject to Condition (1) of the Staff Report. The motion was carried unanimously. V. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR-1018 - Mary E. Standard, Via Colina & Monte Vista Drive - 1 Lot; Request for Extension of Tentative Building Site Approval The Secretary stated that this was the first request for extension, and recommended approval be granted. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that The request extension on application SDR-1018 'for one-year be approved. The motion was carried unanimously. B. SDR-1067 - Joseph R. Helm, Pike Road.!';- 1 Lot - Request for Extension of Tentative Building Site Approval The Secretary stated that this was the first request for extension, and recommended approval be granted. COmmissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the request for extension on application SDR-1067 for one-year be approved. The motion was carried unanimously. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATIONS The following Negative Declarations were filed between AuguSt 10, 1974 and August 23, 1974: A. SDR-1142 - WoC. Garcia & Associates, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot B. SDR-1143 -W.R. Hamsher, Sobey Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot -12- ~.~';,..~JTES OF AUGUST 28~ 1974 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATIONS - COntinued It was noted that the Planning Directorsrequired an Environmental Impact Report be submitted on SD-1144, Beck Enterprises, Walnut Avenue, Subdivision Approval - 7 Lots VII. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN A. Resolution No. 653-1 (Resolution Setting Forth Envir~nmental Impact Report Criteria and Procedures for Private. Land Projects in the City of Saratoga) was briefly discussed. Commissione~ Martin requested the following ~0rrections be made: (1) page 1, Section 2(1),.delete the word "not" on line 6; (2) page 4, line 2 correct the spelling of the word "filed;" (3) page 6, line 3, add the word "that" in'~'front of ~event." Commissioner Martin questioned Item.(e) on page 4 relative to scheduling a hearing on a final EIR and its related application on the same date. The Secretary explained that both matters must be agendized at the same meeting, but it was a procedural requirement:only, and both did not have to be acted upon at the same meeting. VII. COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL A. Commissioner Martin asked if a grading permit had been obtained on the earth- fill between the Medical Center and the creek.on Cox Avenue. Mr. Burt stated that the City Code Enforcement OffiCer had stated no grading permit had been issued, and that he would look into'this matter further. B. Commissioner Belanger asked what the status of the Harry Margolis matter was. Mr. Johnston stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Margolis saying he was going to sue Mr. Johnston for slander and libel "because I had the audacity to tell him to stop his operation and suggest to him he was playing games with the City in pretending he did not know what he was doing wrong.~ I am waiting for the Council to officially direct me to file an in~jUnction against him." C. Commissioner Belanger asked if the City could ask some of the residents of Tract 5150 to remove perimeter-type%fencing because they were "in violation of the spirit of the conditions of Tract 5150." She indicated that many of the residents of Tract 5150 were relunc6ant to 'take action by themselves "since those people they would have issue with are heighbors and they are hoping the City could do something." Mr. JohnSton stated that the conditions for fencing were contained in Trac~.5150's CC&R!s, and the City did not have any power over whether fences could be removed or if the 15% fencing requirements had been complied with. It was noted that thei~'~esiden~S bf'Tract 5150 had the power to · '.enforce this themselves and if they'felt strongly enough about this, they had the legal options to 6ake care of it. Questions were raised as to whether the CC&R's contained specifications on fencing, and Staff was requested to check into thi s. D. The Secretary asked the Variance Co~mittee~Chairman if the Variance Committee ~would be ~le to make an on-site inspection of~'Vj412, applica~i0n for a tennis "court, on Saturday, September'7, i9~4 at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Martin indicated this would be acceptable. E. The Secretary informed the Commissioners there'would be a Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on Thursday, September 5, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. in the Crisp Conference Room to discuss general procedures. F. Chairman Marshall expressed appreciation to Mrs.~Starke of the Good Government Group for serving coffee, and welcomed Councilman~.B~ham to the meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 1974 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned lat 12:40 ~.m. Re fully submitted, ' Marty Van~ , Secretary ~, ~_ OF SA OGA PLANNING COMMISS AGENDA TIME: Wednesday, August 28, 1974 - 7:30 p..m ..... PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 FruitVale Avenue, Sara~gga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting '~ **********~********* I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL B. MINUTES C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Village Plan - City of Saratoga - Hearing on Adoption of Village Plan Element of 1974 Saratoga General Plan B. V-411 - Steve Stevens, Quito Road - Request for Variance to Allow Construction of 10-foot Fence within 6-feet 'of the Side Property Line in Lieu of the Required 20-Feet (Ordinance NS-3, section 3.7-1) c. uP-245 - steve J. stevens, Quito Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow Court Fencing within Required Setbacks (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1); Continued fromAugust 14, iD74 D. UP-248 - P.H. Morton, Old Wogd Road - Request .for Use Permit to Allow Tennis Court Fencing within Requ{red Setbacks (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1); Continued from August 14~ 1974 E. C-171 - Mel De Selle, 5th Street, qhange of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000" (Multiple Residential) to 'U~-C" (Community Commercial); a .2024 acre parcel; Continued from July ~4, 1974 F. C-176 - Gene Zambetti, Oak Street, Change of zoning Request from "R-M-3,000" (Multiple Residential) to "C~C"/~Community Commercial); Continued from July 24, 1974 G. C-177 - Mary Jane Brown, Third"Street, Change of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000" · "~(.~.Lltiple Residential)' to "C-C" (Community Commercial); Continued from July 24, 1974 III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1115 - Marvin Kirkeby, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots~ Continued fromAuguSt 14~ 1974 (Expiration extended to Aug. 28) B. SDR-1116 - Roger Ross, Saratoga Hills Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 14~'1974 (Expiration e~tended to August 28~ 1974) C. SDR-1133 - Barrett Anderson, Jacks Rgad, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 14, 1974 (Expireb"August 29~ 1974) D. SD~fi~'~'""i'Barbara Caldwell Big Basin Way Subdivision Approval 6 Lots; Continued from August 14 1974 (Expires-~e'~['~ber 10~ 1974) E. SDR-1136 - A.H. Brolly, Fruitvale Avenue, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots; Continued fromAugust 14, 1974 (Expires September 10, 1974) F. SDR-1137 - Frederick Keep,~.Garrod Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from AuSust 14/~i'1974 (Expires September 11, 1974) G. SDR-1138 AVCO Community Development, McCarthy Place, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots; Continued from August 14~ 1974 (Expires September 12~ 1974) H. SDR-1139 - Willard Lynch, Big Basin Way, Building Site App~qy~l - 1 Lot; Continued from August 14,'1974 (Expires September 18, 1974) -1- I. SDR-1140 - Michael Conn, Vacquero Court, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; ~n~"'f~r~"Ahgust 14~ 1974~'~ (Expires September 19~ 1974) J. SDR-11~I - Ronald Pack, Saraview Court, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 14, 1974 (Expires September 19~ 1974) K. SDR-1142 - W.C. Garcia & Associates, Saratoga~Sunnyvale Road - Building Site Approval.!~ 1 Lot~E~'~ptember 27, 1974) L. SDR-1143 - W.Ro Hamsher, Sobey Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires September 27~ 1974) M. SD-1144 - Beck Enterprises, Walnut Avenue, Subdivision Approval - 7 Lots; (Expires October 3~ 1974) IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-443 - Y~es Casabon~'e, Big Basin Way, Final Design Approval - Expansion Commercial Buildin~ B. A-444 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue, Final Design Approval - Temporary Construction Sign C. A-445 - Hubbard and Johnson, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Final Design Review - ~.~'~ification Sign; Continued from August 14~ 1974 D. A-446 - Thomas Walker, Pierce Road -.Final Design Approval - Single-Family Residence E. A-447 - George W. Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue, ~j_p~lDesign Approval - Single-Family Residence (Tract 5408~ V. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR-1018 - Mary E. Standard, Via Colina & Monte Vista Drive - 1 Lot - Request for Extension of Tentative Building Site Approval B. SDR-1067 - Joseph R. Heim, Pike Road'- 1 Lot - Request for Extension '~'YTentative Building Site Approval VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATIONS -,~egative Declarations Filed VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN B. ORAL VIII. ADJOURNMENT