Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-1974 Planning Commission Minutes '~ OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSI - . MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 25, 1974 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting **********~********* I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present:Commissioner' Belanger, Callon, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, Smith and Woodward Absent: None B. MINUTES Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the reading of. the minutes of the September 9, 1974' Planning Con!n_ission meeting be waived, and that they be approved as distributed. The motion was carried: 4 ayes; 1 ab- stention; 2 Commissioners arrived la~e. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT : Commissioner Callon gave an oral presentation of the City Council meeting of September 18, 1974. Of special interest to the Commission was that the appeal by AVCO Community Development on application SDR-1138 was approved by the Council. Of further interest was the requirement that all Committee meetings must be posted with an agenda of same at Cit~ Hall at least 24-hours ahead of the meeting. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the Administration Office. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-252 - Barbara R. Norman, Farwell Avenue - Request for Use Permit to Allow the Construction of a 12-foot F~nce around the Perimeter of a Tennis Court (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.4); Continued from September 11~ 1974 Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-252 at 7:43 p.m. The Secretary stated that the Subdivision Committee had met with the applicant on-site on September 15, 1974. He reported that the applicant had submitted revised plans based on suggestions made by the Subdivision Committee, and added that Staff had prepared a Staff Report recommending approval be granted to UP-252. Mr. Norman, applicant, stated that h~ felt. Conditions (2) and (6) of the Staff Report were unreasonable. Relative to Condition (2) which required a 10-foot fence in lieu of the proposed 12-foot. fence, the applicant's architect submitted cross-section views which he stated showed that very little of the fence could be seen from the street because of heavy landscaping in front and along one side of the property. Mr. Norman further pointed out that he felt a chain-link fence could not be seen from 40-feet, and ~hat houses adjacent to his property were well over 100-feet away. He added that the two neighbors to the north of his property ~h~d"i~'dlc~d~h'~'h~'d'~b~'i~.' to the tennis court. Relative to Condition '(6) requiring a sump pump,"Mr'. Norman contended that the.~ump proposed on the plans would be adequate to handle any run-off from the tennis court as well as any run-off from the street that would not be collected by the new storm drain which was proposed to be constructed by the City in October. Mr. Gordon Doke, 19600 Farwell Avenue~ drew attention to his letter da~ed September 18, 1974 objecting to the tennis court. He requested the Use Permit application be denied for the followipg reasons: (1) He stated that as an example, the 12-foot fence around the tennis courts at West Valley College was: very obvious, adding that he would be'able to see from his property "a great slice of the north end of the court. I submit that you cannot conceal this and it will be a permanent eyesore now and forever." (2) He noted that several people had spoken against the tennis court at the last Planning Commission meeting, and no -1- MEETING OF .SEPTEMBER 2 [974 A. UP-252 - Barbara Norman - Continued' one had spoken in behalf of it. ('The Secretary inserted here that Staff had in- formed Mr. Norman that this matter w'ould be continued, and suggested that he need not appear at the meeting.) (3) He stated that he felt the fence would do nothing to enhance the rural atmosphere of the area, and contended that by allowing this fence'ran unwanted p~cedent would be set'. (4) He stated that his property was directly across f~om the'N0rn{a~?'s 'pr~6perty, and claimed that it would be very difficult for him to sell his proper:ty because of the view of this 12-foot fence. (5) Lastly, he stated that by allowing any fence more than 6-feet over a normal grade would be setting a precedent, and "we will not be able to stop fences higher than that from thereon." Mrs. Jane Fast, 19611 Versailles WayS, asked how high the fence would' actually be. Chairman Marshall explained tha~ the Staff Report called for dropping the proposed grading 2-feet and the proposed fence height 2-feet. She stated that a 10-foot fence upon a 4~-foot natural grade would "look like a bird cage hang- ing in the sky," and complained tha~ she would be looking straight up at the tennis court from her property. She further claimed that she could see the chain- link fence at West Valley College from her property, and that she would be able to see the Norman's fence as well. She pointed out that drainage from the property would end up on her propert~ insomuch as the new storm drain did not include her area. Mrs. Doke, 19660 Farwell Avenue, stated that she lived directly across from the Norman's property and claimed that she would be able to see the chain-link fence from every window in the front of he~ home. She maintained that the screening of the fence with shrubbery would take 5-8 years to grow, and pointed out that there would be a drainage problem incurred:by the grading. She contended that the only view she had was where the proposed fence was to be placed, and complained that all of this would depreciate the value of her home. Mrs. Robert Swanson, 19616 Farwell A~enue, stated that she was in favor of this tennis cou~t because she felt tennis~courts added to rather than detracted from an area. She stated that she felt the City had a solution to the drainage prob- blems expressed by several neighbors'via the storm drain, and that the Doke's concern with visual aesthetics was b~sed on a 12-fence rather than a 10-foot fence. She requested that evergreen!plantings be required to thoroughly dis- guise the fence, and further requested the City develop standards for tennis courts. Mr. Lou Thorpe, 19550 Farwell Avenue~ asked if there was any correlation between the size of the property and tennis courts being installed. Chairman Marshall explained that if one had a large enough lot and met Ordinance requirements rela- tive to setbacks and height limitations, a tennis court could be built. Mr. Thorpe stated that he was concerned from a conservationist viewpoint of tennis courts in general, explaining that by the timeza house was built with asphalt covering sidewalks, driveways, tennis courts ~nd swimming pools, 50% of the lot could be covered. "To me that seems unnatural. Is this what the Commission is permitting?" Chairman Marshall pointed out that the Commission was charged with enforcing City Ordinances and the laws of California. He noted that theoretically in Saratoga one could pave his entire property and erect a 6-foot fence around the perimeter without the City even requiring a building permit. He added that the Ordinances did however specify the limitation on building coverage as being 25% in a one- acre zone. Mr. Thorpe ended his remarks by stating, "I feel there is something of a dichotomy here. It seems like somewhere along the line somebody decided to make this a very attractive and desirable residential area, and the trend that seems to be going on does not seem to be upholding that original thought." Mrs. Pope, 14534 E1 Puente, stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting she had expressed concern about the drainage problem on the property, adding that if the City felt the sump would .help solve this she would be willing to go along with this. She stated, "we do :think that tennis courts enhance the value of property, however, we ask that the fence stay at 10-feet." Commissioner Smith reported that the Subdivision Committee had visited the site two weeks ago and had made suggestion!s regarding the fence height and the drainage. He pointed out the Staff Report specified the grade and fence height be less so that the top of the fence was now 4-feet lower than the original proposed plan. MEETING OF SEPTEMBER O1974 A... ~UP-252 - Barbara Norman - Continued' He explained "the City is spending a considerable amount of money to take the water out of the swale which runs near the applicant's property, and the Subdi- vision Cormnittee felt it would be a mistake to aggravate that condition again. That was the reason why they specified that as a condition of building site approval, a sump be required with an automatic pump in it to pump the run-off water from the tennis court to the Farwell Avenue drain." He stated that he felt the Commission should act favorably on this application subject to the condi- tions specified in the Staff Report.' At this time, Chairman Marshall introduced into the record the following written correspondence: (1) letter dated September 18, 1974 from Gordon Doke, 19600 Farwell Avenue, objecting to the proposed tennis court; (2) letter dated September 25, 1974 from Arthur Holmboe, a neighbor residing on E1 Puente, en- dorsing the proposed plan; and (3) l~tter dated September 23, 1974 from Lou~ Thorpe, 19550 Farwell Avenue, objecting to the proposed plans. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the public hearing on UP-252 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:47 p.m. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission approve application UP-252 in conformance with the conditions of the Staff Report dated September 25, 1974 and Exhibit A-1. Commissioner Callon moved that in the event the sump as shown in Exhibit A-~i does not adequately contain future run-off water from the tennis court, a drainage plan would be required with provisions providing for the pumping of run-off water to Farwell Avenue Storm drain system with implementation of said plan. The motion died for lack of a second. The motion to approve application UP~252 was ~assed unanimously. The applicant and members of the audience were informed of the appeal process to the City Council within 10-days as well as the process for recon~ideration of conditicms. B. V-413 - Betty J. Rudd, 13387 Christie Drive Request for Variance to Allow a 7-foot Sideyard Setback in Lieu of Required 10-foot Setback and to Allow a 7-foot Rearyard Setback in.Lieu of Required 25-foot Setback (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7) The Secretary stated that Staff recommended the Variance Committee make an on-site inspection of the property prior to acting on this application. The applicant was present and it was arranged that'the Variance Committee would meet with the applicant on-site at 9:00 a.m., September 28,.1974. Chairman Marshall directed V-413 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 1974, and referred this matter to the VarianceSCommittee for review.' 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 September 25~ 1974) The Secretary stated that this matter had been on the agenda since April 24, 1974 pending solution of an access problem by the applicant. He reported that the' problem had not been resolved and recommended this application be denied without prejudice. He pointed out that Mr. Kirkeby had been advised by Staff's recommen- dation, and had been informed that if he were to submit a letter withdrawing his application, the application fee,.~uld be refunded. He noted that no such letter was submitted? The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending ~his be denied. After it was determined that~d~ial Without prejudice was not warranted in this case, Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission deny application SDR-1115 tentative building site approval for 3-lots in accordance with the Staff Report dated September 25, 1974. The motion was cI~rried unanimously. -3- MEETING OF SEPTEMBER t74 B. SDR-1116 - Roger Ross, Saratoga Hills Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 28~.1974 (Expiration extended to Sept. 25~ 1974) The Secretary stated that the applicant had met with the Subdivision Committee and had informed them he was unable to resolve problems relative to the improved engineered plans. Consequently, Mr. Ross submitted a letter withdrawing his application for tentative building site approval. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Cormnission accept the request for withdrawal on application SDR-1116 with the recommendation that the Council remit application fees to the applicant. The motion was carried unanimously. C. SDR-1139 - Willard Lynch, Big Basin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from September 11~ 1974 (Expiration extended to September 25~ 1974) The Secretary stated that a letter h~d been received from the applicant granting an extension to October 10, 1974, and consequently Staff recommended this matter be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Marshall pointed out that the Subdivision Committee had met with Mr. Lynch on September 17, and after much discussion had recommended this application be continued until adoption of the Village Plan by'the City Council. At this time, Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission deny the request for building. site approval under applica- tion. SDR-1139, and forward to the City Council the Commission's recommendation that the house be demolished. ~ Commissioner Smith stated that there 'were non-conforming features and violations of the City Ordinances involved whic~ formed the basis for this motion. He ex- plained that ~y granting site approval for remodeling, the City would re-establish a base for amortization of a legal non-conforming use in a PA zone. He pointed out the City would be faced with a 15-20 yea~ amortization period of the remodeled building because the extent of the r~modeling would exceed 50% of the value of the property and would therefore be equivalent to a new structure on the site. He added that the off-street parking was inadequate, and that the distance between this building and the adjacent building was only 9-feet. Chairman Marshall added to this that even if the appliclant remodeled the building in accordance with the Village Plan, it would still be legal non-conforming, and would always be contrary to City policy which stipulates discontinance of legal non-conforming~~ uses. Commissioner Belanger stated that she felt the applicant had been given clear notice to do something about th:e building or have the building removed, adding that she felt Mr. Lynch had be~n given enough time to do something. The question of whether the City Building Inspector could proceed with demolition of the structure was raised. The City Attorney explained that according to the Building Code, if the building was not a hazard to health or safety, the building could not be condemned. He further explained that there were no provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for the amortization of a non-conforming structure in a C-V zone. He pointed out that even if the zone were changed to "R" or "A," the amortization schedule would not run from the date of the Ordinance enactment, and 'add~'d~"that the Ordinance specifies that'r-~the amortization schedule cannot be less than 5 years from the date of rezoning. The motion to deny application SDR-1139 and to forward to the City Council the Commission's recommendation that the building be demolished was carried unanimously. Although Mr. Lynch was not present, it was noted that the applicant could appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days. D. SDR-1145 - Geneva Quickert, Bohlman ROad, Building Site Approval - 2'Lots; Continued from September li~ 1974 (Expires October 15, 1974) The Secretary stated that this matter.had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and based on their review of th'e request, it had been determined that the appli- cation did not meet the minimum 40% slope density requirements specified in the Subdivision Ordinance. He stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended denial; he reported the applicant was aware of said report and in- tended to appeal (if necessary) a denial decision to the City Council. -4- MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1974 D. SDR-1145 - Geneva Quickert Continued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that th~Planning Commission deny application SDR-1145' in accordance with the Staff Report dated September 25, 1974. The motion was carried unanimously. E. .SDR-1146 - Brooks Terhune - SaratogaZ& La Paloma Avenues, Building Site Approval; 1Lot~ Continued from September 11~ 1974 (Expires October 15~ 1974) The Secretary stated a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. The applicant was present and questipned Condition (e) of the Staff Report. Mr. Dan Trinidad., Public Works Department, explained that ~eT, applicant's tenta- tive map depicted a provision which ~equired an Offer of Dedication for an addi- tional 15-feet to make a 45-foot half-street as was shown and recorded on the Officiali}'~.~'.Line. He added that Condition (e) was included on the Staff Report to conform with this Official Plan Line requirement. ?~" .'i Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning ....... -.-! Commission approve application SDR-1146 and the tentative map (Exhibit A filed August 26, 1974) subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated September 25, 1974. The motion was carried unanimously. F. SD-1147 - Osterlund Enterprises, Radoyka Drive, Subdivision Approval - 13 Lots; (Expires October 26, 1974) It was noted that the file was not complete on this, and Staff recommended .=~D-1147 be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SD-1147 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 1974, and referred this matter tO the Subdivision Committee for review. G. SDR-1148 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenu&, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires October 29, 1974) It was noted that the file was not complete on this, and Staff recommended SDR-1148 be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1148 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for review. IV. DESIGNREVIEW A. A-443 - Yves Casabonne, Big Basin Way, Final Design Approval - Expansion Commercial Building; Continued from September 11~ 1974 Mr. Burt, Assistant Planner, stated that a Staff Report had not been prepared on this, and recommended A-443 be continued. Chairman Marshall directed A-443 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of'O~b'~"D~ 1974, and referred this~.m~7~r-?.to the Design Review Committee for further review. B. A-446 - Thomas' Walker, Pierce Road, Final Design Review - Single-Family Residence; Continued from September 11,.1974 Mr. Burt stated that a Staff Report had not been prepared and recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed A-446 be continued to the Planning Commis- sion meeting of October 9, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. C. A-448 - AVCO Community Developers, COx Avenue, Final Design Approval - Single- Family Residence (Tract 5855, Lots 1-20); Continued from Sept. 11, 1974 Mr. Butt stated a Staff Report had not been prepared, and recommended this matter be continued. Chairman Marshall directed A-449 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 197~, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. -5- MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1974 D. A-449 - Medical Village of Saratoga,. Saratoga Avenue, Final Design Approval - Directional Sign; Continue& .from September 11, 1974 Mr. Burt read the Staff Report into the record recc~mf~ending denial of this application citing as the basis for denial that the proposed sign was in violation of Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Section 10z.2, paragraphs (d), (f) and (n), and Section 10.4, paragraph (a). Commissioner Woodward explained that the Design Review Committee had met with the applicant'., felt that the sign would not solve the internal circulation problems now existing,. and consequently recommended denial. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Planning Commission deny application Ai~449 and Exhibit A subject to the Staff Report dated September 25, 1974. The motlob was carried unanimously. E. A-450 - Frederick Keep, Garrod Road~ 'Final Design Approval - 1 Lot Mr. Burr read the Staff Report into [he record recorf~f~ending approval be granted. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Planning Commission grant final design approval to application A~50 and Exhibit A per the Staff Report dated September 25,. 1974. The motion was carried unanimously. F. A-451 - Orville L. Lykins~ Mt. Eden Road~ Final Design Approval - 1 Lot Mr. Butt read the Staff Report into the record recommending approval be grant~... .... ~" 6~a~f amended th~ R~pu~ t. as follows: :.-7..- . -...~ · ~- ~... i>j. - "Recommended Action: Final Design Approval as per-Staff Report and Exhibits "A" · .., · · I~.~..:' j"f ~Lrld "A-I" as m6dified." · %!~'~-.-'--~Conmi-ssioner--Wo~dward moved',"'/seconded by Commissione~ Matteoni ,' ~h'~'~ .71-? .... --~ ......... .~.,. . Commission grant final design approval to application.A-451 and Exhibits A and -' · A-1 ~!p~.'.r,~i-t~e Staff Repor't' dated September 25, 1974. The motion was carried unanimous ly. G. A-452 - Saratoga Parade and Festivali Big Basin Way - Identification Sign Mr. Burr explained that the City Code Enforcement Officer had advised the applicant that a sign permit was required after the banner had been erected. He added that this application was for permission to annually hang a sign beginning next year. Mr. Burr read the Staff Report into the record recommending approval be granted. Staff modified the Report as followsi "Project Description: Applicant requests permission to annually hang a banner for the Annual Fall Festival and Parade at the approved location." Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that final design approval be granted to application A~452 and Exhibit A subject to the revised Staff Report dated September 25, 1974. The motion was carried unanimously. H. A-453 - Ronald Pack~ Saraview Court~ 'Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Mr. Burt read the staf[]~R~port into tlhe record reco~f~aending .approval be granted. After discussion followed relative to this home being substantially different from the surrounding homes in the area, Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-453 subject to the Staff Report dated September 25, 1974. The motion was carried; Commissioner Belanger voted no. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATIONS The following Negative Declarations were 'filed between September 10, 1974 and September 25, 1974: A. SD-1147 - Osterlund Enterprises, Radoyka Drive - Subdivision Approval - 13 Lots B. SDR-1148 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot C. Public Project #16 - Congress Springs'' Park, Glen Brae Avenue -6.- MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2 .974 VII. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN A. Plan~ing'Poticy Committee of Santa Clara County Minutes of July 25, 1974 was the only written correspondence introduced to the record. VII. COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL A. Chairman Marshall reported that Mr. Saucedo, 19554 Three Oaks Way, had installed 10-foot high poles for a 6-foot h~gh'tennis court. He directed Staff contact Mr. Saucedo and request he either saw the posts down to 6-feet or apply for a variance. B. Commissioner Woodward noted that the:renters of the Quito Nursery were throwing garbage into the yard, and requestedStaff check into this matter. ~ C. Commissioner Belanger asked the City Attorney if the Design Review Committee had authority to deny design review applications because of aesthetics. Mr. Johnston explained that design review criteria and conditions were pure..~y 100% aesthetical and were difficult to uphold, but adaed that most of the criteria for design review had not been designed for aesthetics. Discussion followed of this, and it was requested that consideration be given to drafting a detailed Design Review Ordinance which would spell out in more detail design criteria. D. Chairman Marshall stated that Dr. Yeaton had extended an invitation to the Commissioners for a guided tour of his property relative to the development of an area within the Sphere of Influence. He suggested any interested Commissioners contact the Secretary for additionalzinformation. E.Chairman Marshall expressed appreciation to the Good Government Group for serving coffee. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by'Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1974 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, -7-