Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-1974 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 9, 1974 - 7:30 p.m.' PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting ***********~******** ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, Smith and Woodward Absent: None B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the reading of the minutes of the meeting of September 25, 1974 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL Commissioner Matteoni gave an oral presentation of the City Council meeting of October 2, 1974. Of special interest lto the Commission was the following: 1. The Village Plan was approved with two modifications: (a) First Street entry was determined not to be closed to' traffic, but a footnote was added that the First Street mall was to be a long-range objective subject to further study; and (b) City Council decided the extent of commercial area should extend be- yond Fifth Street because the Council felt by confining the Village it would make it more intense, it felt it would be unfair to incorporate "roll-back -..~ zoning" to those people who are pr'esently committed to commercial in that area, and the Council felt the Vil!lage needed more space in which to grow. 2. The Swimming Pool Fencing Ordinanc~ was adopted. Commissioner Matteoni noted that the Building Department would' be responsible for granting permits on this matter. 3. The walkway/stairway relative to Mr. Franklin's Twin Oaks Development was determined to be running over the San Jose Water Company's lines; consequently Mr. Franklin was requested to shifZt the walkway slightly in order to avoid the water lines, and a $12,000 bond was set to cover this work. D. PLANNING POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT Chairman Marshall reported that the meeting of September 26, 1974 covered solid waste disposal, housing,.urban renewal., and trails and pathways matters. He invited the Commission to puruse the material generated from this meeting. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. V-413 - Betty J. Rudd, 13387 Christie Drive, Request for Variance to Allow a 7-ft. Sideyard Setback in Lieu of Required 10-ft. Setback and to Allow a 7-ft. Rearyard Setback in Lieu of Required 25-ft. Setback (Ord. NS-3, Sec. 3.7); Continued from September 25~ 1974 The Secretary stated that after reviewzon-site by the Variance Committee and Staff, it was noted that the area in general had peculiar problems relative to sub- standard lots. He added that the Variance Committee and Staff recommended per the Staff Report dated October 9, 1974i an in-depth study be made of the area in order to address measures which shouldZbe employed in resolving future requests for similar variances. He stated the Study should be completed by the end of this year, and recommended this matter.be continued to the Planning Commission :1- = .? MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9 A. V-413 - Betty J. Rudd - Continued meeting~ of January 22, 1975. Mr. Bur~ drew the Commission's attention to a chart , of Tract' 822 which reflected that all houses in the tract were legal non-conform- ~ -ing relative to site width, depth andarea, as well as reflecting that 43% of the homes in the tract had legal non-conforming garages. _ COmmis~ioner'F~artin explained_that if the applicant 'Were to comply with rearyard setback requirements, the~garage would 'be placed in the middle of the backyard. He added that he agreed with the recommendation for a study of the area, stating that the study should look at providing garages in the central area of.~ard .j~kL.°~C~ners and provide open space instead of trying to enforce setbac~'r~quirements. ~Ch~rnn'~"~haii noted'C~'~tr'r~i~t'ive :to a si~il~T'BTt~e~on s'everal years ago, ~Commissioner Smith pointed out that he.did not feel the City could force the home-[ the City/was i~corporated~ He stated that he felt Staff could spend a lot of money and time without finding a solution to this problem. Commissioner Matteoni state~ that he agreed with the recommendation for a study_. because he felt it would help to set a' standards.' He pointed out that he would be in favor of allowing these garages to be bUilt'in'the rearyard because it would be better than parking vehicles in the driveway or streets, and would consequently improve the appearance of the neighborhood. Commissioner,Woodward agreed with this, pointing out that another problem in the area was inadeqdat~ storage space. She stated that she felt the Committee was trying to accommodate i these homeowners as m~ch as pos~ib~elso that they could comply with as many of City Ordinances as possible. Mrs. Rudd, applicant, was present and [indicated acceptance of the recommendation for a study and a continuance of V-413. Chairman Marshall directed V-413 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 1975, and referred this' matter to the Variance Committee and Staff for review and report of the area. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS ',j A. SD-1112 - Alan Chadwick, Pierce Road, Subdivision Approval - 8 Lots (Expiration extended to October 9~ 1974).; Continued from July 10~ 1974 The Secretary stated that this matter had been continued pending completion of the Northwest Saratoga Circulation Study. 'He reported that Phase I of the report should be completed by the first part Bf December, and recommended this matter be continued to the~..meeting of Januar~2~?'f~7~ He~'~d~d'~'~'~h'~'~'~l~'~'d~ 'hid'Fdb'~{~'ted a lettergranting an extensxon ~o'5'~5'~'Pl'an~i~g Commission ~eet£ng of January 22, 1975. Chairman Marshall directed SD-1112 be continued to the ' Planning Conmission meeting of January'22, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee'and Staff for further review. B. SD-1147 - Osterlund E~t~rprises, Radoyka Drive, Subdivision Approval - 13 Lots; (Expires October 26~ 1974); Continued from September 25~ 1974 The Secretary stated that the Subdivision Committee had been concerned with the use of that paved driveway which preseptly served as vehicular access to the two school sites along the northwest end of the property, and as a result the appli- cant had submitted new plans which addressed same. He added that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted to SD-1147 and Exhibit A-1. Mr. Cecchi, applicant.'.s representative, stated that according to the business manager of the school district, the district no longer was interested in using or maintaining the driveway. He added!that in light of this, the applicant would prefer obtaining~subdivision approval~On the originally submitted map, Exhibit A. He stated that the area in question ~ould possibly become a landscape easement or be dedicated to the City. -2- B. SD-1147 - Osterlund Enterprises - Continued Discussion followed on this matter. Chairman Marshall recommended the Staff Report be modified to include a condition requiring design review; concern was expressed by the applicant's representative, however that there would probably be a time lag involved with this procedure. It was suggested that the applicant submit pre-site plans reflecting placement, elevation, color and landscaping in order that potential or general problems could be resolved prior to client involvement. Chairman Marshall indicated that the applicant could either request subdivision' approval on SD-1147 and Exhibit A-1 which would permit the applicant to request reconsideration of conditions, or the applicant could request the matter be continued pending further review by the Subdivision Committee. Due to the many questions raised, it was decided that SD-1147 be taken under advisement of the Subdivision Committee. Chairman Marsh'all directed SD-1147 be'~continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October' 23, 1974, and f~ferred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for fu:rther review. At this time, a gentleman in the audiehce expressed concern relative to Radoyka Drive. He pointed out khat the only a~cess to the subdivision was the extension of Radoyka, adding that there were no sidewalks and that children going to the local schools had to use that vehicular access. Chairman Marshall explained that the property being discussed was backed on two sides by two school districts and Lawrence Expressway, and backed on the third side by a combination of County, City of San Jose, City of Saratoga and'houses on Radoyka. He added that conse- quently that land had no access except! Radoyka. The gentleman requested that the Commission consider this problem in their determinations. C. SDR-1148 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires October 29~ 1974)~; Continued from September 25~ 1974 The Secretary stated that revised maps:had not been submitted to Staff as requested by ~he Subdivision Committee, and recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1148 be continued to the Planning CommiSsion meeting.'of October 23, 1974 and referred this matter to the SUbdivision Committee for further review. D. SDR-1149 - Russell Reed, Saratoga-Sunn~vale Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; (Expires November 8~ 1974) ' The Secretary stated that the file waslnot complete on this matter, and recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1149 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October;23, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-391 - George Day Construction Company, TaoS Drive, Final Design Apprpval - Single Family Residence~ Tract 5327~ Lot #2 Mr. Butt, Assistant Planner, read the Staff Report into the record which recommended approval be granted. He stated that the Design Review Committee recommended the map be amended to reflect the 25-foot sideyard setback, which was so done. Commissioner Woodward moved~ seconded bY Commissioner~Mat~i, th~Y~'~l~i'gn ~ppfo~l'b'e granted application A-391, Tract 5327, Lot 2 per'the"S~'~f~f Report dated October 9, 1974 and Exhibit All as amended. The motiOn'was carried; Commissioner Belanger voted no stating:that the Staff Report lacked specific reference to design review for fencing'and landscaping. B. A-443 - Yves Casabonne, Big Basin Way, Final Design Approval - Expansion of Commercial BuildinS; Continued from September 25~ 1974 Mr. Burt read the Staff Report into the record recommending approval be granted. He added as an informational point that the driveway on the side o f the lot could possibly become part of the Village area mall or a walkway, and that if there was a parking assessment district that driveway would be closed. -3~ MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 1 B. ~-443 - Yves Casabonne - Continued Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded ,by Commissioner Matteoni, that final design approval be granted to application A-443 per the Staff Report dated October 9, 1974 and Exhibit B. The motion was carried unanimously. C. A-446 - Thomas Walker, Pierce Road, Final Design Review - Single-Family Residence; Continued from September 25~ 1'974 Mr. Burt stated that revised plans as :requested by the Design Review Committee had not been submitted, and recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed A-446 be continued T~he Planning Commission meeting Q~ October 23,. 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Commi~ttee and Staff' for further review. D. A-448 - AVCO Community Developers, CoX Avenue, Final Design Approval - Single- Family Residence~ Tract 5855~ Lots 1-20; Continued from Sept. 25~ 1974 Mr. Burt stated that revised plans as ~equested by the Design Review Committee had not been submitted, and recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed A-448 be continued to the Planning Com~nissio~ meeting of October 23, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design ReView Committee and Staff for further review. V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATIONS ~ ..The following Negative Declaration-was filed between September 26!and October 9, 1974: A. SDR-1149, Russell Reed, Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot VI. COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL A. Presentation by Dr. Yeaton /Dr. Robert Yeaton stated that he. repreSented a g~oup of homeowners who owned 9,000: acres 0f'land in the Saratoga sphere of influence. He explained that the group was now ready with a development plan for a portion of~the area, and wished to invite the Planning Commission to tour the entire 9,000 acre area for review and an ecological analysis. Many of the Commissioners indicated interest in making the tour, and October 19, 1974 at 9:00 a.m. was scheduled as the tour date. RECESS: 9:05 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. ~ (Note: CommissiOners Callon and Smith were not present after the recess.) B. Presentation Relative to the Fremont S~hool District Site The Secretary stated that this matter had been forwarded to the Planning Commis- sion from the Council at their Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on October 8, 1974 in order to ascertain the Commission's:recollections of whether the Fremon~ 'S~bol District site was intended to be included in the slope conservation zone. Mr~ohn'Weir, 12343 Arroyo de Arguello, explained that the Fremont~'~ool.District" was ~f~ntly investigating the possibility of selling the Saratoga'property, and was under the impressio~ that the property was zoned R-l-15,000. He stated that while.referring the the General Plan "there were areas in the Plan which ~e.lfound had never been exposed to the public, and left some property in a non-specified ' area." He pointed out that the General Plan map depicted the slope conservation zone bisected the property while the text stated that~the zone did not go through the property at all, adding that he felt this was ambiguous and should be corrected. He stated that he had been previously assured by the City Council that this area was in Area A which he had understood Was "one and the same as the slope conserva- tion zone." Mr. Weir further contended that statements relative to the slope conservation zone were not included in;the General Plan the City had made availa- ble to the public, and this had never been brought up at the public hearings. Discussion followed and it was the Planning Commission's ~consensus that the school ~ property was to be included in Area A But that it would be entirely out of the slope conservation zone. Commissioner,Belanger stated that at the time this matter was brought upiat [~e Planning Commission public hearings, it was her -4- .-~. ,..~ MINUTES OF OCTOB_~~ B. Presentation Relative to the Fremont School School Site - Continued understanding that the zoning on this property would be the same as the flat-:.land -~]a~e"t'0--i-t which was R-l-15,000, and that the slope conservation would take over ~here topographical changes made Sense for it to take over. She stated that essentially the property was considered to be a flat area which would go with the character of the flat-land development which already existed. Chairman Marshall further pointed out that Staff had made calculations on the slope density; based on the formula with the school site having a total 47-acres, the property averaged at 8.4% slope, which would not be subject to~the Hillside Slope Conservation Ordinance. Mr. Beyer, the City Manager, stated that an erroneous assumption had been made that because the shhool district was in Area A it was conterminous with slope conservation. He pointed out that the map being discussed here was a prelimi- nary map, and that the final map (which was presently being printed) reflected the Council's interpretation that the school site, being relatively flat, would not be included in that zone. Mr. Beyer further stated that the entire General Plan document had been made available for public review throughout the entire procedure. Mr. Weir again con- tended that what was presented to the public for review at the public hearings had not contained this information. It was noted that the total General Plan had never been memeographed in large enough quantities to pass out to the general public, it being approximately 3-inches thick and because it was not required; but that portions of the Plan, specifically the Objectives, Policies and Actions' portion, had been made available to the .p~blic as well as the entire document being on file as a matter .'of public record in the City offices. Mr. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, stated that the people in the area were concerned with potential school problems. He pointed out their children were going to overcrowded schools presently and that they foresaw a potential popula- tion growth from possible developments'like Parker Ranch and Seven~prings Ranch which would compound the existing school problems. He stated that he did not feel this was in the best interest of the City because of school problems, as well as 'h~ving an adverse ef~'~o~h'[ taxpayers of the City. He stated that it was their feeling that this area Would be worth much more if it were. to be .... "7."" 'l'e'~[dto'~~C~fSaratoga as an open-space park rather than be developed -.' in other ways. : Mr. Crowther stated that a previous General Plan stated that the Parker Ranch should be zoned lO-acres ~o.'a minimum lot size, and stated he was puzzled why this had never been implemented.. Chaii-manMarshall re~lied that he could not answer the question because he was not present at the time. Further Mr. Crowther contended that as he interpreted .the Hillside subdivision'· Ordinance, the school property should.be a minimum·lot size of one-acre subject to the slope density equation insomuch as there were sections within the property with slopes up to 35%. He added that his interpretation of Section 10.1 of the Ordinance was that property ·would be zoned under a slope conservation zone in the event there was any part of a.parce! which had.slopes in excess of 10%. The City Attorney pointed out that slope conservation applied to all lots that were over 10% grade regardless of what zone the ·parcel was in. Commissioner Belanger further pointed out that if the property was broken down into 'sma'l'ler parcels, only those parcels with a grade over 10% would fall subject to slope conservation. Mr. Crowther requested that the City clarify this point with the Fremont School · District because they were computing the amount of houses which could be built on the site based on the R-l-15,000' zone. It was determined that since this matter was before the City Council and the Planning Commission had complied with its request for clarification, ·this matter should be directed to the Council. Mr.' Crowther further asked whether the matter of leasing this property as open space had come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Beyer explained that the school district staff had been in cgnt.act with the City staff· relative to this, but there were still many questions unresolved. It was determined that this fell within the purview of the Parks & Recreation Commission and should be so directed. · ~-.;~MINUTES bF OCTOBER 9.~.'-- C. Discussion of CE-172 Public Nearing Scheduled for October 17, 1974 Mr. Weir then noted that ENVIROS had indicated they would not be ready with their evaluation of the revised EIR relativ~ to the Parker Ranch site at the October 17, 1974 meeting, and consequently the citizens groups felt their evaluation would be presented piecemeal. He requested that the meeting be either rescheduled until ENVIROS was prepared to speak, or that the groups be permitted to make their presen- tation at the adjourned meeting when ENVIROS gave its evaluation. Discussion followed and it was determined that the October 17th meeting should not be rescheduled due to the lat~ date and the fact that public notice had already been given. It was pointed out tb-:Mr. Weir that when originally scheduling this public hearing date, the citizens groups had indicated they wanted to proceed with the ~eview of the revised EIR in parallel with ENVIROS.. It was further noted that the citizens groups had requested a full month in which to review the revised EIR, and consequently Staff had rescheduled the public hearing on same.f.rom October 3 to October 17, 1974 in order to allow 'full 30-day review. It was pointed out that if the citizens groups chose to delay ·their p~esentation, the ENVIROS review might be endorsed by the Planning Staff as Staff's recommendation and be presented to the Commission for action; consequently, the citizens might not have as much time in which to present their arguments as they might desire. Mr. Weir stated that the po'int he was making was that the citizens groups were having to make an evaluation of a document "posted back some time in history, and what we are saying iS that we will make our presentation after we have had a chance to look at what has been changed in the contracted EIR. We are not ob- jecting to making a presentation, but we would like to make it complete." Comissioner Belanger stated "we are assuming that by accepting this discussion about whether or not the neighborhood input should be heard on the 17th that 7~o~hF~he neighborhood input is more expert than the·expert hired to do the report.""She stated that she felt all of the input from the consultant, public age'ncies and the public should be summed up by ENVIROS, adding "I want ENVIROS to be my final expert as to what the accuracy of'the entire situation is and for me, it makes sense to hear ENVIROS last." Mr./Crowther stated'~h'~ it was H5 recollection that when scheduling the CE-172 ., public hearing, the ENVIROS report was to be made available to the public at least one-week prior to the public hearing. He stated that he was confused as to why the contract with ENVIROS was not ready on schedule, and asked when the ENVIROS report would be ready. The Secretary explained that the City had had problems with getting the money on deposit, had ran into timing difficulties .C'i'E~'Co'~i'l~d'a~ and delays in getting Mayor Smith to sign the relative to the '~o~tract. Ne stated that he assumed ENVIROS had received the contract·by this .' date, and stated that Ms. Rennie bf"ENV-IROS had indicated·it would take approximately two weeks in which to make the review. The Secretary assured Mr. Weir and Mr. Crowther that a copy of the ENVIROS review would be forwarded to them as soon as the City received same. · , ..... D. Cormnissioner Martin asked~ kind ofmplans 'had been submitted on the Russell Reed application (SDR-1149), stating that it appeared to be a piecemeal development. He drew attention to the original Cartlea site development plan adding that he was bringing this matter up to revive memories. Chairman Marshall informed him that. plans had not yet been submitted. E. The Secretary pointed out that a draft of the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance had been included in the Commissioner'S packets. He stated that he would li~e to set up a public hearing on this matte~ and at the same time present overall district rezoning matters 'for property hot in conformance with the General Plan in order to bring them into compliance with same. The Planning Counnission meeting of December 11, 1974 was scheduled for this public hearing. F. The regular Planning Commission meeting of November 26, 1974 was discussed rela- tive to it falling on the eve of Thanksgiving, and the December 23, 1974 Planning Commission meeting was discussed relative to it falling two days prior to Christmas. Chairman Marshall directed.this be discussed at the next Planning Connnission meeting in order to obtain Complete Commission input on possible rescheduling of these meetings. G. The Variance Committee arranged to meet with Mr. James Dinkey (application V-414) on-site on October 19, 1974 at 8:00 a.m. to discuss his variance application. H. Commissioner Matteoni reported that the Pride's Crossing Homeowners Association and the Church of Ascension people had;arrived at an agreement relative to the driveway, and this matter would be before the City Council for final approval at the next Council meeting. I.Chairman Marshall expressed appreciation to Mrs. McG~ire of the Good Government Group for serving coffee~;~ VIi'·. COMMLrNICATIONS - WRITTEN A. Letter dated September 30, 1974 from Roland Robinson, 20534 Sevilla Lane, object- ing to the four-lot subdivision (SDR-1026) on S~ratoga-Sunnyvale Road next to his house. Chairman Marshall explaine~ that he as well as the Staff inspected this on-site, and reported that the development met all City Ordinances. He stated that he had written a letter addressing Mr. Roland's complaint, and advised him that the Subdivision Committee or Chairman Marshall personally would be happy to meet with him to further discuss this matter. Commissioner Martin stated that he had also inspected this on-site, and added that he could symph~thize with Mr. Roland's problem. He stated that the house met Ordinance requirements but that he was very disturbed that a house which ~s"~0rfee~.~10ng on the sid~'~'i~' be only 10-feet from a neighboring lot'. Discussion followed on the City's authority to direct the placement of houses, and it was requested Staff investigate. the possibility of amending the Ordinances to allow for special setback adjustments relative to corner lots, cul-de-sac lots, etc~"'·' Staff was further requested to have present at Committee meetings vicinity maps of surrounding subdivisi,ons in order to gain a more complete idea of what was happending in the entire area. B. The Memorandum Decision No. 299369, City'of Saratoga vs. Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc., was discussed. The City Attorney expl.ained that this was not a judgment but only a memorandum decision, and consequently the matter was still in a state of flux. It was noted that Mr. Lyngso had met with the Subdivision Committee to discuss the expansion of his property.. VII'~' ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by C.ommissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 1974 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respect fully submit ted, '~rty, iec~