Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-1975 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAtA. TOGA Fi,ANNING CO~'~'ITSSION MINUTES TI~: Monday, May 19~ 1975 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Counci~ Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Special Meeting - 1975 General Plan Review I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, }~rshall, Woodward and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners Lustig and Martin II. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE Chairman >~rshall opened the public hearing on 1974 General Plan at 7:40 p.m. The Secretary explained that the purpose of the meeting was to review requests for amendment or clarification of the recently adopted City General Plan made by var- ious citizens as well as by the Planning Staff. He suggested no specific action be taken at this point, recommending a continuance of this matter to a special Committee-of-the4~ole meeting. for in-depth review by the Commission and Staff. Upon review at the Committee-of-the-Whole meetipg, the Secretary suggested a second ~.p~li~'hearxng b~'~h'~d~l~d'~d'p~b'li~ly noticed7 ....... ~ A. ALLEN DE GRANGE, Letter Requesting Change in General Plan Designation of Property Located on Cox Avenue Explanation was given that Mr. DeGrange had requested a change of zoning on a 1.2+ acre site located on Cox Avenue from "PAp to "PD Commercial." The site" was described as being surrounded by commercial ~d~velopment on'the east and south sides, by church facilities on the north and northwest sides, and a large vacant area designated on the General Plan for "PD Commercial" south and west of the site. Mr. DeGrange's letter dated November 7, 1975 was read - into the record, and the following reasons were given for requesting such a change in zoning: - "The area at the intersection of Saratoga and-Cox Avenues has the poten- tial of developing 'into a community focal place -- a second Village." - "The subject parcel is adjacent to commercial and across from commercial and PD commercial property." - "There is an overabundance of existing office buildings and office zoning in Saratoga and the County." - "The existing commercial area needs additional, complimentary commercial development to attract more people and give the area an uplift." - "PD Commercial provides the potential for a variety of uses compatible with the area." Additionally, Mr. DeGrange pointed out that he Had been trying to develop this site under the present zoning, unsuccessfully; further that he had received building site approval for office buildings and had developed a brochure (which he submitted to the Commission) for leasing of office spaces. After brief discussion of this matter, it was the Commission's consensus that consideration should'..be given to Mr. DeGrange's request, and that review of the area and ~his site should be instigated. Chairman Marshall directed Mr. DeGrange's request for rezoning be continued to the Committee-of-the-Whole meetfng on June 16, 1975, and referred this matter to the Staff for review and report. -1- MINUTES OF MAY 19 19.7.5 II. B. JOHN WEIR, Letter Requesting Consideration of Designation of the Fremont High School Site Located on Prospect Road The Secretary explained that ~. Weir was requesting consideration be given to the Fremont High School District site designation in light of the General Plan and what Mr. Weir felt to be incongruities of the language of the General Plan. The Secretary pointed out that presently the site was zoned both "R-1-12,500" and "R-l-15,000," and that Mr. Weir was suggesting this site be rezoned to re- flect the slope conservation zone designation and "R-I-40,000." He noted that this matter had been before the Planning Commission-and City Council on numerous occasions, and that it had been the Commission's recommendation (and so trans- mitted to the City CounCil) that this site be rezoned to "R-I-20,000 PC" in order to provide consistency with the General Plan. The Secretary added that since this transmission, the City Council reviewed the consistency issue of zoning with the General Plan and had adopted a broader policy relative to same. He pointed out that per this policy, Staff could now interpret the present zon- ing of this site as being consistent with the General Plan. He added, however, that even though it could be interpreted that the existing zone was consistent, Staff would recommend the Planning Commission reaffirm the recommended rezoning action to "R-I-20,000 PC" as a more reasonable and logical transition landuse classification for this site. ~o letters fromMr. Weir, president of the Arguello Homeowners Association~ dated February 24, 1975 and November 5, 197~ were introduced into the record requesting this site be rezoned one-acre or greater. ® Mr. Crowther, spokesman for the Homeowners Association~in ~. Weir's absence, stated that the citizens of the area would like to see this site zoned one- acre, pointing out that he felt one-acre would be a reasonable transition zone between the agricultural and one-acre+ properties, and the medium den- sity properties surrounding the site. He pointed out that this site was different from si~nilar sites in the City in that the soil had a high-water level and high lurch potential, that County maps reflected the Sargent- Berrocal Fault as crossing the site, that residents of the area were con- cerned with increased flooding and run-off from possible development of the site as well as increased traffic problems from development. He added that they were further questioning the basis of changing the original General Plan Map which showed this property partially falling within the slope con- servation zone, to the existing General Plan Map which did not-show this property within that zone. When 'asked whether these views had been presented to the Fremont High School District, Mr, Crowther responded that a member of the Association had made two presentations on the subject, adding that the Association felt a higher density on the site would lead to more students in the District's schools and thus raise the District's costs. Discussion followed on these statements. To ~he points raised relative to soils stability, note was made that if the property was developed and it was felt there were soils 'stabili~y__p~J~lems or instances of traces of fault lines on the site, itsWould be the recommendation of Staff that soils stability tests be done prior to approval of the tentative map, thereby addressing these problems before actual approval was granted. Chairman }~rshall noted that the fault line mentioned above was shown on maps as a shear zone and not actually known to be a fault. Mr. Crowther, hmgever, took issue with this, arguing that the line was shown to be a potentially active fault. The Commission felt the issue of flSoding was a problem, but Chairman }~rshall added that he was not sure whether the bad drainage Conditions-were related to development or the inadequancy of the present drainage system or due to developments located u~-stream from the area. He expressed an opinion that he felt small developments added one-at a time could cause greater demage~to the surrounding area than one large development if that development was pre- planned for mitigating these drainage problems. Relative to the question of General Plan designation, Commissioner Woodward pointed out that the final draft of the General Plan stipulated this site to be a transitional zone and should not be in the slope conservation zone. Note was made that this question had been raised on several occasions before the -2- · ~ = ~NUTES OF ~%Y II. B. JOHN I~EIR - Fremont High School Site - Cont'd Planning Commission and City Council, and that determination had been made by the Commission (and later reaffirmed upon request by the CoUncil) that this site was not intended to be in the slope conservation zone in that the average slope of the site was less than 10%. Commissioner Callon stated that she felt the Connnission had given a great deal of consideration to the zoning of the site. She summarized that the citizens of the surrounding area wanted the site to be zoned as low as possible, whereas the owners of the property preferred a high density. She pof~[ed out that the City was trying to work in between the two positions, and felt that good plan~ ning dictated less dense zone than what was presently designated. She added that the Commission felt that good planning also dictated a "PC" designation in that it gave the City greater control over development, thus giving the citizens_and the.City_better developed areas if development occurred. · At this point Mrs. Margarite Chapman, 21221 Canyon View Drive, stated that she felt many of the considerations being discussed were more of a matter of personal preference, and that the Planning Commission in her opinion "showed too little sensitivity to the wishes of the people within the community." She stated that although the "PC" concept might beta good planning approach in some communities, she did not feel it was a planning process which should be used in all areas. She added: "I resent the presumption that because one has precluded "PC" is a better way, that it is always a better way. There are other ways to think and other ways to go that are maybe better in certain situations." She pointed out that this community was very small, "and the planning of it depends on the skills of the peopre-administering them. I think there are a lot of problems involved with these sophisticated concepts that on the surface do not show." She continued by stating that she felt there was another point of view that "if you keep density low enough and have a minimum amount of legislation, then you can cut doTca the cost of administering these ordinances." In response to these statements, Chairman ~hrshall'explained that one of the purposes of the Commission was to act as an advisory body, non-political and objective, to the City Council, and was obligated to advise the Council on what the best and most logical planning should be for the overall welfare of the community. He noted that the term "PC" had caused a great deal of alarm, and gave the following explanation of the term as it was used by the Commission and Planning Staff: "PC" referred to a vehicle of the law wherein the City exerted more control over development. "PC" did not necessarily suggest "cluster development," but rather a development which was simply pre-planned. At this time it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the consi- deration of rezoning the Fremont High School District site be continued to the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on June 16, 1975 for review of either re- affirming the Commission's rec~m~endation to change the zoning to "R-I-20,000 PC" or accept the request to change the zoning to 1-acre minimum. C. A.L. HANSON, Letter Requesting Revision of City General Plan on Landuse Designation of Property Located West of Dolphin Drive Note was made that i~. Hanson, in'his letter of May 5, 1975, was requesting a change of zoning of his property located on the west side of Dolphin Drive north of Allendale Avenue from "R-1-20,O00" to the same zone of the abutting property on the north and west of his site. The surrounding area was described to be zoned "R-I-iO,000" to the north, "R-I-40,000" to the south, "R-i-40,000" and !~R-1-20,O00" to the east, and "R-1-12,500" to the ~est. Mr. Hanson, 13761 Dolphin Drive, explained that his lot was the only lot in Tract 1963 which had a different zone, and that the zone line divided the community socially with regards to being under different school, fire and /'~an"~i~-'districts. He stated that he was not certain as to the appropriate procedure to take from this point. -3- ~NUTES OF }~Y 1~ 1975 II. C. A.L. H/hNSON - Dolphin Drive - Cont'd It was explained that in Staff's strict interpretation of the General Plan, Mr. Hanson's request had not appeared to conformwith the General Plan, and therefore Staff had suggested ~. Hanson proceed with an amendment to the Gen- eral Plan. Subsequent to this suggestion, City Council policy of ~y 5, 1975 gave a broader interpretation of the issue of zoning consistency, and Mr. Hanson's property now was considered to be consistent with the General Plan designation of medium density. It was redommended that now the appropriate course of action was to proceed with a change of zoning application. Chairman Marshall suggested that Mr. Hanson contact the Staff'~i~ regards to this matter. He acknowledged, but did not read, }~. Hanson's letter as a matter of the record. D. ~LARLE~t Db~FIN, WILDWOOD HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Letter Requesting Consideration of General Plan Designation for Extension of Canyon View Drive to Connect with Pierce Road The Secretary stated that the General Plan. designated Canyon View Drive be ex- tended to Pierce Road as a collector road in order to provide for a circula~ tion extension. It was additionally noted that the concern at the time of the General Plan preparation had been that cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets should have a means of secondary access in the case of disaster. The Secretary noted, however, that Staff did not feel that the extension of Canyon View Drive as a collector street was realistic, and that other alternatives should be considered j which may be more compatible with the intent of the slope conservation zoning. ~o letters were 're~d into t~e re'or'd: one received ~y 9, 1975 from Marlene Duffin, representative of the Wildwood Heights Home~ners Association, and the other received May 9, 1975 from W.J. Reid, 21110 Canyon View Drive. The letters can be summarized as follows: ~ Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association requested the General Plan designation of extending Canyon View Drive to Pierce Road be deleted in that: (1) the widening of Canyon View Drive would prohibit access to property above or below the road level because of the cut and fill requirements; (2) fiscal cost of developing the road would be greater; (3)'~t wohld be necessary to cut the grade of the hill ~nich would involve mo~i~a~'~"~d electrical lines; and (4) it would greH'[i~'~d'P&ase the traffic on Canyon View Drive which was seen to be detrimental to the resi- dents from a safety and noise point of view. - ~. Reid urged in his letter deletion of the Canyon View Drive extension on the General-Plan in that such an extension would be very hazardous to the residents as well as drivers using the road, and because of unstable roadbed condition~ and that such an extension would subject 4th Street and Reid Lane to very heavy through traffic which he felt would be very detrimental to the traffic circulation pattern. Mr. James Hendry, spokesman for the Homeo~ners Association, detailed the points made in Ms. Duffin's letter. He pointed out that the feasibility of such an extension was impractical because of the grading problems involved, the fact that_.~~ would block access to several residents' homes, the fact that an- ~ existing private street would have to be improved to meet City standards, and that considerable traffic congestion would be created on Big Basin Way. Mr. Clarence Frizzell, 21281 Canyon View Drive, commended the Planning Commis- sion for its general ~iew to not consider Canyon View Drive as a collector street, and he requested this extension be deleted from the General Plan while review was being made by Staff of alternative considerations. Chair- man ~rshall pointed out that the designation was a hypothetical line as opposed to a real consideration, and that it called for Planning Commission consideration of how best to accommodate the entire area. Chairman Marshall stated that he felt Staff should study circulation patterns for this area, with special consideration given to how the undeveloped lands behind Canyon View Drive would be developed, and to how emergency access would -4- "- "' = ' ~ '~'.;? ~[INUTES OF ~t~Y 1975 II. D. ~RLE~ DUFFIN - Canyon View Drive/Pierce Road Extension - Cont'd be afforded all of the homesites presently existing on Canyon View Drive. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the homeowners' request that Canyon View Drive not be a collector street and used as an extension to Pierce Road be taken under advisement; that this matter be referred to Staff for study; and that same be continued to the Committee-of-the-~ole meeting on June 16, 1975 for further discussion and review. E. ARGUELLO HO~OI~NERS ASSOCIATION, Letter Requesting Implementation of their ~n Slope Conservation Ordinance into the General Plan = ~- A letter dated May 14, 1975 from the Arguello Homeowners Association was intro~ ...... duced-into-the record requesting conditions in their o~.~ slope conservation -~ ordinance be implemented in the General Plan,. including: (1) reestablishment of a 1-in-10 acre average dwelling unit density in the slope conservation zone; '(2) 2.5-acre minimum lot size in~the slope conservation zone; and (3) further reductions or increases of'd'~i~ for each site, d~pending on explicit evalua- tions of environmental and safety impact considerations. The letter concluded by urging a moratorium on subdivision approvals in the slope conservation zone be declared until this could be done. · In response to the letter's first point, Chairman ~rshall stated that ~ ~h~l~i~-lD'acre density in~the slope conservation zone never actually existed'in that it had never been implemented. He explained that in the 1968 General Plan, it was the intention to create a slope conserva- tion R-1 zone wherein one home p~r 10 acres was envisioned, but it had never been acted upon. He pointed out that this had been thoroughly dialogued in the 1973-74 General Plan Review, and that ultimately the Planning Commission had elected to go with an R-I-40,000 basis with a 1-in-10 acre spread depending upon the factors involved. Note was made that these factors, such as availability of water, slope, sewage, access, etc., were already being considered by the City, and thus, Item (3) of the letter was not applicable. In further explanation, Commission Belanger stated that the thrust of the discussion at the time these fac- tors were discussed relative to the General Plan was that these factors should serve as guidelines for the community to consult as factors which should be considered on every application. She stated that the General Plan consultant prepared a flow chart showing how these factors should be-employed, but that the consultant had cautioned the Commission not to use the factors he had used as examples because their relationships had not been worked out. Mr. Crowther contended that these factors should be included in city ordinances, arguing that they felt inclusion in the ordinances would provide an economical incentive to developers to develop sites sO as to avoid these factors. He stated that by not including these factors {n the ordinances, it was "under the table," and that they felt all of the factors should be out in the open so that the developer and citizens kn~.~ exactly where they stand. He added that they attached their ordinance to the letter to give the Commission more specifics on this matter. ® Relative to the letter's second point, Chairman ~rshall stated that he felt this was a bona fide input from the cit~p~D.§.~__._a~._~.~bat the Commission__ would take the suggestion under advisement.~ ® Mr. Crowther raised another issue regarding the use of the title "resi- dential hillside district ordinance." He stated that they strongly opposed the use of this term, stating: "this is just another step toward high density development." He stated that according to state law, the ordi- nance had to be consistent with the General Plan, and that the General Plan specified a "slope conservation zone." Note was made that the City was not taking any steps in the direction of changing the General Plan relative to density. The Secretary pointed out that, consequently, these specific issues should be addressed at the time of public ~earing on the proposed slope conservation ordinance, and he suggested this matter be referred to t he file on this proposed ordinance. -5- · '/' ;~z '=~-~ MI~rUTES OF ~t~Y ._~ 1975 II. E. ARGUELLO HO~O~ERS ASSOCIATION - Slope Conservation Ordinance ~ Cont'd Mr. Crowther requested that the letter and ordinance submitted by the Home- owners Association be made part of both the General Plan Review and proposed hillside residential ordinance files. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to refer the letter and proposed slope conservation ordinance as submitted by the Arguello Home~ners Associa- tion to the discussions held on the proposed hillside res~d~f~l'd'i~tYi~'''~ ordinance. Chairman Marshall directed these materials be made part of the General Plan Review File and the proposed hillside residential district ordinance file. III.~CONS~ERATION OF ADDITIONAL REQUESTS ~DE FRO~'THE'FLOOR'i A.' LYNGSO PROPERTY, Request ~de bX._Mr~_..Warren Held that Consideration be~ ...... '- ='~f-Zoning Designation of PrOperty Located on Saratoga-Sunny- vale Road Mr. Warren Held, architect representing John Lyngso, requested the Co~m~ission give redonsideration to its recent recommendation to the City Council to change the~zone ~f'~ property located on Saratoga-SUnnyvale Road from "C-V (R-1-12,500)" ~""~""~-ir~27500'.""'~e req~ed that he be allowed to review with Staff and the Planning Commission at the Committee-of-the~hole meeting of June 16th alter- native development plans. He pointed out that the property had been zoned "C-V (R-1-12,500)" for a number of years, and that'~the applicant had made every attempt to comply with all of the requirements stipulated by the City. He added that zoning this property to residential would simply be extending a residential use to a very busy highway which he felt was undesirable. Mr. Heid requested the Commission suggest to the City Council to delay any action on the change of zoning recommendation until this review had been done. Discussion followed on these statements· Mention was made that a meeting had been held by Staff, the Subdivision Committee, Mr. Held and two members of the Saratoga Manor Homeo~mers Association, and that a willingness had been indi- cated between the owner and adjacent home~ners to consider other alternative solutions regarding the zone of the property. Mr. Sifferman, president of the Saratoga ~nor Homeowners Association, pointed out that there was a mis- understanding as to x~hat the homeowners felt on this, adding that they did not feel there was any other alternatives to consider other than residential. Mr. Tater, another representative of the Association, agreed with this state- ment, adding that they felt residential was the best use of the property, and cited a 4-lot subdivision being constructed on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road as indication that homeowners were indeed willing to live directly adjacent to a busy highway. He stated that he felt alternatives were being developed which would be one-sided, adding "I do not see a plan of that being all resi- dential, and without that benefit, I think we will be looking at those plans on a biased view." Discussion was had on Mr. Heid's request that the Commission recommend to the Council to delay action on the Commission~s change of zoning recommendation. Commissioner Belanger expressed the opinion that the Commission had spent a great deal of time considering this matter, and that a recommendation to the Council to delay action would Weaken the Commission~s earlier recommendation to-change the zoning of this site. She reminded the Commission of reasons for rec~x~aending the change of zoning,'noting that the Commission's feelings had been that the entire area had always had a residential character and that 'this had been delineated in the. 1968 General Plan as residential· Commissioner Zambetti agreed with Staff~s point of view that alternatives should be studied. Commissioner Woodward felt that the Commission should be open to both sides, but questioned whether any verbal action should be taken with regards to suggesting to the Council to delay action on the change of zoning. The majority of the Commissioners agreed that this matter should be further reviewed at the Committee-of-the-~ole meeting on June 16, 1975. Chairman ~rshall directed Staff to notify the City Council that the Commission had -6- ~ '-%~J,~:' ~o~ :,~ ~[[NUTES OF I~Y 1975 III. A. LYNGSO PROPERTY - Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Cont'd heard Mr. Heid's request, and that Staff was prepared to discuss the Lyngso matter with him at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. At this time, Mr. James Hendry, 21305 Canyon View Drive, drew a comparison be- tween the residential development surrounding this property and of a builder who built up to an airport then demanded that the airport b~f~moved. He pointed out that the present use of the property had been in existence for a long time, and that he did not feel the City should eliminate a usage entirely by simply changing the zoning of the property. He urged further consideration be given to this matter. IV. STAFF REVI~ OF REZONIEGS ANTICIPATED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED 1974 CITY ~ GENERAL PLAN : The Secretary explained that in light of the recent City Council policy regarding a broad interpretation of the consistency issue, a large number of Staff's requests for rezoning had now been eliminated. He pointed out, however, that there still re- mained'.- a few areas which Staff felt were zoned inconsistent with the General Plan, and that Staff would present a review of this matter at the Committee-of-the-I~ole meeting on June 16, 1975. With regards to Zone 7, Wildwood Heights, Commissioner Belanger asked if the Planning Commission felt the "R-I-40,000" zone was realistic for the area. The Secretary stated that as far-as the General Plan consistency matter was concerned, the zohe was consistent. He added that from a lot-size standpoint, the "R-i-40,000" zone setbacks would have to be applied~ He noted, however, that most of the lots were legal non-conforming; and if variances were requested on the undeveloped lots, the Planning Commission would have to consider each re- quest on the strict applicability of the variance with regards to topography and/ or physical hardships. V. C0~0~' ACTION At this time Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on the 1975 General Plan Review, and continued this matter to a Planning Commission Special Public Hearing to be announced via public notice and pending review of these matters at the Committee-of-the~ole meeting!to-be held at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council C~ers on June 16, 1975. The Secretary took this opportunity to schedule a study session on the proposed Hillside Residential District Ordinance for June 5, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Community Center. He added that this would be-announced again at the regular Plan~ ......... n~g Commission meeting of May 28, 1975 for the benefit of the public. VI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Special .Public Hearing of May 19, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the matter was adjourned at 10:50 p..m. Respectfully submitted, ........ ...... Marty Van Duyn, S~r~ sk~ -7-