Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-10-1975 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLA~rNING CO~vflSSIOM ~NUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 10, 1975 - 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, Callon, Lustig, ~rtin, Zambetti and Woodward Absent: Chairman ~rshall B. ~RNUTES Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the~.reading -of the ~lannin~_.~_mm.~S.s_i~_~e~ipg_mip~tes of August 27, 1975 be waived, and /[hat they be approved subject to the £ollowil~ co"~'~'~%~onF~'~"i~m' iI (D) ~ ~ 'was'~'~{~d"~"~e "Corm~i~i'~ '~'~'{n~' of'-s~-p~-~r---2~'~ot September 10, 197~. The motion was carried; Commissioners Callon and Woodward abstained. II. FINAL BUILDING SITES/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS Y~e-C~Km~. ~e.~ proposed that if there were no comments relative to Items A-F (and including Item V-C), final building site approval be granted to those matters in block form. Regarding Item (C), Melvin Stout, Chairman Belanger asked whether the required. road work on }zmude and E1 Quito Way had been completed. Mr. Trinidad, Public Works Department, pointed out that there remained some work to be done, but that because appropriate bonds and inspection fees had been posted, Public Works Department would allow the applicant to complete this work within the year. He added that the De- partment had a "tickler system" which aided in insuring that all Public Works conditions for development had been met. At this pgint, Chairman Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission grant final building site approval to?the following applications:" '~ .....~ ._~D~!~__7__D~vid Mendenhall (Donald Newman), Mt. Eden Road, Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot B. SDR-1111 - Royce Kaufmann, Canyon View Drive, Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot C. SDR-1172 - Melvin Stout~ E1 quito Way~ Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot D. SDR-1183 - Assurance Company, Saratoga-Sunnyvale and Williams, Final Building Site Approval - 3 Lots V-C. SDR-1188 - Jack Drinkard~ Pierce Road~ Final Buildin~ Site Approval - 1 Lot E. SDR-1195 - Larry Hoffard,-Sobey Road, Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot F. SDR-1200 - Dale Pinkerton~ Pierce Road~ Final Buildin~ Site Approval - 1 Lot The motion was carried unanimously. G. SDR-1176 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 27~ 1975 Note was made that a letter had been received from the applicant's representa- tive granting an extension of this matter to the Commission meeting of Septem- ber 24th. Chairman Belanger directed SDR-1176 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 197~ and referred this matter to the Sub- division Committee and Staff for further review and report. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10=_ 1975 II. H. SD-1202 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., Saratoga at La Paloma, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 24 Lots; Conversion of Existing Apartments to Condominium Units (Expires September 22, 1975); Continued from August 27, 1975 ~airman Belanger explained that although this item did not require a public ~ hearing, 'S~e"had fell it desirable to inform the r'enters~via letter of 9~r7S'~ of the proposed conversion application of this apartment cOmple~ to c6~dominidm sale units and solicit comments therefrom. _ "- Mr. Jerry Lohr, applicant's representative, read into the record a letter dated September 5, 1975 from the applicant to the residents of Saratoga Creekside Apartments which essentially explained the reasons for requesting the conver- sion and outlining the applicants' position if approval was granted. [~ny questions were raised by the Commission.~ and the foil_owing is a synopsis of '~ 7'~h'~'~'di~c u s s i on: 1. Mr. Lohr proposed that if conversion was granted, the present residents would be given first choice to purchase their apartments at a price not to exceed $40,000. (He went on record to state that the amount might be less, but would not be any more than $~0,000.) Further, a homeowners association would be formed which would be composed of unit owners and renters. A monthly maintenance fee would be set at $47.50/unit for buyers; while for renters, this sum would be paid by the landlord. Additionally, he proposed that fb~ those who did not wish to purchase their units, they could remain as renters for a period of up to 3 years paying market rents. In explana- tion of the 3-year timerframe, Mr. Lohr contended that that length of time would be the period in which the applicants felt they could get financing on this project, and that they felt 3 years would provide a smooth transi'- · tional period from renting apartments to buying condominiums. He added, however, later in the discussions that "'if someone wants to live t~e~ger on a rental basis, we are ~ot objecting to that. We are just saying that We may not be able to own it after that time." He noted the tax and appreciation benefits of owning a condominium, and explained that each buyer would own as a condominium the air space, surface of the walls, and 1/24th of the land. i~ · He added' tha~ff conversion was g~a~H~'~h~l%c"~int~gd to restain the exteriors of each unit, put in garage doors, and replace existing washers and dryers. . ............. 2. The following figures were given as approximate cost impacts to the buyer: Out-of-Pocket Home.ASso. Price Down Payment/Closing Costs 'Mo~-Fee Monthly Taxes $40,000 $4,000 $1,300 $47.50 $70.00 Present~Rent~l'R~: $345-$355/month ~ Projected Condominium Monthly Payments:(with financing): - $32,000 FHA loan @ 90% over 30 years = $257/month plus Association fees and taxes = $374/month $36,000 FHA loan @ 90% over 30 years = $2897month plus Association fees and taxes = $407/month 3. When asked why the applicant had not considered raising rents to meeting rising capital expenses, Mr. Lohr explained that they presenly. ran at an approximate $11,000/year deficit; i.e., $40/month per unit deficit. He maintained that:raising the rents by ~'/~onth would perhaps drive out many of the present renters~"a~ ~'ell as ~e'abov~' the market for'rentingl As background information of raising rents in the past, Mr. Lohr noted that rents had been raised since 1970 from $295/$335 to $345/$355 at present. 4. Mr. Lohr pointed out that the 'occupancy rate had been.onlthe yearly average: of approximately 97%-98% for the 'last 2 years, and only once during the apartment's operation had the occupancy rate been below 90%. 5. With regard to the length of tenant residency! since the opening in the ~ ~'firl"~'f'r97'q, Mr. Lohr gave the following summary: = -2- MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10 975 II. H. SD-1202 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corp. - Request for Conversion - Conrad - 2 of the initial residents presently resided in the complex - 6 residents (either individuals or couples) had lived there at least 3 years - 4 residents had lived there for "an intermediate" amount of time (1-t~Lyrs~, 2-2~ yrs., and 1-2 3/4 yrs.) - 12 residents had lived there for ~nyear ori_less 6. Note was made that this condominium conversion could not be approved by the California State Real Estate Agency Board until 51% of the units had been sold. 7. The question was raised as to whether the City had any existing standards for condominium conversions; and the Secretary pointed out that the Subdivi- sion Ordinance required that condominiums must receive subdivision approval, but no standards for condominium conversions presentt~ existed in the Zoning Ordinance. He added, however, that State law for general law cities had building codes for condominium units, and that the City's Building Inspector was presently investigating this. 8. Commissioner Lustig suggested that the Commission consider converting only a portion of the 24 units to condominiums on a basis of demand in that a l~rge majbrity o{'[he residents had signed a petition agains~ g~anti'ng this conversion. "The S~r~tary enumerated several potential problems with that consideration, such as easement provision problems and maintenance problems, and Commissioner Lustig indicated withdrawal of his suggestion. 9. Note was made that the Subdivision Committee had requested the applicant provide a copy of proposed CC&Rs. Chairman Belanger expressed some concern with the CC&RS she had received in response to this request in that~they did not address problems associated with the transition from apartments to condominiums. She requested the applicant submit CC&Rs which did address those problems. 10. Chairman Belanger, in speaking for herself, stated that she felt Saratoga needed more rental units, and pointed out that the rising rental costs in Saratoga were primarily due to the limited availability of such units. However, she also pointed out that the City would not be doing-_~n~'a_ favor by disallowing this conversion if the rents were forced to go so high that no one could rent the units. Commis§ioner Callon added to this by pointing o~'a paradox the Commission was presently faced with: the grow- ing pressure frommany citizens to keep Saratoga low density vs the need for additional rental units in Saratoga to combat the "artificially high" "'°' - a~artment rent costs. RESIDENTS RESPONSE The following written correspondence was introduced into the record as having been received in opposition to this proposal: · Letter dated September 8, 1975 from Mrs. Ruth Davis (Apt. · Letter and petition (containing 21 signatures) received Septemb~ D,'i975 from residents of Saratoga Creekside Apartments objecting to the proposed conversion. Attachment containing comments relative to this proposal. · Response received September 9, 1975 from Mrs. Rose Restivo and Mrs. B. Cann (Apt. #1) · Letter dated September 8, 1975 from Wesley Hunt Cooper (resident). (Copies of these letters can be found on file at the City's Planning Department office. ) The following oral responsesn.~wergig~en: · Josephine Christensen, Unit ~8 stated that there were many residents who were not happy about the proposed conversion. She added: '~e°have some older people who could not apply for loans, which would mean that we would have to move out immediately. We would like to talk to the owners to get more information." ~3- MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1.~.975 % II. H. SD-1202 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corp. - Request for Conversion - Cont'd · Irene Gerber, Unit #3: She stated that she had lived at Saratoga Creekside for 3 years, and that if she had wanted to buy a condominium, she would have. She pointed out that she had sold her house to get away from the problems of home ownership. She stated that she felt the City should have at least one good place to rent, and pointed out that the residents of this complex were happy where they were. She]C_ontended that there would be .problems associated 'with the conversion, specifically.referring to the lack o~[~'d'f~icient amount of washers ~hd dryers. ' · A gentleman speaking on behalf of his 2 elderly aunts who reside at Unit #1 pointed out that one of the aunts (80 years old) had moved from Arlington, Virginia in July of this year, and that she would not have moved had she known of the possibility of this conversion. CO}~4ISSION ACTION The Subdivision Committee shheduled an on-site inspection on Tuesday, Septem- ber 16, 1974 at 4:00 p.m. Chairman Belanger requested that the Building In- spector also inspect the site prior to the next Commission meeting to determine the need for any possible corrections. Chairman Belanger directed SD-1202 be continued to the Commission meeting of September 24, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for an on-site inspection, further review and report. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-279 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue, Request for a Use Permit to Allow a Multi- ple-Family Residential Development (A Senior Citizens Housing Project) to be Constructed at a Site Located on Cox Avenue (Ordinance NS-3, Section 6.3); Continued from August 27, 1975 Don Burt, Staff member, noted that a Staff Report had been prepared on this mat- ter recommending the following action be taken~ (1) add "senior citizen housing" as a conditional use under "PA" district (Section 6.3, Zoning Ordinance NS-3); and (2) approve UP-279 per Staff Report dated September 8, 1975. Note was made that the Planning Commission had authority to add such a condi- tional use without the need for a public hearing insomuch as a use permit for senior citizen housing would be required. It was determined that the conditional use addition should first be addressed, and consequently Item (B) under Miscel- laneous was addressed. Staff and Applicant Presentations Mr. Burt explained that the recommendation to add this conditional use was for clarification purposes: (1) to avoid any ambiguities in [he interpre- tation of multi-family dwellings as being different from thai allowed in "Pe1" zoning regulations; (2) to recognize the need for senior citizen hous- ing as a separate form of landuse; add (3) to provide a means by which senior citizen housing can be developed during the time between no existing regulations and the results of the Senior Citizens Housing Task Force are made. (Note ~as made that at present the City's Senior Citizen Housing Task Force was currently addressing some of the specifidLissues relative to senior citizen housing (i.e., age, definition of housing types, off-street parking, size of units, etc.). He stressed the need for this conditional use being tied to a federal, state or local program to insure funding for senior citizen housing in order to insure against the units becoming some- thing other than senior citizen housing in the future. Mr. Burt gave the following findings ~(as reqUire~'~ Section 14.1) as the basis for recommending this additional use: " MINUTES OF SEPTDBER 10. .975 III. A. UP-279 - Allen DeGrange - Staff & Applicant Presentation - Cont'd (1) The addition of this use would be in accordance with the purposes of the "PA" district in that senior citizen housing as a landuse existed, by associatiDn, within the categorical uses of the "PA" district (i.e, sanitariums, convalescent hospitals, multi-family residences). (2) ~' use would be appropriate because it had the same basic characteris- tics as the uses permitted in a "PA" district, being basically the same as that of standard multi-family dwellings. (Note was made that build- ing coverage would be no greater than that allowed under "R-M-3~900" zoning.) (3) The use reasonably could be expected to conform with the required conditions prescribed for the "PA" district. (Mr. Burt explained that higher densities were required for senior citizen housing in order to be economically feasible; but, because of ~he lower density per unit and increased dwelling unit si'ze, it was possible to retain the same intensity'of development as allowed in the "RM" district'.) (4) The use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (5) The use would not adversely affect the character of any district in which it was proposed to be permitted. (6) The use would not create more vehicular traffic than the volume nor- ._mall~ created by any other permitted use~. (Mr. Burt explained ~hat the ~.n~mbe~_.of..yehic~eS, owned an~ operated, usually decreased with .age. AS a result of decreased vehicular use, parking requirements w0u~d decrease. !-.Note was made that vehicular uSe:'would further decrease with the number Lof peo~i'~'~td~lly residing in the comples: the number of persons per~ "dwellipg unit for normal complexes averaged 2.3, while for senior citi- .... zen. housing, the number averaged 1.5 p~s.ops per unit.) (7) ~he use would not c~g~te odor, dust, dirt, etc. (8) The use would not create any hazard of fire or explosives. Mr. Burt concluded that essentially a senior citizen housing project would not have any more impacts than an actual "R-M-3,000" development. Mr. DeGrange gave a brief slide presentation illustrating the type of senior ~itizen housing h~ proposed: small cottage-type units clustered to form a central courtyard area; simple, natural materials would be used, as well as steep roofs, porches, fences, lattice work, and trellises along entrances and around the recreational building and courtyard area. Vehicular access and parking would be confined to the perimeter of the project in order to relate it to similar neighboring uses. Commission Response Commissioner Belanger expressed a desire that standards for senior citizen housing be spelled out in the Zoning Ordinance so that there would be no doubt with future applications as to what constituted senior citizen housing. The Secretary pointed out that the City's Senior Citizen Housing Task Force was currently addressing some of these standards, and that Staff did not want to presuppose what would result from the Task Force's findlngs. Staff recommended the Commission accept senior citizen housing as a conditional use under a "PA" district as a policy which would be clarified in the future by the results of the Task Force's findings. ~ Commissioner Martin agreed with Staff's recommendation because specific con- ditions could be imposed during public hearings on granting senior citizen housing use permits, much like granting a use permit for a nursery school. Commissioner Woodward also agreed with this recommendation, pointing out that the Staff Report on UP-279~'dYlined conditions for senior citizen .housing, such as having to be funded by a federal, state or local pro- _gram. The City Attorney, when asked whether a definition was required ~f senior citizen housing, replied that although it would be better to have MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10~ 1975 III. A. UP-279 - Allen DeGrange - Commission Response - Cont'd a definition, the Commission did have the power at the time of acting on a use permit application for senior citizen housing to set conditions. He explained that the Commission had this authority insomuch as this was a .con- ditional use rather than a permitted use, and that this would be a matter of grace rather than a matter of right. CommissionsAction Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Plan- ning Commission add as a conditional use in a "P-A" zone, "senior citizen in" · hous g in accordance with Section 14.1 of NS-3 Per a suggestion made by the City Attorney, Commissioner Martin (seconded by Commissioner Woodward) amended this motion by moving-that the Commission make the findings called for by Section 14.1 of Ordinance NS-3 that the conditional use of "senior ~ ~citizen housing" be added to conditional uses in a "P-A" zone, as referended in ~['B~'f~ Report on UP-279 dated September 8, 1975. The motion was ca~-.! At this point,-UP-279 was addressed. Commissioner Woodward stated that she felt mention sho ~d have been made in the Staff Report regarding the agreement made 'between the applicant and adjacent churches with regard to parking and access. I~ Was'no'ted that this easement matter would more appropriately~be ad~'~'~d' as :a condition of map ap~il rather ihan use permit approval, and should be thus ~8~ed at the ~i~ the applican6 applied'for ~uilding site approval. Chairman Belanger-opened the__pu~!~ ~i~g_?~ .U~-279 at 9:07 p.m. The point Was made that no correspondence had been received relative to this mtter. There were no further co~ents. Comissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Comissioner Callon, that the public hear- ing on UP-279 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, a~ the public hear- ing was closed at 9:08 p.m. Mr. Burt amended the Staff Report on UP-279 by adding the phrase "or financially guaranteed" on page 3, Item (B) under Recovered Action as follows: "(B) The project is funded or financially guaranteed by a federal, state or local program established to aid in providing housing for senior citizens." Comissioner Callon moved, seconded by Comissioner Lustig, that the Planning Comission grant approval to application UP-279 to provide for a senior citizen retirement housing project in conjunction with Exhibit "A" and Conditions (A) through (E) of the Staff Report dated September 8, 1975, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. Insomuch...aS~variance application V-430 (Item Ill-D) was directly related to 'UP-27~, it was the Comission's consensus that this matter next be addressed. Chai~n Belanger opened the public hearing on V-430 at 9:12 p.m. The point was made that no correspondence had been received relative to this mtter. There were no further coments mde. Comissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Comissioner Zambetti, that the public hearing on V-430 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 9:13 p.m. Comissioner ~rtin, as chairman 0f the Variance Comittee, reported that the Variance domittee had made an on-site inspection relative to this application. He stated that he felt the project proposed~by the applie cation would do a great deal to upgrade surrounding propertieS. He con- cluded by referring to the Staff Report's detailed description of this application, and its .a.~sertation tha~J_~_~~S .?A ~_e ~n~ng .Ordinance ~ had been met. Comissioner Martin moved, seconded by Comissioner Lustig, that the Planning Comission grant approval to application V-430 in accordance with the Staff Report dated September 5, 1975 and Exhibit "B." The motion was carried unanimously. ~CESS: 9:15 - 9:30 p.m. -6- ~iNUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10 [975 III. B. UP-285 - Arndt Enterprises, Sousa Lane, Request for a Use Permit to Allow=.a Con- tinuation of an Existing Use (Convalescent Hospital) under the Name of Arndt Enterprises; Continued from August 27~ 1975 The Secretary pointed out that this matter had been continued pending Staff in- vestigation of comments made in 2 letters received relative to this: (1) memo- randum dated August 20, 1975 from John Wood, 13402 Sousa Lane, requested post- ponement of this matter and clarification of map lines; and (2) letter dated August 20, 1975 from Robert Slade, 13501C Sousa Lane, pointing out errors on the public notice map, and expressing disapproval of the use permit insomuch as it would be expanding its use into neighboring property not owned by the appli- cant. Mr. Burt explained that the illustration map noticed in the paper had encompassed more land than it should have, but he added that the legal descrip- tion in the file accurately depicted the property. Relative to theylatter~bjec~ tiqn, Mr. Burt noted that this request for use permit was in response to CitM____ ~ ordinances which stipulate~ that use permits do not run with ~h~ la~d? con- 7 sequently, as a result of the change of own~rshfp in [his case, the new owners were required to file for a new use permit. He added that there would be no expansion of the use, and that UP-285 was a combination and continuation of use permit applications UP-116, UP-125 and UP-227. Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-285 at 9:38 p.m. The applicant's representative, ~. John Ottobini,~_Oo~rected the name ~f the application as being "Arndt Enterprises and the Arndt Family 'TruSt." Re re- quested that the Staff Report Condition (4) be amended to allow completion of Report conditions within 120 days rather than 30 days, explaining that although they intended to make the necessary improvements to the exterior, economical reasons necessitated making improvements to the interior of the building prior to the exterior building. He assured the Commission that these exterior im- provements would be made within the 120-day limit. Brief discussion followed on this request, and Chairman Belanger expressed a desire that a bond or such other requirement be placed on the applicant to guarantee completion of these exterior improvements. The applicant argued that the use permit would not even be valid to them if they did not receive State licensing, which they should re- ceive within the month; and consequently, a bond for such improvements!would not be necessary should they not receive proper licensing. Mr. Burt agreed, and stated that he believed the applicant would in good faith comply with all condi- tions of the Staff Report within 120 days. He pointed out that these exterior improvements were minor, and had been stipulated in'the Staff Report to insure alleviation of any "eyesores" which may be apparent. At this point Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on UP-285. ~he motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission approve application UP-285 per Exhibits "A" and "B," and subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated September 5, 1975, amended to allow the applicant 120 days in which to complete the conditions of the Staff Report. The motion was carried unanimously. Staff was directed to inspect the site 120 days .from ~a~f'~pproval to determine that all conditions of the Staff Report had been ~l "' C. V-424 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, Big Basin Way, Request for Variance to Allow a Free-Standing Sign Measuring 3' x 4' to be Located at 14411 Big Basin Way as Regulated by Ordinance NS-3 Section 10 5; Continued from~June 11~ 1975 % Staff recommended this matter be continued for 90 days in order to allow.additional time in which to more thoroughly establish the need for such a sign. Insomuch as the applicant~s representative, Mr. Duque, had questions concerning this continuance., Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on V-424 at 9:53 p.m. '- It was explained that per a recento~Des~gn Review Committee meeting with ~ repr~senta~ rive from Western Federal, it had bee~'deter~{~e~'in~"a~&&d't'S"by the representa- tive and the Committee that the business had not been opened long enough to fully evaluate the circulation pattern and need for this sign. Further, Staff's -7- MINUTES'OF SEPTEMBER 10~ 1975 III. C. V-424 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association - Cont'd recommendation had also been based on the fact that an assessment district was in the process of forming which would include Western Federal. Mr. Duque clari- fied the point relative to the need for requesting this sign as being to alleviate an "identification" problem, not a congestion problem, and he indicated acceptance of the recommendation for continuance.. Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on V-424,.directed same be continued to December 10, 1975 and referred this matter to the Variance Committee and Staff for further review and report. D. V-430 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue, Request for Variance to Allow 21-Foot and 25-Foot Rearyard Setbacks and to Allow 10-Foot Sideyard Setbacks for Structures to be Constructed on a Parcel of Land Located on Cox Avenue (Ordinance NS-3 Section 3.7); Continued from August 27~ 1975 See Item II-A. E. V-435 - Clifford Dennee, Paul Avenue, Request for Variance to Allow a ~o-Story Residence'to be Construct~' on ~ Avenue; Cont'd from August 27, 1975 Note was made that the Variance Committee and Staff had made an on-site inspection of this property, and that a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter. The Secretary pointed out that comments in opposition to this variance had been made at the last Commission meeting by 2 neighbors on Paul Avenue. Staff briefly summed up the contents-of the Staff Report, pointing out the unique problems associated with this legal non-conforming lot, and recommending ways in which the negative aspects of the house could be mitigated by coupling this application with Design Review approval..(specificaliy with regards to the height of the structure and the location of the upper story windows). Commissioners Callon, Martin and W6odward all expressed concern with the unique problems in- volved with this lot and the overall neighborhood, specifically with regards to the fact that an adjacent undeveloped site could, if this application was granted approval, automatically be allowed to build a R-story house. They did, however, express the opinion that if the applicant could design a 2-story house which could integrate into the surrounding neighborhood and not unreasonably interfere with neighbors' views through the Design Review Approval process, the matter could be favorably acted upon. Note was made that the applicant's architect had agreed to provide sketches which would address some of these/aspects, but Staff pointed ~out ~ha~h'~k'~'~h'~'~'~'~H'h'~been sub~i~'t~ as yet. After additional discussion, it was the reco~endation of the Variance Co~ittee members to continue this ~tter pending receip.~ of these additional sketches. Chairman Belanger~equested tha~ the Staff Report' contain the rearyard setback dimensions, and Commissioner Martin explained that ~e rearyard setback was 65- feet, thereby not impacting the house located to the rear of the site. At this time, Chair~n Belanger directed V-435 be continued to the Planning Com- mission meeting of September 24, 1975, and referred this matter to the Variance Co~ittee and Staff for further review and report. F. ~C%'1'8'0~ Charles Guichard, Ward.ell. R~&d, Change of Zoning Request from "~Tf7~0~00" (Single~F~mily Residential, Very Low Density) to "A" (Agriculture)'the Parcel Designated at Parcel 31 of Book 503 at Page 17 for the Purposes of Allowing fS'~d Property tO Come Under=Willi~son Act Contract (Ordinance NS-3, Article 18); Continued from August 27~ 1975 Note was ~de that after extensive investigation into this matter, Staff had determined that the property was too s~ll to qualify for "A" zoning classifica- tion (the minimum being 5 acres), and that the applicant's property could not be subdivided under current City ordinances. Staff read into the record a letter dated September 9, 1975 from the applicant requesting this matter be withdrawn. The letter pointed out that under separate letter, he would be requesting the Planning Co~ission add appropriate provisions to the Zoning Ordinance which would all~,~.agricultural zoning to parcels less than 5 acres when such parcels could be legally split into additional sites. Note was made by Staff that the only other alternative left to the applicant to-affi~atively proceed with the -8- MINUTES OF SEPTEmbER 10~ 1975 III. F. C-180 - Charles Guichard - Cont'd change of zoning request to agricultural use would be to apply for and receive approval of a variance. As a letter for withdrawal had been received on this matter, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission accept the letter dated September 9, 1975 'from the applicant requesting application C-180 be withdrawn. The motion-was carried unanimously. (Item III-H was addressed prior to Item III-G.) H. C-178 - City of Saratoga, Change of Zoning of Certain Parcels to be Consistent with the 1974 General Plan for the City of Saratoga, Zones ~14~ 15 & 16 The Secretary explained that these r ezoning matters were before the Planning ~ ~Y Commission with regards to zoning consistency with~the City's General Plan; i.e~, the City was mandated by State law to bring zoning landuse classification into Cit ' consistency with the y s latest adopted General Plan. Note was made that the General Plan designated Zones 14, 15 and 16 (all located on Allendale Avenue) as medium density residential, and that the Planning Commission had 3 alternatives to choose from in order to comply with State consistency laws: (1) rezone Zones #14, 15 and 16 from low density residential to medium density residential; (2) amend the General Plan to reflect low density residential in these areas; or (3) recormnend to the Council a change in consistency definitions made by the City Council relative to zoning. Staff pointed out that Staff. Reports had been " prepared on each of these zones, and Staff recommended that the Planning Commis- sion amend the General Plan and refer these matters to General Plan Review. Additional note was made that a petition containing 83 signatures had~b'~en re- ceived from residents within Zone 16 opposing this rezoning, as well as a letter dated September 2, 1975 from Gordon and Dorothy Martin, 18560 Allendale Avenue, also opposing rezoning of Zone 16. Reference was also made to a letter dated September 8, 1975 from Graham Wilson, 18945 Allendale Avenue, opposing the re- zoning of Zone 14. Discussion followed on these comments, and the following are responses made by the Commission: i ® Chairm~n.Belang~y expressed.a concern that once the Planning Commission determined that these matters were not to be rezoned, then it had automatically committed itself to a General Plan amendment. The City Attorney noted the third alternative (as listed above) which was also available to the Commission on this matter, and explained that the Commission would not be locking them- selves into any one position on this matter because it was a recommendation to the City Council rather than an ultimate action by the Commission. · Commissioner Lustig expressed the opinion that the General Plan should be amended rather than changing the zoning of these areas in that: (a) he felt that when a house was built per requirements of a particular zone, the intent would be that that house would not be removed should the property be rezoned to make it possible to place 2 homes on the same site; and (b) there was a large ndmber of residents within these zones who opposed these changes of zoning. · Commissioner Callon pointed out that these rezoning matters would not have been addressed had it not been for the consistency issue, and she stated that since this consistency issue could be resolved by a denotation in the General Plan, she would prefer to go in that direction. · Commissioner Woodward agreed with these recommendations to amend the General Plan, and stated that she would be opposed to a higher density in this area. She stated that the present open space character of the property along Allen- dale Avenue should be preserved, and pointed out p~tential traffic problems with increased density which would add to the already congested traffic problems on Allendale Avenue. -9- MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10 .975 III. H. C-178 - City of Saratoga, Change of Zoning - Zones 14~ 15 and 16 - Cont'd ® Commissioner Zambetti also agreed with the recommendation to amend the General Plan, stating that he did not feel there should be any more houses added in this areaswhich would, as a result, decrease open space and increase traffic. · Commissioner ~rtin stated that he also felt the General Plan should be amended, and that "R-i-20,000" zoning should be maintained along Allendale Avenue. He stated that he felt the Commission should not allow housing along Allendale Avenue in such a way as to necessitate vehicles having to back out onto Allendale Avenue. At this'point, Chairman Belang~. opened the public hearing on C-178, Zones 414, 15 and 16. "- Citizen Response , · Howard Lewi~ 18580 Allendale-Avenue, complimented the Commission on its recommendation to. amend the General Plan in lieu of rezoning this area, and pointed out thai if there'was any more increased traffic on Allendale Avenue, ~t rush hour the street would look like a "huge parking lot." He stated that he had purchased a large piece-6f property because that was the way in which he wished to live, and added that he did not feel that the State or City could pass a law which would arbitrarily take that away from him. · Gordon Martin, Site 5 of Zone 16, also complimented the Commission on its recommendation to change the General Plan instead of the zoning, and stated ~ that he would like to see the General Plan amended so as to leave the present zoning exactly the way it was at present. · A lady in the audience who identified hereself as being associated with the teaching profession, introduced into the record a petition containing 4 more signatures of residents opposing the rezoning of Zone 16. She added that she gave the Planning Commission an '~" for recommending the General Plan amendment and for sharing her values. · Michael Toback, president of the Southeast Saratoga Homeowners Association, explained that part of their neighborhood was within Zone 16, and that they supported the General Plan amendment instead of changing the zoning of these areas. Commission Action At this point, Commissione~rCallon moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the public hearing on C-178, Zones #14, 15 and 16,'_be~los~d. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 10:48 p.m. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission deny the recommendation to change the zoning of C-178, Zones ~14, 15 and 16, and that the matter of consistency with the General Plan be dealt with through consideration of changing the General Plan with appropriate public hear- ings to be scheduled to that effect. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Belanger requested that at the time of the General Plan Review on these matters, Staff Reports address the issue of whether the City should try to preserve the area along Allendale Avenue as an "open corridor" strip. Further, she requested the Reports address the question of development of this strip (in response to development pressures) by requiring development of this property to be consistent with contiguous development in an attempt to avoid any spot zoning~ She added for the benefit of those present in ~he audience. that a change in the General Plan would tend to hold the zoning the way it presently was, but that it was not a guarantee because of the City Council policy regarding consistency, which defined-~.ra~ge of "low densitX.reside~tial" Zoning~.. ~ MINUTES OF SEPTDiBER 1{ 5 III. G~L~C-i79 - Albert Hanson, 13761 Dolphin Drive, Change of Zoning Request from "R-I-20,000" (Single-Family Residential, L6w Density) to "R-1-1'2,500" (Single-Family Residential, Medium Density) the Parcel Designated as Parcel 65 of Book 391 at Page 37 Located on the Northwest Corner of -~.-~.~ L~llendale Avenue and Dolphin Drive (Ordinance NS-3, Article 18); ....... Continued from August 13~ 1975 Staff explained that the applicant was requesting a change of zoning for his .714-acre parcel from "R-I-20,000" to "R-1-12,500." Note was made that the 1974 General Plan had designated this site under "low density residential", which was consistent with the City Council Policy Statement regarding zone consistency. Staff noted that after careful evaluation of several alternatives, it was recom- mended that C-179 be approved for a change of zoning from "R-i-20,000" to ~ "R-l-10,000" and "R-I-20,000." The explanation was given that this proposal would establish a new zoning line'~nni~g_genera~ly east/West across said_site, dividing the property into Parcels A and B. The property to the north of this line would be rezoned to "R-i~10~000" while that to the south of the line would remain "R-i-20,000." Staff noted that the basis for this recommendation was .o ~'~b~t: (1) the' reCommende~ izoning change would allow the applicant to apply for a lot split in'accordance with Ordinance NS-60; and (2) the recommended zoning change would avoid spot zoning of an "R-1-12,500" classification, and also rezoning of Parcel B would provide a practical and physical orientation to Dolphin Drive and Tract 1963. Note was made that no correspondence had been received relative to this matter. Chairman Belange~ reopened the phbli~'°hearing on C~i79 at 11:00 p.m. Mr. Hanson, applicant, introduced into the record a statement of position regard- ing this matter whihh he explained in detail. Essentially, he pointed out that the requested "R-1-12,500" zoning request was compatible with the neighborhood, conformed with the 1974 General Plan and was a good landuse. He requested, how- ever, that if the "R-1-12,500" zone ~as not approved for the entire site~ then ~that Parcel B be rezoned to "R-i%10,000~'' with separate zoning as an alternative,~ __ and lot lines being establishe~'~Cr0~ the property. He contended that setting the lot line on the zone line, as per the Staff Report, would prove a hardship to them in that the setback restrictions would not allow adequate access into the rear yard of Parcel A. He argued that straightening the lot line across the property would still allow each parcel to meet the required setbacks of their respectiye zones,_~nd he_.~Ue~ted.the Commission give consideration to this. DiscuSsion follgwed on these requests, and it was the Commission's consensus that Mr. Hanson's request that the lot line be modified should be referred to and studied by the Subdivision Committee and Staff. Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on C-179, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Commit- tee and Staff for further review and report. IV. DESIGN REVIB~ A. A-470 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval - Commercial Building ~ 1 Lot~ Continued from August 27~ 1975 Chairman Belanger directed A-470 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 1975 in conjunction with SDR-1176, and referred this matter to the Design Revi~ Committee and Staff for further review and report. B. A-483 - James Skinner - Pierce Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 27~ 1975 Pending resolution of street englneering and access problems, Chairman Belanger directed'A-483 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 1975, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. C. A-484 - Thomas Fryer, Saratoga Hills Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 27~ 1975 Commissioners Woodward, Lustig and Zambetti gave summaries of the events on this matter, and explained the reasons for thercurrent recommendation that this MINUTES OF SEPTE}IBER 10~ IV. C. A-484 - Thomas Fryer - Cont'd matter be denied with6ut prejudice. It was pointed out that the Design Review Committee was concerned with 2 elevations on the site which could be seen from many areas of Saratoga, and had requested at the Committee meeting of August 19th that landscaping plans, to scale, be submitted for their review. The Committee members verified that a "gentleman's agreement" had been reached between the Committee, the applicant and his architect that these plans reflecting the location, size and quantity of the plants '~o be used in these 2 areas would be submitted for review by the Committee at their meeting of September 2, 1975. Commissioners Lustig and Zambetti reported that the plans submitted had not contained the agreed-to information, and that as a result, they had written a memorandum stating that the' Committee could not. c'0ntinue to review this n'. application until this information had been furnished. The Committee members contended that~'unless adequate information was suBplied, they could not make a decision on th{S matter. The committee members indicated that they did not wish to close the door on this application, and as a result, had recommended per the Staff Report, that this matter be denied without prejudice: if the '.~r~q~esteH'i'~6rmation was sUbm"~d to the Design Review Committee w~h~6'0~y_s.,.. /ihey wo~l'd'B~'Y'~fl'li'ng to reconsider this application. As Commissioners Callon and ~rtin expressed interest to hear from the applicant's _~rchitect~.Mr,_ Rgbert_Xan_der Toorren co.nte~ded._that the~eqUested information had indeed been submitted. He p~inted'0Ut that the landSCaping plans submitted con- tained nothing more nor less than what his client desired, and complained that the Design Review Committee was trying to hide the proposed house by landscaping. He further complained that when he arrived at the September 2, 1975 Design Review Committee meeting, the Committee members had left and Staff had indicated to him that the Committee would not review this matter any further until the requested information had been submitted. He contended that this was not fair, and main- tained that sufficient~lands~ape info_rmatio_n hid ~n ~rnished. The Planning Commission discussed this matter in detail. Although Commissioner Lustig moved ~nd Commissioner Woodward seconded his motion to deny this applica- tion without prejudice, this motion was withdrawn; and the consensus of the Commission was to continue this matter off the agenda until the requested land- caping information had been submitted. The Commission expressed a concern that an impasse had been reached on this matter,~_and urged solution of this problen. Commissioner Woodward agreed with th~, and stated: "We are not as~n~ him to ..... hide his house, but we ar~"0~iy ~sking him to screen parts of it from neigh6ors' and 9ther people who will be able to see it. We are asking how many plants he will have in 2 areas on the site, 'And we need to know their sizes and names." D. A-499 - A.H. Brolly, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review Approval - Landscaping, Fencing and Pathway - 1 Lot; Continued from August 27~ 1975 Commissioner Woodward, as chairman of the Design Review Committee, reported that this matter had been continued pending~concurrenc~ by the ~pplicant ~f recommenda- tions made by the Design Review Committ~ee and Staff. She pointed out that the applicant had concurred with these recommendations; and as a result, a Staff Report had been ~repared recommending approval of this matter. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval. of application A-499 per Exhibits "A-2" and "B "and the Staff Report dated September 3, 1975 - The motion was carried unanimously. E. A-503 - Terry Bowman, Old Oak Way~ Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Staff noted that the Design Review Cormnittee had reviewed this matter, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Note was made that the architectural control cormnittee of this tract had approved the applicant's plans subject to redwood siding as per the Tract's CC&Rs. However, it was pointed out that the plans submitted to the City reflected a~bestos and redwood fir pl~ood siding. After discussion of this matter, the followf~g modification of the Staff Report (under Concluding Comments) was made by the Commission: MINUTES OF S~PTE~BER 10. -1975 IV. E. A-503 - Terry B~.rman - Cont'd "(3) If the homeowners associationj' architectural control committee. finds it is at odds with material and color spe~if{ca[i~,'the Design Review Committee will review any changes." Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval of application A-503 per Exhibit "A-l," and the S~aff Report dated September 3, 1975, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. F. A-504 - Alfredo Salcedo~ Chester Avenue~ Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Staff noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval of application A-504 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated September 3, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. G. SS-93 - Gauger, Sparks and Silva, Carnelian-Glen, Final Design Review Approval Temporary Subdivision Sign; Continued from August 27~ 1975 Staff noted that per the Design Review Committee's request that the applicant submit revised plans reflecting a smaller sign with less advertising thereon, Exhibit "C" had been submitted. Note was made that the Design Review Committee had reviewed ~his ~vi~'~d'~l~, and that a Staff Report.'had been prepared recommending 'ap~roval.'~" Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission approve application SS-93 per Exhibits "B" and "C" and the Staff Report dated September 3, 1975. The motion'was carried unanimously. V'. i'. ~SCELLANEOUS A. SDR-1167 - Dennis Bryan, Bella Vista Avenue, Building Site Approval - ~' Lgt; Reconsideration of Condition "P" of Staff Report dated June 25~ 1975 Relative to this request for reconsideration of the loc~tion of the fire hydrant, Commissioner Lustig urged, per recent discussions with the Fire Chief, that the Planning Commission not consider this request until a pending litigation between the applicant and the Saratoga Swim Club relative to road access had been resolved. He pointed out that this proposed hydrant location would be opposite to the secondary roadsentrance to the house, which was the point of litigation; and he felt that if the Commission permitted this change, it might be inferred a prejudgment. by the Commissioners that the secondly access was ~h'~'f~'~h~y'Y[lt : the access to the house~should be. Relative to this pending litigation matter, the Secretary noted that there was no written~ or other information to that effect on file, and that that mate'er~Wa~ not a_consideration of this request. He added that prior_ to the applicant~'S'~geiving an occupancy permit, a fife hydrant was required. He noted that the location of this fi~e hydrant had been designated on the building plans as being next to the easterly access road, but that now the Commission had a request'ifrom Mr. B~an · to change that location. It was Staff's recommendation that insomuch as the fir~ ;hydrant was a condition of the Fire Department, this matter should be continued...; ~)ending receip.~_~f a W~i~ten.~.~t.ement from the Fire Chief regarding th'i~ request. After additional discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 1975 pending receipt of a written statement from the Fire Chief relative to this request. Chairman Belange~ referred SDR-1167 to the next Subdivision Committee meeting for further review, and requested that the Fire Chief's letter contain information r~lative to where he felt the best location of the hydrant should be. -13- MINUTES OF SEPTE}IBER 10 1975 V. B. Consideration of the Addition of a Conditional Use (Retirement Housing Facilities) to Section 6.3 of Ordinance NS-3~ the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga See Item IIt-A. C. SDR-1188 - Jack Dri~kard~ Pierce Road~ Final Buildin~ Site ApprOval - 1 Lot See Item II-A through F. VI. WRITTEN COI~ftINICATIONS A. Environmental Impact Reports:-.Negative Declarations File:- None B. Other - The following written correspondence were introduced into the record: 1. Letter dated September 3, 1975 from D.E. McKenzie, 14554 Big Basin Way, opposing the City Council's recently adopted Interim Resdlution 740 relative to Hillside Development. Chairman Belanger directed Staff refer this letter to the City Council. 2. Letter dated September 4, 1975 from Geneva M. Quickert, 15495 Quickert Road, requesting reconsideration of conditions relative to the recent tentative building site approval of application SDR-1196 by the Land Development Committee. Chairman Belanger directed this matter be placed on the Commission's meeting agenda of September 24, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. 3. Letter dated August 22, 1975 from John Weir, President of Arguello Homeowners Association, requesting a copy of any written material describing planned 1975 revisions to the General Plan and a copy of the minutes of the last General Plan Review meeting. VII. ORAL CO~%~ICATIONS A. City Council Report Commissioner Zambetti gave a brief report on the City Council meeting o f September 3, 1975. Of special interest to the Commission was the fact that the recommendation by the Planning Commission to rezone the Lyngso property located on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Zone 2) had been approved by the City Council. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the offices of the City Administration Department. B. Other (1) Mr. _Thomas Fryer, 14029 Saratoga Hills Road, complained of the treatment received by himself and his architect from Staff regarding Design Review application A-484. He contended that all requested materials had been sub- mitted, and objected to the many time delays he had encountered relative to this application. Mr. Fryer expressed doubt that Design Revi~ Approval should be required on this site at all, and pointed out that he had received final building site approval prior to the adoption of the Design Revi m~ pro- visions of the ordinance. At this point it was interjected by the City Attorney that Design Review ~pproval was required prior to obtaining a building permit on lots with slopes in excess of 10%, and consequently, as this site had an average alope of 39%, DeSign Review Approval was required. Mr. Fryer claimed that Staff had misled him, and that there had been a "series of illegal coercions employed by Staff" regarding this matter. He ~urther claimed~'~ "~o~ people did not even have the .~0o~ g~ace _~_~ honor the commitment of the previous Planning Director, Planning Commission and City Council who said what was the side yard and what was the front yard, and that's all in the Code.permitting it. I have been coerced and pushed around because I am not a lawyer and do not know the ins and outs of the Code." -14- ~,--_ ~NYTES OF SEPTDBER 10 1975 ~ VII. B. Thomas Fryer - Cont'd Commissioner Lustig explained that the information requested by the DeSign Review Committee had not been submitted as ~greed to by all parties at the Design Review Committee meeting of August 19, 1975. He pointed out that the Design Review Committee was concerned that the portherly elevation of the house along the stair way and the Southerly portion of the front eleva~.i_o~__o__f__~h~ h~..could be ob- viously seen by'people down the hillside, and that they had expressed the desire to see these two areas adequately landscaped. He outlined to Mr. Fryer the information requested as follows: (1) specification of all materials; and (2) landscaping plans showing the types, locations and sizes of the plants they wished to use in these two areas. He stated that if these requested materials were submitted, the Design Revi~ Committee would be in a position to approve this application. Relati-ve to some of the complaints issued by Mr. Fryer cQncerning S~aff,. Chairman Belanger explained that when Staff required materials of applicants, they were speaking as agents of the various subcommittees ~ho required that information. She added: "If those requests seem unreasonable, then the Co~it- tee's requests may seem unreasonable; but Staff does not issue any request to unreasonably harass applicants." Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:50 ~.m. £ r y anL uyn, ~ ecre ary s~ -15-