Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TIME: Wednesday, February 25, 1976 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Lustig, Martin, Woodward and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Marshall B. MINUTES Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Connuissioner Zambetti, that the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 11, 1976 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following corrections: page 2, Item UP-294 - misspelling of Mr. Barbatti's name; page 10, second paragraph - misspelling of words "during" on 4th line and "did" on 5th line. The motion was carried; qommissibner Callon abstained. II. FINAL BUILDING SITES/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1187 - Stekoll Development (Boyd Ingle), Ten Acres Road, Final Building Site Approval for 1 Lot Staff noted that ~1! conditions of.tentativ~ building site approval.had been~met, and rec~m~ended final building site approval be g~anted to application SDR-118~. Chairman Belang~r requested Staff furnish 'in the future copies of all tentatiy_e :building site approval.Staff ReportS.op..all._.~q~sts for final site approvals.= Con~issioner Wggdward moved, seconded by Commissioner LUstig, that the Plan- --n~ng Commission grant final.building site approval to application SDR-1187.. .The motion W~s c~rried_unani~oUsly.' ' III. PUBLIC H~ARI~GS :' ' .. A. uP-295 - Haven NUrsery (Sarath Vida~age and' Jamas'McCandless) 12858 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, RequeSt for Use Permit to AlloF.the Continuation of -. za NonrCgnform~ng Conmercial_ Use in a ReSidential Zoning.pistrict in Accordanc~ with ~rtic!e 15.of_Zoning Ordinance NS-3; Continued from February 11~ 1976 "-' S[aff~explalned-that a StaffSRepOrt dated FebrUarY ~5, ~97~ had.been.prepared .rec_ommending approval of th~s use_permit subject-to conditions. Note was made that the Subdivision Committee had again reviewed this matter, along with the epplican~S., at. its meeting of February_24, 1976, and that ~he applicants were " aware of the Staff Report. ~Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Staff Report conditions on UP-295, and refer same to the City Attorney for ~ preparation of a resolution incorporating these conditions. Further, Staff '\ recommended that this resolution be agendized for review and adoption by the ' Commission at its next meeting. = Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on UP-295 at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Vidanage, applicant, raised questions concerning the 6-month time limits on complying with Conditions (B), (C) and (D), specifically in connection with the construction of a new building. Discussion followed on these questions, and note was made that Conditions (C) and (D) both referred to existing hazardous conditions as cited by ~he Fire District and City Building Department. Staff explained that the 6-month limitation was a mechanism to insure that the -1- MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25~ 1976 III.~ A. UP-295 - Haven Nursery - cont'd applicants began correction of these existing code deficiencies within 6 months. Further, Staff noted.that, if necessary, the applicants could obtain a 6-month extension from the Building Department to complete these corrections. Staff ex- plained that these conditions were not applicable to any code deficiencies that would be corrected through'cons~uct!qnro~-a~ne~,7-~ui!~Dg~_ Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the public hearing on UP-295 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Lustig recommended that when draftinglthe resolution, the use permit should specifically denote the names of the owners rather than Haven Nursery inasmuch as the use permit did not go with the sale of the business nor the land. After additional discussion, Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission approve the Staff Report dated February 25, 1976~and Exhibits "A" and "B" on application UP-295, and that same be re- ferred to the City Attorney for preparation of a resolution specifically denoting that the use permit shall be issued to the owners of the nursery rather than to Haven Nursery. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Belanger requested the City Attorney to draft a resolution on UP-295 for the next Pl~ing Commission meeting, and directed that this matter be agendized'for the Co~nission meeting of March 10, 1976. B. UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. (John Lyngso), 12405 S. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for Use Permit to Allow the Continuation of a Commercial Use in a Residential Zoning District in Accordance with Article 15 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3; Continued from February 11~ 1976 Richard Gardella, attorney representing the applicants, requested that this mat- ter be continued to the next Commission meeting without the public hearing being opened insomuch as the requested court recorder was not present. Discussion followed on this request, with Staff noting that there had been a misunderstand- ing as to who was responsible for arranging for said court recorder. Inasmuch as there were members of the audience present who wished to give public testimony, Chairman Belanger asked whether a continuance to theM arch lOth meet- ing was acceptable. A lady speaking on behalf of those homeowners present re- quested that this matter be continued to the March 24, 1976 Cuu~x~ission meeting inasmuch as the March lOth meeting was inconvenient. After additional discussion, Chairman Belanger determined that since the CommisSion was willing to accommodate Mr. Gardella in his request for continuance of this item, she felt it fair to also accommodate those residents present who requested that the matter be continued to the March 24, 1976 meeting. '.Consequently, Chairman Belanger directed UP-296 be continued to the Planning C~mnission meeting of March 24, 1976, and requested the City Attorney make arrangements to have a court recorder present at that meeting. C. C-181 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga Avenue, Request for Change of Zoning for Use Permit to Allow the Continuation of a Commer- cial Use in a Residential Zoning District in Accordance with Article 15 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3~ Continued from February 11~ 1976 Staff explained that this matter had been continued pending submittal of an EIR on the proposed rezoning; and further, that the applicants had not indicated to Staff whether they were still willing to proceed with selection of an EIR con- sultant to prepare said Report. Staff suggested that this matter be continued to the April 28, 1976 Planning Commission meeting in order to all~q sufficient time in which to select an EIR consultant and to hold public hearings on the certification of the EIR if the applicants indicated they wished to pursue this rezoning application. After brief discussion, Chairman Belanger directed C-181 be continued to the Planning Con~nission meeting of April 28, 1976, and referred to matter to Staff and the Subdivision C~ttee for further review and report. -2- MINUTES OF FEBRUAR~_~2~ III. D. GF-303 - City of Saratoga, Proposed Amendments to the 1974 General Plan for the City of Saratoga~ Continued from February 11~ 1976 Staff explained that this matter had been continued from the last meeting in order to evaluate possible effects of the zoning~to-consistency issue relative to the suggestions made by the Conmission on its interpretation of the City Council's Consistency Policy. Staff requested this item be continued pending further review, noting that a presentation on this matter would be given by Staff to the Design Review Committee and Subdivision C~Lm-~ttee on ~rch 2, 1976. After brief discussion of this matter, Chairman Belanger directed that C-181 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 10, 1976, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee,i'S~d~vision Committee and Staff for further review and report. E. GF-304 - Article 23, an Ordinance Amending Ordinance NS-3 of the City of Saratoga, the Zoning Ordinance, by Adding Article 23 Thereto Relating to Temporary Uses in All Zoning Districts other than Residential; Continued from February 11~ 1976 Staff noted that additional changes had been made to the draft ordinance rela- tive to providing a section on appeals for any denial action by-th~ commissionl staff pointed out that no correspondence had been received on this item; and recommended the Commission approve said draft ordinance, forward same to the City Council with the recon~nendation for approval, and additionally recomnend to the Council that ~tion No. 700 (fee schedules) be modified to include a $30.00 fee for Temporary Use Permits. Discussion followed on the provisions of the ordinance, with special note being made relative to the number of sanitation facilities required for temporary uses and the starting times of temporary uses. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to amend Section 23.4 (Power of Planning Director) of the draft ordinance as follows: (2) No event is to start before 9:00 a.m. nor continue to operate past 6:00 p.m. (6) Provide for adequate sanitation facilities. At this time Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on GF-304 at 8:40 p.m. As there were no con~nents made, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Con~nissioner Martin, that the public hearing on GF-304 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:41 p.m. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission approve GE-304~an ordinance amending NS-3 by adding Article 23 relating to temporary uses in all zoning districts other than residential), as amended, and forward same to the City Council with the reconmendation for approval. Chairman Belanger moved to amend said motion, seconded ~y Commissioner Lustig, to further recommend to the City Council that Resolution No'. 700 be modified to include a $30.00 fee for Temporary Use Permits. Both motions were carried unanimously. IV. DESIGN REVI~4 Coum~issioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Con~nission grant final design review approval to the following applications per their respective Staff ~eports and Exhibits: A. A-516 - James Dyer, Vessing Court, Final Design Revi~ Approval - 1 Lot Staff Report dated February 20~ 1976 and Exhibit "A" C. SS-102 - Cal Coast Signs (A. Riginal~s Silver Fox), 12850 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval for Commercial Identification Sign - Staff Report dated February 18, 1976 and Exhibit "A" The motion was carried unanimously. -3- MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25 1976 IV. B. A-517 - Abe Carriea, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval - Addition to Existing Commercial Building Commissioner Lustig requested this matter be continued pending further review by Staff and the Design Review Committee. Chairman Belanger directed A-517 be continued to ~e Planning C~m~ission meeting of March 10, 1976, and referred same to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. V. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR-1207 - Jeffery Omodt, Sobey Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Request for Reconsideration of Condition "B" of Staff Report dated November 4, 1975; Continued from February 11~ 1976 At the request of the applicant, Chairman Belanger directed SDR-1207 be continued to the Planning Conmission meeting of March 10, 1976, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further revie~ and report. B. EP-7 - Andy Loeffler, Request for Encroachment Permit to Allow an Accessory Structure within a Slope Easement Staff explained that the applicant was requesting the issuance of an encroach- ment permit to allow for the placement of a flag pole within a slope easement. It was pointed out that the setback for the proposed pole (19.5 feet) did not comply with City requirements (30 feet), and consequently, Staff recommended this request be denied. It was noted that if the applicant met the 30-foot setback requirement, the flag pole would be out of the encroachment area. After brief discussion, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission deny application EP-7. The motion was carried unanimously. C. EP-6 - Dividend Industries, Carnelian Glen Court, Request for Encroachment Permit to Allow Two (2) Subdivision Entry Pylons within the 40-Foot RiMht-of-Way Note was made that this matter had been denied without prejudice by the Commission at its meeting of February 10, 1976 on the basis that the design and structural integrity of the pylons were not acceptable. Staff explained-that-~t ~s the architect's contention that this design was'consistent with the design of the... LSubd~vision, and that~the materials proposed to be used were Suf~{ciently durable to resist all anticipated wear and abuse. Staff explained that this matter had once again been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared reco~m~ending approval. Discussion followed, and questions were raised as to the accuracy of the exhibit~ submitted. Mr. Don Gentry, architect and representative of the applicant, assured the Commission that the profile of the street as shown on the exhibit was correct and accurate. Additionally, Mr. Gentry noted that the material pr_joposed to be used for the ~ylons was overlapped 22-gauge cor-ten steel, ~a material selected for i~s durability and its maintenance ease. Mr. Gentry ~howed a preTfabr~cated section of one of the pylons, and g~ye~a background description of the process by which the pylons were made. After discussion on this matter, Commissioner Callon move~,, seconded by Commis- --sioner-Zambetti~--that--the-- P~anning-Commi-ssion--approve--app-l-ica-t-i-on-EB-6-per Exhibi-ts "A" and "B "and the Staff Report dated February 23, 1976 The motion was carried unanimously. RECESS: 9Y0'0 - 97r5' p .m- VI. WRITTEN COMMUNI CATIONS A. Environmental Impact Determinations - There were no Negative Declarations nor Envi~B~% Impact Report Determinations filed between the period of February 12, 1976 and February 25, 1976. -4- MINUTES OF FEBRUARY .25~ 1976 VI. B. Other Written Communications Referral from the City Council concerning the Commission's recommendation to rezone the Fremont~'Uni.~.!High School property from "R-l-12,500"/"R-l-15,000" to "R-I-20,000 PC,"'and requesting that the Commission give consideration to rezoning the site to "R-i-40,000" (memo dated February 23, 1976 from City Manager). Considerable discussion was had on this referral, with a detailed history of events on this site being given bY various comnissioners. The point was made that this matter had first been addressed by the ConEmiss'ion as 2 refer- rals from the City Council requesting clarification on whether this site had been intended as part of the slope conservation zone in the 1974 General Plan. The Con~nission had clarified at that time its intention that this site wasl not intended to be within the slope conservation zone inasmuch as the average slope of the property was under 10%. Additionally, note was made t hat this site was given further consideration during public hearings held on the 1974 General Plan R~view. Chairman Belanger pointed out that the Commission had at that time determined that the~zoning of this.site should be changed from "R-l-12,500/R-l-15,000" to "R-I-20,000 PC"'i~ 8rder to provide a transitional zone between the adjacent properties; i.e., between the "R-i-40,000" zone on the west and the "R-1-12,500" zone on nhe east. The question was raised as to whether the Planning Commission was required to hold new public hearings on this request, and the City Attorney cited Sections 18.9 and 18.10 of NS-3 as being relevant to this referral. Section 18.9 specifically relates to termination of proceedings by the Commission, specifying that "in no event may the Planning Commission abandon a proceed- ing initiated on the motion or request of the City Council." Section 18.10 (Changes in Proposed Amendments) specifies that if the Commission or Council wishes to make changes in an original proposed amendment, the proposed amendment "need not be reset for public hearings before such body as has already held a hearing on the original proposed amendment." Inasmuch as the referral memorandum was not clear on the Council's intention relative to whether the Commission should hold new public hearings on this rezoning matter, Staff was directed to verify the intent per the Council minutes of its February 18, 1976 meeting, and to report its findings on same at the ~'~h'IO~'I97'6'Pl~ing Commission meeting. It was the consensus of the Planhing C0m~iS'slon that if it Was the Council's intention to require the Conmission to rehear this zoning matter: the Commission would do so ~'k~[eh"~lunctance; i.e., the Commission members felt that it had given extensive re~i~'~f this'site on previous o~c~sions, and it felt that the b~se lan~se' ~d~si~nation for ~h'e Fremont Union High School site was "R-i-20,000 PC." VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. City Council Report - Con~nissioner Callon gave a brief account of the City Council meeting of February 18,~1976. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City Administration Office. Relevant to this meeting, discussion was had on the roll of the Planning Conmissioner in attendance at City Council meetings. It was the consensus of ~'PI'~ing CommisSion, with concurrence from Councilman KraUS'wh0 wa~"i~ "afte~d~nce at'th~s meeting, that the Commissioners should take a representa- tive roll at Council meetings involving Planning Commission matters. A further suggestion was made that the Planning Co~m,~ission chairman and vice- chairman should periodically schedule review meetings with the Mayor and vice-mayor regarding matters of mutual interest. B. Chairman Belanger requested Staff obtain a ~opy of the ABAG "Land Use Capability Analysis" for Commission distribution and information. C. The Secretary announced a Committee-of-the-Whole meeting h~d been scheduled for Council review of the Hillside Conservation-Open Space District ordinance on March 9, 1976. He suggested that any interested Commissioners might wish to attend this meeting in order to vocalize the Commission's intention on this ordinance. -5- MINUTES OF FEBRUARY~ 25, 1976 VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - cont'd D. Chairman Belanger asked whether the Dr. Anderson property located on Jacks Road had been scheduled for follow-up review of the landscaping requirements imposed by the Commission in 1975. She reported that Mrs. Jerry Smith, an adjacent neighbor, had complained that conditions imposed by the Commissicn on this design review application had not been complied with, and had re- quested the Commission investigate this matter. Staff was directed to agendize this item for Design Review Committee review at its meeting of March 2, 1976. E. _~hairman_Belanger expressed appreciation to Ms. Aberle of the Good Govern- ment Group for serving coffee, and welcomed the presence of Cliff Crane of the Good Government Group, John Powers of the Chamber of Co~erce and Councilman Krause. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Con~nissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning C~mx~issionmeeting of February 25, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marty Van D[~ skw/ -6-