HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
~NUTES
TIME: Wednesday, April 28, 1976 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. 95070
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Callon, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Martin and Z~m%etti
Absent: Chairman Belanger
Conwn{ssioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the reading
of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of March 24, 1976 be waived, and
that they be approved as distributed to the Comm{ssion. The motionwas
carried; Commissioner Lustig abstained.
Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the reading
of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of April 14, 1976 be waived, and
that they be approved as distributed to the CoD~,dssion. The motion was
carried; Commissioners Marshall and Lustig abstained.
C. WELCOME TO VIRGINIA LADEN
Vice-ChairmanMartin welcomed Virginia (Ginny) Laden to the Planning Co~ssion.
Commissioner Laden was appointed by the City Council at its meeting of
April 21, 1976 to .~'the vacancy l~ft by Commissioner Jean WOodward
and her termwill run until April of 1980~ "
D. RESOLUTION FOR JEAN WOODWARD
~Vi~-Ch'~man }~rtin rea~d into the record Resolution No. PC-123 commending
~nd expreSSing ap~r~C{ation from the Planning Commission to Jean Woodward
for her services to the City since 1973.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Coma-.{ssioner Lustig, that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC-123 dated April 28, 1976. The
motion was carried unanimously.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Composition of Consent Calendar
Commissioner Zambetti requested that Item l(c) - SDR-1227 be removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion by the Commission. Cc~,-,,~ssioner Marshall
moved, seconded by Commissioner Zamhetti, that the Planning Commission
approve the composition of the Consent Calendar less Item l(c), application
SDR-1227. The motionwas carried unanimously.
B. It~-L~ for Consent Calendar
Co,,~f,~ssioner Marshall moved, seconded by Cc,~n~ssioner-Zambe~ti, that the
Planning Couauission grant approval to Items l(a), l(b), and] 2~a)'as~. ~_
-1-
COMMISSION MINUTES OF ~I{IL 28~ 1976
II. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CAT.~IDAR - Cont'd
follows:
o SDR-1083 - Frank Schillace, Upper Hill Drive, Final Building Site Approval
for 1 Lot
e SDR-1222 - Pat Swift, Brandywine Drive, Final Building Site Approval for
1 Lot
· 7~524 - Eldred Kunkel & Associates, Comer Drive, Final Design Review
Approval l'Lot #2 of Tract #5693 - Per Exhibit '~" and Staff
Report dated April 22, 1976
The motion was carried unanimously.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-181 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga Avenue, Request
for Change of Zoning for a 4.456-acre Site Located on Saratoga Avenue
from '~" (Agriculture) to "R-I-IO,000" (Single-Family Residential
MediumDensity)~ Continued fromFebruary 25~ 1976
Staff explained that the Environmental Impact Report required on this proposed
rezoning matter was scheduled to be completed in the early part of May; and
pointed out that per State law, the City was required to allow a 30-day review
period upon receipt of the Draft EIR. Consequently, Staff recon~nended this
itembe continued to the second meeting in June in order to allow sufficient
time in which to review the EIR.
Vice Chairman-Martin reopened the public hearing on C-181 at 7:38 p-m..-. As ~
there wassn0=testimony given, Vice Chairman Martin closed 'the public hearing
on C-18~, and directed same be continued to the June 26, 1976 Commission meeting.
B.:-i V-448 - Roger Ross, Saratoga Hills Road, Request for Variance to Allow a
Reduction in the Required Rearyard Setback for the Construction of a
Dwelling (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7 of Article 3); Continued from
April 14~ 1976
Although Staff introduced into the record one item of correspondence from a
resident supporting this variance request, Staff noted that the applicant had
submitted a letter dated April 26, 1976 requesting this matter be withdrawn
without prejudice.
Commissioner Lustig mo~ed, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission accept the letter of withdrawal without prejudice on application
V-448. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. UP-299 - Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, Verde Vista Lane, Request for Use
Permit to Allow the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Con~ercial Use
in a Residential Zoning District in Accordance with Article 15 of
Zoning Ordinance NS-3~ Continued fromApril 14~ 1976
Staff reconmended this item be continued pending resolution of the underground
utilitias service matter raised ~t the last Commission hearing. Staff explained
that although a resident had claimed that there were underground utility lines
available for hook-up, it had been discovered thattthere really were no such
lines available. It was pointed out that PG&E was presently investigating
the extent of lines which would be necessary in putting in underground services,
and that this matter would be further reviewed by the Subdivision Committee.
Relative to the two other concerns expressed by residents at the last public
hearing on this item, Staff noted that additional landscaping had been agreed
to by the applicant, and that t~e matter of early-morning noise caused by
equipment usage Was being reviewed.
Vice Chairman Martin reopened the public hearing on UP-299 at 7:45 p.m. As
there was no testimony given, Vice Chairman-Martin closed the public hearing
on UP-299, directed seme be continued to the Planning C~ssionmeeting of
May 12, 1976, and referred this item to the Subdivision Committee and Staff
for further review and report.
-2-
COMMISSION MINUTES OF~IL 28, 1976
III. D. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn (G.N. Jerry) Renn, Inc.), Marion Avenue,
Use Permit to Allow the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Commmrcial
Use in a Residential Zoning District in Accordance with Article 15
of Zoning Ordinance NS-3~ Continued from April 14, 1976
Staff noted that the Subdivision Committee and Staff had met with the applicants
on this item to discuss possible means of mitigating concerns expressed by
adjacent neighbors, as well as the eventual amortization of the coummrcial use
on-site. It was explained that .~'f~l ~a[dation was not made, however,
at that time, and the matter was. to be reviewed again by Uhe Subdivision
Committee at its May 4, 1976 meetings
The ]fol}o~ing items zof CorrespOndehce-~ .:all ".expreSSing 'support for .-UP-300, were
introduced into the record:- ..-'-~-~ : :'-.zZ.~'s ~. ~-_. z- : z~ :-:- -
~ -'z- ':..'.~- ~'.- : ' -" ........... '-' '- " .... ' ........
~= ~_~-' ~Letter dated April 26, -1976- from2Allen 'Bruce Creek, .~20680-MariOn Avenue =
2 ~ -: Letter -dated_-April z26 ~ 1976 tfrom L Peter-- and Vivienne b~atulich
-:. -~Marion 'Avenue f ~ ~. '.~:. z z-' - r -- .-. - z - _.z ~'. z -- -
3. - -Letter .-'-dated A~ril 23 ,-r197~ ~'from ~Taro Yamagami, --P.O. . -Box z581 ~ Saratoga
4~.'. 'Letter dAtedr'Aprilt23~] -1976 from tMrs~. L~ M~ Su'tliva~..-20570__Canyon-View Drive
Vide C~airrnan=b~ti~ reopened the public hearing on UP-300 at 7:50 p.m.
..-~
~ Roy°Lum~-r20661 .'.Ma~i~7t~0a ~-'read ~into the -'_record _~a 1.-otter 'p. rep~red byl _himself
= jand-signed byi-his wife and-abUtting-neig~_bors~ Mr.-.-and..7:Mrs; A-l_thoUse;
L~': Essentially ] the - letter -requested that the zuse-' permit .:not ~be g~anted fo_r . -
-: .~ ~morer'than anperiod of.-2~3 ~ears; and-that thezpermit not be a~llowed to
-.-~--~xpandubeyohd its current use_-because_ of .=the-_-dangerS involved in the
storage and transport of fl-v,m~ble fuelS.
. .- .- .... - .. ~.. , - ......... =.. ...... - ...... - , r.a ~z--; .- z .....
As -there was an..o additional- testimonys..gi.v. en, LVice Chairm~.nz.Martin__~ directed' tha.t.
the -public' hearing :on BP-3Oe:be closed, directed.-' same be' c_e_ntin_u.ed E_t.o zthe -- -:- -.
Planning Commission meeting of ~y 12, 1976, and referred this item to the
~E .Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
MISCELLANEOUS '
IV. -' ~ z ...... ' ......................... ' ...... ' '=- '
A. SDR-1227 - Aloyse Gacs, Bank Mill Road, Final Buildin~ Site Approval - 1 Lot -
Commissioner Zambetti expressed concern over the fact that Design Revi~ had not
been required on this application, pointing out that the slope of the property
was over 10%. Staff explained that at the time this application was submitted,
Subdivision Ordinance No. 60 had not required Design Review approval; adding
that the Land Development Conw-~ttee, in its review of this item, had not deemed
it necessary to require Design Review.
The- City Attorney was asked whether a Design Review Approval condition could
be imposed on the applicant at this time. Mr. Johnston explained that conditions
could only be imposed at the time of tentative building site approval, or in the
case of the applicant requesting a change of conditions from the Planning Cou~nission.
Discussion ]Y011owed on the fact that.Design Review 'A~~l"~s not required
o~'=_}ots with slopes over 10% in the City's new Subdivision Ordinance. The con-
sensus of the Planning Commission was that ;it-would l~"'e~. have this require-
ment placed into the new Subdivision Ordinance. Specifically, with regard to
SDR-1227, it was the consensus of the Commission to continue this item pending
dialogue with the applicant. The Commission requested Staff to schedule a
meeting between the applicant and the Design Review Committee to discuss the
matter of design review.
Vice Chairman Martin directed SDR-1227 be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of May 12, 1976, and referred this item to Staff and the Design Revie~
Co,,,,~ttee for further review.
B. SDR-1080 - Richard E. Johnson~ Via Re~ina~ Fiual Buildin~ Site Approval - I Lot
Staff noted that all of the conditions of tentative building site approval had
been met, and reco~nended that the Planning Commission grant final building site
approval thereto. Note was made that the applicant had met the required time
-3-
COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
IV. B. SDR-1080 - Richard E. Johnson - Cont ' d
schedules, but that this item had mistakenly not been added to the agenda.
As there were no comments to be made on this item, Co,,~r,~ssioner Marshall moved,
seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final
: building site approval to application SDR-1080. The motion was carried
~ unanimously.
C. Has san Zeno - Request to Include Amusement Centers as a Conditional Use in
the Comm,,nity Commercial (C-C) Zonin~ District
Staff explained that a letter dated April 20, 1976 had been received from Mr.
Zeno requesting the Planning Commission to include amusement centers as a
conditional use in the Commaunity Commercial zoning district. It was explained
that the Zoning Ordinance presently allowed this type of activity under the
term "recreational centers" in the .Visitor ~rcia-1- zoning district, and
Staff stated that it had no objection to placing this'.requested use in the C-C
zone. Staff did add, h~¢ever, that the applicant had-not yet met x~ith the
Subdivision Committee to review this request, and ~econ~endation was made that
this item be continued.
Commissioner Marshall stated that he was in favor of providing additional forms
of ~'mmsement for young people within the City, but expressed reservations about
the potential of this type of operation. He stated that there would have to be
restrictions placed on a use of this nature, non-couxpliance of which would
result in repeal of any use permit acquired for the use.
At this point, Vice Chairman Martin directed that this matter be continued to
the Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 1976, ~nd directed Staff to schedule
a meeting bet~¢een the applicant and the Subdivision Committee for further review.
V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Determinations - There were no Negative Declarations filed
between the period of April 15, 1976 and April 28, 1976.
B. Other
1. Commissioner Lustig reported that 2 letters from residents on Marion Avenue
had just been submitted to him objecting to the granting of UP-300. Vice
Chairman Martin requested Staff to provide copies of these letters to the
Planning Comm{ssion for its May 12th Co,,~,aission meeting, and directed that
these 2 letters be made part of the file on UP-300.
2. The Secretary stated that copies of the draft Condomininm Conversion Ordinance
had been given to the Commission for review and comment. Further, he stated
that this item needed to be agendized for public hearing as soon as possible
in order to meet the end-of-June deadline for City Council review.
After brief dialogue on this item, Vice Chairman ~Martin directed this
matter be referred to the Subdivision Committee for review, requesting
the Cor~n~ssion members to contact the Committee ~ith any c~o~m__ents they might
wish to make. Additionally, he directed Staff to advertise for public hear-
ing this item for the May 26, 1976 Planning Cou,,,,;ssion meeting.
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. City Council Report
Commissioner Zsmhetti gave a brief report of the City Council meeting held on
April 21, 1976. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City
Administration Office.
B. Other
1. The Secretary reported that the Planning Commission had met in joint session
with the City Council on April 27, 1976 to discuss methods for handling__
-4-
COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ '
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Cont'd
lands with slopes over 10% outside of the Hillside Conservation Residential
District (HCRD). The Secretary recalled that the Conmission transmitted to the
City Council at its March 24, 1976 meeting the recommendation that the Council
incorporate the HCRD slope density formula. into the new Subdivision Ordinance
to regulate those lands with slopes over 10% outside the HCRD area.
Staff explained that the City Council suggested at this joint session that an
emergency ordinance be adopted at its May 5, 1976 regular meeting placing the
HCRD formula into an emergency ordinance applicable to the HCRD area which would
restrict development in the HCRD area until the HCRD zoning was applied to '-
the HCRD lands. Further, the Council suggested that an anendment to the
Subdivision Ordinance (No. 60) be introduced at the next Council meeting which
would place the old NS-5 slope density formula into the new Subdivision Ordinance.
Staff explained that the Council felt that most of the issues relative to the new
HCRD ordinance had centered around the 1200 acres in the westerly hillside por-
tion, rather than the entire slope areas within the City.' Consequently, the
Council felt that the NS-5 formula would be a more equitable means of differen-
tiating between the HCRD area and lands with slopes of 10% outside this area.
Commissioner Callon stated that she would vote in favor of the NS-5 formula
suggested by the City Council, explaining that the Commission in its reco~enda-
tion of March 24th was trying to handle the situation differently thank:was
n~ being suggested. She added: "From the point of view that we did concen-
trate on the 1200 acres, we did come up with the change in the formula for
those 1200 acres based on public hearings and a close examination of__th_ejacts ....
And I would prefer to see us wait until we hav~'~hat kind of a~andle on the ~
other lands before we change the slope density formula." She asked, h~ever,
why the Council had to adopt an emergency ordinance on this item.
Staff explained that Resolution 740 would shortly elapses and that the HCRD
ordinance would not go into effect untilMay 7, 1976. Further, it was noted that
as the emergency resolution would expire, the City would have to ~o back to
the original one-acre zoning ~ithout slope density provisions unless it had
another emergency ordinance to take its place. Staff explained that even though
the HCRD ordinance would be in effect__May_.7, 1976, it would not be applicable
until the HCRD area had been rezoned in accordance with the HCRD ordinance.
Cou.,.,{ssioner Marshall pointed out that the Commission had previously discussed
the HCRD slope density formula in connection with the 1200 acres, adding: '~nd
when we recommended a continuation of that formula as an interim, I was concerned
about consistency. Yet looking at it in the light of the joint_ meeting discussions,
it makes sense to advocate consistency with the lands that we consider delicate
for hillsides, and not penalize those who live in some other part of to~m which
en~o~s a reasonably well planned and different set of standards." Consequently
Commissioner Marshall stated that he would be in favor of the City Council's
suggestion. He requested, however, that the City Council give consideration
Cit '
to using the same HCRD slope density formula for the y s sphere of influence
area butting the HCRD area. The Secretary pointed out that as soon as the HCRD
area had been rezoned, the City planned to pre-zone those County areas within
the City's sphere of influence and urban service areas to the HCRD zone.
Commissioners Laden and Z~mhetti agreed with the above-stated comments.
Vice Chairman Martin also agreed, adding: "I really felt in my own mind that
the Commission, in making the rec~endation to the City Council, was attempting
to get some kind of control on Lthe HCRD zone prior to .the timewhen we would get
around to zoning that land. So I agree with the City'Council"s suggestion."
At this time Vice Chairman Martin moved, seconded by Co~-~ssimer Marshall, that
the Planning Commission reconnend to the City Council that they repeal
Resolution 740 and incorporate 't~'~Ia'SUb'df~ision Ordinance NS-5 slope density
formula into Section 13.9-3 of Subdivision Ordinance No. 60, and simultaneoubly
pass an emergency ordinance restricting development within the Hillside
Conservation Residential District zone until the HCRD ordinance is applied
to the land. The motion was carried unanimously.
-5-
COMMISSION MINUTES OF IL 28~ 1976
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Cont'd
2. The Secretary reported that the Senior Citizen Housing Task Force had
asked that the Co~n~ssion give consideration to any general aspects or
particular sites connected with the Senior Citizens Housing Task Force
Report, and forward their con~nents to the Task Force in theznear future.
The Commission discussed this request, and several of the Co~ra~ssioners
pointed out that the Commission views had been expressed many times on this
subS_cot. It was. the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Task
Force either supply a preliminary report on Senior Citizen Housing in the
City for the Conmission to review and make connnent on, or that a study
session between the 2 grou.2s be scheduled to discuss this item.
Secretary was directed to communicate this to the Task Force.
3. The Secretary drew the C0mmission's attention?to a revised subcommittee a~sign-
m~nt sheet, suggesting that Commission Woodward's assignments be taken
over by Commissioner Laden. After ~rief dialogue on this suggestion, it
was agreed that Commissioner Laden would take over the ~bcommittee
assignments once held by Commissioner Woodward.
4.Vice Chairman Martin Welcomed and acknowledged t_he presence of Mary MoS~'-'
of the Good Government Group and Councilman Kraus at the meeting.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Conm-,~ssionmeeting of April 28, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
skw/