Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION I~ffl~RITES DATE: Wednesday, May 26, 1976 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL _present: Commissioners Belange~,.~on, Lade~_, Lustig,..~rshal~. and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Martin B. MINUTES Connnissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of May 12, 1976 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried unanimously. II. FINAL BUILDING SITES A. SDR-1233 - Saverio Vaccaro~ Sobey Road~ Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Staff explained that all conditions of tentative site approval had been met, and the recommendation was made that this item be granted final site approval. After'b~i~f'disc~ssion, Con~nissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission grant final building site approval to application SDR-1233. The motion was carried unanimously. B. Tract #5462 - Parcel Map Approval f0rTLots #41 and ~42 Staff pointed out that this request involved a lot line adjustment on the par- cel map of Tract ~5462 between Lots 41 and 42. Staff explained that the founda- tion on Lot ~42 had been erroneously poured too close to Parcel 2's property line, and that the developer had requested advice from Staff on how next to proceed. Staff recommended a lot line adjustment, pointing out that both lots would still remain legal as to minimum size r~qulrements. CommisSioner }~rs~all requested that matters of this nature be referred to the Subdivision Committee for review prior to being agendized for Commission consideration. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission grant approval to amending the parcel map for Tract #5462 by adjust- ing the lot line between Lots 41 and 42. The motion was carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn (G.N. "Jerry" Renn, Inc.), Marion Avenue, Request for Use Permit to Allow for the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Commercial Use in a Residential Zoning District in Accordance with Article 15 of Zonin~ Ordinance NS-3~ Continued from Ma7 12~ 1976 Commissioner Marshall pointed outsthe Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter on two occasions, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recoupending approval of this use permit for a period of 10 years.. Note was made that a _ ~'~'~d'been received'fr~~County Fire ~rshall's office dated May 17, 1976 rep~ti~g_on an on-site inspection made of this.Rr_op~.~y on ~y 13, 1976. . The letter reported that the operation was "nea~ and orderly," and recommended · that "~o ;minor hazardous conditions" be cOrrecte4:_..the installation of 2 fire _extingUishers0 and "No Smoking"'signs to be installed in all dispens'ing areas. -1- ... .... ~FINUTES 0F MAY III. A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn - Cont'd Commissioner Marshall stated that although he agreed with the Fire Marshall's statement that protective measures had been taken with the high flash point materials stored on site, he had concerns with the storage of low flash point materials on site. He stated that if, in the future, there was an intensity of development around this property, a hazardous fire situation could be created by the storage of these products. He explained that low flash point products usually were the most terrible of fires and were the most difficult to put out. Con~nissioner Marshall stated: "Consequently, ~nere I would vote in favor of the use permit, I would do so ~ith the personal reservation that if there is further development around that property, I would reserve the right to review the use permit with the idea of lessening the amount of time it should be in effect if development starts to look as if it is in danger from this use. I would remain with the condition that the developer is prohibited from maintaining the use if he develops his own property as residential. I am not arguing against low versus high flash point materials. I am arguing against the danger inherent in a fire should it occur." At this time, Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on UP-300 at 7:40 p.m. ® Chairman Belanger asked how much u~developed property remained on }~rion Avenue. Mrs. Patricia Renn, applicant, roughly pointed out those lands presently undeveloped along Marion Avenue. Mr. Donald Stamper, 20562 Marion Road, was asked how much property he had undeveloped. He responded that he had approximately 2~ acres which he could split into 1/2 acre lots. Relative to the Renn.!-s undeveloped property, Mrs. Renn stated that they had no intentions of developing their land as long as their business was located on Marion Road. e The question was asked as to the extent of truck traffic on Marion Road, as well as the type of petroleum products stored on site. Mrs. Renn ex- plained that they had 4 1,000-gallon underground storage tanks on site: one tank for the storage of diesel fuel, one for stove oil, and two for the storage of gasoline. She stated: "The major reason for those tanks originally was for our own use."~tive to the truc~'~'~f~'C~ she ~ stated: "Our products are all picked up at what w~ call the pipeline.'It is not our place of business; it is a storage place for products from the refinery for sale to all oil companies. We pick up our stove oil fuel by truck and disperse it to our customers. Therefore, Marion Avenue is not our place of storing our products, but is just a dump~off use. We are not retailers. We are wholesalers. The type of business we have is mainly small construction companies. We have some "stover" accounts for heating oils which our customers pick up during the ~inter months. We have had several accounts that have had fueli trucks come in if they run short and pick up fuel. The majority of these have storage at their own yards, but this is a convenience for them if they run short. On the weed killer, we sell it by barrels and deliver it from our pick-up truck. We do not deliver on weekends; it is stricly a 5-day-a-week business. The storage of greases in barrels also was put there for the convenience of our custo- mers, but the majority of oils and greases are stored with our main ware- house in San Jose." · Relative to relocation of the business, Mrs. Rerm stated that they felt 10 years would give them ample time to make the adjustments they needed to make in order to relocate their business. __Sh~ explained that they wanted to give their 21-year old son as much time as possible to learn the business before they had to relocate. She explained, further, with regards to relocating their business to their other 2 sites, that the property in San Jose was owned by Southern Pacific Railroad and could not be enlarged. She stated that it would not be feasible for them to put in storage tanks to take care of their own equipment. She pointed out that their San Jose trucks go in every morning and pick up what they need for sales during the day. Relative to their site in San Carlos, Mrs. Renn explained that it would be way out of range from their Santa Clara County deliveries, as well as being an inconvenience for their employees x~ho now reside in San 3ose and Saratoga. -2- MINUTES OF MAY 26 III. A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn - Cont'd The question~-cwas asked as to whether it would be possible to discontinue the yard sales at the end of the amortization period and continue to operate the business on an office-basis without vehicular traffic. Mrs. Renn stated: "If youzwere to have us discontinue our yard sales, I would say that it would be no great impact to our business due to the fact that it is a convenience to our customers that they would have to do ~¢ithout. But for us to have to park our vehicles elsewhere would be bad. Our San Jose yard is not big enough for our 4 trucks." Conmissioner Lustig suggested that the option for the Renns to continue their business after the 10-year period as an office without vehicular traffic be included in the Staff Report. Commissioner }~rshall explained that this matter had been discussed at the Subdivision Committee level, and the point had been made that should the Renn's cease to operate the sale of products from their residence rather than as a point of dispatdhing trucks, it then by definition would become a home occupation and would only need a home occupation permit rather than a use permit. e Chairman Belanger asked how much of the $1 million in sales came back to the City. Mrs. Renn explained that since most of their business was generated off their trucks, it was recorded as sales for Saratoga. She explained that the City collected 1% of the total sales annually. o Cormnissioner Zambetti asked how long the business had been in operation on the Marion Avenue site. Mrs. Renn explained that they had lived at this site for 23 years, and had been in business since 1955. o Co~issioner ~rshall asked what Mrs. Renn's reaction would be if there was a stipulation in the use permit for annual review of this use~npermit. He expressed concern that should there be more intensive development in the surrounding area, the proximity of a substantial amount of petroleum products and residents were not compatible. Although Mrs. Renn responded that she felt such a revi~ was only fair, s~e noted that the petroleum .products that were underground now had been OK'd by the County Fire Marshall She stated that if they were to~stay, they would still use the products. She explained that they had their orchard to cultivate and that they cur- rently use these products for their o~m use. Mr. C. Airhouse, 20659 Marion Avenue, explained that his property bordered this site, and that he had been a resident in his home for 8 weeks. He stated: "I am concerned about the flanmable products and the traffic. I think in the terms of flammability, oneof the major concerns is that there are empty tankers which can explode. The other concern is the truck traffic on the road. What is the consequence and who ~ill help maintain that road because of the truck traffic? I think there is more traffic than what you usually see in a residential area. I think there should be more aspects on how the business should be limited and what or h~ it should be reviewed." He asked what the annual review would encompass, and asked what recourse he would have if the condition of Marion Avenue became bad. Commissioner >~rshall explained that an annual review would be appropriate if residential development should occur in the surrounding area.and change the character of the neighborhood. He stated that he was not in favor of this review b~ing an annual review, but merely a revi~ by the Planning Staff of the nature of the business and change of residential character. He pointed out that all records in City Hall were public, and explained that Mr. Althouse could address the Planning Commission at any time regarding this matter. Relative to the maintenance of Marion Avenue, the point was made that two- third's of the road was oxmed by the Renns, and that the appropriate course of action to take with regards to maintenance was to discuss this matter ~ith the Renn~s. In additional response to these questions as well as others raised previously, Mrs. Renn stated: "Since the gasoline crunch, we have been on allocations. Therefore, any great increase in new accounts is impossible for us. Our -3- ': ' I, SNUTES OF~Y26~ III. A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn - Cont'd yard sales are kept track of daily; and at the end of the year when you get ready to review it, you can look at the records. As far as the road.go_~s_.~a~l.~ of the homeowners in the past have ~ried to maintain that road. We have al- ways maintained up to and including_our property, but we do not go beyond that. Everyone should realize that it is a private road, so the balance of the road will still have to be maintained by us, and we will do our share due to the fact that we own so much of that road." At this point Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti'; that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on UP-300. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m. C~ission Response ® Commission Callon stated: "Regarding the annual review, I do not think we would want to reopen to the public these same issues every year because that puts a precarious situation on the Renns, as well as on the neighbors. My feeling is I would rather compromise on the number of years that the business might be allowed to continue in its present form, and perhaps restrict the business to the number of their own trucks now and eliminate the odd sales. I would have to take the Fire Marshall's professional judgment that there is not an excess of fire hazards." ~ Commissioner Zambetti stated: "I think it is a hardship to 'these long- time residents to give them any less than 10 years to operate their business. As I look around at the property m~ners and the adjacent area, I find that the large tracts of land that are still vacant are owned by people who seem to be in agreement with the use of the Rennproperty. They are the ones who are going to control the growth on Marion Avenue. Marion Avenue is a great street to drive down because it has tb~t visual retief of an orchard. The reason it is an orchard today is because Renn's business has been profitable enough to pay the taxes and keep it as an orchard. The gasoline that is being stored there is such that it has unde~riter's approval. It has been there 22 years, and there has never been a problem in the past with fires. I do see a problem if adjacent properties develop. I think if a new subdivision comes in, we should de-amortize the operation out, but I do not think you will see a subdivision in the next 5-7 ye~s on that street. · Chairman BelaDger expressed concerns that an annual review without a guarantee ;~[6'~he Renn~s"for the continued use of their business for 10 years was not appropriate. She argued that it would be a disservice to the Renns and to the surrounding neighborhood to grant the use permit for a 10-year period subject to an annual review which might result in an earlier discontinuance ~ of the business. She stated that she would rather lessen the amount of time that this use could continue, rather than continue the use permit for annual reviews. After conferencing briefly ~ith Commissioners Callon and Lustig, Commissioner ~rshall moved, seconded by Conmissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission approve in;principt~ the ideas expressed in the Staff Report dated May 26, 1976 relative to use permit application UP-300, and direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution on same for adoption at the next C~m~ssionmeeting, subject to the following amendments: ~The time frame stipulated in Conditions (A) and (C) shall be 7% years from the date of the initiation of the non-conforming use ordinance. ® Condition (E): There shall be no increase in the size of the business in terms of the amount of capital equipment, stored materials or number of employees on the Marion Avenue site. Considerable discussion followed on this motion. Connnissioner Laden asked why the annual review provision had been deleted from the motion, and Commis- sioner Marshall explained that Conmissioners Callon, Lustig and himself felt the reduction in time to be a fair compromise for the annual reviews. -4- · MINUTES OF MAY 26. III. A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn - Cont'd ® Commissioner Laden stated that she felt 10 or 7~ years was excessive, and that she felt 5 ~ears was sufficient time in which to give the applicants ample time in which to relocatesthe business. She asked whether another use permit could be issued after the expiration of this use permit. The City Attorney explained that it could be issued if the Planning Commission could make the necessary findings. The point was made that the Staff Report con- ditioned the applicants to'enter into an agreement to discontinue their non- conforming use. The City Attorney pointed out that if one of the conditions of this use permit was the entering into of a contract to cease the use, then the only body which could permit a modification to the contract would be the City Council, not the Planning Commission. ® Chairman Belanger expressed concern that the time limits imposed upon the 4 non-conforming use applications reviewed by the Commission were all different, and she asked if it was proper to have this type of sliding scale conditioning. The City Attorney explained that the Commission was not talk- ing in terms of amortization of non-conforming structures, but rather whether the Commission, in granting the use',permit, wanted to extend the time limit beyond the provisions of the Non-Conforming Ordinance, Section 13.9(a), which was one year. He stated: '~Where you have the continuation of a "C" use in an "R" district, you can make certain findings to permit the c~nt~"'~ uation of such use for 'a reasonable period of time beyond the time limits of Section 15.9(c) hereof, upon a finding that under all the circumstances and the other conditions of such use permit that such a continuation would not be contrary to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the general purposes of this Article."' Fir. Johnston explained that the Commission had the discretion to go beyond the time limit of one year for non-conforming use matters, but he contended that this was not a sliding scale. At this time, Chairman Belanger moved for an amendment to Commissioner Marshall's motion by reducing the amount of time to 5~ years rather than 7~ years. The motion died for lack of a second. The motion made by Commissioner Marshall was carried: 5 ayes, 1 no from Chairman Belanger. Staff was directed to agendize the Resolution to be prepared'by~ Eff~A~fo'F~ey for the June 9, 1976 Planning ConmLission meeting. ~ B. GF-303 - City of Saratoga, Proposed Amendments to the 1974 General Plan for the City of Saratoga; Continued fromMay 12~ 1976 Note was made that this matter had been reviewed on several occasions, and that two Staff Reports had been prepared: one dealing with consistency items of the General Plan, and one dealing with an independent request by the WildWood Heights Homeo~mers Association relative to the Canyon View Drive extension. Note was also made that a new General Plan Map had been prepared, and for the purposes of better graphic illustrations, Staff recommended that circular dots be used to reflect the proposed Canyon View Drive extension. C~m~issioner Marshall stated that he felt the use of circular dots, which was not a normal display, was the best manner by which the City could illustrate the general theme and be in conformance with the concerns of the people living in Wild~{ood Heights. Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. As there was no public testimony given, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the public hearing on GF-303 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:49-p.m. Commissioner Marshall made note of the Staff memorandum dated May 20th report- ing that the City Council had reviewed and agreed to the Commission's inter- pretation of consistency. Based on this, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Con~nission adopt GF-303-A Composite Report dated May 20, 1976 relative to the Annual 1975 Amendments to the Saratoga General Plan, specifically amendments 1-5. Before the vote was taken, Chairman Belanger pointed out that the consistency -5- ~ENUTES OF MAY 26, 19Z~ III. B. Proposed Amendments to the 1974 General Plan - Cont'd policy for low density ranged doomward to R-1-15,000, and she asked whether it would be advisable for the Commission to rezone the front portions of the par- cels on Allendale Avenue in order to make sure that an R-i-20,000 corridor along Allendale Avenue was preserved. After brief discussion, Staff stated that it would investigate this matter and determine how many lots could be subdivided on Allendale Avenue. At this time, the motion to approve GF-303-A was carried unanimously. Note was made that a letter had been received from Marlene Duffin, president of the Wildwood Heights Home~ners Association, dated May 18, 1976 supporting the conceptual use of dots to show an emergency access easement from the end of Canyon View Drive, with the understanding that the dots did not represent the actual easement but did allow the Association's right to an emergency egress when a developer built on the hills behind Canyon View Drive. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission adopt Composite Report GF-303-B dated M~.y 20, 1976 relative to the extension of Canyon View Drive modifying the 1974 General Plan, and that the graphics reflecting this amendment be shd~m in the form of circular dots. The motion was carried unanimously. C. V-454 - Thomas HonE, 19308 Zinfandel Court, Request for Variance to All~q for the Reduction in the Required Sideyard Setback of 20 feet to 7 feet for the Purpose of Locating a Tennis Court Fence (Ord. NS-3~ Section 3.7) Staff noted that an alternative plan had been worked out on this item, and that a letter requesting this item be wlthdra~m had been received. Cormnissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan- ninE Commission accept the letter of withdraw~l~relative to V-454. The motion was carried unanimously. D. UP-307 - Thomas HonE, 19308 Zinfandel Court, Request for Use Permit to Allow for the Construction of a Fence in Excess of 6 Feet in Height for the Purpose of Enclosing a Tennis Court (Ord. NS-3~ Section 3.7-1) Staff pointed out that this matter was directly related to Item V-454, and re- quested this matter be continued pending further review.-f As there was no public_\testimony to be given, Chairman Belanger directed UP-307 be Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1976, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review. E. GF-308 - Proposed Ordinance 60.2, An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 60~ the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, by Adding Article Four Thereto Relating to Special Subdivision Situations, and Sections Series 30 under Said Article Four Governing Community Housing (Condominiums~ et al) Conversions Staff gave a brief presentation regarding this proposed ordinance. Essentially, Mr. Burr explained that this proposed ordinance was a standard condominium con- version ordinance ~ith the following exceptions: (1) a stipulation of 2% total housing stock must be rental units before condominium conversion would be allowed; and (2) a stipulation of 3% vacancy rate must be reached prior to a conversion. Mr. Burr explained that the 2% total housing stock figure had been established as a minimum standard based on an equilibrium situation between multiple-family and single-family dwelling units in 1966-67. }k. Burr pointed out that currently the City h~d 9/1Orbs of 1% of the total housing stock as multiple-family dwelling units, and he noted that no conversions could take place until approximately 100 more rental units were constructed in the City. He explained that characteristically, Saratogan's multiple-family dwelling units served as a housing alternative for senior citizens, and he argued that the 2% projection was necessary in order to accormnodate these needs. -6- MAY 26, 1976 ~NUTES III. E. GF-308 - Proposed Ordinance 60.2 - Condominium Conversions - ContJ.d Regarding the 37° vacancy ~ate figure, Mr. Burr noted that this was a standard figure used throughout the planning practice as a determination for an abundance of family dwelling units. He explained that anytime a vacancy rate exceeded 37°, there was an oversupply. He stated: "In other words, if you have 3% of the multiple-family dwelling units vacant, then you can convert to condominium conversions if you have more than 2% of the housing stock in Saratoga as multiple-family dwelling units." Conmissioner Callon stated that she f~lt the 2% figure was too 1~¢. Conmissioner ~rshall pointed that that while the figures from adjacent cities would impli- cate that Saratoga was deficient in rental housing, the rental housing was quite different in Saratoga than in other cities in the Conty. It was pointed out that the proximity of industrial and cormnerdial centers had to be taken into consideration when discussing this 2% figure, and note was made that Saratoga was one of the most isolated communities in the County relative to the proximity of employment centers. The question was raised as to whether the representative of Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, who had applied for a condominion conversion of the Saratoga Creekside Apartments, was aware of this proposed ordinance. Staff explained that he was aware of this proposed ordinance, but had not felt it necessary to comment to the Commission on same. Note was also made that none of the apartment dwellers of Saratoga Creekside Apartments appeared at the Commission meeting to protest this ordinance. Brief discussion was had on the provision~allo~ing tenants to vote for condo- miniurn conversions by a 2/3 vote, and concerned was expressed by several ConmLis- sioners that financial coercion could be used to generate such a 2/3 vote. After additional discussion, it was the consensus of the Con~.~iission to delete provisions 30.3(a) regarding the 2/3 vote, and to change Item 30.3(b) to Item 30.3. At this point, Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on GF-308 at 9:15 p.m. As there was no public testimony given, Conmlissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on GF-308. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 9: 16 p .m. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Co.~-.~issioner Zambetti, that the Planning Conmaission accept GF-308, as amended, and fo~¢ard same to the City Council with the reconnnendation for approval. The motion was carried unanimously. IV. ~[ESCELLANEOUS A. UP-299 - Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, Verde Vista Lane, Resolution for Use Permit to Allow the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Conmercial Use in a Residential Zoning District 'Note was mad~'~hat a R~l~'t~'ff'h~d'b~'~ prepared by the City Attorney at the direction of the Con~nission, and the. reconnnendation was made that formal action be ~aken on UP-299 by ehe Co~m~is§i0n. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by ComnLissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution UP-299-1 per Exhibits "A" and "B". The motion was carried unanimously.. B. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery, Prospect Avenue, Request for Amendment to Original Use Permit Commissioner Marshall noted that the original map sent to the Cc~aission erroneously showed the change from the location of the office trailer from the north side of the site to the south side of the site. He explained, however, that the location of the office trailer was actually porposed to be in the middle of the property, as far away from adjacent homes as possible. Con~nis- sioner M~rshall pointed out that the applicant had agreed to plant evergreen -7- .~ ;. }FINUTES OF ~Y ~6, 1976 IV. B. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery - Cont'd trees surrounding the trailer, and that a condition had been put in the Staff Report prohibiting the use of power tools. At this point, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission adopt the amendment to UP-239 per Exhibit "X." The motion was carried unanimously. RECESS: 9:30 - 9:45 p.m. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Environmental Impact Determinations - None B. Other 1. Letter received from Sylvia Jean dated May 26, 1976 requesting a variance on a minimum access road. Also attached to this letter was a petition signed by residents on a private lane near Ms. Jean's property. This matter was referred to the Subdivision Committee for review, and Chairman Belanger directed this matter be continued to the Planning Conmission meet- ing of June 9, 1976. VI. ORAL CO~IUNICATIONS A.City Council Report - No City Council Report of the meeting of May 19, 1976 was given. B. Other 1. Commissioner Callon gave a brief report of the PPC meeting of April 29, 1976. She directed the Commission's attention to the PPC meeting minutes of April 29, 1976 included in the Cor~L~issioners' packets. 2. A brief status report was given by Commissioner Marshall regarding the development plans of the Garcia/Kirkorian property located on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and ProspectL~Road. Staff noted that the EIR would speak to the issue of the best type of anchor stores which should be included in the proposed shopping center, and that subsequent status reports would be given to the Commission and Subdivision Committee. 3. Commissioner Zambetti requested that revi~ of the drive-up window matter be agendized for Subdivision and Design Review Committee meetings. VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Cor~nissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, D6na~l'd ~o~Bu"i~~ Acting Secretary -8-