Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-22-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~IISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 22, 1976 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Martin and Zambetti Absent: None B. MINUTES Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the reading of the Commission meeting minutes of September 8, 1976 be waived, and that they be_a~proved subject to the following corrections: page 1, change word "Agenda" to~"Minutes"; page 3, add word "not" after word "was" on 6th line from top of page; Item IV-D, correct misspelling of Mrs. Rodoni's name. The motion was carried; Commissioners Lustig and Martin abstained due to absence. II. CONSENT CALANDAR A. Composition of Consent Calendar Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Composi- tion of the Consent Calendar of September 22, 1976 be approved. The motion was carried unanimously. B. Items of Consent Calendar Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission approve the following applications: 1. Final Building Sites a) SDR-1106 - Mary Lynn Dutro, Big Basin Way, Final Building Site ApprOval for 1 Lot SDR-1263 - Charles Kunsman, Farwell Avenue, Final Building Site Approval for 1 Lot c) PM-3 - Stoneson Development Fieldstone Drive, Approval of Lot Line Adjustment 2. Design Review a) A-539 - John Chatz, Mt. Eden Court, Final Design Review Approval, Single- Family Residence - 1 Lot; Per Exhibit "A" and Staff Report dated September 14~ 1976 b) A-S40 - Eldred Kunkel, Comer Drive, Final Design Review Approval, Single- Family Residence, Tract #5693, Lot #1; Per Exhibit "A" and Staff Report dated September 14,. 1976 The motion was carried unanimously. -1- C0~'~]ISSION MINUTES OF ~E_PTEMBER 22, 1976 III. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS/FINAL BUILDING SITES A. SDR-1250 - Security Pacific National Bank, Big Basin Way, Request for Appeal of Conditions VI-A and VI-B on'Tentative Site Approval This matter was deferred until after the Public Hearing Section had been considered in order to allow more time for the applicant to arrive. After this Section had been considered, the SDR=1250 appeal was again addressed. It should be noted that there were no representatives for the applicant present. Commissioner Marshall noted that although the bank had requested action on this appeal matter at the September 22nd meeting, he felt this item should be continued. He stated: "If we were to act upon the request in totality, to be consistent we would have to act negatively toward the bank in the drive-up window matter." Consequently, Commissioner Marshall argued that this item be continued, and that the parking matter be segregated from the matter of the drive-up window. As there were no objections from any member o__f the audience nor from members of the Commission, Chairman Eelanger directed.-that SDR-1250 be _Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of OctOber 13, 1976, and that it be referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review and report!. B. SD-1235 - George Day Construction Company, Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval - S Lots; Continued from July 28, 1976 Staff noted that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting a 60 day exten- sion of this application. As there were no objections to the requested continuance, Chairman Eelanger directed that SD-1235 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 1976, and referred this item to the Subdivision Committee for further review and report. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-183 - Caleb Properties, Zorka Avenue, Request for Change of Zoning for a 4.78± Acre Parcel Located between Zorka Avenue and the Southern Pacific Rail- road from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-l-10,000 PC" (Single-Family Residential, Planned Community); Continued from 9-8-76 Staff noted that a letter dated September 22, 1976 had been received from the applicant's representative, Warren Heid, requesting that this matter be withdrawn. It was explained that the applicant.was .still interested in pursuing the feasi- bility of senior citizen housing for this site, but felt that the process would be long. Consequently, the applicant requested this matter be.~;f{haH~=H/~ith the option to reapply. Staff recommended that the Commission accept the letter of withdrawal without prejudice so that the applicant, if desired, could reapply '~or a change of zoning within al'year's time. It was expf~i~d"t~ should the .i 'Commission accept the withdrawal otherwise, the applicant would not be able to reapply for a change of zoning for 0he year. ' .... Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission accept the letter of withdrawal on application C-183 without prejudice. The motion was carried unanimously. B. UP-314 - Spaich Corporation, 20401Miljevich Drive, Request for Use Permit in Accordance with the Provisions of Article 15 of Ordinance NS-3 (Zoning Ordinance) to Allow for the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Commercial Use in a Residential District; Continued from 9-8-76 Staff explained that the applicant had submitted a plan calling for the reloca- tion of the fruit stand onto the middle portion of the site next to an existing oak tree with access off ofjSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Commissioner Marshall noted that this plan had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee at its meeting of September 21, 1976, and that the Committee had recommended relocating the stand such that access would be taken off of Miljevich Drive. He explained that Mr. Miljevich's proposal would require more signage and could be more hazardous with access off of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road than the Committee's .plan. He added, however, that there appeared to'be a palatable solution to this issue which -2- COb!MISSION MINIJTES OF .q~-TF__~IBER 22, 1976 IV. B. UP-314 - Spaich Corporation - Cont'd would not detract from the applicant's business. Note was made that the City Attorney had been consulted on whether or not the ordinance permitted the relocation of existing buildings on the property. The City Attorney stated that the provision§ of the non-conf6rming use section of the Zoning Ordinance which relates to moving, enlarging, expanding or relocating existing structures on site related to the voluntary moving by the property owner which was prohibited. He added, however, that the Commission had the power in granting the use permit to require moving of a structure as a non- voluntary action. He stated that he would put this opinion in writing for future reference. At this time Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on UP-314 at 7:48 p.m. As there was no testimony offered, the public hearing :on UP~3i4 was closed at 7:49 p.m., continued to the Commission meeting of October 13, 1976, and referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review and report. C. GF-510 - City of Saratoga, Amendment to Ordinance NS-3 (Zoning Ordinance), Section 3.3 Entitled "Conditional Uses, One-Family Residential Districts," and Section 5.3 Entitled "Conditional Uses, Multiple-Family Residential Districts", by Adding Thereto "Family Care Homes" as a Conditional Use Staff explained that the City Attorney had prepared a resolution and ordinance amending Sections 3.3 and 5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to conform with recently adopted State law which requires that family care homes be allowed in residen- tial districts. The City Attorney explained that the State law speCifies.that 'fiiily care homes are a permitted use mandatorily in residential zones unless action is taken by individual cities to make such use a conditional use. Note ; was made that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this item, and was endors- ing the resolution and ordinance amendment allowing f~mily care homes__as a con- ditional use in the City's r~'i~aihtial zones. Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on GF-310 at 7:50 p.m. As there was no public testimony offered, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public hearing on GF-310 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 7:52 p.m. Commissioner Marsh~}__~gy~d, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission approve Resolution GF-310 as per the Staff Report dated September 16, 1976, and that the Commission forward to the City Council for approval said Resolution and proposed ordinance amendment. The motion was carried unanimously. V. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-526 - Jerry Lee Harris, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design Review Approval - Commercial Expansion; Continued from 8-25-76 Staff noted that a letter requesting withdrawal had been received from the appli- cant's attorney, and the recommendation was made that the Commission accept said request. Staff explained that this request was per a recent court decision wher'eby the applicant would be removing from this site the structures involved in this application. As a result, Staff pointed out that there was no need to further design review deliberations on this matter. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission accept?the letter of withdrawal on application A-526. The motion was carried unanimously. B. A-528 - Geraldine Gamaunt, Cox Avenue (Quito Shopping Center), Final Design Review Approval - Commercial Expansion; Continued from 8-25-76 Staff explained that as a result of the action taken on File A-526, this matter could now be resolved. Staff noted that the applicant was requesting 2 minor additions to the existing commercial development: one for an unenclosed roof extension at the rear of the main building., and the other for a free-st~ndin~ -3- CO~B4ISSION MINUTES OF ~TEMBER 22, 1976 V. B. A-528 - Geraldine Gamaunt - Cont'd bird aviary. Staff pointed out that a variance had been granted by the Commission in August 1976 in regards to this bird aviary (V-458). Note was made that the Design Review Committee had reviewed and endorsed this project, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission grant Final Design Review approval to application A-528 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated September 14, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. C. A-531 - Plant World, Cox Avenue '(Quito Shopping Center), Final Design Review Apprpval - Commercial Expansion; Continued from 8~25~76 Staff explained that the applicant was.preparipg revised plans with regards to this matter, and the recommendation was made that this item be continued to the second Commission meeting~in October. Chairman Belanger directed that application A-531 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of D~'f'6ber 27, ~97',6~d'~'f~Ff~d~h'is matter to ~'D~ign ~Review Committee for further review and report. D. A-537 - Security Pacific National Bank, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review Approval 1 Lot - Commercial; Continued from 9-8-76 Staff noted that no new submissions had been received from the applicant for the rear of this site:which calls'f~r-two drive=through facilities. Staff explained that resolution of the drive=through facilities matter was necessary prior to taking action on this design review application. Consequently, Staff recommended that A-537 be continued to the October 27, 1976 meeting. Chairman Belanger directed that application A-537 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 1975, and ~fe~d~h'i~ matter'to the Design Review Committee.E~'~':'further review and report. VI. MISCELLANEOUS ~ A. Status Report: West Valley College Proppsed Stadium and Ski Lights.' : It was explained that representatives of West Valley College met with the Design Review Committee at its meeting on September 21st to discuss changes to the sports stadium plans proposed to be located at the West Valley College campus. Further, presented to the Committee for consideration was a use policy intended to address how many events would be held at the stadium, how often and-at what' times. Commissioner Lustig, as chairman of the Design Review Committee, stated that he discouraged discussion of this matter at the Committee level unless a directire from the City Council had been received as to whether it desired this issue reopened. He also urged the Commission to take the same position and not consider ~hese revised plans until said directire had been received. Councilman Kraus was present and informed the Commission that he and Councilwoman Corr had formed a committee representing the City which met with representatives of the West Valley College Governing Board relative to the stadium issue. He stated that although each party gained a clearer understanding of the problems each were facing, no agreements were reached. He stated that he felt the College had submitted these revised plans for approval under the existing use permit on the basis that they did not feel the stadium was a large-scale facility. The Secretary reported that the tran~i~t~l'l~ll'er for these revised plans stated that the College desired the City to review said plans in compliance with the 1967 use permit. He explained that essentially the changes dealt with modifications to the public address system, minor changes to the press box and that the score board had been lowered on one side, but noted that the seating capacity of 5760 had not been changed. -4- CO~IISSION MINUTES OF ~_~IBER 22, 1976 VI. A. Status Report: West Valley College Proposed Stadium and Ski Lights The Secretary pointed out that earlier this year the College had submitted plans for the proposed stadium to the City for approval. He noted that the City had informed the College that the application was not in compliance with Condition 7 of the 1967 use permit, said condition being: "The campus shall not include an outdoor sports stadium designed for large-scale public attendance at inter- collegiant games or events." The Secretary stated that the College had asked how they could comply with the use permit, and that the City had suggested they file for an amended use permit. He pointed out that the application amending the use permit was denied by the Commission and was taken on appeal to the City Council who affirmed the Commission's action. The Secretary stated that in his opinion, if the Commission had denied an earlier application for approval of the stadium because it was not in compliance with the 1967 use permit, the Commission should substantiate its earlier recommended action on the same basis. He suggested as an alternative action, the Commission reopen the use permit matter and redefine the intent of Condition 7. He also introduced into the record a resolution submitted by the West Valley Taxpayers and Environment!- Association requesting the Commission to adopt said resolution which "urges and admonishes the Board of Trustees of the West Valley Joint Community College District to cease and desist its proposed violation of the January 9, 1967 use permit and strongly recommends that the City Council of Saratoga concur in these findings and this resolution." Note was made that the College had made a survey of the stadiums at Colleges in northern and central Californi&, with the average capacity being 5154. Chairman Belanger noted that at least 19 of the 35 stadiums listed were smaller in size than that proposed at West Valley College, and added that 4 of the colleges had facilities over 10,000 which raised the average. Commissioner Marshall stated that this list was not pertinent unless additional information was provided; i.e., the size of the stadiums relative to the student populations. He stated that a 5700-seat stadium was "large" when compared to the enrollment of 5,000 students, which was the maximum amount of enrollment allowed under'..the 1967 use permit. Further, he noted that the list did not specify whether the stadiums were large-scale public or large-scale student, adding that a 5700-seat stadium sounded as though it was devoted to the amusement of the public. Additionally, the following comments were made: ® Commissioner Marshall pointed out that the original use permit did not call for a sports stadium, but for a practice field. He stated: "The plans were changed and suddenly it became descriptive of a sports stadium rather than a practice field." He stated that the intent of the 1967 use permit in not allowing a sports stadium had been that the City did not want masses of traffic to the campus at different times of the day or night in that it would : be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the City. He noted that at the time the College agreed to this concept, but that during the interim period, the nature of the junior college had changed to that of a community college. Consequently, Commissioner Marshall proposed that the Commission: "redefine, for the benefit of the Governing Board, that Condition (7) means exactly what it says: that is, that it is a large-scale public attendance~ oriented stadium, and that large scale public attendance is defined as those sessions at which a majority of people attending are the public, non-student oriented,'and which are for the benefit of the amusement of the public ~t large." Chairman Bela~g_er stated that she had a .problem With this concept in that it took-the emphasis off of "large-scale facility" and put it on "public."r She suggested that the_Col!_ege could assert that anyone who attended the College was not a member of the public, pointing out that the community : college "had managed to enroll ~imost every citizen in the West Valley Di~tri~ · n at least one course." She requested that this concept be reviewed by the - 'Colamission in more detail. ; Concerning the West Valley Taxpayers and Environment Association's petition, : E~issioner Marshall argued against taking any action on this because there ~ .were several defects in the resolution. -5- COB~IISSION MINUTES. OF ~TEMBER 22, 1976 VI, A. Status Report: West Valley College Proposed Stadium and Ski Lights Commissioner Marshall urged the Commission to reaffirm the 1967 use permit and.to point out to the College that "large is relative to the size of the school as it was intended to be, not as it is to date, and that a stadium was never intended at all." ® Commissioner Martin favored a redetermination of the 1967 use permit, and urged discussion of this redetermination with the City Council. ® Commissioner Laden favored a directive as to whether the City Council wished the Commission to reopen the stadium issue, either at a design review level or as a use permit matter. ® Commissioner Callon favored the Council giving the Commission a directive on this issue, but did not feel that a joint session with the Council was needed. ® The City Attorney pointed out that the problem relative to this issue re- lated to the interpretation of the language contained in Condition 7 of the 1967 use permit, and he suggested that the Commission more accurately define what was meant by Condition 7. He noted that the Commission had a reserve power to do this, and suggested that it be done in written form. Steve Keller, representative of the College in charge of the construction pro- gram, was present and explained the course of events relative to the proposed stadium plans. He noted that the Governing Board approved the stadium's preliminary plans, and discussed the use policy for the facility at its meet- ing of September 2, 1976. He added that said use policy was scheduled for further consideration, and ~ossible action, at its September 23rd meeting. Further, Mr~ Keller stated that the Board requested him to resubmit the pro- ject's amended .plans to the City's Design Review Committee for consideration. He stated: "I personally feel that all of'£he CommiSsioners do not understand all of the components of the project and all of the mitigating measures that we have built into the project. Further, and this is my personal view, over the past several years there has been a strong feeling that the College District and the City iack good communication on this issue and perhaps many others. I think it was in that spirit that the Governing Board asked that the project be started through the Design Review process again so that all of the design review components can be discussed so that we can find out what parts of the project are objectionable; and if there can be something worked out, we can get the project mutually agreeable to both parties. It is our desire to start the project through the design review function to better explain the components and to also hopefully improve communication between the two agencies." Regard- ing the use policy, Mr. Keller stated that he felt the policy greatly reduced the number of cars and attendance at the events from that which was previously intended. At this time Commissioner Laden moved, seconded by Commissioner .Lustig, that the Commission continue the~matter of the design review plans submitted by West Valley College of the propOSed ~tadium pending a directlye from the City Council as to whether they desired this issue reopened, and at the same time, to redefine what was meant by Condition (7) of the 1967 use permit. Commissioner Martin requested that the motion also include reference to a joint Council/Commission meeting to discuss this matter. Chairman Belanger suggested that the Commission ask the Council for a directlye and include in that request the Commission's interpretation of what the use policy should be. Commissioner Marshall explained that he would vote against this motion because Councilman Kraus had pointed out that dialogue between the Council and Govern- ing Board had not resolved anything, adding: "I would rather see us reaffirm the 1967 use permit." -6- '~0~-~IISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1976 VI. A. Status Report: West Valley College Proposed Stadihm and Ski Lights Commissioner Callon Concurred with this position of reaffirming the use permit and denying the design review application. She stated that when the College applied for an amendment to the original use permit earlier this year, she voted against this on the basis that the stadium Vi~l~ed land use practice in this area and created problems which could better be solved by the stadium being located at the Mission campus. She stated that she felt she was being backed into a corner by the College of agreeing to a smaller-seated stadium, when in fact she did not want a stadium at all. She stated: ~"For the'Fe'~ ,' : interest of the City and the College, if wJh_a__t__t._h_e.y_~need is a stadium2.to promote their collegiate activi.t-ies, it should be-built elsewhere, namely the Mission campus." The vote was called for and carried; Commissioners Callon and Marshall voted no. Chairman Belanger asked that the Subdivision Committee review--Condition (7)-. of the 1967 use permit. It was requested that statistical information regard- ing stadium capacities compared with student enrollment of community colleges in California be provided, and further, that the Committee discuss "stadium" versus "practice field or P.E. facility." Chairman Belanger asked for an opinion from the Commission concerning the resolution submitted by the West Valley Taxpayers and Environment Association, noting that Commissioner Marshall found defects in it which made him relunc- rant to adopt such. Commissioner Callon suggested that the resolution be taken under advisement until after the Subdivision Committee had reviewed the 1967 use permit provisions. As there was no further discussion on this item, Chairman Belanger directed that per Commissioner Laden's motion, the issue on the West Valley College prop0.,sed -'stadium plans be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 1976 ~ ?P~h'di~d'ir~'iV~""f~F~h?C'i~Co'~i'iy'~H~'~ferred this matter to the -Subdivision Committee for review of the 1967 use permit provisionsr ............ :_. VII. -WRITTEN COb~RJNICATIONS A. Environmental Impact Determinations ~ The following Negative Declarations were flied'between t~e peFi~dYf'~[~b~Fd ~ and September 17th: "=""SDR='l'26]47P'& S"'C~nst ruc t i~H" (Nli[h~ l'Pes~)'F' Fi~'~6 ~"'R~d~'BUi' l'din~Sl t e : Approyal ~ 2 Lots ~ SDR-1265 - Lee Hancock:Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots - CrfSSYt~rsen '&'B'i~arl'Pro~iF,'~Hl~y'Wa~7Ch~ge ~f'Z~Hi~'from "R-1-40,000" to "R-1-20,000" -. Commissioner MarsH~l'l'asked why an EIR had not been required for C-185. The 'Secretary explained that the change of zoning request was .~'o~s'~ent with the 1974 General Plan and the City's environmental determination policy; conse- quently it would only require a Negative Declaration, not'an EIR. B. Other 1. PPC Agenda of September 30, 1976 and the PPC Minutes of August 25, 1976. VIII. ORAL C0~jNICATIONS A. City Council Report - Commissioner Callon gave a detailed report of the City Council meeting held September 15, 1976. A copy of the minutes of this meet- ing is on file at the City Administration office. -7- CO~BIlSSION MINUTES OF ~TEMBER 22, 1976 VIII.ORAL CO~B-~NICATIONS - Cont'd B. Other 1. The Secretary suggested that October S, 1976 at ?:30 p.m. in the Crisp Conference Room, a Commission Committee-of-the-I~lole meeting be held to discuss the draft EIR:on ~h?G~rcia/Kirkorian property located on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and'PrOspect Road. After brief discussion of this, it was the consensus of the Commission to hold a Committee-of-the~l~ meeting on Tuesday, October S, 1976. Note was made that Commissioner Laden and the City Attorney would not be able to attend. 2. Dick Loewke, Planning Staff member, gave a brief status report of the grading and retaining wall problems on Lots #2 and #3 of Tract #S461 on Chiquita Way. He explained that the company who prepared the original soils report on this tract recommended that the developer adhere to the original retaining wall plan. Additionally, the recommendation was made to construct a 3-foot redwood retaining wall on the Skinher drive-way (Lot #2). Mr. Loewke noted that these recommendations were acceptable to the City, to the developer and to the 2 property owners. S. Chairman Belanger welcomed Councilman Kraus-'-to the meeting, and expressed appreciation to Mrs. Mary Maus and the Good Government Group for serving coffee. IX. ADJOURNSlENT Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mar , ,~~ sko/ -8-