Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~ISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 8, 1976 - 7:30 p~m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Martin and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners Marshall and Lustig B. MINUTES Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of November 22, 1976 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the follow- ing correction: page 1, add "reading of the" to the first line under Minutes. The motion was carried; Commissioner Belanger abstained. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Composition of Consent Calendar Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission approve the composition of the consent calendar of December 8, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. B. Items of Consent Calendar Commissioner: on~mmed, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning ..Call . r Commission grant approval of applications A-548 and SDR-1217 as follows: -. 1. Design Review a) A-548 - Ron Shoemack, Aloha Avenue, Final Design Review - 2 Lots Per Exhibit "A" and Staff Report dated November 23, 1976 2. Final Building Site a) SDR-1217 - Charles Robertson, Saratoga Avenue, Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The motion was carried unanimously. III. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-1270 Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 24 Units, Condominium Conversion; Continued- from November 22, 1976 .............. It was noted that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this application on several occasions, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Chairman Belanger made the following opening statement: "l~en we reviewed the possible conversion of these units into condominiums, we looked at the housing alternatives in the community and found that the number of our rental units was extremely low. In view of that, we proposed an ordinance that would tend to retain the number of rental units that we had. We sent this ordinance to the -. -1- / CO~ISSION MINUTES OF ECEMBER 8, 1976 .... I!Jr.~ A. SD-1270 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation - Cont'd City Council and they passed the ordinance, but made one important exception; that was to except this particular application from this ordinance. This is 24 units which was essentially the major part of the stock that we already had. In my view, that made the ordinance rather meaningless in terms of leaving the communitX with any rental units. So it is with great relunctance that I con- t~nue to_~x.ffer wl~h the Council because I believe that accepting't~'e~4 units is in violafion of our General Plan which calls for the provision of a' multiplicity of housing alternatives. ~O~j. hat basis, because I am against the conversion entirely, I am going to vote-no on ~is matter. The conditioning does not make the conversion acceptable tO"~e." In response to this statement, ~he S~cretary explained that the Condominium Conversion Ordinance regulated the conversion of apartmentsuse to condominium use, and was adopted by the City Council in A~gust 1976. He pointed out that included in the provision of the ordinance was an exception for any applications which were filed prior to the effective date of this ordinance. The Secretary stated that in accordance with the ordinance as amended and adopted by the City Council, the applicant submitted an.application meeting all requirements and specifications of the ordinance'S.f%_l.ing criteria. -- ! Both Commissioners Callon and Martin agreed with Chairman Belanger's position; however, they both expressed the opinion that to deny this application would be unduly penalizing the applicant for a decision made by the City Council. A question arose as to whether the tenants were aware of the conditions of the Staff Report, especially the improvement of Saratoga Avenue. Jerry Lohr, · ap~i~ant's representative, stated that he had explained to the tenants at the ti'm~{[~gned the conversion petition that he did not know what the City's conditions' would be. He added, however, that they would all receive copies of the-CC&Rs'at ti~e 8~'~hase and would consequentiv be made aware of all con- ditions. Relative'to t~ imp~6~emen£ 6f Saratoga A~enue, Mr. Lohr stated that he could not give his tenants an accurate estimate of an improvement that might not be made for many years, but he noted that payment would come in the form of an assessment district wHiCh t~pic~ily could be amortized over a period of 15 years. He added that the price of the units, as quoted to the tenants 21 months ago, would be $39,9S0; and he stated that this amount would not be raised. Mr. Lohr noted that general real estate in Saratoga had risen 25%, and he ex- pressed the opinion that if the price of the units was a reasonable deal for the tenants when the price was first quoted, it would be a better deal now even though in the future they might have to pay a pro-rata share for improvements. At this time Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant tentative subdivision approval to application SD-1270 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated December 6, 1976. The motion was carried; Chairman Belanger voted no. B. SD-1280 - N. Billawala, Alton Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 11 Lots Note was made that this matter had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant tentative subdivision approval to application SD-1280 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated December- 2, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. C~ SD~1284 - W. L~posavic, Sperry Lane, Tentative'Subdivision Approval'- 6 Lots Note was made that this matter had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. It was pointed out that appeal of application SDR-1274 (under Item VI-B) related directly to this application in that both had been conditioned consistently. Staff explained that the applicant had the opportunity to request reconsideration of conditions if he so desired. The applicant was.present, however, and made no comments with regards to this application. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant tentative subdivision approval to application SD-1284 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated December 2, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously. -2- CO~{ISSION MINHJTES OF D~ECEMBER 8, 1976 /IV. - PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery Company, 7920 Rainbow~DFive,' Request to Amend Use Permit (UP-239) to Allow for the Expansion of Existing ~olesale Nursery Operation into the Proposed West Valley Freeway Right-of-Way Lands North of Cox AvenUe; Continued from November 22, 1976 Commissioner Martin explained that per amendments made by the Subdivision Commit- tee m_~eeting in its review of this matter on December 7, 1976, the Staff Report ~da~pd December 6, 1976 should be modified as follows: Condition 17. Telephone horn to be removed and an inside telephone bell to be substituted by January 1, 1977. Condition 18. Ingress/egress of large trucks/tractors prohibited on Cox Avenue excepting where access from Prospect Road is disrupted due to creek water level. Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on UP-239 at 8:10 p.m. · Michael Botini, 19726 Yuba Court, objected to the granting of this expansion on the basis that the present open land would no~longer be available for use by neighboring residents. He stated that he considered this open space to be some of the last natural open land in the City as opposed to suburban land, and he expressed the opinion that the land, in its present condition, was not an eyesore. He requested the Commission to pFovide at least 2 acres of this land as open space for the public./Additi0~lly, Mr. Botini contended that the increased amount of trees and shrubbery in this area would add to the existing pollen count in the air, and he pointed out to the Commission that he suffered from allergy problems. In response to these statements, note was made that the State owned this right-of-way land, and that "no trespassing" signs were posted on the site. Chairman Belanger explained that in order to reserve 2 acres of this land as an informal park, permission would have to be given by the State. Note was made that the State had written a letter to the City stating that this Nursery was a very desirable tenant, and that they were very much in favor of the land being used in this manner. Additionally, comments were made to the fact that the original use permit had been granted as a way in which to __keep the right-of-w~y ~n~ cleap. Of ~arbage and weeds, and ~ree of 0~t§~de uses, such as motor cycles. Commissioner Martin also added that the additional tzees and shrubs should reduce the amount of pollen from weeds presently grc.~ing on the site. · George Lee, Solano Drive, asked if there would be trees bordering adjacent residential fences. He also asked where the service roads for this expan- sion would be located, and whether there would be any spraying of the trees located along the fences. Commissioner Martin explained that-=the Nursery agreed to install large evergree-t}~e trees along these fences for screening purposes. Also, he explained that the service road would be located in the center of the property, and that a circulation plan for the road system was required to be~submitted for approval by the Planning Commission before ' January 8, 1977. He explained that the applicant was required to oil and screen these roads every 3 months to prevent potential dust problems. Regarding the question on spraying, Staff explained that the chemical fertilizers being used were not sprayed, but rather, were injected into the planter pots. This information was verified by Mr. Stockman, manager of the Nursery, who gave a more detailed description of the process. Chairman Belanger suggested that 'Condition (7) of the Staff Report regard- ing the prohibition of deciduous trees along the perimeter of the property be modified to include a stipulation that evergreen trees shall be installed adjacent to residential areas. Said condition was modified as follows: -3- CO..x~IISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, '1976 C' IV. A. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery Company - Cont'd Condition 7: Storage of deciduous trees and shrubs within 20 feet of""""' perimeter of right-of-way prohibited. Evergreen trees required to be located adjacent to residential areas to screen nursery operation. At this time Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public hearing on UP-239 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:3S p.m. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant approval to application UP-239 per Exhibit "I" and the Staff Report dated December 6, 1976, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. V. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-S47 - James Day Construction Company, Douglass Lane and Taos Drive, Final Design Review Approval - Landscaping of Subdivision Entry Staff explained that the applicant was in the process of submitting a revised plot plan, and the recommendation was made that this matter be continued. Chair- man Belanger directed that application A-S47 be continued to the Planning Com- mission meeting of January 12, 1977, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. VI. MISCELLANEOUS A. Up~2~_= Lyn~soj Garden Materials, Inc. (John LFngso), 1240S S. Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Reconsideration of Use Permit UP-296; Continued from November 22, 1976 'Th?C~'~ission discussed whether or not this matter required a public hearing ~ in order to discuss the possible modifications of the use permit in light of th~ correspondence between the citx_~ttorney and the~applicant.'s attorney re- k~di~'Condi~lon'8 ~'the'us'e permit. Commissioner Callon noted that this mat- ter had been continued from the last Commission meeting because the Commission wanted to discuss this matter with the City Attorney. Insomuch as the Eity Attorney was not present at th~s meeting, Commissioner ~allon objected to publicly noticing this matter until after the Commission had discussed with the City Attorney the issue of whether or not Condition 8 had been complied with by the applicant. Note was made, however, that if the Commission waited until the next Commission meeting (January 12, 1977) to discuss this matter with the City Attorney, the matter could not be publicly heard until the first Commission meeting in February, 1977. The point was made that Condition 8 re-! quired the applicant to enter into a signed agreement Dy October 1976, and concern was expressed by several of the Commissioners over the additional time delay. At this time Richard Gardella, attorney representing Lyngso Garden Materials and John and Mary Lyngso, indicated that he had not been given sufficient notice regarding the meetings most recently held by the City on this matter. Specifically, he noted that he had received a call from Staff on November 19, 1976 advising him that this matter had been placed on the Commission agenda of November 22, 1976; that he received an agenda on December 6th for a Sub- division Committee meeting to be held on December 7th; and that he had re- ceived a call from Staff on December 6th explaining that the City Attorney would be out of town for the December 8th Commission meeting. He added: "But we nave never seen any statement from Mr. Johnston as to what procedures we are operating under, or exactly why we are here." He requested that the City Attorney prepare a written statement outlining the procedures under which this matter was operating, and an explanation as to the reason why this matter was presently being discussed. Chairman Belanger stated that she felt Mr. Gardella understood the reason why this matter was being heard, and she cited the City Attorney's letter to Mr. Gardella regarding Condition 8 of the use permit. Additionally, the Secretary / -4- COI~{IS5ION MINIFrES OF DECEMBER 8, 1976 VI. A. UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. - Cont'd took issue with Mr. Gardella's statements regarding noticing of this matter. He pointed out that Mr. Gardella was in attendance at the last Commission meet- ing~_~j which time this matter had been continued to December 8, 1976. He pointed out that he had called Mr. Gardella~ December 6th as a courtesy to advise him that the City Attorney would be 6ut of to~m"on December 8th in order to allow him the opportunity to continue this matter and cancel the request for a court reporter. The Secretary noted that Mr. GardeIla had declined the offer to continue this matter. Additionally, he pointed out that he had explained to Mr. Gardella on December 6th that the Subdivision Committee meeting of December 7th had been improperly noticed, and that UP-296 had been taken o~f the agenda for discussion. After additional discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission, with the exception of Commissioner ~allon, that Staff De directed to publicly notice reconsideration of UP-296 for the PlanniDg Commission meeting of January 12, 1977. chairman Belanger explained that reconsideration meant that the use permit would be reviewed again, but that it did not imply that changes to-:the use permit would necessarily be made. B. SDR-1274 - D. Antovich, Sperry Lane, Request for Reconsideration of Public Works Department Conditions on Tentative Map Approval Note was made that a letter dated December 3, 1976 had been received from the applicant requesting reconsideration of Public Works Department conditions on tentative map application SDR-1274. Specifically, Mr. Antovich objected to improving the total Spbrry Lane frontage of his two sites. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to refer this matter to the Subdivision Committee for review and discussion with the applicant. Chairman Belanger directed that application SDR-1274 be continued to the Planning Commis- sion meeting of January 12, 1977. VII. WRITTEN CO~IUNICATIONS A. Environmental Impact Determinations The following Negative Declaration was filed November 30, 1976: · SDR-1289 - Donald R. McCormack, Douglass Lane, Tentative Site Approval for 2 Lots "R~C'~S~ 9:20 - ~:35 p.m. B. Other 1. The Planning Commission discussed planning priorities, with special interest 'expressed on broad, long-range planning. Commissioner Laden stated that she felt more Commissioner time shohld be spent in long- range planning in lieu of design review applications. She suggested that a survey be taken of directions that individual Commissioners and Staff personnel would like to take with regards to more effective City planning. She volunteered to conduct this survey, and stated that a presentation of the results would be made in early 1977. A suggestion was made by the Secretary to try on an experimental basis alternating the Design Review Committee's responsibilities by reviewing design review applications as well as discussing policy sections of the existing General Plan. Commissioner Laden stated that she would take this into considera- tion in her report. VIII. ADJOUR.,X~ENT Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. sko/ Marry Va~uyn, SecreCy