The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-08-1962 Planning Commission Minutes · ~t~gL4RY OF NINUTES CITY O'P, SARATOGA ~LAI~II~G CCI~tlSSION TiDe= 7:00 P. M., Hon~ay, January 8, 1962 Place: Fruitvale School, Fruitvale Avenue, SaratoSs, California Type: Regular Neetin5 I. ROUTINE OKCANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Chalr~- Webster at 7:00 P. M. A, ROLL CALL Present: Cva~.assioners Anderson= Crisps Gleans Johnson ann Webster° Absent: Com~ssioner Bennett, There xms a moi:.~.on by Counisstensr Olenns seconded by Co~m4estoner Johnsons that =he reading of the n.4. nutes of the last me°tin8 be waived and that -"he minutes be ai~p~'oved a~ mzhnitted to the Co~s- sion; motion car..r~ed ~mnntnouslyo IX, PUBLIC P~aiI~S Chairman Webster declared Public }learings open for the evenin8 at 7:02 Po N° V-20l - Rariella Lo All~.u~ers Hontalvo Lane o Variance from Fronta8e Reqnirements The Secretary advised that this application ~or n Variance had been vised by the applicant and tlmt it would be necessary to ~ail another Notice of Hearing in connets:ion with this matter° He further advised that there was a letter on files si~ned by the applicant, requestin~ =hat the Building Site Approval appl~.cation £iled In connection %rith the subject property be continued tu~til the me°tinS on January 22~ 1962, On the basis of this informations Chairman Webster directed that V-20Y be continued until the meeting on January 22s 1962~ so that a revised Notice of Hearing could be nailed, Chairman Webster declared Public Hearings closed for the evenin~ at ~:06 P, He, subject to V-207 being continued until the next regular meeting, pla.ein~,c~-~iselon M!nute~ - 3annsty ,8~ 1962 Illo EUBDIVISIONS. A~D BUlLRING SITES A, SDR-293 - Douglas Po Hineas Sobey Road - Building Site tpproval - 2 Lots /,it, Hines was present ands after discussion, expressed satisfaction with the proposed conditions of approval, ~here was a~otion by Corn~issioner Anderson~ seconded by Cor~ssioner Crisp, that the ten- tartrecap for SDR-293 (Exhibit A-2~ filed December 29, 1961), Dou81as P, Hines~ 2 lots on SobeyRoads be approved subject to the 13 condi~ionu enumerated in the Buildin~ Site C~mnittee Report dated Jantmry 5, 19621 ~oCion carried B.. .SDR-29~ - Nell Dollard~ PaloEELno ~ay - Butldin~ Site Approval - ~-Lots C° SDR-31G - Shel!sy ~$11tmns Associates, Palo~tuo ~ay - Buildtz~ Site ~pr0%~al ~. ~ Lots , , D° ~DR-3!.8 - Eo ~ Z'l~annan~ Palon.rue ~ay - 3uildin~ Site ~proval - Cor~ni~sioner Anderson advised that revised E~ps ~ere needed in con- necttonvl~h ~he above three (3) applications, since the E~.ps on iile vere prepared be~o~e the riah~-o~-vay l~ne for Palo~Lno~ay precisedo The ~ecretary reported that the ~ppltcants had been ad- vised of the need for ue~fnnps and that each applicant had filed a vritten co~nunteation requesting that the applications be continued until the meetin8 on January 22, 1962~ to give the~ adequate ti~ to c~ply ~tth this request, On the basis of this information, Chair- mR ~ebster directed thaC SDR-29~s SDR-316 a~t SDR-318 be continued until the nex~ regular DeeriDle E, SDR~326 - 14ariella L° A11tn~er, tbntalvo Lane - Butldin~ Site ~p- pt~val - 2 Lots Counisstoner Anderson advised that ~he revised ~ap for this appli- cation had not baen subnttted in sufficient t~n~ to be processed this nestiDes and zugaested that this rmt~er be continued until the next regular Deal:iDa, On the basis of this suSaestton, Chair=an ~ebs~er directed SDK-326 continued until the nee~in~ on Januazy 1962, ~, 8DR~331 - Irish Hone~l, Bia BaSin ~ay ~ Buildtn~ Site Approval - I Lot the Secretary s~ated that he had received a telephone call Donald ~alker~ appltcan~s representative, advising that he~ould be unable to att~na ~he meeting because of illness and requesttn~ that this appliea~ion be continued, A te~ter f~o~ the City Attorney pertaintn~ to this halter was read by the Secretary, C~..!ssiouar Anderson advised that the proposed ne~ building ~ould not only create PlanninR CoL~....iss~.on M.,in. ut_es - January 8~ 1962 - const III, F, SDR-331 - _Irish tlome,~ need fo~ t~o (2) additional parkln8 spaces, but x~ould eliminate (2) of the original five (5) parking spaces =equaTed. ~ advised tha~ the proposed bnilding ~ould use uuch needed mneuverin8 space and allo~.~ no access ~o ~he rear of ~h~s lo~. For ~hese reasonS~ i= ~as the consensu~ of ~he Comtssion that this a~pli~cion could uoc be approved. ~ere ~as a notion by Com~sioner ~lderson~ seconded by Com~ssioner Crisp, tha~ S~R~331 be denied on the basis tha~ it was ~practical a~ did not comply with the off=s~reet parki~ requ~re- ments; ~tion c~rried ~nimously, Chaim~ Webster requested the Secreta~ ac;v~.se th~ appli~nt that action was t~en because the C~tss~on fel~ that nothlns be Ealned by continnin8 the appl~cat~n, DESISt V, ~ BU~D~S~ ~e Secretary read a letter from the City Attem~.cy pertainin8 ~o ~e~- ~ents to the Zo~t~ 0rdi~en~e. It <~;as ~he suEges[iion of the SuMivision Co~ittee that thI~ hnatter be continued until several other minor uents could Be drafted, so that the Curm~ssion could hold a public heari~ on all the ~en~e~t3 a= the s~e t~I3, Duriu. aLb~ iufori~! discuuziou of propocc/c.~endmeLts~ the consens~s of the Co~.[ss~on was as fol].o~s: 1) Should Real Estate Offices be prohibited a3 h~e occupations and ~del Home Sales Offices be controlled in "A" aM '~" Districts? ~S 2)If a use is not listed, should it be ~nsider~ a prohibited use? ~S 3)Should the 0=dilute ~ecify nin~nm d~ensions a~ set-backs for each NO 4) Should both a ne~q~aper publication (required by la, q) a~ milin8 of individ~l ~otic~s he required in connection with a 6hanEe of Zon~ appl~cation~ ~e Comiss~on felt that this decision should Be ~de By the City Ad- m~nistrator and the City Attorney, 5) Should a prov~sion =o allow a rear ?ard sethback of 20% of the depth of a le~al non-~ominE lot of substandard depth (included ~n 3A~8) be added to 0rdi~uce ~S Plannin~ Cown4ssion Minutes - January 8~ 1962 - Coast V, 6) Is there need for a provision to allow a reduction in area of one lot to make another lot confern, as lon~ as the fi~st lot is not reduced to an area below the minimum standards? NO Should a siS~a provision be added to allow off-site directional and identification siSns for uses such as points of interest, semi-pub- lic and public institutions, business a:'eass etc,? YES 8)Is there need for requirin8 a minimum usable lot area as suBSeated by the City En~ineer? The Commission agreed to study this nattar, but expressad doubt that it would be necesearyo 9) Should the 30 day limit for Plannin~ Collation action in connection with Building Si~e Approval applications be dele:ed from the Ordinance? The Secretary was asked to :'e.quest an opinion £ron the City Attorney as to why this section was included in the Ordinance and whether it is needed, The Secretary was di=ect. ed to contact the City A-'torney and ask him to dra£t the additional amendments, Chairs_an ~ebster thanked Councilman Lan~w-ill for his presence at the neetinS, VI, OLD BUSINESS The Secret'sty displayed a copy of the Zoning O~dinAu~ce and advised that the printer expected to deiiver them before the end o~ the week. V'fl, CO~f0NICATIONS A, WRI'A~N The Secretary read a letter from CeorSe S. Nolte, Xnc. requesting that Brown and Eauffmann~ Inco be allowed to build four (4) model homes in ~heir new subdivislon before the final map was approved by the City Council. CHARLES ROCI~ELL was present to represen~ the appli~n~ and advised that it would take two (2) months to get =he final map ready. They would, therefores like to build the model homes before final proval and be ready to start the street construction 4r~ediately there- after, The general consensus o~ the Connission was that tl~ granting of this request would set a precedent that would create a problem in the future. Co.~.'Alssioner Anderson advised that th~ City Administrator had expressed more or less the sane opinion, There was a notion by Commissioner Crisps seconded by Commissioner Glenn, that the Planning C~a~ission reconnneud to the City Council that they deny the letter Plannin~ Coalesion Minutes - Jannat7 8~ 1962 - Con't VII. A. request submitted by George S. Nolte, Inc. on behalf of Brown and Kauffuann, inc,, dated January 5, 1962, ~hich re~2est was for per- mission to build node1 hones before approval of the final subdivi- sion nap; motion carried unanimously. ~ne Secretazy ~emilKIed the CoEnission that of£icers ~ould be elected and counttrees appointed a~ the meetin~ On Jalluary 22, 1962. Chaix~auWebs~er declared the neetin~ adjourned at 8:50 P. No Respectfully submitted, Stanley }i~ Secretary Saratoaa Planulna Connission V