Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-1966 Planning Commission Minutes SDT.~RY OF MINUTES CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION TIME: Monday, 10 October 1966, 7:30 P. M. PLACE: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION ~ne meeting was called to order by Chairman Norton at 7:30 P. M. A. ROLL CALL :- Present: Commissioners Crisp, Johnson, Kasner, Kellum, McFall, Norton .....:.. and O'Rorke. Absent: None. B. MINUTES Connnissioner McFall moved, seconded by commissioner Johnson, that the reading of the minutes of 26 September 1966 be waived and that the minutes be approved subject to the following correction: Pa~e 5...Item II-H (C-64)...first paragraph....second line: Change "published" to "mailed';. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Crisp, with concurrence of the Commission, commended Mrs. Loher for the capable handling of the minutes in the absence of Mrs. Voges. ~ !i. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DR. YOUNG - Informal Hearing on Request that "Pet Clinic:' be added to the List of Permitted Uses for the Community Commercial (C-C) Zoning District (Village Area) - Continued from 26 September 1966 The continued hearing on Dr. Young's request was resumed at 7:34 P.M. . rae Secretary briefly reviewed this matter and read a communication from Dr. Young, requesting that action on this request be deferred un- til the meeting on 24'October since he had been called out of town and would be unable to 'attend the meeting on 10 October. John J. Hayes, Jr., attorney, protested further continuance of this matter on the basis that sufficient time had already been given to study and review of this matter. Commissioner Crisp observed that 1) the informal hearing had been open for three meetings 2) he felt it would be an imposition on those con- cerned to continue this matter again and 3) he could see no reason to continue it further. -1- ?.ian~!x~g Comnission Minutes - 10 October 1966 - Continued ii. A. Dr. Young Warren. Heid, representing the applicant, stated that he had nothing to add to Dr. Young's request for continuance ~cept that the con- tinuance would be sincerely appreciated. In answer to a question from Chairman Norton, the Commission indi- cated that .there appeared to be no need for further information or review of this nmtter. Clarence Neale, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, spoke in favor of granting Dr. Young's request for continuance until he could be present. In answer to an inquiry, Mr. Heid was advised that Conmissioner Ke!lum was the only member of the Commission who had visited any.of Dr. Young's clinics and that'none of the other members felt they would be able to do so in the near future. ~ Hayes observed 1) the question before the Commission was whether or not '~Pet ClinicI' was a proper use for the C-C Zoning District and 2) Dr. Young's clinics, specifically, were not subject ~o review at this time. Mrs. Wilbur Worden, o~.mer of the subject property, pointed out to the Commission that the residents opposing the proposed Pet Clinic · - were across the creek from the proposed site, and that Messrs.. Purcell and Neale, more adjacent property owners, had not opposed same. Mr. Neale reaffirmed his support of the proposed use and stated that he felt the Pet Clinic, as proposed, would be a credit to Saratoga. ~ Commissioner Xel!~ advised that after long and careful study the Subdivision Committee was prepared to make a recommendation relative ~ '~'.- to Dr. Young's request. Commissioner Crisp then:~ead the report "' which recommended denial of same. Chairman Norton declared the informal hearing closed at 7:55 P. M. It was moved by Commissioner McFall and seconded by Coma~issioner Kasner that the Subdivision Con~aittee Report of 10 October 1966 relative to Dr. Young's request that '~et Clinic" be added to the list of permitted uses in the Community Commercial (C-C) Zoning District be adopted and that the recommendation contained therein that this request be denied be the action of the Comnission; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Norton pointed out to the property o~,mer that although the. subject request had been denied, the property was still open to develop- ment of any of the pezTaitted uses listed, and reminded the property owners on Brookwood Lane that although the requested use had been denied, the property would no doubt be developed for some other use. !!. B. DR. OLIVER - info~mal Hearing on Request that '%ight ~chine Shop'; be · added to the List of Permitted Uses for the Commercial ' Service (C-S) Zoning District (Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) - Continued from 26 September 1966 The continued hearing on Dr. Oliver's request was res~ed at '7:58 P.M. ~e applicant was pre'sent and advised that whil& the original request was for a permitted use,..it had now been changed to a conditional use. Planning Commission Minutes - 10 October 1966 - Continued II. B. Dr. Oliver There was no one in the audience who wished to comment with regard to this matter. Commissioner Kellum read the .report of the Subdivision'Committee recommending denial of the subject request. In answer to ~a ques-· tion from Ckairman Norton, the Committee advised that the change from a request for a penmitted use to a Conditional use did not change the recommendation of the Committee. Chairman Norton declared the ·informal hearing closed at 8:00 P. M. .'. Commissioner Kellum moved, seconded by COmmissioner Crisp, that the Subdivision Committee Report of 10 October 1966 relative to Dr·. · ~.' Oliver's request that "Light Machine Shop" be added to the list of · "' conditional uses for the Commercial Service (C-S) Zoning District be adopted and that the request be denied; motion carried unanimously. C. RETAIL SPECIALTY SHOPPING CENTER - Informal Hearing on Proposal to add '~letail Specialty Shopping Center" to the List of Conditional Uses for the Commercial Service (C~8) Zgning D.i_strict (Sarat, o~a- Sunnyvale Road)·- Continued from -· 26 September 1966 "' The continued hearing on this proposal was res~ed at 8:02 P. M. The Secretary briefly reviewed this matter and advised that 30 names had been added to the list of signatures opposing this proposal on behalf .. of the Chamber of Commerce. Cole Bridges, representing the Chamber of Commerce, 1) again called attention to the petition filed by the Chamber of Commerce 2) reaf- firmed that they did not feel this was an appropriate use for the ..... Commercial Service Zone 3) further stated that if this use was .to be permitted in the C-S Zone, they felt it should be accomplished by a change of zoning rather than in this manner and 4) 'inquired about Mr. " Garcia's plans for'the southeast corner of the intersect'ion of Sara- ~ toga--Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Avenue if this use was added. "' Rocke Garcia, representing Garcia & Associates, advised that they pro- Dosed to develop an interior 'mall shopping center, composed of retail specialty shops. He further stated that their plans were for a center · .. ~.. similar to the San Jose Town and Country Shopping Center, but on a · ".'." smaller scale. · "' A. Ti McAlpine advised that 'the Chamber of Commerce had a further pre- sentation pl'anned for this meeting, but had postponed same after he (Mr. McAlpine) had been informed by the Planning Director· that this matter would be continued. The Planning DireCtor ~xplained that it had been his understanding, .... at the time he spoke with Mr. McAlpine, that the matter would be continued·. ~:. PlanninE Commission Minutes - 10 October 1966 - Continued II. C~ Retail Special. ty Shopping Center After further discussion, Commissioner Kellum read th~ report of the Subdivision Comnittee relative to this proposal, recommending that ~'Retail Specialty Shopping Center" be added to the list of condi- tional uses in the C-S Zoning District, and eMplained that the deci- sion to make this recommendation had been made only after ~xtensive .... study and consideration. Chairman Norton again explained that if this conditional use was added in the C-S Zoning District, a Use Permit would be required for each such development and the· ordinance provided the right for resi- dents and/or property owners to appeal the decision relative to same. He then (8:22 P.M.) declared the informal 'hearing on this matter ..:::. .~... closed. Commissioner Kellummoved, seconded by Conunissioner McFall, that the -. Subdivision Co~nittee Report of 10 October 1966 relative to the pro- i7", posal that "Retail Specialty Shopping Center" be added to the list of Conditional Uses for the Commercial Service Zone be adopted and that the proposed use be added accordingly. · ··.~ ~e Chairman inquired as to whether the Commission felt that the opponents of ~h~s proposal had b~n unduly handicapped by n.o~ making their planned presentation. The consensus of the Commission was that after the thorough study that had been made and the evidence presented at the hearings it would seem that 1) little, if any, new evidence could be presented 2) little could be gained by delaying the matter· further and 3) the matter will eventually, no doubt, go before the City Council for review. '~ Mr. Bridges advised that the Good Government Group, the League of Women Voters, and the Merchants Association had appointed comnittees to study this proposal. :~ Mrs. Owen of the Good G0ver~vnent Group advised i) their committee was appointed to make a study· of the Riches Research Report 2) they felt that until this study had been·completed they were not well .. enough informed about the situation to take a positive stand and 3) '.'" while the Good Government Group could not take part in every local .... .... matter, they felt this was of significant consequence to warrant a closer look. :." Chairman Norton explained that the Riches Research Report would be "-..."' considered under the review of the General Plan, and that the ques- ..:.' tion before the Commission tonight was only whether or not this con- ditional Use should be added,. making it possible to apply for a Use '-.'l"".. Permit for same. '. Motion carried unanimously. ""':" D. '~-64 - Virgil Herring, Big Basin Way - Informal Hearing on Request · . that Conditional Community Commercial (Conditional C-C) Zoning be changed to Unconditional Community Con~nercial (C-C) Zoning - Continued from 26 September 1966 · .".' The continued hearing on C-64 was resumed at 8:29 P. M. The Secretary · :.. .... briefly reviewed this request and advised that nothing further had '.i~.i".: been added to the file. ~irs. Herring was present and explained that this property"xl.~as being included in the Parking Assessment District under the same assessment (proportionately) as. properties with full commercial zoning, so in -4- %!arming Commission Minutes - 10 OctoSer 1966 - Continued " II. D. C-64 - Virgil Herring order to be able to compete on the same basis, they were requesting full cormnercial zoning. Commissioner Kelium advised ol) the subject file had been reviewed · . by the Committee in preparing its report 2) at the time this condi- tional change of zoning was approved, it was understood that the applicant would.occupy the building himself 3) he had since vacated the building and desired to rent same and 4) the Comnittee felt that a request for unconditional zoning would have been denied at that time. He then 'read the report of the Subdivision Committee relative to this request, recommending that the request be denied at this time but that the matter be placed on the agenda for review (c.f the .... general area) at the time of the major review of the General Plan. After discussion, Chairman Norton (8:35 P.M.) declared the informal ._ .. hearing closed. '.' Commissioner Kellum moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, that the -.. Subdivision Committee Report of 10 October 1966 relative to C-64 be · ,. '.- adopted, that the request for unconditional zoning be denied at this -.'- : time, and that the matter be placed on the agenda for review under "' the major review of ~he General Plan; motion ..carried ~nanimously. .... :-. E. C-98 - Quito Park Business Center, Cox Avenue - Request for Change of : ..' Zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single Family Residential) to "C-N" ""':':7..~' .'i..'.' . <Neighborhood Conmercial) - Continued from 26 September 1966 ':.:';....~" The public hearing on C-98 was re-opened at 8:36 P.M. The Secretary · ':.j:'......'.. .... briefly reviewed this matter and advised that nothing further 'had been """ ".':""' added to the file. .,:":"..""" Mr. Dean Ecke of the Westhope Presbyterian Church advised 1) the ".'. f"'.-' Church had bought other property on Saratoga AvenLe to build a new ".'..i.~" .:' ' church building 2) they were in need of the money from this property · ":".. to begin building 3) it was impossible, because of the location and surrounding uses, to sel~ this property under the existing zoning ..-. 4) the problem was further complicated by the Assessment District since ...... · -, the widening of Cox Avenue left the property even narrower than before 5) in view of the location, surrounding uses and width. of the parcel, · '?.~...: ~ , it would appear that the Quito Park Business Center could uti].ize the property to better advantage than anyone else and 6) favorab]..e con- sideration of the application would be appreciated. ~:"':"' Cormmissioner Kellum recalled that a similar application for change of ..'.-.' zoning on this property had been tabled in 1964 pending review of the ~ ..... General Plan on the basis that additional C-N zoning was not needed in '~..:... the area at that time. He further recalled, however, that since that time the remaining property in the Quito Shopping Center had been utilized by development of the library and additiop.~l parking and that ..:':"'l'-.. additional property had been used in the widening of Cox Avenue, making ..~ '~..-: the present situation quite different. He also commented that after · ~."":".{'~"""' spending time on the site, the Committee was a~ a loss to suggest any -..~."' other use for the property. :.. ".;.' The Secretary then read a Staff Report relative to this 'matter, pre- ~:." pared at the request of the Subdivision Committee, recorm-aending appro- .... L.:...: va! of the subject application. Co~nissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner Kasner, that the public hearing on C-98 be ,closed; motion carried unanimously and the hearing was closed at 8:43 P.M. -5- ;y_~ .. · Plannin~ Commission Minutes -. 10 Oc~'ober'.1966'-'Continued ':'II~ E. C-98 - ~uito Park Business Center ""']'~"': Commissioner Kellummoved ·seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the " . "',',". "' Staff Report of 10 October 1966 relative to C-98, recommending appro-.' ": vals be approVed and transmitted to the City Council as the recom- "' mendation of the Commissionl motion carried unanimously. F. V-285 - Joseph Sheredy, Cox Avenue - Request for Variance in connec-" tion with Side Yard Setback Requirement - Continued from ~5 September 1966 The public hearing on V-285 was re-opened at 8:44 P. M. The Secre- tary.briefly reviewed this application and advised that nothin~ fur- ther had been·added to the file. " The applicant was present bug stated that he had no" further comment " at this time. ~ ~ There was no one 'else in the audience who wished .to speak with regard '.-'- to this matter. ... <..=:" ....? Commissioner Crisp. advised that the City Attorney had rendered the · . L=./' ".'. . .. m. opinion that the requested variance could not be granted since the "" =' e.n.~lre hou_s.e would ~b~n'b~ in vi.o!ation with,-the 10-roost setback, .. .. ,. ~.. After discussion, Chairman Norton (8:46 P.M.) directed this matter ,....r.,. ...- continued until the next regular meeting to give Mr. Sherady an oppor- .. · ...'.' · .'..' :.- tunity to discuss' this matter.with the Planning Director and attempt · = = ...~ '. ="-. " .'to revise the application. .'~ ~'..' '/... ~. CLAYTON J. SCOTT - Informal Hearing on Request that "Ski Shop" be '. .... · added to the List of Conditional Uses for the ...... . .. '~' "' ""' Commercial Service (C-S) Zonin~ District - -.~. ..,... ~ .... , , , , · · .... . ,.. . . · ... ·. .. " The informal hearing on Mr. Scott's request was ~pened at 8:47 P. M. '..' ." .. The Secretary advised that an' informal notice had been published and .. . there were no written communications on file. ..: .... :..~' ."' ... The applicant 'was present to discuss this matter with the Commission · =.f. '.. ?~ '.' 'and .advised that while he would like to begin with a sales operation, "' ..-~..... . .... 'at a later date .he planned tO add a rental service. ' ...: - ..... -. .- . .7 ...'."' <. There was no one else present who wished to comment with regard to .. ~ .~. ""/' . -'. . this request. : · ... .. ... · .. . . .... "!' ' "' After discussion, Chairman Norton (8:50 P.M.) referred this matter to' · .. ".' ' ...... ' ..:" the Subdivision Committee for study and a report and directed same · . .E.. ... . ." continued until the. next regular meeting. · .'... · . . · '..']:. ~ .' ":. "'-"..'. "..- H. ORDINANCE' NO. 38.13 - Proposed Amendment to Ordinan&e No. 38 Relating ' "" ': ~.":' .i'" '-~ to the LicensinM of Horses and Stables !.... L . :.: · . .:. · . "" "~' :"' ";']'.'f : The public hearing' on proposed Ordinance No 38.13 was opened at '. · . . -.,. .-. .... . .. ""~"" ' '" 8:51 P.M. The Secretary advised that a Notice of Hearing had been .. . . ....... . ,':......' ,.... published and read. a" communication from Heber J. Brown, president "~ ':= · "~ 'of the State.'Horsemen's AssociationS: pertaining'to this matter · '. 2. ' · i -7 .... ' · '. ' :. .'."..".-.: ..... i · · · ' , ......i .~ - .: :: .' · ..': i. '..- -' . ~ .. . . ~. ~ .' · : ! .' . " · """ ' "~'?.: !.'...-~.' ""-.."''i :, '::' :~' . .' · . . . . . · '.- -:c .t. !- ':?. "? .' !,- .: .... .. "' '- -' ' L' "i '...': ~: - ' · -= -. ! .... . : 2~,~. :.::.'.:..~.' ..'% .... ....:! .:. - · .. - . ~. . . .. .... ..: !'.'.. ?: :!.f-.. .' . .. j':'.':/' -.. ':?.... . ~ .,' 2' . .. -...t .' . 7:,. · . .. · - .... 'r ........ ? '.'~ ,,~"~='3' .-.~Z='r ~-7~-'.-; .~.-7.-~.>: .........~......-,.. . . - ............ . ....... · ; ~ .. ' -.' ~',. '.:'!' ~ l.'. .... "'.' ';": 'i~.::.. :~ '] :" i' Di' := ~.. ': f~ "" i ''. ~. -.. ...... """""'" ' i .- . · -: ',- .' . .. . · '... :...~: ...' - ?:.'-] :'?,- i ...', .~:~:~?.. L:.....-!., _-.. . . ..T. .. .. ,.... '..:.- j. ....· . . . . .: . - ..!....: .. · .i':. '.:' ' ......:' ~ . ...... .-.....~.... '..-...., ~.~...'!... ... ~..--. :.~. ~ ......~. :.::, .: '.._...:...~..~: .. ...... '..... . 2.. ......-... PlanninF~ Commission Minutes ·- 10 October 1966 - Continued II. H. Ordinance No. 38.13 l~e Chairman briefly reviewed the proposed ordinance and explained 1). revision of Saratoga's regulations pertaining to horses had first been proposed more than a year ago 2) since that time a careful study had been made of regulations and controls of other cities and 3) the Commission felt that the proposed ordinance was a 1,iberaliza- tion of the existing Saratoga regulations. ~ ".... .. v.,~ile a section by section reading and discussion of the ordinance "j.Z'.' ~ had been planned, it was decided that those who wished to comment would be heard individually on the ordinance as a whole. ! " IRWIN NIELSEN, attorney representing the Castle Rock Horsemen's Association, opposed the proposed ordinance in its entirety. He. then i=' . voiced specific objections as follows: .- Section 8'35.1 - Purpos~ -..."~ .".. ~... 1) ~ere is no need for licensing requirement. ..."'..'. 2) ~ere is no indication that "unsafe and u~ealthful conditions" : .'. ... exist. 3)~e retroactive aspect of the ordinance could be costly and burdensome .. Section 8-35.2 - Definitions 1) PAS~ - As defined, pasture no lo~er ~ists within the City. · . 2) HORSES, ~IN~N~NCE FOR P~VA~ USE - A private o~er would be " unable to rent or lease his horse. '-'.' 3) CO~I~ ST~LE - A Co~unity Stable License could be.required "..... if you kept a neighbor's horse for even a ·short period of t~e. ~ "'..~.L,f 4) BO~ING ST~LE A Boarding Stable License could be required "' ""' " if you kept a neighbor's horse for a short, period of t~e a~ - .;:.:~:".. accepted any sort of fee. .~.i.;'' Section 8-35.5 - General Provisions :~ .".'. 1) ENCLOSES ~ CON~OL - Requiring special pe~ission to keep · .L. ... you~ horse in a pasture is too restrictive. j :~.~r :.'....'.~.'.-'. 2) ~NS~UCTION OF CO~S ~ ST~LES - ~is paragraph is redun- ~.~.:.:~Z.~j~:LL~:'..'..; dant since this is covered .in the Buildi~ Code. ~'~':~i~"'.:'-..-;=:':: :" ' 3) FI~ PRO~CTION- ~is, too, is redundant. ' ./' ::f ]]-L' ~' ": "· .. ' .~:~...~...'.'.':, ...,m 4) ~IN~N~CE-S~IT~Y CO~ITIONS - ~is paragraph is ambiguous. ]=.~-~:.:..~....... r'.'.-.. 5) INSPECTION - This, too is ambiguous, no standards are set forth. and we question the Planning Director's ability in this field. ~.... Section 8-35.6 - Location and Area Requirements This paragr'aph is ambiguous in that ~hese r~quirements are clearly set forth in existing regulations. y '.~ .' .. '~z' . Plannin~ Conmission Minutes - 10 October 1966 - Continued Ordinance No. 38.13 Section 8-35.7 - Community Stables 1) We object to requirement for special permission for equestrian instruction off the premises. 2) The restrictions on lighting are too severe· Section 8-35.8 - Horse Permits 1) Requirement for renewal of permit every 12 months is unnecessary nuisance for both residents and City· 2) The amount of the fee has not been indicated. 3) Requirement for site plan is unnecessary since standard form 4) Permitting only one horse per 40,000 square feet is unduly 5) Once obtained, the permit should be transferable~ allowing same to run with the land In summary, Mr. Nielsen stated that he felt 1) the ordinance was un- duly restrictive in general 2) horses are a part of the heritage of Santa Clara County and. this, heritage should be preserved 3) the City of Saratoga seems to be trying to make the keeping of horses a permis- sive thing instead of a right and 4) the City has an obligation to all residents, including horse owners, and legislation should be pre- pared which is not only fair,. but simple and clear. Mr. Nielsen then presented a written proposal to the Commission and requested that this matter be continued for further study. DAVID BENNION, attorney, mmde the following comnents on behalf"of HEBER TEERLINK, attorney, who 1) is a resident of Saratoga 2) spoke on behalf of a group of horseowners at the first hearing more than a .year ago 3) has since worked with the City in drafting the' subject ordi- nance and 4) was unable to attend the meeting tonight. 1) PUlLPOSE - The section relative to existing stables is vague and' will leave a lot of power, possible abuse, to some administra- tive officer. It is suggested that actual determination of vio- lation or lack of conformity should be left to the City Council 2) RENEWAL - It is suggested that the requirement for renewal of private permits every 12 months be deleted. 3) TRANSFER It is suggested that non-commercial' permits be , 4) APPEAL It is recommended that a section be added providing the right of appeal to the elective body (City Council). -8- P!anni~. Cowmission Minutes - 10 October 1966 - Continued II. H. Ordinance No. 38.13 "' PETER J. LERT, member of the faculty of the University of California School of Agriculture, stated that it had been his experience (in ' his work with City Ordinances) that little is accomplished by trying to spell out all the details.-· He further commented: "' 1) Adequate drainage is important to sanitation. "."'. '.i. 2) The County Health Department is the proper agency to rule on health and sanitation problems. ..... '. ~ 3) The minimum size community stable feasible under the proposed ~......~ .. requirements would be 40-60 horses.' ....:~. !~."-~!~-~_z'...L.' 4) Monte Sereno requires a public hearing with the...complaining " · .:.. ,.',.. party. .. "... 5) The intent of the ordinance should be stated precisely. ! '.' Following a general discussion during which inquiries were made by !"-":.. :" BOB PIERCE of Argonaut Drive, JAMES and JOAN HANSEN of Pierce Road, ~'~"'. ....' · and SHEILA MANCIiESTER of Via Regina, Chairman Norton advised 1) the ....., .. intent of the City is to enact an ordinance that will enable' horse ~"'. ovmers and non-horse owners to live together peacefully 2) ·while ~'~7:..,1~.'?.,' there are no problems on smaller lots (horses are not pe_rmitted on .. . il. ij-'l;'."~'....f less than 40,000 square feet) and few problems on the larger lots, : ~..... various problems develop in the transition areas which seem to be . ....7..i'!.i~ :....... regarded by residents as anything from exclusive suburbs to farm areas : .'..~ 3) the horse o~mers seem to be present while the non-horse owners seem 'L!'l.. '~ tO be trusting the City to enforce an ordinance .that will protect them '! : :""'" 4) the controversy and dissention over the proposed ordinance indicate .:'{.~..-..'. that further study is warranted 5) while there is no doubt that some : .'~.'l. '. control is needed in a city the size of Saratoga,, the problem is to '.~>.i;i.... ,-'. determine the extent of same and 6) while the City is interested in !..".l~.l.~;:~.. '..' allowing people to have private stables for their own use, it is not · interested in conunercial stables. :!'.."?"'- .... Mr. EDWARD WILD of Fruitvale Avenue explained that he had constructed· · ,'?..'7~1.'~'~'~ .'.' .. a stable 14 years ago which, at that time, was well removed f~om ~.7!7="'i .'.'....~ .... everyone, but several years later a new home had been built approxi.- .'L~'-!'i'-7:....'."?.!'- ' mately 60 feet away. He inquired about his responsibility with regard '::i".7.'.: ~ to bringing this stable into conformity. After discussion, Chairman · ......=...'. .....' -i.- Norton observed that he was right to be concerned, yet he had never ~i';'i:-.'....'.. ".' '7 known the City to be arbitrary in enforcement. · ;'.".'..., The Chairman requested that Messrs. Nielsen, Bennion and Left submit · "' "' written statements stu~marizing their cormuents of the evening. All · '- expressed willingness to do so. '.::'~ Commissioner Kel!um commented that the rumor that the Commission and '.'.,'= .~ Council did not like horses and had proposed the subject ordinance to · '-'.... help eliminate them from Saratoga was not true. He explained that " only one application for a Use Permit for a horse had been denied in Saratoga, and that the proposed ordinance was an attempt to be'- more liberal in connection with horses ..... -9- Piannin~ Commission Minutes - 10 October 1966 - Continued !I. tl. Ordinance No. 38.13 ViNCE GARROD, Mr. Eden ]load, reminded the Commission that the City of Saratoga was the only opponent to his proposed stable (in the County adjacent to the City), and again reminded the Commi.6sion that horses were another recreation possibility for Saratoga. Chairman Norton (10:40 P. M.) directed this matter continued until the next regular·meeting. I. OPdDINANCE NO. NS-3.12 - Proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. NS-3 .·· Relating to the Keeping of Horses and Denial of Application for Change of Zoning -'· Since this amendment, too, pertained primarily to horses, and those · . who wished to con~ent had done so in connection with the hearing on the previous ordi~nce, the public hearing on Ordinance No. NS-3.12 was not opened at this time. Chairman Norton directed same continued until the meeting on 24 October 1966. J. ~-112 - Manuel Lozano, Prospect Road - Request for Use Permit for C,~;~,~ ............................................ _.. .. ................... ,___ ~e public hearing .on' ~-112 was opened at 10:41 P.M. The Secretary advised that a Notice of Hearing had been mailed, briefly reviewed this application, and read a communication from Mrs. Elsie Patrick .opposing the granting 'of this Use Permit on the basis that the pro- posed use was of an "industrial nature and should be placed in the Co~ercial Service Zone on Highway 85. }It. Gurley, ~eprasenting the applicant, advised 1) Mrs. Patrick's property is located approximately 156 feet to the west of the sub- · ." ject site 2) Mr. Lozano had run into problems wi~h the financing on his previous site 3) Mr. Westley had accepted a position in Minnea- polis and had abandoned his application on the subject property and ': 4) Mr. Lozano now has an option on this parcel and would like to 0b- : "" " tain a Use Petit to construct a car wash on same. " ~ '.... ~ere was no one else present who wished to cogent wi~h regard ~o ~ this matter. ~": After discussion, Chai~n Norton requested that the o~er of the """". subject property submit a letter stating that Mr. Wesley no longer ': has an interest in this site and that Mr. Lozano is free to proceed.· ;. · - The Chai~an then directed this nmtter continued .(10:45 P.M.) until the next regular meeting and referred same to ~he Subdivision Com- mittee for study a~ a report at that time. ' .-.'.-" -10- Planning Commission Minutes.- 10 October 1966 -' Continued III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS = A. SDR-661 - B. T..'Galeb, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - BUilding Site Appro- · .' Commissioner Kellum advised that a question had arisen "with regard to the width. of the right-of-way (Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road), and suggested .... ~. that this application be continued to allow time for the Director of · .. Public Works to check into the matter further. ! ' ....~.' .' Cl~airman Norton, on the basis of this suggestion, directed SDR-661 con- ~' ~":"· """~' tinued until .the next regular meeting. i..?~r~.~' "'~ ' B. SDR-662 - Guist & Beam~ Belnap Road - Buildin~ Site Approval - 2 Lots -.--~r. ~ ..~-.l.... '. .'. Commissioner Kellum recommended that this matter be continued until 7 ~ ~-' the next regular meeting since the Building Site Committee had not i ....." '- .. yet received a' report from the Grading and Excavation Committee. } "" ~' "' "' A. A-96 - Blue Hills Shopping Center, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Final Design i; ",".'.-'Z: '. .' Review - Revised Identification Sign for Shopping Center - Con- ' i' .Z':."'.L.' ;'... tinued from 26 September 1966 .- .i'..~...:.' '-'j. After briefly reviewing this application, Commissioner O'Rorke moved, .... ..~ ~ · ~.~; "".!.' seconded by Commissioner McFall, that the application for final design .. : '~."'-" .'. "' approval of a revised sign under A-96, Blue Hills Shopping Center, be '~ "-'.' !! ..... .. denied on the basis that a shopping center identification sign should ....... ' · 'i".'~ ..".. not be used to identify only .one business within the center; motion car- :, ~....~/'.'z? '.'. ~ ' ried unanimously. · ! .' .....i'. - '." B A-232 - Nelson L. Ewing, Big Basin Way - Final Design Review "-.. Identifi- "' :."'7" .".' .. cation SiMn for Shaw's Ice Cream (Plaza .del Robles) · .~ · .~, :. ~. .~.' . - expected revised plans to be submitted. '...' ";.'7j"' "'" ' . , . . · _ -- · 'L:L?!.'..L .....'. '?." !.'."'~.C A-233 - Paul Flanagan, Big Basin Way 'Final Design Review Identifica- .~;/.;i?~i~.~r~!L'i-'..::.:."-~.."" Commissioner O'Rorke suggested that this matter be continued since addi- " ' " tinued until the meeting on 24 October 1966. . "~" '~""" V~ ..' CYTY COUNCIL REPORT ' CoF~nissioner McFall gave a brief. report on discussion and action at the City ....Council meeting on 5 October 1966 with emphasis on items of particular in- terest to the Commission. !~ -- . .'~'. ~ . -. "i-. !...'."..'. :... ~ .-'Z' "" Plannin,~ Commission Minutes - 10 October 1966 - Continued i 'j, VI. ~EW BUSINESS ! " "VII. OLD BUSINESS !-.."' A. SDR-644 - Dr. John Oliver, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Request for Modi- · '."'~-'... fication of Conditions of Approval - Continued from 26 Sep- l'.l...c:.. tember 1966 .= ./':'_~..= ' Commissioner Kellum advised that the Building Site Committee had re- .- i '; ~'': "' viewed this request· and, in view of the existing utility pole at the . . < "' ..".= · rear of the property, it was the recommendation of the Committee that .... =!... the requirement for underground utilities be waived. ......................... ~i .......i"..']-'='''"''';'''''''f'''7 ....................After discussion, Commissioner Kellum moved, seconded by Commissioner ~=, .. ;'.."' :. Kasner, that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the · ' .'= "' requirement for underground utilities be waived in connection with · .: SDR-644, Dr. John Oliver, and that he (Commissioner Kellum) be authorized · = . :... ~ to draft a brief report of explanation; motion carried unanimously. · .... · ... B. SDR-655 - Dr. Donald Hambey. 'Farwell Avenue - Request for Modification ?.." .z .. of Conditions of Approval - Continued from 26 September 1966 =' "' .... ~". Commissioner Kellum explained 1) there are a number of trees along the "'" ' · 20-foo= corridor' on Dr. Hambey's property 2) the Director of Public · .. ... .. ... Works usually allows the roadway to be narrowed where necessary to pre- · ' serve such trees 3) D.r. Hambey, however, would prefer to construct a .-~'. .- uniform 15-foot roadway with planting along one side and 4) the Com- '. mittee is opposed to the proposed 15-foot roadway because of the hazard · .~ ..._ '. .... created when cars are parked along same. · .' Dr. and Mrs. Hambey were present to discuss this matter further with %' .;-l./ the Co~anission. .. [ "..". '~ After discussion, Chairman Norton explained that (because of lack of ! ....c.. :. further information from Dr. Hambey) no decision '~ould be made at this i .-"'. ~'; time with respect to Dr. Hambey's request relative to underground i · .,. utilities, and inquired as to whether he (Dr. Hambey) would prefer that ].. '.". " the Commission made a decision now on the roadway or waited until action i'...;,.. !:l could be taken,on the two'.matt'ers simultaneously.. Dr. Hambey expressed '~'.... · ~ .,..~ . '. ~: -= · willingness to wait. In view of the foregoing, Chairman Norton directed this matter continued until the meeting on 24 October 1966. . ..'... .. · !"'.1.'..: ~..:'.'i"' 'i :"' A, WRITTEN : · ~. ~?:..: ......... .... ... ! ...."': . "' Russell Lane and Saratoga Hills Road -.Petition signed by Residents of '.i':.!'.'.:".'."'.'.]' "' Verde Vista Lane Area requesting .! if'i;::"',; .' .""'" ' that Russell Lane and Saratoga · };.:~./;;: ....... Hills Road be. improved to provide .... . -~.(..'i'.[li7"!.".]. additional Access Routes to Sara- ..:;......" to~a--Sunnyvale Road (Highway 85) .. ~ ,'f' , ... .,. The Secretary read a petition signed by approximately. 50 families re- siding in the .Verde-Vista Lane area requesting that Russell Lane and Saratoga Hills Road be improved to provide additional access routes to .-12- ~..: ~.. ,... Planning Commission Minutes - 10 October 1966 - Continued VIII. A. 1. Russell Lane and Saratoga· Hills Road Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. tie also reviewed a traffic count (Verde Vista Lane) submitted by Cdr. Case of Verde Vista Lane. Dr. Cox and Ralph Wooley ~f Verde Vista Lane were present to dis- cuss 'this matter further with the Commission. They ob..sem~ed that 1) Verde Vista Lane was still a private road 2) since develop- · ·· ment of the property to the west, it had become a privately main- ~ tained road with public access 3) the Council had assurecl the re- · sidents of this area that Russell Lane would be opened to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to relieve the traffic on Verde Vista Lane 4) re- sidents of the Pierce Road area were now using Verde Vista Lane, too, and 5) in view of the recent petition opposing the Russell Lane connection, residents of the subject area wanted to bring the situation to the Cormnission attention, ~ After further discussion, Chairman Norton advised 1) plans were '.- now being n~de for a major review of the General Plan in the near i future 2) '..'in' lieu of any action, the Russell Lane petition had i been referred to the General Plan Committee for review at that ;' "". time 3) he felt that the residents of Verde Vista Lane were justi- .. fied in their concern and in raising this issue and 4) the subject ~. petition would also be referred to the General Plan. Committee for ·-' '~.. review. ".'.... ':'.. With reference to an inquiry as to whether, in the meantime, the -: City might participate in the cost of maintenance of Verde Vista .~ '.' Lane, Chairman Norton explained that only the elective body could · " commit City funds and suggested that this matter be discussed with the City Council, ".' ...' The Chairman then referred this matter to the General Plan Committee · with a request that it be placed on the agenda for the ma~or review i .. of the General Plan. "' 2. Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce - Letters relative to Village Area The Secretary reviewed a letter from Dr. Harold N. Ives, member of "' the Board of Directors of the Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce, and ~ .'.' the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce reply to same. Dr. Ives (in his letter) commented about the "turn of the century" flavor of the .. Village and requested that the history of this effort be conveyed to him. "' B. ORAL t. Village.. ~Circulation Pattern !;.. ' Commissioner Crisp observed 1) the ingress and egress 'points to · !/.·. ·the various parking areas in the Village are the only way in and !··; out of Saratoga without the necessity of making a U-turn 2) al- .... · · though these access points are covered by the proposed Village · " Parking District, he felt this matter should be placed on the agenda for the General Plan Review so that preservation of this circulation pattern could be insured, After discussion, Chairman Norton referred this matter to the General Plan Committee for consideration under the major review.. of the General Plan. Planning Consission Minutes - 10 October 1966 - Continued VIII. B~ 2. Notice of Subdivision Application Mrs. Ottenberg of the League of Women Voters observed that although a formal notice was not required in connection with applications for subdivision approval, she felt it would be appreciated by the residents if the Commission could establish some procedure for ad- vising the people that such applications had been filed. Chairman Norton commented that while he concurred with Mrs. Otten- berg in principle, it was difficult to do more than supply the in- formation for the news items which presently appear in the Saratoga News relative to such applications. ' 3. Guests The Chairman acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Mesdames ~en and Stark of the Good Government Group, Mrs. Ottenberg of the League of Women Voters, and Mrs. Walker, wife of the Planning Di- rector. He also expressed appreciation for the coffee served by Mesdames Owen and Stark at recess. . .- .... ~. ADJOURMwfi~NT ~.:7.~'.. Chairman Norton declared the meeting adjourned at i1:59 P, M, Respectfully submitted, ' lker,'Secretary ~-. !~ Saratoga Planning Commission v ~ ...