Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-1969 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SA~TOGA PD\NNI,.',!G COr"~]'iISSION · - MiNU~TES TI}~: Monday~ 25 August 1969, 7:30 P.M. PLACE: City Council Ch~abers, Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUT~iE ORGANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Chairman Norton. A. ROLL CALL Present; Comaissioners Baconi Crisp, <raus Live!y~ Metcalf~ Norton, and Smith. Absent: None B. MI~a3TES ~ommissioner Smith moved~ seconded by ·Com~missi oner Crisp~ that the reading of the minutes of the 11 August 1969 meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following ~hanges: page 5.. .under II. E.. .paragraph 2.. .line 2.. .after the word "garage" add the words "workshop" and "playroom"; page 8.. .under VIIi. C.. .paragraph 1.. .line 4.. .delete the word "errOr" and instead insert the word "uncertainty"; page 9.. .~ne IX. A.. .paragraph 3.. .line 2.. .insert "their consultant and" between the words ':that': and "one"- page 9.. .under IX. B.. .paragraph i.. .line 2.. .insert "Dr. Newcomer" between the words "0ttenberg'.' and "of"; motion carried with ~o.nmLiSsioner Kraus abstaining. Chairman Norton thanked Commissioner ~risp for the pleasant time enjoyed by 'everyone at a party given by him and·~attended by the Planning Commission and Staff. II. PUBLIC FZARINGS A. PA~<S ADD RECREATION - Element of thai General Plan for 1969 The hearing was opened at 7:39 P.M. Chairman Norton stated that it was fortunate to have ~.~. Beck, Planning Consultant, present at the this time to outline the park proposal and point out the locations of the proposed park sites. Mr. Beak 'stated that he would be showing slides and using 'asica!!y the same material that was presented at the joint meeting of the Fl~ning Co~ission, Park ~nd Recreation Commission and City Council. He further stated that 1) he would like to preface the presentation with same qualifications or reasoning as to where they are with the proposed plan 2) if the importance of the park program is studied it will be s~=en that the..population of Saratoga is doublin~ and that leis,ure time is tripling; ~herefore, the need for recreational ~acilities is..increasing 3) Eqe pro- posed plan shows in detail all the reeomaended park si~es pro.sosed for acquisition and some that is now o~med by the public agendies report dated 25 July 1969 illustrates potential park site uses and the cost involved for purchase 5) we see this·plan as being an e~ension of ~he General Plan 6) in most cases except for the Central Park site the recom~endahions of the General P!~n are followed 7) the total City park needs have been more thoroughly reviewed than was done at the time.of the Genera] Plan study. -1- planning Co~ssion Minutes - 25 August 1969 - Continued I!. A. Parks - Continued i " E4r.' Beck further stated tha{ the basic objectives of the subject study · were as follows: 1) a balanced range of recreational facilities for all areas 2) provision for recre{tional facilities for all age groups 3) preservation and enhancement of natural beauty of the City 4) arrange for coDmecting trails with special at{ention to the development of histor- ical trails~ therebys providing easy access to ~oL~'ts of interest for the horseback and bicycle riders and hikers and 5). provision of open space that may eventually .be provided only by the parks that will be 'created. }~. Beck then sho~.~ed slides of different regional and city Dark ~nd recreational facilities in nearby :com~muni.ties. The examples sho~,~ were used ([.~. Beck pointed out) in ·formulating the park and recreational proposals' for Saratoga. He then S~l~-.-narized the Park and Recreation Plan Report-by outlining the different ~development programs for each 'of the nine areas of the City. ~,~. Beck advised that 1) ~he whole com~nitv was studied to determine where the ope~ space areas were available and it was surprishg to find that some· areas were almDst' completely co~2ltted :to residential development and 2). the natural rural envirop~ent of · .. " Saratoga should be stressed in the development of f/he park sites. After [~. Beck concluded his presentation Chairman ~,Iorton opened 'the .. hearing to questions relative to the different areas. Mr. Milt Christensen, 18510'Sobey Road, stated that 1) the City may be creating a situation they do not want by recom~.ending'a five acre parcel.for a neighborhood park site (designated as ~zea'4 - Sobey Road area) for use by the residents in the neighborhood 2) he would suggest that the City not develop this site as a park since the entire area is already basically a park in itself 3) the minim~a~ building'site in this area is for acre lots and because of the hillsides ~,any residents have more acreage than is proposed for the park 4) m~ny of the senior citizens in the area have large bad< yards=and would have little use for the park 5) there is a problem in the area now ~ith parked cars late· at night and this would increase if the park site ~;ere realized 6) parks are · needed in high density areas and ~he residents'tend to police the area (by frequent use); whereass in a low density area such as the one in question this would not be the case. There.were approximately twenty ifiVe people in the ·audience ~o shared Christiansen's views relative to the subject p~_rk site. Dr. Clemer Pecks 19100 San Marcos Roads: stated that 1) he would like to thi~< .that the area he built his home in (adjacent ~o ~'lest Valley Jr. College and proposed park site) would provide the privacy he hoped for and would not be opened for numerous people by the d~velopment of a park site 2) the subject area is isolated and there is no road~.zay ~nd no access from the college 3) ~ttempts to direct someone to his property (~ich is a designated park site and must be ac.ouired by the City) is difficd!t and 4) perhaps this propeFcy. should be utilized as a golf course. - ,. Chairman Norton explained that the property was at one time proposed for a.golf courses but no one came up with sUfficient financing. Dr.~i~ck:st~ted that 1) whatever lp!ans he had for the subject property would have to wait ~nti! the City =decided what E~ey are going to do ~.zith it 2) he would request that his ~r0Ferty be eliinated from consideration as a park site e~d 3) he felt it 'was kind of difficult to maintain control of his property when he is not contacted relative to its intended use other th~n through the local newsoaper.. - ~' · -. .................:--...~..-.--'-.. .........'....'-.--.-~':-'..'.'.:.::..--' ........ ~ ...... i ........ · .... ~.' .-.. -.. ., .................................. = .....~ ._.. ....... ........ 2 ...... ' ....-___ '_.'..'. i.?.'. .................... ' .................. .Pl~n'ning Co,,.~j. ssion Minutes - 25 August 1969 - Continued II. R. Parks - Continued ~.~. [[cDaniel, r~sident of the area, stated that he did approve .... .. of and.would endorse the trail plan as pro~sed by the Trails Co~ittee~ ' but not the park adjacent to the West Valley College. .- ~i"~alter ~iUir, 1459'~msby ~ive.~' SunnyV~le,'-=~tated'that he and his associa~es"~'-$~ ~C~ntly com=mltted a lo~ of money 'to development of the ~ea ne~ the ~.~ormon Church on Allendale Avenue ~nd they were s~r~sed to learn that a park site had been desireted ne~ this proF~rty. He f%ther stated that the homes proposed for his development'would cost approximately S80~000 Lnd if a p~k were deVe!op~ in the ~ea a lo~ of .. ~desirable traffic would result. z ~s~ 2omero~ resident of the area~ ~ stated Enat the tr~fic in this ~ea has been very bad, especially on San M~cos Road~ since the college· has. b~en in ~e [nd if a .p~k is put into this ~ea the tr~fic will increase '." eXen.~ore and the appe~ance of the ent~e neigh~Enood will be ~fected. .. CharOn ~,Iorton stated that .~ea 7 includes the Central P~k and in~ired .. ' of'[.~' Beck Qhy there was nothing in his re~rh relative ~o ~n open space - ~ea ~ween Fruitvale and S~atoga Avenue adjacent ~o ~he City Hall. ~.'. Beck explained that ~he ~ea is desiE~l~ as ~ o~n space' ~ea but not f6r developmen~ as a Central P~k.' He f~hher explained ~hah the en~ce' to ~he City ah the corne~ of Prospect' ~d Highway 85 would lose a lot of. ~he ~rees wlnen ~he road was widened and it is hoped that event- ually'it would be developed by a private develop~ but would be too e~enSive for the City ~o p~chase. . .... . Ch~rm~ No~on~ in ~swer tO an in~iry from Dr. Feck~ s~a~ed tha~ no' dh~ge of zoning would resul~ fro~ p~k deve!opmen~s or acquisitions. He f~ther s~a~ed ~hat a general plan suggests the zoning, but zoning is not changed until a formal change of zoning is approved. ' ........ He~' also~ exD!ained tha~ ~he D~nin~ Com~ission is only considering ~he P~k and Recreation proposals a~ this time and hopfully if given ~he ". fin~ing ~he City will sometime be able ~o acquire ~he p~k si~es~ but zo~ng changes will no~ be involved. ~airman Nor~on~ in answer t~ an in~iry fro~ ~-~. Cna!len.' about condemnation s~ahed ~hat !) obtaining sufficient financing.is ~ne most factor in ac~iring p~k property ;2) the City' is responsible ~o~ers and hha~ is why p~lic he~'.ings (such as ~h~ one) are held 3) a.s general po'!icy if one ~ea 'is designated for a p~k sooner or la~er :~he City will try ~o acqu~e2 the land; ho~.fever~ the General Plan designation has been changed befor~.e and wha~ is reccm~.ended a~ this time does not foreclose forever and as a group it would be ~ssib!e to Challenge the reco~.endations made' by ~he P~k Cons=~!tant and/or the P~k and Recreation Com~!ssion. He f~hher s~a~ed ~hat the residents op~sin~ ~he p~k si~es could present a pehition oF_ the~ b~n~!f if ~hey so desired. ~a~n ~or~on closed the hearinc2 for the evenin~ a~ 8:5~ D ~,~ ....... "' continued the m~tter to the meetjig of 8 September 1969 and ...... "' ""=' .... refereed saT, e ~o ~he General Pl[n C0m=~ee for s~dy.~ ...................... . Plannir:q Corcac,ission :-~;~- - 25 August 1~j69 _ . inued II. B. Robert L. Durham - Request ~o. Add Ambulance Service to the List of Conditional and/or Per~thed Uses in the "C-V" (VisitorlCo~mercial) Zoning District . . . . . CnaiIman Norton decl~ed the informal he~ing relative to this matter o~n for discussion. ': . , . Comjssioner S~th read the S~division Committee Re~ort dated 25 August 1969 recomzending the subjec~ request be.'granted and ."~ulance service (in conj~ncti0n with mortuaries),, be added as a conditional use in the "C-V" Zoning Dis~ict. ' ., "Comissioners Lively and Metcalf Stated that 9~.ior to granting the"~Ubject req~es~ a method of control should be c~efully consid~ed. .. .. Chai~ Norton e~lained that the applicant will be reouired to apply for a Use Pe~t at which t.~e the necess~y condftions will' ~ s~a~ed. Com~ssioner S~th stated that authority ~o s~ipula~e whatever c~ntrols ~hey deem necess~y. The applican~ was presen~ and stated ~ha~ ~here is no service ~his type in the i~.edia~e ~ea. .. -' NO one. else presen~ wished ~o com~en~. ~airman [*~or~on closed the informal hearin~i' " . · . Co~Ssioner Smith moved~ seconde~ by Co~ssioner ~isp~ ~hat ~he S~division CoKu~ithee Repor~ dated 25 AugUst 1969 be adopted an'd tha~ ~he .request to add "~ulance service (in conj~nc~on with morhu~ies),, as a conditional use in the "C-V" 2Zoning District be granted since the findings re.aired by Section !~.! ". of the Zoning Ordinance can 'be made; motion carried ~m~nimous!y. ~'. C-. ~-168 - Yves G. Casabo~e~ Sarat0ga-S~nnyvale Road - Request for Use Petit to Allow a Repa~ ;and Service Shop - Continued ~rom ~! Au~s~ 1969 ' .. The he~ing relative ~o UP-168 wa;s not reio~n~d a~ ~his ~ime. The S~re~ary s~ated that a le~er had been s~ed' by the applicant '. re~est~g withdrawal of UP-!68 With the ~nderstanding ~ha~ ~he ~30.00 fil~g fee paid in co~.echion with UP-!68 would remain active in the '~ven~ ~he applicant desired ~o reSinstare motion 'carried unanimously. D. pP-169 - George W. Days F~we!l Avenue ~d E1 ~a~nte ?lag ~ Requ&st for Use P~t to Allow a Model Home Sal&'s Office - Continued from "' 11 Au~st 1969 ~ai~man }/orion re-oFened the he~ing re!a~ive to UP~189 at 9:04 P.M. · Tne Secretly stated nothing new iqad been added to the file. .. II. D. UP-169 - Continued ~.[r. Nestor Barrett~ Planning Consul~e_nt~ was present to represent the applicant and stated that 1) I,~r. D~y is developing this subdivision on Farwell Avenue and wishes to use one .of the model homes for a sales office 2) these homes ~:ill be selling for $100~000. ~nd a saleSm~n _ ~d sales office ~e necess~y in the subdivision in order to sell ~hese homes 3) at one time i~ was suggested that there will be a lot of ~affic crea~ed by granting ~his Mrequesh for a sales office~ but ~is will r~a!ly not be so since these homes will be ~oo e~ensive have a large m~ke~ ~nd 4) ~he portion' of Fa~,:ell Avenue' in ~he s~- di~sion ~11 be widened ~nd the ~b ~nd ~er will be installed. ~. ~rdon Do~<s~ 19600 F~zel! Ave~ue~ s~a~ed ~hah 1) a ~hi~ion optsing ~his sale~ office was previously' submitted 23 ~he petition ~ed out that it took only two minutes to drive to the FD'ell Avenue s~division from ~he applicantLs existing sales office on S~a~oga-~s ~atos Road adjacent ~o"O~ L~dy of FaUna Villa ~ ~he Village and 3) ~he residents on F~F~ll Avenue rem~n opposed %he pro~sed sales office. The Secretly read the S~aff' Reporh~da~ed 25 Au~sh 1969 recommending ~hat ~he reques~ for Use Per~t be de~ed. ~. Nes~ B~rett s~ated thaE rece0~ly a compromlse ~as worked out and ~. Day is paying for 12~ lines a~.a cost of ~15~000 ~o bring in ~der- ~ro~d utilities on F~well Avenue ~nd ~e would reques~ ~ha~ ~he .disCUSsions relative to. the subject undergrounding not be confused with %he request for ~he Use Petit presently ~nder consideration. ~airman Norton ass~ed ~.~. Barrett tha~ the Placating .Coission would m~e every effort ~o keep ~he two ma~erSsepera~e. ~. Vince Faso~ Vice-Presiden~ of G~orge Day Co., s~a~ed ~ha~ 1) he · would like ~o cl~ify ~he masher of~he exist~g sales office 2) ~he .e~s~ing sales 'office is e~ip~d tO h~ndle only ~he re-sale of prop~ty .~nd no~ ~he selling of new homes ~): th~ requested sales Office is necess~y ~o provide a prospective buyer some[hing tangible to see ~d ~ouch and in order ~o prov~]e ~he salesmen wi~h a tool to sell his product and 4) . it is no~ feasi~i?~o ~y [nd sell a home on a. piece of paper. '~airman Norton sta~ed ~ha~ his feeling is that ~he bulk of sales in a s~division ~e realized from ~op!~ ~iving by ~nd seeing what ~hey l~e and s~opping by ~he sales offide ~o m~e inqu~i, es [nd if ~he ~ees~ed p~ty does not find so~e6ne close by ~hey '~e liable to l~k f~her. F~. Faso s~a~ed ~hah 1) ~nless you catch ~e buyer when he is interested you do not have a Fossib!e sale and=2) ~he proposed .'s~division will improve ~he ent~e area and a sa!es~an must be a~ ~he location of ~he ~erch~dise in order to be of setvide and make a sale. · ~a~n Norton s~a~ed ~hah 1) he ~as bothered by ~he report. of ~he S~ivision CoF=~t~ee 2) he could not recall ~he P!~n~g Com~ssion ever ~ning do~.~n a sales office and 3) i~ would se~ tha~ having ~ive to a sales office some distance away from th~ s~di~ision would not be as effective as having an office at the s~i~ision site. Comjs~ioner S~th s~ated that ~he S~di~_sion Ce~t~ee based .~he~ recom=~enda~ion on the fact ~ha~ the~e w~e so fe~· !o~s ~ ~his s~- di~sion comp~ed to other s~di~sions that had a great n~er of lots ~o sell. ~ Plannihg Com~ission Minutes - 25 August 1969 - Continued " .-.. II. D. UP-169 - Continued · . . Commissioner Crisp stated that on? point that should be brought out is that the subject subdivision iS on a short street and other sub- _ I' · ' divisions have located their sales offices on a main street Or highway. " Chairman Norton stated that almoSt'.every house built in Saratoga has ~m' been part of a subdivision and not all of them have had access to main thoroughfares- : Commissioner Bacon stated that he:concurred that a sales office a mile and a half .... away could serv? this type of subdivision very well. F~. Barretts in answer to an inquiry from Comnissioner Metcalfs stated .- that at the present time ~. Day will build only' three of the homes in the subdivision. .. Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) the bulk of the lots will have ...- custom homes constructed on them and only three at the present will ..... 'be done by P~. Day ~nd 2) he did not feel that u~.der these conditions .. " the Planning Com~mission is under anycompu!sion to approve a model home "- sales office .... Commissioner Kraus stated that 1) he lived in an area where custom homes were developed and no sales offic~ was ·used 2) the majority of the pr0l posed homes can be and probably will be built by individuals and not involve [.~. Day except for purchase of the lot itself. }~. Faso stated that the buyer will still be interested in seeing he could possibly put on his lot and that is why the sales office is essential. '- Chairman Norton advised that the Day Co. hoFas to get the contract to build the house after selling the'lot and they must be able to show their product via a model home sales office. At 9:14. R.M.'Com~nissioner Smith moveds seconded by Commissioner Crisps to close the hearing relative to UP-169; motion c~ried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moveds seconded by'Com.~i's~ioner Crisps that the Staff ReporJ-d.~ed 25 August 196gFe ad6phed ~nd the subject Use Permit (UP-169) · , be(~denied~on the basis the findings required by Se~=~on 16 6 o= Zonin carried with Chairn~n Norton votinE ~o. El UP-170 - Saratoga Tennis Clubs Komina Avenue - Request for Use Permit to Allow Expansion of Tennis Club - Continued from 11 August 19&9 The.Secretary stated that the applican~ met with the Subdivision Com~uittee and requested that UP-170 be continued to the meeting of 8 September 19S9. Commissioner Smith stated that the applicant submitted ~n alternate 'plan~ but there are still some details that ~ast be worked out~ therefores a Continuance is recomnended. _ Chairm.&n Norton so directed ~nd the public he~ing was not re-ope~ned a~ this time. Pl~q Commission Minutes - 25 August 1969 - Continued II. F. UP-171 - C & I Development Comp~]y, Kirkbrook Drive - Request for Use Permit to A].lo~: a Model Home Sales Orifice ' The p~lic hearing was opened at !9:24 P.~4. The Secretary stated' the Notices of Hearing were mailed ~nd then briefly revie~;ed this application. ..~. ~:~c. Rod Osterlu~nd, president of C & I Development C0., ~;as present and stated he had not further con~T, ents but would be glad to ~nswer any questions. Com~missioner Smith stated that h~ ~;ould like L?-17i continued· since the Subdivision Com~ittee has not had an opportunity to review this matter. '. Commissioner Lively stated that the plan sho:.;s one home connected to another (across the property line) by a breezeway and inquired'if this is a permitted arrangement under ~.the Zoning Ordinance. " . The Assistant Planner explained that this is a t~.Dorary cormaction -. betweeh model homes in order tO provide easy passage from one home 'to : the. next. No one else present wished to comment. -~. .. Chairman Norton closed the hearing for the evening at 9:28 P.M., directed UP-171 continued to the next regular mSeting and referred seume to the Sub- division Con~mittee for study. G. V-334 - Stu~.set Associates, Sarato~a-Sunnyvale Road - Request for Variance · .' 'in Connection with Freestanding Pole Sign ~nd Maximum Sign Area Continued from 11 August 1969 The hearing relative to V-334 was: re-opened at 9:29 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added, to the file. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 25 August 1969 recommending that the Variance request in connection with freestanding pole sign and maximum sign area be denied. ~. Terry Long, Ad-Art Associates, stated that 1) there is definitely a hardship involved in this case 2) there was. fo_rTn_~ly a freestanding sign used for the business in the building now occupied by the applicant 3) the .applicant has a large retail use in tlnis building at present and if he'vacates the building (due to lack of' business because of insufficient identification) there are very· fe;~ other businesses that could exist in. the building; therefore, ~.n upt. ept building will result 4) the aDDliC~nt feels that the proposed freestanding sign would supply adequate i~ntification 5) the. sign used by Dr. Oliver iS si.,,~i!ar to the one proposed by the appli-' cant ~}' the building occupied by' the app!ice~nt has sufficient space for a building· sign but [nyone approaching on High',;ay 85 in the fast moving traffic cannot change lanes in s,ufficient. time due to lad< of visible identification and 7)' perhaps the freestanding sign could be approved until a frontage road iS constructed in this area.and 8) if the app!ica~nt does leave building a shopping center effect .will probably be created because the build- 'fng will have to be divided up into multiple retail ·uses since it is too large "for any s~-~ll retail use. Chairm-~n Nortqn stated fl, qat 1) the Planning Co,.7s,~-'ssion does not grant Variances very freely 2) the arguments made by r-~. Long could be made by anyone rec?.desting a large sign for their business an~.~ wh=~e in the City 3) the Planning Co~,.-nission has turned do;,,~. many similar requests and 4) if the applicant does not agree with the decision of the Planning Commission he has the right to appeal to the City COLLnCil. ... ,,- ..- .... · - -7- '- ............................. . .... .~. ,. .. - - ' .... ...= .--, .-... t ...'. ·.=-....=....., - .. · =.,~=...i'.,~ :- ~ l:.'{.,',L ~ =-.-..=.-',".....~ .......~....'-i~!.~.. -~ ......l:.i.'..-~-!..=..=....= .....,.. ;:.~.< ...~ ..... ~=.=~ ~..;'., ~.. ~.,=. ' ...~:,...= Plannin~ Con~mission Minutes - 25 August 196'9 - Continued II. G~ V-334 - Continued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded~ by Commissioner Kraus, to close the hearing relative to V-334 at 9:39 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded~ by Commissioner Lively, that the Sta-f-f,~ Report dated 25 August 1969 be adopted and the subject Variance b~,.~denieJ~/ .since the findings required by Section 17.6 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 cannot be made for the reasons stated in said report; motion carried unanimous ly H. V-335 '. Kenneth L. Proulx, McCullo~h Avenue - Request for Variance in Connection with Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Requirements for AccessOry Structure - Continued from 11 August 1969 Chairm~n Norton re-opened the hearing at 9:40 P.M. The Secretary stated there ~s nothing new in the file. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 25 Aught 1969 reco~ending that the subject request for Variance be denied. ~. Proulx, the applicant, ~s present and stated that the only other place. that the addition could be placed Would be in the middle of the rear yard and that would destroy the value of the property. Chairman Norton stated that in vieQ of the current controversy_ ..over accessory buildings he could not suggest an alternative for the applicant.' Co:missioner Lively explained that .the Variance Committee did meet with the applicant and they do appreciate his desire to add to his home as others in the area have done; however, there are other alternatives available to the the applicant that might fill the setback requirements. Part of the problem, ...... he said, was the location of the e~isting concrete badminton court. ~. Proulx stated that he has gone over his plans numerous times by himself and with a contractor and they could find no alternate location on his property. Chairran Norton stated that a homeowner cannot expect ~o have ~xtensi~e accessory structures on his property if his 10t is not large enough to allow for same and still meet 'the"'setb~ek ~e'~uir~mepts. Commissioner C~isp, Chairman of th& Variance. Co~ittee, reco~ended that the Staff Report dated 25 August 1969 be amended as follows: paragraph 1. . .line 1. . .insert the follol-~ng between the words "variance and "to" "from emergency ordinance NS-3E7 limiting rear yard accessory structuresV. Co~issioner ~isp moved, seconded..by Commissioner Lively, to close the hearinK at .9:46 P.M.: motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, that the Staff Report dated 25 August 1969 be adopted, as amended, and the Variance (V-335) be denied for the reasons set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. I. V-336 - William Weimer, Toll Gate Road - Request for Variance in Connection with.Interior Side Yard Setback Requirements for Swimming Pool - Continued from 11 August 1969 The hearing in connection with V-336 ~ms resumed at 9:51 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file. The applicant ~s present and stated he had no 'further coments. It ~s recommended that under paragraph 3. . .Item 1. . .between the words "Provide" and "solid" the following should be inserted "6-foot". No.:.one in the audience wished to cogent. Co~issioner Smith moved to close ~he hearing at 9:57 P.M., seconded by Commissioner Lively; motion carried unanimously. .8~..-. Planning Connnission Minutes - 25 August 1969 - Continued II. I. V-336.- Continued Cormnissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, that the Staff ' Report dated 25_ August 1969 be adopted as amended, and the subject Variance (V-336) b~Jgranted on the basis the findings r. equired under Section 17.6 of Zoning Ordi'~ance NS-3 can be made and approval is subject to the condi- tions stated in said report; motion carried unanimsouly. J. V-337 - Pacific Gas and Electric, Cox Avenue - Request for Variance to Allow Overhead Utilities Adross the ~tate HiShway Right-of-Way Chairman Norton opened the heari~gat 10:01 P.M. The Secretary stated that the applicant requests a Variance in order to install overhead lines on Cox Avenue near Glen Brae because the State Highway Department has refused to allow underground .lines. He further stated that even though it is the right of .the High~y Department to refuse to permit the underground utilities the PG&E Company must still ~ke application for a Variance. Co~issioner Crisp stated that the .High~my Department ~ile doing their construction work in the area would then allow the subject utilities to be placed underground. ~, The Secretary read a letter receiv+d from the State Highly Department dated 3 February 1969 requesting P~E to locate the lines overhead in order to preclude the necessity of reloc~ting the facility at a later date. ~. Cowin, PG&E representative, stated that there ~11 basically be one 45-foot wood pole approxi~tely 500-feet west of Cox Avenue. Chairman Norton stated that perhaps a condition of the Variance could be that P~E install underground utilities at the time of the Highly construc- tion. Co~issioner Metcalf stated that 1) it appeared to him that the State Highway Department wants to have it both ways - overhead utilities now and underground utilities later and 2)'. he felt the City should require PG&E to put the subject utilities under~roundj ~. Cowin, in answer to an inquiry.from Chair~n Norton, stated that 1) if the City did require underground utilities PG&E would have to find another area other than the one designated 'to install the subject utilities and 2) if the facility were installed underground it would only be a matter of spending additional funds on something that would have to be rem6ved again in five (5) year s. ~. Cowin further stated, in answe~ to an inquiry from the Assistant Planner, that 1) it is not possible to connect to the substation since the cables in the substation are six times larger than what is nor~lly used and 2) a connection from Glen Brae would require that the plans be referred back to the engineers to determine the feasibility of such a connection. At 10:10 P.M. Chair~n Norton closed the hearing for the evening, directed V-337 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Variance Co~ttee for study. Commissioner CriSp, on behalf of the Variance Committee, .arranged an appoint- ment with ~. Cowin for ~n on-site inspection for 8:00 A.M. on Saturday, 30 August 1969. III. BUILDING SITES A~ SUBDIVISIONS None PlanninS Commission Minutes - 25 Au,~ust 1969 - Continued IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-320 - Abel Carreia, Saratoga-Su~nyvale Road - Final Design Review - Identification Sign Commissioner Kraus stated that the subject application was for an identification sign and a Staff Re'port has been prepared relative to A-320. The Assistant Planner read the staff Report dated 25 August 1969 reconmnending that Final Design Approval be granted for A-320. It was 'recommended and agreed upon that the Staff Report dated 25 August 1969 be amended as follows: paragraph 1. . .line 2. . .change lthe word "advertise" to "identify"; i,, "34" paragraph 1.. .line 3.. .change. 33 to ; !~y paragraph 2. . .line 3. . .change "Exhibits "C" and "D"" to read "Exhibit "E"; and add Condition (c) as follows: (c) Letters of said;. sign not to exceed 18-inches in an:.y dimension. CommisSioner Kraus moved, seconded! by Commissioner Smith, that the Staff Report dated 25 August 1969 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be~r~d_'.for A-320 on the basis of Exhibit "E" and subject to the condition~ sf~t~ed in said report; motion carried unanimously. B. A-325 ' United Presbyterian Church;, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Herriman Avenue - Final Design Review - Multi-Purpose Building The Assistant Planner stated that the applicant has requested that the matter be continued to the next regular meeting to allow time to ~:ork out difficulties relative to parking. Chairman Norton so directed. 'C. .S.S-62 - Osterlund Enterprises, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Paramount Drive - Final DeSign Review - Tempo_ra_r_y Subdivision Sign Commissioner Kraus stated that t~i~ sign, if approvad as submitted, will be somewhat of an eye sore. Commissioner Smith stated that the subject subdivision area is shielded from traffic and if the proposed sign is installed it will look like a service station. Chairman Norton stated that the applicant should be requested to reduce the ...he_ight' of the su.bje'ct sign. The Assistant Planner stated that the applicant ~s not present because he did not anticipate any problem relative to the subject" sign. Chairman Norton directed the matter continued to the meeting of 8 September 1969 and referred SS-62 to the Design Review Committee for further study. V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Com~missioner Lively gave a sum~nary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 20 August 1969 with emphasis on matters of particular interest to the Commission. -10-z Planning Commission Minutes - 25 Augu'st 1969 - Continued VI. PLANNING POLICY CO~IITTEE REPORT. Commissioner Kraus stated that the minutes of the last meeting were available for review in each Com~issioner's folder. He further stated that 1) the Executive Committeei has decided to re-instate the Hillside SubSCommittee and 2) there willZbe a special meeting of the'Planning Policy Committee on 28 August 1989 at 7:30 P.M. at the Board of Super- visors Chambers, 70 W. Hedding S[ree't, San Jose to discuss a metropolitan airport proposal. : VII. OLD BUSINESS A. ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY CO~.~ITTEE - Report of Design Review Committee - Continued from 11 August 1969 Chairman Norton stated that he and Commissioner Smith, individually worked out some sugges'tions relative to the this matter. He further stated that the proposed ordinance should include something to show people that contemplate construction in the City (a point made by Mr. Rankin) at the last meeting and the ordinance should, also, have enough strength to stand up in court if necessary. Chairman Norton advised that he had drafted some guide lines for design review and they have been placed in each Commissioners folder for consideration. Commissioner Metcalf stated That there are really three (3) separate ideas to consider 1) the guide lines as outlined by Chairman Norton 2) Commissioner Smith's draft relative to creation of an Architectural Advisory Committee and 3) Chairman Norton's memo relative to Civic Design Problems. Commissioner Lively recommended that one way of dealing with the matter might be to establish an architectural consultant that would be paid a retainer and he would be on Call when a situation arises that his services are needed. Chairman Norton advised that zthe recommendation made by Commissioner Lively gets away from the original proposal that the local people with local concern get involved. He further stated that a consultant would have to be paid; whereas, a citizens committee would not require a fee. Chairman Norton directed the matter continued to the 22 September 1969 meeting, and referred it to the Design Review Committee for further study. B. REqUES~ RECEIVED FROM MILES RANKIN - Request for Interpretation of Setback Requirements - Continued from 11 August 1969 Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee reviewed the subject request.and he moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp that the Planning Commission go on record as designating the 85-foot and 133-foot dimension of Lot 12 on Surrey Lane as the rear yard line; motion carried unanimously. ~ C. C-43 - Dr. Isaac N. Abrams, Saratoga Avenue - Request for Extension C-106 - MoV,S., Saratoga Aven~e - Request for Extension The Secretary stated that thelCity Council has referred. the question of extension for C-43 and C-1~6 back to the Planning Commission for further' consideration. Chairman Norton directed the request for extension in connection with C-43 continued to the 8 September. 1969 meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for!study. -11- Planning Commission Minutes - 25 AugUst 1969 - ContinUed VII. C. C-106 - Continued Chairnmn Norton stated tha~ the Planning Commission did recommend a three (3) month extension from date of City Council approval for C-106 and this reconm~endat~on ~mS discussed by Commissioner Smith, - himself (Chairman Norton), and Councilman Robbins and it ~s stated that the Council is of the 'opinion that a three (3) month extension is meaningless and unless a six (6) month extension can be granted the matter should be denied aldogether. He further stated that it should be understood that the City Council can accept or reject the recommendation of the Planning Commission'but they cannot change it. Commissioner 'Smith advised that the Subdivision Cormnittee did meet to discuss the matter and since it will not be possible to the Council to act prior to their meeting of 3 September 1969 and the action on that date would extend the .original three month extension recommended by the Commission to more than five months. He further 'stated that M.V.S. originally requested a six (6) month extension. Commissioner Lively explained that the reasons the Council referred the matter back to the Commission for further consideration was because of the money being limited for projects of this type. Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee Report dated 14 July 1969 clearly states that the applicant has already had eighteen (18) months in which to obtain the necessary financing. Chairman Norton stated that the Council does not realize this and they indicate that it really does not alter their opinion. Commissioner Smith stated that the Planning Commission could recommend 'to the City Council that the applicant be denied any further requests for extension. Commissioner Lively advised that from a lending standpoint no one will be interested in the applicant if he does not have the needed zoning for this property. Commissioner Kraus recommended that C-106 be extended to sometime around the first of the year. Chairman Norton inquired about what would happen if the City Council accepts the recommendation bf the Planning Commission and then the applicant does not live up to expectations. Commissioner Metcalf stated! that the City Council had indicated that financing is tight and that' the Planning Commissioner should be generous with the applicant.. Commissioner Kraus stated tbat, he felt, the Council would like to see the six (6) month exten'sion for C-106. Chairman Norton read the report of the Subdivision Committee dated 25 August 1969 recommending! to the City Council that the Commission set the expiration date for% conditional zoning as three (3) months after Council approval or the date of 5 December 1969; whichever, occurs first. : The Secretary stated that h~ would suggest that instead of a five (5) month extension the Commission approve a six (6) month extension which is what the applicant originally requested. He further Stated that with a six (6) month extension the applicant would have what he wanted and then there will be no reason to hesitate or grant any further extensions. Planning Commission. i =;~25 A~gust 1969 - Continued VII. C. C-106 - Continued Corm~nissioner Metcalf moved,. seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that an extension of six (6) months (from the original expiration date of 5 July 1969) be granted to 5 January 1970 for C-106 as originally requested by the applicant motion carried unanimously. VIII. NEW BUSINESS Park and Recreation Fee Credit - ~ohn Rodrigues, Jr..- Sar~t. 9~a Oaks Tract The Secretary stated that a request had been received requesting credit toward the park and recreation fee in connection with Tract 4477. He further stated that the last request of this nature had been referred to the Subdivision Co~anittee for study. Chairman Norton directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for study. Distribution of Mail The Secretary stated that a suggestion was made that the mail (agenda and minutes from the City Council a=nd Park and Recreation, etc.) be given to the Planning Department Staff and picked up by the individual Commissioners. After discussion it was decidedZ that the Planning Commission Minutes be mailed to the individaul Commis. sioners and other correspondence that is not timely be given to the Planning Staff and they in turn will place it in· each Comnissioners folder ~.J~ich will be distributed at the Planning Commission meetings. IX. CO)~.'..~TNICAT!O%~iS A. I~RITTEM Co~nunication from l,~s. Raymond Sheets The Secretary read a letter received from ~s. Raymond Sheets requesting that the minutes of the 28 'July 1969 stated that a problem could develop ~elat·ive to the property behind ~. B. T. Galeb's four lots (SDR-823) because of the sewer and creek pipes running beneath the property. Chairman Norton stated thati once the minutes have been approved it is rather difficult to amen~ them; therefore, the minutes of this meeting will stated that the communication relative to the subject matter ~,.~as noted. B. ORAL Chairman Norton acknowledge.d, with pleasure, the presence of ~. ~,·~rshall and ~s. Stark: of the Good Government Group and Dr. Newcomer of the League of W.omen Voters. He, also, 'thanked ~s. Stark for the coffee served' at recess. X. ADJOUR~rbZ~ Chairman Norton declared the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Stanley M, ..Walker, Secretary · ~ Secretary Planning Commission -\ - "-:-i ....... · ....· ..:' ..'."~*., .L.. '. ' .....· .....- ... .... ' ',. -?