HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-1969 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COmmISSION
MINUTES
TIME: Monday, 8 December 1969, 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Norton.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bacon, Crisp, Iraus, Lively, Metcalf, Norton,
and Smith.
Absent: None.
B. MINUTES
Chairman Norton noted that the minutes of the 24 November 1969 meeting
required numerous revisions; therefore, it might be well to allow time for
each Commissioner to turn in his comments and postpone any action on the
subject minutes until the meeting of 22 December 1969.
Chairman Norton then explained that the regular recording secretary, ~s.
Loher, was unable to attend the meeting of 24 November 1969 and a Subs'~'itu~
"S'~c~'etary "' submitted a set of minutes in"Whi'Ch' there We~e'"~ome
'~m'f~'S'{6n~"~'nd '~here being"n0 OBjeCtions he C~i~ued adtion'On'the minutes
~~'~ '~guiar me~ti~g°.land'"'requebted "each comm'issioner to"sUbmit
~and revisions at their earli~st'cohVenlenc~' t~ ~s." Loher.'
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. UP-55 - Brookside Club of Saratoga, Cox Avenue - Request for Use Permit
to Allow Additional Tennis Courts - Continued from 24 November 1969
Chairman Norton, at the suggestion of Commissioner Smith, postponed the
hearing of UP-55 until after the h.earing relative to V-340.
B. V-340 - Brookside Club of Saratoga,' Cox Avenue - Request for Variance in
Connection with Construction of a Chain Link Fence - Continued from'
24 November 1969
Chairman Norton re-opened the hearing in connection with V-340 at 7:39 P.M.
The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file.
Mr. Theodore Jenkle, present to represent the applicant, stated that he had
no further comments at this time.
Commissioner Crisp re~d the Varianc~ Committee Report dated 8 December 1969
recommending that the requested Variance be granted.
Commissioner Metcalf inquired if any thought had been given to addition of
only one (1) tennis court instead of two (2); thereby, eliminating the need
for a variance.
Commissioner Crisp stated that 1) the Variance Committee did not give the
matter of one (1) tennis court any ~onsideration since the construction of
tennis courts is encouraged by the City and 2) the subject request is quite
reasonable. :
-1~
· Plamning Commission Minutes - 8'December 1969 - Continued
II. B. V-340 - Continued
Chairman Norton stated that it did not appear that even one tennis court
could be built on the property without a variance.
The Secretary stated that he agreed it would be difficult.
Commissioner Metcalf stated that he had some reservations relative to
approval of this variance since the fence for the courts would be within
2-feet of a property line.
Chairman Norton explained that there would be at least 10-feet of landscaping
between the fence and the edge of.the pavement.
The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairmam Norton, stated that
the subject 10-foot landscape.d strip is o~.med by the City.
Councilman Robbins pointed out that 1) at the 'l~te.~'"~e~[ing'the'Co~ncil
adopted a park policy which involves the area west sf the Br0okSide Club
and 2) the conditions stated the.subject Variance ~ommittee Report;
however, would not, he felt, affect the aforementioned park area.
Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner iKraus, to close the
hearing at 7:53 P.Mo in connection with V-340; motion carried unanimously.
Conmissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner ~aus, that the Variance
Con~nittFe Report dated 8 December 1969 be adopted amd the subject Variance
be ~ranted subject to the conditions stated in sai~ report; motion carried
unanimously.
A. UP-55 - Brookside Club of Saratoga, Cox Avenue - Rezq~est for Use Permit to
Allow Additional Tennis Courts - Continued £~'s~ 24 November 1969
The hearing was re-opened.at 7:54 PoM. Chairman Nor~n explained that this
request is necessary since the original Use Permit r~port specified 'the number
of tennis courts allowed for the Club and now that ~he number iS to be changed
the matter is brought before the Con~nission for consideration.
~he Secretary read the Staff Report dated 8 December 1969 recommending that
the-request to allow additional tennis courts be ap~roved.
Commissioner Smith recon~nended that the following c~ndition 3. be added
to the subject Staff Report:
3. Tennis Club to maintain the !0-foot landscaped
strip along Brook Glen Drive.
Mr. Theodore Jenkle, present to represent the appli~cant, stated that he
did not object to the additional condition.
No one in the audience wished to comment.
At 7:58 PoM. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by ~o~f~aissioner Lively, to
close the hearing 'relative to UP-55; motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon,~to adopt, as
amended, the Staff Report dated 8=December 1969 and ~prove the request
to allow two (2) additional tennis courts to the Br~o~'kslde Club facility
subject to the conditions stated in said report; mstion carried unanimopsly.
-2-'
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 December 1969 - Continued
IIo C. V-341 - James A. Hendry, Canyon View Drive - Request for Variance in
Connection with Installation of Transmission Lines and Pole -
Continued from 24 November 1969
Chairman Norton re-opened the hea~ing at 7:59 P.M. The Secretary read
a communication received from I~..Andrew Prentiss filed in opposition
to the subject variance request.
The applicant was present, but made no further comments.
No one in the audience wished to connnent.
Commissioner Crisp read the Variance Co~nmittee Report dated 8 December
1969 recommending that the requested variance be denied.
Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, to close the
hearing at 8:04 P.Mo; motion Carried unanimously.
Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded'by Commissioner Kraus, that the Variance
Committee) Report dated 8 December .1969 be adopted and the subject variance
be,denied since the findings required by Section 17.6 of Ordinance N$-3
· cannot be made; motion carried with'CommiSsioner Smith abstaining.
D. PROPOSED AI~ND~NT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NS-3 - Re 1) Dedication of Common Green
Areas in a Planned Community (P-c)
Development 2) Elimination of
Multi-Family Residences in Profes-
sional-Administrative_(P-A) Districts
3) Definition of Duplex and
4) Clarifying the Term "Camper" -
Continued from 24 November 1969
The Chairman re-opened the hearing at 8:05 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing
new had been added to the file.
Chairman Norton explained the proposed ordinance as follows:
Section 1. Explains the definition of "Duplex".and proposes that
~ that "Duplex" be added to the list of definitions in
Zoning Ordinance NS-3~
Section 2. Eliminates multi-family dwellings from "P-A" (Professional-
Administrative) Zoning Districts.
Section 3. Would allow a developer to dedicate lan~ in a clus'ter"~'~velopment
to the"City of Saratoga f6r publiC reCrea~'{0nal' uses'and/or public park
use. ' ...................
Commissioner Crisp stated that the existing ordinance specifies that five
(5) acres is a minimum for any planned co~municty development and dedication
of 50% of that might .result in a lot of two-and-one-half (2~) acre park sites
and perhaps the requirements should call for more than five (5) acres.
Chairman Norton advised that Commissioner Crisp was suggesting that a proviso
be added to the prqposed ordinance (Section 3) requiring more acreage.
The Secretary stated that, he fe~, COmmissioner Crisp had brought up a good
point but the City does not have to accept a parcel that is not large enough;
therefore, the problem of creating park sites that are too small could be
avoided.
The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairm~n Norton, explained that
the Planning Commission would have a significant role in either the acceptance
-or refusal of any proposed areas for park sites.
Chairman Norton stated that, he felt, the Planning Commission should have the
option to disqualify an area if they feel it is too small for a park.
-3-
Pl~nnin~ Commission Minutes - 8 December I969 - ContinUed
II. D~ PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NS-3 - Continued
The Secretary explained that a neighborhood park is usually ten (10) acres
and so from a practical standpoint a minimum of fifteen (15) acres or
better should be required by the lproposed ordinance amendment for a common
green dedication.
Commissioner Crisp stated that a public park of five (5) acres is not
large enough but might serve well for a small neighborhood park.
Commissioner Lively stated that the Planning Consultant's Report, recently
submitted, states that neighborhood parks should c~nsist of at least eight
(8) acres,.
ConL~aissioner Smith inquired if in the case of a dedication would the '
Planning Commission have anything to say about the improvements on the
subject park site. ~
The Secretary explained that any .dedication would have to involve a
cluster development approval and this would allow ~Fne Planning Commission
ample opportunity to state their requirements.
Chairman Norton further explained that the developer would be required to
submit a very detailed map for consideration by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Smith inquired who would be responsibl=e for the improvements
if the City did accept some area for the purpose of a park site or conmaon
green area.
The Secretary stated that he supposed the City· Woul~ accept the property
and then supply the facilities for same.
Commissioner-Smith stated that it' should be stated in the proposed ordinance
that the area will be accepted without improvements.
Chairman Norton stated that since there seemed to be general agreement that
at least fifteen (15) acres should be r~quired for ~he purpose of dedication
~for a common green area he would recommend that the proposed ordinance under
Section 3: 4A.8 be amended and the following sentence be added at the end
of said Section 3:
"Provided, however, that this section shall
not be applicable to any Planned Community
District of less than fifteen (·15) acres."
After completion of the discussion relative to Section 3 of the proposed
ordinance Chairman Norton went on to explain the remainder of the contents
of the proposed ordinance amendment as follows:
Section 4:· Would add 'campers' to the list of the ~rdinance relating to
the regulating'"0f Storage of automobiles, boats, etc.
Commissioner Crisp. stated that, he felt, the proposed ordinance should be
referred to the Subdivision C0mni.ttee for the purpose of preparing a report.
Chairman Norton closed the hearing for the evening at 8:20 P.M., directed
the proposed ordinance amendment continued to the meeting of 22 December
1969, and referred same to the Subdivision Con~ittee for preparation of a
report.
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 December 1969 - Continued
II. E.. INFOFav. AL HEA~RING - Request to Add Administrative Offices to Permitted or
Conditional Uses in "R-i" (Single-Family Residential)
Zonin5 District
Chairman Norton explained that the applicant was uF_able to be present at the
time this ~tter came up in the ~normal order of tP~e agenda; therefore, the
hearing was brought up at a later; time, but is plac~ed in.=thes~ minutes in
the natural order.
Chairman Norton op'ened the discussion relative to ~his matter and briefly
reviewed the subject request.
The Secretary read a communication 'received from ~', and F~s. R, H. ~uehl,
19061 Austin I~y, stating their opposition to the p~oposed request.
~. Beaudoin, President of the Saratoga-Los Gatos F~mard of Realtors, ~s
present and stated that 1) [hey do have an office. ~n Lo~ Gatos ~nich they
are renting 2) their membership is distributed amom~g..L r:. three communities
3) they normally employ four people and keep normre% business hours 4) the
proposed activity does not depend. on traffic flow s;L~nce the priory use is
related to the membership 5) the identification of the said use would be
limited to a very small sign 6) the building proposed to be used has historical
value and ~.~s once used as a school and later as a. ~rket and presently as an
art gallery; which, is now looking for an area wit~ more traffic 7) the Board
would keep the grounds neat and ~intain a residen~.ial appearance for the
building and 8) the Board would not request this ~se if it did not feel that
it would be good for the total co~m~unity.
~. Bob Mohrman, 19041 Austin Way, stated that 1) ]he lived directly across
the street from the subject building. 2) he would ~zggest that the City take
a look at this property to determine if it really ~oes have some historical
signifigance 3) he and his wife feel they do not t.~nt a professional
organization (such as the one proposed) across the street from their home
4) they know of no one in the neighborhood ~.J~o is in favor of this request
5) he discussed this ~tter with ~. Gatewood (Pre. sident of the California
Board of Realtors) and ~s told that the Board felE~ that since their business
is selling. h~.nes and property they would like to be close to their customers
and 6) he did not feel the aforementioned was rea!~y a valid enough argument
· 'to permit the requested use in this neighborhood s~z~ce there were other areas
. available for this purpose that would be much more suitable.
Chairnmn Norton explained that 1) the subject building has housed a legal
non-conforming use since before the City was incorpsrated and the present use
can be legally continued for another t~.~enty to thirty years 2) if the
requested use is turned do~.m the o~.mer ~y lease tlle building to another art
gallery 3) the City could not, at present, purchas~ the building since the
demands on its money are .already great' and 4) the 5uilding could conceivably
be leased for a more undesirable use than the one p~oposed,
~. Mohrman stated that he purchased .his house thr~agh the Board of Realtors
and they pointed out at the time of the sale that ~his area would provide
privacy and no~.; they would take- a~y some of that privacy by proposin~'=the
subject use for this area.
Chairman Norton advised that t) 'the City would ha~e great difficulty in
controlling some permitted uses 'that could go into ~his building 2).". it
should not be assumed that if the requested use is not approved that the
. building will remain empty and 3) the use proposed is for an office for
the Board of Realtors and not for. a real estate office.
~. Mohrm~n stated that if this requested use is permitted then there will
be numerous other requests of this type and he feels that there are other
areas in the City where this use could be located.
-5"
Planning Commission Minutes 8 December 1969 - Continued
II. E. 'Informal H~aring - Continued
Mr. Bill 'V~ssbrinck', .19051Austin'I,~y, stated that 1) the use in the
building at present 'is the Los Gatos Art Assocation and not an art gallery
and 2) people do not come into the shop and purchase items and the shop
is not open on a daily basis.
~. Beaudoin, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman lNorton, stated that
1) there will be a. very limited traffic flow in cop~nection with the requested
use 2) some members will come in to pick up supplie:s and in some cases their
multiple listings 3) there will b~ a small amount of meetings held in the
building as well as orientation classes for new membe. rs and 4) the office
will be closed on Saturdays and Sundays, holidays and evenings.
Mr. Norman }~rtin, president of th~ Prides Crossing. ~omeowners Association,
stated that 1) he was not a resident of the subject, area so he was speaking
for "R-I" residents of .the City 2) the City has previously allowed sales
offices for subdivisions to locate in residential ar~as and the objections
raised by the neighbors has been significant 3) if ~e requested use is
permitted in an "R-I" Zone then other administrative ~ffices will have to
be allowed in other "R-i" Zones and 4) he felt the majority of homeowner
associations would be opposed to such a use in the .~-1" Zoning District.
Mr. John Fitzsimmon, 15745 Wood Acres Road, Los Gato~, w-as present and
stated that he lived within 500-feet of the subject site and is opposed
to the said request since he did not feel'that the ~o.~nnercial use of the
existing building should be increased.
~s. Rogers, a resident of the areA, stated that she, did speak with one
realtor who is opposed to the location of this use "~m thisparticular area
since it is out of their way for the purpose of picking up the daily multiple
listing.
~. Beaudoin stated that he was not aware that any realtors were opposed to
this location and most of the multiple listings are mailed daily to the realtors.
Admiral Styer, secretary-treasurer of the Board of ~ealtors, stated that there
are about twelve local realtors that would pick up t~e multiple listings on a
dail~ basis.
Commissioner Smith read the Subdivision Cormnittee Report dated 8 December 1969
recommending that the subject request be denied.
CommisSioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner B'econ, that the Subdivision
Committee Report dated 8 December 1969 be adopted arm] that the request to add
Administrative Office to the Permitted or Conditional Uses in the "R-I" Zoning
Districts be denied since the findings required un~e~ Section 14 of Zoning
Ordinance NS-3 cannot be made for the reasons stated in said report; motion
carried unanimously.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SD-830 - George W. Day, Toll Gate Road - Subdivision .Approval - 15 Lots -
Continued from 24 November 1969
The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 8 December1969 recommending that
the...subject request for subdivision approval be denied.
Mr. Nester Barrett, Planning Consultant, present to ~epresent the applicant,
stated that 1) he attended the meeeings at. which thelproposed tentative m~p
was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee 2) the fir,st maps submitted were
for a cluster development pattern and this would have been a far better arrange-
ment for the City than the one currently under consi~.eration; however, the
Subdivision Conn~ittee did not favor the cluster devel, opment 3) George Day
'th n 'nstructed the engineers to do a map that com I. ied.with the City ordinance
an~ 4'~he certainly fel~ it rather sad that the who~e idea of cluster development
for this property was being neglected by ,the City.
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 December 1969 - Continued
III.· A. SD-830 - Continued '
Chairman Norton noted that the point in question is whether this land is
suitable for cluster development.·
Commissioner Smith explained that the Subdivision Committee did suggest
a cluster development a year ago, but the developer did not choose to go
ahead because· of certain amenities required by the City.
Mr. Barrett stated. that 1) ~. Day preferred a cluster development and
2) he felt, the City should have an ordinance to do away with the type
of wasteful amenities presently required.
Mr. John Heindle, George S. Nolte and Associates Engineering Firm, stated
.... ~hat 1) it ~,~s their contention that the cul-de-sac shown on the subject
tentative map is legal and has th'e maximum number of lots allowed.2) Toll
Gate has been extended; however,·the second access was intended to ~l~inate
the possibility of a cul-de-sac 3) the grade inplaces is over 15% in some
areas Of the road, but this matte~ has been discussed with the Fire M~rshal
and he has no objection and 4) there are some lots that have steep gradients
but they ~zare· less than.the 40% stated in the ordinance.
Chairman Norton pointed out that roads with a 15% grade are a problem and
everyone is aware of that fact. He further stated that 1) the applicant
indicates that this land Could be developed at a greater cost than they
are willing to put into the property 2) it is not essential that the City
permit the land to be developed at a lower cost 3) the cost is not al~ys
Uppermost in the City~s mind and 4) the development of this property is
costly but the Subdivision Committee has made it plain that it should not
be permitted to be developed in an inexpensive way.
Commissioner Metcalf stated that most of these lots that require cutting
and filling exceed the two to one ratio that is as high or as low as should
be permitted even in earthquake territory.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, to adopt the
Staff Report dated 8 December 1969 ~.n~that the subject tentative map
Exhibit "A-i" filed in SD-830 be~ni~e.~' in accord with the California
Subdivision ~p Act and Part I, Section 2.5 of the City of Saratoga
Subd. ivison Ordinance NS-5 and for the reasons stated in said report;
motion carried unanimously.
B. SDR-831 - Ralph Anderson, Quito Road - Building Site Approvai- 2 Lots -
Continued from 24 November 1969
Chairman Norton, at the recommendation of Commissioner Smith, stated that
SDR-831 would be continued to the next regular meeting.
Mr. Anderson, applicant, stated that he was under the 'impression that his
request listed under VII. OM Business of the agenda would be taken up at
this time.
Chairman Norton explained that the Planning· Commission could not grant
exception to a condition that has not formally been reco~nended for approval
by .the Commission. ~.
The Secretary advised that the City Attorney states that the applicant can
request exception to conditions prior to approval of subject conditions.·
Chairman Norton stated that the r~quest for exception would have to be kept
on file since the Building Site C6mmittee is not ready to make a recommendation
at this time.
-71
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 Decenter 1969 - Continued
III. B. SDR-831 - Continued
Mr. Anderson stated that he was ins~.=ucted, first of all, to file for a
variance and did so and the Notices of }learing were mailed and now it
appears that a variance request was unnecessary.
The'Secretary explained that }~r. Anderson did apply for a variance, but
the City Attorney declared this to be unnecessary.
'-
Chairman Norton expressed his regrets to P~r. Anderson and his neighbors for
being unnecessarily disturbed and' encouraged them ~ submit their statements
in ~.~iting so that it will not be necessary for then to come to the next
meeting if they do not desire to do so.
C. SDR-832 - David L. Mendenhal!, Mr. Eden Road - Bui~ding Site Approval -
1 Lot - Continued 24 November 1969
Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-832 be continued since the applican.t
had not submitted his development. plan.
Chairman Norton so directed.
D. SDR-834 - Burke and Moe Realty, S~ratoga-Sunnyvale P, oad - Building Site
Approval - 1 Lot
Commissione. r Smith recommended that this matter be ~ontinued since the
Department of Public Works was not prepared to condition these sites.
Chairnmn Norton so directed.
E. SD-835 - Columbus-Founders Savings and Loan Corporation, Arroyo de Arguello
- Building Site Approval - 10 Lots
Con~missioner Smith recommended that this m~tter be ~ontinued since the
Department of Public Works was not prepared to condition these sites°
~Chairman Norton so directed.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-296 - Franklin Homes, Fourth Street and Springer ~venue - Final Design
Approval - Landscaping Plan
Conm~issioner Metcalf advised that this request if for approvalof the
landscape plans and the applicant has submitted twc~ ..(2) alternative
treatments either of which are acceptable to the Design Review Committee.
The Planning Commission read the Staff Report datedl 8 December 1969
recommending that Final Design Approva! be granted for the landscape
plans in connection with A-296.
Commissioner Metcalf moved, secon.ded by Commissioner Kraus, .that the Staff
Report dated 8 DeCember 1969 be adopted and that F~nal Design Approval be
granted for A-296 as shown one-Exhibits "B" and "C"~ motion carried unani-
mously.
B. A-337 - Gene Wallace Lighting Studio, Saratoga-SunmFvale Road - Final Design
ApproVal - Identification' Sign
The Planning Commission read the Staff Report dated;'. '8 December 1969
recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for A-337.
'The Assistant Planner reconm~ended' that the subject report be amended
with Condition b. as follows: .
"b. Illumination not to exceed 430 milliamperes."
PlaininS Co~n~ission Minutes - 8 December 1969 - Continued
IV. B. A-337 - Continued
Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the
Staff Report dated 8 December'19691be adopted and that Final Design
Approval be granted for A-337 as sho~.m on Exhibits "A" and "B" and
subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried
unanimously.
C. A-330 - Elgin Capital, Big Basin I,~y - Final Design Approval - Modification of Roofing ~terial
The Secretary explained that 1) Elgin Capital received Final Design Approval
and in that approval they proposed, what seemed to be a very attractive, metal
roof and it ~.~s approved 2) the applicant now decided that roof would not be
aesthetically pleasing 3) it seems the executive of the company just recently
became aware that a metal roof was. to be used 4) it is now proposed, by the
applicant, that an asbestos shingle be used and 5) the applicant requests
that a decision be made at this time.
The Assistant Secretary explained that the newly proposed material has a
Class "A" fire rating.
The Secretary stated that the reason the request is presented at this time
is because the contractors are ready to put the roof on the building.
Commissioner Metcalf indicated tha~ the Design Review Committee would like
some time to consider this matter.
Chairman Norton recommended that a. short recess be called for consideration
of this matter by the Design Revie~ COmmittee.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Elgin Capital - Continued
Commissioner Metcalf, after the recess, stated that it is the conclusion of
the Design Review Committee that this m~tter should be continued to the meet-
ing of 22 December 1969 to allow time for further study since the Committee
does.not feel that the color proposed is compatilbe with other colors previously
authorized under the subject application.
Chairman Norton directed that A-330 be continued to the next regular meeting
and referred same to the Design Review Committee for further study.
V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Commissioner Lively gave a su~aary of items reviewed and action taken at the City
Council meeting of 3 December 1969 with emphasis on matters of particular interest
to the Commission.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. 'SD-766 - Brow~ and Kauffman, Cox.,Avenue - ~equest for Extension
The Secretary stated that the apDlicant requests a one (1) year extension.
Commissioner Smith read the Staff Report dated 8 December 1969 recommending
that a one (1) year extension be granted for SD-766.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded. by Com~missioner..B~.~0~,' .~a.~._.t~e.._§t~.~f'~i~.'. '"'~ ....
._~F.p~rt dated 8 December' 1969 be adopted and that a one _.(!)_.year extension be
..granted for SD-766, specifically,;Units 3 and 4 of the map dated 28 June 196~;
motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 December 1969 - Continued
VI. B. Robert Robinsop, E1Camino Grande ~ Request to Increase Equestrian Zone Area
Commissioner Smith stated that the. Subdivision Committee discussed this
matter with the City Attorney and there seems to be two choices available
according t~.Lthe City Attorney,as follows:
1) The matter could be considered as a Change
of Zoning ~ich Would involve a fee and
public hearings.
2) The request could be considered as a
· ' Variance ~qich would, also, involve
a smaller fee and public hearings.
The Secretary stated that it would be unfortunate to require a Change of
.Zoning for this request since it would seem like a lot to do for a single
family residence.
Chairman Norton explained to the applicant, who' was present, the two
alternatives available and told him that the Planning Commission cannot
change boundary lines without some sort of formal application or proceeding.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
Ralph ~nderson, Quito Road - Request for Exception of'Road Width Requirements
Mr. Anderson ~ms present and stated he would be going out of town for two (2)
weeks and would like an appointment to meet with the ~ubdivison Committee before
leaving.
Commissioner Smith stated that since the Subdivision Committee has already met
with the applicant, he felt, a report could be drafted on the basis of the
information conveyed at that meeting.
The Secretary stated that the applicant did submit a letter explaining his
request.
The ~pplicant stated he would like th~ Subdivision Committee to make an on-site
inspection of the property.
Commissioner Smith responded that the'Subdivision Committee did go out and look
at the applicant's property.and that no action can be taken r~lative to the
subject request prior to approval of the building site.
The Secretary reconnmended that the Subdivision Committee and'Staff prepare a set
of conditions for the tentative map and subsequently prepare a report relative
to the subject request.
Commissioner Bacon inquired of the SeCretary if the applicant's map is in proper
order.
The S~cretary explained that the applicant would have to submit a suitable map.
Commissioner Crisp noted that the map'before the Commission is not correct.
.Chairman Norton requested the applicant to submit a proper.-map and referred the'
matter to the Subdivision COmmittee for study and a report at the appropriate time.
VIII. CO1,R4UNICATIONS
A. WRITTEN z
George Day - Request. of Lynn Douglas
The Secretary stated that a letter, addressed to the City Council and Planning
Commission, was received from Lynn Douglas of 14691 Live Oak Lane, urging an
investigation by the City relative to supervision and conditions imposed on
contractors (especially George Day) ~nen tearing up streets.
F,lanning tom_mission Agenda - 8 December 1969 - Continued
VIII ~ B. ORAL ~
Chairman Norton acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilman
Robbins,. Mrs. Owen of the Good Government Group, Dr. Newcomer of the
League of Women Voters, and Mr. Norman ~artin of the Prides Crossing
Homeo~ers Assodiation... He, also, thanked Mrs. Owen for the coffee
.. served at the recess.
IX. ADJOUR~r~fE. NT
Chairman Norton de'clared the meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
'S'~anley M. ~Alker, 'Secretary
j
-11-