Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-1970 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COI~ISSION · , MINUTES " TI}~: Monday, 26 October 1970, 7:30 P.M. 'PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Chairman Norton. A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Crisp, Kraus, Lively, ~rtin, Metcalf, Norton, and Smith. Absent: None. B. '~RNUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, that the reading of the minutes of the 13'October 1970 meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following changes: page 1.. .top of the page.. .change 26 October 1970 to 13 October 1970; .. page 8.. ·under F. A-300.. .paragraph 2.. .line 13.. .insert the "tile " "et" · word "could" between the words y and g and lines 15 and 16 . . be changed to read as follows: "7) the applicant should be'required to provide water faucets for the purpose of watering the landscaping along Cox Avenue including Darien Way.when closed "' · , motion carried with C0~missioner Metcalf abstaining.. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS : A. C-134 - Van Hoag, Saratoga Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-l-10,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned Community) - Continued from 13 October 1970 Chairnmn Norton re-opened the hearing relative to C-134 at 7:34 P.M. The Secretary stated a communication was received from }~. Leon ~rkuszewski, 19140 Dagmar Drive, urging the rejection of the subject r~quest for change of zoning. ~. A1 Dossa, applicant's attorney, was present and stated that 1) th6 applicant is operating under pressure of an option and will probably need an extension and 2) the applicant regrets that while an effort has been n~.de to submit detailed plans he has not been able to complete all the plans; therefore, a request for continuance of C-134 is necessary. }~. Emory McFarlane, 18781Aspesi Drive, stated that he would like an explanation of what the applicant proposed originally and what he intends to submit under the changed plan. Chairman Norton explained that 1) the applicant originally asked for a change of zoning from "R-i-IO,O00" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-M-5,000" "P-C" (Multiple-Family Residential Planned Community) 2) now the request has been changed to a change of zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-!-iO,000" "P-C" (Single- Family Residential Planned Community) and .3) the applicant wishes a continuance to allow additional.time to complete the new plans· -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 26 October 1970 - Continued II. A. C'134 - Continued Mr. Falcone, one of the o~a~ers of the property, stated that 1) he is interested in the statements made relative to the traffic and the danger to children if the property is developed (statements made in Mr. ~rkuszewski's letter) 2) he is wondering what the residents of [he' area suggest he do with the property 3) 'he has been holding this white elephant (the subject property) for ninny years and a lot of ~ity Officials are aware of the problems connected with development of the property 4) there are' two dead end streets onto the property and a possible one-way street, high tension wires, an eventual freeway and pipe lines and 5) he pays high taxes and he cannot afford to farm this property since it no longer lends itself to agricultural use; further- more, he has re-established his farming operation in the San Joaquin Valley. Mrs~ Anne G. Scarlet, 13551 LaPaz Way, stated she walked her dog on this property and it appears the p~operty is not really suitable for building sites, but would lend itself well to a park site. Chairman Norton explained that the property is sho~.za on the General Plan as a park site; however,. the City is short of funds necessary to purchase the property. The Assistant Planner showed the latest exhibits submitted by the applicant. ~ommissioner Crisp explained that 1) the proposal--shown on the exhibit i~ for seventy-three units which are all joined 2).. the City Ordinance states that road-ways are to be excluded from the total square footage of a parcel and the applicant has not done so even though most of the road-~:ays are under PG&E easements 'and 3)..._the applican. t_~a_.s_.p__r.o_p_.o. Scd 75% of the seventy-.three unitS.._as.:' t.~j~.st_or~'. .............................. . ........................................... .Chairman Norton explained that, in view of traffic complaints in this area, he is not willing to even consider seventy-three units. Commissioner Crisp informed that if the easement portion of the property is removed from the' total square footage available there will be only eleven acres available for development which would result in fewer number of units. Chairman Norton explained that he did not object to construction of the roads on the PG&E easements. The Secretary explained that in a "P-C" (Planned-Comznunity) Development " the easement area may be usedr in total' area figures if the site-development plan based on such total area is approved by the Com~nission. Mr. Dossa explained that the proposed twosstory buildings will be just five-feet above the one-story building-heights. "Chairman Norton pointed out that the proposed~development is to be occupied by senior citizens;-therefore, second~story units are not really desirable. Mr. Dossa stated that the applicant has continually ~evised his plan and will continue to do so until something satisfactory to the City is submitted° Chairman Norton closed the hearing relative to C-134 for the evening at 7:48 P.M., directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee. -2- Plannin~g Commis_s..ion Minutes - 26 October' 1970 - Continued II. B. C-135 - Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning frora "A" (Agricultural) to "C-N" _(Neighborhood-Com~nercial) - Continued from 13 October 1970 The hearing relative to C-135 was re-opened at 7:49 P.M. The Secretary stated that a letter was submitted by Reverend Stanley B. Andersen, applicant's representative, requesting that the subject request for change of zoning be withdra~.m. Com~nissioner SnYi'~h~·"moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the /. request to ~w~thdraw ·C-135 be approved and any further· consideration for change '8'f'~O'~{~g .in Connection with same be terminated; motion carried unanimously. · C. C~-_1~36 - Cal-West Comanunities, Inc., Saratoga ~venue - Request for Change of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "R-M-3,000" (Multi-Family Resident ial) Chairman Norton opened the hearing relative to C-136 at 7:52 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing were mailed and published. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, stated that the subject change of zoning is for the property just North of the piece that the applicant currently has under construction. He further stated that a petition with sixty-nine (69) signatures was submitted strongly urging the rejection of the request for change of zoning for C-136. · - Chairman Norton noted that the·· General Plan for the City does ·designate ··· this property for "R-M" (Multi-Family) development.. Mr. A1 Dossa, applicant~s attorney, stated· that 1) this property has on the North-East side a-medical village, across Saratoga Avenue an Industrial zoned area, to the South-West the current Cal-West developmen~ and to the westerly area is Saratoga Creek 'which will provide a buffer for the "R-i" · . area across the creek 2) it is ·the applicant's understanding that the City for a number of years has viewed this property (the portion under· · construction and the portion under consideration for change of· zoning) as one parcel 3) under M.V.S. ownership the property was designed for development as one parcel 4) at the time Cal-West submitted their plans for the first parcel someone on the Planning Conunission inquired ~y the applicant did not get the re-zoning for the remaining parcel at the same time and 5) beca~,se of a time deadline the applicant was forced to wait until· now for change of zoning on the remaining parcel; however, it is the applicant's desire to develop the entire property as one complex at one time. Mr. Walter Doucett, 19131 Dagmar Drive, stated that i_y"'7_~'e"~'~"7~'~e"~'~me objections to the proposed change of zoning, but his n~nin concern is one of' traffic 2) people miss the turn off Saratoga Avenue into Paul Masson and they turn into Dagmar Drive to turn around 2) every evening brakes screech at the railroad tracks to stop for the flashing light 3) if the proposed change of zoning is approved a change in traffic pattern in the area of Dagn~r Drive is requested and 4) he has no objection to homes or buildings on the applicant's property, but the traffic problem in the area will increase if the property is developed. Dr. Crosman J. ~lark, 19200 Shubert Drive, stated that 1) he lived across the creek from the subject property 2) he was surprised to see the multi- family dwellings going up adjacent to the property under consideration for change of zoning 3) one of the reasons he moved to Saratoga was to maintain residence in a low-density area and he assumed Saratoga would be the place and 4) he strongly reconnnends that this additional request for "R-M" zoning be denied. -3- planning Conmission Minutes - 26 October 1970 - Continued II. C. C-136 - Continued Mr. T. J. Dylenski, 19186 De Havilland Drive, stated that 1) he'knows nothing about the character of the developer, but he would like to bring attention to the fact that at least some of the Realtors in the area have not been acting in good faith with their customers 2) when 'he bought his home he ~.~s told his property would extend to the 'middle 'of the creek and '~h~ prune orchard' on the other side of the creek ~:oUld ren~in and the o~.mership of that property wou. ld extend into the center of the other side of the creek 3) since then he has found he does not own the property to the center of the creek, but only to within 20-feet of the bank 4) vagrants, scooter riders, hippies, and rock throwers frequent the area of the creek and now he l'earnsthe orchard is to be developed as multi-family units 5) apartment dwellers pay little taxes and yet add to the tax burden by creating a'need for additional services and that leaves the overburdened home-o~er to bear the excess tax load caused by the apartment residents-and 6) the Realtors should not be allowed to tell half-truths to prospective home-buyers. Chairman Norton explained that it is his understanding that 1) the fact that Santa Clara County Flood Control District has easement over the creek does not mean that everybody can invade the privacy of the property o~mers along the creek-bank and 2) the property owners do have the right to keep trespassers out of the area. Chairnmn Norton closed the hearing for the evening at 8:07 POE., directed C-136 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for further study. D. ZONING ORDINANCE AI,~NDMENT - Relating to Maximum Sign Area for Multi- Family Dwellings, Motels, Hotels, or LojJ~j~ House s Chairman Norton opened the hearing at 8:08 P.M. The Secretary stated that a Notice of Hearing was published and then explained that sign allotments for' similar uses were rather inconsistent and the proposed amendment will provide some Uni.fe~mity..__. No one in the audience wished to comment relative to this matter. Chairman Norton closed the hearing for the evening at 8:12 P.M. directed , the proposed ordinance amendment continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Design Review Committee for study.. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS Ao SDR-849 - Thonms L. Dashiell,.Bohlman Road - Building Site Approval - " Revised Tentative Map - 3 Lots - Continued from 13 October 1970 Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-849 be continued to the next "regular meeting to allow time'for further study. Chairman Norton so directed. Bo SD-864 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Fruitvale Avenue - ~ubdivi.si9~ A~proval - Revised MaD - Continued from 13 October 1970 NOTE: This application was taken up at another point on the agenda and later in the evening; however, for the purpose of simplicity it is placed in the regular order of the agenda in these minutes. }~. Jerry Lohr, applicant's representative, stated he had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. -4- .Plann.i,ng Commission Minutes - 26 October 1970 - Continued III. B. SD-864 - Continued Commissioner Metcalf explained' that Conditions 10 and .11 of the Subdivision Con~nittee Report dated 26 October 1970 will have to be discussed at a meeting with the applicant and the Design Review Connnittee. The Secretary, in answer to an' inquiry frown Commissioner Martin, stated that the applicant will put in path~.~ays along Fruitvale Avenue and the pathways will not interfere with a four-lane road if such a proposal is considered for Fruitvale Avenue. Mr. Lohr stated fencing along Fruitvale Avenue will be provided and the orchard trees will remain and if Fruitvale Avenue is improved to four-lane the landscaping will be in place and will not have to be moved. CoEissioner Metcalf expressed a desire for someth{ng other than a six-foot fence along Fruitvale Avenue. Chairman Norton pointed out that Conditions 10 and 11 do call for fencing along Fruitvale Avenue, but not necessarily a six-foot. fence and if the City Council follows the rec0mmend~tion of"'~he Planning "' Co~iSSip~ ~ __foU~!an.~. r~ad along FrUitvale' A~enue'will not become a reality. Co~issioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the Subdivision Committee Report dated 26 October 1970 relative to SD-864 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-2" filed 6 October 1970, including typical individual site development plans for sites that exceed 10% in slope) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. ~D-87p - Peter Paylos, Chester Avenue - Subdivision Approval - 9 Lots - Continued from 13 October 1970 Commissioner Smith recommended that SD-870 be continued to the next regular meeting to allow time for further study. Chairman Norton so directed. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-271 - John Rodrigues, Third Street and Big Basin Way - Final Design Reviet.~ - Exterior Elevation for Third Tollhouse Unit The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 26 October 1970 recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for A-271. Co~issioner Metcalf stated that there will eventually be six tollhouse- units and the current plans show only four elevations; therefore, the condition in the report requests additional plans at the time of construc- tion of th~ two remaining to~mhouse units. Co~issioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Cormmissioner Lively, to adopt the Staff Report dated 26 October 1970 and grant Final Design Approval for construction of the third building complex consisting of four separate to~houses as sho~l on Exhibit ~'H" and subject to the condition stated in said report relative to A-271; motion carried unanimously. B. A-35~ - Ernest R. Loe~, Big Basin Way - Final Design Review - Remodeling of Existing Commercial Buildin~ The Assistant Planner read the ~taff Report dated 26 October 1970 Fecommending that Final Design Approval be granted for A-357. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, to adopt the Staff Report dated 26 October 1970 and Final Design Approval for remodeling of an existing commercial building in connection with A-357 as sho~m on Exhibits "A" and "B" and subject to the conditions stated. in said report; motion carried unanimously. -5- _Planning Commission Minutes - 26 October 1970 - Continued V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Lively gave a detailed su~mnary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 21 October 19~O with particular emphasis on the John Gor,nan Day-Care Nursery. Commissioner Lively then recommended that the Planning Comnission again consider eliminating nursery schools from the list of Conditional Uses in the "R-i" Zoning Districts. Chair~n Norton noted that if nursery schools were eliminated from the "R-I" Zoning Distric~ the existing nursery schools Would become legal non-conforming uses. He further stated that consideration is being given to eliminating all conditional uses from the '~-1" Zoning Districts. The Secretary explained that a report will eventually b'e prepared relative to elimination of the subject uses from the "R-I" Z6ning DistriCts. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. REVISION OF SLOPE DENSITY STAND.~DS - Continued from 13 October 1970 Commissioner Metcalf stated that page 2.. .of the Resolution establishing standards of hillside development. . .condition 2.. . has been revised to read as follows: 2) The site development .plan for the parcel shall have been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Advisory Conunittee, including building· site locations with respect to contours, and stipulatiou as to types of houses to be built on each. Co~issioner Metcalf further stated that 1) he did discuss the subject Millside Development Resolution with Warren tteid, architect, Chair~n of the Architectural Advisory Committee and he '(~,~. Heid) was not too happy with the idea of review and approval of the hill'side development by an outside registered architect because as }~. Heid stated, "we might run up against an architect who is used to working in other areas of the State where problems are completely different from this area and whose review would be meaningless for the y s p pose" and o Cit ' ur 2) it is his suggestion that the review of hillside development be conducted by the Architectural Advisory Committee. Chairman Norton stated that he is uncertain about delegating the Architectural Advisory Comnittee to study hillside development since that Co~m~ittee was organized for the purpose of handling design review in the Village area. Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) any good architect would see to it that the right house is placed on the right site and 2) when an engineer sees a contour it is a challenge to him to move it. ~hairman Norton questioned whether the Planning Commission had the right to delegate' any authority relative to hillside standards to a citizens co~ittee and if by doing so a legal question might not arise. Commissioner Smith stated that, 1) in dealing with hillside development standards we are mainly concerned with sites and not buildings 2) in subdivisions where there have been slopes involved the developer has been required to submit a site development plan particularly on sites where the slopes exceed 10% and 3) the City should not go so far as to inspect details of design of houses as part of the policy statement relative to hillside development. -6- Plannin.~ Commission Minutes - 26 October 1970 - Continued VI. A o REVISION OF SLOPE DENSITY STANDARDS - Continued Chairman Norton stated that 1) hillside lots should be submitted for Design Review Approval at someI point and 2) he is not in favor of hillside development anyway and he can see no harm in establishing additional controls relative to same. Co~issioner Crisp stated he agreed 'with Chairman Norton and, also, felt that the control of hillside development should nor be delegated to an outside group such as the Architectural Advisory Coramittee. Chairman Norton stated that on page 2. . .Condition 2. . '.line 2. . . ..0~h?___~.~bjeC.t. Resolution the following should be deleted: "Architectural Advisory Committee" and "Planning Commission" be inserted instead. Chair~n Norton further stated that, perhaps, the Subd{vision Committee and the Design Review Committee could review hillside development plans together. Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) he is agreeable to working with the Subdivision Committee as long as the Design Review Co~nittee has an opportunity to review the site development plans and 2) it has never been contemplated that there would be a review of each individuai' house; however, consideration should be given as to whether a particular house is suitable for a particular lot. Commissioner Crisp stated that .suiting a particular house to a particular lot has already been done under the Saratoga Foothills development SD-864. He further stated that he is in favor of creating an "R-i-80,000" Zoning District for hillside lots. Commissioner Martin pointed out that paragraph 2.. .on page 2.. . (of a previous draft of the Slope Density ReSolution).has been omitted in the Resolution presently under consideration. Chairman Norton explained that Zthe subject paragraph was not intended the way it was ~itten; therefore, it has been deleted. CommisSioner Martin explained that, he felt, that the Planning Commission loses some flexibility relative to hillside standards by deleting the said paragraph since some parcel may be located on an existing road; therefore, no cuts and fill would be required. Chairman Norton explained that 1) 'since hillside standards will be regulated by Resolution rather than by an Ordinance the Planning Comnission does have more flexibility 2) if a developer can convince the Planning Co~ission that his development plan is appropriate tor a'subject property then the Planning Commission could possibly approve the plan' 'and .... 3) the particular situation of a parcel. being located on a road is rare. Co~issioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, to adopt, as amended, Resolution No. 115 relative to establishing standards for hillside developments in the City of Saratoga; motion carried unanimously. B. PATtB,;AY PROPOSAL - Pike Road a~d Saratoga Hills Road - Continued from 13 October 1970 Commissioner Smith read the Subdivision Committee Report dated 26 October !970 stating that the creation of public pathways in th~ Pike Road and Saratoga Hills Road area would be inadvisable. PlaD. nin~ Commission Minutes - 26 Octobe~ 1970 - Continued VI. B. PATHWAY PROPOSAL - Continued The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, stated that 1) no formal adopted plan exists for path~.~ays in this area; however, the Park and Recreation Commission does have, on a preliminary basis, some recreation type pathways but, as yet, nothing has been approved and 2) the Planning DC. partment and Public Works Staff were asked to prepare a. recommend- ation relative to the subject pathways and that is presently being formulated and will be presented to the appropriate City Council Committee and at this ..stage it would seem to agree with the recommendation as stated in the Sub- ..... ~iVision Com~nittee Report dated 26 October 1970. ' ...... Chairman Norton stated that it seemed a little much to condemn one m~n's property for the convenience of another. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by CommiSsioner Crisp, to adopt the Subdivision Committee Report dated 26 October 1970 recommending that .creation of a public pathway in the Pike Road-Saratoga Hills Road area would be inadvisable and that the subject report be forwarded to the City Council as the opinion of.the Planning Co~ission; motion carried unanimous ly. C. RFERt~L OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY - Relating to Peace Officers Request for Use Permit - Continued from 13 October 1970 Chairman Norton suggested that each individual Planning Commissioner read the report prepared by the A'ssistant Planner relative to the request for a Use Permit made by the Santa Clara County Peace Officers Association for a recreation area and pistol range in the Booker Creek area. Chairman Norton inquired if the Subdivision Committee intended to submit a report relative to this matter? The Assistant Planner explained that 1) the subject request will come before the County Planning Commission on 5 November 1970; therefore, there will not be an opportunity for the Subdivision Comanittee to prepare 'a report since there will not be another meeting of the Saratoga Planning Commission before then and 2) the Hillside Site Review Committee will submit a report to the County Planning Commission making certain recommendations relative to the requested Use Permit. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairnmn Norton, stated that a few property o~ers of the area have expressed opposition to the proposed Use Permit. Co~issioner Smith pointed out that there have been two fires in the foothill area in the last two weeks. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, stated that the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance does nmke provisions for parks by allowing private clubs and lodges. Chairman Norton stated that a general statement should be for~mrded to the Santa Clara County Planning Department stating that the Saratoga Planning Commission does not favor the proposed Use Permit. Commissioner Metcalf advised that, in his opinion, the City should not be an impediment to allowing the police the pistol range to practice. Chairnmn Norton pointed out that the San Jose Police and the County Sheriff's Department already have pistol ranges. Commissioner Metcalf stated that the Santa Clara County Peace Officers Association have one-hundred-and-twenty (120) acres which they purchased for the purpose of establishing a pistol range and they should be required to meet the standards required and then be allowed to go ahead. Chairman Norton stated that the City would not agree to a pistol range if it were proposed to locate somewhere in the City Limits. -8- Planning Com:nission Minutes - 26 October 1970 - Continued VI. C. REFERI@~L OF SANTA C]?~RA COUNTY - Continued Commissioner Smith stated he objected to approval of the proposed Use Permit on the basis of the fire hazard that exists in the area. Cormnissi'oner Kraus explained that he objects to the cutting and filling in the hillside that would result if the Use Permit were appr0ve'd. The Assistant Planner, in answer to an inquiry from Corm~issioner Smith, · stated that fire equipment could be brought into the area; however, the roads are extremely narrow. Commissioner Lively asked that if the Santa Clara County Peace Officers were not involved in the request for Use Permit what would be the reaction of the Planning Commission ? .... Chairman Norton answered tha-t the request would undoubtedly be recorm-nended for denial. Commissioner Crisp recommended that the Staff. Report dated 26 October 1970 be adopted and forwarded to the Santa Clara County Planning Department. Chairman Norton moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the Secretary be delegated to write a letter to the Santa Clara County Planning Department. stating that since it does not appear that Saratoga development standards will be met the Saratoga Planning Commission opposes granting of the requested Use Permit; motion carried with Commissioner~ Crisp and Metcalf voting Noo : D. ~RE~UEST FOIl INTERPRETATION - Relating to Multiple Zoning Requirements - Continued from 13 October 1970 The Secretary explained that the Subdivision Committee met with the individual requesting the subject interpretation and explained to him that .. is was not the policy of the P:lanning Commission to give interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance without a formal application; therefore, the applicant withdrew his request.. F., SDR-607 - DoUglas B.-Hines, Pierce Road - Request for Extension - Continued from 13 October 1970 Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, to adopt the Staff Report dated 26 October 1970 and grant a one (1) year extension for SDR-607 with a new expiration date of 26 November 1971; motion carried unanimous ly o F. .A-347 - Saratoga Village Shopping Center, Big Basin Way - Clarification of Conditions - Continued 13 October 1970 The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 26 October 1970 recommending that one sign-company erect all signs at one time with each merchant paying the costs of their individual signs and the applicant bearing the costs of blank signs for merchants not desiring new signs at this time. Commissioner Metcalf recommended that in paragraph 2.. .last line.. . the words "desired reimbursing" be deleted. . .and instead insert. . . c n reimbur He further reconm~ended that the following sentence be added at the end of paragraph 2. . ."Where new signs are left blank predecessors' signs shall be removed within six months." Commissioner S:nith moved, seconded by Conn~issioner Metcalf, that the Staff Report dated 26 October 1970 be adopted, a~ amended, and all building signs be erected at one time with the merchants paying the costs of their individual shop signs while the shopping center owner will bear the costs for signs for merchants not desiring new signs at this time; motion carried unanimously. -9- Plannin_g_Commiss ion Minutes - 26 October .1970 - Cont inued VI~ G. SD.__R-SS___J_9- Robert F. Plane, Sobey: Road - Request for Reconsideration of Conditions The Secretary advised that the applicant has requested that his request for reconsideration be withdra~.m'. Conmissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the applicant's request to ~,~ithdraw his request .for reconsideration be approved; motion carried unanimously. VII.' NEW BUSINESS 'A.' SD-766 - Brown and Kauff~hann, Cox Avenue - Request for Extension for Units 3 and 4 The Secretary. explained that this matter should be dropped from the agenda due to legal necessity the applicant must refile his tentative mp for approval. Chairnmn Norton so directed. B, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - Prohibiting Use of Motor Vehicles for ~ve!~ is i.nSTur pose s .The Secretary explained that a Copy of the proposed ordinance has bee~ placed in each Commissioners folder for their infon~tion. Chairman Norton requested the Secretary set a public hearing at the earliest proper time and publ~h the appropriate public notice. V-349 - John Wall~cJ_LLumberto~m Lnne Commissioner ~aus read a report prepared by the Variance Committee and dated 26 October 1970 recommending, in view of the City Council action .. in connection with V-349, an opinion be obtained from the City Attorney as to the intent of Section 17.6 of NS-3 for the guidance of the Commission in it future action.~ Commissioner Metcalf noted that on page 1.. .paragraph 2. . .line 8 the word "request" Should be removed and instead the word "require" shoul~ be inserted. Commissioner ~aus moved, seconded by Comanissioner Crisp, to adopt the Variance Committee Re.port dated 26 October 1970 relative to V-349 and the City.Attorney be contacted for a meeting with the Variance Co~n~ittee in order to obtain an opinion as to the intent of Section 17.6 of NS-3 for the guidance of the Com~n~ission in its future actions relative to Variances; motion carried unanimously. VIII. COD~NICATIONS A. ~rrTEN '1. UP-172 - Utah Homes, De Havilland Drive - Request for Waiver of Bond RJ qu ire men t The Secretary read a letter.received from the applicant reques'ting that the requirement to post a bond in connection with UP-172 be ,? waived. Comissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Com~missioner Kraus, that the request to waive the bond r6qnirement in connection with UP-172 be denied; motion-carried unanimously. -10- Planning Comn~.ission Minutes - 26 October 1970 ~ Continued VIII. B. OFfaL .. 1. APARTMENTS AVAILABLE Conmissioner Crisp requested the Secretary to obtain some figures relative to the number of units leased or sold and the number of units available in different apartment complex developments built in the City such as Saratoga Creekside, Stoneson Developn~ent (Saratoga Oaks), Cal-West (The Vineyards), and Franklin tlomes (The Gateh~use). ~. Jerry Lohr, president, Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, stated that of his development (Saratoga Creekside) eleven of the twenty-four units available have al, eady b~en leased. 21 G~STS Chairman Nor.ton ackno~.~ledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilman and Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Belanger and Col ~yfield of the Good Government Group. He, also, thanked Mrs. Belanger for the coffee tO be served after the meeting. IX. ADJOM<~'ZNT Chairman Norton adjourned the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Stanley M, Wal~r, Secretary Saratoga Planning Co~ission .. '. -11-