Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-1971 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PD~NNING COMiMISSION MINUTES TI}IE: Monday', 8 February 1971, 7:30 P.Mo· PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 FrUitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I... ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting· was called to order by. Chairnmn Lively. at 7:30 P.M. A o ROLL CALL "' Present: Commissioners Fagan, Kraus, Lively, Marshall, Martin,· Metcalf, · and .STnith. Absent: None'. B. MINUTES Commlssionerl Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the reading of the minutes of the 8 .February 1971 meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed to the Commission; motion Carried unanimously. Chairman Lively stated that the minutes now carry a lot of detailed comments all the way through and, perhaps, ·some consideration should be given, as a trial, to adopting a mini-form of minutes as the City' Council has ·done .... Commissioner Smith stated that consideration ·shOUld be given to hcw much. of the record would be 10st with the shorter minutes~ The '. Secretary , in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Kraus, stated that the City Council has found the mini-minutes to be satisfactory. 'He further stated that detailed notes would be taken and the shorthand transcripts .would be kept indefinitely and the actual minisminutes would include the action taken and the significant connnentso Commissioner Metcalf advised he is opposed to' the mini-minute idea since he feels, a lot of continuity would be lost if a complete set of minutes were not m~de available and the idea would be objectionable from the point of view of supplying information to the City Council as to the thinking of the Planning Commission. He further recommended that the City Council be consulted as .to what their preference is in this matter. Chairman Lively recommended (and after a brief discussion directed) that two (2) sets of minutes .be prepared for the next two (2) meetings - a standard edition and a mini-minute edition. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ao C-139 - ~lachy J. Moran, Saratoga'Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from !'R-I-20,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) - Continued from 25 January 1971 'Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 7:39 PoM. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file. -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 8 February 1971 - Continued II. A. C-139 - Continued Mr,.Moran, applicant, stated that 1) the proper~cy he o~s is between Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Creek 2) there are t2,000 square feet between his property and Saratoga Creek 3) the ~riginal application requested rezoning of the entire property, but t~e revised proposal is for only that portion of the property that will a~tually be .subdividEd 4) the present .proposal would allow low density "along Sarat0g~"Avenue 5) the total area available for.each lot would 5~e 19,000 square feet and if the area for the roads were subtracted a t~stal of 16,000 square feet per lot would remain 6) he feels the subject proposal would conform to the spirit of' the General Plah 7)"there are practical differences involved'in the development of the property i.e. ~,opog~aphical conditions, constrained access due to existing trees and two ((2) existing houses along Saratoga Avenue,-sewer, gas, and other utility limes and trenches 8) the size and shape of the property is a significant factor-in planning develop- ment 9) it would-be economically unfeasible to ~evelop the property with less than seven (7.) lots 10) there would be a distance of 80-feet between each house if the p~_ope~y.~re developed as prop~osed and 11) the develop- ment would enhance the appearancef of the area an~ .the City. Mr. Joseph M. Zerboni, 19951 Lannoy Court, state~ =that 1) even though the original proposal ~s slightly misinterpreted by some, in most cases the plans were examined by the-individual and it was ~iscovered that the plan ~.~s to develop the vacant area' o~.med by .the .appliicant 2) it is true the .app~c~nt prop0sed.!6,900 ~quare_foot lot density .'and some adjacent.pr0pert~eS_ have 12,500 square foot lots; howe~er~"ther~"~re plenty'0f'20.00O"square foot lots in the area as well 3) he does not feel the~City should concern itself with the financial hardships involved in the devel!opme~t of this property 4) prior to purchasing his home.he examined the~zoning in the area and it was determined at that time that it would be diffi, cult to build on the remain- ing vacant property unless large houses were constructed; thereby. eliminating the possibility of a high density area 5) under :t,he present proposal this would not be the case and 6) the arguments.agains.t and the objections raised relative to the original proposal should be applied to this revised proposal. Mr. Moran stated that on Lannoy Court there are mine (9) houses ~f~ich are zoned "R-1-10.000" and some !0t.S.jg~qh..are.!2,000 ~square'feet in size and the.one homeo~mer in the area with an "R-1-20.00~~'' lot has no objection to the proposed development; furthermore. the .overall density in the proposed development would still be lower than ~a'a~t presently exists on Lannoy Court. Mr. Gardiner. 14930 Farwell Avenue, stated that. 1~ the applicant has made an unprecedented attempt to please and to come up with a workable plan 2) if the proposal were for 10,000-square-foot ists in lieu of 20,000-square- foot lots there could be room for disagreement, 5,~,t the applicant is proposing an average of 16.000-square-foot-lo~-density 3) ~:he applicant has disc~s~e.~ ......... the proposal with his neighbors and revised his p~an to"'meet'S6m~"~f"'[he suggestions they submitted and 4) the appliesntis o~ house is located on the subject property; therefore. he certainly wo~d not propose an unsuit- able development. }~'. Morgulis. 19.861Lannoy Court, stated that 1) ~the applicant did discuss the matter with his neighbors and a letter was submitted to the Planning Department objecting to the proposed development ~j) the plan would be contrary tO'the General Plan of the City and the applicant '.~s a~re of the zoning when he purchased his property 3) the residents ~f the area are not against construction on the property since that is the pr~perty-ox,mer~ right'~' b~t ......... the' z6ning should be strictly adhered-to and 4) ~.he ether property owners in th~ area should have the right to feel safe im .buying a piece of property that is .zoned a certain way and feel secure that i't will not be changed. PlanninF~ Commission Minutes - 8 February 1971 .... Continued II. A. C-139 - Continued Mrs..Ee_len.~i~or~n, applicant's wife, stated that 1) if for example the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance were just no~.? being drafted for adoption e e e perhaps v ryon[ outlook woul'd be different for the subject area 2) this property was originally in' t~:o: pieces and owned by two different parties; however, it is now under one o~ership 3). the .zoning on Saratoga Avenue will remain "R-i-20,000" under the subject proposal and it seems reason- able to zone the lower portion of the property to the same. zoning as the property adjoining 4) ~yor Robbins recently s~a'ted in a newspaper state- ment that ~ybe the aspects of the General Plato might be grandiose and visionary and that changes may have to be made'~nd 5) the adjoining neighbors will still have only2 one house ~eh~n~_.~e~ regardless of the zoning. ~s. ~ren Herman, 19975 Herriman Avenue, state~ that 1) ~he~. home is located on a half-acre and when she purchased D~er property she assumed the zoning would remain the same 2) if the Planning Commission does spot-zone in this area, by app.roving this appli.cation, nobody will feel safe in purchasing property in an area designat,ed to be a certain zone according to the General Plan land 3) if the City deviates from the General Plan a higher density will result. Co~issioner Smith read the Subdivision Committee Report dated 8 February 1971 recommending the subject Change of Zo~ing (C-139) be denied. Commissioner Smith, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner ~rtin, stated that according to an interpretation from the City Attorney, Section 18.11 of the Zoning Ordinance ~oes not 'apply to "R-I" zoning. Commissioner Brtin stated that, he felt, the applicant has a very good plan and the only concern is the way the Zoning Ordinance is ~itten; thereby, not allowing any provision for a speci'fic development to change from on "R-i" classification to another. Co~issioner Smith stated tha~ the Subdivisio~ Committee, also, felt the applicant had a good plan;' however. the Z~ing Ordinance must be enforced. Co~issioner Lively state~ that the Planning Co~issi~n must use the General Plan as a guideline be changed then the ~tter should be brought ~ at the time of the General Plan Review. Con~issioner Metcalf stated that a decision m~s't be made as to whether the City would like an esti~te~ population' ~f 35,000 by 1990 or instea~ change the G~'e~al Plan to allow 50.000 or grea~ter population by 1990~ The latter is not desirable; however. if a nibbling a~,~ay at the General Plan is started greater density can be the ~om!y aiternat{ve. Co~issioner Smith moved. seconded by Commissis.ner ~aus. to close the hearing at 8:19 P.M.; motion carried unanimousl~y. Commissioner 'Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner ~aus, to adopt the . Subdivision Committee Report ~ated8 February 1=971 relative to C-139 and recommend to .the City Council 'that the subjec~ application for Change of Zoning be denied on the basis that the proposal does not meet the objectives of Article 1. Section 1.1 of Ordinance NS-B; ~.tion carried with Commissioner Brtin voting No~ planning Commission MinUtes - 8 February 1971 - Continued IIo Bo C-141 - Charles Maridon, Wardell Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-1-4.0,00Q" <Sing!e-Fam~.l~ Residential) to "A" (AgricultUra..1) Chairman Liv~lly opened the hearing at 8:23 PoM. 'The Secretary Stated the Notices of Hearing were mailed and published° The applicant was present and submitted a map showing how he intended to utilize the property if it is rezoned to an "Agricultu~ai~ P~'~'se~". The SeCretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Smith, stated that, although, C-141 and C-142 were sep.~ate 'application the request "A r to create an g icultural Preserve" is a joint effort by Mr. ~ridon and , ~. Torre. ~ ~. Pecsar of 20880 Wardell Road stated that 1) his property adjoins the subject property and he is concerned about the private'road which is a dedicated right-of-way and runs through a~'Ut 9'~o-'fe~ 'of'his 'p~'~pe'rey and 2) he would like to know how much use would be made of the road under the proposed zoning~ Chairman Lively explained that no matter what the property is zoned the applicant is still entitled to use of the road. The_SeCretary. S_~_atF.d tha.t_..~f ..tbe~e__is any p~.oB.!em .aS .to_~th.e use of ..the _.. road it would have to be settled between the applicant and Mr. Pecsar since the City would not be involved. ~. Pecsar stated he is not opposed to the subject request for Change of Zoning but is concerned .abOut the expense of the upkeep of the road which will increase if heav}~' trd'c~s""s~r'~' trave ling" baCk a~' ~rth'. .......... He further stated that excess r~d-improvement costs should be paid by those that use it in the heaviest ~nner. Chair~n Lively stated that as long as the property o~er' complies with the regulations relative to "Agricultural" zoning the City cannot become involved in regulating the use of the road. Chair~n Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:33 P.M., directed C-141 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Sub- division Committee for study. C. C-142 - John F. Torre, Wardell Road - Request for Change of Zoning from ~'R-1-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "A" (Agricultural) Chair~n Lively opened the hearing relative to C-142 at 8:34 P.M~ The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing were mailed and published. He e~lained that some of the property will be used for orchard and the remainder will be pasture or vacant land. No one in the audience wished to comment and the applicant ~s not present. Chair~n Lively explained thai this application is similar to C-141 and the two should, perhaps, be considered as a whole. He closed the hearing . for the evening at 8:35 P.M., 'directed C-142 continued to the next regular meeting and referred the matter to the Subdivision Co~ittee for study. D. C-143 - Paul ~sson, Inc., Pierce Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-i-40,000" (SinSle-Family Residential) to "A" ~A~riculturall The.. hearing relative to C-143 ~s opened at 8:36 P. M. The Secretary stated the. Notices of Hearing were ma:iled and published. He further stated that the applicant has submitted a letter to withdraw both the request to establish an "Agricultural Preserve" and the application for Change of Zoning. Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 8 February 1971 - Continued II. D. C-143 - Continued CommisSioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, to close the hearing relative to C-143 at 8:37 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, to grant the applicant's request both for withdrawal of the request to establish an '~gricultural Preserve" and the subject application for Change of ZOning (C-143) and that any further consideration relative to C-143 be terminated; motion carried unanimously. E. UP-198 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corpo, Miljevich Drive - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Model Home Sales Office - Continued from 25 January 1971 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 8:38 P.M. The Secretary stated that'the=Standard Form for approval of model home sales offices has been preparid and it is recommended that the Use Permit be granted. No one in the audience wished. to comment. Mr. Turgeon was present to represent the applicant, but had no comments to add. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, to close the hearing relative to UP-198 at 8:41 P.Mo; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Standard Form dated 8 February 1971 be adopted and the Use Permit for a model home sales office be granted as sho~n on Exhibits '~" and "'B" in file UP-198 and subject to the conditions stated in said Form; motion carried unanimously. F. V-354 - John ~rkulin, Leonard Road - Request for Variance to Allow Site Reduction for Corridor Lot Chairman Lively opened the hearing at 8:42 P.M. The Secretary stated that the Notices of Hearing were mailed. The Assistant Planner explained that the zoning"in the area of the subject property is "R-1-12,500"; ho~,~ever, the property under discussion is a corridor lot which requires 20,000 square feet in order to qualify as a. building site. Mr. James R. Bosen, 20543 Debbie Lane, was present and stated that he owned the property that backed up to the applicant's and he is interested in an explanation as to the exact intent of the subject proposal. Chairman Lively explained that the subject, property is located in an "R-1-12,500" Zoning District; however, the flag-or corridor-lot has a limited access drivex~y and a City regulation prohbits corridor lots with less than 20,000 square feet 'of area. The application requests that he be allowed a building site of 14,000 square feet on the corridor lot. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:49 P.M., referred · V-354 to the Variance Conmitt'ee and directed same continued to the next -regular meeting. Commissioner Kraus, on behalf of the Variance Committee, arranged for an on-site inspection of the property for 9:00 A.M.~ on Saturday, 20 February 1971. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 February 1971 - Continued II. G. V-355 - A.RoCoO., Cox Avenue - Request for Variance to Allow a Freestanding Identification Sign · . Chairn~n Lively opened the hearing relative to V-355 at 8:50 P.Mo The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing were mailed and explained that this applicant does have an existing sign but does ~nt to change the wording on the sign. The applicant was not present and no one in the audience Wished to comment. The Assistant Planner explained that the applicant did submit an application for Design Review. Approval but the Design Review Committee did not approve the-proposal because it did not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, the applicant has submitted an application for Variance before proceeding with Design Review Approval. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:56 P.M., referred V-355 to the Variance Comnittee and directed same continued to the next regular meeting. Commissioner Kraus, on behalf of the Variance Co~ittee, arranged for an on-site inspection of the property for 9:30' A.M. on Saturday, 20 February 1971. .. H. V-356 - Floral Supply Center,· Saratoga-Sunn~ale Road - Request for Variance to Allow a Freestanding Identification Sign The hearing relative to V-356 was opened at 8:56 P.M. The Secretary stated that 1) the Notice of' Hearing ~as ~iled 2) this business is located in the LuRay Building. 3) the tenants in this unit have changed ~ny times and 4) the last tenant, also,.applied for a Variance for a sign. .The applicant was not present~ .............................. "' ~. Stuart P. Fitzpatrick, 20410 KirkmoDt, stated he ~s opposed to the proposed Variance since the business is located in an area of commercial · buildings and if the Variance were granted an undesirable precedent would be established. Chair~n Lively closed the he~rin~ for the evening at 8:58 P.M., referred V-356 to the Variance Committee and directed same continued to the next regular meeting. : Commissioner ~aus, on behalf of the Variance Comanittee, arranged for an on-site insped~{o~'of the property for 10:00 A.M. on Sateday,' 20 February 1971. III. BUILDING SITES ~ S~D!VISIONS A. SDR-878 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., Saratoga Avenue - Bu~l~,ing Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued fr~ 25 January 1971 Co~issioner Smith reco~ended that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting since the Design Review Co~ittee is still reviewing the · architectural features of the development. Chairn~n Lively so directed. B. pp'-879 - George ~mpros, Hume Drive and Piedmont Road - Subdivision ~proval - 9 Lots - Continued from 25 January 1971 ~. Bill Heiss, engineer, ~s present to represent the applicant and stated he had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with-same. [ ........ Planning Commission Minutes - 8 February 1971 - Continued III. B.-SD--879 - Continued Chairman Lively, in answer to a reconnnendation from Cormn~issioner Martin, directed the SubdiviSion ConFnittee Report be amended by adding the following condition: "22. Street 'tree planting shall be in accordance with Section 4.7 of the City of Saratoga Z~ning Ordinance NS-5." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus. that the "" Subdivision Committee Report dated 8 ~bK.Ua~y 19_~!_ relativ.e ~.o .SD~'879_ be adopted, as amende'd~""a~'~ that the tentat~.v~_~p '~(Exhib~t "A'.', _filed.__ 15'~a~ary'1971)"be appr0V~d 'subj'~t t6 t~ conditions.set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. SD-880 - Herion Roofing, Inc., ProspeCt Road - Subdivision Approval - 21 Lots - Continued from 25 January 1971 ~. Bob ~thot, applicant~s 'representative, ~s present and stated' he had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction ~.~ith same. After discussion, Chairman Lively directed that the following conditions be added to the Subdivision Committee Report dated 8 February 1971: "21. Street tree planting shall be in accordance ~ith Section 4.7 of the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance NS-5." "22. The 24-inch locust tree and the 20-inch redwood tree shall be preserved." Conmissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner r~aus, that the Subdivision Committee Repor~ dated 8 February 1971 relative to SD-880 be adopted, as amended, and .that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-i", filed 25 January 1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. RECESS AND RECONVENE IV, DESIGN REVIEW A. A-313 - Blue Hills School (Cupertino Union School District), DeSanka and Goleta Avenues - Preliminary Design Approval - Per~nent School Building Commissioner Metcalf stated that the archite.c'~t did a good job' in designing this school and the Staff Report ~'~ted 8 February 1971 reco~nends that Preliminary Design Approval be granted for A-313, Blue Hills School. He further stated that t~is will be a unique school-.building in that it will be a one-ro~m schoolshouse with sliding panels to be used as dividers. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by C~m~issioner ~rtin, that the Staff Report dated 8 February 1971 be adopte~ and that P~-~liminary Design Approval be granted for Blue Hills Sc.~ool Building as sho~ on Exhibits "B" and "C" and subject to the c~nditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minut. es - 8 Feb.ruarX 1971 - Continued Vo CITY COUNCIL REPORT · Commissioner Iv~rtin gave a sumn~ry of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 3 Febribary 1971 with emphasis on items of particular interest to the Commission. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. UP-189 - James R. Davi, Sousa lane - Request for Extension - Continued from 25 January 1971 Chairm~n Lively, at the request of Commissione~ Smith, directed this matter continued to the next regular meeting° B o PROPOSAL for Establishing a Ro'ofing l~~terial Ordinance and Fire Retardant Roofing ~aterial Zone - Continued from 25 January 1971 Chairm~n Lively explained that at the last regular meeting the Planning Commission requested the Secretary to contact neighboring Cities to determine what they have done relative to this matter. The Secretary explained that Los Gatos is in the process of studying the proposal and is really ~,~iting to see what the County Board of Supervisors is going to do about the fire-'retardant roofing-material and zone; Monte Sereno is interested in adopting the proposal, but have not yet done so; San Jose has not considered the proposal and have not adopted any type of ordinance similar to this; Cupertino is working on a map similar to the one proposed by the Fire 1,~rshal and they |lave indicated they are interested in adopting a roofing-material ordinance. · Chief John Baker, from the County Fire Marshal~s Office, was present and stated that 1) Chief Kirby and Saratoga Fire Chief Ernie Kraule are,~ also, present and are in agreement to support an ordinance of the type proposed 2) he felt all .the Cities are kind of at a stand still waiting to see what everyone e. lse is going to ~o and 3) the only City that has gone ahead with the proposal is Palo Alto. Con~missioner Kraus commented t~hat the prgposai ~iii"be' ~"0'n~'{d~d by 'the ............ Board of SUpervisors on 9 Febr. uary 1971. Chief Baker stated that 1) it is difficult to predict what the County Board of Supervisors will recon~mend 2) traditionally the County has waited to see the ruling of the lo~al jurisdictions before making a recommendation of their o~.m. and 3) the Hillside Sub-Con.,tmittee is fully a~re of the importance of the subject proposal and he hoped they would attend the County Board of Supervisors meeting° Chief Bakerl. explained, in answer to an inquiry from Cormmissioner Martin, that 1) the way the ordinanc~ is ~a-itten it will not prevent people from making repairs to tb. eir roofs; however, if there is a complete re-rOofing (over 50% is considered c~.nplete) then at that time it would be required that the roof be done in fire~retardant m~terial and 2) the Fire Depart- ment does not ~ant to be unfair in the establishment of the fire boundary- line, but in case of a major fire in the hills a fire-retardant roof in 'any nearby area would be a useful safety-precaution. Commissioner Marshall stated that it appeared that the fire-retardant roof .and the fire line have been considered as one and he would like them to be considered as separate items. Con~nissioner Smith recommended that a tentative m3p or proposal .be approved so the other Cities will have something to go by and that. the _ .. tentative approval be voted 'subject to confirmation with the adjoining Cities. He then stated t~at~ he felt, if Saratoga takes the lead the other Cities in the area will follow° -8- Planning Commission Minutes - 8. February 1971 - Continued VI. B. PROPOSAL RE Roof inn Material and Fire Zone Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner ~rshall, for tentative approval of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road as the line of denmrkation for a fire-retardant roofing-material zone in accordance with the map forwarded and recommended by the County Fire Marshal office and contingent on approval of the extension of the of the same line by neighboring conm~unities; motion carried unanimously. Conmissioner F~rtin explained that the subject proposal will not become · 'an official Ordinance xntil the Planning Commission for~lly adopts an Ordi- . nance . and forwards same to the City Council for approval. REPORT OF GENE~L P~N CO~.RGTTEE - COncerning Agricultural Preserve on Paul ~sson, Charles ~ridon and John ~.orre Properties Commissioner Metcalf stated that there is a report dated 8 February 1971 from the General Plan Co~ittee reco~ending that the Conmission report favorably to the City Council in the ~tter of "Agricultural Preserves" for the subject applications; however, in view of the request to withdraw C-143 (earlier in the meeting)',. the report must be modified to eliminate "Paul Masson, Inc. - Request for Agricultural Preserve (Williamson Act)" from the subject portion of the said report. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the Planning Commission adopt, as n~ified, the General Plan Committee Report dated 8 February 1971 and recommend favorably to the City Council in the ~tter of g icultural Preserves" for the application of Charles ~ridon and John Torre; motion carried unanimously. D. C-137 - Alfred F. Dumas, Inc., Prospect ROad - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-i-iO,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned-Coma~unity) The Secretary explained that the City Council referred this ~tter back to t'he Planning Commission for further study and consideration of a revised plan the applicant believes will conform to suitable density for the site as recommended by the Planning Cox~ission. Co~issioner Smith requested the Secretary to contact the applicant to arrange an appointment to meet wi[h the Subdivision Committee to discuss the ~tter. Chairman Lively requested the Secretary to mail a new notice relative to this matter and schedule a h~aring for the meeting of 22 February 1971. E. C-140 - Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "P-A" (Pr ofe s s iona 1 -Admin is trat ive ) · The Secretary explained that this matter has been referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council since the applicant has changed his application to a request for "'P-A" (Professional-Administrative) zoning in lieu of the former request for "C-N" (Neighborhood-Co~ercial) zoning. 'Commissioner Smith requested the Secretary to Contact the .applicant to · arrange an appointment to meet with the Subdivision Committee to discuss the new proposal. Chair~n Lively requested the' Secretary to mail a new notice relative to this request and schedule a hearing for the m~eting of 22 February 1971 Planning Cormmission Minutes - 8 February .1971 - Continued VII'. NEW BUSINESS - None VIII. CO~.~fLrNICATIONS . A. WRITTEN - None B o OPj~L 1. The Secretary advised that the ~ayor would like to hold a Joint Study Session with the Planning ConL~ission and City Council on either ~y 17 or June 7 and ~.7ould like some indication from the Planning Commission as to ~ich date 'would be preferable, After discussion it was decided that June 7 would be preferable date; however, the Co~ission could meet on ~y 17 if that is more desirable by the City Council. 2. Li__ghting CommitteE. Comn~issioner Metcalf stated that 1) he attended the second meeting of the Lighting Committee at which ~.~. Barrett the Lighting Consultant (whose services have been utilized by ~T) from the San Francisco Bay Area was present 2) 'Ba'r'rett basically stated there are two ways of lighting an intersection a) use bulbz. s which -~ould not provide much vision nor would there be much illumination b) use screened lighting with play on the natural features of the intersection; thereby, avoiding distru~.~i0n of night vision for the night driver 3) intersections can be properly lighted providing the lighting is properly designed ~'~ it is not necessary to illuminate the street in .Saratoga like a free~v~y nor is it necessary to spend a tremendous amount of money to supply lighting at instersections and 5) it is hoped that the Lighting Committee can make a field trip in the .very near future. 3. Guests Chairman Lively acknox.~ledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilman Cole Bridges, .[~s. Parker of the Good Government Group and ~s. Ottenberg of the League of Women Voters. He, also, thanked ~s, Park~r for the coffee served at recess. IX ~ ADJOURNmeNT Chairman Lively declared the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Saratoga Planning Commission j ... ,.- -10'