HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-10-1972 Planning Commission Minutes· .r MINUTES
TIME: Monday, 10 January 1972 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lively at 7:30 P.M.
A. 'ROLL CALL
'Present: Commissioners.Bacon, Belanger, Lively, Marshall, and Metcalf.
Absent: Commissioners Martin and Smith.
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, that the
reading of the minutes of 27 December 1971 meeting be waived and that they
be approved as distributed to the Commission with the following changes:
page 3. . .under C-150. .paragraph 1.. .line 1. . .change to read
"Dr. Dan~in S. Barrett, 14050 Marilyn'Avenue" and in paragraph 9. . .
line 1. .change to read "Mrs. Geraldine Barrett, 14050 MarilynAvenue
page 4. . .under C-150. . .add the.following paragraph between paragraphs
4 and 5. ."Commissioner Belanger added that, although, the proposed plan
did not seem to fulfill the requirements of a P-C development, opponents
should not'be too eager to dismiss the principle of P-C which could exercise
controls to provide the very atmosphere they desire."
page 8. . .under VIII.. B. . . paragraph 1. .'line 2. . .insert the word
"old" between the words "the" and !'Saratoga" and add the words "now an
antique store" after the word '~arket"; motion carried unanimously.
C. ELECTION AND CO~IlTTEE ASSIGDZNTS.
Chairman Lively stated that at the next regular meeting rearrangement of
Committee assignments and the alection of officers for 1972 will take place.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-150 - Kunkel-Thomas, Sobey Road - Request for Change of Zoning from
"R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-i-40,000" "P-C"
(Single-Family Residential-Planned Community) - Continued from
27 December 1971
Chairman Lively reopened the public hearing relative to C-150 at 7:34 P.M.
The Secretary read a communication received from the applicant requesting
that their application for change of~zoning be withdrawn.
The applicant was not present andino one in the audience wished to comment.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, to close
the public hearing relative to C-150; motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded' by'Commissioner Metcalf, that the
request for withdrawal in connection with change of zoning application C-150
be approved; motion carried unanimously.
B. C-151 - Marshall S. Hall, Wardell;Road - Request for Change of Zoning from
"R-l-15,000" (Single-Faraily Residential) and "R-I-40,000" (Single-.
Family Residential) to "A':' (Agricultural) - Continued from 27 December
1971
Chairman Lively reopened the public hearing relative to 6-151 at 7:36 P.M.
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 10 January 1972 - Continued
II. B. C-151 - Continued
The applicant was present and stated.'he had no further comments.
No one in the audience wished to comment.
The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 10 January 1972 recommending
that the subject request for change of zoning be approved. He then noted
that the Staff Report dated 5 January 1972 reconnnends that the applicant
be allowed to create an Agricultural Preserve on this property.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, to close
the public hearing in connection'with C-151 at 7:40 P.M.; motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
Planning Commission adopt the Staff Report dated 10 January 1972 and
recommend to the City Council that the request for change of zoning
(C-151) be approved on the basis.the objectives of Section 1.1 of
Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be met and the proposal does comply with
the goals of the General Plan; motion carried.unanimously.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, to adopt
the Staff Report dated 5 January 1972 and recommend to the City Council
that the subject 25.234 acres o~,med by'Marshall S. Hall, Wardell Road, be
preserved as an Agricultural Preserve; motion carried unanimously.
C. C-152 - Isabelle Belicitti, Sobey Road and Quito Road and Chester Avenue
and Allendale Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-I-40,000"
(Single-Family Residential) to "A" (Agricultural)
Chairman Lively opened the hearing relative to C-152 at 7:44 P.M.
The Secretary stated that the Notice of'Hearing relative to C-152 was
mailed. and published. He then e~plained that the subject change of zoning
involves four (4) seperate parcels - two (2) parcels totaling 10.801 acres
adjaC'ent and facing Quito Road and two (2) parcels totaling 12.877 acres
adjacent and facing Chester Avenue.
The Secretary read two (2) communications received in connection with the
subject change of zoning request:
1) A letter'filed in opposition to the proposed
change ~f zoning by Mrs. Mary L. Wolfinbarger
of 18610 Marshall Lane.
2) A letter file'in support of the subject request
by Mr. Kenneth M. Colson of 13851 Raven Court.
Mr. Andrew P. Lassen of 18570 Sobey Road stated that he 1) heartily
endorsed this application and 2) would like to call attention to the
fact that this applicant has already lost half her acreage because of
· the Marshall Lane School.
Chairman Lively explained that an Agricultural Preserve is created on
a ten (10) year basis and if terminated prior to that the owner must pay
back taxes equal to the amount assessed and a penalty.
The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry 'from Commissioner stated
that parcels not adjoining each other can be proposed for an Argicultural
Preserve under one application and it is up to the local jurisdiction to
determine the size and acceptabl~ location for the preserve areas.
-2-
Fla~ning CommisSion Minutes - 10 January 1972 - Continued
IIi C. C-152 - Continued
Chairman Lively stated that the City. Council is hopeful that the
Planning Commission will make.. a recommendation at this time relative
to this matter.
Mr. Bellicitti, applicant's son, stated, in answer to an inquiry from
Commissioner Metcalf, that the ohe house on the property has been rented
and the other demolished and removed from the property.
The Secretary read the Staff Repprt dated 10 January 1972 recommending
that the subject ~pplication be appreved. He, also, read the Staff
Report dated 5 January 1972 recommending that all four (4) of the
Bellicitti parcels be preserved in their present open-space uses.
Mrs. Ruth ~n of 14180 Victor Place stated that she is delighted with
the subject proposal for an AgriCultural Preserve for this property.
However, she would like to ask if and ~en the old orchard trees are
gradually r~noved will they replaced by new trees.
~ Mr. Bellicitti stated that the existing trees will be cared for, but he
doubted that any new trees would be planted since it is a costly expenditure
to invest in new orchard trees f6r .land that is zoned "R-i".
Mrs. W. P. Christensen, 18510 SoBey Road, stated she is in.favor of the
change of zoning and the Agricultural Preserve since this applicant has
always taken excellent care of her property. She further stated that
this would be a way of retaining:the beautiful oak trees on the property.
Mr. Elmer L. Gable of 14470 Sobey Road stated he endorsed the entire
proposal as presented by the applicant.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, to close the
public hearing for C-152 at 8:05~P.M.; motion carried unanimously.
Comnissioner Bacon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
Planning Commission adopt the Staff Report dated 10 January 1972 and
'recommend to the City Council that the request for change of zoning
(C~152) be approved on the basis'the objectives of Section 1.1 of
Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be met and the proposal complies with the
goals of the General Plan; motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to adopt the
Staff Report dated 5 January 1972 and recommend to the City Council that
the subject 23.678 acres of land owned by Isabelle Bellicitti, Sobey Road
and Chester Avenue and Allendale Avenue, be preserved as an Agricultural
Preserve; motion carried unanimously.
D. V-370 ~ Raymond W. Daly, Seaton Avenue - Request for Variance 'to Allow
Decrease in Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Permit Accessory
Structure - Continued from 27 December 1971
The public hearing was reopened at 8:07 P.M. The Secretary stated that
the Variance Committee did meet and review this matter and they, also,
met with the applicant and the neighbors.
The applicant was present and stated that 1) during construction of this
building a representative from the City inspected it and found everthing
to be satisfactory 2) when the Structure was 90% completed another inspection
was made 3) he was told at that, time he may have to apply for a Variance
3) it is his request that he be. allowed to plant proper shrubbery which might,
in a few years, obscure the building from his neighbors view 4) 'there is a
very low back-fence on his property which makes this building seem even
higher and 5) he would request that the subject request for Variance be
approved.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10 January 1972 - Continued
II. D. V-370 - Continued
The Secretary read th~ Staff Report dated 10 January 1972 recommending
that the subject request for Variance be denied and advising the appli-
cant that two (2) feet will be added to whatever building height is pro-
posed in calculating the setback because of the previous two (2) feet of
fill placed along the rear of the property,
Mr. Daly stated that he did not have two (2) feet of fill an~,~here on
his property.
Commissioner Marshall stated that 1) the Variance Committee did find
two (2) feet of fill at the base, of the fence on the subject property
and 2) the fence is four (4) feet high on one side and six (6) feet
high on the other side,
Mr, Daly stated that the builder. gave him the wood for the fence because
it was possible to see right into the neighbors yard due to the grade
of the land which slopes toward the rear of the lot,
Commissioner Marshall stated that 1) because of this grade the existing
eight (8) foot structure appears to be ten (10) feet high 2) it is an
unsightly structure at its present height from the neighbors viewpoint'
3) the height of the building should be limited to six (6) feet instead
of the existing eight (8) feet and 4) if the applicant objects to the
six (6) foot limit he should move the building further back into the yard.
The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from'Chairman Lively, stated that
it will be necessary for Mr. Daly to indicate what he intends to do to
abate this violation prior to City Council authorization of any expenditures
for the purpose of assisting the applicant in relocating this building ~ich
was approved by administrative error.
Commissioner Marshall advised that the applicant has more than adequate
room to move this building to another area of this property.
The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Metcalf, stated
that the City Manager can authorize an amount of $500. without consulting
the City Council.
The applicant explained that the~e is a considerable slab of cement under
the existing building which must be taken into consideration as far as
money is Concerned in connection with relocation of this building.
Commissioner Marshall stated that the City Attorney has submitted a legal
opinion which states that "No permit presuming to give authority to violate
or cancel the provisions of this. City Code shall be valid."
Chairman Lively explained that i~ the subject Variance is denied the
applicant has the right to appeal the decision to. the City Council.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, to close
the hearing relative to V-370 at 8:32 P.M.;. motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the
Staff Report dated 10 January 1972 be adopted and that the. subject Variance
request to decrease rear-yard setback requirements to permit an accessory
structure be~nie~since the findings required under Section 17.6 of
Zoning Ordi~c~'NS-~ cannot be made for the reasons stated in said report;
motion carried unanimously.
E. UP-204 - Direct Realty Sales, Inc., Plumas Drive - Request for Use Permit to Allow Model tlome Sales Office
Chairman Lively opened the hearing relative to UP-204 at 8:33 P.M.
The Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed and no communications
were received in connection with this request for Use Permit.
-4-
II. E..UP-204 - Continued
No one in the audience wished to. cormnent.
Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:35 P.M., directed
UP-204 continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the
Subdivision Co~nittee for study..
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SD-904 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass Lane - Subdivision
Approva! - 15 Lots - Continued from 27 December 1971
Chairf~an Lively explained that the applicant has submitted a revised plan
for review by the Planning Commission
Mr. Lou Leto, General Manager for George Da~ stated that 1) he did meet
with the Subdivision Committee at which time the subject of common green
area in this development and wha.t they should consist of was discussed
2) the open-space area along Fruitvale Avenue will be 33-feet wide;
50-feet wide at the corner of lo.t one; 160-feet wide at the "V" shaped area
adjacent 'to lots four and five; ll0-feet wide at the area of Fruitvale
Avenue and Douglass Lane 3) the' common green area was larger in the area
of lots eight and sixteen, but Was reduced; thereby, adding 3,000 square.
feet to lot sixteen 4) the lett'er from the landscape architect requested
at the Joint Study Session of th;e City Council and Planning Commission was
presented to the Subdivision C0n~nlittee and 5) basically it is his hope
that the Planning Commission Will find the present plan acceptable so he
can proceed with this development.
Mrs. Otto Schmaelzle, 14401 Nutwood Lane, requested the Planning Commission·
to read the letter submitted by 'the landscape architect.
Commissioner Marshall stated the revised map reflects the vie~point of
the Subdivision Cormnittee and the findings made at the Joint Study Session
of the Planning Commission and City Council and the letter relative to the
open-space was written by a·graduate landscape architect who is, also, a
Senior Urban Planner.
Commissioner Belanger stated that'she would like to go on record and state
that in her opinion the Fruitval'e Avenue green area is not wide enough.
Chairman Lively, in answer to an inquiry·fromMr. Schmaelzle, stated that
the Change of Zoning application in connection with this subdivision is
before the City Council and any comments relative to the matter will have
to be directed to them. :
Commissioner Metcalf, after reviewing the revised map, stated he was in
general agreement with same.
Chairman Lively stated that it was his hope the applicant would use a
meandering fence in this development.
It was the general agreement that the plan presented was acceptable;
therefore, Chairman Lively direqted SD-904 continued to the next regular
meeting and referred same back to the Subdivision Committee.
B. SDR-931 - Jordan M. Pennoyer, Via Regina - Building Site Approval -
2 Lots - Continued from 27 December 1971
The Secretary reconnnended that this matter be continued to the next
regular meeting to allow time for further study for the problems
connected with this building site.
Chairman Lively so directed.
-5-
Planning· .Commission Minutes - 10 January 1972 - Continued
III. C7 SDR-932 - George Akers, E1 Camino Senda - Building Site Approval -
? 2 Lots - Continued from 27 December 1971
The Secretary explained that the applicant has reviewed the proposed
conditions_Of approval and expressed satisfaction with same.
Commissioner Marshall recommended that the subject Building Site
Committee Report dated 10 Janua,ry 1972 - Condition II-Q - be
amended to read as follows:
"Q. Sanitary sewer connection is required."
~ .Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
· Building Site Committee Report dated 10 January 1972 relative to SDR-932·
be adopte~., as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed
3 December' 1971) be apprg~d subject to the conditions set forth in said
report; motion car~'fr~d°'~nanimously. ·
D. SDR-935 - John L. Richardson, Quito Road - Build_ing Site Approval - i Lot
- Continued from 27 December 1971
The Secretary stated that the applicant reviewed the proposed conditions
of approval and expressed satisfaction ~.~ith same. The Secretary further
stated that Condition II-0 should be added to the Building Site Committee
Report as follows: '
"0. Tree removal is prohibited unless in accord with
all applicable ordinances."
Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
Buil~d~ing-,Site Committee Report dated 10 January 1972 relative to SDR-935
be ~dopte~,~as amended, ·and·that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed
14~·ec'e~ber 1971) be .~proved subject to the conditions set forth in
said report; motion c~a-r-ri'~Unanimously.
E. SDR-936 - John Markulin, Leonard Road Building Site Approval 2 Lots
- Continued from 27 December 1971
~]~e Secretary recormnended that SDR-936 be continued to the next regular
meeting to allow time for further study relative to right-of-way problems
in connection with this building site.
Chairman Lively so directed.
F. SD-937 - Saratoga Foothills Development, Corp., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
and Wardell Road - Subdivision Approval - 21 Lots - Continued
from 27 December 1971 '
Chairman Lively directed SD-937 continued to the next regular meeting to
allow time for further study and referred the matter to the Subdivision
Committee. ·
G. SD-938 - Saratoga Foothills Development, Corp., Saratoga Avenue - 18 Lots
- Continued from 27 December 1971
Chairman Lively explained that 1) this property is owned by the Catholic
Church 2) the developer has requested that eighteen (18) or nineteen (19) lots
· be permitted for this property ·3) this may be another "P-C" development
and 4) 15,000-square-foot lots' are proposed with the entire development
wrapped in cor~non-green area; so if a p.ark does go into the adjacent area
the common-green area will prqvide a buffer zone.
Commissioner Belanger noted that the area is ·presently zoned "R-1-20,O00"
(Single-Family Residential).
Chairman Lively directed SD-938 continued to the next regular meeting
and referred same to the Subdivision Committee.
-6-
~lanning Commission Minutes - 10 January 1972 - Continued
III. H. SDR-939 - Kenneth R. Olsen, SarAtoga tlills Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
The Secretary stated that the applicant reviewed the proposed conditions
of approval and expressed satisfaction with same.
Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
Building Site Committee Report dated 10 January 1972 relative to SDR-939
be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 20 December
1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report;
motion carried unanimously.
I:. SDR-940 - Virginia F. Brooks, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Building Site
Approval - 1 Lot
The Secretary recommended that SDR-940 be continued to the next regular
meeting in order to await the report of the State Division of Highways
in connection with this request for building-site approval.
Chairman Lively so directed.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-363 - M. E. Frazier and D. A. Tenenbaum, Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue
- Final Design Review - Final Landscape Plan, Exterior Lighting
and Identification SiSn.
The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 10 January 1972 recommend.-
ing that Final Desi~ Approval be granted for A-363.
Commissioner Marshall recommended that Condition (b) of the subject
report be changed to read as follows:
(b) Intensity of exterior lights illuminating
both the building and identification signs
not to exceed 43Omillilamberts, intensity
of illumination subject to review after
installation.
Co~mnissioner Metcalf moved,. seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the
Staff Report dated 10 January 19.72 be adopted, as amended and that Final ,
Design Approval be granted for the final landscape plan, exterior lighting,
and identification sign as shown on Exhibits "H", !'I" and "J" subject to
the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously.
V.. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Chairman Lively gave a summary of items reviewed and action taken at the City
Council meeting of 5 January 1972, with emphasis on items of particular interest
to the Commission.
VI. OLD BUSI~tSS
A. SDR-930 - Fernando J. Gonzalez, Arroyo de Arguello - Request for
Reconsideration of Conditions Continue~ from 27 December 1971
The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 10 January 1972 recommending
that the request that a change be made in connection with Conditions
II-B-! and 2 of the approved Building Site Committee Report dated
22 November 1971 be denied.
Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
Staff Report dated 10 January 1972 be adopted and fon~arded to the City
Council and that no change be ma~e in Conditions II-B-1 and 2 of the
Building Site Committee Report dated 22 November 1971 since these improve-
ments must be completed or guaranteed by bond prior to any building permit
being issued; motion carried unanimously.
-7~
VI. B. Housing Element ~ Review of General Plan Cormnittee Report
The Secretary explained that this matter has been reagendized in case
the Planning Conmaission wanted to take action in connection with the
Housing Element at this time or in t~e near future. There is a report ·
dated 27 December 1971 from the General Plan Committee r~lative to the
Housing Element.
Commissioner Metcalf stated that it is necessary for the City of Saratoga
to adopt a Housing Element for the General Plan and the new General Plan
Review will commence soon.
Chairman Lively suggested that the General Plan Review be completed b-~fore
summer since many people involve~ in the review are not available then due
to vacations.
Commissioner Metcalf stated that the Planning Commission has two (2)
alternatives relative to the subject Housing Element 1) they can take
action and fon~ard their recommendation to the City Council or 2) the
Housing Element can be temporarily filed and then· be considered as part
of the General Plan Review.
The Secretary explained that the. Housing Element study must ·be started
by January, 1972 and completed by June, 1972.
Cormnissioner Metcalf explained that the General Plan Committee believes
they covered the situation satiSZfactorily in their report and he would
recommend that the report be aOopted at this time and forvarded to the
City Councial as the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Lively stated that, he felt, the City Attorney should be
consulted prior to any Planning Commission recommendation relative to
this matter.
Commissioners Bacon, Be~anger and Marshall agreed that the City Attorney
should be consulted before any decision is made in connection to the Housing
E 1 emen t.
Commissioner Marshall stated that it was his understanding that if the
City of Saratoga does not adopt the County Housing Element then the
City must establish and adopt its ox~rn. .··
%he Secretary stated that 1) quite a few of the Cities have their own
very comprehensive, Housing Element; although, to ._his knowledge no one
has formally adopted one as yet and 2) most Cities are in various
stages of completing their Housing Element Study. ·,
Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) it should be remembered in trying
to provide low-income housing that it is very easyi·' to get elements in the
General Plan that are incompatible with each other 2) the goal of the City
of Saratoga is to stayf"l.~w~.density and 3) if low-cost housing is to be
provided it may be necessary to forsake that goal.
Commissioner Belanger noted that the goals of the City of ·Saratoga could be
challenged before the subject Housing Element Study is finished.
Ch·airman Lively directed this matter continued until after the City Attorney
is consulted and an opinion is obtained from him re.lative to the Housing
Element for the City of Saratoga.
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes - 10 January 1972 - Continued
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Saratoga Foothills - Retirement Facility
The Secretary explained that 1) l the applicant has requested that this
matter be given some consideration at this time 2) the subject property
located on Saratoga Avenue is o~ned by the Campbell Cage Co. and Mr.
Teresi 3) the developer would like some indication from the Planning
Commission as to ~at their feeling toward a Retirement Community for
this location would be.and what.the standards are for development for
a Retirement Cor~nunity 4) one idea for a development of this type was
to limit the population rather than the dwellings and 5) the applicant
proposes a total of sixty-nine ~69) units on a total of 7.3 acres.
Chairman Lively explained that dnder the present "R-l-10,000" zoning
a total of thirty-nine-homes would be allowed.
Commissioner Marshall stated that 1) there is a problem in that the
City of Saratoga does not have a Zoning Ordinance which relates to
Retirement Housing 2) there seems to be more than adequate "R-M"
zoned property in the City 3) there are vacant apartments and "R-M"
zoned property that is.~ undeveloped 4) the Subdivision Committee is
of the opinion that additional "R-M" zoning for the City of Saratoga
is not too appealing at this ti~e 5) it would be well to'=work on an
ordinance defining Retirement Housing requirements and 6) he would like
the Staff to conduct an investigation to determine what an "R-M" develop-
ment could contain as opposed to a Retirement Housihg Facility as opposed
to a straight "R-i" development.
Mr. Jerry Lohr, President of Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., stated
that 1) the proposal is to increase the dwelling density but not the
people density 2) a City policy on Retirement Housing would be valuable
3) the total pgpulation and age of the buyers of these units would.be
limited - with no children under eighteen (18) years of age and at least
one adult over forty-five (45) ~r older in each unit 4) the density
concept would be limited to no more than what would be allowed pnder a
"R~i-10,000" "P-C" development and 5) if the Planning Commission sees
any merit in the proposed plan the developer will submit more detailed
plans for review.
Commissioner Metcalf stated that. it is an ingenious plan, but about two (2)
years ago. this property was'proposed for rezoning to "R-M" as part of the
General Plan and the request was' denied.
Chairman Lively explained that a Retirement House' Study was conducted and
it was determined thatthe City should have some Retirement Housing and
the subject property was proposed as one suitable site.
Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) there were four (4) properties chosen
as suitable sites for Retirement Housing in the City - this is one of them
2) the General Plan Committee has looked at the other three (3) in this
group and other "R-M~' zondd properties in the City and 3) except for the
Dempsey~'property on Big Basin Way and Sixth Street the General Plan Committee
feels there is no property really applicable to fill the needs for a Retire-
ment Facility.
The Assistant Planner stated that he has been involved with a study in
connection with Retirement Housing and it was discovered that other Cities
do not have much defined in their City Ordinance about Retir~n~ent Housing
and there is not too much in the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance pertain-
ing to this type of housing.
Mr. Lohr explained that 1) the proposal is for all single-story buildings
in the proposed development 2) due to the price of the property it would
not be possible to put single-.:stor~ buildings on the other properties that
are considered to be suitable 3). the on~ (1) and two (2) bedroom units
would be limited to two (2) occupants per ~uni~; the two (2) bedroom-den
units would have three (3) occupants 4) with the number of units and
tenants requested there would be no bonus as far as actual population but
there would be a 100% bonus as far as the number of units are involved
7'75) in other words there would be twice the number of units with one-half
the number of people in the residences 6) this would provide older people
an opportunity to live close to.their families without the worry and expense
-9-
~lanning Comnission Minutes - 10 January 197- Continued
VII. A. Retirement Facility - Continued!
· of maintaining a large home 7) h~ is interested in finding out at this "
time whether the City would like hi~ to submit a firmer proposal or if
if the Planning Commission is planning to prepare a firmer ordinance
and 8) the developeris eager to proceed with this development since.
he is well aware of the demand.l
Commissioner Marshall stated that the Subdivision Commission feels
Retirement Housing is a good thing; however, this request must be
considered as an "R-M" development under the present Zoning Ordinance.
Fir. Lohr, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Belanger, stated that
the one (1) bedroom units would sell for between $25,000 to $30,000;
the two (2) bedroom from $32,000 to $35,.000; the two (2) bedroom-den
between $37,500 to $39,000.
The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Metcalf, stated
that the result of the Retirement Housing Study was to not e'stablish a
specific zoning classification for Retirement Housing; however, zoning
standards could be adopted as guidelines for development of a Retirement
Housing Facility.
Chairman Lively stated that the~e is sufficient "R-M" Zoning in the City
and he does not feel any type of bonus for this proper~y would be appropriate.
The density proposed for the property is too great.
Commissioner Bacon stated he is in favor of considering the proposal,
recommended by Commissioner Marshall to have the City adopt a policy of
some sort relative to Retirement Housing.
Commissioner Belanger stated she would still like to see a Retirement
Housing development in Saratoga that would cost somewhat less than the
prices quoted by Mr. Lohr. If a tenant of a Retirement Facility is charged
the same as he would be for an apartment then he may as well move into an apart-
ment.
VIII. COMMUNICA~C~S
A. WRITTEN
None
B. ORAL
i."i'~. '~"'.'.i"i:. ":~r.~. stated that th~ total of widows is greater'...th~n..that of
widowars because of the life expectancy of men is anywhere from fifteen
(15) to twenty (20) years less [han a woman~; therefore, even if a woman
sold her home it would be difficult for her since she would have to tie
up all her monies from the sale'of her house to buy a unit in a iletire-
ment Facility since the cost involved is quite unattainable.
Building Moratorium
The.SeCretary explained that thezBuilding Moratorium for Bohlman and
Norton Roads was referred by the City Council to the Planning and
Environmental Committee and they. will discuss the matter on Wednesday,
12 January 1972.
Reed Carpets
Commissioner ~rshall stated that the Design' Review Conm~ittee spent
considerable time looking at the.plans, colors, parking, etc. for the
Reed Carpets Commercial Building. ~is building is nearly finished and
it does not look much like the plan presented to 'the Design Review Committee.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10 January ].972 - Continued
VIII. B. Guests '
Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of
Conncilman Kraus and Ruth Owan'of the Good Government Group.
He, also, thanked Mrs. (~qen for the coffee served at recess.
IX. ADJOUP~\~tENT
Chairman Lively adjourned the meeting at 10:45 P..M.
'.Respectfully submitted,
' """~ "' ..... /.,.. ,.'~'i'- /' I'/ """
........... ':,:!".:,"....,...-"'!:'~ z.,' .~).? :::~..":n'--,'. ,'Z~'.,.'.Z "". ':""'V" ......~'.
/ ~'~>"
-II -