Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-1972 Planning Commission Minutes CI1% OF SARATOGA PLANNING COP~IISSION MINU1]ZS TI~: Monday, 24 January 1972 - 7:30 P.M.. PLACE: City Council Chambers = 13777 FruitVale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGA~RZATION l~e meeting was called to order by Chairman Lively at 7:30 P.M. A. ROLL CALL Present: Co~issioners Bacon, Belanger, Lively, Marshall, and Smith. Absent: Commissioners ~rtin and Metcalf. B. ~'~NUTES · · Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the reading of the minutes of 10 January 1972 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed to the Conmission subject to the following changes: page 1. .I.B. . .paragraph 4~ . ..line 3. .change "motiOn ·carried unanimously" to read "motion carried with Conm~issioners Bacon and Metcalf abstaining"; page 2. .last paragraph. .line 1. . .insert the name '·'Belanger" after the word "Con~nissiOner"; page 3. . .under II. D. V-370. . line 5. .delete the word "he" and instead insert the words "the neighbors"; page 4. .under II. D. V-370 .... paragraph 8. . .line 2. .insert the words "up to" after the word "mnount"; page 5. . .under III. A. SD-904. . . paragraph 2. .line 4. .insert ~he x.~ords "a minimura" after the ~ord "be"; page 10. .under ~7II. B. O~L. . .paragraph 1. . .line 1. . insert the words "Mrs. Ruth ~,xen" and in paragraph 3. . .under Reed Carpets. . add the following. ."if the plans submitted are not adhered to there is no point in bothering with Design Review Approval. This violation should require correction."; motion carried with Comnissioner Smith abstaining. C. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Comanissioner Bacon nominated Commissioner Lively as Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1972. Commissioner 'Smith moved, seconded by Conmissioner Belanger, that nominations be closed; motion carried with Commissioner Lively abstaining. It was moved by Conmissioner Bacon, seconded by Co~.~anissioner Marshall, that the Secretary be_directed to record a unanimous ballot for Commissioner Lively as Chaira~an of the Commissioner for·1972; motion carried with Cormmissioner Lively abstaining. Commissioner Smith nominated Commissioner Metcalf as Vice-Chairman of the Co~ranission for 1972. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that nominations be closed; motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Comnissioner Smith, seconded by Connnissioner Marshall, that the Secretary be directed to record a u~a~im6us ballot for Conmissioner Metcalf as Vice- Chairman of the Commission'cfor 1922; motion carrie'd unanimously. Commissioner Smith nominated'Stanley M. Walker, Planning Directo~ as Secretary of the Con~nission for 1972. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that nominations be closed; motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by .Commissioner Marshall, that the Secretary be directed to record a unanimous'ballot for Stanley M. Walker as Secretary of the Conmission for 1972; motion carried unanimously. -1- Plannin8 Connnission Minutes - 24 January ].972 -. Continued I. C. ELECTION - Continued Coranissioner Smith moved, seconded by Connnissioner Marshall, that the Cormnission express its appreciation to Stanley M. Walker, Planning Director, Gary Bonfiglio, Assistant Planner, and Joan M. Loher, Recording- Secretary for their efficient services rendered during the past year; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lively stated that the Conm~ittee 'Assigrn~ents were recently reconstituted so if the other members of the Co~nnission had no objections the Assignments would continue as established. Chairman Lively expressed his gratitude to the members of the Planning Commission for their help in the past year. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-204 - Direct Realty Sales, Inc., Plumas Drive - Request Use Permit to Allow Model Home Sales Office - Continued from 10 January 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 7:41 P.M. The Assistant Planner stated that nothing new had been added to this file. ~ere was no one present to represent the applicant and no memeber of the audience ~,zishcd to comment. Con=~issioner Smith moved, seconded by Cormnissioner Bacon, to close the hearing relative to UP-204 at 7:42 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. %~e Assistant Planner read the St~ff Report dated 24 January 1972 recommend- ing that the Use Permit for a model home sales office on Plunms Drive be granted for one (1) year. Cc~nissioner Smith moved, seconded by Con~missioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated 24 January 1972 relative to UP-204 be granted to allow a model home sales office on Plnmas Drive for one (1) year subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried with Commissioner Marshall voting" '" nu . Bo UP-205 - Open Hearth Restaurant, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Request Use Permit to Allow a Restaurant-Dinner House Chairman Lively opened the hearing· relative to UP-205 at 7:44 P.M. The Assistant Planner stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed. Mr. Ed Driscoll, owner of restaurant, ~,Tas present and stated that 1) the name of the restaurant will be the Open Hearth and will specialize in top quality steaks and will be open three (3) hours for lunch and then again for dinner 2) the restaurant will cater to the family with a basic price of $4.00 per dinner and cocktails will be served 3) Mr. Pat O'Day of Concepts West, Building Designers, has been working on the plans and helped with the original design of this building and 4) Mr. O'Day ·has lived in Sarat·og~ for a number of years and is familiar with the needs of the City and his firm has designed a number of restaurants. Mr. Driscoll further stated that I) he has been in the restaurant business for fourteen and one-half (14~) years, is now operating two (2) restaurants, and is currently Director of the Restauran[ Association and 2) Mr. Stephen P. Koshland, x,~o will be in direct charge of this restaurant, has had several years experience in the restaurant business and will be able to do a professional job of managing this restaurant in a manner in which it will be a credit to the com~unity. Con~nissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee did meet with this applicant and inform. ed him that in addition to the floor plans it would be necessary to submit a parking plan for review in order to deterP. ine whether or not adequate parking is available for this entire building. -2- Planning Comnission Minutes - 24 January 1972 - Continued II. B. UP-205 - Continued Mr. O'Day submitted the revised parking plan and explained that the revised parking study indicates that space "A" (contract printer's ;i'shop) of this building requires one (1) parking space; the restaurant and cocktail lounge requires twe.nty-six (26) parking spaces - one (1) car per 75-square'.'feet; no parking spaces required for the storage area; retail store area requires eleven (11) parking spaces - one (1) car per 200-square feet and eight-and-one-half (8.5) spaces for administrative office - one (1) car per 400--square feet. ~ere are, also, six (6) park- ing spaces in front of the building and five (5) temporary spaces. Chai~an Lively noted that a total of fifty-nine (59) spa'ee~ including some temporary spaces in the front of the building, are sho~m on the parking plan. Mr. O'Day explained that the restaurant will have a nautical theme with a wood front and ~,xood carvings. Chai~an L~vely instructed the applicant to contact the Secretary and arrange an appointment to meet with the Subdivision Co~ittee to discuss and review the parking plan. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:00 P.M., directed the UP-205 contin~ed to the next. regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Co~ittee. III. BUILDING SI%%S ~ SUBDIVISIONS A. $D-904 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass Lane - Subdivision Approval - 16 Lots - Continued from 10 January 1972 Chairman Lively' stated that 1) he wished to co~.ent on a copy of a letter he and other mem~ers of the Commission received rega'rding z~he '.proposed "P-C" development by George Day 2) the letter is typewritten and states that it expresses the opinion of' eighty-eight property o~.mers who fo~erly signed a petition opposing the "P-C" develop~ent; however, the letter does not contain so much as one signature 3) he is distressed about this letter since oneT. of its authors previously wrote a letter similar to this one - full of mistruths, half-truths, and no-truths ~nd 4) he does not object to citizens writing letters, but he is bothered that they do ~ite when they really do not have the facts at hand. Co~ssioner Smith read the Subdivision Co~ittee Report dated 24 January 1972 recommending approval for' the tentative map in connection with SD-904. Commissioner Smith recommended that the Subdivision Committee Report be amended to add the following Condition No. 18. "18. Comply with all requirements as stated in the Staff Report dated 24 January 1972 rel'ative to C-148." ~e Assistant Planner jtated that the Staff Report relative to C-148 is essentially the same report as previously approved but it has been modified to include the site development plan submitted in connection with SD-904 and C-148. ~ai~an Lively stated that 1) by tieing the subject Staff Report relative ~o C-148 'into the Subdivision Co~i~6ee Report relative to SD-90~ the Planning"'Co~ission has essentially stated that the developer must obtain Design Review Approval before any construction is started and 2) there are two-story homes in this development; however, they are located so that they are separate from the other single-story homes. Mr. Lou Leto, General Manager-George Day, in answer to an .inquiry from Co~issioner Belanger, stated that the average lot in the Planned-,Co~unity development is approximately 36,700-square feet in size. t--'J. annn. ng uommission M~.n.utes - 24 January_ ].972 - Continued III. A. SD-904 - Continued Mr. Leto, in answer to an inquiry from Connnissioner Belanger, further stated that the green buffer area is 60-feet wide at the northerly end of Fruitvale Avenue and 33-feet wide at its narrowest point. Chairman Lively inquired if the 33-feet is inside the 10-foot property line? Comanissioner Marshall e>~'plained that the map should be remar'ked to accurately show the curb and gutter line as the property line and reidentify the property line as the curb and gutter line. Commissioner Belanger inquired how it was determined that the open space ~idth along Fruitvale Avenue was adequate? She remembers 50-feet being discussed and is curious' to know how it ended up being 33-feet. Commissioner Smith stated that the 33-feet is the result of more internal greenery. C]iairman Lively explained that the applicant did submit these plans for review at the .last meeting and the Planning Conm~ission agreed tO !give the "reen . o applicant the g light" to proceed with this concept 'Commissioner Belanger stated that she was under the impression that the average size lot would be 35,000-square feet. Chairman Lively explained that two (2) acres of this development will be devoted to open-space. Some lots in 'the development are 40,000-square feet in size and some exceed 40,000-square feet. ' ..................... c6mmissioner s.~.ith moved, seconded by Com~nissioner Marshall, that the Subdivision Con~.~ittee Report dated 24 January 1972 relative to SD-904 be · adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-I", filed 14 January 1972) be~.,'ap~0ved~ subject .to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carr{~' with Commissioner Belanger voting "no". B. SDR-931 - Jordan M. Pennoyer, Via Regina - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from l0 January 1972 %]~e Assistant Planner recommended that 'this matter be continued to the next regular meeting since Mr. Pennoyer is still working with the Fire Depg~tment and is hopeful that the Department's require~nents relative to driveway, fire hydrants, parking and turnaround area for emergency vehicles, and bridge widening will be resolved by the meeting of 14 February 1972. The applicant has submitted a letter granting the Planning Comm. ission an extension ,on the tentative map. Chairman Lively directed SDR-931 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee. C. SDR-936 - John Markulin, Leonard Road - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from 10 January lz972 The Assistant Planner stated that this applicant has submitted a letter requesting withdrawal of SDR-936 until such time as he can purchase the necessary right-of-way necessary' for development of this site. Corm~issioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner ~iarshall, that the request for withdrawal in connection with SDR-936 be granted; motion carried uanimously. D. SD-937 - Saratoga Foothills Development: Corp., Saratoga-SunnF~ale Road and Wardell Road - Subdivision Approval - 21 Lots - Continued from 10 January 1972 Con~-nissioner Smith stated that this tentative map has been revised since the matter was last reviewed by the Planning Con~nission. -4- Plannihg Commission Minutes - 24 January 1972 - Continued III. D. SD-937 - ContinUed Chairman Lively noted that the land for this development is essentially flat so steps should be taken to eliminate inconsistencies in grades caused by piling excavated dirt up at the back of lots. Co~nissioner Marshall stated he is opposed to this subdivision because he considers this development to be unimaginiative. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Subdivi- sion Committee Report dated 24 January 1972 relative to SD-937 be adopted----_. and that the tentative map (E~ibit "A-i" filed 21 January 1972) b<approved~-~ tlon carr!e wlEh~ subject to the conditions set forth in said report; mo d Conmissioner Marshall voting "no". E. SD-938 - Saratoga Foothills Development, Corp., Saratoga Avenue - 18 Lots Continued from 10 January 1972 Commissioner Smith stated that the Park and Recreation Commission has submitted a memo to the Planning Commi~'~Sn '~'~'6Fmending'that this tentative map 'be denied;'however~' it is the Subdivision Committee reconnnendation"~hat the ma'[['~"'B~ continued to allow time fo~ further study~ The Assistant Planner stated that a ietter of extension has been received from the applicant. Chairman Lively directed SD-938 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Con~.~xittee for further study and revi~.' F. SDR-940 - Virginia F. Brooks, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Building Site Approval 1.Lot - Continue~"'from 10 January 1972 rne applicant was present and stated she reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction of same. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 24 January 1972 relative 'to SDR-940 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-l", filed 24 January 1972) be~a~p~o~e'd subject to the conditions set forth in'said report; motion carried un~im~u.s'ly. G. SD-941 - Kunkel-Thomas, Sobey Road Subdivision Approval - 12 Lots The Assistant Planner stated that the Santa Clara County Flood Control has requested this matter be continued until they are able to determine what right-of-way easement will be required. Commissioner Smith stated that 1) the Subdivision Committee has reviewed the applicant's current proposal 2) there is a single long cul-de-sac covering all twelve (12) lots and 3) there is nothing striking about this proposal except its monotony. Chairman Lively suggested that the Subdivision Committee encourage the applicant to use some imagination and'perhaps Cut do~.m on the number of lots. Commissioner Marshall stated that he agreed the proposal showed little imagination and the developer should be required 'to do something more creative. Chairman Lively directed SD-941 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Co~mnittee. -5-' Plannihg Commission Minutes - 24 January 1972 ~ Continued· III. H. SDR-926 - Southland Corp., Saratoga-I~os Gatos Road - Building Site Approval - '2 Lots Conm~issioner Smith stated that the General Plan Committee has submitted a report relative to this request for building site approval. Chairman Lively read the General Plan Cor~nittee Report dated 20 January 1972 recon~ending that the Planning Con~.ission reco~end to the City Council that the City take action i~ediately to rezone the subject property from "C-C" (Co~unity-Co~ercial) to "P-A" (Professional-Administrative) to coincide with the General Plan. It was agreed that the following shodld be deleted from the last sentence of the said r.eport: "and that building site approval be denied on the basis that the proposed use conflicts with the General Plan use." Commissioner Bacon noted that it is Significant that the General Plan was amended to show "P-A" (Professional-Administrative) zoning for this property at the time the "7-11" Store was first proposed for this property. Chaiman Lively explained that it wa~ felt that "P-A" zoning would be more compatible with the other buildings in the area. ~e Assistant Planner stated that the City Attorney has explained that the Planning CoEission can take action and recon~nend to the City Council that an emergency ordinance be enacted to lchange the zoning on this piece of property. Chaiman Lively advised that further lconsideration should be given to the · fact that Saratoga-Los Gatos Road has been designated a scenic highway. and there is some doubt that a "7-11" Store would fit into this concept. Coma~issioner Smith moved, seconded by Comnissioner Marshall, that the Planning Co~ission adopt, as ~ended, the General Plan Co~ittee Report dated 20 Janua~ 1972 and fom,xard it:to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Co~ission with an additional request that the City Council enact an emergency ordinance to rezone 'the subject parcel from "C-C" to "P-A"; motion carried unanimously. Chai~an Lively referred SDR-926 to the Subdivision Conmittee and continued the matter to the next regular meeting. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-349 - Cal-West Communities, Inc., Saratoga Avenue - Final Design Review - Decorative Fencing and Landscaping Alon~ Future West Valley Freeway line Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 24 January 1972 recomm. ending that Final Design Approval be granted for A-349. Chairman Lively recomnended that the. subject Staff Report be amended to include the following: "and subject to the following condition: Size and type of plants to be as sho~.m on Exhibits "H" and "O" previously approved by the Planning Cormmission on 11 januat~y 1971." Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded bY Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated 24 January 1972 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be:-grant'$~ for the decora-tiVe fencing and landscaping alopg the . future West'~Va'l'i~'~"'Freeway for the Cal-W~st Cont~.unities .condominium complex fronting on Saratoga Avenue as sho~,~n on Exi-~ibits "Y", "Z", "H", and "0" and subject· to the condition stated in said rep.ort; motion ..carried unanimously ~'lanning Co~ri. ssion Minutes 24 January 1972 - COntinued IV. B. A-384 - Russell Reed, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Final Design Review - Identification Signs %~e applicant was present and stated that he had a question relative to what the designation of shopping center means in connection with allowing a free-standing sign. ~ere are six (6)"'·different business establishments in this building and they are so far off. the street there is no way of identifying them other than by a free-standing pole sign. Chairman Lively stated that the City does have a policy opposing free-standing signs. Conmaissioner ~arshall stated that 1) he was a member of the Design Review Con~nittee at the time this building was being built 2) inquiry was made at that time as to the intended use of the building and it was explained to the Design Review Committee that the use of the building would be limited to real estate and insurance offices, in other words, low-traffic-low-volume type of uses 3) the Design Revie~,~ Con~nittee did at that time ask about possible plun'jDing in case a restaurant tenant became interested and the representative at that time stated that no such use was contemplated and. 4) he would be bitterly opposed to approval of a pole or free-standing sign especially since the use proposed is so different from the use originally proposed. Conm~issioner Belanger stated that .i) this building does stand back from' the road and approaching from the southern direction the view of these buildings is cut off 2) some suggestion might be made as to a way of identifying these establishments so a passing motorist can become aware of them before going by and 3) perhaps a light pole with a decorative lantern with a small identifica- tion sign attached for each individual business. Commissioner ~arshallnoted that 1) the applicant knew or should have kno~zn that a pole sign would not be alio~.'ed. for this building 2) there will be road widening in this area which ~,~ill. remove the side access street even further 3) if this applicant were given permission for a pole sign the other business establishments in the area would, also, demand the same privelege 4) the appli- cant seethed fully aware all along of the sign problems in connection with develop- ment of this building and the Planning Conmission should not succL~nb Eo any· request for a pole sign and 5) the question that must be considered is "does the Planning Commission intend to treat a single building as a shopping center?" Mr. Discoll~ owner of proposed restaurant, stated that some consideration should be given to special circumstances in this case and some type of sign· that Can be seen by passing motorists should be allowed for identification of these business establishments and especially for the. proposed restaurant. Chairman Lively suggested that, perhaps, the best method for identification for .this DUrDo~e Woul~ be. a larze sizn .on the building itself. tie referred the matter to the Design Review Committee for further study. C. A-385 - The Southland Corporation, Santa. toga-Los Gatos Road - Preliminary Design Review - Commercial Building - 7-11 Food Market Chairman Lively directed A-385 continued to the next re~xlar meeting and referred same to the Design Review Committee. %]~is matter is directly connected with SDR-926 which was, also, continued. V. CITY COb~_~CIL REPORT The Assistant Planner gave a sunm~ary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 19 January 1972, with emphasis on items of particular interest to the Commission. VI. OLD BUSINESS · A. Housing Element - Reviews: of General Plan Co~mnittee Report - Continued from 10 January 1972 The Assistant Planner stated that the General Plan Cormnittee has prepared a draft for a suggested ttousing Element for Saratoga. The City· Attorney has reviewed the subject draft and recon~ended some very minor changes. -7- VI. A. Housing Element - Continued Chairman Lively directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the General Plan Cormnittee. .. VII. NEW BUSINF, ES None VIII. COi, D~NICATIONS A. WRITTEN 'A. Capitol Real Estate - Request. to Add Children's Nursery and Boarding School to List of Conditional Uses The Assistant Planner read a :letter received from Capitol Real · Estate requesting that childr'en's nursery and boarding school be added to the list of Conditional Uses in the "R-I" zoning districts. l~ae applicant was not present. Commissioner Smith stated that 1) the Subdivision Committee did meet with the representatives of Capitol Real Estate 2) the applicant has two (2) lots west of the 'Catholic Church on the same side of the street on Saratoga Avenue 3) a day nursery an_d boarding scho'6i" for '~bd'~'~ one-hundred (100) youngsters is proposed 14) the applicant was informed that board- ing schools were not presently allowed in "R-i" zones and if it were added as a conditional use it would be necessary to apply for a Use Permit 5) if this use were allowed in the proposed location a traffic hazard would result and 6) the matter should be continued until the applicant can be present to make a presentation to the Planning Commis-- sion. Cormnissioner Marshall stated that 1) at the time the applicant presented this proposal to the Subdivision Committee they proposed many activities not presently allowed by the .Zoning Ordinance 2) he views this proposal with some suspicion since it 'does not sound like a feasible proposition 3) the applicant made many 6ontradi'ctory statements at the time he met with the Subdivision Corr. a~ittee and 4) it is his feeling, after .... meeting with the applicant, that this use would be a military institute type of boarding school. Chairman Lively instructed tli:ie Ac~istant Planner to notify the applicant that the Commission should hear their story. B. W. C. Garcia and Associates Con~er Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road - Request to Allow Food Store Containing 28,000-square feet in the The Assistant Planner read a conununication received from Eugene Geritz, AIA, requesting 'that the Planning Connnission give consideration to amending the "C-V" (Visitor-Coms, ercial) Ordinance to allow a food store containing 28,000-~quare feet at the southeast corner of Saratoga-Sunnyval e Road. The Assistant Planner Stated that the ordinance presently allows a food market of 12,000-square feet in the "C-V" zoning district. Mr. Rocky Garcia, representing the property ox.mer, stated that the finn he respresents (Garcia and Associates) is generally knox,m for the homes they have built in the Saratoga area. The subject property is in fact a residual parcel that remained after the development of a subdivision to the rear of the 'property and attempts have been made in the past to develop this property. S.D.C., Inc. is a company of professional shopping center developers and have performed in many-areas of California; .there- fore ,they have been retained by Garcia and Associates to formulate a plan for this key property that is one of the entry ways into the City. ~-' -8- ,Planning Co~nnission Minutes - 24 January '1972 - Continued VIII. B. Food Market - Continued Mr. Stewart, President of the S.D.C., Inc., stated that 1) a plot plan has been .submitted for review by the Planning Commission 2) this is not a formal presentation, but they wou'ld like only to obtain some opinion from the Planning Conm~ission relative to their feeling about this pro- posal 3) his firm specializes~ in neighborhood shopping centers and were involved in the opening of twelve (12) shopping centers this year 4) this is a logical location. for this use 5) the developer wishe~" to proceed in such a manner as tO make a contribution to the City and preserve the character of this' location ~,J~ich is one of the gateways to the City 6) on the exhibit.s submitted the trees have been colored green and all the 'trees sho~ are existing with the exception of a few 7) the corner of the property will remain in its natural state with. the trees and will have the appearance of an open-space area 8) he' has read the Zoning Ordinance tarefully and feels that this developer can and does meet the terms of the ordinance with the exception of the size of the food market and 9)': it is requested that some adjustment be made in the ordinance to allow a larger market or the Planning Commission give some direction. as to how the developer should proceed with this matter. , Commissioner Smith stated that 1) the ordinance as written allows a food market, but does not allow the size requested by the developer 2) the ordinance does not limit the size of a drug store to 12,000-square feet', but does limit the food market to that size and this does seem a little inconsistent 3) the size of the food market in this location was limited to 12,000-square feet mainly to protect the Blue itills Market and 4) there has been discussion that this property could be developed as a park site, but that decision must be made by the City Council. Chairman Lively stated that the developer should be made aware that if this request were approved Design Review Approval would impose some really difficult controls including strict enforcement of the sign ordi- nanc e. Mr. Stewart stated that he and his clients are willing to deviate from the customary shopping center approach and they are used to workin~ with Design Review situations; therefore, they realize that the standarRs for Saratoga will be more stringent than most. Commissioner Belanger asked if. a survey had .been conducted to determine if another grocery store is needed in this area? Mr. Stewart replied that a study h'ad been done by his company and by the developer and it definitely indicated that this is an extremely logical location for this use. Commissioner Marshall stated that the Design Review Committee would require this store to be very unique. Commissioner Belanger stated that the 12,000-square foot area as opposed to the 28,000-square foot area, as requested, will have to be very carefully weighed. Chairman Lively stated tha't i~f the 28,000-square feet is approved it would be an automatic variance'. The Assistant Planner stated that the applicant could be required to apply for a variance to allow a larger store or the Zoning Ordinance could be amended to allow same'. Cormn~issioner Smith recommended that a variance application be filed and the matter be discussed with the City Attorney. Commissioner Bacon agreed that a variance application should be made by this developer. -9- VIII. B. Food Market - Continued Chairman Lively agreed that a request for variance would be his preference. No matter what type of development is placed on this property it will be visible :!to' anyone entering the City. He would like to see low buildings (Tox~a and Country tyi:,e) rather than the usual massive structure built by grocery .stores. Cormnissioner Marshall agreed th'at the To~ and Country type of ~" shopping center would be more acceptable. Mr. Stewart stated he understood the type of development desired and agreed that the low profile is important. Chairman Lively directed this matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred this request to the Subdivision Comnittee. He directed the representatives to submit elevations of the proposed development and to apply for variance. C: SDR-822 - Earl Zinnnerman, Bohlman Road - Request for Extension The Assistant Planner read a letter from the applicant requesting an extension for SDR-822. Chairman Lively directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting and refer~-ed SDR-822 to the Subdivision Co~nittee for study ~ and a report. D. SDR-932 - George A. AkerS, E1 Camino Senda - Request for Reconsidertion "' of Condition of Building. Site Approval ~'~' The AssistantPlanner explained that this applicant intended to request a reconsideration of condition of building site approval; however, he is still trying to resolve problems in' connection ~;,ith septic tanks with the Health Department. He has now requested that the matter be taken off the agenda until such time :as these problems are resolved. Chairman Lively so directed. E. Letter from Saratoga Chamber of Commerce relative to Village Development ~ne Assistant Planner read a cgmm~:nication received from the Saratoga Chamber of Conm~erce stating that: 1) It is the feeling of.the Chamber that the design of the proposed 7-11 Store at the corner of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Oak Street does not appear to be in keeping with the ordinance which applies to the Village DeVelopment. 2) That the proposed plans for the remodeling of the facade of the Sunshine Hill Antiques-as seen and described in a recent issue of the Saratoga Nex,,,s meets with the approval of the Ch'amber of Connnerce Board membhrs. Commissioner Belanger stated she is irritated.by the large "Sale" signs on the Sunshine Hill Ant~:ques building which are still present. The Corinthian Studios is', also, displaying similar signs. ~ae Assistant Planner stated that he will refer the matter to the Code Enforcement Officer. P,l~nning Connnission Minutes - 24 January ·1972 - Continued VIII. B. ORAL Amling-Gilmore Florist Miljevich Property ]%qe Assistant Planner, in ansver to an inquiry from Commissioner Marshall, explained that both the above mentioned matters have been taken to court. Cormnissioner Marshall requested that a Staff Report be prepared relative to these matter for review at the next regular meeting. General· Plan Review , Chairman Lively reconnnended thalc the General Plan Review be started·iearly thi~.··ye~rr and a completion be scheduled for May or June. He further recormnended that the Staff consult the City Council and the General Plan Committee Chairman relative to this matter. The Assistant.' Planner stated that this will be a more detailed General Plan Review since it is time for the major five (5)' year review and it may take an entire year to c6mplete. Some consideration will have to be given as to whether or not the City plans to hire a consultant for this major review. : Chairman Lively requested that [he Assistant Planner make inquiries to the City Council to determine if a consultant will be retained. Monte Bello Ridge Mountain Study Area %q~e Assistant Planner stated ·that the new Monte Bello S[~udy- Phase It (a resolution requesting interim development regulations be applied to Monte Bello Ridge Mountain Study Area) provides for a minimum lot size of five (5) acres and allows for use of the property for; one-family dwellings, agriculture, accessory buildings and accessory uses, as ~,~ell as certain additional uses allowed by use permit. The Planning Policy Committee requests the City Council of Saratoga and other affected Cities to adopt emergency regulations necessary to prevent premature development from occurring in this area. 2]~e'Saratoga City Council has referred the matter to its Planning Conm~ission. The Staff is working with the City Attorney on the said study. ; ....... Chairman Lively referred the m'atter to the Subdivision Cox.~nittee for study and a.report. Grocery, Store - Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Garcia Prop_~fty Mr. Richard Green, Goleta Avenue, stated that there are at least six (6) grocery stores in this area and it would appear that an additional one .V,'ould have a very difficult time financially and it seems unbelievable anyone would consider investing money in a venture of this type in this area. Guests Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilm~on and Mrs. E~.ryer, and Mrs. Wilberding of the Good Government Group. He, also, thanked Mrs. Wilberding for the coffee served at recess. -11- ~-i - P.j. anning Conm~ission Minutes - 24 January_ 1972 - Contin~led VIII. B. Appreciation - Chairman Commissioner Smith, on behalf of the Planning Con~nission, thanked Chairman Lively for serving as'. Chairnk~n of the Saratoga Planning Commission for the past year. IX. ADJOUR~rbfENT ; Chairman Lively adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, } Stanley M. Walker, Secretary ...- . Saratoga Planning Commission "' ~i"'~i" '7~ ,/ ./-. j