Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-1972 Planning Commission Minutes CIl~f OF SARATOGA PiA~YNING CO%,!R, fISSION ~[[NU~i'ES TI~Z: Monday, 14 February ].972 7:30 P-M. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, Califo~ia 95070 ~PE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lively at 7:30 P.M. A. ROLL CALL Present: Cormnissioners Bacon, LiVely, Martin, Metcalf, and Smith. .~ Absent: Connnissioners Belanger, !and Marshall. B. MI~JTES : C~issioner Smith moved, seconded1 by Coma~issioner Bacon, that the reading of the minutes of 24 January 1972 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed subject to the following changes: page 6. .under H. SDR-926. . .paragraph 4. .line 3. .delete "at the time" and instead insert "aftar" and on page 7. . .insert the following be'tween paragraphs 4 and 5. . ."Coxmmissioner Belanger asked whether the Co~.rm~ission would consider allowing a free-standing directory-type sign of modest proportions to identify all building tenants?" and in paragraph 7. . on page 7. .line 2. .insert the word "directory" betwean the words "large" and "sign"; motion carrie~! x,zith Con~nissioners Martin and Metcalf ab staining. II. PUBLIC HF~RINGS : A. UP-205 - Open Hearth Restaurant, Saratoga-St~nnyvale Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Restaurant-Dinner House - Continued from 24'January 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative 'to UP-205 at 7:35 P.M. The .Secretary read the Staff Repo~'t dated 14 February 1972 reco~.r~nending that the requested Use Permit be granted to allow a resta~rar:t-dinner house. Mr. Ed Driscoll, o~,~ner of restaurant, questioned condition (3) of the subject report which states that a review ~of the parking req~irements would take place one (1) year from the date gf approval of this Use Permit. He stated he was interested in finding out ~,~-hat this review would entail. The Secretary explained that this ~revie.~z would be done to make sure that the .parking is adeqnate and that the number of employees have not changed and the square footage used for the dining area is still the ssjne. Chains. an Lively inquired what, if ;~any, action would be ~aken i~ the parking were found to be inadequate? Cormnissioner Smith stated that if ':tbe o~...~~er should propose a change in the use of any portion of the building then the Plar~'ning Commission should review the parking in the entire buildi~g. Chairman Lively reconmended that ~he subject 'report be amended by deleting condition (3) and adding the following to condition (2): "Parking require~nents m~st be reviewed if there is any c-'.~.ange in tenancy {n the entire building." Conm~issioner Smith moved, secondecl~ by Con~n~issioner Bacon, that the hearing in connection with UP-205 be closed at 7:41 P.M.; motion carr~.ed unanimously. Planning Co'~.~issio~.. Min,_:tes - 14 Februnt, 1972 - Continued II. A. UP-.205 - Continued Con~nissioner Smith n:oved, seconded b~- Comn~issioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated 14 Febn'_.ary 1972 relative to UP-205 be adopted, as amended, and a bse Permit be grante,t to allow a restaurant-dinner house in a portion of the Rus:~el.l Re. ed buiiding located at 12333 Saratoga-S-unnFale Road subject 'to ~he co'~diEicns stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. B. ~.F_~j~Pj. ' C & ! Development Co., :Titus Aven, e and Br~ckton Avenue - ·,-~ ~t for Use Pe~'~nit 'to Allow Model Home Sales Office Chaimxan Live!7 opened the hearing relative to UP-206 at 7:42 ~e Secretary stated that the No:.tice of Hearing was ~ilad. · He furthere stated that there is one new devlelcpment relative to this application and tI{at is that Brown and Kauflmann: has recently relocated without pe~ission their sales office onto Brockton': Lane. Supposedly [she model hom~a sales office .requested in connection w'ith UP-206 was to cancel out the Bro~,m and Kauf~m. ann s.3.1es office. C &~I Development is caking over all the lots left over from the Bro~.a~. and Kauffmann subdivision in this area. Co~.~issioner Smith staued that if a new model home sales office is desired the applicant m'ust a'bandon the old sales office. ].~ere w~'~s no one present to represent the applicant ~nd no one in the audience x~_shed to coxr~m. ent. Con~isslone3: Bacon stated it w~s', his understanding that Brox.m and KaufD~xann sold all their lots in this area.; tl~ezefore, would no longer need a sales office i~. ~b~[s Icca't~.c~n. :, Com~issione.~ Martin stated that the lot ~.zhere the applicant is proposing to build the model home sales office is actually a parking lot on a very busy street with many existing homes. !f the parking lot is elininated there will not be sufficient parking for a ~odei hoxne sales office. applicant should attempt ~o loca~e the model home sales office at the interior of the subdivision. Chair~r~n Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:48 P.M., directed UP-206 continued to the ne~t regular 'meeting and referred same to the Sub- division Coxmnittee for study and a report. C. UP-207 - Brookside Climb of Saratoga, Cox A~'enue - Request for Use Petit to Allow ~,zo (2) AdditiOnal Tennis Courts Chair~xan Lively opened the hearing relative to UP--207 at 7:~9 P.M. ; ~e Secretary' stated that the No~ice of Hear~.ng was mailed. Mr. McMilian, atton~- for the applicant, starred that 1) this is a reapplication on a Use Pern~it tha't w~s granted in ]-969 2) the Brookside Club had a~'~ticipated purchasing the needed property at the time the Use Pem~it was originally granted, bult have only recently finalized the purchase and 3) the plans are still exactly the same as sho~.zn on the maps previous].y subz~i't~ed and a,~r~'~'n'v~--~ ; Mrs. Donald K. ~lske~.:, 12651 SaratOga Creek Drive, stated that 1) she ~.~as p~'esent to rep~r,zs~:.nt the ho~neo~ne~..s in th~.s area 2) Walter Windes of 12681 Saratoga Creek Drive did not receive a N~i'~ice of }{c~aring relative to th~.s matter 3) the reside:rxts of the a~ea object to granting of this Use Permit since the applicant has not con~plied wi~nh the conditions of their cu~-rei~t Use Perp.~it 4) tb.e ou~msdoor noise ~fzas to be restricted ancl yet t'hey have consistently used loud speakers axed microphones for the. s~.mim meets at 7:00 A.M. 5) the noise has bee~ so bad tha~2 during the s't~m~-~r months the neighbors were unable ~-o ~se ~.'bc~i~s back yar~s and x,~ere forced to go to public par!<s for their B.-.B-Q's, e~c. 6) in the'Use Per~it granted in 1963 it x<,as reconLmended -2~ Planning Commission Minutes - 14 February 1972 - Continued II. C. UP-207 - Continued that landscaping be provided around the perimeter of the club property in order to act as a noise buffer between the club and the neighbors 7) this has not been done and the existing landscaping is not adequate 8) this is designated as. a private club and yet it operates as a public club and is open for public swimaning and tennis lessons 9) until these problems are resolved we feel this request for Use Permit should be witM~eld and 10) the residents do not object to the tennis courts as such but do feel the existing violations should ba abated. Mrs. Ask~, in answer to' an inquiry from Cormnissioner Smith, stated that no 'formal complaint was made to. the City previous to this time; however, the applicant has been notified. The Secretary stated that the plan has changed slightly froni the original proposal due to the acquisition' of the additional property. Chairman Lively requested that a review be made of the original Use Permit versus the proposal sho~,~ on the current plan and that a check be made to determine what can be done about some protective landscaping. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:04 P.M., directed UP-207 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Comn~ttee for study. and a report. D. C-153 - James W. Day, Walnut Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning 'from "R-l-12, 500" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-M-5,000" (Multi-Family Residential) Chairman Lively opened the hearing'at 8:05 P~M. The Secretary stated the Notice. of Hearing was mailed. He then read 1) a Statement of Reason filed'by the applicant 2) a communication filed in opposition to the proposed Change of Zoning by Mr. and ~'~s. Theo P. Williams of 14345 SaratOga Avenue and 3) a petition containing sixty-t~o (62) signatures objecting t~ the subject Change of Zoning. Mr. Ed Kolstad~'~ present to represent the applicant, stated that 1) the applicant feels this concept for development of this property will not increase density in this area, but rather decrease it 2) if this property were developed as straight "R-I" (Single-Family) there is a strong possibility that eight or nine building sites could be realized and they would all house' families and this would result in higher density 3) whereas very few families with children wo,~ld be interested in the type of accon~nodations posed and 4) since most people buying this type of living unit ~are past the child rearing stage. Mr. KO. lstad presented pictures of the type of units and/or developmenf~roposedo Mr. Richard Morton, 14141 Victo~ Place, stated.that they have lived at their current address since. 1947 and are opposed to'the subject proposal since they do not want an~ additional traffic on Walnut Avenue. Mrs. Mechanic of 20410 Walnut Avenue stated that there are over forty (40) children playing in the Walnut Avenue area. The only entrance to the proposed development wo~ld be off Walnut Avenue - a ~ery dangerous place for access. She objects to this request for change of zoning on the basis.that the additional traffic would cause a hazard for the'resi- dents of the area. Dorothy Lee Hilbert Of 14160 Victor Place stated that 1) several years ago an ill-advised plan was submitted for this pr6perty which did not obtain approval 2) the cdrrent proposal would allow for too heavy an increase in density at this location 3) even eight to ten building sites would. create a high density and a tremendous amount of traffic. -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 14 FebruaE ].972 - Continued II. D. C-153 - Continued Mr. Raymond Paxton of 14205 Squirrel Hollow Lane stated that he would like to know about any changes proposed for the creek which runs through thiS.L~property. Chairman Lively stated that the applicant is required to work with the Santa Clara County Flood Control to maintain the creek in accordance with the' Flood Plane concept. Mr. Kolstad explained that the creek will be maintained in its natural state. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:21 P.M., referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee and continued same to the next regular meeting. E. V-371 - W. C. Garcia & Assoc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Request for Variance to Allow Increase in Square-Footage in Area of Building Chairman Lively opened the hearing relative to V-371 at 8:22 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed. He then read communications filed in opposition to the proposed Variance: 1) A letter submitted. by Paul and Joyce Brow.me. of 20223 Carol Lane. 2) A letter. ,,~ritten by Dr. Robert J. Miller of 20322 Carol Lane. 3) A letter received from Mrs. Henry P. Kaplan of 20745 Sevilla Lane. 4)A letter from Frank W. Schork, Jr., President of Saratoga Manor Homeowners Association '5) A petition signed by forty-one (41) residents of the area. Mr. Stewart Bowie, President of S.D.C., Inc., stated that 1) his company proposes to buy the subject property; therefore, he will be speaking as the applicant'at this time 2) the architect for S.D.C., Inc. has met with the Subdivision Corr~nittee and De'sign Review Committee to discuss this proposal 3) this matter was discussed with the members of the Planning Commission at the ~eeting of 24 January ]972 and subsequently an appli- cation for Variance was made 4) times and circumstances have changed since the "C-V" ordinance, which limifed food markets to 12,000-square feet, was adopted 5) no other u'ses permitted in the "C-V" zone are limited to this size 6) super markets are between 24,000 to 30,O00-square feet in size 7) the request is to allow a 28,000-square. foot market in lieu of the 12,000-square foot ma~ket permitted under the ordinance 8) every one of the trees sho~,n~ on the plan is one that now exists on the property and the plans for the buildings have been dra~,rn around said trees 9) the applicant is amenable to dedicating to the City the corner of this property for park purposes since the Master Plan of the City designates this property for park use 10) in considering this Variance some alternatives must be considered 11) the property could be used by a single-larger use and that may be appealing or a number of very small shops could go in here; however,' these smaller shops would compete with the unique shops in the Village 'area and it is doubtful that the shops · in this center could"survive under those circumstances 12) development of this area as proposed by the applicant would be an asset to the City. Commissioner Metcalf explained that the Design Review Cemmittee did meet informally with the applicant's architect. _4~_ Planning Con~nission Minutes - 14 February 1972 -'ContinUed II. E. V-371 - Cont.~nued Chairman Lively asked if the architect understood that any building built on this site.would have different standards than the normal Longs Drug Store and/or Lucky Food Market and that they would be required to design the buildings to fit in with the character established for Saratoga. Commissioner Metcalf answered that this was understood but what may not be understood is that the develqper will be expected to treat the grove of trees located on this property as a park site and having done that the remainder of the site could be considered for development. Mr. Eugene Garrets, architect for S.D.C., Inc., stated that at the meeting with the Subdivision Committee and Design Review Committee the emphasis was on simply asking for direction., The maps submitted for review by the Planning Commission were .prepared for a development in th~ City of Davis and were submitted as a tool to stimulate conversation'. as to design approach. Conm~issioner Bacon stated that during the discussion of this matter with the applicant the words "Toxin and Country" style' were used many 'times and it was understood 'these' buildings woul~ be low in profile. Chairman Lively agreed that the. unsightly impact of the market could be greatly reduced if the profile were 1.ow.. Mr. James tlansen, representing a Homeowner's Group in the area, stated that if a market of the substantial size proposed is allowed in this area numerous delivery trucks will be coming and going which will create addi- tional traffic and,noisy operations. and at four or five o'clock in the morning this can become a disturbing hazard. Mr. Frank Ziegel of 20254 Kirkmont Drive stated that 1) about three years ago a lot of residents of Sarato. ga worked on the General Plan and at that time the question of the best use of this property was considered 2.) the zoning was at that time changed to "C-V" (Visitor-Commercial) and a suggested plan for landscaping and fencing was prepared 3) the idea of the 12,000- square foot market arose because the other establishments in the area did not want competition of the size that would result from a market of the size proposed by the applicant so a compromise was reached 4) this was the feeling of the residents and businessmen at the time of the General Plan Review and it is still the same - a 12,000-square foot market for this property is adequate and 5) the applicant should be required to submit detailed plans showing exactly what type of architectural design he proposes to use for this seve. n (7) acre site. Chairman Lively explained that the applicant has been advised that any buildings proposed for location 'on this property will be carefully studied by the Subdivision Coma~ittee and Design Review Committee and that the architecture used must blend in with the surrounding area. Mr. Bowie explained that at the time of Design Review he would be happy to 'meet with residents and businessmen of the area to discuss the proposed design for the buildings. Mr. Robert V. Pirkl of 12099 Kirkbrook Drive stated that 1) his property is adjacent to the one under discussion 2) the Variance seems to imply a large business operation and ~) the fact that this operation would be adjacent to a residential area should be given careful consideration by the Commission and he is opposed to a food market of the proposed size. Chairman Lively explained that the applicant could conceivably build something other than a grocery store at this location with no limit as to size .if the use were permitted under the "C-V" ordinance. -5-. IIo E. V-371 - Continued Mr. Charles F. Schwager of 20386' Kirkmont Drive stated that 1) low- profile buildings would not be a's objectionable as the usual size market, but even low-profile buildings will not decrease the noise ·and traffic already existing from other markets in the area 2) the trees on this property should be retained· and the landscaping increased in order to provide some type of buffer zone for the residents located in the area 3) in 1967-68 the City had 'a professional report prepared and in that report it was recon~nended that this corner be developed as an aesthetic approach to the City 4) this market will not provide this approach 5) there are already too many markets in this area and 6) he is very much opposed to the proposed Variance. Mr. James C. Bro~ of 12099 Natores Court stated that 1) at the time they pLuL'chased their property from Mr. Garcia they were assured that the subject property would be developed as a park site 2) another market in this area ~,xculd be oven~helming and to threaten the smaller stores in this area in this way is quite meaningless 3) if Merida Drive were opened into this co~ercial area as a result· of this development it would become a main thoroughfare to Highway 85 and the children in the area have to walk this way to get to school and 4) he is opposed to the subject Variance and any thought that Merida Drive would be opened to traffic. Mr. A1 Stadjuhar of 20377 Kirkmont Drive stated 'that he is one of the first residents of this area and was ·assured that no large co~ercial. venture of this type would ever go in at this location and he is opposed to the subject Variance request. Dr. Don R. Smith of 15135 Via Colins stated that 1) he has maintained a medical-dental building adjacent to this property for the last twelve (12) years 2) it is difficult for him to understand hox.~ this developer could make plans for something of this size without contacting him 3) he is not opposed to development of the subject "~r0'p~rt~i"But ~e""~'~'~ 'belie~ that some consideration should be given to 'his e}zisting building 4) he and the two other doctors enjoy this location and hope for an amicable relationship with the developer and 5) he has no feeling one way or the other about the requested Variance. Mr. Bro~,~ of 12099 Natoma Court Stated that Mr. Garcia (at the time he sold Mr. Brown his lot) made a conm'ittment for a 200-foot setback between the Bro~.m property and any buildings proposed for the property under discussion.· According to the plans the setback has been reduced to something like 30-or=50-feet. Chai~an Lively explained that unlder th~ present ordinance a 10-foot side yard and a 30-foot rear setback is all that is required. Mr. Ernest Kaufman of 12055 Carol' Lane stated that he was assured at the time he moved into this area that~ the subject property would be developed as a park site. He is completely opposed to a super market of the proposed size at this location since there are already too many markets in this area. Mr. Bruno Edinger of 12088 Natoma Court stated that he is opposed to a market at this location. The amount of traffic created by a market has been ~de evident by other markets operating in 'the area. Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) he has revi-ewed the "C-V" ordinance and he finds that the proposed principle use of this land is not within the letter or spirit of the draft of the ordinance 2) the ordinance authorizes, in a "C-V" zoning district, a pha~acy with no size limitation, but it clearly limits the size of a food store to 12,000-square feet and it is pretty apparent that the people who drafted the ordinance were think- --ing of something like the Saratoga Dm_~g Store o~ the Argonaut Pharmacy and not a discount d~g store such as .a Longs or Payless. It seems clear that the developer should be required to submit a request for a Variance for both the proposed drug store and the food market. Piannin~ Connn~ss~on Minutes - i~. February 1972 - Continued II. E. V-371 - Continued ' Chairman Lively closed the public hearing for the evening at 9:11 P.M., directed V-371 continhed to the next regular m~eting and referred same to the Variance Committee. Commissioner Martin, on behalf of the Variance Committee, arranged for an on-site inspection of the property with the applicant for Saturday morning, 19 February 1972, at 9:00 A.M. He, also, stated that the Variance Committee would meet ~ith interested residents of the area on Saturday morning, 19 February:. 1972, at 9:30 A.M. at the site. RECESS AND RECONVE~rE III. BUILDING SITES A~rD SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-931 Jordan M. Pennoyer, via Regina - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from 24 January 1972 The Secretary, ~in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Metcalf, explained that if the slope of a lot is over 10% then the Planning Commission must approve the ·type of·house that is allowed On the property. Connnissioher Metcalf emphasized that if the average slope is over .40% the lot cannot be stretched enough tO make a legal lot. Commissioner Bacon stated that 60,000-square feet would be needed to make a legal lot if the slope exceeded 730%in this case. Commissioner Smith pointed out that a total of 120,000-square feet would be required for the two (2) lots if the slope is indeed over.3.0%'j.~ CoF~nissioner Bacon stated that is correct unless the second lot had a slope less than 10%. The Secretary, i{{ answer to an inquiry from Conhmissioner Martin, explained that Mr. Pennoyer woul'd have to arrange to have the matter of access for Lot "A" clearly defined in his deed. Chairman Lively directed SDR-931 continued to the next regular meeting and referred the matter to the Subdiv. ision Committee to resolve the matter of slope density and the access road to Lot "A". B. SDR-938 - Saratoga Foothills Development, Corp., Saratoga Avenue - 13 Lots - Continued from 24 January 1972 The Secretary recommended that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting to allow time for further study. Chairman Live ly so. directed° C~ 'SD-941 - Kunkel-Thomas, Sobey Road - Subdivision Approval - 12 Lots - Continued from 24 January 1972 The Secretary recommended that this matter be continued to the ne~,:t regular me. eting since the applicant is still working to develop a more meandering type of cul-de-sac, Chairman Lively so directed. D. SDR-926 - Southland Corp., Saratoga-Los Gatos Road - Building Site Approval' 2 Lots - Continued from 24 January 1972 Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Cormmissioner Smith, to deny building site approval for SDR-926 unless a letter of extension is received from the applicant; motion carrie.d unanimously. .~.~ Flanning Commission Minut'es - 14 February 1972 - Continuect III. E. SDR-942 - Shannon Lightfoot, St!ringer Avenue - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots The Secretary recormnended that '.this matter be continued. to the next regular meeting in order to resolve legal implications involved with this property. He then read tw.O' (2) communications objecting to the proposed building site received. from the following: 1) Doctors Carol and Phil'lip Jacklin of 14436 Esterlee Drive. · 2) Mr. and Mrs. C. Leland Bice of 14481 Springer Road. Commissioner Smith explained that the Subdivision Committee is working 'with the City Attorney in connection with this matter. Chairman Lively directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred SDR-942 to; the Subdivision Committee for study and a report at the next meeting° F. SDR~943 - John T. Stone~ Mt. Eden Road - Building Site Approval ~ 1 Lot %]~e Secretary reco~ranened that this matter be continued to the next regular' meeting since this building site is in Saratoga but the access lies in the County and involves another building site, also, in the County. Chairman Lively directed the matter continued to the next regular' meeting. IV. DEglGN REVIEW A. A-369 Sisters of Notre Dame, Bohlman Road Final Design Review - Facade Remodeling for Old Chapel at Novitiate Commissioner Smith stated that if the front of ,this old chapel is remodeled in too fancy a manner it will stick out like a sore thumb against the remainder of the building which'is .real old. Commissioner Metcalf explained that some of the tiles that will be used are real old and have been salvaged from buildings that were removed. He then read the Staff Report recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for the remodeling of the 'old chapel at the novitiate. Comnissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Cormmissioner Bacon, that the Staff Repo.rt dated 14 February 1972 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be gr'~ant.~ed,-~s sho~ on Exhibits "H" and "I" for the remodeling of the chapg(~el'building subject to the condition stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. B. A-271 - John Rodrigues, Jr., Big Basin Way - Final Design Review - Front Elevations - Condominium Commissioner Metcalf read the Staff Report dated 14 February 1972 recommend- ing that Final Design Approval be granted for the exterior elevations for the fifth tox.~house complex for .A-271~ Commissioner Smith recommended that in paragraph 1.. .line 3.. . '.'four (4) separate" be change to read"six (6) separate". Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Cormnissioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated 14 Februar>L1972 be adopted, as 'amended, and that Final Design Approval be go~.~ted/for the exterior elevations for the -fifth townhouse complex as'shown on Exhibit "L" and "M" subject to the condition stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. -8-' IV. C. A-384 - Russell Reed, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Final Design Review - Identification Signs - Continued from 24 January 1972 Commissioner Metcalf explained that this request 'is actually split into two parts: 1) ..The identification sign. 2) _The modification of the building facade to be done by the Open Hearth .Restaurant for a nautical design. Mr. O'Day, applicant's representative, stated that the only lighting to be used will be for the landscaping and the pathway. Conunissioner Smith recommended that the subject Staff Report be amended as follows: In the title of the report. .delete "Identification Signs" and instead ins.ert. ."Modification of Building Facade" and in paragraph 1. . . line 1. . .delete "architectural treatment of the front of the building" and instead insert. . ."building facade". Chairman Lively recormnended that .the subject Staff Report be further amended as follows: In paragraph 2. . .add ..after the word modification. . ", with the condition that indirect lighting will be for landscaping and path and walkways only." Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated 14 February 1972 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be granted .for the modification of the building facade for the Russell Reed building as sho~,rn on E~ibit "M" subject to the condition stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Metcalf stated that =the matter of the identification sign for this building is, also, scheduled for discussion at this time. Mr. Driscoll, o~,rner of the Open Hearth Resta'c~rant, asked if a report relative to the sign had been prepared. Commissioner Metcalf explained th'at at the Design Review Committee meeting the applicant had been given some indication that his free-standing sign would be satisfactory if it were cut do~,n~ from 8-feet to 6-feet, but it seems to be the consensus of the Commission that no free-standing sign should be permitted. Mr. Driscoll stated that he is excited about becoming part of a City that is trying so hard to maintain itsl uniquie character; however, he would request that this matter be considered in proper perspective since this this is a unique situation. %~qe .fact that the building is set back off the street a great distance will allow traffic to go past without even noticing the restaurant unless there is a sign of significant size. Even on freeways where no signs are allowed there are some exceptions made in certain cases. Mr. Koshland, designer of the sign for this applicant, stated that the sign proposed on the exhibits submitted has been tied into the building as attractively as possible and it has been set into planting; therefore, no structural element of the sign can be seen. Chairman Lively stated that all the arguements hold true; however, free-stancling signs are allowed only for shopping centers; therefore, this building will have to meet that requirement in order to qualify for a pole sign. If the Commission deviates from the ordi:nance for one situation other business establishments in the area will be encouraged to request the same type of sign for their use. -9-' Planning Comnission Minutes - 14 Februar, 1972 -'Cbntinued IV. C. A~384 - Continued Commissioner Smith stated that even if this were called something other .than a free-standing sign other establishments in the area would feel free to present the same arguments that this applicant has put forth. Commissioner Metcalf stated that in fairness to the applicant the other sign violations in this area should be checked and corrected. Chairman Lively directed this matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred A-384 (identification sign) to the Design Review Conm~ittee for study. : The Secretary explained that the applicant could meet with the Design Review Committee and the Planning and Environmental Committee of the City Council to determine what the feeling of the Council would be relative tO the proposed sign. V.. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Bacon gave a summary of items reviewed and action taken at the 'City Council meeting of 2 February 1972, with emphasis on items of particular interest to the Commission. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Capitol Real Estate - Request toiAdd Children's Nursery and Boarding School to Li~ of Conditional Uses - Continued from 24 January 1972 Mr. James Wright, applicant, sta~ed that 1) he has operated a school of the type requested in Palo Alto for seventeen '(17) years 2) the school would provide overnight care for children from four (4) to twelve (12) years 3) it would be a "fun" type of place for children to stay .r-" while their parents are away andz4) the principle use would be for a daytime nursery school. : Chairman Lively explained that 1) there have been numerous applications made for nursery schools and each time there has been a tremendous citizens turn-out against this use and 2). a meeting with the Subdivision Committee can be arranged to discuss this matter. Commissioner Smith explained that the Subdivision Committee did meet with the applicant to discuss this matter and informed him that he should bring the subject before the planning commission in order to obtain their feeling on the matter.- : Commissioner Metcalf stated thatznursery schools have been deleted from the list of uses in the "R 1" zoning district and should not be reinstated. Chairman Lively directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred the subject to the Subdivision Committee. ' B. SDR-822 - Earl Zimmerm~n, Bohlman Road - Request for Extension - Continued from 24 January 1972 The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 14 February 1972 recommending that the request for extension in connection with SDR-822 be denied~ ~ Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated 14 February 1972 be ~dopted and the request for extension be denied; motion carried unanimously Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 14 February 1972 - Continued VI. C. SDR-935 - John L. Richardson~ Quito Road - Request for Reconsideration The Secretary explained that the owner of the property in connection with SDR-935 !~as requested that this matter be continued to the next regular.meeting. Chairman Lively so directed. VII. NB~ BUSINESS Monte Bello Ridge Mountain Study (Phase II) The Secretary explained that the Planning Policy Committee has adopted Resolution No. 11 and now requests Saratoga adopt regulations substantially in accord with those outlined in ResOlution No. 11 to adopt emergency regulations necessary to prevent premature development occuring in the Monte Bello Ridge Mountain Study are~. The Secretary read the General Plan Committee Report of 14 February 1972 which recommends that the Planning Co~nission recon~end to the City Council that the City of Saratoga ad0ptregulations substantially in accord with those reco~nended by the Planning Policy Committee in connection with the Monte Bello Ridge Mountain Study. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded~ by Commissioner Smith, that the General Plan Comnittee Report dated 14 February 1972 relative to the adoption of emergency regulations in the Monte Bello Ridge Mountain Study area be adopted and fon~arded to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Commission; motion carried unanimously. Santa Cruz Mountain Study (Phase I) The Secretary read the General Plan Committee Repor. t dated 14 February 1972 recommending that the proposed regulations adopted by the Planning Policy Committee relative to the Santa Cruz Mounmin Study Phase I be endorsed by the City of Saratoga. : Commissfoner Metcalf moved, seconded by CommissiOner Smith, that the General Plan Committee Report dated 14 February 1972 be adopted with the proposed regulations adopted by the Planning Policy Co~mnittee to control development in the Santa Cruz Mountain Study Area (Phase I) and that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the subject ordinance be endorsed by the City of Saratoga in principle and that the City of Saratoga adopt similar regulations, but modified to suit Saratoga's specific goals and standards; motion carried unanimously. VIII. CO~DMNICATIONS A. WRITTEN Chamber of Commerce Letter of 25' January 1972 The Secretary read a letter received from the Saratoga Chamber 'of Commerce'relative to Architectural Control in [he qity of Saratoga. Chairman Lively referred the matter to the Design Review Committee. B. ORAL Brox.m and Kauffmann - Model Home'Sales Office Commissioner Martin inqukred about the method used to police conditions placed on developers. The. Bro~.m'and Kauffman Use Permit cam~ up. for review about two (2)~months ago.. A request for extension was submitted and at that time it was agreed that if the developer moved out of that model home sales office they would sell it. The garage on this house is now a family room. Planning Con~nission Minutes - 14 February 1972 - Continued VIII. B. Brown and Kauff~nann - Continued The developer has moved the model home sales office out of one home· and into another model home around the corner from the one vacated. Also, the bond for the development should not be released since the developer has not planted any 'of the trees on the lot formerly used for a model home sales office. Coffee Chairman Lively ·thanked the Good Government Group representative for the coffee served at recess. IX. ADJOUPd@tENT Chairman Lively adjourned the meetzing at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, .. Stanley M..!~alker, Secretary Saratoga Planning Commission j