Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-1972 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TIME: Monday, 13 March 1972 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: City Council Chambers '- 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATIO~I The meeting was cal'led to order by Chairman Lively at 7:30 P.M. A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bacon, Belanger, Lively, Marshall, Martin, Metcalf, and Smith. B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the reading of minutes of 22 February 1972 meeting be.waived and that they be approved as distri- buted subject to the following changes: page 2. .paragraph 11. .line 1. .under B. UP-207. .change the word "private" to "profit"; page 4. .paragraph 1. .line 1. .under E. V-371. delete the ~.xords "relative to" an~ instead insert the word "at". .page 10. under IV. A. A-384. .delete paragraph 5. .and instead insert. ."Commissioner Marshall stated that he received a publication from the California Roadsida Council which illustrated the contrast in areas where road signs were controlled and where they were uncontrolled. Commissioner Marshall further stated that this contrast exists between the Saratoga side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and the San Jose side of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road."; page 11 .... under B. ORAL. .paragraph 1 .... line 4. .delete the word onom~ and instead insert the word "ecology"; motion carried unanimously II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-206 - C & I Development Co., Titus Avenue a~d Brockton Avenue - Request for Use Permit to Allow Model Home Sales Office - Continued from 28 February 1972 Chairman Lively reooened the hearing at 7:35 P.M. Commissioner Smith recommended that this matter be continued off the agenda until the matter of the existing sales-office is eliminated. Mr. Lou Tersini, present to represent'the applicant, stated that the applicant will not start construction of the proposed model-home sales-office until the requested Use Permit is approved by the Planning Commission. The Secretary explained that the Code Enforcement Officer has contacted Brown and Kauffmann (previous ox.mer of existing sales-office) and it seems the person that purchased the once model-homes sales-office is seeking permission to leave the home more or less as it is (with the ggrage serving as a family room). The new o-aer has been informed that it is' unlikely a Variance would be granted for such a use and the garage will have.to be converted back to its .original condition prior to its use as a model-homes sales-office. Co~mis.sioner Martin stated that as he understands the situation Brown and Kauffmann has moved out of and sold the originalZmodel-home sales-office; however, t~.zo realtors were in one of the other Broken and Kzuffmann mo~el homes last Saturday"attempting to sell homes from ~at location. Commissioner Marshall explained that the Code Enforcement Officer has been asked by the Variance Con~ittee to contact.Bro~.m and K~uffmann and inform them that it is illegal for them to use one of their other model homes as a ~:ales office without obtaining the proper Use Pe{-mit. Planning Commission Minutes 13 March 1972 - Continued. II. A. .UP-206 - Continued Commissioner Martin stated that 1) the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed model-home sales-office Will be located in the proper area 2) the proposed location is on a busy street and he did not see how a model-home sales-office could be located at this location without interfering wi~h the normal traffic in the area and 3) the proposed sales office wOUld'be located in the area of the old subdivision development and would be better situated in a more central location so as not to interfere with existing homes and/or traffic in the area. Chairman Lively recommended that the applicant may wish to reconsider the location of the proposed sales office. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:41 P.M., directed the matter continued off the agenda until such time as the Secretary~feels the existing problems are appropriately resolved and referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee. B. UP-207 Brookside Club of Saratoga, Cox Avenue - Request for Use Permit to Allow Two (2) Additional Tennis Courts - Continued from 28 February 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 7:42 P.M. The Secretary explained that action cannot be taken on this matter until some action is taken relative to V-374 which is directly related to this request for Use Permit. The applicant had no' further comments to offer and no one in the audience wished to comment. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:44 P.M., directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivi- sion Committee. C. UP-208 - Clarence Neale, Saratoga-SunDyvale Road - RequeSt for Use Permit to Allow a Resta~rant - Continued from 28 February 1972 The hearing relative to UP-208 was reopened at 7:44 P.M. The Secretary read the following communications received in connection with this matter: 1) A letter filed in opposition by Mr. Bastianelli, of adjacent Brookside Glen Apartments. 2) A letter filed in opposition to the use of alcoholic beveragcs at the subject loca'ti~'~'y'Robert C. Koche~"P~'~ident of Saratoga Inn Place Homeowners Association. 3) A letter filed by the Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation in opposition to the serving of alcoholic beverages at this location and the noise that would be generated by a restaurant use. The Secretary then read a communication from the applicant requesting that this matter be continued, because he is in the process of obtaining a liquor license and he will need additional time to resolve. that matter. Mr. Bernie Turgeon resident of the area stated that 1) he lives in a condominium overlooking Neale's Hollow and any noise generated at Neale's Hollow vibrates and carries and this is very disturbing 2) he read the file kept by Mr. Bastianelli relative to Neale's Hollow and it is interesting to. note the number of violations of the Zoning Ordinance tha~ the applicant. is responsible for 3) 'many of the clients of Neale's Hollow park in parking' spaces supplied by adjacent properties · 4) he would request that the applicant be made to comply with the original conditions of approval for N'eale's Hollow 5) it is questionable whether the land owned by the City, County, and/or Fiood Control has ever been deeded to the applicant to use for parking. Planning Commission Minutes - 13 Mar~h 1972 - Continued II. C. UP-208 - Continued Mr. Koche, President of Saratoga Inn Place Homeowners Association, stated that 1) he would like to amend his letter and add that he and the other homeowners he represents are, also, opposed to a restaurant at the proposed location 2) most of the shop.s in the subject area close for the day around dinner time; therefore, would not cause noise disturbances at night and 3) Saratoga Creek is the only thing that separates the Saratoga Inn Apartments (in which he resides) from Neale's Hollow and any noise generated from there can be heard distinctly from his patio. Mr. Dave Burnett, Brookside Glen Apartments, stated that 1) the access road to Saratoga-Sun~yvale Road is very narrow and any additional traffic will create additional hardships on the tenants 2) the parking is, also, a problem and. a d~ngerous situation similar to the one at the Cat's in Los Gatos could deyelop and 3) he feels it would be a great mistake to allow thi's u~e at the subject location. Chairnmn Lively observed that the parking and access road seems to be a major point of contention and he asked that the Staff investigate the matter and prepare a report to be presented at the next regular meeting He further asked that the Staff review the applicants.previous files to determine any additional conditions that should, perhaps be imposed if this use is approved. ' Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:56 P.M., directed the matter continued to' the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee. D. V-372 - John Vinson, I~ardell. Court Request for Variance to Allow Decrease in Front Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from. 28 February 1972 ; Chairman Lively reopen'ed the:hearing at 8:01 P.M. %~e Secretary stated that th~ applicant has requested that this request for Variance be withdrawn since he has found that he is able to build a house without a variance. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to close the hearing relative to V-372 at 8:02 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the request for Variance in connection with V-372 be withdrawn and all proceedings relative to same 'be terminated; motion carried unanimously. E. V-373 - Charla Ann'Brown, Canyon V{ew Drive - Request for Variance to Allow Decrease in Front Yard Setback Requirements Chairman Lively opened the he~ring relative to V-373 at 8:03 P.M. The Secretary stated that the Notice of Hearing was mailed and then briefly explained this request. Mr. Jim D. Morelan, architect for the applicant, stated that 1) this particular lot is extremely steep 2) the required 30-foot setback which would normally be required does provide an extreme hardship in designing a house and access appropriate for this lot 3) if the 30-foot setback were complied with it would push the house lO-feet deeper into the canyon and he did not feel that would look appropriate on this particular lot 4) he does not feel the smaller setback would be objectionable to tile neighbors in the area and 5) he feels it is important to design a house that would look good on the property. Mr. Jack Stone, 21060 Canyon View Drive, stated that 1) one Of the reasons they purchased their lot about twelve (12) years ago was for the view 2) if this variance is granted the view will be disturbed 3) the people who sold the lot to the present owner had designed a ~'.. two-story-house for this lot which observed all the setbacks and also provided'a lovely view 4) this plan was presented to the applicant an~ 5) he would request the Planning Commission seriously consider a denial for this application. Plannin8 Commission Minutes - 13 March 1972 ~ Continued II. E. V-373 - Continued Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:13 P.M., directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting, and referred V-373 to the VarianCe Committee. F. 'V-374 - Brookside Club of Saratoga,.Cox Avenue - Request for Variance to Allow Decrease in Front Yard Setback Requirements for Construction of Chain Link Fence Chairman Lively opened the hearing ~elative to V-374 at 8:15 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notice Of Hearipg was mailed. He further stated that the Variance Committee did meet with the applicant's representative and other interested parties. Mr. McMillan, attorney for the applicant, was present and stated he had no further comments. Mrs. Donald R. Askew, 12641 Saratoga Creek Drive, present to represent the homeowners in the area stated that 1) she would recommend that prior to any approval thisT. appl~ant!be required to provide a 6-foot fence along the creek to replace the wire fence and to buffer the noise from the club 2) the residents of the area are unable to use their back yards because of the noise 3) additional landscaping should be planted to help to serve as a noise barrier and 4) the Brookside Club was required to provide landscaping under their original Use Permit; however, they neglected to do so. Mrs. Askew, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Metcalf, stated she is certain that she could live with a wooden fence if it would eliminate the noise problem. Commissioner Martin stated that the.Variance Committee, after meeting with the applicant and the residents of the ~rea, decided that if a Variance were granted extensive conditions would be imposed to make sure that the neighbors on the east and west would not be disturbed. He recommended that this matter be continued until such time as the problems relative to this matter can be resolved. Chairman Lively explained that if the applicant does allow grading to be done on the subject property'prior to approval of the Variance he does so at his own risk. Commissioner Marshall stated that s~nce there is already one 6-foot fence the suggestion should be that a second 6-foot fence be provided. Chairman Lively recommended that instead of a fence some landscaping of substantial size be provided. The Secretary read the Staff Report.dated 13 March 1972 recommending that V-374 be continued to the next regular meeting in order to establish more precisely the conditions of approval. Commissioner Smith stated that 1) the Subdivision Committee has considered this matter quite seriously and feel that the Brookside Club has been lax in complying with conditions of approval of their Use Permit granted some years ago and 2) the Subdivision Comnittee reconmends that the original conditions be imposed and some new ones b&'added if the requested Variance is granted. Commissioner Metcalf recommended that the Brookside Club engage a competent landscape architect to develop a comprehenaive landscape plan for the entire periphery of the club subject to Design Review Approval. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:31 P.M. and directed V-374 continued to the next regular.meeting and referred same to the Subdivi- sion Committee for study and a report° Planning Commission Minutes - 13 March 1972 - ContinUed II. F. V-375 - Miljevich Enterprises, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyv~le Road - Request for Variance to Allow Increase in Square-Footage Area of Building Chairman Lively opened the hearing relative to V-375 at 8:32 P.M. 'The Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed and explained that the applicant requests a Variance to allow a food store of 28,000-square feet in size in lieu of the 12,000-square foot permitted. The Secretary then read the following communications: 1) A memo from Art Palermo of 14020 Pike Road stating he was in favor of the subject variance request. 2) A letter submitted by. Mrs. Marcia V. Kap!an of 20745 Sevilla Lane ~il~d in opposition to the applicant's request. 3)A petition signed by ten (10) residents of the area stating their objections to the proposed variance. Mr. George Hamilton, President of Miljevich Enterprises,.Inc. and a certified Publin Accountant, stated that 1) Miljevich Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation set up by Miljevich, Senior 2) the only reason he (Mr. Hamilton) is President is because the property was about to be lost to forceclosure and he has one (1) year to salvage the property and after that it goes back to foreclosure 3) there is another plan for development other than the one presently proposed; however, it is nowhere as desirable (he did submit the second plan for review by the Commission) 4) 'the second plan would meet the requirements of the "C-V" ordi- nance and is in accord with the General .Plan; however, it does not make good use of the property especially the area in the back 5) the other problem with the second plan is that it calls for all small shops and it is difficult · to get tenants for the small units in the back and this creates a problem in getting a development loan from the bank 6) another problem with small single shops - it is difficult to obtain one large major tenant 7) the present pro- posal is for one single major use x~nich the applicant must have to obtain a bank loan 8) he did have a petition addressed to him from some adjacent property owners stating that they were in favor of apprgval of the requested variance 9) there is one adjacent. property 'owner that is opposed to a shopping center at this location 10) he (Mr. Hamil'ton) has made an attempt to talk to each property owner that ~ould be affect.ed in any way and 11) the architect has tried to design the center so that trash-pick-up will be at the front of the building in order that adjacent neighbors will not be disturbed. Mr. Richard Wall, 12260 Via Roncole', stated that 1) he is one of the people that signed the petition read'by Mr. Hamilton 2) his property looks directly across the creek and onto the applicant's property 3) his family originally selected their lot for the view which has since been defaced by the applicant 4) he is not against the variance~as such~because sometimes changes are necessary, but in this case there is not strong evidence for the need of a supermarKet of the size proposed 5) he signed the petition as more or less of a compromise, thinking that, perhaps, this would be a way to clean up the applicant's property and 6) an abundance of proper landscaping and screening would be necessary to enhance the appearance of this property. Mr. Pat O'Day, architect for the applicant, stated that 1)' he was instructed by Mr. Hamilton to pay particular attention to the design of the back rather than the front of this property because of existing residences 2)' the nearest home- owners, under the current design, would be 200-feet away 3) there are not sounds that cannot be muffled 4.) the area adjacent to the creek will contain small shops, but in order for them to survive, there must be one large tenant to draw customers and 5) this plan has been subjected to approval by the homeowners and that is a very generous approach. -5- Planning Commission Minutes - 13 March 1972 Continued II. F. V-375 - Continued Mr. Bernie Turgeon, Vice-President;of Saratoga Foothills Development, Corp., state'd that 1) he would like to thank Mr. Hamilton for proposing a good solution for one of the messiest pieces of property in the City '2) he is aware of the situation existing on the subject property because he has at times attempted to help the applicant and even purchased land for development from the applicant 3) small tenants in this shopping center without a major drawing-card such as a large market Would be unfeasible and 4) City residents are forced to pay higher prices because of' the lack of competitive prices in the City; therefore, many people go out of the City to do their shopping. Mr. Frank Schork of 12529 Green Meadow Lane and representing the Saratoga Manor Homeo~ners Association stated ~that 1) it is his request that judgement be reserved relative to the subject request until such time as his llomeo~·~er Group can meet and observe this property and review the proposed plans. His group has not been approached by the applicant. Mr. Lawson of 20789 Trinity Avenue stated that 1) he has seen the plans for the proposed development and is very much in favor of them and 2) he would like to submit a petitioncontaining signatures in favor of the proposed variance. Mr. Barney McLaughlin of 20640 Ritanna Court stated that 1) he signed both the petitionsin favor of the proposed variance submitted by Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Lawson 2) he feels that most of the people signing the petition were coerced into going along with the subject proposed with the idea that this would be one way of eliminating the consistent violations existing on 'this property 3) it is the hope of the residents of the area that very strict conditions will be imposed on any development proposed for this -property and 4) the drawing submit'ted shows a considerable number of trees; however, that drawing must be several years old because most'of the trees are now non-existent. Mr. James R. Hoffman, 12246 Via Ron'cole, stated that 1) Mr. Hamilton did not contact him until late Saturday afternoon, 10 March '1972 2) he is in favor of improving this property but does not feel that a shopping center at this · location would enhance· the area and 3) he does not feel noise generated by a development of this type could be eliminated. Mr. George S. Deiwert of 12272 Via Roncole stated that he and other_.property owners purchased their homes in this area with the idea that the subject property was zoned "C-V" and would remain that way. He is opposed to the proposed development because of 1) noise 2) delivery trucks 3) disturbances caused by trash-pick-up 4) additional traffic each day of the week including Sundays, and 5) the appearance of unsightly parking~lots. Mr. Abe Carreia, adjacent property owner, stated that 1) he moved next door to this property sixteen (16) years ago 2) he agreed with Mr. Turgeon that this type of center is needed in th'e City 3) he understands that islands and a frontage road'are proposed atI this property and that would take care of the additional traffic 4) anything less than 24,000-square feet for a food store is not practical 5) a complex of the type proposed would certainly increase the revenue for the City and 6) he feels certain if this variance is approved the debris on the subject property Will be removed. Mr. Doug Body stated that he represented "R&D" properties who acquired property just south of the applicant's and are in favor of the subject·variance. Mrs. Bonnie Croft of 20626 Ritanna Court stated that 1) her residence is located directly across the creek from thisz property 2) she purchased her propert~ because it was beautiful. and there was nothing·on the property·opposite hers at that time except an old run-down·house which is still there 3) in the past years the applicant has used his property to dump garbage and trash and the property has become very unsightly and undesirable 4) nothing has been done to clean-up the property, even though, she has requested that this be done 5) she is not in favor of a big shopping-center·with the additional traffic and noise. Planning Commission Minutes - 13 March 1972 - Continued II. F. V-375 - Continued Mr. Don Wolfe, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, stated that 1) in his opinion, the development of this property would increase the value of his property 2) the City does not now have a relatively ne~ modern shopping-center and 3) he favors the approval of the variance to allow a 28,000-square-foot food-market. Mrs. Lorraine'McLaughlin of 20640 ~itanna Court stated that 1) the applicant has been asked many times to clean-up the mess on his property and nothing 'has ever been done 2) what guarantee do the residents of the area have that if this variance is approved the applicant will comply with the conditions of the variance 3)' there are already three liquor-stores in this area and it is not necessary to have anothe~ one 4) there are other uses that can be made of the subject property other than a shopping-center use and. 5) any consideration for variance .for this property ~'hould be postponed until such time as the applicant arranges a cqmplete clean-up of this property. Mrs. Diane Umano, 12288 Via Rqncol~, stated that her home is located'directly behind this property and the condition of the subject property is deplorable and some of the existing violations should be abated prior to the granting of any variance. Mr. Larsen of 12252 Via Roncole stated' that 1) his lot borders the creek on the other side of this property and he would look directly on the proposed super- market and shopping-center and 2) he must support other residents of the area who feel there are many items on this property that should be straightened out before any variance approval or development of this property is considered. Mr. Bovero of 20668 Ritanna Court stated that the subject property is in an atrociousl-messy-state and the thought of a variance approval at this time is unthinkable. 'Mr. Hal Snyder of 20602 Ritanna Court stated that 1) he must sympathize with his neighbors and oppose this request for variance 2) the proposed supermaket 'and shopping center is a potential noise- and traffic-nuisance 3) the plan shows a bridge over Calabazas Creek and such a proposal should be given careful consideration and 4) he does not feel another larger supermarket is needed in this area. Mr. Hamilton stated that 1) he has' another petition which is basically the same as the first one he submitted 2) he was not aware until Saturday afternoon that he had any oppostion to the subjectsvariance proposal 3) he has tried very hard to contact everyone and is sorry he missed some people 4) there is no way this property will remain an open field - it will be developed one way or the other. He then read testimonials he had obtained'from different residents of the City in order to demonstrate that there is a·tremendous amount of support to improve this property. Mrs. McLaughlin stated that at a meeting in the Croft home it was explained to Mr. Hamilton that the reSidants of the area find it desirable to clean-up the area prior to any approval for development of the subject property. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 9:43 P.M., directed V-375 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Variance Committee for study Commissioner Martin, on behalf of the Variance Committee, made arrangements with Mr. Hamilton for an on-site inspection of the property for 9:45 A.M. Saturday, 18 March 1972. He, also, made arrangements to meet with the residents of the area at the Croft home at 10:15 A.M., Saturday, 18 March 1972. RECESS AND RECONVENE II!. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-938 - Saratoga Foothills Development, Corp., Saratoga Avenue - Subdivision Approval 18 Lots - Continued from 28 February 1972 Chairman Lively stated that the last time the Planning Commission reviewed these plans they requested the applicant to submit plans showing a green area around this property. -7- Planning Cormnission Minutes 13 March 1972 - Continued III. A. SD-938 - Continued Commissioner Marshall explained that the City Council sub-committee has asked that this matter be continued in order to allow time for further study of this property since it is designated as a park site on the General Plan. Mr. Turgeon, Vice-President of Saratoga Foothills Development, Corp., stated that 1) he has been working on a plan for this property for approximately five (5) months and has submitted several different maps 2) it would have been well to know the feelings of'the City Council prior to doing so much work and 3) the Church is very anxious to sell this property since it has money problems it must resolve and the option held by Saratoga Foothills Development, Corp. is about to expire. r Mr. Larry Hill, present to represent. Sacred Heart Church, stated that 1) the church does need money since they are "land poor'.' and parish is responsible for its own properties and buildings 2) he was under the impression the City had abandoned the idea of a park for this property and 3) he would like some idea as to when this application will be approved. Chairman Lively stated that 1) an answer could possibly be forthcoming at the next regular meeting ~) the matter would not be as Complicated if this were the only piece of property involved and the "gore" area were not involved and 3) he would like to see a buffer area around this entire property. Commissioner Marshall stated that 1) it would be a good idea to have a buffer area around the corner 2) this is an important intersection from the City's point of view and that is the reason why discussion relative to this matter has been dra~,~ out somewhat. Mr. Turgeon stated he would be happy to meet with the Council sub-committee and the Subdivision Committee to discuss this matter in detail and present the comprehensive maps that have been prepared for this property. Councilman Kraus was present and is a member of the Council sub-committee stated that arrangements could be. made to meet with Mr. Turgeon and the Subdivision Committee. Chairman Lively directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred SD-938 to the Subdivision Committee. B. SD-941 - Kunkel-Thomas, Sobey Road - Subdivision Approval - 12 Lots - Continued from 28 February 1972 The applicant was present and stated he reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. The Secretary recommended that condition 11. of the Subdivision Committee Report be amended to read as follows: "All fencing in the vicinity of the creek shall be subject to approval of, City of Saratoga Planning Commission under Design Review." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Sub- division Committee Report dated 13 ~rch 1972 relative to SD-941 be adgpt~d, as amended, and that the' tentative map.(Exhibit "A", filed 14 January 1972 be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried Planning Commission Mixlutes - 13 March 1972 - Continued III. C. SDR-942 - Shannon Lightfoot, Spri~ger Avenue - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from.28 February 1972 The Secretary read a memo draftedby the City Attorney recommending that this request to allow two building-sites for this property be denied. The Secretary stated that the only way two lots could be approved for this property would be if they were returned to their original shape and dimensions; bowever, they hav. e been reduced in size and have been .made non-conforming. Mr. Lightfoot, applicant, stated that 1) he was under the impression that the Record of Survey was recorded prior 'to any change of zoning in this area and for that reason the lots would remain legal lots 2) this property has'always been treated as two separate parcels and 3) each of these two lots have more square footage apiece than any other single-lots in the surrounding area. ' Mr. Tansey, original owner of the property, stated this property has always been regarded as two individual lots and he has always paid two tax-assessments for two lots. Chairman Lively stated that the City Attorney has stated that it is now only one lot. h t for building.,site approval ~or two lots on Springer Avenue under application SDR-9~2; motion carried with Commissioner Belanger voting"no ~ D.. SDR-9~ - Phillip R. Boyce, Boyce Lane Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 28 February 1972 Co~mnissioner Smith recon~nended that this matter be continued to the:next regular meeting. He ~urther stated that the Subdivision Cormmittee did visit this site and requested a new map be submitted by the applicant. Chairman Lively so directed. E. SDR-9~6 - Robert H. Bohn, Pike Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 28 February 1972 Commissioner Smith explained that the Subdivision Committee met with the applicant and Mr. Dan Trinidad of the Public ~orks Department and reviewed the requirement to widen Pike Ro~d. Mr. Bohn, the applicant, objected to the subject widening and it was explained to him that he could accept the condition of approval stated in the Building Site Committee Report of 13 Hatch 1972 and then ask for reconsideration by the Planning Commission and if that were denied the matter could be appealed to the City Council. The Secretary explained that the applicant has agreed to accept the conditions of the Building Site Conmittee Report and to request reconsideration of the condition requiring the Pike Road widening. C~mmissioner Smith moved, s.econded by Commissioners_Marshall, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 13 March 1972 relati've to SDR:9~6 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 18 Februdry 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. F. SDR-951 - Santo Aparicio. Sobey Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 28 February 1972 The Secretary stated that the applicant did review the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshail, that the Building Site Committee Repor~ dated 13 March 1972 relative to SDR-951 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibi~ "A", fil'~d 23 February 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. Flannin.~ Commission Minutes - 13 March 1972 - Continued III. G. SDR-950 - Dr. Richard A. Wallace, Pierce Road - Building Site Approval - 4 Lots Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-950 be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directed. H. SD-952 - AVCO Community Development, Inc., Cox Avenue and Sea Gull Way - Subdivision Approval '67 Lots Commissioner Smith recomnended that SD-952 be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directed. r I. SDR-953 - Charla Ann Brox.m~ Canyon View Drive - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-953 be continued until such time as some action is taken relative to V-373. Chairman Lively so directed. J. SDR-954 - Kenton S. Day, Beaumont Avenue - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary stated that the applicant did revi~' the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Building Site Conm~ittee Report dated 13 March 1972 relative to SDR-954 be adopted and that the tentative ~7,.ap (E~ibit "A", filed 28 February 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth'in said report; motion carried unanimously. K. SDR-955 - Angeline Arata~ Maude Avenue - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Commissioner Smith recomnended that SDR-955 be Continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directed. L. SDR-956 R~lph Pearson~ E1 Quito'way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary stated the applicant reviewed the proposed conditions of a~jproval and expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Conmissioner Bacon, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 13 March 1972 relative to SDR-956 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 2 March 1972) b~_~pproved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. M. SDR-911 - Willard Thompson, Oak Street and St. Charles Street Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 27 September 1972 Chairman Lively explained that this matter has been postponed several times and the applicant would like to develop the pEoperty under the current zoning. Commissioner Smith explained that the property is partly developed and the retaining wall is in the process of being built. The Secretary stated that at the last meeting of the Committee for Village Development it was the consensus of opinion that no change other than a slight widening of St. Charles or changing St. Charles to a one-way street will be proposed. Chairman Lively stated that the 1971 General Plan recommends that no development take place on St. Charles Street until a traffic study is completed. Planning Commission Minutes - 13 March 1972 - Continued III. M. SDR-911 - Continued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 13 March 1972 relative to SDR-911 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 16 June 1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion denied with the following vote: AYES NOES ABSTAIN Comanissioner Smith Commissioner ~elanger Commissioner Martin Commissioner Bacon Connnissioner [Zarshall Commissioner Metcalf Chairman Lively Commissioner Metcalf stated ~hat if this were approved at this time it would essentially foreclose any widening'of St. Charles Street. The Secretary stated that it would not foreclose any widening but any widening of any significance. Commissioner Metcal~' inquired if the Public Works Department ever completed the traffic study on St. Charles Street? Mr~ Dan Trinidad, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that no study relative to St. Charles Street has ever been made. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner [~rshall, to deny Building Site Approval for SDR-911 unless a letter of extension is received from the applicant; motion carried unanimously. IV. DESIGIq REWIEW A. A-384 - Russell Reed, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Final Design Review - Identification Signs - Continued from 28 February 1972 The Secretary explained that 1) the applicant revised his sign proposal to include two identification signs - one for the Open Hearth Restaurant and the other for Reed's Carpets = both signs ~ill be attached to the .building 2) also proposed is a directional sign to be located at the entrance to the parking lot. The St~ff Report dated 13 March 1972 reconmends tha't' Final .Design Approval be granted for A-384. Comissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Comissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated 13 March 1972 be adopted and that Final Design Review be granted for the three signs proposed as shown on Exhibits "G" "X" and "Y" subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion ca '~~. V. CI~ COUNCIL ~PORT Comissioner Marshall gave a brief sumary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 1 March 1972, with emphasis on items of particular interest to hhe Comission. VI. OLD BUSINESS SDR- 935 John L. Richardson Request for Reconsideration of Condition Comissioner Smith stated that 1) the Subdivision Comittee met with the o~.mer of this property and she has stated that the required improvements for Vessing Road. stated under SDR-935 - Condition II-D - would cost a great deal of money and 2) the Subdivision Co~ittee infomed the o~er the. matter would have to be taken up with the City Council. ~e Staff Report dated 13 March 1972 recommends that the request to waive dedication and road improvements on Vessing ROad be denied. Com~nissioner Smith moved, seconded by. Conm~issioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated 13 March 1972 recommending..-.d'~hial ..for the request to waive dedication and road improvements on Vessing Ro~d--b-e"'~dopted and fon.zarded to the City Council .as. the action of the Plan~ing Comission; motion carried unanimously. -ll'r Planning Commission Minutes - 13 March 1972 Continued VII ~' NEW BUSINESS A. SDR-945 - Edmond D. Bangle, Mt. Eden Road - Request for Reconsideration of Conditions of Building Site Approval The Secretary explained that thi~ applicant did accept approval of the conditions of building site approval, but then made a request for exception of Conditions II-D and II-C of the Building Site Co~.ittee Report dated 28 February 1972 relative to SDR-945. %~ne request is for exception of improvements for a city half-street for the frontage of this applicant's property. The Public Works Department, Planning Department, and Subdivision Committee reviewed this request and recommend that Condition II-C be amended as stated in the Building Site Committee Report dated 13 March 1972. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Building Site Committee Report dated,' 13 March 1972 relative to SDR-945 be adopted (and the Building Site Committee Report dated 28 February 1972 and adopted be super- seded) and that the tentative map (Exhibit 'A", filed 9 February 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimous ly. ~II. CO~D~ICATIONS A. ~ITTEN None Brown and Kauffmann Model Homes Sales Office Comissioner Martin stat'ed the fomer Bro~, and Kauffmann model home sales referred to under UP-206 under public hearings was to be returned to its original condition. .~e Secretary explained that the City does hold a bond and if Bro~ and KaUffmann does not proceed to return this house to its original condition then the City will use the bond to accomplish same. Trees CoEissioner Belanger inquired if any of the developers that were notified by the Staff to plant trees ever complied. ~e Assistant Planner explained that some developers were quick to respond and some have posted bond for tree planting. Brown and Kauffmann has been slower to respond than the others. Guests Chairman Lively acknowledged, With pleasure, the .presence of Councilman Kraus, Mrs. Mencacci of the League of Women Voters, Mr. William Johnson and Miss Mary Moss of the Good Government Group, and Mr. Dan Trinidad of the Public' Works Department. A welcome back'was '~t'ended 'to Gary A. Bonfiglio, Assistant Planner, who .just returned from"Europe. Chai~an Lively, also, thanked Miss Moss for the coffee served at recess. IX. ADJOUt~NT Chairman Lively adjou~ed the meeting at ].1:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ,. / Saratoga planning Comission j -12-