HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-1972 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COI~RSSION
MINUSES
TIME: Monday, 8 May 1972 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
**********~*********
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lively af 7:30 P.M.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger~ Bacon, Lively, Marshall, Martin, and Smith.
Absent: Commissioner Metcalf.
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Smith moved, second&d by Commissioner BaCon, that the reading
of the minutes of the 24·April·1972 meeting be waived and that they be
approved as distributed with the;following changes: page 1. .under A. UP-209
· o .paragraph 6. . .line 2. . .~orrect the spelling of the word "regular";
page 6. .under G. C-154. . ·paragraph 2. .line 2. .delete the words
"to voice their opposition". .and instead insert "to be heard". .page 12.
under VII. B. .paragraph 1. ..line 4. .insert "be added as conditional
uses" .after the word automobile; motion carried unanimously.
C. RESOLUTION FOR ~YOR ROBBINS
Chairman Lively stated that a Re~olution has been prepared, for adoption
by the Planning Commission, in recognition of the outstanding service
rendered by Mayor Charles H. Robbins.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
Chairman of the Planning Commission be authorized to sign ResolUtion #118
commending Mayor Charles H. Robbins for his long and distinguished record
of public service and that said Resolution be fon~arded to Mayor Robbins;
motion carried unanimously.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. UP-209 - Royce S. Kaufmann, PierCe Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow
Private Swim and RacketsClub - Continued from 24 April 1972
The hearing relative to UP-209 was reopened at 7:37 P.M.
The Secretary read communicationZreceived from 1) . Florence E. and Raymond
R. Worrell of 13010 Pierce Road Stating their opposition to the proposed
swim and racket club and 2) War~en Heid, architect for the applicant,
requesting that UP-209 be continued to the meeting of 22 May 1972 in order
to allow additional time to complete further studies and ideas in connection
with this proposal.
Mr. Heid was present and explained that the applicant would like a few more
weeks in order to present a different plan than what he originally proposed.
Chairman Lively pointed out thatzup to this time the applicant has· not sub-
mi~ted the information the Planning Commission requested some'time·'·ago.
Commissioner Smith advised that ~he applicant has made and broken two (2)
appointments with the Subdivisio~ Committee and he (Commissioner Smith) is
in favor of ~erminating any further debate relative to UP-209.
Mr. Heid stated he has just recently become involved in this matter and would
appreciate a continuance in order to prepare some of the material requested.
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 8'May 1972 - Continued
II. A. UP-209- Continued
Chairman Lively explained that ~he type of information requested is
not usually prepared by an architect i.e. '~lub by-laws and membership
list, etc.
Mr. Heid stated that the applicant did request him to do the engineering
and architectural plans for the=club and to prepare some information
relative to the club; however, he is not'in a position to discuss by-laws
and/or membership lists. Mr. Heid further stated that he is aware that the
membership list is not complete~and that may be why it has not been submitted.
Mr. Richard Siegfried of 13388 Surrey Lane,stated that 1) he has been
approached as a potential member of this club and at that time the appli-
cant presented some material (Mr. Siegfried presented copies of this
material to the Commission) which included schedules of events at the
proposed club 2) this club, as proposed, would have three swimming pools,
tennis courts, club house, etc.; therefore, it cannot be considered a small
club 3) there are activities planned for every evening and day during the
week and weekends 4) this is some indication of the scope of the operation
planned for this club 5) this type of.proposal would not fit into this
residential area 6) the'club would be completely out of context with the
neighborhood and 7) this is the fourth meeting the citizens of the area have
attended and some action shouldlbe taken at this time - if only out of
consideration for those citizens.
Commissioner Bacon stated that ~e is not Convinced this applicant is at
all sure of his plans for this development and he (Commissioner Bacon)
is in favor of denying the subject request for Use Permit until such time
as the applicant can present a better idea of what he has in mind.
Chairman Lively stated that thelapplicant has had'numerous.opportunities
to present his plans.
The Secretary explained that the Planning Commission could deny this
request without prejudice and that would eliminate the one (1) year
waiting period normally required before an application can be refiled.
The Secretary then read the Staff Report dated 8 May 1972 recommending
that UP-209 be denied.
Commissioner. Marshall recommended that the subject Staff Report be amended
as follows:
Under Reason 2. .change to read. . .2. There has not been
any evidence to assure that this club would be non-profit in
its operation.
The Commission agreed to furthe~ amend the subject report by adding
the following sentence at the end of the report. ."This denial
shall be without prejudice."
Commissioner Marshall recommend'ed that the applicant be required to
formulate his plans before he comes before the Planning Commission for
further consideration of this matter.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to close
the hearing relative to UP-209 ~t 7:53 P.M.; motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
Staff Report dated 8 May 1972 be adopted, as amended, and that the request
for a Use Permit to allow a swim-and-racket, club be~n_j.ed~ without prejudice
for the reasons stated in said/~eport; motion carried unanimously.
-2'-
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 May 1972 - Continued
II. B.'.- UP-211 - Joh'n P. McLaughlin, Via Regina - Request to Allow ~o (2)
Building Sites on Less than the Site Area Required Under
Ordinance 3E-8 - Continued from 24 April 1972
Chairman Lively reopened the bearing relative to UP-211 at ·7:55 P.M.
The Secretary stated that no flew communications had been received
and the applicant was presenti
Mrs. McLaughlin stated that 1~ the Technical Committee of the Planning
Policy Committee approved the'division of this land and she and her
husband are hoping that the City of Saratoga will go along with that
recormmendation 2) she and her husband did not just arbitrarily decide
to divide this land as currengly proposed and 3) this has been the intent
since 1956 - since at that time the major portion of the land in this area
was subdivided.
Commissioner Smith stated that 1) the Subdivision Committee did discuss
this matter with the applicant and his representative, Mr. James R. Huff
2) the matter was discussed as a site-approval rather than a Use Permit appli-
cation?....'. since site-approval.seemed more in keeping with the·Zoning Ordi-
nance 3) the Planning Policy=Committee recon~ends that this Use Permit be
granted since i t would not violate the Emergency Ordinance in effect in
this area 4) the division mu~t, also, go through site-apprOval "'
procedure and there are a number of things that have to be overcome· and
one major problem concerns th~ creek which runs through the middle of
this property.
The Secretary stated that 1) ,the Planning Policy Committee did recommend
that this land division be aliowed and 2) the matter has been referred to
the PPC Hillside Committee fo~ its consideration and recommendation; there-
fore, the Staff recommends that this matter be continuned until after that
Committee does meet.:on 14 May:1972.
Commissioner }~rshall stated that according to the map submitted the
contour lines appear misleading or they may be inaccurate.
Chairman Lively closed the he~ring for the evening at-8:06 P.M., directed
UP-211 continued to the next ~egular meeting and referred the matter to
the Subdivision 'Committee for ;further study.
C. UP-212 - I.O.O.F., F~uitvale Avenue -. Request for Use Permit to Allow
Modernization of PreSent Facilities
Chairman Lively bpened the he~ring relative to UP-212 at 8:07 P.M.
The Secretary stated that the:Notice of Hearing was mailed and explained
that the applicant has a 3gPhase Program and is proposing the first Phase
at this time, which consists Of five (5) specific steps.
Mr. R. Conklin, Superintendent of I.O.O.F., stated it is not the intent
to enlarge the facil{ty, but simply to change the various levels of care
presently provided.
Commissioner Smith stated that 1) the Subdivision Committee has met
with the applicant's representative and a comprehensive miscellaneous
presentation was submitted 2) a long-term-program and a change in the
type or care provided (in the!hospital) is planned - from independent
living to nursing care for those who are·not ambulatory 3) the appli-
cant cannot p~esent complete details on the 3-Phase gr~gram::at"~his/'~ime and
4) it is the Subdivision Committee recommendation that the entire
3-Phase Program be reviewed and only the lst-Phase be considered·as
a specific thing with the other 2-Phases to follow with separate Use ._
Permit applications, ..
Chairman Lively closed the he~ring for the evening at 8:12 P.M.,
directed UPr212 continued to the next regular meeting and referred:.':.:....
the matter to the Subdivision :Committee for study and a report at the
next regular me.eting.
-3;-
Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 1972 -' Continued
II. D. V-375 - Miljevich Enterprisesi Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Request
for Variance to Allow,Increase in Square-Footage Area of Building
- Continued from 24 April 1972
C~airman Lively reopened the ~earing at 8:13 P.M.'
Mrs. Lorraine McLaughlin of 20640 Ritann~ Court stated that 1) she sent a
letter to the City stating that Argonaut Place Sh'opping Center is planning an
expansion which will include the construction of a new facility for
Safeway Stores; therefore, there is really no reason for approval of
the subject variance 2) the neighbors in the area of the Miljevich
property are still very much opposed to the granting of the requested
variance and 3) sh~ as well as other residents of the are~ are opposed
.to any change in the Master Plan.
Mr. Dick Greene, 12350 Goleta Avenue, stated that 1) he is, also,
opposed to this request for variance 2) he does not feel that there is
a need for a super-market of this size in this area and 3) the additional
traffic that would result from such a use is undesirable and it would be
hazardous.
Mr. Jim Brown, President of the Northwest Homeowners Association, stated
that 1) the uses allowed under the "C-V" (Visitor-Commercial) ordinance
would allow this entire area to be developed as a beautiful entrance into
Saratoga as oppgsed to a highSvolume business as proposed under the pro-
posed variance 2) approval of this variance request would be detrimental
to'the entire area and 3) the subject property would be contrary to what
the people in the area have always wanted for this property.
Mr. Hamilton, Vice-President ~f Miljevich Enterprises, Inc., stated that
1) in the past week he sent a letter to each adjoining property owner,
pointing out that there would'be a decision relative to the subject variance
at this meeting and asking them to come if they had any objections 2) in the
time that this matter has been before the Planning Commission some thirty
(30) people have changed their'mind and decided .to support this proposal
rather than oppose it 3~ the'request is to allow a 28,000-square foot
super market but a lesser square footage could be acceptable 4) if this
variance request is denied the City will be losing.- a chance to develop
this property in a way that wquld suit the best interests of the City
5) this development would be~different than the one proposed for the
Garcia property, also, located in this area on the other side of the
street 6) this development would not be close to the adjoining homes
the way the Garcia developmen~ would have been 7) the Miljevich develop-
ment would be controlled and ~ Homeo~ners Committee set up to enforce
controls 8) he believes, after talking with the homeowners in the area,
that there are a large number of them in support of this request and 9) if
this application is denied he'would request the matter be denied without
prejudice.
Chairman Lively congratulated:Mr. Hamilton on his thorough presentation
at this time and at the other.previous meetings. He further stated that
this property will be considered at the time of the General Plan Re~iew.
The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 8 May 1972 recommending that
the subject request for variadce be denied.
Commissioner Marshall recommended that paragraph 1. .of the Staff
Report. .line 6. . .be amended by deleting the word "proposal." and
instead inserting the words "Variance request".
' Chairman Lively explained tha~ the entire "C-V" ordinance and its si~e
requirements will be reviewed.in the near future and that may preclude
any application for variance.
Commissioner ~rtin 1) suggested that the applicant be encouraged to
make application f6r Change of Zoning immediately so that the matter can'
be brought up as a particular'item on the General Plan Review and 2) stated
that the subject proposal is a good one and the City should seriously con-
sider changing the zoning in ~he area in order to allow an integrated
shopping-area and obtain an a~tractive entrance to the City.
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 May 1972-Continued
II.. D. V-375 - Continued
Chairman Lively questioned whether the Planning' Commission is in a
position to encourage the applicant in any direction and recommended
that the entire last sentence of'the subject Staff Report be deleted.
Commissioner Belanger stated that the Planning Commission did recommend that
the Garcia applicant apply for variance and then the Miljevich people
applied for variance for a similar proposal and now the Planning Commission
is at a point where a change of zoning may be considered. It is her feeling
the applicant should be givenSsome constructive encouragement.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Conmissioner Marshall, that the
hearing relative to V-375 be closed at 8:30 P.M.; motion carried unani-
mously.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
Staff'Report dated 8 May 1972 be adopted, as amended, and the request
for variance be denied since the findings required under Section 17 of
Zoning Ordinance NS-3 cannot be made for the reason stated in said
report; motion carried unanim6usly.
E. V-377 - John P. McLaughlin, Via Regina.- Request for Variance to Allow
Reduction in Lot Frontage Requirement - Continued from 24 April 1972
Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to V-377 at 8:32 P.M.
The Secretary explained that'the Variance Committee and Staff did visit
the site and there is no report at this time relative to V-377 since the
Use Permit requested and directly connected with this variance has been
continued.
Commissioner Martin stated that a variance is not needed in this case
since there are ways of access to the subject lot without the granting
of a variance. The property holder could deed land to the City and the
City could hold the land withOut.making any additional improvements.
The Secretary further explained that in that way land would be provided on
paper only for the proposed corridor lot and a variance would become
unnecessary. It is possible to arrange this in this particular case
because there is access to the property available.
Commissioner Marshall Stated that the Variance Committee strongly felt
that the variance request could be denied without going ahead on any
action on the Use Permit.
Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:38 P.M., continued
V-377 to the next regular meeting, and referred the matter'to the Variance
Committee for study and a repqrt.
F. C-154 - Thomas D. Kidson, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road - Request for Change
of Zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "C-C"
(Community-Commercial). - Continued from 24 April 1972
Chairman Lively reopened the Hearing relative to C~154 at 8:39 P.M.
The Secretary stated that no new comnunications were filed. As of right
now this application for change of zoning is legally improper; therefore,
the Commission has several alternate directions available to them:
1) Abandon proceedings relative to the subject change
of zoning.
2) Deny the change iof zonin~ request.
'3) The City Attorney feels the matter should be put
over until the ~ext regular meeting with the condi-
tion that the application b~ m~de proper and if it'is
not then all proceedings should be abandoned.
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 May 1972 - Continued
II. F. C-154 - Continued
Commissioner Smith reconmended that the matter be continued off the
agenda until after the General Plan Review is completed.
Chairman Lively stated that after making an on-site inspection of
the property under discussion:he would vote "no" on a change of
zoning for the property because he does not consider the proposed use
to be proper at the subject location. The City of Saratoga could use
a restaurant of the type proposed but certainly not at the location
suggested.
There was a large group of people present who wished to be recognized
as being opposed to this proposal.
Mr. Horvath of 20330 Saratoga~Los Gatos Road stated that he would like
to point out the traffic hazard existing in the area of this property.
The hazard is due to a high wall and some ditches on either side of the
road that would leave no roomZfor error for any vehicle coming out of
the proposed restaurant..· He is opposed to the proposed change of zoning
or any change in the present ~tatus of the property..
Mr. Heid, architect, present ~o represent the applicant, stated that
1) he would request that the:matter be continued for two (2) weeks
as recommended by the City Attorney 2) he feels the application
could be made legal by the next· regular meeting 3) he can understand
that the Commission is upset because the application was not presented
properly.
Chairman Lively stated that he felt the matter could be continued in
order to provide the applicant another opportunity to make his appli-
cation legal.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to close
the hearing relative to C-154zat 8:52 P.M.; motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, th·at the
application be denied unless it is made whole before the next regular
meeting of the Commission and;in that event that the matter be continued
off the agenda until after th~ completion of the 1972 General Plan Review;
motion carried unanimously. ,
III. BUILDING SITES AND·SUBDIVISIONS
A. SD-952 - AVCO ·Community DevelOpment, Inc., Cox Avenue and Sea Gull Way
·- Subdivision Approval - 67 Lots - Continued from 24 April 1972
Commissioner Smith recommended that SD-952 be continued to the next
regular meeting to allow time for further study.
'Chairman Lively so directed.
B. SDR-963 - James J. Asher, Kit~ridge Road - Building Site ApprOval - 1 Lot
- Continued from 24:April 1972
Commissioner Smith recommende~ that SDR-963 be continued to the next regular
meeting to allow time for fur[her study.
Chairman Lively so directed.
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 19~2 Continued
III. C. SD-938 - Saratoga Foothills Development, Corp., Saratoga Avenue
Subdivision Approval - 18 Lots - Continued from 24 April 1972
The Secretary read a letter received from the applicant requesting that
this request for approval of .a tentative map be withdrawn since the ~.mer
of this property has accepted the City's offer to purchase. said property
for a City Park Site.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the
applicant's request for withdrawal be approved; motion carried unanimously.
D. SDR-965 - Grace S. Forbes, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Building Site
Approval - 3 Lots
The Secretary stated that th~ applicant did review the proposed
conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same.
Commissioner Smith moved, sec~onded by Commissioner Bacon, that the
Building Site Committee Report dated 8 May 1972 relative to SDR-965
be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 28 April
1972) be approved subject to .the conditions set forth in said report;.
motion carried unanimously.
E. SDR-966 - Marjorie W. Mclnern'ey, Orchard Road - Building Site Approval -
1 Lot
Mr. Don Gerth was present to zrepresent the applicant and stated that he
had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction
with same.
Commissioner Smith moved, sec'onded by Commissioner Bacon, that the
Building Site Committee Report dated 8 May 1972 relative to SDR-966
be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 28 April
1972) be approved subject to 'the conditions set forth in said report;
motion carried unanimously.
F. SDR-967 - Abel M. Carreia, Sa'ratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Building Site
Approval - 1 Lot
Commissioner Bacon stated that this is another case of the applicant
proposing 'a building site without knowing exactly what type of tenant
will be using the building.
Mr. Arch Menard, architect fo.r the applicant, stated that this building
will be the maximum height of 14-feet. This is a very difficult piece
of property - the width is a ireal problem.
Commissioner Martin stated he agreed that this is a difficult piece to
develop and Up to now it has b&en developed very badly - this property as
well as the adjoining development have been poorly designed. The entire
area should have been develop~ed under one Master Plan.
Commissioner Marshall stated .that the parking and ingress-and egress-
pattern is very difficult in the existing development.
Mr. Menard stated that the driveway on the adjacent development is very
country-like and he is propos,ing one superior to that one.
Commissioner Marshall recomanended that the parking on the North side
of the lot be parallel.
Mr. Menard stated he would like to discuss the possibility of breaking
the building into two (2) parts.
Commissioner Marshall stated .that the plan submitted showed too much
building and too much parkingl on too small a lot.
Chairman Lively directed this~ matter continued to the next regular
meeting and referred the matt'er to the Subdivision Committee for further study.
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 May 1972 - Continued
III. G. SDR-968 - Saratoga Foothills De~. Corp., Debbie Lane - Building Site
Approval - 2 Lots
The Secretary explained that these two (2)'lots exist, but site approval
has expired.
Mr. Bernie Turgeon, present to represent the applicant, stated that most
of the conditions have already Been met and the others stated in the Build-
ing Site Committee Report of 8 ~y 1972 were acceptable.
Commissioner Smith moved, secon4ed by Commissioner Bacon, that the Building
Site Committee Report dated 8 May 1972 relative ~o SDR-968 be adopted and
that the tentative map (Exhibit!"A", filed 28 April 1972) be approved subject
to the conditions set forth in ~aid report; motion carried unanimously.
H. SD-969 - Osterlund Enterprises,~Allendale Avenue - Subdivision Approval
16 Lots ;
Commissioner Smith recommended that SD-969 be continued to the next regular
meeting to allow time for further study.
Chairman Lively so directed.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-391 - George W. Day, Douglass 2Lane - Preliminary Design Approval -
Subdivision Approval for Planned Community
The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 8 May 1972 recommending
that Preliminary Design Approval be granted for A-391.
Commissioner Martin stated that gthe plahs indicate that this develop·er
is not making use of the view of the hills with the type of homes he is
proposing for these lots.
Chairman Lively agree~ and then 2explained that everyone tried to make
it clear to the applicant in the beginning that the homes proposed for
this development would have to be given special consideration and
apparently the plans submitted Zshow no ·imagination has been used in
designing these houses.
Commissioner Belanger stated she does not feel she can recommend
Preliminary Design Approval of these homes since she is unhappy with the
design. ·
Chairman Lively explained that every. effort was made for the City to have
a "P-C" (Planned-Community) development that could be controlled by the
City.
Commissioner Bacon explained tha!t if .the applicant decides to build a
house of a design different than! one sho~n on the plans the new design must
be submitted for review.
Mr. Lou Leto, present' to represent the applicant, staled there is a strong
possibility the homes currently shown on the plan will not be the ones
actually built on those lots.
Chairman Lively stated that as presently proposed these houses will the
typical George Day subdivision structure ~·long, low, ranch-style homes
with exposed-front-·garages - with the view blocked by the buildings.
Commissioner Marshall stated that if the'applicant does not build the
homes, as p~oposed·on the-plan, ~e will have to get individual approval
for each home he is going to buiild. He does agree the plans submitted
do not show a tremendous amount Zof imagination.
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 May 1972 = Continued
;
IV. A. A-391 - Continued
Mr. Leto explained that the fallacy of submitted plans for Preliminary
Design Approval for the lots in .this "P-C" development iS that the
result'is nothing more than a paper exercise. When a customer comes in
for a house - one will be designed for that individual for his individual
lot at that time since it is not possible to know what a potential buyer
will want for his individual home.
Commissioner Marshall stated'if some'suitable plan were submitted it could
be used as a yardstick to determine what type of home is acceptable.
Mr. Leto stated that he could spend a considerabl~ amount to have an
architect draw up specific plans and then if no one wanted a house with
any of the plans proposed he (the applicant) would be out a lot of money
and have on hand useless plans.
Commissioner Smith reconmended t~at the applicant be allowed to submit
for approval, each individual home prior to construction of same.
The Secretary explained that acc6rding to the conditions of the "P-C"
ordinance the applicant must obtain Preliminary Design. Approval for the
basic elevation of the homes before he can get final subdivision-approval
from the City Council. If the first client in this development chooses a
French Colonial design for his home he will set the pattern for the other
homes in the development.
Commissioner Marshall stated that' the point is that if someone builds a
Cape Cod home they will not want .an ultra-modern home on the adjacent lot.
Mr. Leto i~quired if the City wanted all the homes in this development to
look alike?
The Secretary stated that the homes in the development should be of the
same type and some sort of theme should be established for the entire
development.
Commissioner Belanger' stated that the Staff Report dated 24 January 1972
relative to C-148 states that..all: building-permits shall have been issued
and construction commenced on all~ structures 'shown on said site develop-
ment plan no later that one (1) year from the date of approval of the
reclassification ordinance. Said report further states that the appli-
cant must submit for Design Review Approval all new homes; however, it
does not stipulate that this must be accomplished before final site
approval can be granted by the Cfty Council.
Commissioner Smith stated that if there is no time-limit stipulated then
the applicant can submit the plans for design of the homes prior to
construction and at the time a client chooses a plan for a particular lot.
The Secretary explained that at the time the Planning Commission approved the
tentative map the applicant was a:sked to submit a plan showing the types of
homes he planned to build.
Commissioner Marshall stated that~ the specific elevations of the homes should
be reviewed prior to cOnstructio~ and Design Review. Approval could essentially
be ignored until the developer is~ ready to present individual plans for the
individual lots.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that A-391 be
continued off the agenda until su.ch time as the developer submits more definite
and firm plans for each individual lot; motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Belanger requested that this-matter be discussed with the City
Attorney for some interpretation~of the Staff Report dated 24 January 1972
relative to G-148.
The Secretary stated he would discuss the matter with the City Attorney.
Planning Commission Minutes ~ 8 May 1972 - Continued
,s
IV. B. 'A-393 - Abel Carreia arat~ga-Sunnyvale Road - Preliminary Design
· Approval - Commercial Building
Chairman Lively directed A-~93 continued to the next regular meeting
in order to await action relative to SDR-967.
C. SS-72 - Kunkel-Thomas, Sobey Road - Final Design Review - Temporary
Subdivision Sign
The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 8 May 1972 recommending
that Final Design Approval be granted for SS-72.
· i: Chairman Lively recommended·that the s~bject report be amended by
adding the following condition:
"d. No other signs to be permitted."
Commissioner Belanger moved~ seconded by Commissioner Bacon,' that the
Staff Report dated 8 May 1972 be adopted, as amended, and that Final
Design Approval be granted ~or SS-72, Kunkel-Thomas Company,'~for a
temporary subdivision sign for Tract 5164· as shown on Exhibits "A" and
"B" subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried
unanimously.
· ·V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Commissioner Belanger gave a brief summary of items reviewed and action
taken at the City Council meeting of 3 May 1972, with emphasis on items
of particular interest~'·to~··~he Commission.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. Abel Carreia, Saratoga-Sunn~vale Road - Request to Add Certain Uses to
the List of Permitted or Conditional Uses in the "C-V"
(Visitor-Commercial) Zoning District - Continued from
24 April 1972:
The Secretary stated that this request to add certain uses to the list
of Permitted or Conditional'Uses in the "C-V" Zoning District was
referred to the Subdivision Committee to determine whether an informal
hearing should be scheduled~to consider this request. The Subdivision
Conm~ittee and Staff recommen.'d that the subject request be considered at
the time of the General Plad Review together with the "C-V" Ordinance,
also scheduled for consideration under the General Plan Review.
Mr~L··Arch Menard, present to represent the applicant, stated that the
Design Review Approval is dependent on these uses being added to the
list of uses in the "C-V" Zoning District. There is a client interested
in renting a major portion qf'the proposed building who has legally been
operating across the street;· therefore, in order to proceed it is important
that some decision be reached soon. This client would be the major tenant.
Commissioner Belanger stated that at the time the applicant submitted the
plans for Design Approval there was shown on the plans, two (2) roll-up
doors and the Planning Commi~ssion questioned the use of those do. ors. It
was at that time the applicant realized the proposed uses would have to
be added in order for him to utilize the proposed building as he intended.
Mr. Menard explained that the client is now functioning in Saratoga and
he would need the roll-up doors in order to store (under lock and key)
some very'expensive equipment; therefore, the applicant would like some
decision relative to this r~quest in order that he could proceed with
Final Design Approval for the proposed commercial building.
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 May 1972 -'Continued
VI. A. Abel Carreia - Continued
Mr. McFarland, McFarland Mobile Rdcording Co., (client mentioned by Mr.
Menard) was present and stated that 1) he would like to build a studio
for CATV - the franchise holder for the Saratoga area has not yet been
assigned and a studio will be required for this use 2) there is no area
in the City that has a provigion for a studio for a CATV franchise and
there will have to be one located .in the City somewhere to serve the
City's needs 3) he is presently located in a building across the street
which has a 16-foot wide by 12 or 13-foot roll-up door and he has been
operating in this building for abQut two (2) years 3) the building he is
in is a professional building and he does consulting as well as recording
work 4) he would like to move b~c'ause there are too many different noises
at his present location that can ~e picked up on his recording unit and
there is a traffic and parking problem in his present rental and 6) he has
been operating in the City and he has a business license.
Commissioner Smith stated that the applicant is located in a "P-A" area,
but does not really function as a"'P-A" use.
Commissioner Martin explained that this applicant could locate in the pro-
posed commercial building under the permitted use of "Electronic and T.V.
Shop".
Commissioner Smith asked if that use would allow storage of the applicant's
mobile-truck unit.
Commissioner Belanger stated that it seemed the truck would be incidental
to the use.
The Secretary recommended that th~ matter be continued to the next regular
meeting in order to allow time to :consult with the City Attorney relative
to where Mr. McFarland could be legally located.
Chairman'Lively so directed.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. SDR-954 - Kenton Day~ Beaumont Avenue Request for Reconsideration
The Secretary explained that a let. ter was received from the applicant
requesting that the requirement to install underground utilities at
13791 Beaumont Avenue be waived.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the
request of Kenton S. Day to waive the requirement to install underground
utilities at 13791 Beaumont Avenue be denied; motion carried unanimously.
B. SDR-922 - Dr. Wallace, Pierce Road - Revised ~p
The. Secretary explained that the applicant has submitted a revised map.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the revised
tentative map (Exhibit "A-2", filed 21 April 1972) be approved subject to
obtaining a legal opinion relativ~ to Exhibit "A-2" from the City Attorney;
VIII. CO~E-fONICATIONS
A. WRITTEN
None
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 May 1972 -'Continued
VII I. B. ORAL ~
Memos ;
Chairman Lively stated that recently there have been several incidences where
individual Commissioners have s~bmitted minority report to the City Council
and, perhaps, it would be bette~ if an individual did not agree with a
recommendation of the Planning Commission he could so state at the time the
recommendation is made and that he planned to submit a report to the City·
Council and then do so via the Secretary.
commissioner Smith stated that in his opinion the individual members of
the Planning Commission should not send minority report to the City Council
since the minutes of the Planning Commission reflect the vote of the Commission
and these minutes are fon~arded to the City Council. However, a member of
the Commission should, as a private citizen, be able to fon~ard a communi-
cation to the City Council.
Commissioner Marshall stated that if a member of the Planning Commission
sends a minority memo to the City·Council it should be sent with the
concurrence of the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Lively stated that, perhaps, a policy statement can be written
to establish a procedure for this matter. If memos are going to be
forwarded to the City Council it is best that an established procedure
be followed. Chairman Lively then recommended that the mL~=mbers of the
Commission give the matter their consideration and present their ideas
at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
Guests
Chairman Lively acknowledged, w~th pleasure, the presence of Councilman
Bridges and Mrs. McGuire of the Good Government Group. He, also, thanked
Mrs. McGuire for the coffee served at recess.
IX. ADJOURN'b~NT
Chairman Lively adjourned· the meeting at 11:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley M. ,Walker, Secretary ./"'.':"'.i.=./..//
,/-/
Saratoga Planning Commission ~ ./.
j