Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-1972 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ************************ TIME: Tuesday, October 10, 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 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 Metcalf, that the reading of the minutes of the September 25, 1972 meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed; motion carried with Commissioner Martin abstaining. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-218 - Congregation Beth David Synagogue, Prospect and Scully Avenue - Request for Use Permit tO Allow a Jewish Synagogue - Continued from September 25~ 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 7:34 P.M. The Assistant Planner stated that the applicant has submitted a list showing the geographic distribution of membership as requested by the Planning Commission. Mr. William Hedley, the architect present to represent the applicant, stated that he submitted plans showing the access for the parking lot as required by the Subdivision Committee. Commissioner Smith advised that the Subdivision Committee, also, requested another drawing showing the access to Prospect and. Scully and that has not been submitted. Mr. Hedley, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Lively, stated that some portion of the proposed building will eventually be used for 'classrooms, but in the initial phase the area will serve all functions of the synagogue. Chairman Lively recommended that the Public Works Department and the Subdivision Committee meet with the applicant to review the possibility of additional access. Commissioner Marshall explained that the homeowners in the area object "Go this facility primarily because of the traffic and parking connected with the proposed and existing use of this property. Commissioner Smith explained that the Subdivision Committee did meet with the representatives from'the Prides Crossing Homeowners Association and it was determined that some of the objections submitted by the homeo~ners were not pertinent to the subject' application. -1- Planning Commission Minutes - October 10~ 1972 - Continued II. A. UP-218 - Continued Mr. Eames of 12058 Candy Lane stated that with the existing Church of Ascension anj the proposed synagogue it would seem the structure density would exceed what was originally approved on the plans in 1965. Mr. Huff, President of Prides CrOssing Homeowners Association, stated ,·~ he is interested in determining just exactly what outside sources would be using the synagogue facility. Commissioner Smith explained that this matter Would be resolved in the Sub- division Committee report and recommendation relative to UP-218 and the facilities would be limited to church affiliated uses. Mr. Huff inquired if it would be possible to post "no parking" signs in the street area around the chhrch and synagogue to avoid parking and traffic problems. Commissioner Smith explained that parking, traffic, and·"no parking" signs are matters usually referred to the Public Works Department and City Council. Commissioner Martin stated that it is his urgent recommendation that parking'be prohibited on Ascension Drive and Miller Avenue and that the-ruling be strictly enforced.' Commissioner Metcalf stated that. in his opinion the applicant· has failed to establish a basis for approval of the subject Use Permit since only 18% of the congregatibn will reside in Saratoga. Chairman Lively state&~that a re'Commendation relative to an application cannot be made simply on the basis of how many people will use the facility from the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that a facility located on Prospect Road can not be expected to draw 50% of its congregation from Saratoga. Chairman Lively closed the hearing'for the evening at 7:54 P.M., directed UP-218 continued to the next regular meeting, and referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee and Public Works Department for study and a report. B. UP-80 - Church of Ascension, PrOspect Road - Modification of Existing Use Permit for Church Facilities Chairman Lively opened the hearing relative to UP-80 at 7:56 P.M. The Assistant Planner stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed. Father Worner, Pastor at Church ·of AscenSion, was present and stated that the subject request deals not so much with a modification, but dileneation of some 3.8 acres from the existing church property ownership. The subject 3.8 acres under the .original Use Permit approval was designated as ·recreational area; however, the property is now being offered for sale to the Congregation Beth David Synagogue. All other uses approved previously under UP-80 remain unchanged; therefore, there is,·in reality, no modification involved. Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee did request the Staff to obtain a revised drawing from the applicant showing the existing and proposed future buildings on the church property, access, parking and- traffic circulation. This plan·has not been submitted. Chairman Lively explained that the Subdivision Committee has met with many interested homeowners in this area and they have expressed a dislike to the present traffic and parking arrangment connected with the church and affiliated uses; however, they do not object to the church use itself. A joint plan showing parking, traffic circulation, and access for the Church of Ascension and Congregation Beth David Synagogue should be submitted for review after which the Planning Commission can determine if the plans for UP-80 and UP-218 are acceptable. -2-· Plannin5 Commission Minutes - October lOt 1972 - Continued II. B. UP-80 - Continued Commissioner Marshall explained that the existing exhibit in file UP-80 cannot be'implemented if 3.8 acres are sold, b~cause if'the original plan were implemented and the proposed synagogue were built on the 3.8 acres more density would be created than was approved in 1965 under UP-80. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:07 P.M., directed UP-80 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for study and a report at the next regular meeting. C. UP-220 - Dr. Julian Henry, Quito'Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow Veterinary Clinic Chairman Lively opened the hearing relative to UP-220 at 8:07 P.M. The Assistant Planner stated theNotice of Hearing was mailed. He'further stated that UP-220 ties in with the item listed under new business of the agenda.and then read a communication filed in opposition to the proposed use b~ Mr. and Mrs. Duane C. Eckstedt of 18584 Aspesi Drive. Mr. E. J. Hinde.of 18713 Metler Court was present and stated'that he is very much opposed to the proposed use due to the noise factor resulting from a.clinic of this type. Mr. R. H. Mac Donough of 18593 Lyons Court stated he. is concerned the additional traffic on Aspesi' Drive that would be caused by such use. He then inquired about the type of provisions that have been made for the traffic and off-street parking for the proposed Veterinary clinic. Chairman Lively explained that the entrance to Aspesi Drive is approximately 300-feet away from~the subject property and plans for parking, etc. will not be submitted until after some recommend- 'ation on the Use Permit is made. The applicant was present but made no further comments at this time. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:15 P.M., directed UP-220 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for study and a report at the next regular meeting. D. C-159 - Cal-West Communities, Inc., Saratoga Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "R-M-3,000" (Multi-Family Residential) - Continued from September 25, 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to C-159 at 8:16 P.M. Mr. William G. Clark, attorney present to represent the applicant, stated that 1) the applicant has been requested to amend his appli- cation to ask for "R-M'4,000" (Multi-Family Residential); however, due to the indefinite requirements of the Flood Control District it is difficult to determine the exact amount of property that will be,utilized for dedication and so forth 2) if the "R-M-4,000" zoning were requested and approved and the Flood Control requirement left only enough land for 3,900-square foot units then the applicant would have to request a variance to amend the plans submitted for approval. -3- Planning Commission Minutes - October 10 1972 - Continued II. D. C-159 - ContinUed Chairman Lively explained that if the "R-M-3,000" zoning were appoved the applicant.could proceed with construction on that basis and this would be contrary to the intent of the P~anning Commission. Mr. Clark explained that 1) the maps submitfed for approval designate 4,000-Squareofoot units and the applicant would be held to those maps if they are approved and 2) time is of the essence and any further delay could become a real hardship for the applicant. Commissioner Marshall stated that the Subdivision Committee has reviewed the applicant's plans; however, Flood Control District has not reacted to this proposal. Commissioner Bacon stated that he did not see how the developer could go ahead with his final plans until the Flood Control District clearly states their requirements. Commissioner Marshall explained that if the applicant would amend his application to "R-M-4,000" a recommendation for approval could be made at this time. Mr. Clark, on b~half of the applicant, requested that C-159 be amended to request a change of zoning from "A" to "R-M-4,000Y' instead of "R-M-3,000". Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to close the hearing relative to C-159 a6 8:27 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the request for change of zoning for C-159 be approved (as amended by the _applicant's attorney) for "R~M-4,000" (Multi-Family Residential) subject to receipt of final determination of the Flood Control border requirement and 'submission of a Subdivision Committee report including conditions of approval; motion carried unanimously. E. C-160 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural)'to "R-I-40,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned-Community) Chairman Lively opened the hearing relative to C-160 at 8:29 P.M. The Assistant Planner stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed and published. Mr. Rick Perkins, VTN Engineering, was present to represent the applicant and stated that the tentative map indicated all contour lines and how they .relate to the adjacent properties. Commissioner Smith explained that if Herriman Avenue is widened a portion of the green area fronting on Herriman will be removed. Commissioner Metcalf advised that this subdivision cannot be approved until some determination can be~made relative to Herriman Avenue. He would recommend that a General Plan Line for Herriman'Avenue be made available before a recommendation relative to C-160 is submitted. Chairman Lively requested Mr. Trinidad, present to represent the Public Works Department, to review the possibility of providing such a Plan Line. Commissioner Belanger suggested:that any future maps submitted by the applicant show· the green space located in the proposed subdivision. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:37 P.M., directed C-160 continued to the' next regular meeting, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for study. -4- Planning Commission Minutes - October 10~ 1972 - Continued II. F. C-161 - Coordinated Financial Concepts (Max Beck), Saratoga-Los Gatos Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-I-20,000" (Single- Family Residential) to "R-M-4~000" (Multi-Family Residential) Chairman Lively opened the hearing relative to C-161 at 8:38 P.M. The Assistant Planner stated that the Notice of Hearing was mailed and published. He further stated that the applicant's architect submitted a letter requesting that C-161 be continued to the next regular meeting; however, he has now indicated he is ready to make a presentation. Chairman Lively explained that the proposed Zoning is "R-M-4,000" and will be designed as Retirment Housing. The Assistant Planner read three (3) petitions filed in opposition to the proposed change of zoning and containing: 1) Twenty-three (23) signatures 2) Forty-three (43) signatures 3) Twenty-six (26) signatures He, also, read communications filed in opposition to C-161 by the following: 1) Mr. and Mrs. E. M. Duncan 2) T. L. Shebs of 19520 Farwell Avenue 3) Albert and Rosaleen Spears of 14561Westcott Drive 4) Mrs. Betty L0u Maas of 20'360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road · 5) Mr. and Mrs. Noble R. Tucker of 14434 Oak Place · Mr. Willard Lynch, 14260 Lutheria Way, was present and stated he owns the property directly adjacent to the subject site and he is adamantly opposed to the proposed change of zoning. Mr. Steinberg stated that 1) the firm he represents is one of quality · and have designed many fine projects 2) the Stoneson Condominiums/in Saratoga were designed.by this firm 3) the applicant is a very conscientious -individual and very interested in developing the best quality of retire- ment housing 4) the thing the citizens of Saratoga must decide is whether retirement housing is needed or wanted in the City 5) a matter that should be considered is whether residents of the area that have lived here all of their lives should be forced to move out of the City when they can no longer care for their large homes 'and large lots 6) the proposed application is a good test to determine the aformentioned questions 7) the site proposed is ideal for retirement housing because it is within'walking distance to downtown and the site is level and somewhat isolated 8) this project would not creat any more additional traffic than if the property were developed as straight'R-1 (Single-Family Residential) 9) this will essentially be a .garden-type development 10) maintenance'will be taken care of by'some organiZatiOn' and not by an'individual and 11)'. the units will be from 900-feet'to 1300-feet in size with approximately 26% coverage of the 11.8 adres available. Fir. Dave Hickman, resident of the area, ~tated he has.lived in Saratoga 'almost all his life and has never asked for a variance because he believed in the city policy.for low-density and other zoning laws. 'Mr..Peter Pasetta, 20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, stated that 1) he was acfive in the writing of the initial Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and feels it should be carried through 2) the proposed zoning is a perfect example of large-scale spot-zoning and would be right in the core of an R-1 area in the City 3) this is really not a retirement facility and should be "R M considered as a simple - -4,000" (Multi-Family Residential) development and 4) the Planning CommisSio~ could and should abandon proceedings for this proposal as provided by the Zoning Ordinance. -5- Planning Commission Minutes - October 10~ 1972 - Continued II. F. C-161 - Continued Mrs..Naomi ~. Hgffman, 14571 Horseshoe Drive, stated that !) 'retirement housing nea~ downtown Saratoga is a good idea, but ingress and egress on Big BaSin'Way'is°already very difficult and would be further blockaded by additional traffic 2) the residents of the proposed develop- ment would have a difficult time walking downtown because of the traffic and 3) the isolation referred to by Mr. Steinberg and provided by oak trees in the area is only a temporary situation since these trees are diseased and are rapidly failing. Mr. Jim Fowler, attorney present to represent Henrietta Layman (adjacent property owner), stated that the Subdivision Committee has stated there would be a requirement for an emergency access road (in addition to the main entrance road) for this property. His client, the o~ner of the property where the second access road would come in, is opposed to this project and has'no intention 6f granting an easement across her property. · Mr. Steinberg explained that the future of the development would be subject to arrangement for provision of a secondary access road. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that the emergency access road is a requirement of the Fire Marshall and not a requirement of the City. Mr. Lynch stated he wondered if the architect could show on the plans where the city sewage~pump is located on Wildcat Creek. On the occasions when it has failed to function it has killed all of the redwood trees on his property. Serious consideration should be given to where the sewage will go from the proposed 94-units. Chairman Lively advised that in order to obtain any clarification in connection with sewag~ sanitation distr~ct #4 must be contacted. The Subdivision Committee ~ill request a report from sanitation district #4 as part of their study. Chairman Lively stated that, in his opinion, the proposed development must be considered as spot zoning since it does involve 94-units in a prime singel-family residential neighborhood. Commissioner Martin inquired of'Mr. Steinberg how this development is different from a regular "R-M" development and why the proposed develop- ment should be considered eligible as retirement housing~ Mr. Steinberg explained that the primary reason it would be called retirement housing is because the units would be sold to people in the older-age category - 55 years or older. Commissioner Martin pointed out that there are other developments in the City that have age limitations, but they are not considered retire- ment housing. Chairman Lively stated that 1) ~this matter could be continued .fo~ two (2) .weeks and referred to the Subdivision Committee to review as a straight "R-M" development and 2) the item could be continued off the agenda and the notice b~ re-published and re-mailed after the adoption of the retire- ment.housing standards. It would be his recommendation that the proposal be~handled as."R-M-4,000" (Multi-Family Residential). Commissioner Smith disagreed that it should be considered as .straight "R-M" proposal since the applicant has asked that it be considered as retirement housing. The matter should be continued off the agenda and the applicant can submit an amendment to his application to'conform with the ret~ement-.housing standards when they become applicable. Commissioner Metcalf recommended that C-161 be denied at this time on the basis that it is a request for undesirable spot zoning. Planning Commission Minutes - October 10~ 1972 - Continued II. F. C-161 - Continued Commissioner M~rshall explained that the application is for retirement housing and the subject property was earmarked by the Planning Commission, as part of the General Plan, for a possible retirement-housing site; therefore, this'application should be set aside for further study. Consideration 'should be given to the fact that just because a property is designated as a possible retirement-housing site does not necessarily mean it is the most suitable site especially if it does not have the qualifications desired for retirement housing. Mr. Pasetta stated that he and other residents of the area are opposed to a continuance and would like t6 ha~e a recommencation for denial at this time. Commissioner ~rshall pointed out that the City, after extensive study, has indicated they are interested in providing its residents with retire- ment housing and the City Council has expanded the list of possible sites to include any site in the entire City; therefore, any proposal submitted must be given its due consideration. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner' Smith, that the public hearing be closed for the evening at 10:10 P.M. and that C-161 be continued off the agenda until the meeting of November 27, 1972; motion carried with the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Bacon Commissioner Lively Commissioner.Metcal; Commissioner Belanger Commissioner Marshall Commissioner Martin Commissioner Smith Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that all property owners of the area within 500-feet of the subject property be notified prior to the meeting of November 27, 1972; motion carried unani- mously. G. V-386 - James L. Rutledge, Bach Court'- Request for Variance to Allow Reduction in Rear Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from September 25~ 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to V-386 at 10:12 P.M. The Assistant Planner read the Staff.Report dated October 10, 1972 r&commending that V-386 be denied. The. applicant was present and stated 1) he had additional exhibits to submit for review 2) .the proposed addition would be aesthetically more pleasing and more accessible with the requested variance and 3). he did contact a contractor, as suggested by the Variance Committee. Commissioner Marshall explained that this applicant bought this house, · site unseen, before he arrived in ~own and'was misled by the realtor. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, to close the public hearing relative to V-386 at 10:'25 P.M.; motion carried uani- mOusly. Commissioner Martin .moved, seconded by COmmissioner Metcalf, that the Staff Report dated October 10, 1972 be adopted and that the subject request for variance bedenied on the basis that the findings required by Section 17.6' of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 cannot be made for the reasons set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes '- October 10, 1972'- Continued II. H. V-387 - James A. Nendry, Canyon View Drive - Request for Variance to Allow Reduction in Front Yard SetbaCk Requirements - Continued.£rom Septembe~ 25~ 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 10:26 P.M. The Assistant Planner read a communication filed by the applicant requesting that V-387 be withdrawn. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to close the public hearing at 10:07; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the request for withdrawal be approved and all proceedings relative to V~387 be..'terminated; motion carried unanimously. RECESS AND RECONVENE : III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-982 Charles Guichard, Wardell Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from September 25~ 1972 The Assistant Planner recommended that SDR-982 be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directed. B. SDR-983 James A. Hendry, Canyon View Drive - Building Site.Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from September 25~ 1972 Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by'Commissioner Bacon, that the Building Site Committee Report dated October 10, 1972 relative to SDR-983 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-2", filed October 10, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. SD-986 - Saratoga Foothills Dev. Corp.~ Saratoga Avenue - Subdivision Approval - 11 Lots - Continued from September 25~ 1972 Commissioner Metcalf stated that this site is at the other end of the Herriman Avenue extension and the matter should be continued until Herriman Avenue Plan Line has been established. C~mmissioner Marshall explained that this matter was discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting and since the future of the Herriman Avenue extension seems in doubt it would seem burdensome on the part of the developer to wait until the matter is resolved. Commissioner Smith advised that"the Herriman Avenue extension is firm and the only thing that is not firm now is the Plan Line there would have to be an easement provided by the landowner until the extension becomes a realization. The Assistant Director of Public Works was present and stated that the'easement would be dedicated to th~ City and would be used for street widening at the time it became necessary. After discussion the Subdivision Committee Report dated October 10, 1972 relative to SD-986 was amended as follows: Conditions 2,~-.3, and.12 were-rewritten: 2. Street improvements on 40-foot right-of-way to be 36-feet. Shadow Oaks Way improvement to include Saratoga School District property. ~ -8- III. C. SD-986'- Continued 3. :Street improvements on Herriman Avenue on 50-foot right-of-way to be 40-feet. Twelve (12) feet of this right-of~way provided by others. Enter into "a deferred improvement agreement" secured by a long-6erm bond for the improvement on Herriman Avenue~to be based on the costs of improving a 33-foot surface improvement. 12. Prior to obtaining final map approval submit grading plan to Planning Commission 'for review. Slopes and estimated yardage to be designated by Registered Civil Engineer'.' The 'last sentence in condition 4. .was deleted and condition 19 was added as follows: 19. Landscaping and fencing along Saratoga Avenue subject to Design Review. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Subdivision Committee Report dated October 10, 1972 relative to SD-986 be adopted, as .amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-3", filed October 10, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report.;. motion carried unanimously.. D. SDR-991 - Richard W. Rutowski, Sobey Road - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from September 25~ 1972 ~e Assistant Planner stated that the applicant did review the proposed condi- tions Of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. After discussion condition U. was added to the Building Site'Committe Report dated October 10, 1972 relative to SDR-991 as follows: U. Provide ;.unimprove'dpathway for pedestrian and equestrian purposes along Sobey Road and Sperry Lane. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by °Commissioner Bacon, that the Building Site Committee Report dated October 10, 1972 relative to SDR-991 be 'adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed September 15, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. E. SD-992 - George W. Day~ FruitVale Avenue - Subdivision'Approval - 21 Lots Chairman Lively stated that since SD-992 is directly affiliated with C-160 'the matter should be continued to the next regular meeting. 'F. ~DR-993 - Ralph Anderson~ Quito Road - Building Site Approval - 3 Lots The Assistant Planner recommended that SDR-993 be continued to the!next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directedl G. SDR-994 - Jonathan Rueloffs~ Woodbank Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The. Assistant Planner recommended that this matter be continued since the County. Health Department has not yet submitted their report relative .to the sanitary sewers for this lot. 'it., Chairman Lively directed SDR-994 continued to the next regular meeting. H. SDR-997 - Gary Mills, Monte Vista Drive - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Commissioner Smith.moved, seconded b~ Commissioner BacOn, that the Building Site Committee Report dated October 10, 1972 relative to SDR-997'.be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "'A", filed September 29, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set ferth in said report; motion carried unanimously. -9- Planning Commission Minutes - October l0t 1972 - Continued IV. DESIGN REVIB~ A. A-391 - George W. Day, Douglass Lane - Final Design Review - ModifiCation of Single Family Residence Mr. Lou Leto was present t6 represent the applicant and stated that the request at this time is to rescind all former modifications approved for the subject lot and go back to the initial house plan as originally approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Conm~issioner Belanger, that the Staff Report of September 25, 1972 approving modification for Lot 11 of Tract 5150 be rescinded and the original house plans be reapproved; motion carried unanimously. V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Marshall gave a brief summary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of October 4, 1972. PLA~ING POLICY C0~D~TTEE Chairman Lively stated that at the last Planning Policy Committee meeting, presided over by Mayor Smith, there was considerable discussion relative to the Housing Element as it pertains to Low-Income Housing. It is urgent that the City prepare, as soon as possible, an answer to the Low-Income Housing Proposal. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Retirement Housing Standards - Continued from September 25~ 1972' Commissioner Smith explained that the Subdivision Committee has prepared a report relative to the Retirement H'ousing Standards as requested by the Chairman of the Planning Commission.' Chairman Lively directed this matter .continued to the next regular meeting to await the report of the Design Review Committee. B. Resolution No. 115-1 - Revision of Slope Density Resolution - Continued from September 25, :1972 The Assistant Planner recommended that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting to allow an opportunity to discuss this proposed resolution with the City Attorney. Chairman Lively so directed. C. Dr. I. N. Abramst Edina Lane - Request for Twb.-Story ttouse on Lot 17 of Tract 5233 - Summerplace of Saratoga The AsSistant Planner recommended that this request be continued until'further information is made available. Chairman Lively so directed. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Addition of Veterinary Clinic as Conditional Use in the "C-N" (Neighborhood- Commercial) Zoning District The Assistant Planner explained that this request relates to a matter discussed under public.hearings - UP-.220. Chairman Lively directed that the s~bject request to add a use to the "C-N" Zoning District be schedule.d for an informal hearing and placed on the agenda for October 24, 1972. '10- planning Commission Minutes October 10~.1972 - Continued VIII. COmmUNICATIONS A, WRITTEN ~: UP-215 - Osterlun'd Enter'prises, Cox Avenue and Homes Drive - Review of Model Home Sales Office The Assistant Planner read a letter received from Osterlund Enterprises requesting that the last sentence in condition #4, as stated in the report relative to UP-215 dated August 14, 1972, be deleted. Commissioner Belanger explained that the subject deletion refers to the surfacing of lot 99 to'provide temporary parking in order to avoid parking problems on Cox Avenue. If parking problems do arise on Cox Avenue the Use Permit is subject to cancellation. Chairman Lively requested the Staff to review this matter and prepare a report to be presented at the next regular meeting. Brown and Kauffmann Subdivisiou -Pillars Commissioner Martin explained that there are no approved plans allowing pillars in the dimension and size currently being constructed on Cox Avenue fronting on the Brown and Kauffmann subdivision; furthermore, in his opinion, any pillars at this location should be at least 50-feet -away from the intersection. Chairman Lively requested the Planning and Public Works StafB to review this-situation and prepare a report.' ORAL Retirement Housing Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1)'originally one site was selected.for retirement housing and it was recommended that it be suitably zoned 2) he was. eventually convinced that instead of one..(~).__~t~__~ive (5) sites be considered and listed according to priority and 3) he feels [[~'~i'ty Council should make definite selections for retirement housing in order to avoid every builderon the peninsula from. coming forth with a proposal for retirement housing in the City. Councilman Diridon was present and stated that the recommendation of the City Council to open retirement housing sites up to all areas of the City was not intended to disregard the work of the Planning Commission, but was to rely more heavily on Criteria established by the Planning Commission without restricting it to a select few properties. One restriction that may ~e given further consideration is the five acre minimum - since units scattered on smaller lot.sizes may be more desirable. The City Council is awaiting guidelines from the Planning Commission and will be looking for .. developments allowing a"$200.00 price range per month. Lots Allowed. Under Assessment District - Sobey ROad Area Chairman Lively recommended to the Subdivision Committee that a careful review be made of each building site and/or subdivision, submitted for development in the Sobey Road area, to determine whether each lot is legal under the Sanitary Sewer Assessment District. Planning Commission Minutes - October 10, 1972 - Continued VIII. B. ORAL - Continued Guests Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilman Diridon, Mrs. Appleby of the Good Government Group"and Mrs. Smith, wife of Commissioner Smith. He, also, thanked Mrs. .Appleby for the coffee served at recess. IX. ADJOU~\~NT Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 1972 at 12:30 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted Stanley M.. Walker, Secretary Saratoga Planning Commission -12-