HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-27-1972 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
~,,,*****~,,,***********
TIME: Monday, November 27, 1972 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 FrUitvale .' Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
-
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bacon, Belanger, Lively, Marshall, Martin,
Metcalf, and Smith.
B. MINUTES
Co~Lm~issioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the
· reading of the minutes of the November 13, 1972 meeting be waived
and·they be approved as distributed with the following changes:
page 4. . .under C. UP-221. .last paragraph. .add this sentence.
"Chairman Lively requested that the Staff contact Bay Area Air Pollution
Control Dist-rict relative to this application." page'6. .under II. E. V-388
· .paragraph 4,. .delete item 3). .and paragraph 6. .line 2.
read as follows: "adjacent to the applicant's and if this Variance is not
approved the view. from". .page .8. .under F. SDR-'1001. . .paragraph 2.
last line. .chang~ to read as follows.· ."continue to be·used as rentals
and in due time again end up as problems." page 11. .under VIII, A. 3.
add this sentence. ."He request, ed all back-up material relative to this
matter be provided to the members' of the Planning Commission."; motion carried
with Co~m~issioner Martin abstaining.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-161 - Coordinat'ed Financial Concepts (Max Beck), Saratoga-Los Gatos.
Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-I-20,000" (Single-·
Family Residential) to "RrM-4,0.00" (Multi-Family Residential)
- Continued from October 107 1972
Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to C-161 at 7:36 P.M.
! The'Secretary read communications filed in favor of the propOsed'Change
of Zoning by the following:
· 1) George E..Engstrom~of ·20586 Carniel Avenue.
2). Frank R. Brown of 12024 Brookridge Drive.
3) Annette M. Suth of 12561 Paseo Cerro.
4) Mable P.'Decker of 20301 Orchard Road.
5) Harry R. Goff of 20621 Lomita Avenue.
6) John C. T. Rohan of 20301 Orchard Road.
The'Secretary, also, read communicati6ns filed in opposition Of the
p'roposed Change of Zoning by the following:
1)' A'petition containing twenty-five (25) signatures.
2) Leona Avidiya of 14571 Westcott DriVe.
3) Robert Van Der.Toorren of 14555 Horseshoe Drive. (Telegram)
4) Norman A. and Debby Kirshen of 20290 Orchard Road.
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes .- November 27~ 1972 - Continued
II. A. C-161 - Continued
5) Mrs. Betty Lou Maas of .20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos-Road.-
6) Myra and Frank Bruno 20201 La Paloma Drive.
7) A~ H. Dutton of 20200 La PalomaDrive.
8) Brent M. Abel, attorney, representing Mrs.
'~ Benjamin Lehman (an adjoining property.
-. ow'ner),
-Commissioner Smith .read the Subdivision Committee Report dated.
November 27, 1972 recommending that denial for Change of Zoning
application C-161. ~ ....
Mr. David Smith of. Goodwin B~ Steinberg Associates, ArChiteCt, was
present-to represent the applicant and requested a continuance for
C-161, because the applicant has been ill; therefore, was unable to
coordinate the material requested by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Smith stated that the matte~ has been pending for some
. time and the Subdivision Committae has met with the applicant on
......... three· (3) different occasions to.discuss this.proposal~
........ ' .......... Mr. Van Der Tooren of-14555'Horsashoe Drive was present and stated
that 1) if the subject"request for change of zoning is approved there
is no assurance the applicant will·build retirement housing on this
property 2) the development as described in the plans submftted by .the .--
" applicant would not be feasible as a retirement. community 3) only a
.... limited number of activities will be offered to the residents - all.
other aetiviti'es must be conducted away from the facility and this is
undesirable"for residents of retirement housing 4) the walk from this
property-to.the village would be extremely hazardous .since-it is much
......safer to drive .this distance by car 5) the plans, in his opinion, pro~.ose
a reasonablyhigh-density apartment complex and 6) he is opposed to the
proposed change of zoning on the basis of a) density b) access (poor
ingress and egress) and c) safety. · ...... ~ .....
Commissioner Smith· m0ved,'.seconded by Commissioner Bacon, to close-.the
..... pubiic h'earing"relative'to:"'C~162'at'8:'04-P.M.; motion'carried unanimously.· ......
: · ...... ." Caissioner"Smith'moved, seconded.by'Commissioner. Marshatl,.'-to adopt ...'.L ....
the Subdivision Committee Report dated November 27, I972 and recommend
" -- to the City C0u~Ci't"that'th'elsubjeCt.reqUeSt"f0r 'change of·zoning·beTM ..........
denied for the reasons set forth!in said report; motion carried unanimously.
'B. C-162.- J'. Barry Gray' and Associates, Saratoga-Los. Gatos Road - Request for ..
Change of Zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to
" .-. ' "' "P~A"'(Pr0feSS'{~n~i~'Admi~'{St'ra~iV~) - Continued. from. N0vembe~.13~. 1972
" Chairman'Li'vely'reopened the hea~ing relative to C-162' at 8:'06"P.M.' ....
· . The Secretary stated nothing new,had 'been addedto'the file and.'then' ..
read the Staff Report dated November 27, 1972 recommending tthe ''~ ....
subject change of zoning'request.be approved.
Commissioner:Met~alf.read 'a 'General Plan Committee.Report. dated November.27,
..... 1972 reflecting his--(Commissioner Metcalf's) own personal views.and recommend-
ations relative-to-the Georgian House.
........ .. '-' Mr~ Van De.r. Tooren,714.555.Horseshoe Drive,"stated.that 1) subdivision of.
". .': " this property-.is not the'inherent right of the~property'owner 2) 'subdiVi~ '...
of this parcel into.two (2) sites.would not be undesirable 3) fortunately.
the antique shop ('formerly operated'at this location) created very little
traffic - a busier use which would create more traffic should not be considered
for this site 4) i'f the change of zoning request is approved the number of
..... employees.'should be .limited'5) if traffic'did become a problem then it would be
necessary to widen'this entrance to Saratoga and 6) he is oppOSed to the pro-'
posed change'of'zoning and would request that same be denied.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27.; 1972--- Continued
II. B. C-162 Continued
Chairman Lively explained that the change of zoning .request is to allow· --
"P-A" (professional-Administrative~ The owner could if he so desired,
demolish the Georgian House, subdivide the property into the maximum number
of lots, allowed under the zoning, and construct houses on those·lots.
Mr. Van Der'.Tooren stated that 1') it would be undesirable"to develop this
property to its maximum 2) the ingress and egress· is Very poor and hazardous
and 3) perhaps some interested residents should get together and·purchase
.. the Georgian House for retention as a Saratoga Landmark.
Mrs, B.et.ty Lou Maas Stated that 1) this proposal-affects her personally
since she resides in the house next door to this property 2) she prefers
the Georgian House remain under its present. f'R-l" zoning designation _.
3) there are numerous accidents in this area of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
4) she, also, lives in"a grand old house and.would· not like to see it.s
value decrease because of zoning. changes in the area 5) f~ur (4) homes
(including the Georgian House) could be gracefully situated on this proper-ty.
Mr. Pete Pasetta of 20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road stated that 1) he would
like to Temind the Planning Commission of the Zoning Ordinance and the
objectives of that Ordinance as established by the founding fathers
and 2) the subject property is zoned "R-I" in the General. Plan and he'
can see no logical reason for chaDging this property to "P-A".
Mr.. Barry Gray, the applicant, was·present and in answer to an inquiry
from Commissioner Belanger'stateH that 1) the firm of Shearson-Hammill
Company will not underwrite the proposed brokerage firm since they will
not own the property 2) the financial assets of Barry Gray are such
that the brokerage firm can be carried by him and 3) a brokerage firm
does-not create much traffic and he would anticipate starting with·five (5)
brokers and approximately six (6·) clients per day with 'an ultimate goal of
ten (10) brokers with three (3).secretaries. Mr. Gray further stated that·
he understood the neighbors concern in connection with traffic since he,.also,.
travels that road and is a Saratoga resident very much interested in making
the best possible use of this pr.operty.
The Secretary recommended that c:ondition. 1) of the Staff'Report dated
November 27,:1972 relative to C-162 be amended to read as follows:
1) The use of the Georgian House property shall be
limited to the professional-administrative use of
Broker, Stocks and Bonds for solely the office of
'Shearson-Hammill Company and no other. The existing
guest house on the property may continue as a single-
family use only. Brokers and staff are limited to a
maximum of thirteen (13) ......
Jane Campbell,'14482 Oak Place,~ stated that 1) in the beginning she was
opposed to this change of zoning request since she was not anxious to have
a complex of offices in the neighborhood; however, with a conditional
· ' 'change of·zoning the property could not be substantially changed 2) it iS
now her opinion there would be more problems if this property were developed
a's "R-i" with four (4).to seven (7) lots and. 3) Sh'.e iS not Opposed to the
use of the brokerage house on this property with the understanding that it
will revert to "R-i" zoning when and if the brokerage house· use is terminated.
Craig Maas of 20360 Saratoga-LoS Gatos stated that 1) according-to the ....
regulations the beautifuly house on this property could be destroyed and
numerous smaller homes constructed; thereby, preserving the "R-I" zoning
2)' by allowing the brokerage house the Georgian House and property·will ......
be preserved for the.present; h~wever, what will happen when the current ..
members of the Planning COmmission are replaced and the new members are .-
not cognizant of .all the·facts and terms under which the "P~A" zoning for'
the subject property was approved 3) San Jose ·indicates·that it·will double .....
.. in size in the next twenty (20).years.and Saratoga-will.be. affected in'many ....
" ways 4) if these changes of the type proposed are approved where will it'
all end? 5) he would proposed the house be'Sold.to a .family to us~ as their
home and 6) he is opposed to the proposed change of zoning.
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27!~ 1972 - Continued
II. B. C-162 - Continued
Mr. Van Der Tooren stated that. l) he is'against the change of zoning
request in connection ~ith C-162 2) he is .not necessarily. against
thirteen (13) people using the premises for a stock brokerage firm.
· . - the.problem could-be that the applicant might decide he does not
want to use the "P-A" zoning for a brokerage firm and 3) perhaps,
an answer would be to allow the brokerage firm as a legal-non-conformig
use in order to maintain.control. "
Mr. Edmond Pohle, Saratoga-Los Gatos.Road,. requested that a commercial public
enterprise not be allowed for this property.
Mr. Bacon.stated that.l) it'appears that most of the opposition is due
........ to the fact that whatever use is allowed to get started here may get
....... out of control 2) it should be pointed out that a Cond{tional Change
... of Zoning requires a Use Permit 3) if the Change of Zoning is approved
and' the Use Permit is granted for the brokerage house and the applicant
discontinues the use then the Use Permit will be_terminated and the zoning
will automatically revert to "R-I" and the Planning Commission would still
maintain full control. This ~pp~icant proposed very limited alteration,
none externally' and little internally, to the structure.
Chairman Lively explained that' the Planning commission recommends in .'.L.
the 1972 General. Plan for 1972 that this property remain as "R-i". It '. .......
' .... is his 'feeling the recommendation in the 1972 General 'Plan should'not
be changed at this time, but should be fom~arded to the Citizen's Committee
for study and review at the timeof'the Major 'Review.
Commissioner Marshall stated thai 1) it should be-recognized that the ....
· recommendation contained. in the. 1972 General Plan Review were based on
arestaurant'proposal 2) 'if the!Planning Commission had been'..aware of
the present proposal, perhaps, the recommendation may have. been different
3) this applicant has been before the City. Council and they elected to
send him back to the Planning Commission and 4) it seems bureaucratic
to have to postpoine this for a year.
Chairman Lively stated that it i~ his firm"belief that-the Planning Commission
.......... should.stick"to'the'recommendatiQnmade'in"the 1972~General Plan. "
Commissioner. Martin stated that 1) he would'like to 'COmment On the report"'
'submitted by the Chairman-Of the!'General' Plan Committ'ee 2) it'is.a good .....
~roposal and he himself would like to see the Georgian House retained as
a Saratoga Landmark; however, that seems unlikely. unless the City can pror
vide some means of buying and ma{ntaining this house and 3) the matter
............... .'ShSuld '~e"refer~'ed t'o-"the 1973 M~jor-General Plan for considerat'ion' asl'a "'..' ....
Saratoga Landmark'. ......... .-
'. Commissioner Belanger explained that 1) she had hoped that 'a low-denSity" -'
'. use would be proposed for this property and'the. use-proposed by this.appli-'
cant fulfills that hope-and 2) postponing a decision at this time may force..
the applicant to take steps, for:'financial"reasons, that will. cause.the
development of this property and, perhaps, removal'of the building.
...... Commissioner' Marshall stated that 1) .he did-think. Commissioner.-Metcalf's'
proposal may have merit in-that.Saratoga should have plans to retain .this..' ......
landmark building (the Georgian House) but.the-fact remains that no-such
arrangements' have.been made as yet and 2) a suitable .document'should be '-
"drafted designating Saratoga Landmark'Buildings and 'the"Georgian ..HOuse.-.'.
should be included in that list. -"
Mr. ~oh!e suggested. that, perhaps, the surrounding property owners. could
each purchase a portion of.-the property now-belonging. to the-Georgian-'House ....
and add those portions to .their own property. .. ..
"·'·· -~lannin.~ Commission Minutes-- November 27~1·972 --.Continue~-
II. B. C-162 - Continued
Mr. Gray stated that' 1) this is the second proposal submitted to
the Planning Commission for ·this property and 2)· if this proposal·
is referred and continued there is very little guarantee that the
present owner will not sell this' property for subdivision before
the Major General Plan Review is completed; therefore, it is his
urgent request that a decision be made at this time.
Chairman Lively sta~ed that he is·very reluctant to··answer these calls
for urgency since the uppermost c!onsideration must be given to what is
- best for Saratoga.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to close
the public hearing in connection with C-162 at 8:58 P.M.; motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Chairman Lively, that the request
for Change of Zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "P-A"
...... (Professional-Administrative) in connection-with·-C-162 be denied, without
prejudice; motion denied with the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Lively and'Commissioner Metcalf.
NOES: Commissioners Bacon, Belanger, Marshall, Martin, and Smith.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner·Marshall, tO.adopt,
as·amended, the Staff Report dated NoVember 27, 1972 (and forward same
to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Commission)
and that the subject application.for Change of Zoning in connection with
· . C-162·be approved on the basis the findings required-under Section 11.1,
18.6, and 18.11 of the City of Saratoga·Zoning-Ordinance NS.3 can be·made
for the reasons stated in said report and subject to the conditions set
forth therein; motion carried with the following vote;
AYES: Commissioners Bacon-, Belanger, Marshall, Martin, and Smith.
NOES~ ·Chairman Lively and Commissioner Metcalf.
~t Commissioner Metcalf requested t~at his report· relative to C-162 be
forwarded to the City Council as,a minority report.
C. UP-221 - Mobil Oil Corp., Highway 85 and Big ·Basin Way - Request for Use
Permit to Allow Reconstruction of Service Station - Continued··
from November 13~ 1972
Chairman Lively reopened the public hearing for UP-221 at 9:00 P.M.
The Secretary explained that contact had been made with the Bay Area
· ' "Air·Pollution Control District· c~ncerning thi's application.·.It_was
learned the District does not have to receive approval froma city
before it can act on an application. The Secretary read the Staff
Report d~ted'November 27, 1972 explaining that this applicant has not
made application to the Board, because it is first waiting to receive
approval from the City of Saratoga. ·~
· Mr. Nell K. Chase, present to represent the applicant, s~ated that
1) the Bay Area Air PollUtion ·C~ntrol District has since been contacted
relative to this matter 2) the District advised that it was necessary
to obtain approval from·the City:prior to any·i·sSUance of perm%ts from
the District 2) upon notification that the City Staff had contacted the·
· · District the applicant immediately applied to· that·agency for·clearance
3). a meeting is scheduled·for December 6,-1972·between'·the oil companies·.
and the District to set· up guidelines and recommendations 4) the City can
· grant approval of·the Use Permit and impose conditions that state the
approval is subject to the requirements of the District 5) the proposed
location·is an·unsightly corner 'at present and the-applicant ·desires to do
everything it can to construct the fineSt station possible and .improve the
· existing unsightly situation at this corner of Highway 85 and Big Basin Way
6) he would·request t~at the process of the Bay Area Air Pollution Control
District not be delayed and the approval of the Use Permit be .made subject to
...... the District'S requirements'.'
~5-
Planning CommissiOn Minutes - November 27~ 1972 - Continued
II. C. UP-221 - Continued
Chairman Lively closed the hearing.for the evening at 9:06 P.M., directed
UP-221 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the
Subdivision'.Committee for study and a report.
.D.~' UP-222 - Doreve corporation, Saratoga-Sunnyvale'Road -: Request for
Use Permit to Allow a Swim and Racket Club -.Continued from
November 13~ 1972
Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to UP-222 at 9:06 P.M,
The Secretary explained that ther applicant'did request via telephone
that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting.
Commissioner Smith explained that 1) this applicant did have an appoint~
ment with the Subdivision Committee and he did not keep.it and 2) what
the' applicant requests is clearly a commercial operation to be operated
for profit and if this fact had been made known this application for Use Permit
would not have been accepted. ;
qhairman Lively read the Staff Report dated November '27, 1972 recommending
that UP-222 be denied since it is'in violation of Section 3.3a of Zoning
Ordinance 'NS-3 which restricts clubs to non-commercial operatons.
...... Commissioner. Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall,.to.close.
.......... the.publiC hearing. in connection'with UP-222 at 9:09 P.M.; motion
carried unanimously. .... .... ... ......
. CommisSioner Smi.th moved, seconded by COmmissioner BaCon, that the
........... Staff Report dated November 27, 1972 be adopted and the subject reqUeSt.
for Use Permit.to allow a-swim aDd·racket. club be denied;. motion.carried.
unanimously.
E.' V-388 - Gary Gordon, Bank Mill Road - Request for Variance to Allow
....... · ..-.-. ...- .. ...Reduction in Side' Yard SetbaCk-_--RCquiremen.ts--.Continued.from.
November 13 ~ · 1972 ....
Chairman Lively reopened the 'he'a~ing 'at 9:-10 P.-M-. ..............................
The Secretary read the Staff Report dated November.27, 1972..recomm.ending
..... that the request for Variance in. connection with V-388 be approved.
Commissioner ~rshall stated that 1) it appears the original subdivi~er
.made an error in the dimensions__of.this lot and 2) if the .lot was not
.... legal from the start the sale of.same could be .shown-'to'-beillegal.
............................... T~e Secretary explained-that the. original subdivis{on map-for-this property
................ was plan-checked under the county jurisdiction. ·
Mr. Dan Trinidad,.Assistant DireCtor of Public Works~.stated'~'tha.t"under_....... ....
-' the present policy all subdivision·maps are' submitted'to the' City. of Saratoga'
for plan-checking and if there iS.any.doubt as to. the legality of'lot 'dimen-.
sions it is necessary to. submit .the dimensions to a computer for verification.
-Commissioner Martin.moVed, seconded by Commissione~ Marshal'], to-close the
.... hearing relative to V-388 at.9:22. P.M.;.motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Martin.moved, seconded.by Commissioner Belanger,.that the
" Staff Report' dated November 22, 1972 be adopted'and that' the subject request.
!.'. ~ .... for Variance be approved on the basis the findings required by. Section-17.6
of Zoning Ordinance 'NS-3 can be made for..the-reasons stated in said report.;
motion carried with .-Commissioner zMarshall · abstaining.. · ·
planning commission Minutes - November 27~ 1972~- Continued
II. F. V-389 - McDonald H. Smith, Elva Avenue - Request for Variance to Allow
Reduction in Side Yard Setback Requirements
The hearing relative to V-389 was opened at 9:23 P.M.
The SeCretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed and then explained·
that this is an odd shaped lot. 'He further stated that the applicant
did submit a Statement of Reason.
The a~licant was present and stated ·that the subject·lot is an eye sore
at this time because it is used by unknown individuals for a garbarge
dumping and neighborhood children use it as a play area. He further stated
that_it is his desire t0 take advantage of the magnificant view available
and in order to do that a Variance is necessary.
No one else present wished to comment.
Chairman·Lively closed the hearing for the evening at ·9:30 P.M., directed
"V-389 continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the·
Variance Committee for study.
-· Commissioner ·Martin, on behalf· of the Variance Committee, arranged for
an appoihtment···to meet with ·the applicant for·an on-site·insPection of
the property on Saturday, December 2, 1972 at 9:00 A.M.
RECESS AND· RECOllECt
III.' BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
-'...' .......A..o'--SDR~982 -·Charles Guichard, Wardell Road·- Building Site Approval -
2 Lots - Continued from November 13, 1972
The Secretary explained that th'e applicant has requested that the matter
be·continued··since he finds difficulty with the proposed conditions.
Commissioner Smith advised that the Subdivision Committee did meet with
the applicant and the neighbors. The neighbors were assured the applicant
· - 'c~woUld be required to do certain things and these requirements are included
in the proposed conditions of approval; therefore, there is not reason to
continue. this matter.
Commissioner ~rshall stated the· neighbors did ask that the City not
· - encourage the applicant ·to·proceed with··this development.·.·
...... Commissioner Smith, in answer to-an.i.nqui. ry..from. Commissione. r.-Belanger,
. explained that the tentative map is accepted on the basis of what the appli-
cant says-he could do in conn-eqtion with providing access to-.this develop-
ment; however, the final map must be legal and accurate.
Mrs. Venator of 21120 Wardell Road stated·_that she is causing li-tigation·
against this-applicant; therefore, site·approval shouid not be granted
until the proceedings are resolved. -' .... -.. " ...'
The Secretary explained that 1) originally the applicant proposed only
to remodel an existing barn located on' this property 2) it was determined
by the Staff at that time that the improvements would exceed 50%·and it was
recommended that he (the applicant) be required to apply for building site
approval - this recommendation=was overrule'd by the City Council because
they interpreted the applicant';s proposal to be less than··50%
Mrs. Venator stated that 1) _the applicant connected to a utility easement
on h'er property ·without first obtaining her permission 2)' this· connection···
was inspected by the PG&E Manager and the City Engineer and they both
considered the connection to be unsafe 3) the applicant-has not paved the
access road to the barn 4) the·applicant has taken advantage of the residents
of this neighborhood in many ways for five (5) years and 5) the applicant
should not be allowed to proce'ed with any further development in this are~.
Planning Commission Minutes November 27, '1972 - Continued
III. Ao SDR-982 - COntinued
Commissioner Marshall stated ·that 1) the main objection that all the
people living close to this piece·of property have is that the applicant
does not have legal access to the property and 2) .{f building site
approval is granted the applicant may go ahead without p~oviding the
required'necessary legal access.
Commissioner Belanger stated that if the ap~'licant does not own·the
required access to the property· then the tentative map may be misrepresented
and this'matter should be clarified before building site approval is even
considered.
The SeCretary recommended that the City·Attorney be consulted on this
matter.
Chairman-Lively so directed. He then requested the Secretary to contact
· ' the applicant'and obtain any additional 'information necessary·to resolve
this matter. ·The Chairman directed· SDR~982 continued to the next regular
.. meeting and referred same to·the Subdivision Committee for a report.
B. SDR-993 - Ralph Anderson, Quito Road - Building Site Approval - 3 Lots -
· · Continued from November 13, 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 Marshall, that·the
Building Site Commlttee Report dated November 27, 1972 relative to SDR-993
be adopted and·that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed September 28,
1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth. in said report; motion
carried unanimously. " i
· . 'C. SDR-994 - Jonathan Rueloffs, Wo0dbank Way - Building Site ApprOval - 1 Lot -
.......... Contlnued from Novemb&r'13, 1972· ..
The Secretary explained that the applicant has requested a continuance to
the next regular meeting to allow him additional time to '1) work out
s~ptic tank problems with the.H&'aith..Department and 2)·· contact the·adjacent
property owner about obtaining·property .t0 put in a drain field~
Chairman Lively directed SDR-994 continued ·to the next regular·meeting··
and referred same to the Subdivision Committee.
· · D.··SDR-1001 - Willard·Lynch,·Big Basin Way - Building' Site Approval - 1 Lot _.. ..... ... .... -_ Continued from November 13~_1972
Ccamaissioner"Marshall explained~that.".this'is theproperty the·individUal'····'···
Commissioners were asked to go look at ~ef0re·this meeting. '"
Commissioner Smith explained that 1) ·the applicant has two (2) small
houses on a 62-foot· lot 2) : ·· ·
one of the houses has been fixed up and looks
pretty nice 3) the other house'has been condemned by the· City.COuncil and
the'applicant has been required~tO fix it up or eliminiate it 4)·if the
house were torn down there would be a vacant lot which would have no appeal
either and 5)·it is hid recommendation'that the ·sUbject'request~·f0r build~·'
ing site approval be granted.
Commissioner Marshall stated that he disagreed ·to the extent that approval
would allow the continued use of this· house as a r.ental··and unless removal
of this non-conforming-structure occurs there will forever exist·a use
that is not consistent with the zoning. '
Commissioner· Smit·h· stated that if ·Commiss{Oner'Marshall's line of
reasoning'is followed·the·six (6) houses across the street from the
Oak Street School' should, also,:be removed.
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes - November 277 1972 - Continued
=. III. D. SDR-1001 - Continued
Commissioner Metcalf stated thai the City Council has given this
applicant the option to either tear this building down or.'.to'fix it up
and he has'choSed .to fix it up.c
" Mr. Lynch, the applicant, was present and stated that 1) it is the
-- responsibility of the City Officials to See that the'best use is made
of this property 2) he has decided this building does not need to be
torn down 3) .he has put five (5)' months of effort. into organizing
the remodeling of thes~ buildingS. 4) he has engaged an architect for a
fee of $510. 5). he (Mr. Lynch) is trying to save a building that is
t~QTyears old 6) Barbara Caldwell has been hired to supervise the
restoration of this building and 7) it would be economically unfeasible
to consider this property for c6mmercial development at this time.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by 'CommissionerBac0n, .that the Building
Site Committee Report dated November 27, 1972 relative to SDR-1001 be
adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed October' 16,.1972)
be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report';. motion
carried with Commissioners Belanger, ~rshall, and Martin voting "no".
E. SDR-1002 - Mobil Oil Corp., Highway 85 and Big Basin Way - Reconstruction
of'Se~'Vic~ Station -.1 Lot - Continued'from NoVember 137 1972
Chairman Lively stated that since UP-221 has been continued SDR-1002
must, also, be continued.to the. next regular meeting.
Fo SDR'-1007 - Ralph Pearson, E1 Qu~to Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot -
Continued from November 13, 1972
The Secretary stated the applicant has reviewed the proposed conditions
of approval and expressed satisfaction. with same.
It was proposed that condition "M" be added to the Building Site Committee
Report relative to SDR-1007 as follows:'
"M. Provide 50-foot setback on North side
of property."
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon that the Building
Site Committee Report dated November 27, 1972 relative to SDR-1007 be
adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed
November .2, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in Said
reportS.motion carried unanimously.
b. SDR-IO08 J.F. Zeid, PalominolWay - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot -
Continued from November 137 1972
__Th_e_applicant was present and stated he had reviewed the-proposed conditions'
of approval and expressed satisfaction with same
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Building
...... Site Commi.ttee Report dated_~ov~mber 27,'1972 relative to SDR-1008 be
adopted and that the .tentative map (ExhiBit "A", filed November 3, 1972)
be approved subject to the conditions set' forth in said report;'motion
carried unanimously.
H. S~-1009 - Saratoga Foothills DeV. Corp., Big Basin Way and Sixth Street -
Subdivision Approval Condominium - 29 Units'
Commissioner Smith recommended that SD-IO09 be-continued to the next regular
meeting.
Chairman Lively so directed.
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27~ 1972-- Continued
III. I. SDR-1010 - J. T. McManus~ Upper Hill Avenue - Building. Site Approval - 1 Lot
The Secretary stated that the applicant.had reviewed the proposed conditions
of approval .and expressed satisfaction with same.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Building
Site Co~anittee Report dat'ed'November'27, 1972 be adopted an'd that the tenta~
rive map (Exhibit."A", filed November 17, 1972) be approved subject to the
conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously
J. SD-1011 - ~al-West Communities~lSaratoga Avenue - Subdivision Approval 58 Lots
Coum~fssioner Smith recommended that SD-1011 be continued to the next regular'
meeting.
Chairman Lively so directed.
IV.' DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-403 - Mobil Oil Corp., Highway 85 and Big Basin Way - Reconstruction of'
-- Service Station -'-Preliminary Design Approval Continued from
November 13~ 1972
·Commissioner .Belanger explained that the Architectural Advisory Committee
is reviewing this application and .the related plans; therefore, no recommend-
ation.will-.be made at this time. ·
Chairman Lively directed A-403 continued to the.next regular meeting.
B. A-405 - Saratoga Foothills Dev. Corp., Big Basin Way and Sixth Street -
Condominium Development.- 29 Units - Preliminary Design Approval
The Assistant Planner recommended .'that A-405.be continued to the' next regular
meeting.
Chairman Lively so directed.
C. A-406 - Cal-West C0ummunitie~, S~ratoga Avenue - condomlni~m Development - 55 Units - Preliminary. Design Approval
.Commissioner Belanger recommnedeH'that A-406'be'Con~inued to the .neXt7
.... regular meeting~ ~ '
Chairman Lively so directed.
V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
The Secretary gave a brief summary.o~ .items reviewed and action taken at
the City Council meeting of November 15, 1972.
PLANNING POLICY COmmiTTEE " ;' ;. '. · ' .....
Chairman Lively' stated that a'.copy of t'he-minutes 0~ the last Planning/Policy
· . Committee meeting have been pl'aced'i~ each Commissioner's folder for .their review.
vi. oLD BUSINESS
A. UP-176 - Ditz-Crane, Yuba Court ~ Request for Extension -'Continued from
'NoVember 13,197'2 "'
The Secretary read the Staff Report'dated November 27, 1972 relative to
UP-176 .recommending..that the subject request for extension be approved.
Commissioner'Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the
Staff Report dated November 27, 1972. relative to UP-176 be.adopted and"
the request for a one (1).year extension be granted; motion carried unani-'
mous~y.
-10-
'-P!anni~g. Commission-Minutes - November 27, 1972 - Continued
VI. ·B·. SDR-895 -'S. B. Walton, Sarato%a Hills Road - Request for Extension ........ - Continued from November 13, 1972
The Secretary read the Staff Report dated November 27, 1972 recommending
the subject request. for extension in connection with SDR-895 be approved.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff
Report dated November 27, 1972 relative to SDR-895 be adopted and the
request for a one (1) year extension be granted; motion carried unani-
mously.
C. County Housing Goals ......
The Secretary explained that the. City Council has asked for a report and
recommendation from the Planning·Commission regarding the proposed County
Production Housing Goals.
Chairman Lively referred the matter to the General Plan Committee for.
Study and a report.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
None
VIII. COMMUNICATIONS
A. WRITTEN
1. Saratoga Country Club ··
The Secretary stated he had a letter from an.~.attorney, Mr. Russell
V. Roessler, requesting that this matter be brought up at the January 22,
1973 Planning Commission meeting.
2. Fremont Union High School Site ............. ~.-_~ ............~.._. ..... "'-
The Secretary read a communication received from Mr. Bob Wallenberg,
Chairman of the Hoo~er School Community Communications Group, stating ..........
that group supports Mr. Tom Sa~yer in his request_.to the City Council ......
of Saratoga for the purchase of the Fremont Union High School land site.
3. Emergency Ordinance 3E-10 :·
The Secretary stated that a communication received from Lorrainne A.
McLaughlin requests that Emergency Ordinance 3E-10 be denied by the
City Council. The Secretary. further stated that this matter will be·
considered by the Council at:its next regular meeting.
4. Final Report and Recommnedations for Village Development .... '-
Chairman Lively noted that a. copy of the final report and recommendations
~' ......... for village development has been supplied'to the Planning' commission ...............
by Willys I. Peck, Chairman of the Village Development Committee.
5. Low Income Housin.~ z
Chairman Lively advised that2 in the Commissioners folder is an in-'
formational report on Low Income Housing Projects supplied by the
City Manager.
-11 -
Planning. Commission Minutes - November 27., 1972 Continued
VIII. B. ORAL
Guests
Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Mayor
Smith, Councilma~ Kraus, and Mrs. Dorothy Parker of the Good Govern-
ment Group. He, also, thanked Mrs.' Parker for the coffee served at
recess.
IX. ADJOUR~rMENT.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, to adjourn
the Planning Commission meeting of November 27, 1972 at 11:00 P.M.;
motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley M. Walker, Secretary
Saratoga Planning Commission
-12-