HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-1966 Planning Commission Minutes SU~R.LA. RY OF MINUTES
CITY OF SARATOGA PLAN]qING COMMISSION
~! TI~ME: Monday, 24 October.1966, 7:30 P, M.
~ :. PLACE: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
'f ...."" ~e meeting was called to order by Chai~n Norton at 7:30 P. M.
A. ROLL C~L
· :' .' Present: Comissioners Crisp, Johnson, ~sner, Kellum, McFall, .Norton,
': and O'Rorke. · .........
, .". Absent: None.
B. MiNUTZS
~' ' .... Co~issioner Johnson moved seconded by C0~issioner O'Rorke,'that the
~' ;" reading of theminutes of 10 October 1966 be waived and that nhe
minutes be approved Subject to the following modifications:
Page 5...paragraph 2 ...... Insert "a portion of" at the end of ·
line 4..
~.; . Page 10..paragraph 5 ...... Change "west" to "east" in line 2.
~;. .. Motion carried unanimously.
~ ...... II. PUBLIC ~INGS
.~. A. L~-l!2 - Manuel Lozano, Prospect Road - Request for Use Permit for Car
"z Wash - Continued from 10 Odtober 1966
"' The continued hearing on UP-li2 was re-opened at 7:32 P. M. '~e Secre-
;"' tary briefly reviewed this mtter and read a co~unication from Robert
.~ Davies of Doyle Road, San Jose, opposing the granting of nhis Use Permit.
~'. '. ?nere was no one present who Wished to cogent with regard to this
· ' app 1 ica t ion.
The Secretary then read a Staff Report pertaining to UP-112,.reco~en-
ding approval subject to certain conditions.
"j ~'.' After discussion, Co~issioner Kellum moved, seconded by Co~:~issioner
~' Crisp, that the public hearing on UP-112 be closed; motion carried una-
nimously and the hearing was closed at 7:39 P. M.
Co~issioner Kelly moved, seconded,by Co~issioner Crisp, that the
Staff Report of 24 October 1966 relative to ~-112 be approved and that
the Use Permit be granted subject to the conditions set forth in said
report;'motion Carried'unanimously.
-1- ..
PianninI.~, Commission Minutes - 24 .October 1966 - Continued
iI. B. V-285 - Joseph Sherely, Cox Avenue - Request for Variance in connection
with Side Yard Setback Requirement - Continued from 10 October
1966
The continued hearing on V-285 was re-opened at 7:40 P. M. The Secre-
tary advised that. the.applicant had telephoned to 1) advise that he
would be unable to attend the meeting because of a business trip to the
East 2) request, in view of this, that the matter be continued until
the meeting on 14 NoVember 1966 and 3) explain that he planned to re-
vise the application when he returned.
Con~missioner Crisp advised that the study and report relative to V-285
had been completed but, in view of the foregoing, the Comanittee had no
objection to further continuance of this matter.
Chairman Norton then (7:44 P.M.) directed V-285, Joseph Sheredy con-
tinued'until the n~xt regular meeting.
.ii.-~-I '.' .C. CLAYTON J. SCOTT - Informal Hearing on Request that "Ski Shop" be. added
to the List of Conditional Uses for the Cormnercial
· '~."" Service (C-S) Zoning District - Continued from
..."...' i0 October 1966
The. informal hearing on Mr. Scott 's request was resumed at 7:45 P. M.
The Secretarybriefly reviewed this matter and advised that nothing
further had been added to the file.
There was no 'one present who wished to cormnent with regard to this
request.
... The Secretary read a Staff Report pertaining to this matter, recommen-
" : ding that "Ski Shop'~ be added to the list of conditional uses in the
.... C-S Zoning District.
After discussion, Chairnmn Norton directed the informal hearing closed
· .'.: (7:52 P.M.).
Commissioner Crisp suggested that the proposed use be listed as "Ski
.. Shop (Rental, Repair, and Sales)" for.clarification purposes. The Com-
mission concurred with this suggestion.
Commissioner Kellummoved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the
Staff Report of 24 October 1966 relative to Mr. Scott's request be
approved and, accordingly, that "Ski Shop (Rental, Repair, and'Sales)"
be added to the list of conditional uses in the Commercial Service
(C-S) Zone; motion carried unanimously.
· '.. D. ORDINANCE NO. 38.13 - Proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 38 Relating
to the Licensing of Horses and Stables - Con-
tinued from 10 October 1966
"1~7"7'!'~'~ ................ The continued hearing on proposed Ordinance No 38 13 was re-opened at
· ..~."' 7:51 P.M. The Secretary advised tha~ Messrs. Nielsen (who represented
..... ' the Castle Rock Horsemen's Association) and Lert (from the University
~i"= " of California School of Agriculture) had submitted written statements
..~.l. setting forth their comraents relative to the proposed ordinance. He
· .i. further advised that the City Attorney had briefly reviewed Mr. Nielsen's
',l statement and that his initial comment was that his (Mr. Nielsen's) ob-
"?~' jections appeared to relate primarily to policy.
Planninf~ Commission Minutes - 24 October !966 - Continued
II. D. Ordinance No. 38.13
In answer to an inquiry from Mr. Nielsen, the Secretary advised 1)
since September of 1961~ the City had received 14 applications for
Use Permits for 'horses· 2) 13 of these Use Pe~aits had been granted
3) one Use Permit had been denied, but only because of a problem
with the site 4) 18 different complaints had been filed during this
period 5) investigation confirmed 11 violations and 6) while some
of the complaints pertained to sanitary conditions, others regarded
illegal maintenance of horses.
In response to a comment from Bob ThompsOn (Mr. Eden Road), presi-
dent of the Castle Rock Horsemen's Association, the Commission eX~
plained 1) it was not the intention of the Comrnission to discourage
the maintenance of private stables in Saratoga and 2) the-objections
voiced by·the City in connection with Vince Garrod's application
(filed with Santa Clara County)' pertained to the proposed service·
station, restaurant, and the large expanse of galvanized roofing, not
the horses. ,.
After further discussion., Chairman Norton observed that the testimony
-. heard in connection with the proposed ordinance indicated that fur-
ther ~tudy was warranted. In vi¢w 0f this, he t) directed (8:!0'P.M.)
~his mat~e~ continued inde.fi~itely 2) advised Cha~ another Notice o~
Hearing would be published prior to further hearing on the proposed
ordinance 3) referred same to the Subdivision Committee for further
.. study and. 4) expressed ~h'e. hope that a study session could be sche-
duled when a revised draft had been prepared.
... E. ORDIN~tNCE NO. NS-3.12 -Proposed. Araendment to Ordinance No,. NS-3~
Relating to the Keeping of Horses and Denial
· - .... of Application for Change of Zoning - Con-
tinued from 10 October 1966
· ' The public hearing on.Ordinance NS-3'.12 was opened at 8:12 P. M.' The
,. Secretary briefly reviewed the. proposed ordinance and advised that'
no written communications had been filed.
Mr. Nielsen requested that this matter be continued until the hearing
on Ordinance 38.13 was resumed since the two were interrelated.'
There was no one else present who wished to co~ent wi~h regard to
this. matter.
:.... After discussion, Chairman Norton (8:14 P.M.) directed this matter".l
i""."'. continued until the hearing on Ordinance 38.13 was resumed, and ad-
· ·.. vised that a further Notice of Hearing would be published prior to
i:. that.time.
F. C-90 - Town & Country Realty, Cox Avenue - Application for Change of
' Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "Conditiona~ P-A" (Condi-
· ti0nal Professional-Administrative)·
The hearing on C-90 was opened at 8:15 P. M. ~e Secretary explained
that a revised proposal had been submitted by Town & Country Realty,
and that' the City Council had referred same to the Planning Com~ission
for review and recommendation.
Commission Minu'Les - 24 Cctober 1966 - Continued
ii. F. C- 90 - Tox.~n 6: Country Kea ! tv
i.ir. v.'~r.:.. :n:-3:ram, appiicant's attorney~ briefly re-~>'ie~Ted the subject
· c. ro:~osai and e:.~r~!ained that t'~e'' ~e!t it i) '~Tas the most appro-
-oriate use of the land and 2) would 'be quite corDzpatible with the
surroundin% area, Re also advised that he had spoken ~.~'ith Dr.
Abram~s attorz~ey~ x.zho was presently trying to arrange a maeting~
and it ,c~s ho'oad that the access problem could be solved to the
satisfaction o~ all concerned.
....... " ] ~ appii had ~,~oui~ed about purchasing
=',," Abrar~s advised _y tb.e cant _-- ~ '-
access across the i..iedicai ',/' ~ 1 e~, property, but ~.Tas unwi!ii'=~.g to
cor.~p!y T.~-T~ ~ ef ~-ln~. _.e~.c re. si:ric'[rions established for ~d-,~ !.iadi-
col' v~l~-=,~.-. a:d 2) in vi. aw Of "~ he felt both iegallv a:.:':d
~oratiy obligated to refuse to ~ra~t H-~e access, since it x.z,-2ul<! be
comoarable to selling a lot in the I,~edical v='~'.~ and ~waivinS the
, Z_.,_~D~
deed restrictiorzs after requiring full compliance from other !.on
n_ ;i'bra.ms also stated that he felt there %.Tas no estab-
~ o need for ~:urther P-A zoning in this area at the present ~--Y~e
I
Dir. ..ingrain concurtea' that, in view of ~-= p ....... ~ ~-
parties, the deve!opmants should certainly be compatible, but com-
mented that he felt Dr= i.'.{eieyco's proposal x.zou!d be compatf. Yie ,:.~ith
the surroundzng area and th-~t he c~u"d not be e~:pected to comply
v. Tith deed restrictions established in connection ~.~ith development
of another property.
tnamrraan i~orton em.cp.tained 'that I) the Co~mission ' s concern xTas ~ in
pa. rt, the problem of access since a large concentration of traffic
at' this intersection co~z].d create a hazardous situation and 2) a
~--ea~ dea~ of tithe and effort had gone into the deveio~on~ent of the
Medical V~i la~e ax~ t'he Cormnission u~. not want to ~eopardize same.
CorsDaissioner Ke].i~m~ further am<p!ained 1) access to the .su't.Lact site
is difficult 2) it x.~ouid h~zve been better if access to the two
parcels could have been con~bined so that the intersection could have
bean s~n~''1~','~ ~ <-~e Coz~naission had not felt that ~t was
ho~:Tever~ to ~ns'rst o-n an a.:=~ee~';-a~t ~"~':'w~en the tx.zo property owners
4) the site area of this 'parcel would permit appro~:imately throe
resid~n~--:a'~ sites' =~ the ,,d~acer,~ Medical Viila~e had been restricted
to one structure on each such site 6) in view o2 this, the
o ' ,. ~ ~'-~ o _
had su~;Sest:ed .... ~t the ay~n~2cant reduce '-'~ n~zber o~
-D.:,sed ~or ~hS.s parce~ 7) ~hc app~2ca~t b. a8 e:c~ressed w2Z~n~ness to
ccn~pZl '~,7~h tb.~s suggestion S) the appZ~cant had a~so a~aed to
ca2t the s~me conditions ~aaose8 (by the C2ty) on d~e ~.ied~c:~t
b.~ continued 'oe~-'~-~ rece~ o~ ~he revised
en the ~asLs o~ th2s recon":'e. enda~ion, Chairman ~rorton (8:47 P. ~.I.)
directe8 C-90, ~o~.:tn & Count:y Realty, con~2uued un~Z the nex~ re~u-
i. ar aee~2ng and refierred santa ~o d~e Subdivision Cot~=a~ttee ~or
d.~er study an~ a recorn~ax~da~on,
-4-
P].anninLi' Commission 7ylinu'.:es - 24 October 1966 - Continued
ii. !'.'. C-90 - Town & Country Kea'J_tv
· c,':onozai and ........ e- ~-hat t~'~e~ f~]t it was ~-~.~ most appro-
-oriate use of the land and 2) would be quite corapatible with the
surroundin% area, ile also advised that he had spoken with Dr.
Abram~s attorney~ who was presently t~v~n~ to a~ra~e a meeting
and it ~as ]~.~nd that ''-~ ....... ~] .,. be ' ' to the
~_~_ u~.d access u~vD_e~. could sOLved
satisfaction of all concerned.
Dr Abrams advised i) the applicant had ~ou-;r~d about puro!~asing
access across the ~,'[ed';ca] v.r '~ ] ~.y~ property, but was unwil!iD.% to
con~oi'v .~.,-~tB all c.f ~-1~. deed restrictions established for thc~ l.!adi-
cal Village and 2) in view of this, he felt both legally a:~d
:~craliy ob!~"~':'"~'c] to ~efuse to ~rant the access since it would be
comoarable to selling a 'lot in the ~.!edica! Village and waiving the
dee~ restrictions after requiring full compliance from other lot
owners. Dr.. Abrams also stated that he felt there was no egtab-
fished need for further P-A zoning in this area at the 'present time.
Mr. ingrain concurred' that, in view of ~-~ p ....... ~ ....
perties~ the oave..tc'.2ments should ce_ ~n._y be con~patibie: but com-
mented that he fe].t Dr', i<ie!eyco's proposal would be compatf::,ie with
the surrounding area and ~-~.'~- he could not be expected to comply
' '
~'yith deed restrzctzons astab!ished in connection with
of another property.
C'hai~Tnan i~orton. explained that !) the Cor~?~ission ' s concern was
part~ the problem of access since a large concentration of traffic
aE' this intersection could create a hazardous s~-ua~-~on and '2~ a
great deal of time and effort had gone into the development of the
~.iedica! Village and the Commission did hoe want to jeo
Con'missioner Kellmm further explained i) access to the .sub.i. ect site
is u.k~X~uL~. _~ it Would have been better if access to tke two
u!,'~ have been combined so that the intersection could ~nave
uarce!s co _- --
felt thaz ~t
however, to insist on an agreement between the two property owners
site area of this parcel would permit aD~roximatelv three
rasidentiai sites' 5) the adjacent Medical Village had been restricted
to one structure on each such site 6) in view of 'this, the Cc~?z~ittee
had suggested that the applicant reduce the n~mber of ~ 'ildings pro-
'oc. sed for this parcel 7) the applicant had expressed willingness to
ccmp!y with this suggestion S) the applicant had also agreed to ac-
' ' C y~ H~e Medical Village
ca2t the same conditions ramposed (by the itS] on ~_
and 9) it was the recor:racndation of the' Con~ittee that this nmuter
ba continued oend';ng receipt of the revised o!ans.
C'~n the basis of tb. is racor~.znendation, Chairman Norton (8:47 F. H.)
directed C-90, Town & Courff",-y Rea!t ,~ until the regu-
..... ~ continued next
an ~
far .... e'~n~ .a re~erred s~'.~-~ to tBe Subdivision Comzmittee for ~ur-
ther study and a recom:nendation.
-4-
THE REPRODUCTION OF
THE FOLLOWING IMAGES
MAY BE IN POOR
CONDITION DUE TO THE
VARIATION OF COLOR AND
QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL
Pi=,..lr.n:,'.`'. iC,- ".'.issic;n }.:finnires 2A October
........... .- . .: },~o ......
Ti. G. ORi'ZN"-.NCv! NOo NS-3.].3 - Pro-.2c. sed j-'k'ncndu.c:r.'- to C.:udinance No. MS-..3
"ifi..'..:'ni'~.~{. uc, R'.'_::ir.-..a~er:t l:'$ci!ities
Thc i:~ubiic hearf. nS c!r_ praisesad Oralins:ca 'i'Ve. l..lS-2.13 ,:.Tas ope.::ed
~:u "'-'.'-{5 ='~ -Di. ':.'i"..e SGcreu~:..ry advi~';crl t/rat a lfoz:". .... r Nlas:z'.'i~']
.::ec'.-; '2u":}Zis'.:':ad and d~.ere ':,:'ere no wr:.7. tter...c,sr:s..~uni.:atio?.s on -file.
Co.".'.:-~issior. sr failure e'_,.~:oi~-:inad i~ L".'_.,z ,_:.~.ad fs;: ~: raalr'r...'r..e"_',.t fac'iZity
...l::/.::aretoSs has 'been felt for sou-re t:;.t?a 2) the 'i.iay.or recently ap-
.'x,,' ..'~ted a Citizens Cor~n-ni';.::.zc~s: to n:zLi.te a study ,z:!..a'..: '.:':_'!::".it reco:,u::c, nda-
'- ;.-,'-q ~" the ;.~ro;';ose<-! a'.,.',:=n:h="..ent is based on the recomme:.'2datior~s of
; % ,~ - - · ~..,t.
.:l../s Co...ma::e'i-,:--Cee and --:.z tlt't..'-t an:end:-..ze..-..: ~-.zou!d, in ~:72ect~ .pert~2:: ..... e
,:.~s~-;'bl~:s'~,:,~er.,~- o:..':' a ret:.'ira~.ent f,:ci!:tty in an,~' .'-:or~e i'-l, ti":a ~";y ur:der
::. Use Perm..it lie !urtl'....'.'-r 9x:'}iair~ed ti'.'at under ti'.-e suB'~ecz 2"'o2~~'-':
- s ..... "'
:L' s m.inimua,','~ off five acres :.7.suld be rat'aired for such a deve'~ o~'}',,ent
:.!l~~.:.. condor,.xlr..iura~ rental;. or total ca're fa..:i!'_'_tl/would :'~a ,:.ermitted
"' '.'_'i'~a age of '.:he raside~.:'is ef sd. ch a "'~,'{'.iuy '{.rnu=.4 be ','est:'icted
"'~ ""~'-~ or older z:' ':ke 2:[i!iluz[: re. umber.: ~'? '- ' s~:}acas
,.-o ,,,j ~ ....... . .... 2~.:z..rz:ir,.,S , _.
3a c.r..e fo:c each. enployee l:i. us such additional s-2acas as w<,.'..r.:!; s;':}eci-
.'Z:i. 2c:" !:-:;:- t?:e Planni.,-;S Co:..-.:::.sslar,. 5:. cl:a height of structures ,:-:t::}u. ic
-irr..ite,.i, to ;:.hree s'L'.or~es 6\ q i'E.:i-]i, IiT2j-'t2 Of 2 ';'~;' square feet site area
'..~ .... George i.tocher o~ ~:~ ..... Drive o'~-<~-,,'~,~ ~hat -'-:',~, p~:o~o.'-;a~
'.zo'..d.d permit c. oD_structio':: ,,}:.{ 20 urnits per acre.~ or ZGO houses {units}
st:. st'..ch a five acre parcel_.
Cor;.:.?:issioner Ke!i';a.m advi.-:;ed tb_:!~r paolzle who have developed such.
:iac:.'.!itics hard ir.::C-orm,a5. the .ton-anintea that ten acres is actually the
::,tir:imum for anonomit gea~iaiiity.
Ro::,:_,rt F'!ane of -::Douglas l.-'.. :...a com..::rf:ta{:: Chat !) i'_,is '.~.etiticr,',_ for half-
" ..... :,reside:if,21 ',-:"'.in,;:.: ~".:: the '~"~l.',=,s LaD_e area, si':-F.:ad by o'c.,z::}.ers of
:.C;j." acres i'2. tl"..is a.'..:aa; was rejected under t'-'.":e Genera! l:ian Eeview
';"" ha had; ther-afore., oroc^- 'e" with ~-;ians de=":,'~','-
=,:'.C =e tO , ,.;_, ~ the. :~-'-'~'~'-?t
:,~:le.r tb.e e:,,:isti2_.S acre rc~iS-entia" zo'n{,~. 3} '."he ?...o',;2es were
........ 87'~..000 a'~.; '-':-3 a r. etzr~r..~ant ~ ...... x..~ ._ ~'~ the area
zt !'i;}U,OCu to .
· . , ,.-, ' de xe] 0-2 -,~r,'," ,... '
..,:,'.~id lower p:,:oparty vah.~;.s.
'.%.'. :s Zar}.iciP. :ceal. to::~ o!' :'-'-fred 1'2 'L,'ara'Pcpja r:o';.z i'--_a.s the s',:z=zue~~..zide
· '....-:,._,.Lz.-'...t-lon of be2r..S a wo,'ala:'rful v;l.-z,:;a to "ire. 2) ;: .:.v proposal
.:c:';Z;l change tl:a Las:.ic c.-.::.aa"::: sh.'at:id ba co::s:.'_da:.:ed vet:/carr.-::'L"ul!y
:.,:.:l 3) the ,-:ub':ect ordl'_..a_'.c~:} as '~'-o';-.{'.,~-~.,'~ would de
'3o'...:.,:f. ssloner C:.-:Ls-:} a:ivi.'.~:c.. l_;. th:i C:'Ltizans Cc.r.~nittae and iubdi,;ision
.;err:liE'tee ?:aC. Ta,16. e a ti'~.c;::c'5.Si. :.,'tu.ly and vf_site.'i a _~.,..>~;_ c::.:.' retire-
:::.-L:': f$:cz.t:uu_.c:s iu the a;:::':...~. :.::.,Id 2) '.:key found ":hat ...... ~'-
7r.,'.'.t:r!y o'c2ar.:'.:zad a'.-td act :ro':.iei ,:zere very baat.:t:Lful reslde?.t:ial
:.:'. s and an asset: to the acu.'.YnVnities i'n whff. c'r_ .F--~v were l. oc:zte!
C':..'.issioner 2le'.-'.i-::.',.'::., witL. :'a:rare'.:tce to his statement E!'~.at 'ti'~ere
· _'x'a.i for s'cck a :Zacr/iii:y' f_T:~ .5.2zratoZas al.:,miair:ad !1 the Corg:-alttee
'.,..d four',.,.i that ~::&'..'::,., pesple ?ad fc:und it necassa',ry to leave Sa:rat.r~Sa
"~ ~ · ,.c,-;'i ,; ] o'n=e''- .?.aiF. ta ~"
...ire:.-: .:n,!.y ....... 'nc ..... a~ -. :!.P their l~.rSe p'_-o.gerties ar:d
hh.:! :Cor=u,.:itaea had a'i ~-o found t]-.at in .cSenerai~ such establishments
...,,,..::'c co:-,-sidered pretty good neighbors..
-5-
.~::.t the request o:~ the Co'-'r.'.f. ssio'~.~ t]:c: gecretary 7:ead the Citizens
the ~"~yorc in july and us~zd as a basis for tile subject an~andment
to Ordinance
a~:bj ether con':n:;nity ~ac:i'Lities ~Fe permitted in all zoning dis-
tricts t;nder 'D'se i-'erraits~ a~-~d raised the questio~ as to whether
a'retira'L'~ent faciiiuy ~.-~c, uld be so differenz.
'~'~:%-3.13 be cloze. d~ u~oti'e;-~. czrried unar, imous!y and the he~..ri-c=g was
closed. at 9:15
tb.a proposed ordinance ba n'~odified as ~o!!o~7s:
(i) Pa~'e 2 "second oa~sagra~h. .Rej~er ~-~ .... ~,~st ....... C,~=."e ~
this paragraph bac~=;' to the
~_~ -.~ornay ~,;=it~t a request
EL!~'C . ~7 ............ =.~!OyeeS with "'ox,mers or occ'upa.nts
and their guests~' and 2) re-phrase this sentence for the
purpose of clarification.
(2') Page 2...last p~:~ragraph ........ Change ~five acres=: to ::ten
~Cres ~; .
(3) !~age 3...~!irst paragraph ....... Change to read .as f3!.iows:
, pa:c::mrzg requirements shai'i one s-pac:~
ea'~h eEpioyee D'i u,.~ the nun,he,- of additS. o::j.i ,=",~,cec
(4) Correct t.,'po,~ranh'{c~l
Cc, Yn:n~issioner Keilum mov~d seconded by Con~raissione:r ;2.lcFai!~ that
?farthing Cotremission recor:~ner:d to the City Council th. at proi>osed
Ordinance N "~' '
-,o. iqS-3./s~ as revised ;~v ~he ~]ann';,=~' Ccxrr~nission be
en~:.cted.
,j]c:u?raissioner Orfl. or'ke e:cprassed ,'o,~c~"r,~ ~,2'ith --e~o~c'- to the orom-ased
o.:,jznance a--,4 observed i2 '~,~ ,, x a~'~": .... that Cam-
n'~Lrz':ity Ordinance, adoptc~d: some time ago, has not been successful
sir:ca .no d,ave!op_~:ertt !-~as yet been constructed under sa~2a 2) d~e cost
:)'l: Dl'c, oargy ill F:~-.~.,-n;~-~ i:s prohibitive :for development of a reZire-
';.:3r:.t faci'Lity in the ntoaerata priced ~ie!d 3) i~ further provision
:Ls to be znade ~!or such a deve!opnten:.. ho~.yever~ standards n~ust be up-
'i:..a].d, _,_~ .... ~ ...... o2 cost~ and detailed plans must be required prior
,-', aporova! ,zr:d 4) in vie~..z of the ~o=-ego':~,~ ';~- is quite possible
t'nat this ordinance,~ too; may prove unsucessful~ that enactment may
be no more :hen an iBie gesture.
Planni?,,,~ Con~n~.ission Minutes .- 24 October 1966 - Continued
iI G. Ordinance No. '~S ~ 13 "
Commissioner Crisp3 observed that !) the Citizens Comittee Report
had gone to the City Couacil with the Conmission's approval 2) the
City Council had~ in t'urn, requested that an ordinance, incorpora-
ting the Con~aittee:s reconmendations, be prepared and 3) through
the combined effort of tl~e Sta:;!f, the City Attorney, and the Subdi-
vision Con~mittee~. the subject ordinance had been drafted in com-
piiance with this request.
Aifter further discussion, a vote on Commissioner Kelium's motion
carried with Copmmissioners Xasner and O'Rorke abstaining.
p~...,.~ ,,~.,~..- i.IECOI\rgENE
III. S'i~BDiViSIONS AND BU!LDiI{G SITES
A. SDR-661 - B. T. Ga!eb, Saratoga-Sunn~ale Road - Building Site
ADDrOvai. I Lot Continued =~- 10
- - =~o~n October 1966
Conmissioner Keli~ suggested that SDR-661, B. T Ga]eb be con-
tinued until the 'ne~<t re,:~u~a~ meeting, since a report had not yet
been received from the Director of ~Dub~ ic Works relative
right-of-way width.
Chairman Norton so directed.
B. ~DR-662 - Guist & Beanb ]~elnap Road - Buf!ding Site Approval - 2 Lots -
Continued from 10 October ].966
~ t-!r. Guist, after revie~,~ing the proposed conditions of approval, pro-
tes~-~d Conditions !!-H (pertaining to drainage) and iI-j (relative to
~ underground utilities). After discussion, ho~.~ever~ he agreed to ac-
~ cept the conditions of approval and, at a later date, request recon-
~ sideration if he and i~r. B~-m felt it was ~,'a~ ...... ~
Con~niSsioner Ke!i~3~n moved, secc. nded by Coranissioner Crisp~ that the
B~'~d~n~,- Site Con~nittee ile~ort of 24 October 1966 relative to SDR-662~ ....
Guist & Beam, be adopted and that the tentative map (E>:hibit ';A-i
filed. 20 October 1966) be approved subject to the conditions set forth
:.~
in said report; motion carried unanimously.
S!)R-663 Michael Sam~n~ ~',~'~ Road Buiidin~ Site Ao'orovai - 1 Lot
~i:i!es Rankin, realtor, n.,~d 1.1r. Sam~son were prese~,~ and after re-
v:.lex~ing the proposed conditions of approval, questioned Condition iI-A
(pertaining to i~provement of tb.e corridor). ~D~r. Rankin suggested the
'gossibility of constructing a !4-foot improvement in lieu .of the pro-.
posed iS-foot requirement inasmuch as the corridor x~ou!d serve only one
lot.
Co~mrlssioner Keii~n e:~p!ained 1) the subject lot has a long drive~,,ay
2) fire is a 'hazard in such an area 3) one par!ted car could b!ock'a
iz:--foot driveway and 4) in view of the ~oregoing, it was felt that an
18-foot improvement was needed.
a ~ Com~ission Minutes - 9/L October 1966 - Continued
ili. C.; SDR-663 - Michael Sampson
=~ ...... further discussion, M'-. Sampson agreed to acce~t the proposed
conditions of approval. "
Cor~missioner Kel!um moved~ seconded by CoF~issioner Crisp, that the
Building Site Con~aittee l<eport of 24 October 1966 relative to SDR-~663
be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit uA~', filed 14 October
I°~) be approved subject to the conditio~ set forth in said report;
motion carried unanimously.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-232 - Nelson .L. Ewing~ Big Basin Way - Final ~esign Review - identi-
fication Sign for Shaw's Ict Cream (Plaza dei Robles) - Con-
tinued from' 10 October 1966
Com.missioner O'Rorke advised that the subject sign had been modified
and that. the Staff had informed h~ that a review of the revised
plans revealed that it now met all requirements of the ordinance.
After a brief discussion~ Con~issioner O'Rorke moved, seconded by
Commissioner Kasner, that final design approval be granted A-232 on
the basis of Exhibit "' '"
· ~--1. and the colo~ schedule set forth in the
Staff Report of 24 October i966 relative to this application; motion
carried unanimously.
B. A-233 - Paul Fiehagen, 'Big Basin Way - Final Design Review - Identifi-
cation Sign for !~laza del Robles - Continued from I0 October
1966
Commissioner O'Rorke briefly reviewed this application and called at-
tention to the Staff Report of 24 October 1966 recommending approval
of same.
Commissioner O'Rorke moved, -seconded by Con~missioner Kasner~ that
final design approval be granted A-233 on the basis of Exhibits
and "B"; motion darried unanimously.
V. Ci'.j3~ CO~CiL ~EPORT
ChaiLman Norton gave 'a brief· report on discussion and action at the City
Council meeting on 19 October 1966 with emphasis on items of particular
interest to the Commission.
Vi. ~IEW B'USiNESS
Hi~zhway 85
The Planning Director presented a proposal (colored map) for the im-
provement and beautification of Highway 85 in the Con~ercial Service
Zone, providing traffic circulation through a combined service road--
parking area with various access points to the high~,~ay. He _j called
attention to the abundant landscaping indicated on the plan 2) stated
~-~n'- felt
.... u.he the plan, in general, was a much better approach to the
~uprovament of this area than the previously planned service road and
3~ .....
/ observed that the over-a] 1 right-of-way required under this proposal
x.~ould be 20 feet less than that required under the previous plan. He
-8-
.......... - ,--. .,..You -
· l~iCll ~.~;~]~S''-~2 :--~.~;~v <.-]~= ~'~ ...... ~- "~ ........ '] :--.z/ ::ecill.gste~, & reconuner;dation
f',:om the Co::ra:isslcn as t:~ w'3.ethe:' if:is r.~ ~, should be ado:oted in
i:Le.u of the v-ev~o~s D!:i::. f:Dr tile area.
...'.ker discussion, it wa.s r:sved b~, Commissioner Crisp and ~eeo~;~d
:-,.:.= C,:~ ~ s~'~ ~,~I:-~.';'' i(ei. ium .:::au one ~ ...... .~:'-a~v be authorized to infc, lm'!
· :"..:z: City Council that tl'n:~ sub=act Dro:~osal for tz~.~ improvement and
'.'~..:~autiffication ,--',: ~l-:,~'~"u.m'~ g5 in ~':-~ Canm:erciai Service Z~e has the
a~i::rovaZ of the ]~ianninZ Cc~::nission; motion car:clod unanimously.
B. ~..' ~';:n.s
":1:~: Cormhiss:ion called at'.".ention to illegal signs being displayed at
· .:..'e B",:',e iii!!s ~:'~ ...... ="".'~ "~-"-~'- and i~eai:
':":.&t '["%8 S~'~'F'y check ~]'v,-o :hase r::~tters. m'~ x.m ~urther re~ueste. d
· " ....... the Staff investigate the ~:,ossibii~t~, o~ ~ !~_~oscaping
i::: :front of NeaFn~s Koi!o~...'.
~:::)!i-655 - Dr. Donald i-la'n:~ey:, Farwell Avenue - _%equest for ~.iodi:~ica~
riot:: of Conditions of ..!ppro'va! -=- Ccntinued fror~ :.0 October
$nai'~?.an ~!orton d:[rected SDR~655 csntinuad Until the next ragu!ar
::~.'3eti'i':g since t!~e necessary additional in:for:nation had not been re-
calved from Dr. iEanbey.
v~'r~ ~' ....7:!iU~3iCAT!ONS
A.
"~ C-43 - Dr. Isaac i~', .~".brs. ms: Saratoga ~:venue - Request 'F~'~ '~.-'d~
tion. a3_ Use u:'ff~.e:: Conditional Zonin.~
_'~ ........... ~ , ~:~ ~-=~ .... ~1 Village,
t ....... a = ...... ~ fro: Dr /~bra!is of
re .ciuest:Lng 't?mt ~:Cor:va!escent !-iospital TM be added (ur.der tl-i.e condi,-
tiona! rzm:~.,~c- on ti'tis 'oro~e:.:'t',G as a conditional use fo:2 Lots !5>
16: and "7 of the ?ledice! Village.
::k:fteTc a brief discussion> C!l&.lffil&il -l~]orton directed that an informal
heaririS be set o-n ~-]"~s .... ~ ..... + fol' tBe meeti:~z on 14 i<faver::~ber i966~
al:::d z'ef'arred uhis ma';:iueT to t!'x5 Subdivision Cox~.:nittee :Cc.r study and
a report at tllat time.
2. :2-.-65--' Josc?h P. lon.%~ Saratc,.ga .$:i~enue - Kequesc that Cc. ndi.:iona!
Uncond itiona 3. ::c:":lun~ u ~r Cc::-cne:r .ciali ~C-C): 9:c/~i-:~?: ....
C:The Secre';1ary 'z:e-'~.d a. co~i'anunlcaticn fron! joseph P. Long, requestin.g
that tile '~'~'~ '~ ~'~ ...... ~ COy;T:n'U~'~ U'v Co~n!erc!al
· on his property on Sara'co~.ja .237e'.lue be cha[.{jed to Uncondit:Lonai
Cn-,~'~'u,~'[~'-'., Corauercia... {C-.C.;
After 6. iscuss:Lon. Cllaix'man Norton requesteeL ':-%-.- !) the Secretary
request a~-:- coinion :[-'rom the City Attorney
h,~a:~ing should be sc}'.3duied on this request 2) he> accordingiy~
set eith. era :~orrna:[ or an in:formal '['.ean-';=~c~ on t!iis matter for ~-Be
· zoo. tinS on 24 .Ncven~!::.ar 196d and 3) that !'~" Lon~ rneet with .....
Subdivision Ccnm~ittf~.:: or: !IondaT~ 31 October
rcc. uest.
__ .~. ~... .7':c.;~'.v,.-Y. ss:,.'.on i.2ir:.:':.:~s -- 24.0?'-oz..i:.c 79.36 ,- Continued
VIii. A, i:~. SD-525 ,. '.'7v.~.:2.2: D,-.:.~- .','arc.:t' i i'!oad -.- iledu. est :for Extension
2;'i~a Saciyata~fy---r~ ,i co..:rsunicat:ion from ~,~=' V~;-m~ requesting an
exUension o:ff one ya.'t: i'.t connection with SD-525. Ha than ex-
plained t;'~at titare ".:';.s a question as to x.zhathar the Planning
~ .... ="~;~- could further cxtel!sio~% ~ c,:Tnnec-
~,o.nm,=~,,:,~...,,.~ i.a;';: i:.':.L,~' -~r.znt
tion wit;h 'ti'tls subd.t-:i. sien b.=causa of a recant .. u ...... ~ of
the i',%aD .ict.
After discuss'~o=~ Chair'clan l<~o~c[~on directed SD-52= contiru~d
until the nax'~ regu.]..~=r ,.'=,~'<n2 and requested that ~-~.- Planning
Director confer vT-{c-". r~-.. City-uttorney ~.~th regard to this re-
cuest ai~d the 2].E~ii'~IiT~=..i Cormr~issioll~S aut~hority to e?~=~t same
Z: . SD-527 - ]:iazm~ar irfv.c=b'Lraent Company~ tnc.~ Walnut Avenue - Re-
ot'..Z'.St for ]. l.~dlL ::'/c~:.t:f. on of Conditions of Al)r~rovai
The 5':-::ra'ca:zy ':.,.zd
Z.'ia:-:;-na's itr;rasl~,.r_~: Corai::.anlz~ inc. ~ requesting n~odification
of the cor. ditf.-z"zs csta. bllshad under SD-527 to permit ro!-
led curbs ].z~ t.l:.s ;suDs!viol_on in lieu of vertical curbs
on the basis o:7 a:::sthc:t:ics.
.........
CO';7~mtLSSZtOi~,3r .LL:.~ .fliEs adVZS~C{ ~.~._ o .. ;~ _I _s ion Co'n~a~aittee
, Sa "" ~-fa~'i-o~-=~ and that
felt tea roliad cut. rbs would ba ~uita
the )Bitactor o:U i"ubi ic l:'Orlas concurred.
After dlscussicr:, Con~rnissio'ztar Kaiiurz moved, seconded by
Corrznissionar ,io~.nson, that the Planning Commission recom-
mend to the Ciuy Council uhat roi" ,~" ' be
this dava!oi~zta'nt
mot ion cart lad u .2=:'.ni'~tous iy.
(b) l.i: leo'nor e2c,.~l:_ai::.ad ~--k ..... baca',jse of ti'te da~ =~,, in 'urying
to ~:,;c, ri.c out tl!Ci:: prob!.a.'..s x. zith the Yic. od Control District,
an az:ter~sion o.Y tit.~a 'c,f~uld be needed in connection ,:,zith the
""' "':" on thi
conditional z,s:::; ;:S v-,'-, :-~ s property.
"' ......... -'"
;~i~tzei- discltgs:L:...~ ,.,o...=::.._u.~.;u..u: ~.. 'moved, seconuad b7
~]c:rz~.~iss:lonar C" zu= d~z:'d ........ "' ........ :,-~-Y .... reconmtand to the
City Co'ur:ci/. ':l.:'t -in a'::ttension be grar:t:,ad in connection
. r.c .........,"'-.'-~<' ~.=,~-~ ba,.-'i'p. '
wi/:':. 8-7i
sj-"'u. ct4sr~ ar=.d ::'..t~ '.', ...... ~ (from ~', ...... '~'~"-~' to complete con-
:S/l.l?l~Cti. Oil S IlK)
~,y i'.l::, Ze.,j:a',c: auv..:..=.~ 'dha:: ha ~::,ro~ogad to develop this su.bdi-
vision as a coc,'.;arat:iva instead of a condominium, and in-
ouirad :?.s to w!K..ti-~ar this '~,ou!d meat ~:rith the approval of
t ';! e C i t ';7 ·
The <'.~c-~'.~-~r~' c~dvi:.:ad tB:~t the forms d',-a'~
.......... , ......... n~a City
~:ittorr~ay uo~...u t.e used in connection ~.~ith esther a coopers-
live or a condor;'.ini'dm~ a-~xl that same were ava.'il. abla at the
City !is!]..
l.'h- llasi!er el.i~Iz/ir~c=d that in,~o~'no',-at{=~,-,' an a~e restriction
into tl'=a Deed i{astrietions oresexited a probl. an~ t.:~ith fi-
· nancincc.., and inc~uirad ~,~ to '~'}~t~=~-? this age restriction
could ba esta'Ll=.ffshad in the contract '{-:'iti'~ t.ha City.
A:iitetr f,'= ~'v,-."'-:.-~' Chairr=nun Norton referred this m,:~tte. r to
th~ Su.7':Civisic.'n C.:::,~v?ittca :for stud7 and a report.
-IC-
Viii::,. A. 5. 'U?.___i~7~2 - l. Zrs, Lucca.". '.'::-::':.._';~,orc!'.an:i; Scuza Lane - Request for Per-
Tb.e S:ncre. tary read ~; cc:.'.~?.unf. cz::tion from P~rs o Luceal Wastr.-.,ore-
land of tl~c !')'estmoroland Convalescent Iiosp:lta!~ reque~sting per-
mia:sion to add a i6~.]:.ad addition to the adjacent Easpital
B~a:-cl~ nq i-lonle
Chairman ].<3'=='t~,r.m req'uaste-d that tl~_e Secretari>' obtain a'-'-,- e]>inion
from t]".,.a City Attorney as to ~.~!'-'ethe'.,..- a fo',_"r..-~al hearinL=- should be
held in ccnc:.=.action ~.rith this recues'~-., and that=, accordir~gly, he
sc!%edule e'ith~-~r a forn':a! or an info~_7.~ai kea~.-ing fo~c tb_e ~neeting
on 14 %{oven'ber 1966,
Cnairrftan ~¢-',=--~'n a:c'knowic:~ged, ~.,7-'.t~'~ p].easure~ the p'resenze .'.'::'= C,.%~k.nci!-
Tyler, ~.~asc~a~nes Owo? and St,zrk of the Good Government ~""'~u? a~d
i!~sdames u,..u ...... o and Dully of tlza League of !.'7omen Voters,
Ci~innan }!o'z'ton declared 'the meeting ~'..ijcurned at 11:21 P. '_~.'i.
-I!-