Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-1967 Planning Commission Minutes SUif,'i, iRY OF MI~UTE S CITY OF SAi~.TOGA PLANNING COMMISSION TIME: Monday, 24 july 1967, 7:30 P.M. PLACE.: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California' TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Crisp~ Johnson, I~asner, McFall, Norton, O'Rorke and Smith. Absent: ·None. B. MINUTES Conmissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Coramissioner Smith, that the reading of the minutes of the 10 July 1967 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following changes: page 3. .paragraph 2. .line 1. .insert "for the evening" between the words "closed" and 'iand" page 3. .Item F. (V-300). .paragrah 4. .line 1. .insert "for the evening" between the words "hearing" and "on" page 3. .Item G. (V-301). ~. .paragrah 6. .line 1. .insert "for the evening" between the words "hearing" and "and" page 7. .item A. (SD-694). . .paragraph 2. line 2. .insert "recommend to the City Council as follows" ·between the words "Crisp" and "to"; motion carried unanimous ly. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-71 - Maxmr Investment Company, Walnut Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-1-12,500" (Single Family Residential) to "R-M-3,000" (Multi- Residential) - Continued from 26 June 1967 The continued hearing on C-71 x,ras re-opened at.7:36 P.M. The Secretary read a letter submitted by Paul O. Frechette, on behalf of the. applicant, requesting withdrawal of the present proposal and Stating that it was the intention of the applicant to proceed with development on this property in accordance with the plans previously approved. Commissioner Crisp stated that 1) had a request for withdrawal not been submitted this application would have been denied 2) if the withdrax~a! · is granted the applicant will be able to request a refund of fees and 3) a great deal of money has already been spent to process this file. Chairman, Norton advised that the letter requesting withdrawal could be refused and ~he request for Change of Zoning could then be denied especially if it was desired to bar any further requests for Change of Zoning on this property for awhile. He further advised that in the past, action has been terminated on a Change of Zoning application when a request for withdrawal was approved. -1- Planning Commission Minutes of 24 July 1967 - Continued II. A. C-71 - Continued At 7:47 P.M., Commissi6ner johnson moved, seconded by Co~m~issioner Smith, that the hearing on C-71 be terminated; motion carried unanimously. After discussion, CoF~issioner Crisp moved, seconded by Con~nissioner McFalt, that the Planning Co~m~ission recommend to the City Council that the request for ~ithdrawal be approved with no refund of fees recommended,and subject to the understanding that had the request for withdrawal not been submitted, this application would have been denied. Motion carried unanimously. B. REED'S CARPETS - Russell. R. Reed, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Informal Hearing Request to Add Floor Coverings and Draperies to the List of Uses Permitted Under the !'C-S" (Co~nercia! Service) Zonin~ District - Continued from 10 July 1967 Chairman Norton opened the informal hearing and inquired if there ~.~s anything new in the file. The Secretary explained that he' had been unable to contact the City Attorney for consultation with regard to this matter; therefore, recommends that same be continued.. Commissioner McFall 1) advised that there were technicalities relative to this matter that should be verified with the City Attorney and 2) agreed that this request should be continued. ~. Peters of 12230 Highway 85 was present and asked what consideration could be given to Young's Piano and Organ Store (adjacent to Reed's Carpets) in relation to a similar request as the one submitted by the applicant. Chairman Norton notified ~·. Peters that he would have to present a similar proposal to the Planning Co~nission asking that piano and organ stores be added to the list of uses permitted in the "C-S" Zoning District since .no consideration can be given without such a formal request. The Chairnmn then closed the discussion for the evening and directed this matter continued to the next regular meeting and again referred it to the Subdivision Committee. C. QUITO ROAD PLaN LINE - Request ot Consider the Proposed Quito Road Plan Line - Continued from 10 july 1967 The hearing was re-opened at 7:56 P.M. The Secretary briefly reviewed this file and stated that the City Council had approved the necessary changes recommended by the Planning Commission. The Secretary read the Staff Report of 24' July 1967, recommending that the Quito Road Plan Line be forwarded to the City Council for approval. It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to close the hearing relative to the Quito Road Plan Line at 7:58 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McFall, that the Staff Report of 24 July 1967 be approved and that the Quito Road Plan Line (Exhibit B-l) be recommended to the City Council for approval; motion carried unanimously. -2- Planning Con~n:ission Minutes of 24 July 1967 - Continued II. D. V-300 - George Britt, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way - Request for Variance in Connection with Sign Requirements - Continued from i0 july 1967 The public hearing on V-300 was resumed at 7:59 P.M. The Secretary declared that the applicant submitted a letter requesting withdrawal of V-300 and stating that application would be ~de for a sign of another size. Conunissioner Johnson pointed out that the applicant plans to use the total sign area allowed for the eBtire area. Chairman Norton asked if there is a way"~to prevent the first tenant in an area from asking for the whole sign area. The Secretary explained that a request of that nature could be refused. Chairman Norton stated that since the new proposal would be a sign for the entire shopping center it should be reviewed with this in mind. Commissioner leasher advised that since the letter clearly indicated the applicant's intention to use all the sign area allowed in this area the request for withdrawal cannot be approved on the basis of the facts stated in the letter. No one else wished to comment. The Secretary then read the Staff Report of 24 July 1967, recommending, with concurrence of the Variance Committee, that this ~ariance~ be denied. After discussion, Conunissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Conrnissioner Kasner, that the public hearing on V-300 be closed; motion carried unani- mously.and the hearing ~s closed at 8:08 P.M. It was moved, by Commissioner johnson, seconded by Con~aissioner Kasner, to approve'. the Staff Report of 24 July 1967 recom~ending denial of V-300 subject to deletion of the last two sentences in said report; motion carried unanimously. E. V-301 William C. Becker, Glen Brae Drive - Request for Variance in COnnec- tion with Fence Height Limitation - Continued from 10 July 1967 Chairman Norton re-opened the public hearing on V-301 at 8:09 P.M. The .Secretary stated there ~,ms nothing new in the file. ~. Becker stated that he had observed the Variance Com~ittee's presence (from inside his home) when they were there for the on~site inspection. Con~issioner Johnson read the Variance Committee Report of 24 July 1967 recommending that V-301 be denied. ~. Becker requested that the Variance Committee return to study the view from inside the house. Conmissioner'johnson advised that the applicant's representative (~. Rig!ey) had been notified of the time of the original inspection but no one met the Variance Cor~ittee at the appointed time; however, the Committee did meet the father-in-law of one of the neighbors and the Captain of the fire station. Plannin~ Conm~ission .Minutes of 24 July ].967 - Continued II. E. V-301 - Continued I.~-. Becker e}:plained that there had been a automobile accident in ~'k'. Rigley's family; therefore, he had been unable to be present for the on-site inspection as scheduled.' Commissioner Johnson stated that in another six (6) to eight (8) months the fire station would not be visible from the Becker home due to e}-'tensive screening and shrubbery which has been planted by the fire station. I~'~. Becker advised that he would be happy to remove the proposed fence at such time as the screening grows high enough to give his family the proper fencing. Commissioner McFali advised that in most new homes, unless planting is accomplished in advance, the o~^~er has similar problems with regard to privacy and they are allowed no more than the sLx foot fence. M~. Rigley was present and stated it was important to go into the house and observe the view from there to understand why this Variance is necessary. Chairman Norton e={plained that 1) Variances are granted reluctantly and sparingly and 2) even if the situation described by the applicant exists there is still the n~tter of deciding if there is enough of a reason to grant a Variance. Cormn~issioner McFail stated that a 1.ot of new home-o~.a~ers would find a higher fence desirable but the Variance Com~nittee was unable to see any justification for a Variance in the case of V-301. ~{r. Rigley informed that an appeal would be filed with the City Council giving a detailed explanation of this request.' Com~.~issioner Kasner (8:25 P~M.) moved, seconded by Commissior:er McFall that the public hearing on V-301 be closed; motion carried unan imou sly. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McFall, that the report of the Variance Com.mittee of 24 July 1967 be approved subject to deletion of all the words after the word denied in paragraph 4 of page 2 and that the Variance be denied since the findings required by Section 17.6 of Zoning Ordinance cannot be made; motion carried unanimously, -4- .... Piannins Conm-n. issiof tutes of 24 July 1967 - II. F. PROFE'SSiONAL VILLAGE OF SARATOGA - Saratoga Avenue - informa]. Hearing - Request for Modification of Condition of Change of Zoning - Continued from !0 july 1967 The Chairman opened the discussion on this nmtter by inquiring if there was anything new in the file. The Secretary stated there was a letter in the file explaining 1) the applicant's request 2) the need for flexibility in design 3) the method of development and requesting.pre- liminary design approval as soon as possible. Commissioner McFall advised that a report, relative.to this'matter, had not been prepared earlier, because the'Shbdivision Committee wanted to assure itself that' the structur~to be erected on this property would meet the conditions and would be pleasing in design. The' Secretary read the Staff Report of 24 July 1967 ~ecom~ending that Condition "2.", Exhibit "A" of Ordinance NS-3-ZC-7 be modified (on the advice of the City'Attorney) and.':requesting'.a..~site.ptan showing the number, size, location, and elevations of all proposed buildings. Chairman Norton wanted to know if there was a deadline for filing the aforementioned map. .. The Secretary answered that it was intended that it be filed prior to reco~T~ending to the City Council that Condition"2" be modified. Commissioner O'Rorke suggested that the applicant submit a Master Plan showing how the procedure for development of this parcel would be handled. Dr. Abrams stated that he. felt the letter he submitted contained all the details necessary and requested some help in determining what specifically was desired in the Master Plan requested. Commissioner Kasner explained that a detailed ~ster Plan showing the items listed in the Staff Report would b~ acceptable. Commissioner O'Rorke advised that the plans submitted tended to introduce the subject development rather thaD explain the proposal in detail. Commissioner McFall declared that the conditions in'question were imposed' with the Medical Village in mind and should now be separated from the Professional Village. Commissioner Crisp stated that if the subject report is recon~ended to the City Council.as the action of the Planning Commission then a supplementary .report should be prepared specifically stating what additional requirements were necessary prior to the Preliminary Design Approval. Chairman Norton inquired if Preliminary Design Approval would be a sufficient basis to forward this matter to. the City Council to grant the modification of Condition "2". Commissioner O'Rorke answered that' it would be satisfactory. -~- F. PROFESSIONAL VILLAGE OF SARATOGA - Continued Con~nissioner Crisp again stressed that, he felt, a report (telling exactly what the Con~nission wanted) should be sent to the City Council. Chairman Norton stated that, perhaps, the Subdivision Com~ittee and Staff could ~rite a supplementary report to the Staff Report of 24 July 1967 and the applicant could submit a Master Plan rand after that Prelim- inary Design Approval 'could be granted. Dr. Abrams stated that 1) he would like to find out the feelings of the Co~ission on ~ny things 2) he felt that some members of the Co~ission thought that he had deceived them and acted in bad faith 3) some bad feeling had resulted with regard to age limitation in the Saratoga Green development. Chair~n Norton stated that, he thought, the age limitation was a good idea but could not be ~itten into the report because of financial reasons. CoPm~issioner McFall stated that 1) there had been some concern, on his part, about the aDse~ce of any mention of age limitation in the report 2) he did not fully understana why it ~s not ~itten into the report 3) he felt Saratoga Green would best be developed as a wholly adult co~unity 4) after discussing. this with Dr. Abrams it is now clear to why the age limitation ~s omitted from the report and 5) the realization of this has not influenced any other decision made in the past. CoF~issioner Johnson stated that !) a vote was taken on the subject report when it was before the Planning Comm~ission for action and the vote was favorable and 2) the members of the Commission are all entitled to their personal opinions even though they ~y not vote accordingly. Commissioner Kasner declared that according to the Citizen's Committee Report a large number of people in the community are concerned about un-planned developments and we are just being consistent in asking the ' applicant to submit a ~ster Plan showing type of development thus showing the citizens that the Planning Commission is concer. ned about the type of planning for large parcels. Dr. Abrams requested 1) correction of the condition in error 2) some firm direction as to what it was the Commission wanted in a ~ster Plan. 'He then stated 1) that he could not produce a ~p with definite plans for each building that Would eventually exist on the property 2) he could produce a pretty picture but he was afraid that when he was ready with a per~nent plan (which would undoubtedly be different) the Commission would say he was inconsistent. Chairmn Norton agreed that if Dr. Abrams decided to change his plans, after submitting them, he would have to come before the Commission and .request the change. F. PROFESSIONAL VILLAGE OF SAI~TOGA - Continued Commissioner O'Rorke advised that 1) a I,~ster Plan (of the type requested in this case) have been required before on pieces of property this size 2) the pretty pictures (mentioned by Dr. Abrams) help the Conmission to reach decisions and 3) perhaps, the Planning Commission should ask that Dr. Abrams bring in what he thinks is the best plan. Commissioner Crisp asked Dr. Abrams if he intended to bring in plans for the proposed apartment building one at a time or will a Master Plan be availabe. Dr. Abrams 1) answered that it would not be wise to plan for one building at a time because of,financial reasons and 2) advised that the design of the apartment buildings would repeat themselves. The Secretary stated that a }~ster Plan had been submitted by Dr. Abrams. Commissioner O'Rorke stated that the Design Review 'Committee did not have an opportunity to study the submitted Master Plan very closely but from a brief observation it appeared that the plan was very meager. Commissioner Crisp stated he would be willing to send the recomanendation of the Staff Report of 24 July 1967 to the City Council with a supplementary statement listing the information desired on a ~ster Plan providing that Dr. Abrams submit a Master Plan prior to receiving Design Review Approval. Chairman Norton at this point directed that the discussion on the Professional · Village of Saratoga be terminated. Commissioner McFall moved that the Staff Report of 24 July 1967 be approved and the request' for modification of Condition "2" be approved subject to 1) the condition stated in report and 2) the Staff and Subdivision Committee preparing a supplement to the Staff Report of 24 July 1967 explaining the nature of the conditions desired. After further discussion, Commissioner McFali requested that the afore- mentioned motion be rescinded. Chairman Norton outlined a proposed motion and on that basis Commissioner McFall moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Rorke that: 1) the ~taff Report of 24 july 1967 be approved and that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the. modification of Condition "2" be granted subject to the condi- tions stated in said report; F. PROFESSIONAL VILLAGE OE SAiIATOGA - Continued 2) that enfo~:cement of the conditions be in the usual Design Review procedure as in the case of subdivisions and other large develop- ments; 3) Ehat the Staff and Subdivision Com~nittee be rec]uested to prepare an addendum to report and set' forth the Commission's desires in regard to the items required in the requested b~ster Plan; 4) that the Staff Report of 24 july 1967 approved at tonight's meeting and the requested addendum (setting t forth the recommendati'on for the desired Mas er Plan) when approved by the Planning Conmission, be forwarded to the City Council for their information; motion carried unanimously. Plannin~ Commission ·' Minutes of 24 July 1967 - Continued II. G. ~DICAL VILLAGE OF S~RATOGA - Saratoga Avenue - informal Hearing - Request for Modification of Condition of Change of Zoning·- Continued from 10 July 1967 The discussion on the inforn~a! hearing was opened and the Secretary stated that a report relative t~ this matter had been prepared by the Sub- division Committee. Com~n~issioner Crisp·read the Subdivision Com~aittee reco~nending that · this request for modification of condition be denied. Chairman Norton directed that page 2. .paragraph 4. .line 2. of the subject report should be amended by placing a period after the word fo.regoin~ and by capitalizing the "c_" in the word chanF~in~. Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner McFall, that the report of the Subdivision Connnittee, recon~ending denial for the reouested modification' of condition, be approved and forwarded to th~ City Council as the action of the Planning Commission; motion carried unanimous ly. RECESS AND RECONVENE III. BUILDING SITES ~D SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-703 - H. H. Sinclair, Saratoga Hills Road - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots Commissioner McFall requested that SDR-703 be continued to the meeting · Of 14 August 1967 to await the submittal of more information on the site development plan. Chairman Norton so directed. B. SDR-704 - L. J. Cass, Allendale Avenue and Portos Drive - Building Site Approval 1 Lot The applicant x~as present and expressed satisfaction with the· proposed conditions of approval. Con~issioner McFall moved, seconded by Co~nnissioner Crisp, that the Building Site Con~nittee Report of 24 July 1967 relative to SDR-704 be adopted and that the tentative mzp (Exhibit "A", filed 10 July 1967) be approved subject to the.conditions set forth in said report; motion carried withiCommiSsi0ner Johnson .abstaining. ~"~ .... '-'. °'.'. C. SDR-705 - O. L. Soules~ SaratoSa Avenue - Buildin~ Site Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary stated that the applicant had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and had expressed satisfaction of same. Commissioner McFall moved, seconded by Corm~issioner Smith, that the Building Site Committee Report of 24 July 1967 relative to SDR-705 · be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 13 July 1967) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. -9- Plannin$ Commission Minutes of 24 July 1967 - Continued III. D. SDR-706 - Virgil Herring, Bi$ Basin Way Buildin8 Site ADDroyal - ! Lot Mr. Warren Heid, architect, was present to represent the applicant and expressed satisfaction with the proposed conditions of approval. Commissioner McFall moved, seconded by Co.~m~issioner Smith, that 'Building Site Committee Report of 24 July 1967 relative to SDR-706 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 14 July 1967).be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. E. SDR-707 - Corinthian Studios, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road - Building Site ~proval - 1 Lot Mr. Warren Held, architect, was present to 'represent the applicant and expressed satisfaction with the proposed conditions of approval. He then made reference to the ~ote (regarding inadequate parking) included in the Building Site Committee Report of 24 july 1967 and explained that ~fnen parking was discussed several years ago it ~.~s the applicant's understanding that a' lot of parking would not be required for this type of business. Commissioner Crisp advised that the parking spaces available and located at the service station are rarely used. He then inquired if the storage area marked on the map would be used for storage or for parking? 'Mr. Held explained that the applicant did not wish to dO anything that would be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance since Corinthian Studios are ~rimzrily a ~.f~olesale business and did not attract a lot of traffic which would result in parking problems. Chairman Norton suggested .that ~. Held bring the subject Note to the attention of the applicant. It was moved by CormT~issioner McFa!l, seconded by Com~sissioner Smith, that the Building Site Cor~mittee Report of 24 July 1967 relative to SDR-707 be adopted and that the tentative ,.map (Exhibit "A", filed 14 july 1967) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report (with particular emphasis on the Note listed in the subject report); motion carried unanimously. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-259 - John H. POwers (Quito Merchants Association), Cox Avenue - Final Design Review - Directional Signs - Continued from' 10 July 1967 Commissioner O'Rorke read the Sta,~f Report of 24 July 1967 recommending that Final Design Review be granted for A-259. Comanissioner O'Rorke moved, seconded by Commissioner Kasner, that the Staff Report of 24 july 1967 relative to A-259 be adopted.and that Final Design Review approval be granted in connection with A-259, as shox,~ on Exhibit "D" subject to the exact location of the two signs being approved by the Director of Public Works through issuance of an Encroachment Permit; motion carried unanimously. Cormmissioner Johnson noted that the traffic sign forward of one of the p~.oposed signs, but on the same side of the street, should ba called to the attention of the Director of Public Works. -10- Plannin~ Commission Minutes of 24 July 1967 Continued IV. B. A-245 - Virgil Herring, Big Basin Way - Final Design Review - Con~anercial Center Con~issioner O'Rorke recon~mended continuance of A-245 to allow sufficient time for 1) the proposed Parking District No.1 to be more firmly established and 2) the further submittal of landscape plan and color scheme. Chairman Norton so directed. C. A-260 - James j. Hellman, Highway 85 - Final D~sign Review - Identification Sign Commissioner O'Rorke read 'the Staff Report of 24 July 1967 reCo~=~.ending denial of the requested Identification Sign since '~hey do not conform with the requirements of' the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner O'Rorke moved, seconded by Conm~issioner Kasner, that the Staff Report of 24 july 1967 relative to A-260 be adopted and that Final Design Review approval be denied for reasons stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. D. SS-53 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., Cumberland Drive -Final Desi.Sn Review- Subdivision Identification SiSn Commissioner O'Rorke read the Staff Report of 24 July 1967 recorm.n, ending that Final Design Review approval be granted in connection with SS-53. After discussion~ Co~n~issioner O'Rorke moved, seconded by Conznissioner Kasner, that the Staff Report of 24 July 1967 be adopted and the Final Design Review approval be granted for SS-53 as shown on Exhibit "A" and "B-2"; motion carried unanimously. V. CITY COI/NCIL REPORT Co~nnnissioner Kasner gave a sun~nary on items reviewed and action at the City Council meeting of 19 July 1967, with emphasis on items of particular interest to the Planning Commission. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 - Review of Proposed Plans The Secretary explained that the parking district would provide approximately 203 spaces and would be located on property owned by 1) the old Youth Center (~n~. Samuel Tyler) 2) ~,ir. Paul Flanagan 3) ~. Virgil Herring 4) b~rs. Frances Anderson 5) ~. Robert Green 6) M~c. Gunn 7) Mr. George Kocher 8) Mrs. Barnett (Mrs. Wyant) 9) ~mn Valk and I0) ~r. joe Long.. He luther e}cplained that 1) the parking district improvements will be paid for through an assessment district and 2) the ratio of parking will be about one (1) parking space per 400 square feet of building area. ~rs. ~esBTie McGuire stated that she hoped something would be done to improve the entrance to Fourth Street.with regard to ingress and egress. After discussion, Chairman Norton directed this matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Design Review Committee for study and review. -!1- ~lannin5 Commission ~.~inutes of 24 july 1967 - Continued VII. OLD BUSINESS A. AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDiViSION ORDINANCE - Relative to Offers and Rejections of Dedications on Final i~ps - Continued from 10 July ].967 The Secretary explained that 1) the City Administrator, in concurrence with the City Attorney, introduced this amendment since it was felt that something was lacking in the Subdivision Ordinance concerning dedication. Chairmzn Norton stated that i) in his opinion. the Ordinance attempted to be quite clear on matter 'regarding dedication and 2) it did not seem, from the point of view of the Planning Commission, that there is any objection to the proposed amendment. Con~issioner McFali moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the Secretary inform the City Council that the Planning Co~mnission has no objections to the proposed amendment; motion carried unanimously. B. PROPOSED HORSE ORDINANCE Commissioner McFall explained that with the unusual work load caused by the General Plan Review progress on the proposed Horse Ordinance has been behind schedule but is now ready to be slated for public hearing on 28 August 1967. In view of the foregoing, Chairman Norton directed that a public hearing be set for the proposed Horse Ordinance on 28 August 1967. C. ZONING SYMBOLS Commissioner McFall explained that the Subdivision Committee will not be ready with a recommendation relative to this matter until further study has been accomplished and requested that this matter be continued. Chairman Norton so directed. D. LYNGSO PROPERTY Chairman Norton inquired if Mr. Lyngso had been c6ntacted about cleaning up 'his property? The Secretary explained that he had been informed by ~. Lyngso that he planned to construct a fence and clean up the property in the near future. E. WEEDS Commissioner Johnson inquired if some action'could be taken regarding an empty lot covered with weeds. The Secretary explained that the City did not have a weed abatement ordinance at the present time, but that the Fire Marshal could be contacted to investigate the situation. -12- .P!annin~l Commission Minutes o'f 2./.:- Jui'Z 1967 - Continuecl VIII. COb~I~ICATIONS A. ~RITTEN 1. UP-109 Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Mi!jevich Drive - Request £or E×tension for Model Home Sales Office The Secretary read a letter submitted by the applicant and requesting an e~tension of one (i) year for the model home sales office located at 20387 Miljevich Drive. Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Conm~issioner McFai!, that an eztension of one (i) year'~be granted for the model home sales office on Lot 7 of Tract 4165; motion carried unanimously. 2. SIGNS - PAUL M~SSON VINEYARDS The Secretary advised that a communication was received from Thomas Leong, Production°M~nager for Paul M~sson Vineyards, requesting a meeting with the Design Review Committee to discuss directional and identification signs. B. ORAL 1. ~ST VALLEY JUNIOR COLLEGE Commissioner O'Rorke stated that the plans for the West Valley Junior College had been received and were available for review. He explained that the campus:would include 1) two (2) per~nent buildings 2) one (1) temporary building composed of five (5) portables 3) a swimming pool ..'.4)' eight tennis courts and 5) a turf area. .2.7 ~',G~ESTS Chairman Norton expressed regret that a City. Councilman ~s not in attendance at this meeting and then acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of ~s. Jessie McGuire of the Good Government,.M~. John Powers of the Quito Merchants Association. He, also, expressed appreciation to ~s. McGuire for the coffee served at recess. IX. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted er, Secretary Saratoga Planning Commission j -13-