Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-1967 Planning Commission Minutes Sir~/'.i~RY OF MiNIEI'ES CITY OF SAI~TFOGA PI~NNING CO~D~ISSiON . · TIME: Monday, 23 October 1967, 7:30 P.M. PLACE: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale Avenue,. Saratoga, California TfPE: Regular Meeting I, ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Crisp, Johnson, McFall, Norton, O'Rorke and Smith. Absent: Conunissioner Kasner. B. MINUTES Commissioner McFall moved, seconded by Com~,missioner Crisp, that the reading of the minutes of the 9 October 1967 meeting be {~aived and that they be approved as distributed to the Cormn~ission; motion carried unanimously. ii. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-109 - Harry Margolis, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Request for Chang. e of Zoning from "R-l-15,000'; (Single Family Residential) to "P-A" (Professional-Administrative) Continued from 9 October ]_967 The continued hearing on C-109 was re-opened at 7:33 D M The Secretary explained that a written communication had' been received from }tr. Ruffo (applicant's attorney) requesting that this ma. tter be continued to the meeting of 13 November 1967. Corm~.issioner McFall, on behalf of the Subdivision Con~-nittee, recommended that 1) this request be granted 'and the application be continued to the meeting of 13 November 1967 and 2) action relative to C-109 not.be delayed any later' than the 13 November meetin.~ The applicant and his representative were.not present and. no one in the audience wished to comment. The Secretary stated that I,~rs. Ruth Owen of Victor Place submitted pictures (photos) revealing, in detail, the parking situation (number 'Of P.arked cars)- at the ?'~r~oiis address Chairman Norton directed that these pictues be submitted Eo the Subdivision Committee for' .study and consideration when making their recom~mendation. At 7:36 P.M, Chairman Norton closed the hearing for'the evenin~ 'and directed- .V-308 continued to the meeting of 13 November 1967 and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for stud? and'a report at that time. B. V-308 Dr. Joseph Tox~msend, Bank Mill Road - Request for Variance in Connec- tion with Side and Front Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from 9 October ].967 The public heari.ng on V-308 ~,~as resumed at 7:37 P.M. The Secret.'ary stated' that n~Chint~ further had been added to the ~ile. Planning--., Commission Minuues - 23 f..)ctob~r 1967 - Continued !I. B. V-308 - Continued Commissioner Crisp' suggested that perhaps this matter could be continued' until after the ,,recess to allow the Variance Committee a chance to meet and discuss their recomme~-'~d'ation.. In view of the foregoing, Chair~v2n'Norton directed. this m~tter continued until after the recess and closed the 'hearing (7:39 P.M.) temporarily. C. V-309 - Clay McCu!!ough, Old Tree Way - Request for Variance in Connec- tion with Side Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from 9 October 1967 The hearing relative to V-309 resumed 'at 7:40 P.M. The Secretary stated that ],) a list of addresses (c'oncernin~ possible violations of setback require:nents in the surrounding neighborhood relative to pool' equipment) had bee. n submitted by ti~e applicant 2) these inclicated violations were checked and no violations were found and 3) some of the setbacks are legal non-conforming. Chairman Norton stated tlnat he was relieved to hear that the neighborhood is not crawling with illegal pool equipment. No one else present wished to speak. Commissioner Crisp' read the report of the Variance Committee recommending that this request be denied. Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Conumissioner Smith, to close the hear- ing; motion carried unanimously and the public hearing relative to V-309 was closed at 7:45 P.M. !t was moved by Co~n~issioner Crisp, seconded ~'y Commissioner Johnson, that the Variance Committee Report of 23 October 1967, relative to V-309, be adopted and tMe request for Variance be denied since the .findings required by Section 17.6 of Ordinance NS-3 cannot be mde; motion carried unanimously. D. V-310 - Wayne pendergraft, Foothill Lane - Request for Variance in Connection with Lot Width and Size Requirements The hearing was opened at 7:46 P'~'~ The Secr'e['ary stated that the NOtices of Hearing had been r~iled and then briefly reviewed this ~ile. No one was present to represent the applicant. Dr. Silbermn, adjoining property ox.;.ner, stated that 1) he"bought his property from ~.~-. pendergraft 2) the applicant used his (Dr. Silbermn) i~ouse number address when applyin~ for the subject Variance 3) as a neighbor he is interested in findin~ out if Mr. pendergraft can put more than one house on this lot x.;h:[ch is less than one acre in .size 4) there is no acce'ss .to this particu]-ar lot unless the applicant buys additional land and 5) ha has no objection to the proposed Variance as long as only one house is built on the propert.y. Chairn~n Norton explained that ].) at this point it is not possible for the applicant to erect even one laduse on this property and 2) if the Varian'ce is granted Mr. Pendergraft can build only one house on this property. -2- P!annin~I Commission ,"_,'[inutes - 23 October ].9.57 Continued II. D. V-3!0 ~ Continue~-d The Secretary, in ans~er to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, stat'ed that this non-conforming lot resulted ~hen I.k~. Pendergraft divided his property into separate lots Some years ago. Con~nissioner Crisp inquired if any property that could be used for riBht-of-way purposes is available for purchase. The Secretary stated that it had been his understanding that the appli- cant had provided for right-of-way to this property. At 7:51 P.M.. Chairman Norton closed the hearing for the evening, ·referred V-310 to the Variance Committee for study and a report and then directed that same be continued to the next r~g.~lar meeting. CommisSioner Crisp stated that the Variance Committee would make an on-site inspection (shortly after 9:00 A.M. on Saturday, 4 November 1967) providing no problems were encount'ered in gettinS to the property. Dr. Sitberrm~n.offered the use of a oortion of his property to the Variance. Committee in order to gain access to the subjeat location to make the prO- posed inspection. Chairr:~n Norton directed the Secretary to contact the applicant and inform him of the forthcoming Variance Con~mittee visit. E. V-31! - Thomas Coe, Sobey Road·- Request for Variance in Connection with c-.'c'~ Yard Setback Requirements The hearing relative to V-311 was opened at 7:53 P.M. The Secretary stated that the Notices of Hearing were mailed and briefly reviewed this application.' The applicant was present and stated that 1) · he wished to build a garage so he could convert the e>:istin}3 :,3arage into a f3.'rni!v room 2) the terrain at the back,of .the lot is very steep and not ·suitable for the construction of a building; therefore, in order to construct the garage a Variance is necessary. No one else wished to comment. Conm~issioner Crisp arranged an appointment with Mr. Coe for an on-site inspe.c- 'tion of the ~ro~,~er'ty on c'~turdav, 4 November"l'967 at 10:00 A.M. Chairman Norton (7:56 P.M.) c.!osed the he'arinZ and. directed that V-3ii be continued to the ne:<t regular meeting and referred same to the Variance Committee for study. .... F. CRD!NANCE NO. Z8-13 ~ Proposed Amc~ndment to Ordinance No. 38 Relating to the !icensin:.'~ of Horses and S.tables - Continued from 28 Au:%~ist 1967 G. ORDiNA~,~CE NO. NS-3.12 - Proposed A,nendment to Ordinance No. NS-3 Relating to the KeeDinZ of Horses -' Cont'inued from 28 August ].967 Since the aforemention~:~] ite!ns are closely related they were discussed airaultaneousiy ....... · .--~-~,.:--,ned The Secretary stat~:d there The continued hearing was ~ ~pu at 7:57 P.M. was a communication in the file (submitted by M~~. Dave Bennion of the Teerlink Law Firra) which is'a confirr~ztic;n '.to material discus'sed at a Subdivision Com:nittee ~neeEing attended by iv.i_. Dave Bonnion., members of the Castle Rock. Horse O~.raer's Association and their attorney ErWin Nielsen. -3- Plannin.G.Con~.-n. ission. Minutes - 23 October 1967 Continued II. F. Oi<DINANCE NO. 38-i[3 -- Continu.:.~d G. ORDINANCE NO. NS-3.12 Contir..ucd Commissioner McFall stated that i) the Subdivision Co:~;n~ittee made a serious effort in the past two (2) years to establish a feasible ordinan'ce which will be satisfactory to the horse-loving people and protect the rights of :'. ,:.... bthers' as well. He then ·read thG Subdivision Co~n~ittee Report of 23 0'ctober 1967' recommending that Ordinance NS-3.i2 with Equestrian 1,~ip and Ordi- nance No. 38. i3 be approved and further' recommended same to the City Council for adoption. The Secretary then read two (2) comn~unicati,..'~'~s: i.) received from ~. Peter j. Lert, Farm Advisor for the University of California Eztension Service, stating a) the setback requiremen. ts stated in the Ordinance appear to be e>:cessive b) the increased setback distances will not alter the movement of flies and c) if odor problems should arise the remedy would lie in im- proved management and husbandry practices rather than increased setbacks.~' end.. 2) submitted by Mrs. Robert B. Suhr, resident of HorseshOe Drive and stating a) she would like to offer her support for a high horse_population in Saratof~a and b) there were'great advantages 'to a teen-ager occupying. himself· with the gr6oming of a horse or cleaning a barn over a teen-ager. who drives a soupeal-up automobile or smokes marijuana. ~. Nielsdn; attorney for Castle Rock Horse Owner's Association, stated that 1) he had reviewed the·Final Draft of the proposed Ordinance 2) he felt a lot of progress has been made since the original draft 3) there is still some dispute on the section relative to setbacks 4) if a fly problem does· arise the distance required by setback requirements will not alleviate the situation 5) the proposed ~:etbacks will impose restrictions on the use · property o~.mers can make of thei{- land 6) the Castle Rock Horse O~er's' Association has, in part, accepted the proposed Ordinance but still urge further modificatior~s of the setback requirements 7) a booklet that Lert mailed to him ez~p!aining Fly Control methSds was most interesting. He then suggested that the City contact the Santa Clara County Health Depart- ment for information and help whc~n and if a fly problem should arise. The Secretary advised that the Santa Clara County Health Department is. actually the City: s Health Department and' the City has on numerous occa- sions requested their help reiativ'e to problems with pools and horses, etc. Mr. Fred C~'~t].ins stated tla~t a~J..lacc:nt property ow~crs share numerous fenc.e ].ines and if the present p'z'f~pos~:~.] setbacks are enforced an area will be left between properties which will. become a weed patch. At the request of Chairman Norton the Secretary e~cp!ained th~ Equestrian Boundaries located in t'wo (2) areas !) in the vicinity .of Sobey Road· and Fruitvale Avenue Area and 2) located in the pror4imity of Pierce Road and Mt. Eden Road. The zone cov,:~rs most of the acre zoning with some hillside subdivisions and allows for the keeping of two horses on the one (1) acre parcels (with a license for the first horse and the granting of 'a Use Per- mit for the second horse) located in the Equestrian .Zone.· P].annin~% Comn~.ission Mir:,.:tes 23 Octo'.~,~r 1.967 -- II. F. ORi)iNANCF. N0. 35'-i3 C.ant:i.n~:.:~d G- Oi-iDiNA?'~CE NO. NS--3.12 - Continued Mrs. ~'~c;,:~rd ?.lurphy c,]~ Via RaZina stated that she felt that being per- mitted to keep one horse with a. license an.-d one with a Usa Permit on one (i) acre (as statec~ in the proposed orc]inance) did not seem to be any more lenient. Chairman Norton stated that even with a Use Permit under the present ruling it is not possible to keep two (2) hoL-ses but with 'the proposed ordinance ·there are some provisio:.~.s ~'ac~e for the keeping of two (2). horses with a Use. Permit. I~i's. jett inquired ~,:,hat the seEbacks were as proposed by the Ordinance·. Chairman Norton e~:p!ained that no stab]_a or corral shall be located closer than f~f~"v (50) feet to any prc.~>artv ~'~; fifty (50) feet to any dwelling or swimming pool on the sitel. one--hunt]red (i00) feet to any d'weiiing not on the site; e:.~ceDt corral n:.av be located no '~,~s~ nhan thirty (30) feet from the r ,~ o ~.,~ - ~--~,av of side or r~ar street bordering on the site. }h's. Richard Mur~>hv tated that !.) since the setbaclc for pools is only . [ .. s si:< (6) feet this se.amed a. little bit out of balance with the setbacks proposed f.:~r the keeping of hearses and 2) there are nuisances caused by pools that are not caused by horse. s .such as parties.and the noise generated by same. ....r Manchester of Via Re?ina -~-:~ussad under x~d~at conditions flies generated by horse waste.. He then stated that the setbacks proposed will . hamper the ,. dispersal.. of the above-mentionec] waste by decreasing the amount of spaaa' a~raiiabie for said ~urpos.e. Chairman Norton stated that !) this problem has been considered by the Planning Con~mission and 2) g<~neraily the house' and pool cover a good part of the acre necessary for the keeping of a horse thus leaving pretty small quarters for i,~. Angus of i,ion~Se Vista sta'aed that !) his corral ended up being 8-feet by i5-feet because of the ezistence of the pool and 2) 'unless the house is situated erfact!y right problems arise with the corral and. if' there is a pool on the property the. possibility ~f keeping a horse is' ~imost eliminated. Chairman Norton stated that permission. =,~.~t be obtained from the nei%hbors to pasture horses in the are'a bet~.yaen fences where ~rass and ~.~eeds will ~r0w. ?~-s. ~.~nchaster asked if the new setbacks included the additional property taken up by road right-of-.way? I.~-s. Murphy inquired what relationship there was between the proposed ordi- and the old ordinance? Chairman Nortc;n e:.~piai. ned that ].) th~ riZht.-of-~.:ay ~ou!d not be included as part of the setback rsquiram<-~nts and 2) the proposed ordinance'completely supersedes the old ordinance. ~.~-. !-fansen of Pierce Road stated that !) he m~intains his five (5) horses on one acre o~ his seven (7) acres and does not notice any. problems x.~ith fi~' ~,¢Dccia~nv since the purchase of salt blocks and ?) the cars passing by create more dust than all five (5) of the horses. Plannin$ Commission Minutes - 23 Octe!~cr 1967 - Continued II. F. ORDI~iANCF. NO. 38-13 - Continue,:l "' G. ORDINANCE NO. NS-3.12 - Contin~.',ed M~-. AngUs inquired how tt4e new license procedure would affect the existing Use 'Permit? ' Chairn~n Norton advised that the existing Use Permits could be exchanged ' for a license after payment 'of a smli fee ~ich will be fixed by the City Council. " >~s. jett stated that she x.Tas concerned about the humne aspec~ involved in penning a horse up in a small ·area. A resicient of Via Coiina inquired ~f his property is located in the Equestrian Zone and whau advantages there is to being in said Zone. Chairman Norton directed th.e resident ~o check with the Secretary to see if his property is located in the subject Zone and 2) stated that the advantage of being in the Zone is that it is permissabie to have two horses on one (1) acre with a license and.a Use Permit. Commissioner McFall moved (8:53 P.M.), seconded by Co~m. issioner Crisp, to close the hearing relative to Ordinance No. 38-13 and Ordinance No. NS-3.12;. motion carried unanimously and the hearing k~s closed. ' Con~missioner McFa!l moved, seconded 'by Conm~issioner Crisp, that the Subdivision Comittee Report of 23 October 1967 be adopted and that the proposed Ordinance NS-3.12 with Equestrian Map dated 23 October 1967 and Ordinance 38-13 be approved and reco~aended to the City Council for adoption; motion carried unanimously. >~. Nielsen and members of the Castle Rock Horse O~,mer's Association for all the effort they contributed to the drafting of the"subject Ordinances and 2) advised that if they wished to discuss the matter of setbacks with the City Council they should feel free to do so. RECESS AND RECONVENE ii. B. V-308 - Dr. Joseph Tox.m. send- Continued from Previous Section of Agenda' The public hearing on V-308 was resumed at 9:15 P.M. Conmissioner Crisp stated that 1) the Variance Committee met at the Recess . and as a result have a verbal recom_mendation relative to V-308 2) the recon~nend- ation of the Variance Committee is to deny this Variance (as.'shoxm on Exhibit "C" dated 18 October 1967) since a slight variation of the location of the proposed residence would make a Variance unnecessary. yz. PiCa, applica~t's arch:Ltect, inquired if the Variance Committee had any suggestion as to how to reduce the size of the residence? Commissioner johnson, with concurrence of Co~missioner Crisp, stated that one corner of the house could be cut back to meet the setback requirements. Comissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Co~issioner Crisp, to close the hearing on V-308; motion carried unanimously and the hearing was ·closed at 9: 18 P .M. Comissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Comamissioner johnson, to adopt the · recon~mendation of the Variance Committee to deny V-308 since the findings required by Section 17.6 of Ordinance NS-3 cannot be made; motion carried unanimous !y. -6- Planning Con~,ission Minutes - 23 October 1967 - Continued · III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-710 - B. T. Galeb, Seagull Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 9 October i967 · "' Commissioner McFall stated 'tlnat 'th'e applicant had not submitted his revised map and then asked that SDR-710 b~ continued to the next regular meeting. The Secretary stated that a letter of further extension ~.ms needed from the applicant. ~". The applicant, ~r. Ted Ga!eb, stated that i) he was 'instructed to apply for a Variance due to the width Of the lot in question 2) since the Variance ~s denied the a!ter?a'~ now is to tear dox.~ a newly constructed garage 3) ··he was· .'unprepared·· for the denial of V-305 and had not· read the Ordinance prior to the denial 4) he has since read the Ordinanc~ and found that he should not be denied the same enjoyment of his property as his neighbors do of t~eirs 5) since his neighbors are enjoying 75 foot wide lots he could see no reason· ~ay his lot ·should. be 85 feet wide. Commissioner Crisp informed ~,'~. Caleb that the ~eason for the 85 foot width is due to the fact that his property was divided recently and therefore must meet the present requirements.· ~. Galeb explained th-~t 1) this lot ~as at one time intended for use as part of the Ted Avenue extension x.~ich never developed except on a r~ap 2) he feels V-305 should be appealed to the. City Council since it is not practical to tear down a newly· constructed building. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairm~n Norton, stated that 1) the time limit for .filing an appeal on a Variance is ten (!0) days 2)' the set waiting period for re'application is one ·year.and 3) it would be necessary to consult with the City Attorney. to see how this matter could be brought before ·the City·Council. Chairman Norton directed 1) the Secretary to consult with the City Attorney to determine by what method this matter can be brought before the City Council · 2) that SDR-7i0· be continued to the meeting of 13 November 1967 and 3)· the · · applicant to submit a l~tter granting a further extension of same. B. SDR-720 - W. H. Kennec]y~ Peach Hill Read ~ Buii~iin~ Site Approval - 1 Lot Connnissioner McFall·stated that t~e applicant' s' representative· has been informed of the·proposed conditions. I¢~-. Gilbert of i~',~rk Thomas and Co. was present to representsthe applicant and expressed satisfaction with ttie proposed conditions of approval. Commissioner McFall moved, seconded l~y Co~anissioner Smith, that the Building Site Committee R'eport of 23 October 1967 relative to SDR-720 be adopted and that the tentative ~map (Exhibit "A", filed 11 October 1967) be approved sub- ject to the conditions set ·fort.h in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. SDR-72i - Ray E. Bieber~ Pike Road - Bui!dinz. Site A~Droval - 1 Lot' The applicant was present and stated that he would like a meeting with the Subdivision Co~m~ittee to discuss Specific Condition Ii-D of the Building Site Commit·tee Report of 23 October 1967. The Cha·ir~n explained that an appointmen~ could be made with the Subdivision Cormn~ittee by contacting the Secretary and then directed that SDR-72! be continued to the next regular meeting on 13 November ·1967. -7- Planning Com~nission Minutes - 23 October 1967 - Continued IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-256 - Luceal Westmoreland, Souse Lane - Final Design Approval - Addition . of Sixteen (16) Beds to Boardins House The Secretary read the Staff Report of 23 October 1967 recon~nending that A-265 be granted Final Design Approval. Commissioner O'Rorke moved, seconded b'y Commissioner Smith, that the Staff Report of 23 OctOber 1967 be adopted and A-265 be granted Final Design Approval as i'llustr. ated on Exhibits "A" .and "B" and subject to meeting the conditions of Use Permit (UP-116) prior. to issuance of a building permit; motion carried unanimous ly. B.. A-146 - Corinthian Studio, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road - Final Design ·Review - Sales and Stora~.~e Buildin~ - Continued from 28 Au~ust '1967 Commissioner O'Rorke advised that I) the applicant is having problems meeting the parking requirements set dozen by the Ordinance 2) Preliminary Design Approval was granted on the basis of a single· story building 3) a mezzanine and a second floor have been added to the Final Plans without notifying the Design Review Committee 4) it was not until the. Final Plans ~ere submitted did the applicant realize th~ the Des{gn Review Com~r~ittee considered the storage area when 'establish- ing parking requirements 5) the D&sign Review Committee has asked the applicant to supply twelve (12),' or thirteen (13) parking spaces dependin~ on the ·number of employees 6) the applicant has endeavored to find additional ·parking (3) spaces and 7) the applicant and his architect, T,~.. Warren Heid, feel that the storage area should not be considered when deciding the number of parking spaces. Chairnmn Norton stated that the storage area is. always considered in eStablish- ing the parking requirements. .. ~. Heid was present and stated that in a letter (submitted by him) he e:<plained that three (3) parking spaces were available on the property of. Saratoga Electric approxi~tely three-hundred feet south of the Corinthian Studios. In answer to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, the Secretary stated that nor~liy the storage for 'a strictly retail use is not counted in determ'ining parking requirements; however, this. situation was given special treatment under Preliminary Design Review in 1964 by considering the use as basically Co~nerciai Service Sales of bulky merchandise'~hich would require a lesser number 'of park- ing spaces based on a ratio`· of one (1) space 'p~r-500 squar~ feet'. Co~issioner Smith stated that e.ven at one parking space per 500 square· thirteen (].3) parking spaces would b'e needed for the sales area.and three (3) employees. ... ~. Heid was-present and stated that !) he would like to clear this matter up so that it meets the requirements of the City and those of his client and 2) it seemed ·logical to.assUme that where Preliminary approval'is granted it Could be relied on to prepare final working drawings. He then requested that approval be granted subject to the applicant finding the needed parking and the building permit not be issued prior to proof .of parking. '.' Commissioner O'Rorke advised that the only problem with this application involved the parking requirements.. ~,~. Heid stated that he had parked on the street near Corinthian' Studios on ~ny occasions without difficult'/. Co~issioner' Crisp stated' that the parking 'on the street is not adequate enough to depend upon. " Planning Commi'ssion Minutes - 23 Qctober 1967 -' Continued IV. B. A-146 - Continued Chairnun Norton stated that there is a 300 foot ~estriction relative to the distance required between locati6n of parking spaces and place of business. The Secretary-stated that the applicant was eager to provide parking and would like the Commission to consider 'the proposed spaces. Chairman Norton commented that ·if the applicant ·cannot ez,rpand because of .parking requirements the City may lose a historical asset (Corinthian· · Studios). .. · Commissioner O'Rorke advised that, perhaps,, the applicant could apply for a Variance. Chairman Norton stated that since the Co,~anission practiced a stern policy regarding Variances the possibility of any progress along the lines of' obtaining same were slim. Mr. Heid stated that his applicant had made every effort to :find proper ~arking nearby; however, the Sterling Lumber property is all tied up; the grocery store plans to e:~pand; and the church cannot spare any parking. Commissioner McFall suggested that the distance between Corinthian Studios and the proposed parking spaces be carefully measured to make sure it is accurate. ~b~s. McGuire stated there was a vacant' lot to the rear of Corinthian Studios which looks~,like it could be used for parking. .. Mr. Heid explained that this property belonged to the Sterling Lumber Company. Chairman Norton inquired about the p0ssibility"of temporary parking. Commissioner O'Rorke.replied that the building will not be temporary so the parking would have to be a permanent arrangement. Commissioner Smith' stated that a compromfse could be reached but not-.in conformance with the Ordinance. arkin~ , Chairman Norton inquired how many p o spaces would be' reouired if the whole buildi.ng were reviewed by the Design· 'Review Cormmittee as a new app!i- .cat ion. Commissioner Smith stated t'hat thirteen (·13) would be requir'ed including one space per employee. Mr. Heid stated that 1) the o~,zaerS could not be considered as employees since they are not there a good share of the time-~and the one ·full-time employee lives almost ne:ct door. ... " Commissioner O'Rorke stated that it is difficult" to look at one building with two different type of uses (in this case Warehouse-Sales)·.· It should be considered as one classification or the other. Mr. Heid advised that 1) the .Unifor'm Buildi,qg Code requirgs. tha't it be one classification 2) my client handles bulky type merchandise 3)' this is the type of situation I cannot 19rove, .but can only go on the records my clien't' has available and 4) if Preliminary approval is not firm enough to base Final plans on then why is it necessary? ' --9- Planning Commission 'Minutes - 23 October 1967 - Continued IV. B. A-i46 Continued Commissioner Smith stated that an applicant did not have to apply for Preliminary but could spend the money involved and apply for Final approval right away without benefit of advice from the Design ReView Committee as is the procedure under P~eliminary Approval. At this time ~'. Held submitted a diagrammatic plot lay-out· .for the Saratoga Electric Company showing the additional parking available on the Saratoga Electric Property. After discussion .it was found the·plan submitted by ~. Held was 'not accurate since three (3) of the parking spaces proposed were on the adjacent property belonging to A. A., Dempsey and one (1) space at the rear is not practical due to the iotation of a storage rack. Chairn~an Norton stated that he c~utd see three (3) alt&rnates 1) to recorm~end this matter to the City 'Council 2) give the applicant another week or two to find adequate parking and 3) grant approval subject to finding the parking. Mr. Held inquired if this matter could be denied without prejudice? The Secretary answered that A-146 could be denied without prejudice, but it would be up to the City Administrator to determine if another fee will be collected. Mr. Held stated that he had always bee~ under the impression that Preliminary Design Approval had some substance and direction to it. Chairman Norton stated that it did, but not three (3) or four (4) years after approval. Commissioner O'Rorke stated the approved Preliminary Design turns out to be quite different than the Final Plans now Under consideration. Commissioner O'Rorke moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that Final Design Review approval be denied for A-146 since the applicant lacked adequate parking and then recommended that no further filing fees Be collected in the event the applicant files a~··,appeal to the City Council; motion carried unanimously. Mr'. Held requested that a thorough transcript be made of the minutes and a separate report be prepared and placed in file A-146. Chairman Norton so directed. ' V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Crisp gave a summary on :items reviewed and ·action taken at the City Council meeting of 18 October 1967, with emphasis on items of particular interest to the Planning Commission. Plannin$ Cormnission Minutes 23 October 1967 - Continued VI. NEW BUSINESS A. SDR-712 Je__rry Jordan~ Michaels Drive - Request for Modification of Conditions The SeCretary read a letter received from the applicant requesting that Specific Condition II-H of file SDR-712 be modified to permit the installation of overhead utilities rather·than the specified underground utilities. CommissiOner McFall ·advised that ·the 'conunittee had 1) studied the map submitted 2) discussed this request with the applicant and 3) visited the site to make an on-site inspection. He then recommended that this matter be continued to the meeting. of 13 November 1967 since M~-. jordan was not present. Chairman· Norton so directed. VII. OLD BUSINESS NONE V I I I. C OMb~ ICAT ION S A. WR ITT EN None· - B. ORAL MAILING OF MATERIALS Commissioner O'Rorke suggested that since ·~r. Kasner had to be absent· all the materials in his folder be·mailed to him. He further suggested that the same be done for any Commissioner who had to be absent in the future. Chairman Norton directed that this become a regular procedure. ACI<iqOI.~EDGE~NTS Chairman Norton expressed gratitude to ·the Secretary, Subdivision Coxmmittee and City Attorney for the work done on the Horse Ordinance and commended them for doing a wonderful job. ·~ GUESTS Chairman Norton acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence e·f Councilman Hartman, M~-s. McGuire and ~. Lewis of the Good Government 'Group, I,~s. Ottenberg of the League of Women Voters ~v~s. Smith wife of Commissioner Smith, and Ym. Ted Galeb Saratoga'r~sident. He, also, expressed appreciation ~o ~va's. McGuire for the coffee served at recess. IX. ADJOURh%~ The Chairman dec].ared the meeting .adjourned at 10:3'4 P.M.' ResDec 7~ly submit ~~ ~ .t~' ' " te ', , Secretary Saratoga I ianning"CormuisSion · j