Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-1967 Planning Commission Minutes (2)TIME: Monday, 23 October 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, McFall, Norton, O'Rorke and Smith. Absent: Commissioner Kasner.. B. MINUTES Commissioner McFa].l moved, seconded' by Commissioner Crisp, that the reading of the minutes of the 9 October 1967 meeting be (~aived and that they be approved as distributed to the Con~mission; motion carried unanimously'. Ii. PUBLIC HE.~R'iNGS A. C-109 - Harry Margo!is, .Sa'ratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Request for' Change of Zoning from "R ~ I~- -~- ~,000" (Single Family Residential) to "P-A" (Professional-Administrative) -. Continued 'from 9 October 1967 The continued hearing on C-I09 v;as re-opened at 7:33 P.M. The Secretary explained that a ~rfitten communication had been received from Mr. Ruffo" (app!icant's attorney) requesting that· this matter be continued to the meeting of 13 November 1967. Co.nmissioner McFall, on behalf of the Subdivision Committee, recomm, ended that 1) this request be granted and the application be continued to the meeting of 13'November 1.967 and 2) .action relative to C-!09 not be delayed any later' than the 13 November meatin~ :~:-':. ':-.:: .... ": · "' ".'. :-. ':~:::: ...... : '-.." " ." The applicant. and his representative were not present and no one in the audience wished to comamerit. The Secretary stated that YLrs. Ruth Owen of Victor place submitted pictures (photos) revealing, in 'detail, the parking situation (number 'Of parked cars) at the b~rgoiis address, Chairman Norton directed ti~at these pictues be submitted to the Subdivision Committee for study and consideration when making tLeir'recom.~ep:dati0n. At 7:36 P.M. Chairman Norton closed.the hearing for the evening and directed V-308 continued to the meeting of 13 November 1967 and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for study and a. report· at that time. B. V-308 - Dr. Joseph Tox;m~send, Bank M{i]. Road - Request for VarianCe· in Connec- tion with Side and Front Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from 9 October ].967 The public hear:i.n;~ on V-308 was resumed at 7:37 P..M. The Secretary stated that nothing further had been added to the ~ile. P!annin~< Commission Minuues 23 October 1967 - Continued. II. B. V-308 - Continued Comn~issioner Crisp suggested that perhaps this :nattar could be continued until after the recess to allow the Variance Committee a chance to meet and discuss their recommendation.· In view of the foregoing, Chairm~n'Nort'on directed this m~tter continued until after .the recess and closed the hearing (7:39 P.M.) temporarily. C. · V-309 - C~ay·~,cCullough, 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 l) a list of addresses (concernin~'~ possible violations of setback requirements in the surrounding neighborhood relative to pool equipment)· had· been st:bmitted by the applicant 2) these indicated violations were checked and no violations were found and 3) some of the setbacks are legal non-.conforming. Chairnmn Norton stated that he was relieved to hear that the neighborhood is not crawling with i].legal pool &quipment. No one else present wished to speak. Commissioner Crisp read the report of the Variance Cormmittee reco~.~.ending that this request be denied. Commissioner Crisp, moved, seconded by Cos~.issioner Smith, to close the hear- ing; motion carried unanimously and the public hearing relative to V-309 was closed at 7:45 P.M. Cris , b.'y Co~nis ioner Johnson, that it was moved by Commissioner p seconded s the Variance Conm~ittee Report of 23 October 1967, relative to V-309, be adopted and the request for Variance be denied since the findings required by Section 17.6 of Ordinance NS-3 cannot b'e F~d.e; motion carried unanimously. D. V-3i0 Wayne Pendergraft, Foothill Lan~ - Request for Variance in connection x.:ith Lot Width. and Size Requirements The hearing was opened at 7:46 P'.M. The Secr~['ary stated that the Notices of Hearing had be:en ,,~ailed .and then briefly reviewed this ~ile. No one was present to represent the applicant. Dr. Si].berman, adjoining property ox.raer, stated that 1) he:boUght his property from l,h-. '~ ~]~"~.'~ a"~t 'p~ the applicant used his (Dr Silber~,~an) house number address when applying for the subject Variance 3) as a nei,~,bo~ he is interested in finding out if Mr Pandergraft can put more than one house on this 'lot which .is less than one acre in size 4) there is no access to this particular lot unless the applicant buys additional land and 5). he has no objection t'o the proposed Variance as long as only one house is built on the property. Cb. airF, mn Norton explained that 1) at this POint' it iS not possible Eor..the applicant to erect even one house on this pro·party and 2) if the Variance is granted ~.tc Pendergraft' can build only one house on this property. -2- P!annin% Commission Minutes -- 23 Oct,qber ].967 - 'Contin?ed II. D. V-310 - Continued The Secretary~ in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Norton,· stated that this non-conforming lot resui~ed when I.K~. Pendergraft divided his property into separate lots some years ago. Con~m. issioner Crisp inquired if any.property that could be used for right-of-way purposes is availabie 'for purchase. The Secretary stated that it had been his understanding that the appli- cant ha8 provided far right-of-way to this property. At 7:51 P.M,. Chairteen Norton cl'osed the ~aearing 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 reg~iar meeting. Commissioner Crisp stated that the Variance Committee would ~ke an on-site inspection (shortly after 9:00 ~ ~ on Saturday, L November ~967) oroviding no problems were encount'ered in getting to the property. Dr. Silbernmn.offered the use of a portion of his property to the ·Variance· Committee in order to gain access to the subject location to make the pro- posed inspection. Chairman Norton directed the Secretary to contact the applicant and. inform him of the forthcoming Variance Committee visit. ... E. V-3].! - Thomas Coe, Sobey Road - Request for Variance in Connection with .... ~ Yard Setback Rec~uirements The hearing relative to V-311 was, opened at 7:53 P.M. The Secretary Stated · that the Notices of Hearing ~.~ere n'ailed and briefly ~eviewed this. application. The applicant was present and statec] that ]_) · he wished to build a garage so ~ ..... the .~= could convert the existing .~{ara~e into a f~'mi!v room 2) terrain at the back of the lot is very steep and not suitab].e for the construction of a building; therefore, in order to construct the garage a Mariance is necessa~-v No one else wished to comment. Coxmmi.ssioner Crisp arranged an' appointment with Mr. Coe for an on-site inspec- tion of the property on Saturday, 4 Moversher ·].'967 at !0:00 AiM. Chair~n Norton (7:56 P.M.) closed the.hearing and directed that V-311 be continued to the ne:<t regular meeting and referred same to the Variance Committee for study. F. CRDiNANCE NO. 38-13 - Proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 38 Relating to the Licensing of Horses and Stables - Continued from 28 August ].967 G, ORDINANCE NO. NS-3.!2 - Proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. NS-3 Relating to' the KeeL~inZ of Horses - Continued from 28 August ].967 Since the aforementions8 'i. ten~s are closely related they were discussed .', s imu ! tane ou s Iv '. . The continued hearing was re-opene.d at 7:57 P.M. The .Secretary stated there was a communication in the file (submitted by I.~. Dave Bennion of the .Teeriink '~w Firm) which is a cenfi-mation to materia! discussed at a Subdivision Co~anittee meeting attend'ed by ?~. Dave Bennion, members of the Castle Rock Horse O~er's Association and their attorney Erwin Nielsen. .' P!annin% Commission Mint~tes - 23 October i9~7 Continued Ii, F. ORDFXANCE i'!O. 38-!3 - Ce, ntin:_~cd G. ORDINANCE NO. NS-3.12 - Continu~d Commissioner McFa!i stated that '!) the Subdivision Committee rode a ·serious· effort in the past two (2) years to establish a feasible ordinance which will be satisfactory to the horse-loving people and protect the rights of ..'.:'.. 'others as well.· '. He then read the Subdivision Committee Re ort . ~ p of 23 dctober 1967· recommending that Ordinance NS-3.!2 with Equestrian ~,~p and Ordi- nance No. 38. i3 be approved and further recommended same to the City Council for adoption. ~he Secretary then read two (2) communicatijr~: i) received from Y~. Peter· J. Lert, Farm AdviSor for the University of California Extension Service', stating a) the setback requirements stated in the Ordinance appear to be. excessive 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.~ s~d.. 2-) submitted by Mrs. Robert 'B. Suhr, resident of Horseshoe Drive and stating' a) she would like to offer her support for a high· hor'se_population in Saratoga and b) there were'great advantages 'to a teen-ager occupying himself with the grooming of a horse or ·cleaning a barn over a teen-agar. who drives a soupad-up automobile or smokes marijuana. . e ~ _. ~ e Association, stated that ~_ ~en, attorney for Castle Rock Horse 0 n~r's i) 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 setbacks will impose restrictions on t.he use Droparty owners can make of their land ~' Castle Rock Horse O~mer's. ~ o 2 'the Association has, in part, accepted the proposed Ordinance but still urge further modifications of the setback requirements 7) a booklet that Lert mailed to him explaining Fly Control methS'ds was most interesting. · He then suggested that the City contact the Santa Clara County Health Depart- ment for information and help when 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 relative to .problems with pools and horses, et'c.. Mr. Fred C~iiins stated that adjacent property owners share numerous fence lines and if the uresent proposed setbacks are enforced an area will be left between properties which will become a weed patch. At the request of Chairman Norton the Secretary explained the Equestrian Boundaries located in t'wo (2) areas !) in the vicinity of Sobey Road and Fruitvale Avenue Area and Q~ located in the proximity of Pierce Road and Mt. Eden Road T'-e zone covers most of ~-~e 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. Plannin:.% Commission ,Minutes - 23 Octobc. r I967 -- Continued iI. F. ORDiNA'~'~'CE NO. 38-13 - Cc;ntinu,?d G. OP.D!NAiqCZ NO. NS--3.12 - Continued H'us. ~ichard i.K:rph.'~, of Via ]:Isgina stated that she felt that being per- mitted to. keep one horse with a !ic.anse and one with a Use Permit on one (1) acre (as stated in the proposed orainat~ce) did not seem to be aTM iT, ore ~er, 4ent Chairnnn Norton stated that even with a Use Permit under' the present ruling it is not possible to keep two (2) horses but with the proposed ordinance there are some provisio:~.s made for the keeping of two (2). horses with a Use P.ermit. Mrs. Jett inquired what the setbacks were as proposed by the Ordinance'.. Chairman Norton explained that no stable or corral shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any property Line; fifty. (50) feet to any dwelling _. ; ~ 00~ any dwel or swimming pool on ~-he' site one--hundred (.~, } feet to ling not on the site; except corral may be located no less than thirty (30) feet from.. the r[ght-of-}.zay of side or rear street bordering on the site. ~k-~ . Richard !.[urDhv stated ........ i' ' the setback for pools is only six (6) feet this seemed a littie bit out of balance with the setbacks proposed '~=.'~ the keeping of horses and '2~ ~ere are nuisances caused by pools that are not caused by horse~ such as ea'~.ies and the noise generated b-/same. I.~. ?fanchester of Via Regina discussed under what conditions flies are .. generated by horse waste. He then stated that the setbacks proposed will hamper the - dispersal..' of th~ above-mentioned waste by decreasing the -. amount of space.available for said purpose. Chairman Norton stated that i) this problem has been considered by the Planning. Cc. ms~ission and 2) generally the house~ and pool cover a good Dart of the acre necessar~ for the keeming of a horse th~s leaving pretty small quarters for the hoTcsa. ~.'~. Angus of l. lonte Vista sta~ed tb. at l) his corral ended up being 8-feet by i5-feet because of the existence of the pool and 2) 'unless 'the house is situated ex.ctiy rir.zht Drobiems arise with +~:". corra~ and if there is a pool on the property the possibility of keeping a horse iS' almost eliminated. Chairman Norton stated that permission might be obtained from the neighbors to pasture horses in the area betx.:een fences where .grass and weeds will grow. !,k-s. ~nchester asked if the nsw setbacks included the additional property taken u~ by road ~c;lit-o-F--vav~ )~s. ~.1urphy inquired ,what relationship there was oct .een the proposed ordi- and the old ordinance? · ,, Chairman i~orton explained that i) the riSht-of-way could not be included, as part of the setback requirements and 2) the proposed ordinance'compieteiy supersedes' the old ordinance. v-- Hanson of Pierce Road s c .... ,~,_ i) .._ ~2~intains his five (5) h'o~ses on one acre of his seven (7) acres and does not notice any problems with fli~s c~sDecia~;''' sinc. e the purchase of sale b].ocks and 9) the cars passing by create more dust than all five (5) of the horses. -5-- P~lannip~ Commission ,>'~inu, tes - 23 Octchef ].967 - Continued ii. F. ORDiD!ANCE NO. 38-13 - Continued G. ORDINANCE NO. NS-3.12 - C'ontinuec] Mr. Angus inq~ired how the new license procedure would affect the existing Use' Permit? Chairxmn Norton advised that the ez.zisting Use Permits could be 'exchanged for a license after payment of a sn~2ii fee which will be fixed by the City Council. .. ~s. Jett stated that she ~,~as concerned about the hun~ne aspect involved in penning 'a horse up in a small 'area. A resic~ent of Via Colina inquired if his property is located in the Equestrian Zone and 'wha~ advantages there is to being in said Zone. Chairman Norton directed the 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 permissable to have two horses on one (1) acre with a license and a Use Permit. COmmissioner McFa!i moved (8:53 P.M.), seconded by'Co~issioner Crisp, to close the hearing relative to Ordinance No. 38-13 and Ordinance No. NS-3.12; motion carried unanimously and' the hearing was closed. ' Conm~issioner McFali moved, seconSed by Con~nissioner Crisp, that the Subdivision Cox~ittee Report of 23. Oc~'~ober 1967 be adopted and that the proposed Ordinance NS-3.12 with Equestrian 'r'~a=3 dated 23 .October 1967 and Ordinance 38-13 be aDproved and recomended to the City Council for adoption; motion carried unanimously. Chairmah "~I6rton expresse~ his appreciation to 'all 'i~.dl~f~ual~"'dnd "&'Sphclarly. }k-. Nielsen and members of the Castle Rock Horse O~.~er'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 RECONVEb!E II. B. V-308 - Dr. Joseph To~.~.send - Continued from Previous .Section of A~enda 'the public hearing on V-308 was resumed at 9:15 P.M. Commissioner Crisp stated that i) the Variance Comn~ittee met at the Recess and as a result have a verbal rcco~endation relative to V-308 2) the recomaend- ation of the Variance Commmittee is to deny this Variance (as 'sho~m on Exhibit dated 18 October 1967) since .a slight variation of the location of the .proposed residence would r~ke a Variance unnecessary. I.~. PiCa, app!icant~s architect, inquired if the Variance Con~ittee had any suggestion as to how to reduce the size of the residence? Coxrmissioner johnson, with concurrence o~ Conm~issioner Crisp, stated. that one corner of the house could be cut back to meet the setback requirements. Commissioner johBson moved, seconded by Con~issioner Crisp, to close. the hearing on V~308;' motion carried unanimously and the hearing 'was 'closed at 9: 18 P .M. Con-nissioner Crisp moved~ seconded'by Corm~:issioner Johnson, to adopt the recon~nendation of the Variance Committee to deny V-308 since the findings. required by Section 17.6 of Ordinan'ce NS-3 cannot be made;.motion carried unanimous ly .. -6- Plannin~ Commission 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 1967 Commissioner McFall stated that the applicant had no~ submitted his revised map and then asked that SDR-710 be. continued· to the next regular meeting. The Secretary stated that a letter of further extension u,ms needed from the applicant. The .applicant, ~ir. Ted Galcb, stated that !) he was instructed to apply for a Variance due to the width of the lot in question 2) since the Variance x,ms denied the a!ten~at~ now is to tear doom a newly constructed garage 3) ..he. ~.~s ···.·'unprepared for the ·denial of V-305 and had not read the Ordinance prior to the denial 4) he has since read the Ordinance and found that he should not be denied the same enjoyment of his property as his neighbors do of theirs 5) since his neighbors are enjoying 75 foot wide lots he could see no reason 'why his lot should be 85 feet wide. .. Commissioner Crisp informed >~r. Galeb that the ~eason for the 85 foot width is du~ to the fact that his property was divided recently and therefore must meet the present requirements. Mr. Galeb explained that 1) this lot was at one time intended for use as part of the Ted Avenue extension x,Xnich never developed e:,:cept on a rap' 2) he feels V-305 should be appealed' to 'the City Council since it is not practical to tear doom a newly constructed building.· The Secretary, in .answer to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, ·Stated that 1) the time limit for filing an appeal on a Variance is ten (i0) days 2)' the set waiting period for re-application is one year and 3) it would be necessary to consult ~:ith the City Attorney. to see how this m~tter could' b.e brought· before the Cit7 Council. Chairman Nort,. directed i) the Secretary to consult with the City Attorney on . to determine·by what method this matter can be brought before the City Council 2) . that SDR-710. b.e ~ontinued to the meeting of 13 November 1967 and 3) the applicant to submit a letter granting a further extension of same. B. SDR-720 - W. H. Kennedy~ Peach Hill Road ~ BuiI~in5 Site Approval - 1 Lot Commissioner McFall stated that the applicant's representative has been· · informed of the proposed conditions. Fm. Gilbert of I,~rk Thomas and Co. was present to represent,the applicant and expressed satisfaction with the proposed conditions of approval. Commissioner McFal! moved, seconded by Co~nissioner Smith, that the' Building Site Con~ittee 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 forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. SDR-72i - Ray E. Bieber, Pike Road - Building, Si.te Approval - 1 Lot The applicant was present and stated that he wo.Uld like a meeting with the Subdivision Co,~m~ittee to discuss Specific Condition Ii-D of the 'Building· Site Corm~ittee Report of 23 October 1967. The Chair,'~n ez,~plaincd that an appointm,cnt' could be m~de with the Subdivision Cormnittee by contacting the Secretary.and then directed that' SDR~721 be continued to the next regular meeting on 13 November 1967. PlanninZ Comanission Minutes - 23 October 1967 - Continued IV. DESIGN REVIEW A·. A-256 - Luceal Westmoreland, Sousa Lane - Final Design Approval - Addition ·of Sixteen (16) Beds to Boarding House The Secretary read the Staff Report of 23 October 1967 recomznending that A-265 be granted Final Design Approval. Commissioner O'Rorke moved, seconded b'y Con~nissioner Smith,' that the Staff Report of 23 October 1967 be adopted and A-265 be granted Final Design Approval as illustrated on Exhibits "A" andI "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 Storaf~e Buildin~ - Continued from 28 AuZust 1967 Commissioner O'Rorke advised that 1) the applicant is having problems meeting the parking requirements set dox.~ 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 no~--ifying the Design Review Con~mittee 4) it was not until the :Final Plans Qere submitted did the applicant realize that the Design Review Com~mittee considered the storage area when establish- ing parking requirements 5) the Design Review Co~,-unittee has asked the applicant to supply· twelve (12).·or thirteen (13) parking spaces dependin~ on the number of employees 6) the applicant has endeavored t·o find additional .parking (3)· spaces and 7) the applicant and his architect, .Mr.. Warren Held ' feel that the storage area should not be considered when deciding the number of parking spaces. Chairn~anj Norton stated that the storage area is.' always considered 'in establish- ing the parking requirements. Fir. Heid was present and stated that in a letter (submitted by him) he explained that three (3) parking spaces were. available on the property of Saratoga Electric approximately three-hundred feet south of the Corinthian Studios. in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Norton, the Secretary stated that 'normally the Storage for a strictly retail use is not counted in determining parking requirements; however, this situation Was given' special treatment under Preliminary Design Review in 1964 by· considering, the use as basically Com~nercial Service Sales of bulky merchandise which would require a lesser number of park-. ing spaces based on a ratio'. Of one· (!) space per 500 square feet. Commissioner·Smith stated that e·ven at'one parking space per 500 square thirteen (13) parking spaces would be needed for the· sales area.and thre~ (3) employees. . }~c. Heid was ,present and stated that 1) he would like to clear this matter up so that it meets the re'quirements 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. Comanissioner O'Rorke advised that the only problem with 'this application involved the parking requirements.. ~. Heid stated tibet he had parked on the street near Corinthian.· StUdios on many occasions without. difficulty. Commissioner Crisp stated that the parking 'on the street is not' adequate enough to depend upon. " Planning CommiSsion Minutes - 23 October 1967 Continued IV. B. A-146 - Continued Chairman Norton stated that there is a 300 foot restriction relative to the distance require'd between· location ~f parking spaces and place of business. · The Secretary stated that the applicant' ·was ·eager to provide parking and would like the Comanission to consider 'the proposed spaces. · Chairman Norton cormnented that·if the applicant ·cannot expand because of parking r~quirements· the City may 7iOse :~. historical asset (Corinthian Stud los). Commissi0ncr O'Rorke advised that, perhaps, .the .applicant could apply for a Variance. Chairman Norton stated that since the Commission practiced a stern policy regarding Variances the possibility of any progress along the lines of' obtaining same were slim. Mr. Held stated that his applicant had made eve{~y effort to find proper parking nearby'; however, the Sterling Lumber property is all t·ied up; the grocery store plans to expand; and the church cannot spare any parking. Commissioner· McFall suggested that the· distance between C'orinthian Studios and the proposed parking spaces be carefully measured to make sure it is accurate. Mrs. McGuire state.d there was a vacant lot to the rear of Corinthian Stuclios which looks.-~ like it could be used for parking.· Mr. Held explained that this property belonged to the Sterling Lumber Company. Chairman Norton inquired about the possibility"of temporary parking. Commissioner O'Rorke replied that the building will not be temporary so the· parking would have to be a permanent a~-rangement·. Cormn~issioner ·Smith stated that a compromise could be reached but not.-in conformance with the Ordinance. Chairman Norton inquired 'how many parking spaces would be required ·.if the whole building were reviewed by 'th~ Design· Review Comn~itte'e as a new appii- · ca t ion. · Commissioner Smith stated ·that ·thirteen (13) would be ·requir'ed including one space per employee. Mr. Held stated that 1) the o~.zaers could not be considered as employee·s 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. Held advised that 1) ·the Uniform Building Code requires that it be one classificatio~ 2)· my client handles bulky type merchandise 3) 'this is the type of situation I cannot ]prove, but can only go on the records my client has available and 4) if Preliminary appro~zal ·is not firm enough to .base Final plans On then why is it necessary? -9- Planning C·onm~ission Minutes - 23 October ].967 - Continued IV. B. A- i4'6 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 withdut benefit of advice from the Design Review Committee as is the procedure under Preliminary Approval. At this time .Mr. Held submitted a diagrammatic plot lay-out for the Saratoga Electric Company showing the additional parking avail'able on the Saratoga Electric Property. ·· After discussion it wa.s found the.plan submitted by ~ir.· 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' location. of a storage rack. Chairn~n Norton stated that he could see three (3) alternates 1) to recommend 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 ~ould 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 .been under th'e impr'ession 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 Prefiminary Design turns out to be quite different than the Final Plans now under consideration. Commissio'ner 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 an ..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. Planning Commission Minutes' - 23 October 1967 - Continued vi~ NF, W BUSINESS. A. SDR-7i2 -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 tl~an the· ·specified underground utilities.' Commissioner McFall advised that the· Committee 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 !.[-. jordan was not present. Chairman Norton so directed. VII. OLD BUSINESS NONE VIII. CO~D~iCATIONS A. I.~ITTEN None B. O~L ~ILING OF ~TER~LS Co~issioner O'Rorke suggested that since ~. ~sner had to be absent all the ~terials in his folder be'~iled to him. He further suggested that the same be done for any Co~issioner who had to be absent in the' future .' Chair~n Norton directed that ·this become a regular procedure·. AC~OI.~EDGEI~ZNTS Chair~n Norton expressed ·gratitude to the Secretary, Subdivision Committee and City Attorney for the work done on the Horse. Ordinance and co~ended them for doing a wonderful job. GUESTS Chair~n Norton acknowledged,. with pleasure, the presence 0f COuncilman Hartman, M~s. McGuire and M~-. Lewis of the Good Government "Group, ~k-s. Ottenberg of the League·of Women Voters, ~s. Smith wife of Commissioner Smith, and ~. Ted Galeb Saratoga·resident. He, also, expressed appreciation ~o ~-s. McGuir'e for the coffee served at recess. IX. ADJOUR~rMEIw~ The Chairman declared the meeting ·adjourned at 10:34 P.M. .·· ~~S clf etat~~ " j -i1- NOTE: CORRECTED AGENDA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COI~MISSION AGENDA TIME: Monday, 23 October 1967, 7:30 P.M. PLACE: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting X. ROUTINE .ORGANIZ. ATION A. ROLL CALL B. MI~.~'UTES IX, PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ...C.-109 -.Harry Margolis~ Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R,l-15,000" (Single Family Residential) to "P-A" (Professional-Administrative) - Continued from 9 October 1967 · .V-308 - Dr. Joseph Townsend, Bank Mill Road - Request for Variance in Connection with Side and Front Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from 90ctobe..r...1967 C. V-309 - Clay McCull. ough, Old Tree Way - Request for Variance in Connec- tion with Side Yard Setback Requireman~s - Continued from 9 October 1967 D. V-31__O - Wayne Pendergraft, Foothill Lane - Request for Variance in C~Ofinection with Lot Width and Size Requirements . E, .V.-.3!l - Thomas Coe, Sobey Road - Request for Variance in Connection ~ith Side Yard Setback Requirements F. ORDINANCE NO. 38-13 - Proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 38 Relating to the Licensing of Horses and Stables - Con- tinued from 28 August 1967 .. G. ..ORDINAN.CE.NO. NS-3.12-Proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. NS-3 Relating to the Keeping of Horses - Continued from 28 August 1967 III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-710 - B. T. Galeb, Seagull Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 9 October 1967 B. SDR-720 - W. H. Kennedy, Peach Hill Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot. C. SDR-721 - Ray E. Bieber~ .Pik.e Road -.Building Site Approval - 1 Lot IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-265 - Luceal Westmoreland, Sousa Lane - Final Design Approval - Addi- tion of Fiftee.~..(.15) Beds to Boarding House B. A-146 - Corinthian Studio, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road - Final Design Review - Sales and Storage Building - Continued from 28 August 1967 Plannin~ Commission Agenda -.23 Octob.p.r 19.67 -.Continued V. ..C. ITY COUNCIL. REPORT VI, NEv~ BUSINI~SS A. SDR-712 - Jerry Jordan, Michaels Drive - Request for Modification of Conditions VII. OLD BUS.1N~ESS VII I. COtMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN B. ORAL IX. ADJOURNMENT -2-