HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-1969 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COmmISSION
MINUTES
TIME~: Monday, 23 June 1969, 7:30 P.M. .
PLACE: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
The meeting ~s called to order by Vice-Chairman Lively.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bacon, Cri§p, Kraus, Lively, Metcalf, and Smith.
Absent:' Commissioner Norton.
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the reading
of the minutes of the 9 June 1969 meeting be waived and they be approved as
distributed to the Commission subject to the following change:
page 5. . .under II. E.. .paragraph 4. .line 2. . .delete the word "that"
and instead insert the word "and"; motion carried unanimously.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ao GENERAL PL~,N REVIEW - Public Hearing on Annual General Plan Review of 1969
- Continued from 9 June 1969
Chairman Lively re-opened the hearing at 7:36 P.M. The Secretary stated
that two conmunications had been received pertainingz to the General Plan
'and he then read the communications: received from:
1) Mr. Rex F. Larsen of 20115 Sea Gull Way
and filed in opposition to apartment
zoning for the Galeb property.
:,
,.. 2) Mrs. Edmund K. Porter of 14790 Butano
Terrace requesting that the "P-A" Zoning
for the Cermak property on Saratoga-Los
Gatos Road be denied.
Chairman Lively stated that 1) the~e is a General Plan Report dated 19 ~y
1969. and revised 18 June 1969 in th~ Commissioners folders for their review
and 2) it might be wise if the revised report is reviewed prior to inviting
any comments from the audience. He then read the revised report notiBg that
the report had been revised on page: 2. . .center paragraph .... and on page 3.
paragraph C. 1.
Chairman Lively then recommended that the meeting of 14 June 1969 (~ttended
by the General Plan Committee, Staff, and interested 'parties including ~. H.
Beaudoin, ~. R. Sheets, ~. Adolph, ~. A. Anderson, Dr. Sullivan, ~. Brunner
and Dr. Ko A. Cermak) and the meeting of 18 June 1969 (attended by the General
Plan Conmittee and Staff) be added to the recorded list attached to the General
Plan Report.
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 23 June 1969 - Continued
II. A. GENEP~AL PLAN REVIEW - Continued
Mr. Jack Musser, 12401 De Sanka, ~tated that 1) he bought the first lot
in the Azule tract 2) he was not in favor of "R-I" Zoning for F~. Galeb's
property on Ted Avenue 3) the "Ril'' homes in the Azule subdivision were
very inexpensively constructed 4)~ his home cost $9,000 at the time he
purchased it 5) the home owners in the subdivision have upgraded their
property over a period of time 6): single family d~zellings on ~. Galeb's
property would be undesirable at ~his time since t~ey would again be
inexpensive homes and would now detract from the existing improved homes
and 7) if the duplex zoning is approved the City ~11 be able. to maintain
some control whereas with the "R-I" Zoning the type of construction cannot
be regulated.
Chair~n Lively explained that the General Plan CoEittee felt that
1) the Galeb property should remain residential im nature and 2) no
Change of Zoning should be indicated for subject property until such
time as appropriate duplex plans are presented.
~. H. Beaudoin, present to represent M~. Galeb, stated that he would like
an explanation of what is meant by'z two (2) dwelling .units per lot as recommended
'for the Galeb property in the General Plan Committee Report.
Chairman Lively explained tha~ 1) . ~. Galeb's 4~-acre parcel should .definitely
not be considered as one .lot; therefore, any duplex development should be done
by dividing the property into 10,000 square foot lots 1,7ith two (2) units on
each lot.
Mr. Beaudoin stated that 1) ~. Galeb would like to know how 4~-acres can be
divided 2) the City does not have an o-~d{nance re~rdin~, duplex lots or develop-
ments and a definition of same would be appreciated .'and 3) at one time this
property was zoned "R-M'~ (under CoUnty Planning) and could possibly have had
a density of 30-units per acre.
Chair~n Lively stated that 1) the long range goal is to keep this area
primarily "R-I" 2) apartments are not suitable for this property since the
access is difficult 3) the subject property is in ~a problem area and 4) the
solution to the problem is not to ~estroy the existi.ng atmosphere, but to
develop it in a way that will blend with "R-i" and a~artments would not
fulfill this goal.
. ~. Beaudoin stated that 1) economically it would 5,e more ideal to develop
apartments on this property, but }~. Galeb is willim~g to compromise and develop
single story duplexes in this area 2) it is important that some type of set-
backs for duplexes be established as well as indivi~.ual lot sizes. within the
~e~elopment 3) this property is definitely not suitable for "R-i" zoning.
Chairman' Lively 'stated that the General Plan Commft'{ee report recommends
that-the'-"R-I" .atmosphere be retained in this area. and clearly state's that
""a~y' t~' 0f apartments would not' be compatible wi~Fn the existing residential
"' zoning =' . .
Chairman Lively, in answer t0 an inquiry from ~. Eeaudoin, stated that 1) the
law requires the Planning Commission to hold only C~) one public hearing on
the General Plan and their recommendation is then f~rwarded to the City Council
for review and action and 2) the ~ity Council will hold a public hearing for
anyone wisbin~ to discuss the matter further.
~. Beaudoin stated that 1) another public hearing ~should be held by the
Planning Commission since he and ~. Galeb have not "had an opportunity to
study the revisions proposed in the General Plan Re=port and 2) once the
Planning Con~ission recommendation is forwarded to ~'he City Council it will
be difficult to change it.
Planning Commission Minutes - 23 June 1969 - Continued
II. A. GENERAL PLAN REVIEW - Continued
Chairman Lively stated that 1) the Planning Commission has held' two
public hearings and have, also, met with interested people at Committee·
meetings and 2) the General Plan Committee made a ..thorough study to
make sure they had all the facts prior to presentimg their report.
The Secretary explained that the Planning·Commission is required to hold
only one public hearing on the General Plan and thi!s has already been done.
F~. Beaudoin stated that since the subject matter in the General Plan
Committee Report has been changedlanother public hearing should be held.
Commissioner Smith stated that th~ General Plan Committee did meet with
residen'ts of the Azule (Galeb) area and Mr. Beaudoi~n and it was made
pretty clear at that time what the recom~.endation o~ the Committee would
be; therefore, they have had ten days to study the ~subject reconnnendation
made in the General Plan Committee Report.
Mr. Daniel Hoffman, attorney repr&·senting residents of Azule area, stated
that 1) the Planning Commission hears mostly from. ~people-when they are
dissatisfied 2) he wanted to express his approval ~n behalf of his clients
on the recommendation made re,lative to the Galeb property and 3) he wanted
to thank the Planning ConLmission for their conscientious planning.
Mr. Adrien Anderson, 20322 Craigen Circle, stated t. Fnat if he understood the
revised General Plan Report correctly the General Plan Committee has recommended
to eliminate "P-A" Lan~_~ Use from the Cermak property to Oak Street.
Chairman Lively stated that the revised report date~ 19.M~y 1969 and revised
18 June 1969 states that "P-A" Land Use would be eliminated at the southerly
boundary of the Lady of Fatima Villa; therefore, the Cermak property is
'exempted from such "P-A" Land Use~
Mr. Anderson stated that 1) when the original General Plan of 1960 was dra~,zn
up and approved it called for Multiple-Residential Zoning on the Cermak
property particularly one vacant lot 2) Dr. Cermak bought this property six-
teen (16) years ago and planned t6 build apartments and the members of the
original Planning Commission were aware of Dr. Cermak's· intentions and 3) he
wondered why the zoning was changed in the 1968 Gen;eral Plan.
Chairman Lively stated the 1969 General Plan .Committee reviewed the requested
changes and made a field trip to the property and decided that Dr. Cermak's
property should remain as shox,~ on the 1968 General Plan.
~' Anderson advised that there were some erroneous statements made at the
9 June 1969 meeting such as the statement that Dr. Cermak planned to build
twenty-six (26) apartment units o~ his property; h~,zever, he would a.qcept
the recommendation of the General·Plan Committee even though he was not in
'agreem~nt-;With same.
Mr. Beaudoin requested that his concern relative to scheduling another public
hearing in connection with the revised General Plan Report be noted in the
minutes.
At 8:20 PoM. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that
the public hearing relative to the 1969 General Plan Review be closed; motion
carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes - 23 June 1969 - Continued
II. A. GENERAL PLAN REVIEW - Continued
Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the
General Plan Committee Report dated 19 May 1969 and revised 18 June 1969
be adopted (including the recording of the 14 June 1969 and 18 June 1969
General Plan Com~ittee meetings on the sheet attached to the subject report)
and forwarded to the City Council as the recom~mendation of the Planning
Commission; motion carried unanimously.
B. SLOPE DENSITY ORDINANCE - RevisiOn to Ordinance NS-5.8, the Subdivision
Ordinance of the City of ·Saratoga and Ordinance
NS-3, Section 4.2 and Section 4.5d, Zoning Ordi-
nance of the City of Saratoga Relative to Slope
DensitX Regulations for Millside Residential
Development - Continued from 26 ~y 1969
Chairnmn Lively re-opened the hearing at 8:25 P.M. The Secretary stated
nothing new had been added to the file and then recommended that the matter
be continued to allo~·~ time for the City Attorney am.d Staff to draft a pro-
posal for adoption by the Planning Commission in connection ~ith slope density
regulations.
Chairman Lively, in view of the foregoing, closed the hearing for the
evening at 8:26 P.M., directed the matter continued to the next regular
meeting.
C. ZONING ORDINANCE AMEND~,~ENTS - Revision to Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning Ordinance
of ~he City of Saratoga, Relating to Denial with-
out. Prejudice of Change of Zoning Applications,
Sigh Standards for Mfulti-Family Dwellings, Motels
Hotels and Lodging Mouses and Additional Design
Standards for Residential Districts in the City
The hearing was opened at 8:27 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notices of
Hearing were published and no communications had been received.
M~. Norman ~·~rtin of 12525 i,iiller. Avenue stated that it had been indicated
that there would be a hearing relative to accessory structures at this
meeting.
The Secretary explained that the public hearing in· ·connection ~ith accessory
structures ~ou!d be held at the meeting of 14 July ·1969.
· · At 8:30 P.M. Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by 'Commissioner Metcalf, to
~close·the.hearing relative to the proposed ordinance; motion carried unani-
mously.
CommissiOner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner 'Crisp, that the ~mendment
· to Zoning Ordinance NS-3 relative. to denial without ·prejudice of Change of
Zoning ap~licati0ns, sign standards for Multi-Family dwellings, and additional
design standards for residential distircts in the City be adopted by the
Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council; motion carried unani-
mously.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-817 - Jones and Davidson, Quito Road and Woodbank Way - Building Site
Approval - 4 Lots - Continued from 9 June 1969
The Secretary read the letter submitted by the applicant requesting with-
drawal of SDR-817.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner· Crisp, to approve the
request for-withdra~.ml of SDR-817; motion carried unanimously.
- C Ont ~nue d
Planning Commission Minutes 23 June 1969 - ~ '
III B. SDR-819 - William j. I.iartin, Jrl Cabyon Vie~.~ Drive - Building Site
Approval 1 Lot - C .txnued from 9 June 1969
-
Commissioner Smith stated that the S~bdivision Coxmnittee did meet with
the applicant who seemed to be in agreement with the conditions proposed
by the Subdivision Committee.
The Secretary stated that the applic!nt did revie~.x the proposed conditions
=~ ~ ' of
of approval and had expressed satis~ ~ .
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded b~ Com~nissioner Bacon, that the Building
Site Committee Report of 23 June 196~ relative to SDR-819 be adopted and
that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-i", filed 9 j~ne 1969) be approved subject
to th~ conditions set forth in said!report; motion carried unanimously.
C. SDR-820 - John B. Walsh, Herriman Av.nue - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-820 be co'ntinued to allow time
for the applicant to submit a revise~ map.
Chairman Lively so directed.
D. SDR-821 - ~. T. 'Galeb, Sara~o5a-Sunn)vale Road - Buildin~ Site Approval - 1 Lot
The Secretary stated that the ppl'c~nt rev
a · . iewed ~the proposed conditions of
approval and expressed satisfaction 6f same.
Conm~issioner Smith moved, seconded b~ Co~issioner Bacon, that the Building
Site Committee Report of 23 June 1969 relative to~ SDR-820 be adopted and
that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 13 Ju~e 1969)' be approved subject
to the conditions set forth in Said eport; motion carried unanimously.
SDR-822 - l~rl Zimn~erman, Boh!man Rod - BuildinS .Site Approval - 1 Lot
Commissioner Smith stated that 1) t~e Fire Department did request that the
matter be postponed for thirty (30) ~ays since t~ze notes on the submitted
map regarding water are not correct, because they do not indicate that the
property ~.~ill be served by a private Fater syste~ 2) the applicant is in
a hurry for' building site approval a~d the Fire Department should be con-
tacted to inquire if the matter cannot be decided in less than the thirty
(30) day postponement requested.
Chairman Lively directed SDR-822 c ~inued 'to the next regular meeting and
requested the Secretary to contact t~e Fire Depar~tment relative to submitting
their co~n~ents prior to the meeting gf 14 july 1~69.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-295 -' Saratoga Foothills Development, Saratoga 7Avenue - Final De'~ign Revie~..~
Approval - Apartment Com[,lex - Retocation~ of Par~-tin.$
Commissioner Metcalf stated that !) this is a pr~oposa! by Saratoga Foothills
Development for an apartment complex for ~hich ti~e Planning Commission has
previously given Final Design Approve. 12) the a~p!icant proposes a revision
of the drivex.zay from Saratoga Avenue,~ a redesign ~of wa!k~,zays and parking spaces
all of x.j~ich should result in a better job of scr~eeninJ and landscaping on the
property 3) there ~,~ill be no change in t~e build~ing itself and 4) he felt,
generally, the revision would constitute ~n impr~ement.
The Assistant Planner read the Staff ~eoort datee~ 23 June !~69 recommended
that Final Design Approval be granted for the revzision proposed in connec-
tion with A-295.
Plannin% Commission Minutes - 23 June 1969 - Continued
IV. A. A-295 - Continued
Co~m-issioner Metcalf recommended that Condition (a) of the subject
Staff Report dated 23 June 1969 be changed to read as follows:
"(a) Submit a~ elevation of the whole
project a's seen from the west side
of subject property."
Con~missioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the
Staff Report of 23 June 1969 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design
Approval be re-granted for A-295 as sho~..n~. on Exhibit "A-2", "B", and "C"
and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unani-
mous ly.
B. A-316 - Bro~...,~_ and Kauffmann, Co~ and Miller Avenues Final Design Review -
Permanent Subdivision Identification Sidn - Continued from 9 June 1969
~r. Rod Stevenson, present to represent the applicant, stated that 1) the
proposed sign would be 8-feet high from grade and 2-feet higher than the
6-foot height limitation allowed for fences.2) ~. Martin, President of the
Prides Crossing Homeo~.~.~er's and ~.-. Naugle, Vice-President were present to
present a letter and comment~ regarding the proposed entryway sign. He then
submitted additional exhibits in connection with the said entryWay ~ign.
The Assistant Planner noted that ~) the diagram 6f the sign will be marked
Exhibit "A" 2) the rendering s~bmitted will be Exhibit "B" and 3) the letter
to be submitted by the homao~.~er's assocation will be stamped Exhibit "C".
Mr. J. F. Naugle, Vice-President Prides Crossing Homeo~,~er's Association,
stated that 1) the letter to be submittee] by the Homeo~er's Assocation
would arrive shortly 2) on 9 June 1969 the Homeo~..mer's Association held
an officers meeting to consider the subject entryway at the request of
Bro~.m and Kauffmann 3) the rendering· and a verbal description of the pro-
. posed identification sign and entryway was submitted for review 4) the
residents of this area have been awaiting an entrance identification of
this type 5) the Association would request that a) the sign be permanent
and will not be removed when the subdivision is completed b) the entryway
be lighted c) some access to water be provided for continuing care of
shrubbery. He further stated that 1) the current officers and board members
cannot bind future Boards to the maintenance of this entryway, but it is
believed by the present Board, that the Homeowner's Association would be
agreeable to taking over the future maintenance of the subject entryx~zay and
in·addition to that all of the Co~ Avenue frontage as association memberships
and funds permit ·and 2) the details and guide lines· of the subject maintenance
~pr0gram can be worked out with the Planning Commission.
~[r. Stevenson, in answer to an inquiry from Co:p.:nissioner Metcalf, stated that
1) the sign will be permanent 2)·~ a watering system ~.:il!.be provided for the
'shrubberyl·3) the entryway will be well lighted and 4) Bro~.m and Kauffmann
will be responsible for all·charges for services until such time as they
finish the subdivision after which time the bills will be turned over to ~
the Homeo~..a~er ' s Association.
~. Stevenson then stated, in ans~.f,~er to an inquiry from Chairman Lively,
that 1) the property (on which the entryway is located) could be given
to the City of Saratoga or some permanent agency and 2) the property
adjacent to the entryway ~.xould probably· have a garage ~,~ith curved drive~;,~ay
back up to the subject entryx.,~y. He further stated that on one side of the
street 3ro~..~ and Kauffmann is the ·recorded o~.~er ant] on the opposite side
the Cox Garage is the recorded ox~ner.
The Secretary stated that the ~rooerty could be deeded to the Prides Crossing
Homeo~,mer ' s Association.
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes - 23 June !999 - Continued
IV. B. A-316 Continusd
Commissioner ~.~'etca].f recoma~ended that a Conditio~a (e) be adoled to the
Staff Report dated 23 June 1969.relative to A-316 ~'as follo~.~s:
"(e) That the applicant is 'to furnish a letter to the
City ~.yith a copy to the Pride's Crossia~ Homeox.,~ers
Association specifying that signs will roe ma~e legally
permanent and that they x.xi!l be lighta~ in a manner
D ified by the Planning Director and '.~yater service
s. ec
to be provided by the 'applicant."
Mr. Naugle stated that it is desirable that there be t~,~o lights at the
entryway in order to allow a reasonable length o.f time for replacement
in the event one light should b~rn out.
~. Martin, in.answer to an inquiry from Chairman Lively, stated that
the Homeox.raers Association intends to form a maln~tenancc district for
the upkeep of those areas; however, it ~zill be a ~aile before-the
maintenance district is realized.
Com~nissioner Metcalf stated tha'~ if the Ho~neo~,mers Association. does not
m~nage to maintain thes~ a~eas the City could form~ an assessment district;
therefore there is not n~uch risk involved in ap~r~oving said entryway.
Commissioner Smith stated that if the maintenance- district is not formed
the City ~.yill be faced with th~ :same prolonged pr~oblems as ~ere encountered
with the Arroyo de Saratoga entryway.
Co~nissioner Metcalf stated that 1) the Prides ~ossing I{omeo~,mers
Association is already rnaintaining some areas on ~a voluntary contribution
basis and 2) he is willing to acce,~- the assuran~ce of this group that
they will maintain the subject entryway.
Mr. i~aug!e stated 1) the Prides Crossing I-lon~eo~.r~=~rs Association has
maintained the entryway at the corner of KriSty .Eane'and Prospect Road
for about three or four years 2). the Association: has an individual under
contract ~ho is doing a very good job and will be:. doing the other area
as well 3) the'Association is interested in doin~g ~,j~.atever it can to
enhance t]~ ar~a 4) ~',~ idsa of a maintenance district will be discussed
~ith the Association Beard of Directors and 5) t:il~ere appears to be sufficient
voluntary effort to allow the maintenance programt to continue on a voluntary
basis,
Commissioner r~aus stated that 1) he attended ti~:j.e City Council meeting x~yhere
the 'Arroyo de Saratoga entryway :Drobler;~s ~yere digscussed at great length
2) he is x.zil].ing to go along with the maintenanc:~ district program, but
if. th'e .subject entryway is not k'ept up something ~iil be done to~za~-d form-
ation of an assessment district.
The Secretary stated that '!) the City cannot reqD~ire the Prides Crossing
Homeo~-mers Association to form an assessment district 2) the Zoning
Ordinance states that the o~.,~ers of en'~-cywavs of ~this type arc reouired
to care for same and 3) since the applicant inte:~nas to deed the property to
the Prides Crossing Ho'..neo~=m. ers Association they ~wil! be responsible for the
mintenance. and 4) the City will have to mainta~jm any land that belongs to
them.
The Secretary read the letter submitte~ by ~.'k..Na':~agle stating the intentions
and requests of the Association relative to the a~bject entry~.y.
Plannin~ Co.nmission Minutes - 23 June 1969 - Continued
IV. B. A-316 - Continued
Mr. Stevenson explained that 1)~ tile Association has 202 due paying members
out of 485 homes in the area and this count was nmde prior to an additional
membership drive that will continue through July.and 2) the cost" for~ the
maintenance of this area would be appro:~imately $240.00 per year plus $120.00
for electricity. ~
Comnissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff
Report dated 23 June 1969 be ad~pted, as amended, and that Final Design
Approval be granted for A-316 on the basis of Exhibit "A" "B" and "C"
and subject to the conditions stated in said report and in accordance with
the letter submitted by the Prides Crossing Homeo~,mers A'ssociation; motion
carried unanimously. ~
C. A-3i8 - Alan A. Alameda, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Final Design Review .
Identification Sign for Funeral Home - Continued from 9 June 19~9
Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1) [he Design Review Committee met with
the applicant and he stated that he had registered (with the Funeral".
Directors Association) the name~' of Sa~atoga-Cupertino Funeral Home for
the facility on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and it is now difficult or impossible
to change 2) the City Attq~ney' informed the Committee that the City cannot
legally object to the wording on a sign except for reasons that might con-
stitute a menace or be obscene ~n some ~y and 3) the Planning Commission
has no alternative but to approve the subject sign with the wording "Saratoga-
Cupertino" as recommended in th~ Staff Report dated 23 June 1969.
Commissioner Metcalf reluctantly moved, seconded by Commissioner ~aus, that
the Staff Report dated 23 june 1969 be adopted and that Final Design Approval
be granted as sho~-.~ on Exhibit "A-i" and "B" and subject to the conditions
stated in said report; motion carried ~,~ith the follo~.~ing vote:
AYE S NO E S
Commissioner Crisp Commissioner Lively
Commissioner Bacon
Co~issioner t~aus
Co~issioner Metca if
Commissioner Smith
RECESS A~ RECOi']VENE
V. CI~ COUNCIL REPORT
Commissioner Smith gave a summary of items reviewed and action taken at the
Ci'ty'.Council meeting of 18 June 1969 with emphasis-on items of particular
interest to the Com~issi0n.
VI. P~qlNG PO'LICY COi, R, iITTEE REPORT
No Repor't. ~"
VII~ OLD BUSINESS
A. SD-812 - David R. Franklin, Sevil!a ~ne and Sarahills Road - Request for
Reconsideration of Conditions - Continued from 9 June 1969
Commissioner Smith stated that 1) the Subdivision Committee did meet with
the applicant and he did not present anything new for consideration; therefore,
the Committee informed him that ,they would recommend that the oric~inal conditions
be reaffirmed as recommended in the Subdivision Con~nittee Report dated 23 June
1969.
F.lanning~ Commission Minutes 23 June 1969 - Continued
VII. A. SD-812 - Continued
Com~missioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the
Subdivision Committee Report be adopted and that the original conditions
of 12 May 1969 be reaffirmed axid the subject report be forwarded to the
City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Commission; motion
carried unanimously.
B. UP-151 - James Davi, Sou~a Lan~ - Request for Extension and Modification
of Conditions - Continued from 9 June 1969
Commissioner Smith stated that;the Subdivision Committee did meet with
the applicant and his engineer to discuss the subject extension and
modification of conditions.
Mr. Ben ~,?aite, applicant's engineer, stated that 1) there is disagree-
ment over the Fire District redo~nendation regarding the road'widening
2) he received a copy of the Staff Report dated 23 June 1969 late today
and has not had ample opportuni.'ty to study it 3) the applicant has been
working on this project for over two years to get financing and a four
month extension (as recommended in the subject Staff Report) does not
really allow financing to get Under x,~ay and it is requested that the Use
Permit be extended for one year°
Co..~nissioner Crisp stated that '.1) both the County Fire }~rshal and the
Central Fire Supervisor were adament about maintaining City street standards
2) the point is that there will be about two-hundred patients plus nurses,
visitors, etc. and in case of an emergency it would be impossible to get in
and out of this area and 3) the applicant has already had one extension on
this application.
Commissioner Smith stated that ~1) this is the second application submitted
for this type of facility by the applicant 2) there were strong promises
made x~en UP-151 ~,ras originally approved that they would go ahead ~ith
development immediately and two years have passed since then and 3) it
does not appear they are any fdrther along to~:~rd starting development
than they x.~ere two years ago.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Com~nissioner Bacon, that the Staff
Report dated 23 June 1969'be adopted and that am eztension be granted for
a period of four months from the date of current expiration and that the
request to reduce the road width improvements be denied for UP-151; motion
carried unanimously°
VIII. NEW BUSINESS'
MEMO FROM T[~ ADI.~INtSTP~ATIVE ASSISTANT
The Secretary stated that a request had been received from.ehe Administrative
Assistant,~. Higby, asking if the Planning Con~,;nission would consider receiving
only one copy of the Park' and Recreation Minutes (instead of individual distf'i-
bution to each Commissioner) which :would be mailed to one designated Commissioner
in order to minimize the mailing costs.
Commissioner Iraus recommended that the Park and Recreation Minutes be placed
in each Commissioner's individ~:al folder for distribution at the Planning
Commission meetings and in this waM eliminating any mailing and postal charges.
After discussion, it was the unanin{ous decision of the Planning Commission to
have the Park and Recreation Minutes placed in each individual folder for distri-
bution at the meetings.
Plannin~ Commission !,'.~inutes - 23 June 1969 ~ Continued
IX. COi, R~FJNICATIO!'!S
A. V~IITTEN
C-106 -M.VoS. ~ompany, Saratoga Avenue -. Request for E~tension
The Secretary read a letter received from Dr. Abrams requesting a
six month extension for C-106 because of difficulty incurred in
financing. The Secretary then explaine~ that 1) C-106 is due to
expire 5 july 1969 and under the present conditions is required to
be under construction by 5 July· 1969 2) there ~oes not seem to be any
possible x~.y that this applicant can accomplish said conditions and
3) it is his recommendation that this request be referred to the
Subdivision Committee for study' and continued to the next regular -
meeting.
Co~issioner Metcalf stated tha~ he felt some action should be taken at
this time in connection with this ~.tter since it was clearly established
last. July that the matter would' be extende~ for one year only and under
certain conditions .and those conditions have not been met; therefore, the
new request for extension should be denied.
Commissioner Crisp indicated he' would like more time to consider this matter.
Chair~n Lively stated that, after study, the Subaivision Committee could
provide the Planning Cpmmission~ with a su~mf~ry of steps that have already·
been taken with appropriate dates in order to enable the Plan~ing Corn=mission
to review all the facts prior to making a decision relative to this ~tter.
He then directed the r~tter continued to the next regular meeting.
B. ORAL
VACATION SCHEDULES
Chairm~n Lively recomme'nded that any planned absences due to vacation
schedules should be forwarded to the Secretary. He further stated that
he will not be attending the 28 July 1969 meeting due to vacation plans.
GUESTS
Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of ~,~s. Walker,
. ~Yife 0f...the Planning Secretary,'~s. Ottenbergof the League of Women Voters,
~s. Stark and ~s. Parker of the Good Government Group, ~,~. T~rtin and I~.
Naugle of the Prides Crossing Homeovm. ers Association. He, also, thanked
Mrs. Stark for the coffee served at recess.
x.
Chairman 'Lively declared ~he meating adjourned at 10:00 P.M. "-~
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley M. J.i~ker, Secretary
Saratoga Pla',ning Com_.,n. ission
j