HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-1972 Planning Commission Minutes CIl~f OF SARATOGA PLANNING COP~flSSION
MINUTE'S
TIME: Monday, 28 February 1972 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - ]-3777 FruitVale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lively at 7:30 P.M.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bacon, Belanger, Lively, Marshall, Metcalf,.and Smith.
Absent: Commissioner Martin.
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded.by Con~nissioner Metcalf, that the
reading of the minutes of 14 February 1972 meeting be waived and that they
be approved as distributed subject .to the following changes:
page 4. . .paragraph 2. . .under II. D. C-153. .line 3. o ·change the
spelling of the "Plane" to "Plain"; and on page 8. . .paragraph 2. .
line 2 .change the word "real" to y; motion carried with Commissioners
· · "ver "
Belanger and Marshall abstaining.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A: UP-206 - C&I Development Co., Titus Avenue and Brockton Avenue - Request
for Use Permit to Allow Model Home Sales Office - Continued from
14 Feb~arv 1972
Chai~an Lively reopened the hearing relative to UP-206 at 7:34 P.M.
Co~issioner Smith recoEended that this matter be continued off the agenda
since Broom and Kauffmann has not closed the existing sales~ffice in this
area; therefore, another Use Permit for a model-home sale~office in the
same area should not be issued.
Mr. Lou Tersini, present to represent C&I, stated that 1) C&I is starting
a new subdivision unit for the remaining forty (40) lots in this area 2) the
Bro~ and Kauffmann office is for the. purpose of selling the existing units
3) construction on the new units will be starting soon and it is necessary
to start construction of a new model-home sales-office so it will be ready
when the new homes are ready and 4) C&I is not involved in any way with the
Bro~ and Kauffmann sales office.
~e Secretary read a letter received from Paul Z. Rose of Bro~ and Kauffmann
explaining that they have 'closed and sold their salas-office on Brockton and
are in the process of selling the last remaining homes in Prides Crossing.
~e Secretary stated that the new o%mer of the once model~ome sales-office
will have to apply for a Variance i'f he intends to use the carpeted garage
area for a room and until that matter is resolved another Use Permit cannot
be granted for a model-home sales~ffice in this area. C&I could go ahead
and construct their home and later turn it into a model-home sales-office
after the Use Pemit is approved.
Mr. Ter. sini.'. explained that after the construction reaches a certain point
some changes must be made in order for the unit to serve as a model-home
sales-office.
The SeCretary explained that the new o~er of the Bro~ and Kauffmann model-
home sales-office is working with the Planning .Department Staff and does plan
to ~ke application for Variance.
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 28 February 1972 - Continued
II. A. UP-206 - Continued
Commissioner Marshall stated that it is doubtful that without a drastic
Variance the new o~,mer of the former Brown and Kauffmann sales-office
,~could replace the existing garage an>~here on the property.
Chairman Lively directed UP-206.continued to the next regular meeting
closed the hearing for the evening at 7:41 P.M., and referred the matter
to the Subdivision Conmittee for study.
B. UP-207 - Brookside Club of Saratoga, Cox Avenue - Request for Use Permit
to Allow Two (2) Additional Tennis Courts - Continued from
14 February 1972
Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to UP-207 at 7:43 P.M.
The Secretary explained that 1) a Use Permit for this use was previously
approved as currently proposed 2) a Variance was, also, appr0ved for the
height of the fencing. around the tennis courts, but that has now expired
3) the Staff has prepared a report recomnending approval of the 'subject
Use Permit.subject to compliance with the conditions of the original Use
Permit and application for Variance.
Chairman Lively stated that 1) the Use Permit approval cannot be given
without a Variance and 2) the two (2) r~hests'.are very closely related.
The Secretary, at the request o~ Chairman Lively, read the conditions of
the applicant's formerly approved Use Permit (UP-55).
Chairman Lively noted that some of the complaints made by neighbors at the
last Planning Commission meeting are actually valid since many of the
activities engaged in by .the Brookside Club are in fact in violation of
UP-55.
Mr. McMillan, attorney for the applicant, stated that 1) he would like
to obtain Use Permit approval aS soon as possible 2) he has ready for
submittal a Variance application and 3) Brown and Kauffmann is
now grading on the a~jacent property and the applicant could save a
considerable amount of money if the grading for the tennis courts could be
done at the same time.
Commissioner Smith stated that 1) he would like to see the conditions of
UP-55 reiterated in the report relative to UP-207 and 2) violations of the
conditions of the Use Permit means the Use Permit can be canceled.
Mr. McMillan stated that the applicant did not want to violate any laws
and certainly did not want to offend the neighbors in any way.
Chairman Lively explained that, ~perhaps, action on the Variance could be
expedited somewhat if the Variance Committee could visit the site prior
to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Donald R. Askew,' 12641 Saratoga Creek Drive, present to represant the
homeowners in the area stated that she never did get an answer to her question
as to whether the Brookside Club is to operate as a private or public club.
This applicant has advertised the availability of tennis lessons and made no
mention of being a private club in the ad placed in the Saratoga News.
The Secretary explained that this club is private non-private swim-and-racket-
club and under the original Use zPermit (UP-55) there is no mention made
relative to tennis lessons at this club.
Chairman Lively stated that this matter should be discussed with the City
Attorney.
Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:57 P.M., directed
that UP-207 be continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to
the Subdivision Committee and Variance Committee for study.
Cornnissioner Belanger, on behalf of the Variance Com=n~ittee, made arrangments
with the applicant for an on-site inspection of the property for 9:00 A.M.,
Saturday, 11 March 1972.
~lanning Commi.ssion Minutes - 28 Februar~ 1972 - Continued
II.~ C. UP-208 - Clarence Neale, Sarato~a-Sunnyvale Road - Req~est=~for Use Permit to Allow a Restaurant
Chairman Lively opened the public hearing relative to UP-208 at 7:39 P.M.
The Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed and explained that
the applicant requests a restaurant/lounge commercial use in Neales Hollow
on Saratoga-Sunn}~ale Road.
Mr. L. M. Sullivan, owner of proposed restaurant/lounge, was present and
stated he hoped the Planning Conm~ission would approve said request for
Use Permit.
Commissioner Smith sty;ted that the Subdivision Committee met with
Mr·. Sullivan and this Use Permit would be in order providing the
parking isL adequate and apparently it is sufficient.
Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:00 P.M., directed
UP-208 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the
Subdivision Committee for study.
D. C-153 - James W. Day, Walnut Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from
"R-1-12,500" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-M-5,000" (Multi-
Family Residential) - Continued from 14 February 1972
Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 8:02 P.M.
Commissioner Smith explained that the property involved with this request
for change of zoning is in an area which some years ago was zoned "R-M"
but has since been changed on the General Plan Land Use Map to "R-1-12,500".
In···view ~f the policy of the Planning Commission not to violate the General
Plan Map the Subdivision Committee recommends that 1) this matter be continued
until after the General Plan Review and 2) that this request be given
priority by the General Plan Committee.
Chairman Lively stated that anyone interested in the subject change of
zoning can meet with the General Plan Committee to discuss same.
The Secretary read 1) a communication received from Mr. and Mrs. Worden
withdrawing their names from a petition previously submitted in opposition
to the proposed ~hange of zoning and 2) a letter signed by four (4) residents
of the area objecting to "R-M" use of this property.
Mr. Ed Kolstad, ,representing the applicant, stated that 1) after meeting
with the Subdivision Committee a' map was prepared showing eight (8) single-
family residences on this property 2) a research was conducted and the
indication is that there would definitely be'a greater number of children in
this area if the property were developed as single-family residences; therefore~
the density would h·e higher with single. family residences than if the property
were developed as proposed by the applicant.
Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee did thoroughly
discuss this proposal and agree that the density would be higher with
eight (8) single-family residences than it would be with.twelve (12)
condominium units in terms of n~mber of people.
Chairman Lively stated that the Subdivision Committee feels that they cannot
recommend that this request for change of zoning be approved since it iS in
violation of the General Plan Land Use Ma~; therefore, the Subdivision Committee·
recommends the matter be referred to the General Plan Committee for consider-
ation. If and ~'nen the General Plan Map is changed the Subdivision Committee
can make a recommendation (relative to C~153) that would be in agreement with
the General Plan Land Use Map.
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes - 28 February 1972 - Continued
II. D. C-153 Continued :
Mrs. Robert Jones, Williams Avenue, stated that 1) it is not the
additional children the residents of the area object to, but the
additional traffic 2) the proposed access road for this property is
totally inadequate to handle increased traffic. and 3) she cannot
see how eight.(8) single-family'residences would generate more traffic
than twelve (12) multi-family units.
Mrs. Worden, Squirrel Hollow La~e, stated that the single-family
residences would create a lot more traffic than woul~ the condominium
units especially if the homes are located at a cul-de-sac street.
Commissioner Belanger wondered'if a long delay would create problems for
the developer. :
Commissioner Smith explained that the developer could develop this
property under the current zoning at any time and avoid a delay.
Mr. Kolstad explained that they.did not object to a. delay as long as it
was understood they could develop the property under the current zoning
if they so desired.
Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:18 P.M., directed
that C-153 be continued off the agenda until after the 1972 General Plan
Review and referred the matter to the General Plan Committee.
E. V-371 ~ W. C. Garcia & Associates, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Request for
Variance to Allow Increase in Square-Footage in Area of Building
- Continued from 14 February 1972
Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to 8:19 P.M.
The Secretary read communications received from the following:
1) A letter submitted by David and Opel Shaw of
12088 Carol Lane in opposition to the proposed
Variance.
2) A petition signed by nine (9) residents of
Goleta and Wardell all objecting to the pro-
posed subject Variance.
3) A letter received from the applicantsrequesting
that this matter be continued to allow him time
to meet with the homeo~ners relative to this
application.
Mr. John Mallory of 12258 Kirkdale Drive stated he concurred with the
petition submitted in opposition to the subject variance.
Mr. Orzalli of 12236 Kirkdale Drive stated that traffic in this area is
already congested and any additional traffic generated by a use of the
t)~e proposed would only create additional problems.
Mr. Charles Schwager of 20386 Kirkmont Drive stated that at the time the
Variance Committee met with the applicant and residents of the area they
stated they would make a recommendation to the Planning Commission at
this meeting and he would like to hear that recommendation.
Commissioner Metcalf read the report of the General Plan Committee dated
17 February 1972 sent .to the Variance Committee and stating that the pro-
posed use of this property would be "completely incompatible with both
the intent and the letter of the 1968 General Plan".
The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 28 February 1972 recommending
that the subject request for Variance be denied.
Pl'anning Commission Minutes - 28 February 1972 - Continued
II. E. 'V-371 - Continued
Commissioner Marshall explained that subsequent to the Variance Committee
visit to this site a review of the "C-V" and "C-N" ordinances was made
and it was found that a drug-store of the type proposed is not allowed
in a "C-V" zoning district. A pharmacy is allowed in the "C-V" zoning
district.
Mr. Rocke Garcia, present to represent the applicant, stated that 1) in
his opinion there is no difference between a drug-store and a pharmacy
and he believes the word pharmacy is interchangeable with drug-store 2) the
variance request is for the size of the grocery-store and not the drug-store
and 3) he would like the matter continued to allow time for him to explain
the proposal to the homeo~ners in the area.
Mr. Frank Ziegel of 20254 Kirkmont Drive was present to represent the
homeowners in the area and explained that 1) the only point that can
be discussed with the applicant is the 12,000-square-foot market versus
a 28,000-square-foot market and the homeox,~ers have already indicated
their opposition to such a proposal; therefore, there is nothing further
to discuss.
Commissioner Metcalf stated that, in view of the fact that this proposal
is not in accord with the General Plan he is in favor of taking action at
this time.
Commissioners Bacon, Belanger, and Marshall agreed with Commissioner
Metcalf and recommended that action for denial be undertaken at this time.
Commissioner Smith stated that the applicant should be given the courtesy
of a continuance as requested; however, he would go along with the majority.
Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to close
the hearing relative to V-371 at 8:39 P.M.; motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the
Staff Report dated. 28 February 1972 be adopted and th~th~ subject Variance
request to allow a 28,000-square-foot food-store b~ denied since the findings
required under Section 17 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 c~n~ot be made for the
reasons stated in said report; motion carried unanimously
F. V-372 - John Vinson, Wardell CoUrt - Request for Variance to Allow Decrease
in Front Yard Setback Requirements
Chairman Lively opened the hearing relative to V-372 at 8:40 P.M.
The Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed.
Mr. John Vinson, applicant, was present and stated that 1) there are
thirteen (13) residents on Wardell Court and he has obtained approval
for this variance from ten (10).of these residents2) he obtained their
approval in writing (he submitted the signatures ~o the Secretary for
placement in t~e file) 3) the house plan on ~,~hich the variance is based
was originally designed for this lot but was designed to fit the house over
to one side of the lot against the side-yard and this would detract from
the appearance of the subject building-site and the neighborhood and 4) the
original plan did not have a porch; therefore, did not require a variance.
Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:49 P.M., directed
V-372 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Variance
Committee.
Commissioner Belanger, on behalf of the Variance Committee, made arrangements
with the applicant for an on-site inspection of the property for 9:'30 A.M.,
Saturday, 11 March 1972.
-5-
Planning. Commission Minutes 28 February 1972 .- Continued
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-931 - Jordan M. Pennoyer, Via Regina - Building-Site Approval -
2 Lots - Continued from 14. February 1972
Connnissioner Smith stated that this matter came up at the last meeting
~and some members of the Cormnission questioned the slope-density in
connection with this building-site. The slope-density has been re-evaluated
and it does conform with the slope-density forn~la and this building-site
is now r&ady for approval.
The Secretary stated that the applicant has reviewed the proposed conditions
of approval and expressed satisfaction with same.
COmmissioner Smith moved, seconded by Cormmissioner Bacon, that the
Subdivision Committee Report dated 28 February 1972 relative to SDR-931
be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 30 November
1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report;~.
motion carried unanimously..
B. SDR-938 Saratoga Foothills Development, Corp., Saratoga Avenue -'13 Lots
- Continued from 14 February 1972
Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-938 be continued to allow time
for further study.
Chairman Lively directed SDR-93'8 continued to the next regular meeting.
C. SD-941 - Kunkel-Thomas, Sobey Road - Subdivision Approval - 12 Lots -
Continued from 14 February 1972
Commissioner Bacon explained that this applicant intends to save all the
trees on the property.
Chairman Lively stated that the. trees should be shown on the tentative map.
Commissioner Metcalf stated that the developer is required to fence the
creek area for security reasons and remove the existing wooden fen~ing
and there does not seem to be any logical reason for a chain-link fence
in this area.
Chairman Lively noted that the County Flood Control right-of-way will
infringe on some lots and decrease their size.
Mr. Bob McDermott of McDermott and Heis Engineers stated that 1) the
applicant is not in favor of chain-link fencing 2) the creek will be
left in its natural state and 3) he does not understand why Flood
Control demands such a large right-of-way area.
Chairman Lively stated that in his opinion the Planning Commission should
not accept the recommendation of Flood Control for a 6-foot chair~link
fence to be installed in the rear of an individual's property which would
.prohibit the owner from using his property and reduce the size of the lot.
Commissioner Metcalf recommended that the Subdivision Committee Report
dated 28 February 1972 be amended as follows:
"11. Fencing shall be subjec~ to'approval of
City of Saratoga Planning Commission."
Mr. McDermott explained that the oak trees on this property will be
retained.
Commissioner Marshall stated that the location of all the trees shoul~ be
noted on the map for future reference. He then recommended that the Sub-
division Committee RepQrt be amended as follows:
Planning Commission Minutes - 28 February' 1972 - Continued
III. C. SD-941 - Continued ~
"21. Provide amended'map showing location of all
existing trees prior to start of any construction."
Commissioner Smith stated it is his opinion the trees should be shown
on the tentative map prior to approval and he will not recommend for
approval of SD-941 unless an amended map is submitted. The applicant
must submit a letter of extension or the tentative map will be denied.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, to deny
buildingssite approval for SD-9~I unless a letter of extension is
received from the applicant; motion carried unanimously.
D. SDR-942 - Shannon Lightfoot, Springer Avenue Building Site Approval -
2 Lots - Continued from 14 February 1972
The Secretary read a letter received from the applicant requesting that
SDR-942 be continued for thirty (30) days.
Commissioner Smith explained that the City Attorney has submitted a
statement Saying that this property cannot qualify for two (2) legal
lots; therefore, there is no reason to continue this matter.
Chairman Lively directed the ma'tter continued for two (2) weeks to
the next regular meeting on 13 March 1972.
E. SDR-943 - John T. Stone, Mt. Eden Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot -
"Continued from 14 February 1972
The applicant was present and stated he reviewed the proposed conditions
of approval and expressed satisfaction with same.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Sub-
division Committee Report dated 28 February 1972 relative to SDR-943 be
adoRted. and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 26 January 1972)
be!~pproved subject to the conditions set forth in said report;'motion
carrf~'d'u'~animously.
F. SDR-944 - Phillip R. Boyce~ Bo~ce Lane - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot'
The Secretary explained that the Fire Department has submitted a report
recommending that the access road for this property be widened to 18-feet.
Mr. Boyce, applicant, stated that there are a number of oak trees in the
area of the access road which he would hesitate to remove; therefore, he
would like to request that the road width be 10-to-12-feet.
The Secretary recommended that th'e Subdivision Committee make an on-site
inspection of this property since it is the contention of the Fire Depart-
ment that they cannot provide adequate fire~protection if the road is not
wide enough to bring in their fire equipment.
Mr. Boyce stated he met with Ernie Kraule of the Saratoga Fire Department
and with the Chief from the Central Fire District and they stated they
would need a 12-foot height clearance for their equipment.
Commissioner Smith, on behalf of the Subdivision Committee, made arrange-
ments with the applicant for an on-site inspection of the property at
4:30 P.M., Wednesday, 1 March 1972.
-7-
Planning Conmission Minutes - 28 February 1972 - Continued
III. G. SDR-945 - Edmond D. Bang. le~ Mt.:Eden Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
The applicant was present and stated he did review the proposed'conditions
of approval and expressed satisfaction with same.
Connnissioner Metcalf stated tha~ this building site should not be approved
because of the proposed position of the house relationship to'.the contour
'lines.
Commissioner Bacon explained that as long as the house is on top of a knoll
it makes very little difference about the contour lines.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Conm~issioner Bacon, the Building
Site Committee Report dat. ed 28 February 1972 relative to SDR-945 be
adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 9 February 1972)
be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion
carried with Comnissioner Metc~lf abstaining.
H. SDR-946 - Robert H. Bohn~ Pike Road - Buildin~ Site Approval - 1 Lot
~e applicant was present and questioned Condition "J" of the Building
Site Committee Report dated 28 February 1972.
Comanissioner Marshall recon~ended that Condition "J" should be included
only as a note at the end of the report for information purposes.
Mr. Bohn further questioned Condition "I" relative to Pike Road improve-
ments and stated that 1) he un'derstood Pike Road is a private road and
did not think the City could require improvements on a private road
2) the portion he would ask to improve is not even at his property and
· 3) the previous o~ers of this property paid for the original road
improvements on Pike Road.
The Secretary explained that a minimum access road of 18-feet is required
of any building site in the City whether it is on a public or private road
and that minimum-access road mu.st be connected to a public street. Some
years ago the City Council adop'ted a policy that they would not allow any
more building of new residences on Pike Road without improving Pike Road
to a minimum-access road.
Mr. Bohn stated that everybody will use this road, but only a few will
be required to bear the brunt of paying for the improvements.
The Secretary explained that th. ere is a reimbursement agreement that the
applicant will enter into and he would be compensated for his costs as
other properties develop along Pike Road.
Chairman Lively directed SDR-946 continued to the next regular meeting
and referred the ~atter to the Subdivision Committee and informed the
applicant he could me~t with the Subdivision Committee to discuss this
matter.
I. SDR-947 - Abel M. Carreia, 'Sar~toga-Sunnyvale Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
Mr. A. Menard, architect for the applicant, stated'the o~er of this property
reviewed the list of permitted.uses allowed in this area. ~xis building
site was originally apprOyed in 1965..._? ...............
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by commissioner Bacon, 'that the Building
Site Committee Report dated 28 :February 1972 relative to SDR-947 be adopted
and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 18 February 1972) be approved
subject to the condi,tions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously.
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes - 28 February 1972 - Continued
III. J. SDR-948 - Harold H. Patton, La Paloma Avenue - Building Site Approval -
1 Lot
Commissioner Smith moved, secon~ded by Commissioner Bacon, that the
Building Site Committee Report dated 28 February 1972 relative to SDR-948
be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed 10 February
1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report;
motion carried unanimously.
K. SDR-949 Robert A. Spinazze, S'obey Road - Building Site Approval -
1 Lot
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Building
Site Committee Report dated 28 lFebruary 1972 relative to SDR-949 be adopted
and that the tentative map (Er~haibit "A", filed 18 February 1972) be approved
subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously.
L. SDR-951 - Santo Aparicio~ Sobey Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-951 be continued to the next
regular meeting.
Chairman Lively so directed.
RECESS AND RECO~ENE
IV.. DESIGN REYIB~
A. A-384 -- Russell Reed, Saratoga-~unnyvale Road - Final Design Review -
Identification Signs - Continued from 14 February 1972
Commissioner Metcalf stated that the Design Review Committee met with the
Planning and Environmental Com~{ttee of the City Council to discuss the
subject request for identification sign and it was agreed the subject request
for the type of sign proposed should be denied. Commissioner Metcalf then
read the Staff Report dated 28 February 1972 recommending that Design Review
Approval for a free-standing sign be denied. He further stated that the
crux of the problem relative to.this sign is that a single building contain-
ing multiple uses cannot be considered a shopping.center and be eligible
for a free-standing sign.
Mr. A1 Dossa~ attorney for the ~pplicant, stated that 1) the subject
restaurant would be an appealing use for the City of Saratoga and its
citizens 2) the owner of the subject restaurant would fill a shown need
in the City 3) the owner will,'in effect, be prohibited from doing
business at the subject location if he is not able to have adequate sign
exposure and 4) the refusal to allow this sign is a denial for this use
at this site.
Chairman Lively explained that the applicant has been given approval to
operate a restaurant at this site under UP-205. Refusal of the sign does
not in any way alter the approval of the Use Permit.
Mr. Dossa further stated that 1) his client does not feel that the sign
regulation has been uniformly applied in the said area 2) a shopping-
center is not clearly defined in the ordinance 3) some standard guidelines
should be made available to everyone in order to determine what qualifies
as a shopping-center 4) "the status of the building in question compares
favorably with others in the area that have free-standing signs even
though some of them may be misconstrued to be legal non-conforming 5) a
decision to deny the subject sign would be arbitrary and capricoUs and
6) the applicant feels he has submitted a good alternate to the
free-standing sign originally proposed.
-9-
Planning Commission Minutes - 28 February~ 1972 - Continued
IV. Ao A-384 - Continued
Commissioner Marshall noted thatr 1) th&re has been some swaying from the
plans that the owner of this building originally proposed 2) at that
time the owner clearly understood the limitations of this building and
stated he did not contemplate a restaurant on these premises and 3) many
existing free-standing signs will be taken down over a period of time.
Mr. Dossa stated that perhaps the City would allow a maximum 6-foot
directional sign reading "Open Hearth Parking" to be placed in front
of the building.
Comnissioner Metcalf stated he did not feel this would be proper since
that would only be another subterfuge to get a sign out in front of the
building. The City of Saratoga is not under any compulsion to offer to
any commercial establishment the kind of sign that will guarantee to
catch the eye of passing motorists.
Mr. Dossa explained that the.sigh as presently proposed is not a large
sign and some effort has been put forth to make it pleasing.
'Commissioner Marshall stated that a publication of the California
Roadside contains a comment relative to the pleasant contrast between
the Saratoga area of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and the San Jose area of
the same road due primarily to the lack of numerous signs in the Saratoga
area.
Co~nissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by ComMissioner Marshall, that the
Staff Report dated 28 February 1972 be adopted and that Design Review
Approval for the subject free-standing sign b~'~e~ie~on the basis the
purposes of Article 13 of Zoning Ordinance NS~'~c'a~o'~t be met since the
subject building is not considered a shopping-center complex; motion
carried unanimously.
V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Chairman Lively stated that the minutes of the City Council meeting of
16 February 1972 have been placed in each Commissioners folder for their
review.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. Capitol Real Estate - Request to Add Children's Nursery and Boarding
School to.List of Conditional Uses - Continued
from 14 February 1972
The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 28 February 1972 recommending
that the request to add the subject use to list of conditional uses
in the "R-I" zoning district be denied.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff
'Report dated'28 February 197'2 be adopted and the request to add children's
nursery and boarding.--schoOl to the list of conditional uses in the "R-I"
zoning district b~'denie~and further proceedings be abandoned; motion
carried unanimously.~-''~
B. SDR-935 - John L. Richardson, QUito Road ~ Request for Reconsideration -
Continued from 14 February 1972
The Secretary stated that the o{,n~er of this property has requested that this
matter be continued. He further stated that he met with the owner and she
has requested a meeting with the Subdivision Committee to discuss possible
alternatives to the ~essing and'Quito Road improvements.
Chairman Lively directed SDR-935 continued until the applicant can meet
with the Subdivision Committee and resolve the problem.
-i0-
Planning Commission Minutes - 28 Februar,~ 1972 - Continued
VII.. NEW BUSINESS
A. General Plan Con~mittee Report re Architectural Design for Saratoga ...
in Answer to Letter from Saratoga Chamber of Commerce.
Commissioner Metcalf stated that the Saratoga Chamber of Co~rnnerce has
requested the Planning Commission to legislate design-review for the
remainder of the commercial ar. ea in the Village. He then read a report
of the General Plan Committee dated 28 February 1972 explaining that
the City has a Resolution 506 ~hich created an Architectural Advisory
Committee to the Planning Comaission and established architectural
objectives and criteria in broad and general terms; however, said'
Resolution does not legislate nor control architecture by ordinance.
Commissioner Metcalf suggested that a letter be prepared (containing
the signatures of the General Plan Committee) to the Saratoga Chamber
of Comnerce explaining the position of the Planning Commission in tbis
matter and enclosing a copy of Resolution 506.
Chairman Lively requested the Secretary to prepare said letter and
forward same to the Saratoga Chamber of Conmerce.
B. Demonstration Bicycle Route System
The Secretary. stated that the Depa~rtment of Public Works did submit
for revi~ by the Planning Comnission a copy of the demonstration
bicyclesroute system.' =
Chairman Lively directed the m~tter continued and referred it to the
General Plan Committee for study and a report.
VIII. COMMUNICATIONS
A. WRITTEN
Letter From Saratoga Fire District re Inadequate.Water Supply at the
Montalvo Estate
The Secretary stated that a letter was received from Mr. Baker McGinnis
of=Tthe Saratoga Fire District stating that Montalvo has an inadequate
water supply and in case of fire a great loss may occur due to the
water system and source.
Commissioner Metcalf explained that the Fire District included. (along
with the letter) a copy of a drawing' showing how a water line could be
brought into Montalvo near the Guard House on the main entrance road.
The Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners and the Saratoga Fire
District are preparing additional materials relative to the deficiencies
that exist at Montalvo relative to the water supply.
B. ORAL
League of California Cities
Commissioner Belanger stated that 1) she attended a League of California
Cities meeting which was most informative 2) one item that was discussed
at great length was what local Planning Commissioners can do about the
economics of an entire region 3~ it was explained that it is incorrect
to assume that decisions made b~ Planning Commissions affect only the
inmediate areas where individual Commissions have jurisdiction 4) an
item that should, perhaps, be considered by the Saratoga Conmission is
"highway noise" since a freeway will be coming into Saratoga and there
are some things that can control noise and 5) it was suggested the
Housing Element proposed by the Cities be extremely specific.
The Secretary stated he will prepare a report, relative to the Housing
Element, and when completed present it to the Planning Commission.
-11-
Planning Commission Minutes - 28 February 1972 - Continued
VIII. B. General Plan Study Session
Chairman Lively inquired if any plans for a study session for the
Annual General Plan Review had been discussed. He would recommend
the Annual Review be completed prior to summer.
The Secretary stated that Councilman Smith brought up the question
as to whether it should be a general annual review or plan for a major
review to begin later in the year.
Chairman Lively stated that the. Planning Commission will defer any.
meetings relative to the review. until .such time as the City Council
determines whether there shall be an annual ore major review.
Guests '
Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Mrs.
McGuire of the Good Government Group, and Mrs. S. A. Mencacci of
the League of Women Voters. He', also, thanked Mrs. McGuire for the
coffee served at recess.
IX. ADJOU~\~'IENT
Chairman Lively adjourned the meeting at 11':00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~..~-/~'. :~... ..... ~. ., ~ ..... . {..-.... - ..... ...
Stanley M. Walker, S'ecrata~
Saratoga Planning Co~ission
j