HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-1974 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
TIME: Wednesday, February 13, 1974, 7:30 p..m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Marshall at 7:30 p.m.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, Smith
and Woodward
Absent: ,None ~'\
B. MINUTES
Due to Joan Loher's illness, the JaZnuary 23, 1974 Planning Commission
Minutes were not ready for approval..
C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
The Secretary gave an oral report o'f the February 6 City Council Meeting.
He noted the James Rodriguez appeal~ of the Commission's decision .to deny
final design review would be heard as a De Novo Hearing at the next City
Council meeting.
D. RESOLUTIONS OF COMMENDATION
1. The Secretary read Resolution No. 121, which had been adopted at the
January 23 meeting, citing and isaluting Stan Walker for his "distinctive
service to the City of Saratog~ as Zoning Administrator, Planning
Director and Secretary to the P'lanning Commission."
Chairman Marshall requeste~ each Commissioner sign the original document.
2. The Chairman read Resolution No:. 122 which expressed the Planning
Commission's "affection and app. reciation" for Philip D. Lively's
contributions to the Planning Commission~ during his term.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that Planning'
Commission Resolution No. 122 be approved as read. The motion was
carried unanimously.
Chairman Marshall requested each Commissioner sign. the original document.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. V-401 - J.T. McManus, Upper Hill D~ive Sideyard Reduction, Continued
from January 23, 1974
The Secretary stated that a letter%had been received by Mr. McManus request-
ing withdrawal of his request for ~ variance. Mr. McManus indicated that he
would attempt to construct his home within the City requirements.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanager, that relative
to V-401 the Planning Commission adcept the withdrawal of request for
variance by Mr. McManus. The motion was carried unanimously.
~'-~!~ ~"'.e2'~ruary 13, 1974 Minutes
B. C-170 - Ben R. Shippen, Allendale A~enue - Request for Change of Zoning
from "R~l-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-l-10,000"
(Single-Family Residential)~- Contined from January 23, 1974
Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing relative to C-170 at 7:42 p.m.
The Secretary stated that the StaffSReport dated February 13, 1974 relative
to this matter recommended the request for change of zoning be denied.
There were no comments made.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded ~y Commissioner Martin, that the public
hearing for C-170 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman
.- Marshall closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded bY Commissioner Woodward, that Staff
Report dated February 13, 1974 relative to C-170 be adopted and the subject
request be denied. The motion was 9arried unanimously.
C. C-17~- Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "'PA"
(Professional-Administrative) to "R-M-4,000" (Multi-Family Residen-
tial) - Continued from January 23, 1974
Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing relative to C-173 at 7:45 p.m.
The Secretary read the Staff Reportsdated February 13, 1974 relative to
C-173 which recommended the request!for change of zoning be denied.
The applicant, Mr. DeGrange, stated~that he would be willing to work with
the City in the development of his property. He further stated that the
Acting Planning Director suggested he withdraw his request at this time and
wait until the overall land use. pattern of the area was determined.!
~hairman Marsha~llpointed out/there had been discussion of retirement
hodsing on this parcel, but the City did not have'at this time standards for
this kind of housing. He further stated that the requested zoning change
was not in accordance with the proposed General Plan.
Mr. DeGrange commented insomuch as ~hat happened surrouhding his parcel might
not dictate what would happen to his parcel, he wished to pursue his request
for change of zoning at this time.
A letter was read by the Secretary to the "Councilmen" dated February 13, 1974
from six individuals residing on Co~ Avenue and Radayka Drive urging denial
of Mr. DeGrange's request. He also~read a letter,previously introduced to
the record, from the Prince of Peace Lutheran Church dated January 4, 1974
which recommended approval of Mr. D~Grange's request.
Commissioner Smith pointed out Mr. DeGrange's request was for spot zoning
and he, personally, was in favor of.leaving the'zoning as it presently is.
Commissioner Belanger agreed adding that there was no other land on the same
side of the street which could b~ d~veloped, and fwould therefore constitute
spot zoning. Chairman Marshall further added that a request for change of
zoning would make Mr. DeGrange's parcel a "pocket of RM zoning in the
middle of commercial and church zones."
,
No further comments were made.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded 6y Commissioner Belanger, that the public
hearing be closed relative to C-173~ The motion was carried unanimously.
Chairman Marshall closed the public;hearing at 7:58 p.m.
Commfssioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff
Report dated February 13, 1974 relaeive to C-173 be accepted and the change
-22
~ '~ FebrUary 13, 1974 Minutes
of zoning be denied in accordance with the report. The motion was
carried unanimously.
hairman Marshall informed Mr. DeGrange he has the right of appeal to
the City Council.
D. General Plan Review
Chairman Marshall opened the public'; hearing at 7:59 p.m. relative to the
General Plan.
Commissioner Marshall stated that a: Study Session had been held on February 5
which was not a public hearing, and;. the blue copy of the Plan (available
now to the public) reflected the revisions made at that meeting.
Commissioner Smith sugg_ested that~ since the first five pages of the blue~____~
~copy of the Plan were identical to ,the first five pages of the buff copy
which had been reviewed at the Study Session, the Commission pass over these
pages and begin discussion of the General Plan on page 6.
There were no objections; consequently, discussion of the General Plan began
on page 6 of the blue copy of the General Plan·
Area A - Mt. Eden, page 6
Mr. Weir of 12343 Arroyo. de Arguell6 asked for clarification of Item 1,
slope conservation zone SCol0. He asked if a higher density was put on the
Painless Parker property, could he Build more than ~en houses.per parcel.
Chairman Marshall stated that the property is now zoned R-1-40,O00. He
explained if the property was zoned ,at SC-10 the property would start with
"one house per ten acres," which the Commission felt was a necessary upper
limit.
Area B - Congress Springs-Pierce Road, page 6
There were no comments on this section·
Area C - Blue Hills, page 6
Miles Rankin, 19656 Canyon Drive, asked if Item 3 referred to acquiring the
Texaco Station on the corner· He felt the cost to the City for this acquisi-
tion was too· high, and that the Cit~ should be able to work directly with the
Texaco Station in landscaping this property·
Chairman Marshall stated that the people of Saratoga appeared to want this
corner landscaped. He further commented that two years ago the City had re-
in"
quested a "face lift g of the Texaco Station to which they only succeeded
ih eliminating the free-standing sign.
At this point Commissioner Martin pointed out that Footnote #1 should be
Footnote #2 and vice versa. He suggested that before the City orders copies
of the General Plan, Footnote #1 should precede Footnote ~2. Ms. Meg
Monroe, representative of Williams and Mocine, took note of his request·
Commissioner Belanger agreed with Mr~. Rankin in that the cost to the f~ \
City would be too high· She felt in': order to aequire the Texaco Station
the Commission would need to submit an Action Plan to the City which would
"probably not pass"
"oe
Ms. Monroe stated that the program g s for a 20-year duration and in
twenty years the use or desirability,; of a gas station may change." She
stated that if it does change the consultants would like to see the City
do something now.
~"'- Fe~i-uary 13, 1974 Minutes
D. General Plan Review - Area C - Blue, Hills, page 6 cont'd
Chairman Marshall.suggested amending Item 3 as follows:
"Action should be taken to unify the appearance of the gateway
approach by improving the southwest corner of the gateway area
with landscaping and imp~ovemen'ts of design. As a long term
goal, the City should consider acquisition of this property."
Commissioner Martin asked what would happen to the Blue Hills area: shouldn't
the Commission try to make this corher into a more unified design with the
Blue Hills area instead of landscap!ing a part in such a small area? Ms.
Monroe explained it was not intended to be a full scale park. The idea
was a "back-to-nature" setting where "people could eat their lunches."
Mr. Rankin asked for how long the program was to be considered. The
Chairman replied that Ms. Monroe's ~uggestion meant the Action Program should
be composed of both near and lon.g term goals. Thus, the City would not
necessarily buy the property ~immediately.
The Secretary commented after the General Plan Review the question of how
to approach "such things as the southwest corner would be reviewed by
the Parks and Recreation DepartmentSand other groups.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded, by Commissioner Belanger, the amendment
suggested by Chairman Marshall to Item 3, Area C, .page 6 be:~'dopted. The"~
motion was carried unanimously.
tat this point Mr. Vandertooren of 14555 Horseshoe referred the CommisSion'
j"bac~.~0 Area B. He stated that he felt the City should not require 'specific
\ ~ngineering regulations on the development of land other than by a process
.... to warn people. He stated he would'like developers to be able to sign a
fire ·
ce~pted report" indicating they Were aware of difficult conditions and
could proceed to safeguard against these conditions before development began.
He felt the wording in Item 3, Area B should be amended to reflect this.
Commissioner Smith opposed this by Stating the Subdivision Committee had
ins'isted on reports for several years on all site approvals, the conditions
of which had been prepared by the P~anning Commission and Public Works.
He felt the wording on Item 3 should remain as written.
Commissioner Matteoni mo d .=that'Item 1 of Areas A and B be amended.
~ ve
~fter some discussion, he tabled hi~ motion until after the recess.
Area D - Golden Triangle, North, page 7
There were no comments on this matter.
Area E - Golden Triangle, South, page 8
Area F - Quito-Kentfield, page 8
Commissioner Belanger felt that, relative to Item 3, a problem of how much of
the area should be commercial existed in that it had been past policy to limit
commercial zoning. A plan could be. submitted, she explained,.for heavy
commercial use and if there are no guidelines as to how much COmmerCial zoning
will be allowed in the area, the Commission might be forced to accept the
submitted plan on the basis of design on not on the basis it could adversely
affect the area.
Mr. Rankin stated that "what we are talking about here is whether you want
to change the direction the City is going or_~s been going." ~He further
.:.stated "we now have a downtown commercial zone and a neighborhood
-4-
"; = F~uary 13, 1974 Minutes
D. General Plan Review - Area F - Quito-Kentfield cont'd
commercial zone." His concern was whether a new commercial area would be
created, and stated that, "it is important to give it some serious study
as to how much commercial you want 'in that area." He stated that developers
will want as much commercial zoning as possible so the City should "let them
know what it really wants overall."'
Chairman Marshall stated that "we a~re in disagreement because we are addres-
sing two differentissues."The issu;e you are addressing is whether it is
the intent of the Commission or the' City Council to enlarge the commercial
portion of Quito. That is not the ~atter to which this is addressed at all.
From a regulatory point of view, pl'anning development is a process not a
particular product." He further stZated that he felt it was not possible
nor even desirable to have a particularly detailed plan of development. He
felt that in "fairness to the City,~ we should not list any of the zoning
types but rather limit it to the types we are willing to consider in this
area?'
Commissioner Belanger stated that the intent was to keep the formation of
the commercial areas as they~have been in the past. She agre~d with
Mr. Rankin in that there should be a general statement added to this item
to enforce this idea.
Commissioner Smith felt the discussion was premature in that the General Plan
was a statement of general usage, and anything that was done now would en-
tail the creation of a new ordinance. He further added if the General Plan
was adopted the next step would be to revise the ordinances which would
provide for a new zone, subject to public hearings. Commissioner Matteoni
agreed stating he was satisfied with the language in that it is a General Plan.
Ms. Monroe explained there was no ihtention to change the Quito Shopping
Center. "If the Village is to be al more viable community shopping center,
we felt it really needed to be more. confined in order to grow more intensely."
She further added that they did noti intend Quito to serve that function.
Mr.~ Nat Abrams~of 13025 Saratoga Avenue felt that the points Mr. Ironside
made in respect to leaving things open to future plans ~as very much to the '~
point. "Things change from year toZ year with no concept as what would be
good for the future area. This is a general plan with many steps going
into its development." He felt everyone will have an opportunity to "say
their piece" in the future; thus, the language should remain as written.
Mr. Rankin referred to page 1, Commercial Development, Item 3. He felt
the statement set the overall tone of the General.Plan. He felt if the
wording on Item 3 remains as it is,;it would "fall into the general category
of the Miljivich and Garcia pieces.U He questioned how one could create an
ordinance that would differentiate between one property versus another.
He further stated that if an ordinance for the future was to be created~ it
must be for a general category. He~emphasized that now is the time to §.et
a general theme as to what is desired in that particular area.
Commissioner Belanger stated that she felt, if the wording remains as it is,
pressure will be brought to bear by. developers to increase the commercial
use of this parcel. She emphasized~ that developers in the ~ommunity have
a right to know What the intentions'are of the City, and the General Plan
did not indicat-~e.that. Commissioner Belanger therefore moved that a
statement be included in Item 3 of ~rea F which would state the Planning
Commission's intent t~ reaffirm pas~ general plans by disallowing further
extensive expansion of commercial use in the Quito area. ~She ~l~'d"~ar
motion until after the recess.
Mr. John ~ance, 19363 Athos Place, Stated that relative to Item 8 he
strongly recommended four lanes on Quito Lane. He questioned if "City arterial"
'= F·~bruary 13, 1974 Minutes
D. General Plan Review - Area F - Quito-Kentfield cont'd
mentioned in Item 9 was four lanes~ to which Mr. Trinidad, Public Works
Department, replied that in that case it stood for two lanes.
!Chairman Marshall stated ~hat the intent of the consuitant's recommendation
was to improve Quit%lRoad 'to four ianes. He emphasized the Commission had
no other intention but to 'keep Qui~o~'Ro'~a 20 m.p.h. country road.
Mr. Vance then stated he felt the Quito/Allendale intersection was a blight
on the City relative to traffic:standards, lighting, concrete pillars, etc.
He expressed the hope that the city would work with the people whose
property fronts Allendale in beautifying that intersection.
Mr. Turgeo='~',14355 Saratoga Avenue, iasked was the intent of PD residential
zoning mentioned in ItemS4 to be open residential zoning. The Chairman'
replied that the recommendation b%'the consultant ~as to change "PD''~.
~in order ,.,~"pr~v%~'f~'c,ture of ordinances. He f.~her expl'~'i~d ......
to d . '~
the City plans for combining this ~opp would be handled by a use permit.
Mr.~~ asked the Chairman to e~plain R-l-10,000. ~e Chairman replied,
hypothetically speaking~ if there ~as a combination of R-l, PA and multiple·
zones within an area, it would be ~onsidered an R-1 zone.
Mr.~urgeon stated he was referring]to Item 5 to which the Chairman replied
that the zoning there would be the"'base zone" of the area. Chairman Marshall
further stated there was a limitation of R-1 on those two parcels. He
stated "PA, ~ or other combinations would not be acceptable there." He
explained that ~D (Residential) referred to in Item 5 was a planned
development ordinance which permitted certain lots and undesirable locations
(facing a railroad trackL~ for example) to be smaller but they must be
compensated for by larger lots in ~he same parcel, the total number of
lots not being more than the regular zone for that parcel.
Mr.Turgeon~then asked if this type ~of land could be used for retirement
housing. Co~issioner Smith stated that there must, either'5~ an ~ zone
for retirement housing or the creation of a new ordinance to'cover this.
Chairman Marshall added that retirement housing had not been defined as yet.
Mr.~~"~felt that the coEission was pre-zoning if designation of these
parcels was stated in the General Plan. CoEissioner Smith pointed out that
variations in the planned developme,nt zone are there merely to alter the
size of the lot in order to assure Zthat the factors involved will be offsetting.
CoEissioner Matteoni referred Mr.TUrgeon .to Area C, Item 5, page 6 which
is similar to the item in question.! He explained there could be cluster
housing, but the overall area couldz not exceed R-l-10,000 requirements.
Mr.Turgeon~stated he did not feel t~e Plan provided for "less expensive
housing in·Saratoga." The Chairman. coEented that if Mr.Turgeon was speaking
of retirement housing, the question~ had been set aside the General Plan
for future discussions.
CoEissioner Belanger stated the 'Pb idea" was to create greater flexibility
for density and use, possibly a mixZ of R-1 and multiple housing. She felt
by using the term "PD R-i" this flexibility had been lost.
The Secretary stated this particula~ R-1 zoning be considered as part of the
Zoning Code Review Program. He felt that pending this review this term
might be redefined to accoEodate h~gher density.
CoEissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, the last
sentence of Footnote ~2 be amended as follows:
"Except Where otherwise specified, PD shall be limited to residential."
The motion was carried unanimously.~
-61
..~:'~ 'E~ruary'13, 1974 Minutes
GeneralIPlan Review - Area F - Quito-Ke'ntfield cont'd
Mr. Rankin questioned if PD now meant multiple. He expressed concern about
"lumping single family residential iinto multiple residency." He felt each
parcel should be considered before~combining PD and residential in any
project.·~Chairman ~a'~h'~'l% commented "PD" had been used only twice in the
· "G~"~'~l'~'la"~,t~uTd'fd' no'~ constitute a problem. Commissioner Smith pointed
out PD was listed in Article 4 of NS-3 Ordinance which covers "varying lot
sizes but not RM." He stated that'the ordinance as written does not allow
an application for RM in a PD zone.·
Area G - Fruitvale-Sobey Road, page 9
The Secretary read··a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Evans dated February 1, 1974
which stated they felt they had a ~and-locked parcel.off San Marcos Road.
Chairman Marshall asked Mrs. Evans,! who was present at the meeting, how long
shefh'~'d"~'~'d'ihe property, to which Mrs. Evans replied they did not own
the property at the present time i~ that it was in escrow. She stated the
previous owners had owned the property for 30-40 years.
Chairman Marshall stated the City ~rocedure is never to land-lock anyone.
He suggested a study be made of the property's history and ~eferred her to
the Public Works Department and the Building Department.
Mr. Trinidad explained that a request had been made to the City Engineer to
approve a parcel map of this property showing a division. He explained this
item would be brought up before the Subdivision Committee for review.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, the first
sentence of Item 5, Area G, page 9!be amended as follows:
"Wit ' next
h~n the decade, Quito'Road from Allendale to Saratoga-
Los Gatos Road (Route 9) should be studied to determine the type
of improvement required and the best way to protect the scenic
quality of this thoroughfare.":
!The motion was carried unanimous~y~
Mr. Vandertooren asked what the basis was of Item 6. He stated he would
like to see the traffic flow on Ro6te 9 discouraged in order to protect
the "scenic qualify of the road."
__Chairm_~an Marshall stated Mr. Vandertooren's suggestion would change the
flavor. of the statement. Commissi6ner Matteoni f~rther stated the State
Highway Department had furnished t~e projections which were the basis of
Item 6. He suggested Item 6 be recorded to accomplish Mr. Vandertooren's request.
~Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, Item 6, Area G,
page 9 be amended as follows:
"Cur e State Highway traffic projections indicate that the use
r nt
of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Route 9) will be increased by 1990.
Any improvements needed should be made in such a way as to mitigate
problems of adjacent land uses and to protect the scenic quality
of this highway." The last sentence is to remain as written.
The motion was carried unanimouslyl
Mr. Fred Tanner, 20577 Manor Drive, inserted at this time that he felt
Footnote #2 should be changed back.to its original form. He felt~h'~nging
i R-1 zoning to.a more general residential zone w~sj~ not desirable.
Commissioner Martin did not feel the sentence should be changed.· He felt
the Commission would have an opportunity to solve the "PDiquestion':' whenever
F~g~uary 13, '1974 Minutes
D. 'General P.lan Review - Area G - Fruitvale-Sobey Road con'd
development in the area was brought'forward. At that time, he suggested, the
City could look into any increase of traffic which may have resulted.
Mr. Rankin agreed with Mr. Tanner and stated he felt the statement was giving
direction to the General Plan. He asked whether this would encourage RM
zoning to which the Chairman replied that it would not.
Area H - Fruitvale West, page 9
There were no comments made on this! portion of Area H.
Area H - Fruitvale West, page 10
Mr. Vandertooren suggested Item 5 b~ reworded to read the same as the amended..
Item 6 of Area G-
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded' by Commissioner Woodward, Item 5, Are~' H,
page 10 be amended as follows:
"Current State Highway traffic projections indicate that the use
of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Route 9) will be increased by 1990.
~ny'improvements needed should ~e made in such a way as to mitigate.
prOblems'Of'adjacent land uses and to protect the scenic quality
of this highway." The last sentence is to remain as written.
The motion was carried unanimously.z
Area I - Glen Una, page 10
Mr. Franklin asked if Item 1 inferred that half acre lots could not be built
on the property~ ~Chairman Marshall. replied it "does structure the general
trend which is to leave it the way lit is now. Ordinances allow people to
develop their parcels within reasonable bounds." Consequently he informed
Mr. Franklin if he owned a half acr~on a legal.non-conforming lot, he
could build a house.
Area J - The Village, page 10
Mr. Vandertooren stated Item 6 impl~ied the parking district had been completely
formed. He felt this was "mandatory language" and should be amended.
Commissioner Belanger moved, second.ed by Commissioner Matteoni, Item 6,
Area J, page 11 be amended as follows:
"A currently recommended parking district which provides for rear
access to stores along both sides of Big Basin, as well as additional
parking spaces, should be implemented."
The motion was passed unanimously.
Urban Service Area, page 11
There were no comments made on this' matter.
The Chairman called for a recess at; this point.
After the recess, the Chairman called the meeting to order at 10:40 p.m.
He opened discussion on the blue co.py of the General Plan as a whole.
At this time, Commissioner Matteoni~ moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin
to amend Item 1, Area A and Area B,% page 6 to read as follows:
'F~g~uary 13,' 1974 Minutes
D. General Plan Review cont'd
"Revise the land area within the slope conservation zone as shown
on the 1972 General Plan; redefine the slope conservation zoning
ordinance to provide minimu~ density and to include conservation
evaluation; and rezone the land within the revised boundaries to
conform." The last sentence is to remain as written.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Belanger suggested, the last sentence on Item 3, Area F,
page 8 be amended to include "ahd a reasonable balance of suggested
uses." Commissioner Smith stated if this item was to be amended,
Item'2, Area C, page 6 should b~ amended in that they both state the
same thing.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, Item 3,
Area F, page 8 remain as written in the General Plan. The motion
was carried; Commissioner Belanger voted no.
At this point Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner
Wo.6dward, to amend Item 6, Community Development, page 3 as follows:
"Neighborhood commercial development shall be confined to
existing areas and buffered. from adjacent residential uses."
The motion was carried unanimously.
Mr. Bud B~,'. 13204 Pierce Road, asked the Commission to refer to
the map in the blue copy to the~"Golde~ Triangle"' area. He felt that
because "golden" could not be defined, it was not proper to use this
term in the General Plan Commissioner Martin felt Mr iBeaudioi~i~'~mmen~TM
were appropro insomuch as the term was "promotional." He felt the
General Plan should refer to this area as "Triangle North and
Triangle South."
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, the
word "golden" be deleted as a hpading on Area D, page 7 and Area E,
page 8 of the General Plan. The motion was carried unanimously.
Mr. Rankin suggested the'zCommission not vote on the General Plan now
in that it had just been presented to the public. He stated the
"public had not had an opportunZity to..look at it." Chairman Marshall
stated the Commission had been studying the same document, with minor
changes, for the last six meetings, and further comments could be made
at the Cit'y Council"s public review of the Plan.
Chairman Marshall raised the question whether the General Plan, Objectives,
Policies and Actions document, ~ould be adopted in that the. Sphere of
Influence portion had not been ~eviewed. The Secretary assured him
the Commission could adopt that portion of the General Plan which had
been reviewed at the February 13 meeting.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, the
General Plan, Objectives, Policies and Actions document, as revised at__
the meeting of February 13, 197~,1 be voted on tonight, and the Sphere of
~%~'f'luence portion of the General Plan be continued to the adjourned regular
meeting 'SY"F~y'2'l'~r~7~. ~he motion was carried unanimously·
Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith,the public
hearing on the City of Saratogaz General Plan, Objectives, Policies and
Actions, revised February 5,. 19i74, be closed. The motion was carried
unanimously.
The Chairman closed the public hearing at 11:04 p.m.
~ F~b~uary 13,.1974'Minutes
D. General Plan Review cont ' d
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, the City of
Saratoga General Plan, Objectives, "Policies and Actions document, blue copy
revised February 5, 1974, be appro~ed as amended .this evening and be adopted
by the Planning Commission,to be forwarded to the City Council. The motion
was carried unanimously.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-1079 Southland Corporation (7'~-11 Food Stores), Big Basin Way - Building
Site Approval 1 lot -. 'Continued from January 9, 1974
The Secretary stated this matter h~d been continued~twice, each over a period
of 50 days, and now came before the Commission in its final form. He stated
the Staff Report dated February. 13,'. 1974 recommended approval inasmuch as it
meets adequately all the conditionsl for approval.
Commissioner Belanger stated she h~d many reasons for voting against the
report, but before she voted she w~uld like to obtain as much control over
Design Review as possible. I~She recommended Item II~K be amended to include
complete design review control.
Chairman MarShall suggested Item Ii-K be amended as follows:
"Coverage, architectural style,~ location of building, parking,
signs and landscaping shall be .subject to Design Review."
Mr. Preston, 13795 Saratoga Vista Avenue, stated he represented Southland
Corporation and felt they.had met a~ll City requirements. He added the
corporation would try to comply with the above suggested statement as amended.
Commissioner Belanger expressed concern over the presence of a 7-11 store
in the Village at all. She felt since the City had one, the Commission was
not prejudicial. She stated the recently approved General Plan's attitude
toward the .Village would be contradicted if a 7-11 store was allowed in
the Village. She felt in that .the ,Village was thought of as being "folksy
and the central heart of the town" admittance of the 7-11 store would be
the "antithesis of'what we expresse. d before." She stated that 7-11 stores
have a high crime rate associated With them, they tend to have a loitering
as well as littering problem, and their hours do. not coincide with other
downtown businesses. Because of t~ese reasons she did not feel she could
vote in favor of accepting Southladd Corporation's request.
Commissioner Smithifelt the presence of a 7-11 store in the Village would
:require extra police protection and would be undesirable for the City.
Commissioner Martin felt that Staff. Report and Subdivision Committee's views
/appear~'d"~be'ln opposition, and the Planning Commission's decision should
~b'~'b'g~'&'d on a c6~'{~'~"judgment.. Chairman MarShall stated the Subdivision
Committee had felt the City had no ilegal basis for denying the request.
Commissioner Matte'oni question,e.d whether the Commission could change the
zoning ordinace in order to stop t~e building Site approval, or could it
just deny what it "does not want e~en though zoning requirements are met."
He felt if an Environmental Impact Z:Report had been done showing adverse
effects on the Village, the Commission would have basis for, denial.
Chairman Marshall lasked Mr. =Preston his position as to changing the hours
to be compliant with that of the r~mainder of the Village. Mr. Preston
stated 7-11 stores had ~ltered hours in the past and would do whatever the
Commission felt was right. He added that he felt Southland Corporation
had a legal right to approval of th. is building site.
-10-
~ ~ lF~B~-uary 13, 19 74 Minutes
A. SDR-1079 7-11 Store cont'd
Commissioner Smith pointed out Ordinance NS-3 specified provisions of zoning
was applied to the approval of any Rite for use within the City. He stated
General Article 1 of NS-3 says: "(b) to foster a 'harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land uses; (c) to promote stability of existing
land uses which conform with the General Plan and to protect them from in-
harmonious influences and harmful i~trusion; and (i) to/facilitate orderly,
attractive development of commercial facilities intended primarily to serve
residents of the City." He concluded~his reasons for denial were based
on this.
The SecretaryTinformed the Commissi6n a Negative DeClaration had been filed
on October 1973 stating an Environmental Impact Report would not be required
because the project did not constithte an adverse effect on the environment.
He explained the Declaration could ~ave been challenged within ten days
after it was made, and that it was a matter of public record.
Commissioner Belanger stated public; announcements had not been~a~'~[[~"
the Declaration could not have beenichallenged. The Secretary stated under
Commission is not necessarily informed. He further'~t~ted 't~t anyone
pursuing a particular development's history would be aware of a Negative
Declaration at the time it had occurred. He pointed out that a process of
making revisions to given ordinances was being carried out at this time
and suggestions were in order as to;changing City procedures with regard
to EIR assessments and public announcements thereto.
-'.Commissioner Matteoni stated the Negative Declaration bothered him, but
it appeared to him the Staff had followed existing procedures. He proposed
the Commission ask the City Attorney to determine ;if the Commission couldj
'!~eny building site approval on the basis of whether if felt the "use of
property was good for the community..,,
Commissioner Belanger stated she felt this matter fell into the same category
as bars. "If everyone in the downt6wn area wanted to put in a bar, we
could fall back on the statement that it. would be an adverse effect on the
community." '
Commissioner Martin stated in the p~st there had been instances in which
the Commission had limited the hour§ of business, and.' if this request was'
approved, the Commission should limit the hours 7-11 stays open at night.
He also felt he should not vote on the motion in its present form in that
the motion was negative to the report. He felt if the Commission is to deny
this request a Staff Report should be made recommending denial and giving
reasons supporting its denial.
Commissioner Smith disagreed stating Staff was entitled to its opinion and
the Commission was entitled to its 6wn opinion. It'~as~ not. the first time~
he continued, the Commission had rejected a Staff Report.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded By Commissioner Belanger, the Staff
Report dated February 13, 1974 relative to SDR-1079 be rejected and the
the application be denied on the basis of'OY'dinance NS-3, Article 1,
General, Section 1.1, subitems (b),i(c) add (i).
The Secretary raised the question aS whether (i) was an inference to design
review. Chairman Marshall suggested subitem (1) "to ensure that uses and
structures enhance their sites and ~armonize with improvements in the
surrounding area" be substituted fo~ (i).
The Chairman restated Commissioner'g Smith motion, citing subitems (b),
(c) and (1) as basis for denial. The Commission split votes: Belanger - aye;
Marshall.- aye; Martin - no; Ma'tteoni - no; Smith - aye; and Woodward - no.
-1!-
~=j'~ F&~-uary 13, 1974'Minutes
A. SDR-1079 -7-11 Store cont'd
Chairman Marshall directed the matter of SDR-1079 be referred to the City
Attorney for review of the positions expressed by the members of the
Commission. He further proposed this item be continued at the adjourned
regular meeting on Thursday night, ~ebruary 21. He reminded the Commission
a guaranteed quorum is needed.
B. SDR-1091 Mate Voros, Pierce Road = Building Site Approval - 1 lot -
Continued from January 23, 1974
Mr. iBeaudoin, representative of the,applicant, stated all conditions on the
Staff Report dated February 13', 1974 appeared to/be reasonable except Item "D"'
He felt since Pierce Road is a country road, still unimproved on both si~es,
complying with Item "D" would cause.an undue burden on the owner at this time.
He felt it constituted a safety hazard as well. He requested Item "D" be
amended to not require widening of Pierce Road at this time, but rather
wait until such time as other residents of Pierce Road are required to widen
it. He further requested a decision be made tonight relative to this matter
in that there had already been manyldeferrals and delays.
.The Chairman stated the Commission only had the right to approve or reject
the Staff Report; if it was approved, Mr. Voros had the right of appeal to
the City Council. He felt because the application had not been filed
until January 9, the Commission had:not taken too long to make its decision.
Mr. Trinidad inserted that the Public Works Department felt obliged to make
this requirement in that when a road is developed, improvements of that road
should be made in order to handle the ultimate load. He further stated the
general policy is to do everything at the time of construction. He felt
widening Pierce Road did not constitute a safety hazard, but on the contrary
provided'an area on which cars coul~ pull off the side of the road. He
added the City just approved a minor subdivision on Pierce Road which has
the same requirements.
The Secretary, at this time, presented the applicant's map to the Commission.
The Chairman commented that the map Zwas "shabby," and none of the Commissioners
had seen it before tonight. / Mr. BeaudSin.stated the map had been accepted by
the Planning._p~.partment,. to which tie Secretary stated he had advised Mr.
Beaud.~in~the map could be accepted but it was..p~or and might hit some rough
spots.
There were no. further comments.
Commissioner Belanger:moved, seconde. d by Commissioner Woodward, the Staff
Report dated February 13, 1974 relat'ive to SDR-1091 be accepted and the
tentative Map, Exhibit A filed January 9, 1974, be approved subject to
General Conditions I and Specific Co'nditions II, .Items A through Q of this
report. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. SDR-1092 - Roger F. Mairose, WoodbanZk Way - Building Site Approval - 1 lot
The Secretary reported the Staff adv~ised this matter be continued in order
for the Subdivision Committee to review the map.
Mr. Roger Mairose, applicant, reques'ted the building site be approved tonight
because the escrow on the land had to be closed. He stated he had a 45 day
option. on the property which~'~'dl'd expire shortiX. ~
The Secretary stated all requirementls had been met; receipt of the applica-
tion had missed the deadline for the~ January 23 meeting by a few days; and
the Staff had prepared its reports in .hopes the Commission would consider
it this evening. ,
F~bruary 13, 1974 Minutes
C. SDR-1092 - Roger F. Mairose cont'd'
Commissioner Belanger objected stating she felt the Subdivision Committee
should review Mr. Mairose's application.
There were no further comments made.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, the Staff Report
dated February 13, 1974 relative to SDR-1092 be accepted and the tentative
map, Exhibit A filed January 17, 1974, be adopted subject to Conditions I,
Specific Conditions II, Items A through R of this report,!~'~d"~b~ect to
review and acceptance of the plans 'by the Subdivision Committee. The motion
was carried unanimously.
D. SDR-1093 - David N. Grant, Canyon View Drive - Building Site Approval ~ 1 lot
The Secretary recommended this matter be continued to the next regular meet-
ing pending further review by the Subdivision Committee.
It was directed by Chairman Marshal this matter by referred to Committee.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-425 Osterland Enterprises, Fruitvale and Allendale Avenue - Final Design
Review - Landscaping and Fencing (Tract #4768)
Don Burt, the City Planner, read the Staff Report dated February 13, 1974
recommending approval of this request.
Commissioner Belanger suggested Item (1) be amended as follows:
"Provide a complete sprinkler irrigation system for the permanent
maintenance of c~mmon landscaped areas."
She questioned the correctness of the wording of Item (2) relative to
maintenance of a common green area,~ and requested that M~. Burr obtain
a legal interpretation 0f this Item;by the City Attorney. Mr. Burr noted
.... th~.~.reque~t ..... ,
She also suggested Item (4) be amended as follows:
"That a permanent condition be incorporated into the subdivision's
deed restrictions, to be reviewd by the City Attorney, stating
that the design and location of Zall interior fencing and/or pools
for each lot of Tract #4768 be submitted to the Design Review
Committee of the City of Saratoga for review and approval."
There were no further comments.
· Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the
Staff Report dated February 13, 1974 irelative to A-425 (Tract #4768) be
approved subject to Conditions (1) ~hrough (4), as amended, of the report.
The motion was carried unanimously.
B. A-425 Osterland Enterprises, Fruitvale and Allendale Avenue - Final
Design Review - Single-Family Residence (Lot #5, Tract #4768)
The City Planner advised the Commission this request had been withdrawn.
C. A-425 - Osterland Enterprises, Saratoga Avenue and Allendale Avenue - Final
Design Review - Single-Family Residence (Lot #7, Tract #4768)
The City Planner read the Staff Report dated February 13, 1974 recommending
approval of this request.
Commissioner Belanger suggested item (a) be amended to read the same as
Item (4) of Staff Report dated February 13~ 1974 relative to A-425, Tract
~4768.
There were no further comments.
~13 -
~ I~bruar~ 13, 1974 Minutes
C. A-425 - Lot #7, Tract #4768 cont'd
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, the Staff
Report dated February 13, 1974 relative to A-425 (Lot #7, Tract 4768) be
accepted subject to Conditions (a) Zand (b), as amended, of this report.
The motion was carried unanimously.
D. A-427 - Osterland Enterprises, Saratoga Avenue and Allendale Avenue - Final
Design Review - Landscaping and Fencing (Tract #5409)
The City Planner read the Staff Report dated February 13, 1974 recommending
approval of this request.
Chairman Marshall recommended the applicant change the species of juniper
~ tree in that the one chosen was a ~ery rampid species; he further recommended
' the type of tree nearest the road b.e changed since the one chosen obstructed
..... the "car viewing area.'!
Commissioner Belanger questioned the 'corf~C~ne~s~of the wording of Item (c)
relative to maintenance of a common green area; she requested Mr. Butt obtain
a legal interpretation by the City Attorney. Mr..Burt noted the request.
.,T~ ~ nn ~il~h~r ~nn~n~nt~ ..... ~__
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward the Staff
Report dated February 13, 1974 ~elative to A-427, Tract #5409 be approved
subject to Conditions (a), (b) and l(c) of the report. The motion was
Carried unanimously.
E. A-419 - T & F Development Company, Big Basin Way and Fourth Street - Final Design Review - Commercial Building
The City Planner read the Staff RepOrt dated February 13, 1974 recommending
approval of this report.
Chairman Marshall suggested a Condition "d" be added to the report as follows:
"(d) The developers shall provide the design interface between the
termination of 4th Street and the walkway extending from Oak Street
to 4th Street."
There were no further comments.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, the Staff
Report dated February 13, 1974 relative to A-419 be accepted subject to
Conditions (a).~'~y'~'~'d'%c) of the Report, and Condition (d) be added.
The motion was unanimously.
F. A-391 - George W. Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue - Final D~sign
Review - Single-Family Residence (Eot #18, Tract #5327)
The City Planner read the Staff RepOrt dated February 13, 1974 recommending
approval of this request.
Commissioner Belanger commended Mr. Leto for cooperating with the City in
his effort to restore "some control.over the Planned Community area."
No further comments were made.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the
Staff Report dated February 13, 1974 relative to A-391 be accepted subject
to Conditions (a) and (b) of the Report. Thelmotion was carried unanimously.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Azule Trade Faire - Amendment Request of Mrs. Betty Rowland - Continued from January 9, 1974
Chairman Marshall called the Commission's attention to the memorandum by the
Acting Planning Director dated February 13, 1974 which recommended denial of
Mrs. Rowland's request to add "Outdoor Antique and Art Shows" to "C-C" and
_ "C-N" Commercial Districts or grant'her a use permit.
-142
'F~b~ary 13 ,'. 1974 "Minutes
A. Azule Trade Faire cont'd
The Chairman further called attenti. on to a letter to'.Mrs. Rowland from the
Saratoga Chamber of Commerce dated 'February 12, 1974 which stated it was
'its opinion "'~'~ Flea ~rket should: be operated only by a charitable, non-
profit organization."
Chairman Marshall further commented' that presently there was no City ordinance
by which to endorse Mrs. Rowland's :request. He explained the City had to
be totally consistent with the requirements of the City ordinances. He
reiterated the Memorandum's suggestion that furthe~ study be given by the
Subdivision Committee after completion of the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance Reviews.
Chairman Marshall pointed out it had been suggested "outsiders" be required
to acquire business licenses.
Mrs. Rowland stated she did not fee.1 parking was "that much of a problem" as
the Trade Faire had been given permission to use the mortuary's lot across
the s~reet for parking. The Chairm~n commented that while Mrs. Rowland's
statement.may be true on the whole,. there was a distinct possibility parking
could cause problems in adjacent areas, not necessarily on the site itself.
There were no further comments.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, the memorandum
by the Acting Planning Director dated February 13, 1974 relative to the
Azule Trade Faire be accepted, denying request the Planning Commission add
"Outdoor Antique and Art Shows" to "C-C" and "C-N" Commercial Districts or
grant her a Use Permit. The motion!was carried unanimously.
B. Tract 5384 - James Day, Woodbank Way - Relocation of Emergency Access
Easement - Continued from January 9~ 1974
The Secretary suggested this matteribe referred to Subdivision Committee for
review to determine if there are alternative s~lutions to the access problem.
Commissioner Belanger requested a ngw map be required if the access is to be
different.
No further comments were made.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that Tract
5384 be enjoined from building untii an approved map showing relocation of
an emergency access is guaranteed. i The motion was carried unanimously.
C. County Department of Public Works Referrals of Building Site Applications
1. William C. Vogel, Sanborn Road ~1 lot - 3.97 A)
2. Richard Wirkkala, Rolling HillsiRoad (1 lot - 1.54A)
3. Michael Spanier, Quickert Road (1 lot - 5.39A)
4. Perry and Dorothy Glover, Prosp&ct' Road (l'lot - 4.33A)
The Secretary recommended these items be referred to Staff for appeal of
Land Development Committee decisions which are not consistent with City
development.
Chairman Marshall agreed and proposed the Commission accept the Secretary's
recommendation. Commissioner Smith questioned whether the Planning Commission
had the authority to direct these appeals. He felt the City Council had
this responsibility.
Chairman Marshall asked the Secretary to. direct these matters to the Staff.
He further requested the Staff to inform the County the Commission "cannot
· "=L ~F~uary -'13 ~" 1974 'Minutes
C. County Department of Public Works Referrals cont'd
make meaningful interpretations and approve building applications as received
because the lack of information." !The Chairman added the Staff should repeal
those LDC recommendations which "are not in the City's best interest."
Commissioner Matteoni commented th~ County might deny these requests and
Staff should be prepared to appeal :their decision.
D. SDR-1043 - Bernard Klien, Plerce Ro'ad - Building Site Plan Revision -
Relocation of Driveway'Easement
Chairman Marshall stated the map ha'd been approved by the Public Works Depart-
ment and the Subdivision Committee.· The Secretary added it had been signed
off by Chief Kraule of the Fire Department. He _fu__rth~er stated that a letter
was introduced to the file from the~ Santa Clara Water ~District stating~the
easements did not fall within their! district; consequently, that they/had
no judgment as to relocation of this matter.
Mr. Malechex, 13925 Pierce Road, stated he felt somewhat abused in that the
original plan had been approved without his knowledge. He felt the plan
should be redone.
The Secretary suggested Exhibit A b~ withdrawn and substituted by Exhibit B
which would accomplish Mr. Malchek'~ request in that the new exhibit would
be reviewed by Public Works Department, the Fire.·District and the Water
District.
There were no further comments.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that relative
to SDR-10~3~'E~h'f~t A dated June 6~ 1973 be rescinded and Exhibit B dated
February 13, 1974 'be substituted in~its place. The motion was carried
unanimously.
E. Two-Story Ordinance Policy (NS-3.31)
Cormmissioner Belanger suggested, due to the lateness of the hour, this
matter be postponed to a later date.
Chairman Marshall r~i~d'ih'i~ matter to the Design Review Committee and
Staff for f~rther review.
F. Planning Commission Organizations·and Committee's Assignments,
Chairman Marshall suggested that Commissioner Belanger accept the responsi-
bility of the Hillside assignment i~'d~'h'~l~ accept Mr. Lively's assignments.
All other assignments should remain~as they are until such .time as there
was more time for discussion.
VII. COMMUNICATIDNS
A. Written
The Secretary stated there were no written communications.
B. Oral
Chairman Marshall stated there had b'een a meeting February 13 between Faber
Johnston~Mr. Leto, Mr. Felice, Mr. ~owe and himself to discuss the George Day
Tract on Douglas, Avenue. ·He stated that Mr. Day agreed to modify the'
covenants~_ contracts and restrictions governing design review on Planned
Community tracts 532Y l'~d ~,' ~nd ~e~ ~f th'~ ~'i'~y ~'~Yd ~e~aain desig¼
review over the tracts.
-16"-
B. Oral'Commu~i&ations cont'd
He stated the City Attorney explained that home owners associations are not
usually as effective as other means and he felt the City should not do any-
'thing at this time.
Chairman Marshall explained that wh!en people purchase parcels in this tract
they automatically become members o'f the Home ~vners Association.. He stated
they have not as yet held a meeting, thus no action had been taken by them.
Commissioner Belanger expressed relief in that since the Association had not
voted on anything, the City still maintained design review approval.
Cha{rman Marshall reemphasized the ~ity~ttorney's statement that the City
could not legally touch the Home Owners Association because "it was none of
the City's business."
Chairman Marshall recommended the COmmission not pursue this matter at the
present time. ,
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded byZCommissioner Matteoni, that the meeting
of February 13, 1974 be adjourned for the present time, to be continued at the
adjourned regular meeting to be held Thursday, February 21, 1974. The motion was
carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 1:29 a.m.
C~arl'es R o ~ow~
Acting Secretary
OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMIS~
AGENDA
TIME: Wednesday, February 13, 1974 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
B. MINUTES
C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
D. RESOLUTIONS OF COMMENDATION
It. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. V-401 - J.T. McManus, Upper Hill Drive - Request for Variance to Allow a
Reduction in Side Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from January
23, 1974
B. C-170 - Ben R. Shippen, Allendale Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from
"R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family
Residential) - Continued from Ja~u.a.ry .23, .1974 .
C. C-173 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "PA"
(Professional-Administrative) to "R-M-4,000" (Multi-Family Residential) -
Continued from January 23, 1974
D. General Plan Review - Continued from January 23, 1974
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-1079 - Southland Corp., (7-11 Food Stores), Big Basin Way - Building Site
Approval - 1 Lot - CgntiRued from January 9, 1974
B. SDR-1091 - Mate Voros~ Pierce Road "BuildinE'Site ApprOval - l'LOt ' ContinUed
"' from January. 23, 1974' '
C. SDR-1092 - Roger F. Mairose, Woodba~ ~ay - Building'Site Approval ~ 1 Lot'
D. SDR-1093 - David N. Grant, Canyon View'Drive'- BUilding. Site'Approval"'l'LOt
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-425 - Osterland Enterprises, Fruitvale and Allendale Avenue - Final Design
Review - Landscapip~ and Fencing. (Tract #4768)
B. A-425 - Osterland Enterprises, Fruitvale and Allendale Avenue - Final Design
Review - Sing.le-Family Residence (Lot #5, Tract #4768)
C. A-425 - Osterland Enterprises, Fruitvale Avenue and Allendale Avenue - Final
Design Review - Single Family Residence (Lot #7, T.ra~t #J.768)
D. A-427 - Osterland Enterprises, Saratoga Avenue - Final Design Review - Landscaping
and Fencin~ (Tract #5409)
E. A-419 - T & F Development Company, Big Basin Way and Fourth Street - Final Design
Review - Commercial Buildin.g
F. A-391 - George W. Day Construction Co., Fruitvale Avenue - Final Design Review
Single.-Fa~ily Residence (Lot #18, Tract #5327)
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Azule Trade Faire - Amendment Request of Mrs. Betty Rowland - Continued from January
9, 1974
B. Tract 5384- James Day, Woodbank Way - Relocation of Emergency Access Easement -
Continued from January 9., 1974.
C. County Department of Public Works Referrals_of Buildin~ Site Applications
1. William C. Vogel, Sanborn Road (1 Lot - 3.97A)
2. Richard Wirkkala, Rolling Hills Road (1 Lot-.- 1.54A)
3. Michael Spanier, Quickert Road (1 Lot - 5.39A)
4. Perry & Dorothy Glover, Prospect Road (1 Lot - 4.33A)
-1-
'D. SDR, 1043 ~ Bernard Pierce Road - Building Revision - Relocation of Driveway Easement
El Two-Story Ordinance Policy (NS-3.31)
F · Planning Commission Organization and Committee Assi.gnments
VI. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Written
B. Oral
VII. ADJOURNMENT
-2-