Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-1975 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO}~frSSION }fiNUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 11, 1975 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Lusti~', Marshall, Woodward and Zambetti Absent: CoL~L~issioner Martin B. MINUTES Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by CommissiOner Woodward, that the reading of the Planning Commission~ing minutes of May 28 1975 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following corrections: Pa e - . g 8, first paragraph, change the second sentence to read as follows: "Commissioner Woodward pointed out that on'~=two separate occasions citizens had opportunity to assess recreational needs through a Citizens Committee to study future parks and recreation needs in 1961-72 which re- sulted in a bond issue and later formation of the Parks & Recreation Commission."... - Page 8, third paragraph under Commission Action, Commissioner Callon re- quested the Staff Report be modified~to reflect the Commission's deter- mination that the proposed project would have a significantjimpact on the environment, not on the project. - Page 10, Item GF-302, change the second sentence:~n~er Commis.Sio~.~eSponse and Action to read as follows: "There was a division of opinion on whether the ordinance had been adequately reviewed for fom-~arding to the Council. Commissioners Belanger and Callon were in favor of further study to determine whether subsequent changes should be contemplated before forwarding the ordinance. Other Commissioners wished to recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Council, and recommended a cover letter be fon~arded to the Council along with this ordinance request- ing the Council give consideration to specific areas of concern within the ordinance." - Page 15, Item VII-B, Mrs. Runyan represented the American Association of the University of Women, not the Association of the University of Women - Page 15, the Planning Commission of ~y 28, 1975 adjourned, not the ~y 14th meeting - Commissioner Belanger requested that, in the event she chaired future Commission meetings in the absence of Chairman ~rshall, reference be made in the minutes to Chairman Belanger, not to Chairlady, Chaim~oman or Chairperson Belanger. z The motion, to approve the minutes was carried; Chairman ~rshall abstained. ! C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissione~. Woodward gave a detaile~ 7o~r present~t~p of the City Council meet- ing of June 4, 1975. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file ~t the City Administration Office. -1- MINUTES OF JUNE 11. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-172 - Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect and Stelling Roads, Change of Zoning Request from "A" (Agriculture) and "R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-I-40,000 PC" (Single-Family Residential, Planned Community); a 218-acre parcel; Continued from May 28~ 1975 Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing on C-172 at 7:51 p.m. It was noted that a revised Staff RepOrt had been prepared reflecting suggestions and comments made at the Commission meeting of May 28, 1975. CORRESPONDENCE 1. The Secretary read into the record an unsigned letter dated June 11, 1975 from the Friends of Painless Parker putting forth questions and recommen- 'dations of conditions to be imposed on this change of zoning request. (Note: Comments made during the public hearing addressed these questions.) 2. Mrs. Joan Unter, 21192 Maria Lane, submitted a petition containing 500+ signatures of residents in the area opposing "extensive development" in the Saratoga foothills; she noted that an additional petition containing approximately 100 signatures would be forthcoming from the Arguello Home- owners Association. Discussion followed on ~hat the intent of ~h~. p~i~ion was, with Chairman Marshall questioning whether the citi'z~n~ were against all development within the foothills in general, or whether they were against, specifically, the proposed rezoning of the Parker Ranch. Repre- sentatives of the Friends of Painless Parker explained that the majority of the citizens who signed the petition would rather see the present zoning retained for the Parker Ranch site rather than a PC zone; further, that these people felt that Saratoga was built on the idea of individual homes, that this w~s what they were used to-and what they preferred to . Cit ' see retained. Chairman Marshall pointed out that under the y s exist- ing ordinances, the developer of the Parker Ranch property could have applied for subdivision approval under R-1-40'~000 zoning with the benefit of limited design review on those~h0me~ites with slopes i~-excess of 10%, subsequently limiting the control the City ~id have with regards to such things as fences, etc. He continued by explaining that under a PC zone, however, the City would be afforded' control of these design__review aspects without changing the density~_. R~presen~tiy~~ .o~ the .F~iends of Painless Parker indicated that the majority of the citizens felt that if the property retained its present zoning and was held in private lots, it would. take many years to fully develop. Note was made, however, that this land was not owned in separate lots but rather was owned by one company who could, under the ordinances of the City, develop this property in whole. Chairman ~rshall pointed out that this petition indicated opposition to "extensive development" in the Saratoga foothills rather than opposition to this specific zoning application? With the consensus of the Commission, 'he referred this petition to the General Plan Review as input to anti- developmen,t of the foothills because the City was not changing the density of this property by change of zoning or addressing whether the land should be retained as open space, but rather whether the property should be zoned -'!R-I-40,000 PC" or remain "R-I-40,000." COmmISSION/CITIZEN RESPONSE Many questions pertaining to the Staff Report were raised during the course of the public hearing. Although amendments to specific areas within the Staff Report were made, it was noted~that a large portion of the questions raised related to development standards of the project, and consequently were =applicable to tentative map apprOv~'l~'~"~he~~'~chan~e of zoning. The City A~orne~ pointed'out 6ha6 t~e city C~hncil ~ould"~0t be permitted, per City ordinances, to impose development-type conditions on the change of zoning request. He added, however, that the retention of these conditions in the Staff Report pointed out to the City Council that the Commission was assuming -2- MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 1975 II. A. C-172 - Parker Ranch (Commission/Citizen Response) - Cont'd these types of development standards would be imposed on the development at the time of tentative map, and that the Commission was making its recommendation per the required findings of izoning.0r_d~nance NS-3 based on these assumptions. The following. input was given by both Commissioners and citizens: 1. CommiSsioner Belanger asked what the expected life was of "sufficient bonds" referred to in Item J, and it was pointed out that such bonds normally-had a two-year standing, and 'would continue until such time as maintenance responsibility was assumed by the,=deyelopment's homeowner association. 2. Commissioner Callon requested a stipulation be added to the Staff Report ~leiative'~.o insuring against accidental tree removal. (Note: See commis- si0n'Acti'0n for exact wording of this condition.) 3.' Steve Carter, member of the Friends of Painless Parker,__questioned the viability of this project, pointing out that he was aware of studies made. fat least 3 times prior to this application by engineering organizations -to develop the Parker Ranch site at !'.R-I-40,000" without success. He stated tha't the ~itizens x~ho signed' the petition would prefer to retain the present zoning of this property with the slope density formula applied thereto; further that these citizens did not feel that "PC" was the best way to develop this property. Note was made late in the public hearing by Mr. Heiss, applicant's representative, that the only other proposal for development on this property occurred in 1966 by MacKay & Somps for approx- imately 190 units on the 201-acre Parker Ranch site; further, that the developer ran out of funds prior to completion and that development did not occur before beC.a_use of. econ0mic~.l. ~eaS~n.s; not.be_.c_ause of a question o. of viab'iI'fFy. j 4. Russell Crowther, representative of the Arguello Homeowners Association, remarked on several aspects of this application, and was given the follow- ing responses: a) They felt "PC" would realistidally permit higher density than could be achieved under the present zoning, and that the 105-unit plan appeared not ~iable according to General Plan for the following reasons: City General Plan called for a sl-ope conservation zone for this area; Cit ' · General Plan stated that the y s ridge lines should be pro- tected and minimum development allowed; and ~ General Plan Open Space Element pointed out that the City had a smaller percentage of open space than most cities of its size, and referred to the periphery areas as providing this open space. Chairman Marshall stated that the Staff and Subdivision Committee had been adamant with the developer in submitting a plan which met all the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, NS-3, and specifically with regards to[ grading and slopes. Additionally, Mr. Heiss pointed out that all grading would be within~.the 15% limitation set by City ordinances, and that building sites were proposed in areas where the slope was less than 40%. Mr. Heiss added: "It was our original understanding that there was a great desire to save and maintain as much of the natural terrain as possible, and that has been our ..gUi_di_n_g_ _a_nd ultimate goal. We felt the 'PC-' approach was the most logical approach." Relative to the open space commented on by Mr. Crowther, Mr. Heiss maintained that of the 218-acre parcel, 150 acres would be set aside as permanent open space with scenic easements to the City, and that an additional 8~ acres of open space would be afforded the development's residents for recreational uses. He added that approximately 40 acres of the site would be held under private o~nership, and approximately 20 acres would be used for street purposes. -3- ~fINUTES OF JUNE 11~ 1975 II. A. C-172 - Parker Ranch (Response by R. Crowther) - Cont'd b) Mr. Crowther submitted a partially-completed petition from the Arguello 'Homeowners Association calling for ~rotection of the Saratoga foothills ?'~r"6'~exc'.e~s'ive development density," and further expressing concern about "t~e"~m~a~s foothill_development would have on adjacent properties relative- to traffic, flooding and increased runoff. The petition urged these lands be developed at a 2.5-acre minimum for 10% slopes, with density further reduced by slope density equations and environmental considerations. c) Relative to flooding, he requested the Commission place an additional condition on the Staff Report stipulating that the developer must take responsibility for-downstream flooding, and referenced Government Code Section 66483 as the authority for a city to place such a condition on a developer. Although it was pointed out that this type of condition related to conditions imposed at' the time of tentative map approval, current City ordinances imposed on all subdivisions since ~6 a r~- quirement to have comprehensive liability!.cove~ge as ~ell as'a c6m- pleted operations endorsement for one-yea~' b~y0hd cO~§~ruction to cover any flooding which might occur. d) Mr. Crowther requested that a minimum length of 150 feet be required on the trenching conditions stated in Item B-3 of the Report in order to "define the character of shear zones on geology maps published by a public agency." He further requested that the phrase, under this item of the Staff Report, of "if shear zones are found to exist on the site" be stricken from the Report in that current data reflected such zones crossing-the property. ~. Carl Greenly, engineering geologist and president of Applied Soils Mechanics, advised against such a condition, explaining that trenching was the third phase of the geological investigation after a map and photo study and a study of exposed geology in the field. He contended that a minimum-length requirement on trenching would not serve any purpose, explaining that some trenches may turn out to be only 20-feet long whit~ others may be as long as 200-feet, depending upon the anomalies found during the course of geophysical investigations. -~) He stated that they would like not only~ithe. proVision in. the Staff Report requiring land-s~ability insurance by the developer, but also a requirement for approval by the City of any exclusion from that insurance. Discussion was had on this suggestion. Chairman Marshall pointed out earlier that the only company, according to information received, which issued land stability insurance had ceased to exist, thus necessitating the wording ~0nditio~-~(~) as "depending upon availability." Mr. Crowther p~{~ed'0Ut that "availability" could also be interpreted to mean whether a land stability insurance com- pany wished to issue such insurance to the developer. After further discussion, the consensus of the Co~f~ission was to amend Conditicn I for clarification purposes. (Note: See Commission Action for exact wording of this amendment.) f) Referring to Section 4-A of the City Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Crowther asked if approval of the reclassification constituted approval of the tentative map, and what was meant by approval of the site development plan. The City Attorney explained that reclassification would con- stitute approval of the site development plan per Section ~-A-6 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3, but not approval of the tentative map. Chair-i man ~rsh~fl'~d~d'~h'~i'~h'~'~oning Ordinance governed site dev~10pment "pian,'wh{~e the"Subdi~iS~n'Drdinance (NS-5) governed tentative ma~ __a~proval_~ He added that the Staff Report recommends rezoning_ to __ · "R~IT40,000 PC" with the reasons for d~ing so'~i~en; further th;at Zoning OrdinanC~ NS-3 ~a's cited as to'this rec6~nm~ndation'being in compliance with existing ordinances, with the recommendation being subject to a set of conditions which would be imposed on the site development plan post-approval of the rezoning. -4- .MINUTES OF JUNE 11~ 1975 II. A. C-172 - Parker Ranch (Response by R. Crowther) - Cont'd g) Mr. Crowther asked how the proposed slope conservation ordinance would affect this project, and requested that a Condition (K) be added to the Staff Report as follows: "It is the intent that this development-~h'all be consistent with the changes in the City's governing ordinances that are being developed." Relative to the'~hestion posed, the City Attorney~ explained that if a slope conservation ordinanc~ was adopted by'~he City Council that was different from the existing ordinance, the zon- ing ordinance would be retroactive to whatever point the Council chose to make it retroactive when they adopted it. Relative to the suggested condition, both Chairman Marshall and Commis- sioner Lustig indicated opposition to such a condition in the Staff Re- port on the basis that the Planning Commission would essentially be precluding any deciSion made by the City Council. Mr. Crowther con- tended that the Commissionrs relunctance to add such a statement was their feeling that this de~i~pmen~'sh0ul~'n6t'be'consistent with any changes being made. He argued that the General Plan had indicated since 1960 a 1-unit-per-10-acres zone for this area, and that he would like to go on record as requesting such a statement be added that "this development.be consistent with changes in the ordinances that are now in process relative to making this consistent with the new Map Act and the Saratoga General Plan.'! Commissioner Callon supported this request, adding that "if we are talking about good planning and trying to move to what we feel are good planning ordinances, then what we are working on now shouI~ comply with our 'better ordinances'." Chairman ~rshall stated that he felt the City had made every attempt to obtain consistency between the application and the proposed ordinance; adding that at the time this application was first submitted, the City had no way of knowing which of the two matters would be addressed and acted upon first. 5. Tom Sawyer, representative of the Arguello Homeowners Association, made several c~mnents relative to flooding and the geology study. He pointed out that the "flooding paranoia" they had was partially caused by the threat of adjacent residents being assessed in the future for do~,~stream flooding. He asked h~w~the City would monitor the geological studies, and what would happen if it was determined a particular homesite was on a slope in excess of 40%. Relative to the ftO~ding comment, it was again noted that this should be addressed at the time of tentative map approval. Regarding the monitoring of geology studies, it was noted that the speci- fic conditions contained within the Staff Report had been reviewed and approved by Jim Berkland, Santa Clara County ~eologist; further, that Mr. Berkland had agreed to review materials ~db~f~ed on the geological investigations made. It was pointed out tha~"~efative to 40%.s!0pe, present City ordinances prohibited development of any~6&~i within the City with a slope in excess of 40%. 6. Linda Stuckey, 22600 Prospect Road, referred to the letter submitted by the Friends of Painless Parker with specific reference to the suggestion that the change of zoning of the Hall property be contingent upon can- cellation of the Hall Agricultural Preserve Contract. Chairman ~rshall pointed out that, per counsel advice, determination of the Williamson Act matter should be made by the City Council, not the Plan~ing Commission. He added that if the Hall property was deleted from this project, then the developer would be required to resubmit plans based on the 201-acre Parker Ranch site. 7. Relative to a request concerning the completion of the Comer Road extension as contained in the letter submitted by the Friends, Chairman ~rshall pointed out that he felt it would be premature for the Commission to arbitrarily stipulate the develqper to provide access onto Comer Drive prior to consideration of alternate possibilities (Surrey Lane) as sug- gested in the Northwest Saratoga Circulation Study. Commissioner Belanger -5- '.'~frNUTES OF JUNE 11~ 1975 II. A. C-172 - Park~r Ranch (Comer Drive Extension) - Cont'd added that this suggested contingency, in her opinion, was not appropriate at this time because the Planning Commission could not tell the Council what or what not to do about accepting the offer of dedication on Comer Drive. She further pointed out that she felt at some point in time Comer Drive would be opened, and how that would be financed was not a Commission decision. 8. Commissioner Callon stated that from a philosophical point of view, the land under the Williamson Act should not be addressed with regard to re- zoning, pointing out that the Williamson Act concept was designed to give property owners an opportunity not to be forced into development because of excessive taxes. She stated-that she would question the idea behind considering a change of zoning on property that had been given a protection for tax purposes.and now, without being relieved of that protection, was going toward development. Chairman Marshall stated that he felt the Williamson Act had been designed to preserve open space until plans could be generated for the proper development of that open space. He added that he felt the question of Williamson Act lands was of a political nature because of the tax aspect, and should be addressed and determined by the City Council, not the Planning Commission. CO~ESSION ACTION Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public hearing on C-172 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 9:36 p.m. Chairman Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated June 10, 1975 and Exhibit A-9 filed March 29, 1975 be accepted on application C-172, and that it be recommended to the City Council that a change of zoning from~"'R-1-40,000'' (.single-family residential) and "A" (agriculture) to "R-I-40,000 PC" (single-family residential, planned community) be approved on the basis of the findings required in Sections 18.6 and 18.11 of the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance NS-3 and be made for the reasons stated in the Report, subject to amendments of the Staff Report as follows: (1) Fage 1, under Project Description, correct the average slope to 'Z28~5%; (2) Item (I) on page 4 should be modified to read: (I) Depending upon the existence of land stability insurance companies to provide it, land stability insurance is to be applied for and procured prior to final map approval." (3) Add at the end of the first sentence of Item (J) on page 5 the following: "..;and to insure against the accidental destruction of or damage to existing trees not designated and approved for removal." Prior to the vote, Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to amend'the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding rezoning on C-172 by'ex&tuding from the rezoning "A" (Agriculture) to "R-I-40,000 PC" (single-family residential, planned co~m~unity), and only consider rezoning the land that is currently zoned "R-I-40,000" to "R-i-40,000 PC." Commissioner Callon explained that from a philosophical point of view, she felt the Hal!~pr~p. erty was part of.~h~i'~l~fi~on ~f to protecf'i~ agri&ultural use and t'~ allow 'for open space, an~ she'Would"iik~'t~ 'see't~is property remain aS presently zoned. Chairman Marshall opposed this view stating that he felt the Commission's obligation was to secure the best use of-this property, and that he felt the question of the Williamson Act should be determined by the City Council instead of the Commission. He stated: "Although I endorse a disclaimer c-l~use which says our motion to approve re- zoning should not be construed as making a decision on the Williamson Act, I am against excluding it from the approval." -6- MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 1975 II. A. C-172 - Parker Ranch (Commission Action) - Cont'd The amended motion to exclude from the rec~xm~endation of r~zon~ng the agricul- tural lands was not passed: Commissioners Callon and Zambetti voted aye; Commissioners Belanger, Lustig, ~rshall and Woodward voted no. Chairman ~rshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, to amend the original motion by including a statement of caution to the City Council that whereas the Planning Commission and Staff view the recommended rezoning as possibly the best way of developing that property, the approval of C-172 should in no way be construed as the Commission's endorsement of any policy relative to land being retained or taken out of the Williamson Act. After considerabie~'discussion on the intent of this motion, Chairman Marshall and Commissioner Lustig-respectively withdrew their motion ~nd second. In lieu of this, ChairmaR ~rshall, with ~he"Commis'Sion's consensus, directed Staff to construct suitable language regarding the Co~Lm~ission's intent on the policy toward Williamson Act lands. At this time, the motion to approve application C-172 per the Staff Report and Exhibit A-9, without amendments relative to Williamson Act land, was carried u~animously. RECESS: 10:00 - 10:15 p.m. For clarification of the Commission's intent on the 'Williamson Act property and in lieu of the direction to Staff to provide suitable language, Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Plan- ning Commission transmit to ~he City Council, along with the change of zoning recommendation oh C~172~ the following: '%Although the Planning Commission did rec~m~end in this instance a change of zoning from "A" (Agriculture) to "R-i-40,000 PC" (single-family residential, planned community) on a piece of property presently under the Williamson Act, it was because of the dictates of good planning on this particular parcel. We do not wish the City Council to construe this as a policy of the Planning Commission in general toward land under Williamson Act." The motion was carried unanimously. B. V-421 - Alex Weathers, Bank Mill Road, Request for Variance to Section 3.3-7 .'of Ordinance NS-5 by Allowing the Number of Lots Served by a Minimum Access Street to Exceed Four (4) Lots; Continued from }~y 28, 1975 The Secretary advised the Commission that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting this item be withdra~,m. He pointed out that the issue of accessibility should be addressed at-the time of filing for tentative map approval rather than being resolved via a variance request. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Plan- ping Commission accept the letter of withdrawal on V-421-and .~erm~nate further- ;'~rS~'~ings thereon. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Marshall noted that a letter had~been received dated June 9, 1975 from Mary Moss, 20777 Pamela Way, requesting the Commission consider and re- solve?this problem of accessibility. Staff was directed to respond to Miss Moss' lette~ ~i~h 's~eciai"n6~e ~i~'to't~ 'Comm~S~'~o~'s"'ac~i'on on this application. C. V-424 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, 14411 Big Basin Way, Request for Variance to Allow a Free-Standing Sign Measuring 3'x4' to be Located at 14411 Big Basin Way as Regulated by Ordinance NS-3, Section 10.5; Continued from May 28, 1975 Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-424 at 10:18 p.m. It was noted that the applicant had submitted revised pIans for a proposed monument- type sign measurements of which met Ordinance specifications, but which requf~d a variance to the Zoning Ordinance relative to free-standing signs for adver- ~Lo.. tising purposes. Further note was made that the Variance Committee and the =~ Design Review Committee had reviewed this item, and that a Staff Report had -7- MINUTES OF JUNE 11. 197-5 II. C. V-424 - Western Federal Savings and. Loan - Cont'd ~ Commissioner Woodward pointed out that a meeting had been recently held by th~ / Staff, Chamber of Commerce, the mayor,'and members o.f_~h~ .neWly formed Downtowns" -MerChants Association to discuss the availability of off-street parking. She' noted that there was off-street parking available behind many V~llage stores~of ,.__~hi~h__many_peo~!~_~e BDJ aware., and discu~i.On.'at this meeting was had o~.'.~e~h~ds / of educating the public to that effect. She stated that until a parking assess-' ment district was formed, she felt this parking directional Sign was a beginning in the process of educating the public of available off-street parking. Relative to the sign itself, Commissioner Woodward stated that the Design Review Committee felt the sigD_~as_a.t_tracti%e_ and in good taste,__and consequ__en_t_l% she felt it should be allowed. Commissioner Callon agreed with this, pointing out--that it was not practical for the aRplicant to .place a s~gn on his building; further, that she .~.t t~i.s.b~sinesS..~as enti~!e~_~? ~a~ ~sign for directional parking. Commissioner Belanger disagreed that a detached sign should be allowed, noting that the granting of such a variance would be against the Co_mmissionls_!.~n~-____ ~ standing policy of not allowing free-standing signs in the Village. She reminded -the Commission of the large number of downtotem merchants who requested the Commission to a~here to its sign ordinance on this matter, adding: "I would /like to keep faith with them and not grant this variance unless it is determined' that it.i~ _~eeded. It iS_untim~!y a~.:this point." .... - /' Mr. Duque, applicant's representative, was present and assured the Commission tha~ the intent was to have only one such sign; further pointing out that they would not have pursued this matter for so long if they felt there was not a need for such a parking directional sign. He noted that they were planning to open for business_on June 23, 1975., and_.requested. this sign be available at that time.-- Commissioner Belanger indicated that she was not convinced that there was a need for such a sign at this point. She proposed that the Commission deny without prejudice this variance request with the stipulation that the appli- cant be allowed to submit evidence of a parking problem because of the lack of such a sign, and consequently reapply for a variance at a later date. Discussion followed on this, and it was determined that the matter should be continued to the first meeting in September, which would give the applicant adequate time in which to assess the question of parking. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the public hearing on V-424 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 10:35 p.m. /'A'ft~ ~u~6~r"discussion, Commissi~'eY' Bi~g~'~,~," ~d~d"~,' ~'o~n~fd~'ibner Lustig, that application V-424 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1975, and that the public hearing be reagendized for that date. The motion was carried; Commissioner Callon voted no. D.- V-425 - John Colistra, Canyon View Drive, Request for Variance to Allow a 20- Foot Frontyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 30-Foot Frontyard Setback (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7-1) Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-425 at 10:36 p.m. It was noted this request for variance was similar to one granted by the Commission on this prp'perty in 1973, which had since expired. Further note:. was made that the Variance Committee had reviewed this matter, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval on the basis that the variance would allow for a better design solution to the site as opposed to strict interpre- tation of the setback requirements provided in the Ordinance. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE The following correspondence was introduced into the record: 1. Letter dated June 6, 1975 from I.H. Moore, 21040 Canyon View Drive, opposing this variance request on the basis that "the requested variance would do nothing to enhance the unique neighborhood the citizens of Canyon View Drive currently enjoy." -8- ~NUTES OF-JUNE 11. 197.5 II. D.. V-425 -John. Colistra (Written Correspondence) - Cont'd 2. Letter dated June 8, 1975 from W.D. and Shirlie Cunningham, 21070 Canyonr VieQ Drive, requesting the Commission not allow this variance on the basis that "we believe ~h'~'~"f~'~consistency ih~h~__s.~__~_'~'vb~'~la~d' no closer to the street t[~n'th~'h~'u~e'nex~ doo~. 3. Letter dated June 9, 1975 from Robert-and Anne Louden, 21110 Sullivan way~ protesting the granting of the variance in that it "would adversely affect ~_. the appearance of the neighborhood." 4. Letter dated June-6, 1975 fr~Richard Meitus,-21060 Canyon ~iew DriVe, requesting the continuance of V-425 until after the Design Review application had been reviewed. -- C0~SSION/CITIZ~N_RESPONSE Ej~-~ . ._ .~ .- .- -_ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~C~-j~-j "' '" .... , Mr. Albert Ruffo, attorney representing Richard Meitus:(adjacent property o~er) requested this variance matter be continued until after building site and design review applications had been reviewed and approved in order that the City might be in a better position to detemine ~at this variance was in'order. He argued that although the question of design might be a matter of taste, he felt other alternatives regarding the placement of the house should be considered prior to approval. Mr. Ruffo also pointed out that the Wildwood Heights Tract CC&Rs called for review and approval of design plans by an architectural review c~itte% which he felt was applicable to-this matter, and he restated a request that this variance application be con- tinued until the c~ittee had had an opportunity to review the design plans. Discussion followed on these coEents. It was noted that the architectural review co~ittee of Wildwood Heights was not currently in existence, and that there were no records of such a coEittee having had reviewd and approved any such design plans for the last 15 years. A further point.was made that the City did not have authority to enforce a Tract's CC&Rs. Although the Co~ission indicated concurrence with the request to handle the variance and design review applications at the s~e time, concernswas expressed by Co~issioner Betanger that the Co~ission could be doing the applicant a disservice by postponing action on the variance until such time as the architectural r~iew c~ittee could be formed and had reviewed the .... ~'~[iea~[' s plans. Louis S~lo~ 21O80'C~nyon View Drive, stated ~h]t"there were alternate plans available which would not "obscure the site of the neighbors," and he urged review of alternate design plans. Ri~ard Meitus, 21060 Canyon View Drive, indicated he felt the matters of design review and the variance were inti~tely related and should be considered ~ concurrently. He noted that an alternate design plan was available for ;.. consideration which would afford the applicant a view of the forest in lieu of the valley, and also help retain his o~ view. Mr. Meitus explained that the current plans showed very few windows on the valley-side of the house, and further, called for the planting of 6 fast-growing pine trees on the same side of this house. Consequently, he questioned whether the applicant really wanted a view of the valley at all. ~.-MeitUs also took issue with condition (5) of the Staff Report ~ich stated thaf'the view of his lot (Lot 62) would not be blocked, pointing out that the roof line of the pro~ posed house would be considerably above his floor elevation. CO~SSION ACTION After discussion of the above cEents, the consensus of the Co~ission was to consider this variance application c~ngurrently with the design review appli- cation. Chairmn Marshall directed-~425' b~' continued to the Planning CoEis- sion meeting of June 25, 1975, and referred this matter to the Variance Co~ittee,FDesign Review C~ittee and Staff for further review and report. -9- MINUTES OF JL~qE 11, 1975 II. j E. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery company, Prospect Road, ReqUest for Use Perm{t to ~ll'oW the Construction of 'an 8-Foot High Storage Shed to be Erected in the West Valley Freeway Right-of-Way; Continued from ~y 28~ 1975 Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on UP-239 at 11:25 p.m. Note was made that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this on-site, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recormnending approval of the amendment to UP-239. Mr. Stockard, applicant's representative, requested that Condition (E) of the Report be amended to allm~ for operation of the fertilizer injection system withoutT~ek-e~d limitations insomuch as the system needed full-scale operation. '°~ommissioner Belanger expressed concern that this might invite part-time work''~ on weekepiC_,_ which she .poin~e~ _out ~s .prohibited' in _th~_?~£ginal use .p~_.rm__it. %'~ Mr. Stockard noted, however, that there were no employees, other than himself, .... working during the weekend. Note was m~de that violation of the original use permit had Occurred in that operation"of the nursery h~d expanded beyond that established ~'the original'. use permit. Mr. Stockard stated that he thought he had received an extension ~ of this permit in ,November of 1974, and cited a signed license agreement by-'th~ City~s Community Services Department ~__t.~e__E~ference doctnnent providing such an extension. Discussion followed on-'th~s, an~'te w~s made that the license agreement had not ~ra~d 'S~c~ an extension, and had not b~~e~'~d'b~ Planning Staff or Commission. The Coxm,~ission indicated a desire to review thirs referenced document, and recommendation was made that this matter be continued. Request was also made'b'yt"~ Commission that the applicant submit plans which currently reflect the existing use of the property, as well as what was pro- posed to exist beyond those uses permitted by t~:e original use permit. ..... ~'rman ~rshall, with the concurrence of the Commission, closed t~e public hearing on UP-239, directed this matter be continued to--'the Planning Commissi.~n meeting of June 25, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and ~ Staff for further review and report. F. UP-261 - Saratoga Cable Television,-Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Storage of Construction Equipment ' and Supplies and~'al-Processing Antenna Site to be Located at .... i229~ sar~tdga-sU~n~'~e Road (Ord. NS-3, Sect. 7.3); Continued from May 28~ 1975 The Secretary noted that there were still unresolved issueg regarding the franchise agreement between the applicant and City Council, and that a rescinded ~'d'i~&'e agreement was currently being considered by the City Council. Staff reconnnended this matter be denied w~hout prejudice in order to allow the aRpli- d~h'~'[~'~b~{~'~"~lication when the unresolved issues of the franchise agreement had been addressed. L Chairman ~rshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission deny without prejudice application UP-261. The motion was carried unanimously. G. UP-273 - Sisters of Mercy, Douglass Lane, Request for Use Permit to Allow a Convent in a Single-Family Residence Zoning District (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.3) Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on UP-273 at 11:38 p.m. Note was made that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter, and that a Staff Report had been prepared reco~m.ending approval. The applicant's represen- tative indicated acceptance of the Staff Report. Commissioner Belanger suggested that the Staff Report be amended by adding the following statement under Concluding Comments: (2) T__hi__s__~.~_._~rmj.~ j~_?p__e~fi~!~_ ~su__e__d as a retreat-convent use '~b~'~h~'Sf~~f M~y. S~i'du'~'~h'~dl'd~'~'~ ~d~'d'b~yond "' that ~,~ich is specified in the Staff Report. -10- MINUTES OF 11 II. G. UP-273 - Sisters of Mercy - Cont.'d The following written or espondence was introduced into the record: c r 1.Note received June .11, .~975 from Reverend RgY_ ~~Ege~.~.~..9~ij : Acres, endorsing this use permit. 2. Letter dated June 6, 1975 from Harry Hendon, 14257 Douglass Lane, endorsing this use permit. Chairman ~rshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the public hear- ing on UP-273 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing on UP-273 was closed at 11:50 p..m. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Plan- ning Commission grant application UP-273 approval per the Staff Report dated June 5, 1975, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. (Note: The motion to approve the use permit was carried prior to ?fficially closing the public hearing. Subsequently, a motion to close the public hearing -'{.~S"fna'd~d carri~dT' and'[~e motion to approve UP-273 was unanimously reaffirmed.) H. UP-274 - Eldon Hoffman, Bank MiI1 Road, Request for Use Permit to Allow the Construction of an 8-Foot Tennis Court Fence (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.4)$ Continued from May 28, 1975 Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further review. Chairman Marshall directed UP-274 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1170 - Alexander M. August, Live Oak Lane, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots (Expiration Extended to June 11~ 1975); Continued from ~y 28~ 1975 Note was made that a letter granting an extension to the Commission meeting of June 25, 1975 had been received from the applicant. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1170 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. B. SDR-1174 - Thomas N. Foster, Horseshoe Drive, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots; -~Expiration Extended to June 11~ 1975); Continued from b~y 28~ 1975 Note was made that a letter granting an extension to the Commission meeting of July 23, 1975 had been received from the applicant's representative. It was ~f~'~'d"~'~/t{~ the'~'ppl{cant submitted the materials requested by the Sub- division Committee prior to that date, tD~__appl~c~tion could be reagendized for Commission review prior'to the July 23rd meeting. Chairman Marshall directed' ...... SDR~l-174-'-be'contlnued't'o'th~'Pl~n~i~g'CO~i~i~'n'~fi~g"~f J~I~'23?"I97'57~h'd' re- ferred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review.~..~ %- C. SDR-1179 - John Colistra, Canyon View Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expiration Extended to June 11, 1975); Continued fromMay 28~ 1975 Note was made that the Subdivision Co~m~ittee had reviewed this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared r~~Hing approval~"Mr'?'CSl'i~'tY'~ applicant, questioned Condition (L) of the Report requiring installation of a~fire hydrant, the cost of such to be shared with the developer of application SDR-1185. Mr. Colistra indicated an unwillingness to pay for such a fire hydrant, and ~ indicated a desire for investigation of the possibility of a reimbursement ~ /"ag~mi~'['f6~' [['i~"~{'i~'[y~h~'by fUt'~r~ a~%B~'e~'T'M~.'LA~g~ll~',"'SDRzll'85 applicant, indicated a willingness to pay for the entire fire hydrant in thai 'he was working within a limited time frame and desired site approval as soon as possible It was suggested that the two applications be acted upon per the Staff .___Repo~ts_,__and_if_the appliQants 5,ii.shed to._gpR~al this cond~i0n., F_~ues~ q?~l_d_~,-be made forrreconsideration of conditions. This suggestion was met with the apRro~atz=ofLthe_two applicantS.. -11- III. C. SDR-1179 - John Colistra - Cont'd Commissioner Belanger requested that reference be made on the SDR-1179 Staff Report that cost.. of the fire hydrant would be shared with the developer of SDR-1185. Condition (G) was added under Comments as follows: (G) The cost of installation of the fire hydrant is to be prorated on a 50/50 basis with the developer of SDR-1185. Cormnissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant SDR-1179 tentative building site approval per Exhibit A filed April 18, 1975, and subject to General Conditions I and.Specific Conditions II (A) through (N) of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1975, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. D. SDR-1183 - Assurance Company, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval 3 Lots; (Expires June 18~ 1975); Continued from May 28~ 1975 Note was made that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval, The applicant was not present, but affirmation~Fas made by Staff t~'~ a copy~f'" '~he Staff Report had been mailed to the applicant 5 days prior to'~his meeting. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Pls~n~n~ Commission grant SDR-1183 tentative building site approval per Exhibit A-1 filed April 30, 1975, and subject to General Conditions I and Specific Condi- /tions II (A) through (0) of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously~ E. SDR-1185 - Charles Laughlin, Canyon View Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 18~ 1975); Continued from~y 28; 1975 Note was made that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. The applicant was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant SDR-1185 tentative building site approval per Exhibit A filed April 30, 1975, and subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (A) through (H) of the Staff Report .dated June 6, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. F. SDR-1186 - Richard Carlson, Pike Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 19~ 1975); Continued from~y 28~ 1975 Note was made that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. The applicant,-~. Carlson, was present and asked to what extent he would be re- quired to participate in the 1974 Pike Road Improvement Group Association. It was explained that the Association had been formed to insure.that proper up? grading of Pike Road would be done.. Mr. Trinidad, Public Works Department, pointed out that the Association had recently completed work on the roadway, and was currently levying assessments with Association participants for same. He offered to provide assistance to the applicant in furnishing him with the name of the Association person to contact with regard to this matter. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant SDR-1186 tentative building site approval per Exhibit A filed May 1, 1975, and subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (A) through (O) of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. G. SDR-1187 - Stekoll Development Corporation, Ten Acres Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 19~ 1975)~ Continued from ~y 28~ 1975 Note was made that a staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. The applicant was not present, but affirmation'was made by Staff that a copy of L. the Staff Report had been mailed to the applicant 5 days prior to this meeting. -12- MINUTES OF Jb~ 11~ 1975 III. H. SDR-1188 - Jack Drinkard, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 18~ 1975); Continued from~y 28~ 1975 Note was made that this matter had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared reco~L~Llending__a~proval. Staff .pointed out that approval of the tentative map had been granted previously, but that r same had expired. The applicant was not present, but affirmation was made by Staff that a copy of the Staff Report had been mailed to the applicant 5 days prior to this meeting. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Con~nission grant SDR-1188 tentative building site approval per Exhibit A-1 filed June 3, 1975, and subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (A) through (F) of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1975. The motion was I. SDR-1189 - Charles Bilek, Sobey Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires July 9~ 1975) Staff recommended this matter be continued pending completion of the file. Chairman ~rshall directed SDR-1189 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. IV. DESIGN REVI~ A. A-467 - Osterlund Enterprises_, FruiJvale Avenue, Final Desigp Review Approval, Tract ~501~ Lot #11; Continued from~y 28~ 1975 Staff noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee on several occasions, ~hat landscaping plans had been submitted as part. of this application, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Mr. Tercini, applicant~s representative, was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan- ning Commission grant final design~view approval to application A-467, Lot ~11 · of Tract #~Dll per Exhibit A and the Staff R~p=Rrt dated June 5, 1975. The motion was carriedi=Commissioner Lustig voted no'because he felt the house'~d'been .poorly-deS~gned- B. '~i4~'r"~aratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Douglass Lane, Final Design Review ApprOval~ Tract ~5583~ Lot #6 Staff noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Further note was made that the design of this house was consistent with others in the tract. Commissioner Be~nger requested that the last sentence under Pro~ect Description o~ the Staff Repor[ ~B~'amended to read as follm~s: "~ medium shake roof is also proposed." Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan- ning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-472, Lot #6 of Tract ~5583 per Exhibit D and the Staff Report dated June 5, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. C. A-479 - Jack Drinkard; Pierce Road~ Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Note was made that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan- ning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-479 per Exhibit A-1 and the Staff Report dated June 6, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. -13 - MINUTES OF JUNE 11. IV. D. A-480 - Osterlund Enterprises~ Radoyka Drive~ Final Design Review Approval Staff_recqmmended this matter be continued pending further review. Chairman Marshall directed A-480 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 1975, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. E. A-481 - Stekoll Development Corporation, Ten Acres Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Start noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Lustig commended the applicant for the fine design job, "fitt~.the lot beaufifully." commissioAe~'~g'o~wi~d' ~0ve~, seconded by Commissi~rL ~l~[~f~hat the Plan- ning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-481 per Exhibit A and the Staff Report dated June 6, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. F. SS-86 - Montalvo Festival Theatre, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Final Design Review Approval - Temporary Advertisement Sign Staff noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Mr. Loewke, Planner I, explained that normally an 8-~quare foot sign of this type would not require Design Review approval; ho~e~,,.' since the sign would not be on the' ~ same site as the play would be conducted, Design Review approval was required~ f Brief discussion followed on this, and Staff was directed to determine whether ~ a temporary identification sign would be a continuing use for future occasionS;... ~ if so, Staff was directed to suggest to the applicant that application t = in the future for a use permit. commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan- ning Commission grant final design review approval to application SS-86 per Exhibit A and the Staff Report dated June 6, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. V. ENVIRONmeNTAL D~ACT DETERMINATIONS No Negative Declarations were fit&d between the period of May 29, 1975 and June 11, 1975. VI. ~SCELLANEOUS A. GF-302 - Ordinance No. 60 - An Ordinance Regulating the Design and Improvement of Single Lots, Parcels and Subdivisions of Land in the City of Saratoga, and Superseding and Repealing Ordinance Series NS-5 Relating Thereto - Cover Letter for Transmittal Along with Ordinance No. 60 to be Voted Upon by Commission; Continued from~y 28~ 1975 The Secretary pointed out that at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on June 5, 1975, the Planning Commission had discussed specific recommendations to be transmitted to the City Council relative to major changes suggested in the City's Subdivision Ordinance. He drew the Commission's attention to pages 6 and 25 of the proposed draft Ordinance which reflected changes made by the Corf~f, ission at this meeting, and recommended the Commission approve such amendments as follows: Section 6.2. No final Certificate of Occupancy as provided by Section 306 of the Uniform Building Code shall be issued until all curbs, gutters, driveway approaches, base rock and underground utilities servicing such lot or parcel, and all landscaping improvements as may have been required by the Advisory Agency, are:.satisfactorily installed and completed. -14- ~rNUTES OF JUNE 11~ 1975 VI. A. GF-302 - Ordinance No. 60 - Cont'd Section 13.9-2, first sentence of subsectf0n (c) of Item (3): (c) No Site shall be approved which bears an average slope of over 40%, or in excess of 40% slope at the area on which any structure is to be built. He further recommended that the Commission approve the transmittal cover letter expressing the primary policy questions discussed at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. With regard to the cover letter, Commissioner Belanger stated:it was her under- standingsrelative to this slope density formula~h~f ~Oh~'i'd~ation would be given by the Commission to changiBg the numerator of the formula from 1 acre to 2 acres for calculation of the minimum site area relative to slope of prop- erty, rather than the Commission having actually recommended this' numerator change. Brief discussion followed, and it was suggested that the sedond sen- tence relative to this specific formula change be deleted from the cover letter, and replaced with the following sentence: "The Commission wishes to review changes in the formula." Chairman ~rshall requested that the word "only" be inserted in the second sentence off[h'~et"~'S I~em C'as follows: "(Existing Ordinance now only specifies "paving for parking" as requiring final site approval.)" Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Plan- ning Commission app~p~e the cover letter dated June 11, 1975 tO'.the City Council ~'~i~{~e to~ GF-302, as amended. The motion was carried unanimodsly.- Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, to approve changes made in Section 6.2 and Subitem (c) of Section 13.9-3 of Ordinance No. 60. The motion was carried unanimously. B. SDR-1083 - Frank Schillace, Upper Hill ~rive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Request for One-Year Extension; Continued fromMay 28~ 1975 Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further review. Chairman Marshall directed BDR-1083 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 1975, and referred same to the Land Development Committee and Staff for further review and report. C. SDR-1167 - Dennis Bryan, Bella Vista Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Reconsideration of Conditions of Staff Report dated ~rch 21~ 1975 ~ Staff noted that the appl~ant had submitted a revised tentative map'~hich ~_~p~_q.~e_n_~ly affedted revision of t~§._~f~_R~pp!~_~y. deleting the require- ~ ment for an extension of the water system and by deleting the requirement for one fire hydrant. It was pointed out, however, that subsequent to preparing the revi~d'S'~ff Report, a letter received J~e"l'0~'r~75~rom Ms. Judi Carberry, 20011 Bella Vista, had been submitted~Spposing this requestS'for reconsideration of conditions. Staff consequently'recomn{~nded this matter be continued pending further review by the Land Development Committee. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1167 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 25,.1975, and referred this matter to the Land Development Committee and Staff for further review and report. VII. CO~[MUNICATIONS - WRITTEN The following correspondence 'were introduced into A. Letter dated ~y 30, 1975 from Grace C. Clover, 197B9 Douglass Lane, disapprov- ing the placement of the home on Lot #10 of Tract #5583. Mr. Loewke noted that Staff had'discuss~,this matter with Mrs. Clover, and had resolved the questions and concerns S~e expressed in her letter. Staff was directed to make this letter part of the file on application A-472, Saratoga Foothills Development. -15- ;-~: : ~ MINUTES OF JLrNE 11, 1~ VII. I~RITTEN COmmUnICATIONS - Cont'd B. Ordinance No. 38.65 dated June 4, 1975 relating to the Control of Smoking in Public Places. C. Letter dated May 27, 1975 from A1 Haft, Vice President of Paul Masson Vineyards, regarding change of zoning application C-81. Staff-was-d~r~Cted to res~d' ~ Mr. H~f~l~tter. VII. CO~RINICATIONS - ORAL A. -Staff noted that the Commission had been requested to review the matter of the 4th s'tr~et'stairWay b~ Commissioner Woodward, and suggested this matter be agendized for discussion at the Commission meeting of June 25, 1975. This met with approval by the Commission, and Chairman ~rshall directed discussion of the 4th Street stairway be~agendized for the. Planning_Commission meeting of June 25, 1975. B. Commissioner Belanger requested Staff to check on the type of roofing material being used ~nLthe ~estern Federal Savings & Loan Company building. She stated that it.appeared [hat thin shingles were being used, instead of the heavy-shake roof shingles that were required by the City. C. Chairman Marshall acknowledged the presence of Mrs. Runyah, American Association of the University 8f Women, and expressed appreciation to Mrs. Stark of the Good Government Group for serving coffee. VIII. ADJOU~N}'~NT Commissioner Lustig moved~ seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 a.m. Re[pect fully submitted, yD skw -16 -