Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-1972 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ******************** TIME: Tuesday,'October 24, 1972 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13~77 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting PRESENTATION BY COUNTY STAFF ON I!OUSING ELE~ZNT - Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session Mayo~ jerome Smith and Acting Chairman of the Planning Commission, R/Adm. Ralph M. Metcalf jointly called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Mayor Smith explained that the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was called for the purpose of hearing a presentation by the County Staff on the Joint Cities-County Housing Element Program. He then introduced Mr. Bruce Freelander and Ms. Sally Mank both members of the County Staff present to make the presentation. Mr. Freelander explained that there is a county-wide need for 36,000 units of Federally Assisted Housing Units - 4,000 Of which have been built in very limited geographic areas that have coincided with areasof low income (not poor) and minority locations. Ms. Sally Manks showed and explained slides depicting some of the existing housing constructed under the Federally Assisted Housing Program. A short summary of the highlights of the presentation is attached to page 1 of these minutes. I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present:Commissioners Bacon, Belanger, Marshall, Martin, Metcalf, and Smith. Absent: Commissioner Lively. B. MINUTES ' Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the reading of · the minutes of the October 10, 1972 meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed with the following changes: page 2. .under B. UP-80. paragraph 3. .line 3. .delete the word "delineation" and instead insert the word "deletion"; page 6. .under F. C-161. .paragraph 4. .line 2. . c~rrect the spelling of the word "Marshal!!;' page 7. .under G. V-386.. .change paragraph 4. .to read as follows: "Commissioner Marshall explained that this applicant bought this house, approximately one (1) month ago during a four (4) day visit and was misled by the realtor."; page 12. .under VIII. B.. . para- graph 1. o .line 2. .change Mrs'. Appleby to Mrs. Aberle; motion carried unanimously. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-218 - Congregation Beth David Synagogue, Prospect and Scully Avenue - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Jewish Synagogue - Continued from October 10~ 1972 Chairman .Metcalf reopened the heating relative ~o UP-218 at 8:34 P.M. -1- I. S U~B.IA RY During the past· two years, over fou~ thousand units of federally assisted housing have been built ~n Santa Clara County, in response to the major need for adequate housing for families priced out of the private develop- . i~ent market. This much-needed housing has, however, been built in very limited geographic areas which have'largely coincided with areas of low in- come and minority concentration. TO a great extent, this pattern has been established by the sponsors and developers of assisted housing, wh'o have not sought locations in nonimpacted areat, despite the evident need for assisted housing throughout the County. To achieve a more suitable countSvide pattern of assisted housing, a tool is needed which will: I) assure that sufficient funding is available to all communities so that projects can be matched with needs; 2) encoura9e sponsors of assisted housing to seek suitable sites consistent with plans and programs of each 'city; 3) safeguard all jurisdictions' agai. nst acquiring an overconcentration of assisted housing; and 4) p~ovide HUD with a better level 'of local information and expertise so that assisted housing developments can be tailored to community needs. .. The means proposed to achieve these purposes is a set of assisted housing production objectives. The aim of t.hese objectives is to measure the rela- tive ability of each city to absorb 'assisted housing; this relative ability is .expressed for each city as a perc;ent of the countywide total of assisted housing p. roduction. These percentag,es are: .I Campbel 1 3- 1% · Cupertino 2.3 Gi 1 roy 0.9 ..Los Altos 3-3 Los Altos Hills 1.0 Los Ga tos 2.5 Mi lpitas 3.0 Monte Sereno 0.3 .~ Morgan Hill 0.6 Mountain View 6.3 Palo Alto 8.5 San Jose 43.3 Santa Clara 9.4 Sara toga 3.5 Sunnyva le 12.0 TOTAL I00.0 % Use of these production objectives will reduce the further concentration of assisted housing in areas which were becoming impacted, and could encourage · HUD to consider project proposals i'n areas of the County which have ·not received assisted housing in the past. Fundamental to the use of the production objectives is the belief that suitable sites for assisted housing exist throughout the County, and also, that with the encouragement offered by the cities, sponsors will come forward with proposals to develop assisted hous i ng. The production objectives are also proposed to serve as a means of safe- guarding all communities against the overbuilding of assisted housing. They can achieve this end by informing HUD of the relative ability of each city [o absorb assisted units. The production objectives measure this relative ability by comparing the following Criteria: I. Population in incorporated areas, 1970--a basic measure of relative size; 2.. Comparative school factor--a measure of relative ability to serve more school ·children, based on projected enrollments and anticipated class- I'~,i~ll, ~;l~aFt~ ill 1973; 3- Fiscal capacity factor--a measure of the ability to raise public revenues, based on real property valuation; L~. 'Growth potential factor--a measure of the anticipated rate of residential development based on the number of dwelling units authorized by building '~' permits in 1970 and 1971; '5. Low income households factor--a comparison of the number of low income households in' any city with the countywide number, in proportion .to 'city size; 6o Minority population factor--a comparison of each city's minority popu- lation with the countywide number in proportion to city size. When added and averaged, these factors provide a ranking of the cities according to their relative ability to absorb assisted housing, The production objectives are not proposed aS a binding obligation, but rather as an aid to each city, to the cities jointly~ and to HUD in achieving a more responsive pattern of assisted housing distribution. The production Objectives offer a potential starting point for an on-going program. Because they deal with a highly' dynamic problem, the objectives should be reviewed yearly, both to update the basic information and to re- view progress in the light of experience. New or modified criteria may be incorporated as they become available, adding to or replacing the present ~riteria as experience dictates. Accomplishments in building subsidized hous'ing will' al.so be updated yearly and will be factored into the production objectives in the ensuing years. In this way, every effort will be made to keep the.production objectives responsive to changin9 needs and conditions throughout the County. iii Planning Commission Minutes - October 24~ 1972 - Continued II. A. UP-218 - ~ontinued Mr. Arthur Cohen, present to represent the applicant, stated that it was his understanding that all of the required=information has been submitted. Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision. Committee met with the applicant and some representatives of the Prides Crossing Homeowner's Association to discuss the parking--lot and road lay-out. Some conditions relative to the aforementioned have been outlined in the Staff Report written · ~ in 'connection with UP-.218 and the applicant'-s representative has .... '~ agreed to those conditions. The Secretary explained that the:applicant has, also, submitted a list of activities that will be conducted at the synagogue. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Belanger, stated that in the past an application for Use Permit to allow a church a list of uses was not required. The Secretary then read the Staff Report dated October 24, 1972 recommending that the subject Use Permit to allow a synagogue be approved. It was recommended that condition #4 of the subject report be amended to read as follows: "4) The uses approved under this permit shall be limited to.church-oriented activities sponsored by Congregation Beth David Synagogue a.nd for which the church is responsible.and which it controls~ such as the uses and activities as listed in the letter dated October 24, 1972 from the Congregation Beth David Synagogue." Commissioner Martin stated that he feels very strongly that an additional entrance to Prospect sh6uld be provided. Commissioner Smith explained that the 'Public Works Department is in the process of conducting a study to. determine if an additional entrance to Prospect is necessary. Mr. Raymond Muzzy, 19518 Eric Dr~ve, Vice-President of the Prides Crossing Homeowners Association, stated that .he did meet with two (2) members of the Public Works Department, Mr. Dan Trinidad and Mr. Greg Moeller, to discuss the homeowners recommendation that a second entrance on Prospect be provided and that the parking situation around the church property be alleviated. Mr. Trinidad, Assistant Director' of Public Works, was present and explained that the traffic study for this area has not been completed; however, a recommendation relative to the entrance and parking will be submitted as soon as possible. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to close the public hearing relative to UP-218 at 8:47 P.M.; motion carried unani- mously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated October 24, 1972 be adopted, as amended, and the subject Use Permit .to allow a jewish synagogue on Prospect Aven6e be granted as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B" on the basis the findings required under Section 16.6 of City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be made and subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motionicarried with Chairman·Metcalf abstaining. 'Planning Commission Minutes - October 24~ 1972 - Continued iI. B. UP-80 - Church of Ascension', Prospect Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow Modification of Existzing Use Permit.for Church Facilities - Continued from October 10~ 1972 Chairman Metcalf reopened the public hearing relative to UP-80 at 8:50 P.M. Mr. Norm Matteoni, attorney present to repres°ent the applicant, stated that 1). the Church of Ascension property has been reduced in size due to the sale of some property to the Congregation Beth David Synagogue 2) he did submit a revised plot plan which showed the reduced size of the property 3) there has been some concern expressed in connection · ~ with the parochial school proposed under the original plan - this school ..... "~ has now been deleted from the plan 4) there will still be a religious education center and 5) also, deleted from the plan is the larger, once proposed, permanent church building. The Secretary read a letter submitted by Mr. Matteoni on behalf of the applicant explaining the plan for the remaining church property, the reduced density, and the purposes or uses intended to be served by the chur.ch. Mr.' Dan Popylisen, 19642 Ascension Drive, stated that the main problem with the existing Church of Ascension and the approval of the synagogue· at this-locatio~ is that the additional traffic will add problems to an already congested area. Mr. R. L. Morrison, architect for Church of Ascension, explained that twenty-two (22) parking spaces will be added to the existing 333-parking spaces; therefore, providing a total of 355-parking spaces. The City requires only 345-spaces for parking 'with the reduced use of the Church of Ascension. Mr. Frank Perdichizzi of:19804 Colby Court stated that it was his opinion that there are not adequate entrances and exits provided for this use since at the time of church services there are always the resultant traffic jams. Commissioner Marshall explained that the entire traffic circulation and parking lay-out at this location is being reviewed by the Department of Public Works. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated October 24, 1972 recommendi. ng that modification of the existing church facilities requested in connec- tion with UP-80 be allowed. ·' Condition #4 of the Staff Report was amended to read as follows: "4) The uses approved under this permit shall be limited to church-oriented_a~.~.~Vi.~s. Sp.on~.~.~d by the Church of AScension and for which the church is 7~B~0nSib!e and ~hich it. controls~ s~ch as [he uses and activities as lis~ed in the letter dated October 24, 1972 from the Church of .... Ascension.. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to close the public hearing in connection with UP-80 at 9:15 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the · Staff Report dated October 24, 1972 be'adopted, as amended, and the subj~_r~.quest to allow modification of the 'existing Use Permit be~'pprove_d_,~_as ShOwn on Exhibit "B" on the basis the findings of Sec~i'on'r6.6 of Ordinance NS-3 can be made subject tO the conditions set forth in said Staff Report; motion carried unanimously. -3- Planning Commission Minutes - October 24~.1972 - Continued II. C. Informal Hearing - Addition of Veterinary Clinic as Conditional Use in the "C-N" (Neighborhood-Commercial) Zoning District Chairman Me[calf directed the informal hearing be opened fgr 'discussion. No one in ·the audience wished to'comment. The Secretary read the Staff RepOrt dated October 24, 1972 recommending that "Veterinary Clinic" be added as a condition~ use in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. .~ Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff .... -·=~Report dated October 24, 1972 be.adopted and that veterinary clinic be ,;~- added as a conditional use in the Neighborhood-Commercial Zoning District; motion carried unanimously. D. UP-220 - Dr. Julian Henry, Quito Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow Veterinary Clinic - Continued from October 10~ 1972 Chairman Metcalf reopened the hearing relative to UP-220 at 9:20 P.M. The Secretary read a communication filed in opposition to the proposed Use Permit by Mr. Charles M. Shepardson of 18541 Aspesi Drive. The applicant was present but had no further comments and no one in the audience wished to remark relative to UP-220. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated October 24, 1972 recommending that the subject Use Permit be approved. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the public hearing relative to UP-220 be closed at 9:22 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated October 24, 1972 be.adopted and the--s~bject Use Permit to allow a veterinary clinic on Quito Road be ~pproV_~ed on the basis the findings required by Zoning Ordinance·NS-3, Section 16.6 can be made and subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. E. C-!55 - Saratoga Foothills Dev. Corp., Big Basin Way and 6th Street Request for Change of Zoning from "C-V" (Visitor-Commercial) to "R-M-4~000" (Multi-Family Residential) - Continued from· June 12 1972 The hearing relative to C-155 was reopened at 9:23 P.M. The Secretary stated that a new Notice of Hearing was mailed for C-155. He further stated that the applicant intends to·develop this property as "R-M" in order to remain consistent with th~ _~djacent "R-M" property; which, is part of the subject parcel currently being proposed for development. Mr. Bernie Turgeon, present to represent the applicant, stated that with the entire parcel under one zoning designation a better site plan can be worked out and more open-space can be realized. No one in the audience wished to comment. The Secretary read the Staff Repqrt dated October 24, 1972 recommending that the subject change of zoning C-155 be approved. -4- Planning Commission Minutes October 24~ 1972 - Continued II. E. C-155 - Continued Commissioner Marshall pointed out that a'better plan can evolve if the property is treated as one parcel under one zoning,ie. ,R-M". Commissioner Metcalf stated that it was his understanding all "R-M-3,000" zoning in the City had been abolished. The Secretary stated that it has been recommended in the 1972 General Plan Report that the "R-M-3,000" zoning be deleted as a zoning category in Saratoga; however, the existing "R-M-3,000" zoning still remains in effect. Commissioner Marshall explained that to change "R-M-3,000" zoning to "R-M-4,000" for an individual property would require a conscious effort on the part of the City since it would not be an automatic change. There are some properties in the City that. would not lend themselves very well to "R-M-4,000" zoning. o Commissioner Smith explained that at this time the applicant has sub- mitted only the front portion of this parcel for consideration; therefore, the Planning Commission can submit a recommendation on that portion only. Chairman Metcalf stated that it was his feeling that the'entire parcel (bOth front and rear) should be rezoned to "R-M-4,000" (Multi-Family Residential). Commissioner Marshall explained that the rear portion of the property has an established zoning of "R-M-3,000". Commissioner Smith pointed out that 1) with an established zoning a development can proceed without further change of zoning approvals from the City and 2) the applicant has, at the request of the Sub- division Committee, submitted a lay-out for "R-M-3,000" for the back .portion of this property and an "R-M-4,000" zoning for the front portion of the property. The ap licant has, also, submitted a layout on the basis of an equivalent-overall "R-M-~,500" which has obvious advantages. Chairman Metcalf then inquired if the developer would be willing to submit a plan Showing "R-M-4,000" zoning for the whole property. Mr. Turgeon explained that the applicant would not be interested in de- veloping a plan for "R-M-4~000" for the entire parcel without requiring the City to process the legal change of zoning procedures to change the zoning for the rear portion of the subject property. 'Commissioner Belanger inquir'ed if the applicant would be willing to go to an "R-M-5,000" zoning for the property. Mr. Turgeon explained that 1) the applicant would not be the least bit interested in an "R-M-5,000" (Multi-Family Residential) development for this property since it would be completely uneconomic,'_ 2) the front portion is presently Zoned commercial and that has certain economic value.3) reducing the zoning to "R-M"is reducing the property to a lesser'economic use and 4) to rezone the property to "R-M-5,000" (Multi- Family Residential)' would be completely unrealistic since it would be economically unfeasible to build under such a zoning'. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commiss. ioner Marshall, to close the hearing relative to C-155 at 9:46 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. -5- Planning Commission Minutes - October 24~ 1972 - Continued II. E~- "C-155 - Continued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to adopt the Staff Report dated October 24, 1972 and recommend to the .City Council basis the findings required under Section 18.6 and 18.11 of t~e~City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be made for the reasons stated in s.aid report; motion carried withlCommissioner Metcalf abstaining. F. C-160 - George W. Day, Fruitvale. Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) [o "R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential -~ Planned Community.) - Continued from October l0t 1972 Chairman Metcalf reopened the hearing relative to C-160 at 9:48 P.M. Commissioner Smith explained that 1) this request for change of zoning is directly connected With the first phase of a "P-C" concept existing in this area and 2) the lay-out. and design approval are the same or similar .to the "P-C" development:previously approved in this 'area. The Secretary read the Staff ~ep~rt dated October 24, 1972 recommending that the requested change of zoning in connection with C-160 be approved. Commissioner Belanger asked how the Public Works Department could determine where the Herriman Avenue extension is going to go if a plar~line is not available. ~ommissioner Marshall explained that the Assistant Director of Public Works is'proposing that the plan-line for Herriman Avenue be taken up by green area until the extension of Herriman Avenue actually materializes. Mr. Lou Leto, present to represent the applicant, suggested that the Subdivision Committee make an on-site inspection of the property in order to get a better idea of how the Subject property relates to the proposed Herriman Avenue extension. Chairman Metcalf closed'the hearing for the evening'at 10:02 P.M., directed C-160 continued to the next regular me.eting, and referred same to the Sub- division Committee for study and a report. G. V-388 - Gary Gordon, Bank Mill Road - Request for Variance to Allow Reduction in Side Yard Setback Requirements The Chairman opened the hearing relative to V-388 at 10:03 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed and the applicant has submitted a Statement of ReaSon. The applicant was present and stated that the intent was to design this house harmoniously with the lot and the existing trees and'this variance is his proposed solution. Chairnmn Metcalf closed the hearing for the evening at 10:07 P.M., directed V-388 continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Variance Committee for study. Commissioner Martin, Chairman of the Variance Committee, arranged for an appointment to meet with the applicant for an on-site inspection of the property on Saturday, October 28., 1972 at 9:Q0 P.M. i RECESS AND RECONVENE -6- Blannin8 Commission Minutes - October 24~ 1972 - Continued III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS ~ . A. SDR-982 Charles Guichard, Wardell Road - Building Site .App~ovai 1 Lot - Continued from October 10, 1972 Commissioner Marshall recommended that SDR-982 be continued to the next · .regular meeting since the applicant has requested additional time. Chairman Metcalf so directed. B. SD-992 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue - Subdivision Approval - 21 Lots ..~ - ContinUed from October 10~ 1972 Commissioner Marshall stated that, in view of the fact that C-160 has "been continued, SD-992 should be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Metcalf so 'directed~ C. SDR-993 - Ralph Anderson, Quito Road - Building Site Approval - 3 Lots - Continued from October 10p 1972 'Commissioner Marshall recommended that SDR-993 be continued to allow time for further study. Chairman Metcalf so directed. D. ~..SDR-994 - Jonathan Rueloffs, Woodbank Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from October 10~ 1972 The Secretary recommended that this matter be continued since the Health Department has reserved their opinion regarding the proposed development pen~ing the results of soil-percolation studies. Commissioner Marshall recommended that the applicant in this case should be made aware that he may be required to provide sanitary sewers in the event the drain field to parcel "A" turns out to be a problem. Chairman Metcalf directed SDR-994 continued to the next regular meeting. in order to allow additional time to work out sanitary-sewer problems with the Health Department. - .... E. SD-998 "- Saratoga Foothills Dev. Co., Michaels Drive - Subdivision Approval - 7 Lots The Secretary stated that this subdivision was previously approved for ten (10) building sites; however, at this time the slope-density ordinance is now in force '. and as a result the number of lots has.· been reduced to seven (7). Commissioner Belanger stated she was concerned about how the drainage from this property would affect the adjacent subdivision and/or property. The Secretary explained that conditions 6 and 20 of the Subdivision Committee Report dated October 24, 1972 relative to SD-998 relating to the drainage and its control for this subdivision. Mr~ Bernie Turgeon, present to represent the applicant, explained that the houses will be built in accordance with the existing terrain and no slashing of the land is anticipated and the main drainage will be very simple and has been going. down the same canyon for at least a hundred (100) years. CommissiOner BaCon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff ' · Report dated October 24, 1972 relative to SD-9.98 be adopted and that the. 'tentative map (Exhibit" "A", filed October 13, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. -7- Planning Commission Minutes - October 24~ 1972 - Continued III. F. SDR-999 - A. Thomas Barrie~ Pierce Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Commissioner Marshall recommended that SDR-999 be continued to the next regular meating. '~. 'Chairman MetCalf so directed. G. SDR-1000 - William K. Brown~ Mendelsohn Lane - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary explained that 1) this building site was previously approved and then was allowed to expire 2) this property is an older parcel that was owned by the State Division of Highways then sold as excess some years ago and 3) it is a large legal-non-conforming lot. The applicant was present and stated that all setback requirements will be met and the plans are for a small house. Commissioner Marshall explained that a plan should be submitted showing the location of the proposed structure on this property. The applicant explained that he.was informed that on a flat lot such as this one it is not necessary. to show the location of the proposed structure on the tentative map. Commissioner Marshall explained that since the lot is unusual in shape it would be advantageous to the Planning Commission to be able to see the location of the proposed house. The applicant stated that he finds condition "C" objectionable as stated in the Building Site Committee Report of October 24, 1972. The City has other plans for that area and there has already been some work done there that appears to be for a pathway. Mr. Trinidad, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that it is for a pathway and will go down Mendelsohn Lane. The applicant explained that the City itself has left about 3-feet of the old paving and have paved only within about 8-feet of the edge of the road; therefore, under condition "C" he would really be repairing part of the road that the City has neglected for years. The subject lot is unimproved at this time and the adjacent lot is very old and the lot adjacent to that is unbuildable; therefore, he (the applicant) is being asked to carry the burden of paving the road to a point which may never be widened any furhter. Commissioner Metcalf explained that it has been City policy when a piece of property that has not hitherto been developed the applicant is required to provide road improvement to the adjoining street. Commissioner Belanger requested~ the Public Works Department to determine the impact that any street widening would have on the oak tree in this area and if it could possibly cause a hazard. Mr. Trinidad explained that if the walkway iS located a special way this improvement can be made. The C.ity can narrow the improvement or relocate the walkway but condition "C" would still be valid. Commissioner Metcalf stated that he is not satisfied this street should ever be widened. Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Building Site Committee Report dated October 24, 1972 relative to SDR-1000 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed October 13, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. -8- Planning Commission Minutes - October 24~ 1972 - Continued III. H. SDR-1001 - Willard Lynch~ Big Basin Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary r~xplained that 1) there are two (2) existing ~esidenceS on this property and the Building Department and Fire Marshal are asking that the buildings be removed or brought up to code 2) the applicant would like to bring the structures up to code; therefore, he has filed this request for building-site approval and 3) these are legal-non- .~onfonning structures on a legal-non-conforming lot. Commissioner Marshall stated he is opposed to this request. If the owner were suggesting remodeling these buildings to. commercial use it could be considered an improvement but the present proposal is not really an improvement. The Secretary explained that the applicant has been strongly encouraged to do something about the existing ..situation. Chairman Metcalf stated he would have no objection to a residential use 'in a commercial zone in perpetuity. Commissioner Martin stated that it is his opinion that a residential use in a commercial zone would tend to give the area a run~down appearance and this matter should be continued to allow time for further st_udy. Chairman Metcalf directed SDR-1001 continued to the next regular meeting. IV. DESIGN REVIEW None V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Martin gave a brief summary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of October 18, 1972. PPC .- Planning Policy Committee Commissioner Metcalf stated that at the..last meeting of PPC considerable time was devoted to letting the propoerty ,owners in the Monte Bello Ridge Area Voice' their.., concern and objections centering around their fears that their one-acre zoning may be changed to 2~-acre, 5-acre, or 10-acre zoning. VI.. OLD BUSINESS A. Retirement Housing Standards - Continued from October 10, 1972 Chairman Metcalf recommended that the Staff prepare a draft that would include the highlights of both the Subdivision Committee Report and the Design Review Committee Report relative to this matter. Conmnissioner Belanger inquired if the individual sub-committee reports will be forwarded to the City Council along with the composite' report to be drafted by the Staff? She then stated it is her intention to sub- mit 'some comments in writing that should be part of the consideration on the retirement-housing standards. Chairman Metcalf directed the matter continued'to the next regular meeting. B. Resolution No. 115-1 - Revision of Slope Density Resolution - Continued from October 10~ 197~ The Secretary explained that a resolution including the changes recommended by Commissioner Bacon has been drafted. The County Planning Commission will hold a study session with the property owners. in the hillside areas on November 2, 1972 at 9:30 A.M. All cities involved in hillside development are asked to attend this meeting especially Planning Commissioners and City Councilmen. -9- Planning Commission Minutes - October 247 1972 - Continued VI. B. Resolution No.. 115-1 Continued Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that Resolution No. %15-1 establishing slope density standards for. hillside development be adopted by the Planning Commission; motion carried unanimously. C. UP-215 - Osterlund Enterprises, Cox Avenue and Homes Drive - Review of Model Home Sales Office The AsSistant Planner stated that this request concerns the waiving of condition ~4 under UP-215 requiring that Lot 99 be surfaced to provide temporary parking. He then read. the Staff Report dated October 24, 1972 recommending that condition ~4 as stated in the Staff Report dated .... "~'.. August 14, 1972 relative to UP-215 be deleted and that Brown and Kauffmann be required to relocate the fence along Homes Drive. Commissioner Martin pointed out that the subject fence on Homes Drive does not meet the fence height r~quriements. Chairman Metcalf recommended that in paragraph 3. . .sentence 3. .of the Staff Report dated October 24, 1972 be amended to read as follows: "Therefore, it is the Staff recommendation that the developer, Brown and Kauffmann, revise their fence. on both sides of Homesz Drive in order to meet the sight-distance requirements of the City." Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded by COmmissioner Marshall, that the ~taff Report dated October 24, 1972 be adopted, as amended, and condition ~4 as stated in the Staff Report of August 14, 1972 concerning the surfacing of Lot 99 be waived and the Brown and Kauffmann be required to revise the fence at Cox Avenue and Homes Drive to m~et the sight distance requirements~ motion carried unanimously. D. SDR-895 - S.B. Walton, Saratoga Hills Road --Request for Reconsideration of Conditions The Secretary recommended that the subject request for reconsideration in connection with SDR-895 be c~ntinued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Metcalf so directed. VII. NEW BUSINESS Joint Study Session It was agreed that on Tuesday, October 31, 1972'a joint study-session would be held by the City Council and Planning Commission for the purpose of discuss- ing 1) the General Plan with emphasis on Retirement Housing and 2) Housing Production Goals. VIII. COmmUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN None Bo ORAL, Sign - ArSonaut Shopping Center. Commissioner Belanger inquired if any additional information had been received in connection with the 'sign at the Argonaut Shopping Center. The Assistant Planner .explained .that the State· Division of Highways has been notified and they'will contact the owner of the shopping center and request that the sign be moved. -10- Planning Commission Minutes October 24~ 1972 - Continued VIII. B. ORAL - Continued West Valley Junior College Commissioner Marshall explained that he attended a meeting at West , Valley Junior College and it appeared that the architect and residents of the area were leaning toward the idea of swapping the location of the parking lot and warehouse and the College is eager to cooperate. .The Law Enforcement facilities, the baseball diamond, and the planetarium have been moved and to his knowledge these changes in the ~ster Plan of the college have never been approved by the City. Commissioner Belanger inquired if the warehouse building will still be visible from the street? Commissioner Marshall explained that the building will be screened by trees. The Secretary stated that the changes in the Master Plan will be reviewed by the Staff. Guests Chairman Metcalf acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilman ~,~er, Mrs. Maas of the Good Government Group, and Dr. Belanger husband of Cormmissioner Belanger. IX.- ADJOUR~rENT Commissioner Bacon moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of October 24, 1972 at 12:00 A.M.; motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, ,, .,,.. (, {....y .i , ,- '.:'<~'I,,"~"~;~,,,.=.'y~-,. 3 ,'-...~ ..~ .,. .... ~"'."- ~'>.'i' ? ~..~ 'I',... .., .,.' Saratoga Planning Commission j -11-