Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-1973 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SERY OF MINUTES ******************** TIME: Monday, August 27, 1973 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting ******************** I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, Lively, and Smith. Absent: Commissioners Martin, Matteoni, and Woodward. B. MINUTES 'Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the reading of the minutes of the August 13, 1973 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission with the follow- ing changes:. o .page 2o .under B. C-!70. .paragraph 8. .change the last line to read "consistent~ therefore, we can change the one-acre zoning or change the General Plan." and on page 4. .paragraph 3. change the word "now" to "not"; motion carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Chairman Lively stated that a written memorandum from Commissioner Matteoni, which outlines the items discussed and the action taken at the last City .Council meeting, has been made available for review by each Commissioner. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A° Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Article 3 - Regulations for Hill- side Combining Zoning Districts The Secretary requested that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting and stated that the Staff'will be prepared at that time to propose the formal revised ordinance as approved by the City Attorney. No .one in the audience wished to comment relative to this matter. Chairman Lively did not open the public hearing at this time,~'~directed'~.'.~. the proposed ordinance amendment be continued to the next regular meeting, and referred the matter to the Staff. B. V-397 - Terence P. Woods, Monte Meadow Oaks - Request for Variance to Allow a Reduction in Front Yard Setback Requirements Chairman Lively opened the public hearing.in connection with V-397 at 7:34 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed and the applicant is requesting a Variance to allow a 15-foot front yard setback in lieu of the required 30-foot front yard setback in-order to construct a house on Lot 21 of Tract 3943. The applicant and his architect are present and have some drawings to present. No written communications were received relative to V-397. -1- Planning Commission Minutes - August 27~ 1973 - Continued II. B. V-397 - Continued The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Marshall, stated that this applicant gains access from Old Oak Way to his property. A similar-Variance was granted for Lot 20 in this tract. There is a tree removal ~nv~ved h~rei~.'_=but it does not directly affect this Variance. Chairman Lively requested the applicant to provide preliminary stakes in order that the Variance Committee will have some indication of the location of the proposed residence. No one else present wished to comment.~? Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:41 P.M., directed V-397 continued to the next regular meeting and referred the matter to the Variance Committee. He then explained that the'applicant would be con- tacted for an appointment for an on-site inspection with the Variance Committee. C. V-399 - Gordon Stroud, Horseshoe Drive - Request for a Variance to Allow a Reduction in Side Yard Setback Requirements Chairman. Lively opened the hearing for V-399 at 7:42 P.M. The Secretary read a communication received from Mr. Steven Stearn of 20000 Belle Vista Court stating he objected to the proposed Variance only if it meant tree removal would take place. .'The Natices of Hearing were mailed. The applicant was not present and no one in the audience wished to comment. Commissioner Smith noted that this appears to be a situation where the garage.was converted into another room and now the applicant wishes to build another garage on the property. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:45 P.M., directed V-399 continued to the next regular.meeting and referred the matter to the Variance Committee. He then explained that the applicant would be contacted for'an appointment for an on-site inspection of the property with the Variance Committee. D. V-398 - Ron Dorst, Citrus Lane - Request for a Variance to Allow a 12-Foot High Fence in Lieu of a 6-Foot High Fence for a Tennis Court The hearing relative to V-398 was opened at 7:46 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing were mailed and the applicant has requested a Variance to allow a 12-foot high fence instead of the maximum height of 6-f~et per- mitted in order to better screen.the tennis court on the applicant's property and 3) the applicant did submitza Statement of Reason and he (theeSecretary) read same. The applicant was present and stated he purchased the home after the tennis court was built and there does seem to be an exist-ing problem with the tennis balls going into the neighbors~ yards and he would like to alleviate the problem by providing a bigger fence. The tennis courts will not be used at night. Commissioner Marshall stated that a previous Variance request for an identical situation was denied. Mrs. Rider of 19202 Citrus Lane stated that 1) she '~s~an~'=adjacent property owner 2) it is her feeling that.the original approval to allow construction of the tennis court was a mistake 3) an extension of another 6-feet in the air is not going to help the beauty of the area 4) her view has been badly obstructed by this ~ourt 5) they were'residents of the area before the tennis court was constructed and-objected ~o it at that time and now recommend that it be removed since it is a public nuisance and an invasion of privacy and 6) the 'subject request for Variance should be denied. -2- Planning Commission Minutes - AuSust 27~ 1973 - Continued II. D. V-398 - Continued Mr. Rider was, also, present and stated that the existing courti~has caused his~family man~ inconveniences and is used by many people other than the owner. Mr. Sacks of 19273 Citrus Lane stated that 1) he is opposed to this Variance request since.he feels that it would increase the use of this tennis court to a semi-commercial use 2) the court has been used for the purpose of giving tennis lessons and this is a commercial use 3) the one way the use of this court can be controlled is to deny this Variance - anyone c~n build. a court within the requirements of the Ordinance and then subsequently come back and request a Variance to allow a higher fence 4) the court has caused an increase in traffic in the neighborhood and 5) the subject court and resulting traffic has substantially destroyed the value of the adjacent properties. Mr. Dorst explained that. 1) the~ previous owner is moving and the new lease will restrict the use of the court to his tenants and himself and 2) the violations presently existing will be eliminated and any further commercial use of the tennis court will not'.be permitted. Mrs. Rider stated that at present there'is a 12-foot extension with a fi'mh net on the existing fence which is aesthetically very undesirable. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, to close the public hearing relative to V-398 at 8:00 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the subject request for a Variance to allow a 12-foot high fence in lieu of the permitted 6-foot high fence be denied since the findings required under Section 17.6 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 cannot be made; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lively requested that the Code Enforcement Officer.and the Planning Staff review the situation with regard to the existing fence height and see that it is made to donform with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that residents of the .area should contact the Code Enforcement Office if further problems occur in connection with the existing court and fence. III0 BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1054 - Roy Anderson, Saratoga AvenUe - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from AuSust'13~ 1973 The Secretary explained that the applicant has requested that this matter be continued to allow additional time for the FlOod Control District to submit 'their report in connection with this request for Building Site Approval. The applicant did submit a letter granting the Planning Commission a 60-day exten- sion. Commissioner Smith 'stated that there are additional problems others'than with Flood Control that must be resolved before Building Site Approval can be granted and it might be well to continue the matter off the agenda until some · progress can be made in solving said problems. Chairman Lively directed SDR-1054 continued off the agenda until the meeting of October 22, 1973 and referred same to the Staff and Subdivision Committee for a report at that time. -3- Planning Commission Minutes - AuSust 27~ 1973 - Continued III. B. SD-1055 - Roberrs Communities, Inc., Saratoga Avenue and Dagmar Drive - Subdivision Approval 42 Lots - Continued from Au~hst 13~ 1973 The Secretary stated that the Staff Report relative to SD-1055 was ready and the applicant had reviewed same and expressed satisfaction with same. The subject report was amended by changing Conditions 4, 11, and 22 to read as follows: "4. Provide decorative wall or fencing, including tree planting within lots along State of California Freeway right-of-way. Design Review Approval required." I"'ll. Grading plan showing cuts, fills, slopes, and estimated yardage. Cut and fill depths shall not exceed l~-feet." "22. No Variances shall be permitted for setbacks for the main structure or for accessory buildings and pools. Deeds shall include this requirement." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff Report dated August 27, 1973 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit '~-2", filed August 13, 1973) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. SDR-1066 - Richard and Tandra Calarco, Pike Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The applicant was present and asked for an explanation of Condition II-I of the Staff Report dated August 27, 1973. The Secretary explained that each lot that is developed on Pike Road has to provide an 18-foot wide road from Pierce Road as far as $4,000. will go. Mr. Bieber, resident of Pike Road, has alrady done this and this applicant's $4,000. would add to the improvement started by Mr. Bieber. This improvement is in addition to the improvements required directly in front of the site. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff Report dated August 27, 1973 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed August 9, 1973) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. D. SDR-1067 - Joseph R. Helm, Pike Road - Buildins Site Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary recommended that SDR-1067 be continued since the Subdivision Committee and staff feel that the type of grading proposed is not in keeping with the aesthetic grading of the site. Commissioner Marshall explained that the applicant proposes a 13-foot fill on one side of the lot and an ll-foot fill on the other side. This could best be described as a L.A. building pad - there will be a retaining wall on three (3) sides of the property which continues into the first floor of the garage. Mr. Willjams, realtor present to represent the applicant, requested that this matter be continued to allow time to resolve some of the problems which the Subdivision Committee and Staff feel need further study. E. SD-1052 - Osterlund Enterprises, Fruitvale Avenue and SanMarcos Road - Revision of Tentative Map The Secretary recommended that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting to allow additional time to review the modified street pattern for this subdivision. The proposed development is located at the intersection of San Marcos Road and Fruitvale Avenue and is a proposed 26-1ot subdivision. The original proposal was to utilize Oddfellows Road for m~jor access, but now the applicant is proposing a modification by off-setting the main entrance road into the subdivision from the Oddfellows Road so that it comes in off of Fruitvale Avenue approximately half way between Oddfellows Road and Farwell Avenue and the lots back onto the Oddfellows Road. It is felt that this would be a good compromise as an access for this development and would not be detri- mental to the homes along San Marcos Road where drainage and traffic would be a problem. -4- AN OI.<DINAbICE AMI.ENDING OKDIN/NCE NS-3, THE ZONING ORi)INANCE OF THE CITY OF S~ATOGA, BY ~DING ARTICLE 22 THERETO, ENTITLED "PUBLIC UTII.,ITIES", ~D REQUIRING ~]~ PUBLIC UTILITIES TO BE INST~LED UNDERGROUND IN ~L ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY. The Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordai follows: Section Article 22 is hereby added to Ordinance NS-3 of the · / Of Saratoga, which ~ticle and its sections and sub-sectionS, read as follows: .. . . ARTICI,E 22 C UTILITIES ' '.-. ' ' .. ' '. ' ~ ' ' ' , . a' . -a ~fzc'a~'ly permitted of the City of ' , x ept as her inafter spe ' ' ' .,.. No person shall direct]. or indir~y erect, construct, fabricate . . or install any tower, pole s m lar structure for the purpose of operating or maintaining any electirc' lines and/or any over- head communication line or 1 any appurtenant structure or. part thereof, except as foll (1) Existing overhead elec and communication lines, poles, and transformers, may be re ~ad when required because of deterior- ation, or because of damage wind, falling trees, or other acci- dental means. (2) Temporary electri~ and c tion lines, poles, and trans- formers. to serve cOnst~d~tion projects emergency situations for per- (3) Overhead elec~c lines, communicati~ lines, poles and tratis- formers replaced a~e sam~ location wfth ilities' of greater C~p.~C. it9 "where sG~ fa~ilitie are not already included~ n an'exi~ting"'o~" immediately' :. pehdin~ undereroun ili'ty district ' ' . (4) Pad-mounted transformers, service pedesta meter cabinets, surface mounted switches, and concealed duct.s, so long as :y are used soley in connection with, and as appurtenances to, an under ,nd distribution system orting electric transmission lines and the electric 'transmission l~nes supported by such poles, where the vol age carried by such l~nes ~s~more than 34.5KV. . . uc e e i .overhead service drop p-rovided that such service drop installation SectiOn 2~2 PuBLIc UTIilTIE~ UNDERGRO~'D - PROHIBITIONS': "" No use shall be mh~e of any land, building or structure in the "City of.Saratoga, or in any zoning district or area thereof, " for any electric lines, or comn~unication lines, or .appurtenances, except as ' "~ereinabove set forth in the. preced. ing section. .. Planning Commission Minutes - August 27~ ~1973 - Continued III. D. SB~1052 - Continued Commissioner Marshall explained that one point that was brought up at the last Subdivision Committee meeting was that eventually the development of the Oddfellows land could cause Oddfellows Road to become developed so the Committee asked the Planning Department and Public Works Department to look at the land behind this development (SD-1052) to determine what could logically be developed as'a street pattern for that area. Mr. Cecchi, present to represen~ the applicant, explained that all of the lots shown on the tentative map are legal lots and meet the requirements of the Ordinance. The walkways shown on F~uitvale Avenue are existing easements and not proposed. The walkways are to be meandering with varying widths. Commissioner Belanger inquired as to the whereabouts of the. equestrian trails that were to be provided. down Fruitvale Avenue. The Secretary explained that the eventual roadway would allow for some .' type of a pathway. Mr. Trinidad, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated ithat~.a~;pa~th~a~woh~ld be allowed for, but that would be paved and the landscape strip would be landscaped. ~ Commissioner Belanger recommended that the matter be referred to the Park and Recreation Commission for further study. Commissioner Marshall stated that instead of paving the pathway it could be filled with cinders or tan bark'to allow for its use as an equestrian trail. Mr. Cecchi explained that therezwere several reasons by the street alignment was changed 1) the residents of San Marcos Road requested a change to.protect their privacy and 2) financial considerations. Commissioner Marshall recommended that the Public Works Department and Planning Staff review the stree~ development for this entire area. Mr. A. Brolly of 14680 Fruitvale Avenue stated that 1) -he is concerned about access to his property 2) the cul-de-sac proposed as part of this development is highly undesirabie because it will be located right in the. middle of the best building site on his property and will be aesthetically unattractive and 3) it is his request that the map in its present form not be fully approved until he is assured of means of legal access to his property. Commissioner Belanger inquired if Mr. Brolly would be willing to work with this developer and plan his (Mr. Brolly's subdivision) to coincide with the · subject property currently proposed for development in order that a better street plan can be developed. Mr. Brolly agreed to do this and stated he has engaged an engineer to develop a sensible street plan. Commissioner Smith recommended that the applicant, Mr. Brolly, and Mr. Brolly's engineer get together and satisfy each others needs as well as those of the City's in connection with the subject street patterns. Chairman Lively so directed and continued SD-1052 to the next regular meeting and referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee, Staff, and Parks and Recreation Commission. Plannin8 Commission Minutes - August 27~ 1973 - Continued IV. DESIGN REVIEW Ao A-391 - George W. Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass Lane - Final Design Review - Lot 6 - Tract 5150 Chairman Lively noted that the Staff Report relative to A-391 recommends Final Design Approval for Lot ~6iof Tract 5150. CommiSsioner Belanger moved, secbnded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff Reportrelative to A,391, Lot #6 of Tract 5150 be-adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for same as Shown on Exhibit "I" subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously.. B. A-418 - Kocher-Typer, Big Basin Way and Fifth Street - Preliminary Design Review for Commercial Building The Secretary stated that the applicant is ready to submit revised plans and the Staff Report dated August 22, 1973 relative to A-418 recommends that Preliminary Design Approval~be granted. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff Report relative to.A-418 be adopted and that Preliminary Design Approval be granted for a commercial building on Big Basin Way at Fifth Street as shown on Exhibit '~" and subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS None VIo MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. SDR-1047 - John P. McLaughlin, Pierce Road and Via Regina - Request for Reconsideration of Conditions - Continued from AuSust 13~ 1973 The' Secretary stated that 1) th~ Subdivision Committee and Staff have met with this applicant to discuss the request for reconsideration of conditions 2) the Fire Department agreed to a 14-foot wide driveway; therefore, the bond amount has been reduced as reflected in the revised Staff Report dated August 27, 1973 3) the.question.of tree removal has not'yet been resolved 4) the applicant still requests permission to eliminate the subject tree and it is his desire (the Secretary's) to retain the tree but he would go along with removal if satisfactory evidence could be provided that the appli- cant did in fact obtain permission for its removal at the time the property was purchased and 5) the Fire' Chief feels that for fire protection purposes it would be better if the tree were removed. Commissioner Smith stated that 1) the applicant should produce a deed which permits removal of the tree 2) the front page of the deed has been submitted but it does not stated that tree removal is permitted and 3) he would recommend approval of the revised Staff Report relative to SDR-1047 and that the request for reconsideration of Condition II-B be denied. Chairman Lively noted that the portion of the deed submitted does not specifically stated that tree removal is allowed, but it does not say that tree removal is prohibited ~ither. Commissioner Smith explained that in view of the circumstances the matter should be decided by the City Council and the City Attorney. Commissioner Marshall noted that !the tree is located in the easement. Chairman Lively advised that be~o2re tree removal can take place everyone involved must be consulted, because of its location in the easement. -'6- Planning Commission MinU~es~ - August 27~. 1973 - Continu~ VI. Ao SDR-1047 - Continued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the revised Staff Report dated August 27, 1973 be adopted and forwarded to the City Council and that the tentative-m~.p(Exhibit "A-2", filed July 9, 1973) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. B. SDR-991 - Richard ~utowski, Sobey Road -.Request for Reconsideration of Conditions - Continued from August 13~ 1973 The Secretary explained that the.appliCant has asked that the subject request for reconsideration of conditions in connection with SDR-991 be withdrawn. · ...... Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the subject request for withdrawal be approved; motion carried unanimously. VIIi: COMMUNICATIONS A0 WRITTEN fSD-t0~O---Os~er-t~nd--En~e~p~-i-ses~--F-ru-it-va~-e-and-A-l-l-enda~e-Avemues Mr. and Mrs. JohnD. VanCe 6f 19363 Athos Place were present and submitted . a 'f~tter andr read.a petition (cOntaining 56-signatures) requesting reconsideration of condition 15. of the Staff Report dated June 25, 1973 in file SD-1040o Said petition recommending that construction of 2~story homes in this development be limited to one (1) in number.and that careful design review be exercised over the items listed in the petition. The Secretary recommended that this matter be taken under advisement by the Design Review Committee. Chairman Lively so directed and recommended that a copy of the petition and letter be forwarded to the City Council since the Change of Zoning pertinent to SD-1040 is under consideration by the City Council at this time. SD-tO57'/--Gerald D. Butler~ Walnut Avenue - Subdivision Approval - 7 Lots The Secretary read a letter received from Citizen's Savings and Loan Association asking the City's assistance in solving a problem involving dedication for creek alignment requested by Santa Clara County Flood Control. The Secretary then stated that a meeting has been arranged to try and work out a solution to this problem. AVCO The Secretary stated that provided for the Planning Commission's information is a copy of a court order regarding the suit between the City of Saratoga and AVCO ................................. City Attorney Letter re-City Attorney.General Opinion Relative to "P-C' Development The Secretary stated that in a letter received from the City Attorney dated August 23, 1973 it. states that the Attorney General has opined that a planned unit development requiring clustering of homes can be consistent with open-space since it is compatible with preserving same. V-373 and SDR-953 - Charla Ann Brown, Canyon View Drive - Request for Extension The Secretary read a communication received from Mr. Jim D. Morelan, Ms. Brown's architect, requesting a one (1) year extension for both V-373 and SDR-953. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that a one (1) year extension be granted for V-373 and SDR-953 from the current date of expiration; motion carried unanimously. ~Mar~orie G. Warfel~ 'Cox~:A~en~e~.Request that Permission be Granted to Allow a Ceramic School The Secretary read a request received fromMarjorie G. Warfel requesting permission to operate a ceramic school at 18724 Cox Avenue adjacent to the Quito Shopping Center. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the subject request for a ceramic school at 18724 Cox Avenue be denied sinch it would constitute a commercial use in an "R-i" zoning district; motion carried unanimou~].v ..... devoid of merit. However, tke ·freeway route has been shown on Saratoga's general plan since 1960~. While 68% of the necessary land has' been acquired, plaintiff's property has neither been purchased nor condemned to date by the State, apparently due to lack of funds. There was evidence from the State, through the right-Qf-way agent, that funds will not be available for another 10 years or longer. Plaintiff argues that the State has no serious objection to this development at this time, according to a letter fr6m the District Engineer dated· April 10, 1972 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6) and.does not contemplate construction of the-fre~way in the reasonably ·foreseeable future. Therefore, it can hardly be said that this development conflicts 'with "the general plan" where such plan .has been laid to rest or at least-put to sl. eep for an indefin~ e period of time. Although the City·Council is authorized to make determina tions regarding the issuance of building permits and it is bound to a large extent by general plans, it is not fair to say that the Council's discretion is so unfettered as to permit the denial of· '.approval of a map when there is a possible violation of a right· 0f constitutional dimensions involved. It is undisputed tkat plaintiff's property rights have · been considerab~ly infringed. Undue restriction on ·the lawful use or enjoyment of land is as much a taking for constitutional pur- poses as is an appropriation-or destruction. Hilltop Properties v. State of California, 233 C.A. 2d, 349 (1965). Since 1960 and for another 10 years at least, a total of 23 years, plaintiff has not and will not be able to do anything with its land. ~nis period of time is ~reason~jole and also Oppressive. Of what'value to a developer is l~d which cannot be developed? The property is of little value on the open market for the. same reasons; and the State, -2- Section 22.3 PUBLIC UTII, ITIES UNDERGROUND - V~RIA~NCES:. The City Planning Co:nmission is em'plowered to grant variances to the above set forth regulations and pro- hibitions, in accord with kticle 17 of this ordinance. Section 2: O~dinance 3E-6 and Ordinancd 3E-6.1 are hereby superseded and repealed as of the effective date of this ordinance. SeCtion 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or this ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irre%pective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsec. tions, sentences, clauses or' phases be held. i~alid or unconstitutional. Section 4: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the da~e of its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing ordinance, after public hearing held thereon by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, was thereafter introduced and a public hearing held thereon by the City Council thereof, and was thereafter passed and adopted this 16th day of April, 1969, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Tyler, Dwyer, Robbins, Smith, Sanders ~.'. NOES: None ABSENT: None - .- "'.~:7~ .... 'i_~ .......... ~YOR ~i.. ATTE S T: ..,"~ CITY CLERK ./ Planning Connnission Minutes - August 27., i973 - Continued VII. !B. ORAL Bike and Pedstrian Pathway Along Cox Avenue Mr. Warren Palmer of 20069 Chateau Drive stated that 1) the new subdivision on Cox and Saratoga'Avenue has caused realignment of the street 2) there is a sidewaly along Saratoga Avenue which terminates at Cox 3) there is no provision for pedestriansand bikes along Cox Avenue 4) bike paths should be provided.along 'bOth sides of Cox Avenue 5) everythin is converging on the west side of Saratoga Avenue and this will make it very restrictive for bikes and/or pedestrians and 6) one solution would be to remove two (2) trees - this would leave enough room for a 5-foot path and 7) there is some room there now for pedestrians to go through i:the~enow; however, '.:bikes must be left out in the street and it is his understanding that the landscaping has been left in abeyance until this question can be given some attention. Cormnissioner Smith asked if the General Plan shows a bike path on Cox Avenue? Mr. Trinidad stated that he felt sure it did and the.developer of the subdivision has been contacted and asked to .postpone any further action until this matter can be resolved. Mr. Palmer asked that the Planning Commission permit removal of the two (2) trees to allow a bike route and that the landscaping be modified to allow the paths. Chairman Lively referred the mat'ter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for review. Oddfellows Home re Osterlund Development. Mr. Conklin, present to represent the Oddfellows Home, asked that he be allowed to have further input relative to the Osterlund Development at Fruitvale Avenue and San Marcos Road and that he be allowed to sit in on any future meetings that this developer has with the City. Paihless Parkerl RanCh The Secretary stated that a map of the 220-acre Painless Parker Ranch has been made available for review by the Planning Commission. P.P.C. : Chairman Lively ga~e a summary of theLlast P.P.C. meeting and then stated th'a.t-'.:Mayor Smith was awarded a plaque at that meeting by the Board of Supervisors for the great ,job'he~has done for P.P.C. Violations Commissioner Belanger stated that several violations previously reported are still taking place and a status report-on each would be appreciated. Chairman Lively asked the Secretary to contact the Code Enforcement Officer and ask him to provide a report at the next regular meeting. West Valley Junior College Grading Commissioner Marshall stated that he would like to see the City file a formal objection to the grading taking place at the West Valley Junior College. Commissioner Belanger recommended that, perhaps, the College could be asked to submit a grading plan to the City. -8- Planning Commission Minutes -. August 27~ 1973 - Continued VIII. ADJOURNMENT . Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the meeting of August 27, 1973 be adjourned at 9:50 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, S'ta%'~y'~M. l~er, 'Secreta~'~ Saratoga Planning Commission -9-