Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-1973 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY OF MINUTES *********************** TIME: Wednesday, October 10, 1973 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: !SaratoRa Youth Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue,. Sar~toga,.California TYPE: Regular Meeting **************~******* I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Ao ROLL CALL Present:Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, Smith and Woodward. Absent: Chairman Lively"~.~'~ .... Due to the absence of Chairman Lively, V, ice~Chairman Marshall presided at this meeting. B. MINUTES ~ Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the reading of the minutes of the September 24, 1973 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission with the follow- ing changes: page 2. .paragraph 2. . .line 5. .change "Kerr" to "H~rr" and in paragraph 8. .line 2. .delete "already" and instead insert "on smaller lots"; page 3. . .paragraph 8. . .line 1. . .change "Kerr" to "Herr"~; page ~' . .paragraph 8. . .line 1. . .insert the word "while" between' the words "that"~and "the" and in paragraph 11. . .the following be substituted: "Commissioner Belanger stated that the applicant wants the Planning Commission to accept his basic assumption that he wants to build on this property only in this way and that; therefore, from his point of view the Planning Commission must recognize that there is a hardship. The applicant seemed unwilling to change the plan to fit the site." . .page 7. . .paragraph 4. . .line 6. . .insert the word "tile" between the words "a" and "color" and add the following to line 7. . "already existing"; motion carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Matteoni arrived at this time. The Secretary listed the following items and action discussed at the City Council meeting of October 3, 1973 as being of significant interest to the Planning Commission: 1) Adoption of Emergency Two-Story Ordinance. 2) Denial'of McLaughlin request for tree removal. Upholding Planning Commission recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes - October 10~'1973 - Continued Items VI. A. and IV. D. were discussed at this time; however,-the minutes will reflect the general order of business in accord with the agenda dated October 10~ 1973 II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Article 3 - Regulating Two-Story Residences in New Subdivisions - Continued from September 24~ 1973 Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing at 8:54 P.M. The Secretary recommended that the matter be continued to the next regular meeting to allow additional time for the Staff to prepare the modifications for the proposed ordinance as requested by the Commission and to obtain a final draft of the ordinance from the City Attorney. Mrs. John D. Vance of 19363 Athos Place inquired about the current status of this proposed ordinance amendment. Commissioner Marshall explained that an Emergency Ordinance has been passed by the City Council by which all two-story additions are prohibited unless a Use Permit is obtained from the Planning Commission. The Secretary explained that the. development Mrs. Vance is interested in (Osterlund Development at the'corner of Fruitvale and Allendale) is subject to Design Review approval. Mrs. Vance has filed an appeal objecting to the construction of' two-story homes in this development. Commissioner Belanger explained that applications pertinent to this development are being held in abeyance until the zoning is finalized by the City Council. The Secretary advised that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to take Mrs.' Vance~cs appeal up with the subject developer. Chai~m~h'Marshalt=,directed the Secretary to agendize the Vance appeal for the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. He further directed that the proposed ordinance amendment re Two-story residences be continued tO the meeting of October 23, 1973.and closed the public -"relativ__~.__.to same at 9:05 PiM. B. Proposed Amendment to!'s~B'di~sion Ordinance NS-5~- Regulations for Hillside Combining Zoning Districts - Continued from S~ptember 24~' 1973 The Secretary stated that this amendment to the Ordinance is still. being revised and worked on by the City Attorney and should be ready for action by'the Planning Commission by the next regular meeting. Chairman'~arshall did not open the public hearing re the proposed Sub- division Ordinance Amendment at !this time and directed the matter con- tinued to the next regular meeting. C. V-397 - Terence P. Woods, Old Oak Way - Request for Variance to Allow a Reduction in Front Yard .Setback Requirements - Continued from September 24~ 1973 Chairman Marshall reopened the hearing relative to V-397 at 9:10 P.M. The Secretary explained that the applicant was present and is ready to present some alternate plans showing a reduction in the amount of Variance required and setting the building On the lot in a way where the least nu~'er:of trees will be removed.. The applicant submitted the plansc'!and Mrs. Woods stated that the house was designed to maintain an open effect. -2- Planning Commission Minutes - October 10, 1973 - Continued II. C. V-397 - Continued Commissioner Belanger explained that, perhaps, the house designed by the applicant and his architect may not fit the lot. Mr. Woods explained that they are only interested in building a house and saV. ing the trees on the lot - the';trees on the lot are the primary reason they purchased this particular lot. Chairman Marshall explained that the Planning Commission has not had an opportunity to reiTi'ew the .re~i.'sed plans; therefore,-.the ~aa.tt~r.!~ will be referred to the Design Review and Variance Committee for study and a report at the next regular meeting.~'.?.'zTh'ez~ hearing relative to V-397 was closed for the evening at 9:26 P.M. Commissioner Martin, on behalf of the Variance Committee, made arrangements with the applicant for an on-site inspection at 8:30 A.M., Saturday, October 13, 1973. D. UP-227 - Luceal Fitzpatrick, Sousa Lane - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Residential Care Unit - Continued from September 24~ 1973 The Secretary recommended that UP-227 be continued to the next regular meeting since ft.!.iszinecessary for the applicant to meet again with the Subdivision Committee to discuss revisions in .~he p~oposed plans. Chairman Marshall so directed and referred UP-227 back to the Subdivi- sion Committee for further study. E. UP-228 - Cal-West Communities, Saratoga Avenue - Request for Use Permit to Allow Model Home Sales Office - Continued from September 24~ 1973 Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing relative' to UP-228 at 9:28 P.M. The Secretary made reference to the Staff Report dated October 10, 1973 recommending that the applicant's request for Use Permit to allow four (4) model homes and a sales office be approved. · The applic'~'~ representative was present, but had no further comments to z?offer and no one in the audience wished to comment. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the hearing in-connection with UP-228 be closed%at 9:30 P.M.; motion carried unanimou.s ly. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, to adopt the Staff Report dated October 10, 1973 and grant the Use Permit to operate a sales office and four (4) model homes as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B"; subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unani- mously. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1072 - Leonard E. Good, Mendelsohn Lane - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from September 2_~ 1973 The 'SeCretary stated that the Public Works Department has prepared a report relative to the road widening and improvements for Piedmont and Mendelsohn and the storm drainage situation connected with this particular building site. -3- Planning. Commission Minutes - October 10~ 1973 - Continued III. A. SDR-1072 - Continued The applicant was present and stated that inorder to dedicate another 5-feet of property in addition =to the 20-feet already dedicated for Piedmont Road the total area o~ the lot will be reduced and if further land is dedicated on Mendelsohn it will bring the lot.below the minimum allowed. Chairman Marshall stated that the Public Works Department seems to feel that there may be a day w~hen Piedmont may become a public street and land should be-set aside for thzis purpose. Mr. Trinidad, the Assistant Dir'ector of Public Works~ stated that the lot line of parcel "A" could be~moved t0..keep both lots at ~he square ~'0l~l'~uired by the OrdinanCe. Mr. Good explained that he did not feel the lot line could be adjusted without creating a very difficult situation. Mr. Trinidad explained that the. applicant wants to be assured that he will not wind up with only one lot. It is not the intent to take away a legal building site from this.applicant. If it turns out the area left after the dedication requirements are met then the Public Works Department can reconsider their dedication requirements. If the net area shown on the tentative map.is accurate then there should be no problem in this applicant providing enough square footage for two (2) individual lots. Chairman. Mb. rsh~l recommended that the Staff Report dated October 10, 1973 relative to SDR-1072 be amended by adding the following condition: "S. Dividing lines between lots "A" and "B" be redefined to be sure both parcels meet a minimum of 20,000-square foot of area. A copy of the revised map to be-provided for review by the Public Works Department." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by COrmniSsioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated October.10, 1973 be adopted,aas amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed September 21, 1973) and the Public Works memorandum re SDR-1072 be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said reports; motion carried Unanimously. B. SDR-1075 - T & F Development, Big Basin Way and 4th Street - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot.- Continued from September 24~ 1973 C. SDR-1076 - Almaden Development, Big Basin Way and 4th Street - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from September 24~ 1973 The Secretary recommended that both SDR-1075 and SDR-1076 be continued to the next regular meeting to allow additional time to review the appeal made on the Negative Declaration for the Environmental Impact Report. Chairman Marshall so directed. .D. SDR-1077 - Tech Marketing Association,-Pierce Road - Building Site Ap.proval - 1 Lot The applicant was present and stated he had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated October 10, 1973 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed September 21, 1973) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. -4- Planni~8 Commission Minutes - October 10~ 1973 - Continued III. E. SD-1078 - AVCO Community DeVelopers, Inc..., Cox AvenUe -..Subdivision Approval - 18 Lots The Secretary recommended that SD-1078 be continued to the next regular meeting since the applicant is revising the tentative map and requires additional time. Chairman Marshall so directed. F. SDR-1079 - Southland Corporation (7-11 Food Stores), Big Basin Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary recommended that SDR-1079 be continued to the next regular meeting since there is a"~O'sSibility there will be an appeal on the Environmental Impact Report. He then read a letter from Mrs. Mary S. Wade of 14740 Farwell Avenue stating her opposition to the proposed request for building site approval. Chairman Lively directed SDR-1079 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for study. G. SDR-1080- Richard E. Johnson~ Via Regina - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The applicant was present and stated the conditions of approval had been reviewed and then questioned condition "P'. concerning retention of the ..... tree located at the corridor access and Via Regina. Mr. Trinidad stated that tree has seriously deterioted in'th&.past two (2) years. Chairman Marsh~ll'.info. rrded_~.the applicant that condition "P" should be worked out with the Fire Department. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the .' Staff Report dated October 10, 1973 be ~dopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed September 26, 1973) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. RECESS AND RECONVENE .. IV. DESIGN REVIEW ~! A. James A. Rodrigues~ Woodbank Way - Final Design'Review Approval of Singie- z Family Residence The Secretary explained that the Design Review Committee reviewed with the applicant the plans for his proposed ~ome .... .~here was some concern about what effect this home would have on the adjacent property because it is a proposed two-story structure, the width of the lots, the amount of grading, and the site.development for the particular home. Because of the Emergency .Ordinance p'~b'~d'b~h'~City ~6u~"~l~ to two-stOry home there is no Staff recommendation available at this time since the Staff intends to reconmaend a revision in the setback requirements for this home in order to reduce the impact on the adjacent lot. The Ordinance does provide that the Planning Commission in lots of irregular shape may require a variation in setbacks. Chairman/Marsh~all directed this matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Design Review Committee for study. -5- Planning Commission Minutes - October 10~ 1973 - Continued IV. B. A-419 - T & F~. Development Co., Big Basin Way and Fourth Street - Preliminary Design Review - Commercial Building - Continued from Sept'ember 24~ 1973: The Secretary advised that the Design Review Committee met with the Architectural Advisory Committee on the design character of the Village and in particular as it would be affected by this development. As I understand it the Architectural Advisory Committee is to come back again with the Design Review Committee to further discuss these matters. Commissioner Belanger explained that the Design Review Committee and Architectural Advisory Committee'discussed design alternatives for the Village and aesthetics for the V~llagerrather than the specific plans for Design Review Approval of A-419. Both Committees feel the Village should not be limited to one style or one atmosphere but would like to see well designed buildings. In'working out coordination of the Village the Committees are looking for an overall view to have all the buildings look somewhat the same. Commissioner Matteoni stated the. it would be helpful to have a full set of elevations that show the roofllines. Chainnan.Marshall directed A-419'continued to the next' regular meeting and referred the matter back to the Design Review Committee for further study and a report. C. Tract 5164 - Kunkel-Thomas, Sobey Road - Revision of Final Design Review - Single-Family Residence (Berm Construction).- Continued from September 24~ 1973 The Secretary read the Staff Report dated October 10, 1973 recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for the berm construction in connection with Tract 5164. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff.Report relative to Tract 5164 be adopted and that Final Design App.ro~l for construction of a 4~foo~/~-high berm along .the eastern property lines of lots 1, 2, and 3 as shown on Exhibit '~" subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. " Commissioner Matteoni stated tha~ the Design Review Committee, also, looked at the request for additional openings at the corner ~ot Sobey Road. The COmmittee's opinion is not to allow access onto Sobey Road and would recommend against such a proposal. The Secretary explained that thrgugh the Building Permit it has been required that the openings.be,onto Sobey Meadows only. Chairman Marshall explained that the Planning Commission does not like driveways side by side onto Sobe~ Road or any major street where access can be provided another way. D. Landscaping and Fencing Policies re Planned Community Developments The Secretary explained that in ~he Planned Community area near the intersection of Douglass and Fruitvale Avenue and primarily Kenosha Court and Dodglass the development of 16-lots has proceeded to a point where mo~.t of the homes are completed or are being completed. The property owners are anxious to install swimming pools and landscaping and many have fenced portions of their property. One of the conditions of this development was that each lot would have to go through Design Review Approval for homes, fencing, and any landscaping. It was not too clearly defined by what was meant by fencing and landscaping.' This matter is brought before the Planning Comnissi~n~!because of the urgency of property owners to fence their property and to protect their property from trespassing and to, also, make the yards secure for the pool area. The problem has arisen because of standardstl ~. -6- Planning Commission Minutes - October 10~.1973 - Continued IV. D. Landscaping - Continued the Planning Commission meant to establish by requiring Design Review of fencing and landscaping. He then displayed maps showing all the homes that have been approved in their actual shape and location compared to what was originally proposed by the developer. Individual plans were, also, available of properties in the development w~ose ~ers want to go ahead with their landscaping and fencing. ~ Chairman Marshall stated that this is the first major "P-C" development in the City in which some of the. land was taken and combined ~nto a common green area and is used as a buffer to beautify the access to the development for the benefit of the residents and the City. Because of this lot line fences were to be excluded. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Smith, stated that Building Permits have been issued for some of the pools, but the trend of the plans that have gone ahead without Design Review Approval have been an an attempt to secure the rear area of the home. The point is that whatever the existing situation some policy determination, generally speaking, should be made as to what constitutes p~ol area and should the City penalize the people for the fencing that!~the adjoining orchard owner may install in the future? Chairman Marshall explained that"the adjacent orchard could be fenced, but when and if that land is developed the fences would have to come down since that land is subject to the samd Ordinance requirements as this subject property. Mrs. Apkar, owner of lot ~4 of the "P-C" development, asked the Planning Commission to 16~k at her plan and use it as an example. The Secretary explained that lot ~4 constitutes a large pool area, substantial landscaping and is adjacent to the adjoining orchard. Chairman Marshall stated that he.would prefer not to direct his comments to a particular plan at this time. Mr. Morley, residentof the "P-C" devel:opment, stated that he appreciates living in this particular subdivision and has found that the street pattern is going to lend itself to a nice growth of the area ~ more so than other areas. However, right now many Of the residents have started pools and the houses are set far back and this'puts the pool area further back on the lot in about the center of the back yard. The pool area can be fenced and this leaves about 5 or 10 yards to another fence. There have been probt~ms with pets and children coming into pool areas and this constitutes a hazard. It is not the intent of the residents of the area to ruin this subdivision, but they would like to be pa~t of the decision making process when they are so closely affected. Chai'rman Marshall directed this matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Design ReView Committee for study. A~.Ltentative approval was arranged for a meeting with the residents of the "P-C" area and the Design Review Committee for Tuesday morning at 8:00 A.M. E. Tract 5244 - Osterlund Enterprises, Inc. - Saratoga and Cox AvenUes.- Final Design Review - Lots 7 and 8 The Secretary-explained that this matter involves two (2) corner lots at Saratoga and Cox Avenues. The Design Review Committee was to go out and look at this site. The Developer has submitted the proposed plot plans and some elevations or cross sections of how the house and fencing and the height from different locations relate to each other. The basic proposal is to leave the setback as a side setback for an interior lot and the developer would propose t~ provide a setback of 13~-feet. Planning. Commission Minutes - October l0t 1973 - Continued IV.· E. T~act 5244 - Continued Mr. Mark Roberrs, applicant!.~ representative, stated that the developer has tried to keep the proposed houses for these lots as far back on the lot as possible. The SeCretary, in answer to an inquiary from Commissioner Martin, stated that if the lots are determined to be corner lots, which would have to be an intrepretation of the Planning Commission, than setbacks would have to be 25-feet from the street.· If the lots are interpreted to be interior · lots, as suggested by the applicant, then the setbacks would be 10-feet. Chairman Marshall noted that thelone lot could be described as a corner problem lot'because it is bounded on the East by Saratoga Avenue and the South by Cox Avenue. Mr. Roberrs explained that the lot does not have the square footage for a corner lot. If it is designated a corner lot a 25-foot setback on three (3) sides would be required and the result would be an unbuildable pad. Commissioner Belanger stated that she recalled visiting, this property when. the applicant first made application and was worried about the fact that the medical center had been.required to have a 25-foot setback along Cox Avenue and at the corner. Then it was proposed this opposite corner · needed protection and fencing was discussed and allowed. 'Now the opepess is going to be lost by the City not only by the fencing, but by houses close to the fence.' ~ Mr. Foust, architect for the applicant, stated that·the reason for selection of this particular pite plan is because of the busy street in the area. This house is designed for interior living. Commissioner Belanger stated·thai the applicant is asking the Commission to treat this lot as an interior lot and forget that Cox Avenue is there. Commissioner Martin advised that·this is another situation where the developer is trying to get the maximum number of lots out of this property. Chairman Marshall pointed out that there was considerable discussion about this subdivision at the time the~tentative map wa~s app_roved and the Planning Commission spent a lot of time saying that it isigOinglto take some very innovative design to fit the house onto the lots. No agreement was made that buffers·for lots seven and eight.would be fencing and/or moving the houses further out on the lot. Mr. Lou Tersini, prepent to represent the applicant, stated that on the ·plan submitted it shows that all that could be seen (from across the street) of the proposed housing and fencing is the roof line.· Before anything can be done this matter Of corner lots versus interior lots must be resolved. The Secretary explained that legally speaking these are not really· Corner lots and are really interior lots that back up to the existing street. Li Mr. Tersini explained that lot 8lis clearly an interior lot by dimensional~ point of view. All the extra suitable land available was put into these lots and a 12-foot side yard setback iS shown and this is more than the amount required. The Secretary stated.that the staggered effect for lot 6 should be g~ven up in order to gain additional setback. Chairman Marshall referred the matter to the Design Review Committee for further study and review. -8- Planning Commission Minutes - October 10~z1973 Continued IV. F. A-401 - Dr. Julian Henry, Quito Road - Preliminary Design Review - Veterinary Clinic The Secretary' stated that 1) the.plans submitted are a proposal for for a complete new design for the veterinary clinic for therproperty located north= of the railroad tracks and fronting on Quito Road 2) the original plan was to remodel the existing residence, but due to cost and the proposed freeway it became necessary to propose a new buiiding 3) it is similar in architecture to the old farmhouse 4) it is about 1600-square feet in size 5) the Staff and Design Review Committee met with the applicant. and his architect and the changes suggested are reflected in the revised plans submitted and 6) there is a Staff Report dated October 10, 1973 recommending that preliminary design approval Be granted for A-401. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by CommissiOner Woodward, that the Staff Report relative to A-401 be adopted.and.that 'preliminary design approval be granted for construction of a:veterinary clinic on Quito Road as shown on Exhibit "X-1, and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ..... The Secretary.explained that the Staff is working on recommendations for revising the EIR procedure. VI. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. Review of West Valley College Grading re Master Plan The Secretary stated that.this item appears.on the agenda as a result of a Planning Commission request to have the College make some explanation. or clarification of the proposal that is under contract to remove substantial fill material from the athletic field site and relocate that material to the Santa Clara Mission Campus of the West Valley Junior College District. The concern of the Planning Commission was that this proposed grading and removal of earth was not in accord with the Master Plan that was approved nor was it in accord with Design Review Approval that took place on the ....... P. E. facilities and buildings that were approved in conjunction with the warehouse-maintenance building. Available this evening is the' Master Plan' of the College:~a~d"~he plans that the Planning Commission looked at when they were reviewing the athletic facilities and specifically the athletic field. Also, the College has provided. a model of that particular area. The plans that were submitted for Design Review of the athletic facilities does not show the extensive grading. An elevation of 408-feet was shown for the athletic field and the proposal now is an alternative ~h~t'n(in the opinion of the College) was discussed at one of the Design Review Committe meetings and possiblyii'b'~fore the Planning Commission. The alternative __R~oposed would allow removal of fill and lowering of the athletic field; therefore', reducing the height of some of the accessory buildings' that are around the athletic field itself. ~i~ '."'~."~l..~' Dr. Low~y of the West Valley Junior College was present and described the model and pointed out that 1) the lay-out and design is good 2) the location of the facilities is.~:the same and pointed out the facilities presently under construction is the result of two plans (one was an alternatec=to the other) which were let out for bid. The aim was to have all the athletic facilities in the same location - the difference was that in, what is known as the high field, came up and around the berm on three sides and varied i'n grade elevation from 408-feet to 392-feet. -9- Planning Commission Minutes - October 10~ 1973 - Continued VI. A. WVJC - Continued Commissioner Belanger stated that the Col!.ege did not obtain Design Review Approval for the auX~lliary athletic buildings which ~ere specifically excluded. "G~e~l~~t'~'6~"~h~'M~'~r' PI~ ~he~'building location war. e_app~zo~ed_and_te_rLt~ti~e__~fp~jf~_liQ'~f"~ra~S~ping__was granted. The extensive grading now being done was never reviewed by the Design Review Committee or the Planning Commission. Dr. Lowry stated that the College feels all the requirements of the City were met, but the plans can be reviewed again. In any case the difference is that the base of the field is in fact lowered 16-feet. It was felt this would provide better instructional area and a better grade. Chairman 'Mar~h~%l~ .... ~ expressed a feeling of shock that si~te~n.i(16) feet of 'earth could be carved out of a site that was selected primarily for its natural aesthetic beauty and-the~...Ci~y is not even consulted on such a major undertaking. Especially when the City is working away from allowing excessive sharp cuts~ and fill and is striving for maximum utilization.of the existing natural characteristics of the site and trying to aim for structures designed for the site. The notion of moving 50,000+ yards of some of the best Saratoga earth off to Santa Clara and dropping the athletic field 16-feet at a cost to the taxpayers of $260,000. is sheer nonsense. Dr. Lowry stated that it is still a flat low area - the football field, the athletic field, and track field have not been changed except that they are at a lower grade. He did not feel the change in the grade could destroy the topography of the area. Commissioner Belanger inquired why the West Valley Junior.' College Distric~ was able to expend these funds for this earth removal when at ~he time the Assessment District was discussed the amount of $60,000 was considered too much to spend to switch the hockey fielH with the rear parking lot? - Why was it emphasized by the College that this switch requested by the~ City Council to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhood would be top costly whereas the $260,000 now is not to~ costly? Dr. Lowry.stated that he suspected the $60,000 relates to the switch. of the warehouse building. Chairman Marshall "stated that the $60,000 was for the secondary switch of the athletic field and the parking lot and the opinion of the College District when this switch was proposed is that it would be foSlish to use that amount of money for that purpose, but now the District is spending in excess of four (4) times that amount, apparently for the be~efi'6 of the educational Staff, without even bothering to check with the City.. Planningl Commission Minutes - October 10~ 1973 - Continued VI. A. WVJC - Continued Dr. Lowry explained that he did not really see the connection since the location of the hockey field as shown on the Master Plan was based on an educational need. Commissioner Belanger stated that she specifically remembers the College coming before the City Council and saying that they had already compromised enough and that more money was being spent than was originally planned for the warehouse-maintenance building and the City should not request that additional funds be used unnecessarily. Dr. Lowry stated that the District felt the education needs would best be served as the fields were laid out. Chairman Marsha]'·i ·-stated that in the best ineterest of the City the Planning Commission firmly recommends against the lowering of the athletic field by 16-feet on the basis it constitutes unacceptable grading standards. Commissioner Belanger noted that the lowering of the proposed athletic field was done without even consulting with the City. At the time the Master Plan was discussed the buildings were left out of Design Review Approval in order to review each building individually. The lowering of the athletic field with the resultant grading was not discussed at that time. Dr. L-owryl~'-explained that the Use Permit calls for review and recommendation. The District felt that these requirements were met 100%, everything was pro- vided for review by the City, the building or lowering of the field was dis- cussed and the call for bids was·published in the newspaper, the City was informed by letter when the contract was met. The area of the tennis courts has been landscaped and depressed to keep it out of view as a result of the lowering of the field according with the City's recommendations. If there are any recommendation that the City has that the District has not followed the District would be willing to review those again. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Marshall, stated that the 16-foot change in grade for the athletic field was not recognized in the exhibits that were submitted and was not recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. He did not rec~l·t that the College reviewed this change with the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission nor that tacit· approval was granted fog same. Dr. Lowry stated that he is not suggesting that any given grade was approved by the City. At the time the plans were before the Planning Commission this was an ultimate plan as an alternate to the high field since it was indefinite what would actually be done until everything was worked out. The final plan for the athletic field was well known to everyone and it was in all of the plans that were bid by all of the contractors and was duly authorized and advertised and was discussed at ·great length at meetings of the Governing Board. Commissioner Belanger pointed out that the plans were not specifically made available to the City for approval. -11- Planning Commission Minutes - October 10~ 1973 - ContinUed VI. A. WVJC - Continued Dr. Lowry, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Marshall, stated that the grading has commenced and could be stopped, but it~=·W6uld'.'·nbt be practical to do so since a legal contract has been let and the project is partially completed. He expressed regret that any confusion has occurred on this matter, but he could not see any cause .for any further action since the requirements of the Use Permit were met. · I Chairman Marshall stated that any further action for College might be a reaction to what the City does after this point. Commissioner Martin advised that the College should continue in the future to present their plans to the City for review and that advertising in the newspaper (and taking a chance that the City may or may not see it) is not any way to obtain approval from the City for proposed plans of the College Campus. -~Chairman Marshall asked that the College please coordinate their · plans with the City in the future. Mr. Bernie Turgeon, Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, stated that he has observed the College move tremendous amounts of dirt and if an. individual developer had done this he would have not only the City on him but the Air Pollution Control Board as well. Can the District be required to provide Environmental Impact Report? The Secreta:ry explained that the College is a seperate entity and in the State Guidelines or Law they are a lead agency and they make their own determination as to whether what they do has a signi___.fi__c_an·t._im_p_a_ct on the environment. t_n t.his__case_the C_o_!l_.eg_e___exem_p_ted thi.s_p_r_o_ject on ~h'e basis it was an on-g'oing roject prior to 1970 as defined by the State · Guidelines of the ·California ~nv~ronmental 'Act. Quality Mr. Turgeon stated that the City could still file an injunction on the College. Just because the College·made a Negative Declaration does not necessarily make it truthful. Dr. Lowry replied it was true that the College had exempted themselves fr'5~j·doing an Environmental Impact Report on this project and had made a Negative Declaration on the parking district which the Saratoga Planning Department had concurred. 'Chairman MarSh_a. ll_ ' in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Belanger, stated that the City could ask the College to cease and desist from any further progress on this project and if ·they do not cooperate it would be a violation of the Use Permit. The Secretary explained that in reference to the Environmental Impact Report requirements the only recourse available to individual citizens, the Planning Commission, or the City would be through the courts. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the City Manager and the City Attorney be instructed to i~itiate immediately whatever legal proceedings are necessary to cause the West Valley Junior College District to desist from further development of the Saratoga Campus contrary to plans reviewed and' approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga; motion carried with Commissioner Matteoni abstaining. Mr. Jim Morley, resident of the "P-C" Community across the street from the College Campus, stated that he and his neighbors are opposed to the actions of the College and particularly the lights along the tennis courts and the parking on Douglass Avenue. The Secretary explained that the matter of tennis lights can be taken up with the Design Review Committee, but the parking would be a Law Enforcement problem. Commissioner Belanger stated that lighting of the athletic facilities was not approved and that the College had agreed to return for Design Review Approval of this matter as well as for the athletic buildings. · . [ '~12- ' Planning Commission Minutes - October 10~ 1973 - Continued VI. Bo Referral of Land Development Matter in Santa Clara County for ~. R. Ciraulo~ Deer Path Road near COngress Springs Road The Secretary explained that this matter involve~ a proposal off of Congress Springs Road for a temporary use of a mobil home and a Use Permit application has been made.to the County for this use. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Counil that the request to allow the temporary use of a m6del home on a property located in a County area (Saratoga Spher of Influence) be approved for a period of nine (9) months provided the applicant posts a bond to'assure that said mobil home will be terminated at the appropriate time; motion carried unanimously C. Almaden Dev. Corp., Oak Street -~Request for City Abandonment of a .Portion of Fourth Street The Secretary explained that the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to come up with a recommendation relative to the abandonment of ~.=..t5~toot strip of Fourth Street right-of-way. Does the City want to abandon Fourth Street and if not is it feasible to do anything with it? Commissioner Belanger stated thae it appears that it would be impossible to develop that property. Mr. Trinidad stated that as far as he knows the City has not done any survey work to determine whether'a road could be put in on Fourth Street or not. It appear to be very difficult. Commissioner Smith stated that the matter of abandonment should be very carefully considered before any action is taken. Chairman Marshall stated that if'the parking district is developed then Fourth Street would again make sense. Mr. Trinidad suggested that either Public Works or the developer provid& some elevations. Chairman Marshall directed this matter continued and referred same to the Planning Consultants, Williams ahdMocine and to the Department of Public Works for further study and review. D. SD-1020 - Donal Comer~ Wallace Road - Revised Tentative Map The"Secretary explained that the applicant has provided a new map. The Flood Control'DistriLc.t.z.has asked.for certain right-of-way requirements on Calabazas Creek and they feel those requirements have not been met by this applicant. The applicant~s architect was present and stated they are n~gotiating with Flood Control for those requirements. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger that the revised Staff Report dated October 10, 1973 be adopted and the revised tentative map (Exhibit "A-5", filed October 5, 1973) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said r~port; motion carried unanimously. -13 - Planning Commission Minutes - October 10~ 1973 - Continued VI. E. Painless Parker Ranch ~ ·The Secretary explained that a-m~-of this property is available and shows a slope of 28% for the entire property and would produce 185 building sites. The developer proposes to justify an additional 50,~.sites with the develop- ment plan. ~ Commissioner Belanger inquired if the ~..matrix plan had been applied to this property? The Secretary answered that yes the engineer-developer had utilized that plan while drawing up the maps' and further working is being done on the proposed plans. Commissioner Smith stated that the. applicant should be informed that no more than approximately 130 sites will be allowed for this property in accordance with the slope density computations. The Secretary stated that the Staff, also, finds criticism with the grading, location of the sites, and access road. The basic building site will be 10,000-square feet in size. Chairman Marshall requested the Secretary to inform the applicant that it is the consensus of the Planning, Commission that preliminary plans presented and the nature of the land, particularly in consideration of the information received from the Planning Consultant and Planning'Department, indicates that~'~he.~maxi~um'~deBsity the Planning Commission would be willing to tolerate would be substantially lower thaB what is shown on the plans that have been submitted for consideration. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. SDR-1059 - David Mendenhall, Mt. Eden Road - Request for Revised Map The Secretary read a communication from Mr. Mendenhall requesting that lot "B" s~own on the tentative map for SDR-1059 be divided into two parcels. The Secretary recommended 'that the Staff Report relative to SDR-1059 be amended by adding the following condition: "Enter into Deferred Improvement Agreement for dedicated 60-foot right-of-way along the entire frontage of subject property." The Secretary then recommended that the applicant's request be granted and the amended map be adopted. Commissiloner Smith moved, se&onded by Commissioner Belanger, that the . revised Staff Report da~d'0~'f6b~l~7'l~'b~ adopte~, aS amended,. and that the revised 'tentatiVe map (Exhibit "A~I", filed OctoBer 5, .1973) be'approved Subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. 2. Letter from' the Sierra Club ~ecommending that lands originally proposed for the West Valley Freeway be used for Open-Space if the freeway plans are dropped. 3. Communciation from Gary L. Holmes Co., Architect re development plans for retirement facilities. 4. Note from Saratoga Drama GroUp thanking the Planning Commission for changing their meeting from place from the Council Chambers to the Youth Center in order that the Drama Group may proceed with their presentation of Fiddler on the Roof. Planni'ng Commission Minutes; October 10, 1973 - Continued VII. B. ORAL None VII i. ADJOURNMENT Commissionef~'!Smith moved, seconded By Commissioner Martin, that the meeting of October 10, 1973 be adjourned at 12:15 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Stanley M.W~ker,~ Secretary Saratoga Planning Commission j -15-