Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-1973 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ******************** TIME: Tuesday, October 23, 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, Lively, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, and Smith. Absent: Commissioner Woodward. B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the reading of the minutes of the O~tober 10, 1973 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission with the following changes: page 2.. .under V-397.. .paragraph 1o . .line 1. .insert the word "public" between the words "the" and "hearing"; page 5. . .under SDR-1080. .paragraph 2. .line 1. .insert the word~"the" between the words "that" and "tree"; page 12... .paragraph 2. .line 1. . .insert the words "by the" between the words "action" and "College"; page 15. . . paragraph 1. .line 2. .change,P.M. to A.M.; motion carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner B~langer submitted a!written review of the action and discussion that took place at the'Council meeting of October 17, 1973 relative to items ot~7. interest to the Planning Commission. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A0 Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Article 3 - Regulating Two-Story Residences in New Subdivisions - Continued from October 10~ 1973 Chairman Lively. reopened the hearing at 7:47 P.M. The Secretary stated that a new draft of this ordinance amendment is now available for review. He then read a written comment received from the Santa Clara-Santa Cruz Counties Home Builders Association requesting that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting. Mr. Herman Rains, iExecutive Assistant of the Home Buiiders.Association, ~ and stated that if the matter is continued he would withhold his remarks until he made an appointment to meet with the appropriate Committee. Commissioner Marshall stated he '~i'd'~0'f'~H~r'~'~6w the Builders Association relates to what the City does in regulation of two-story structures since we 'are~.talkihg.~.~ about what people living in the houses adjacent to two-story houses have to put up with. He would suggest the Builders Association presentation be made sooner rather than waiting until a later time, because the regulation of two-story homes should proceed as rapidly as possible. Is a two-story defined as a structure the second story of which is that portion included between the upper surface of the ground floor and the ceiling or roof above that or in laymen's languag~ between the plate and the rafters? Is that desfgned to exclude split level homes? How would a split level home be included as-a two-story within this categorization since the mid-story per?se would not be that portion between the upper surface of the ground floor and the ceiling or roof above? It would be adjacent to but not necessarily included within. -1- Planning Commission Minutes - October 23~ 1973 - Continued II. A. PropoSed Amendment - Continued · The Secretary stated that the City Attorney did wan~ to review that definition with the Planning Commission in Order to resolve that difference. Commissioner Marshall stated that if.the intention is to include pure two-story (one story directly above the other) ~nd possibly split level then it would seem that some other language should be in reference to multiple elevations above the finished floor of the first floor and yet exclude a basement. Could it not, for example, depending upon whether we wished to include split levels or only two-stories, define a two-story building as one inf:which the first floor is defined as base and subsequent floors are elevated at least one-half living level above that base or one total livingslevel above that base. Commissioner Marshall, in answer to a statement made by Commissioner Martin, advised that while the principle endeavors have been away from having two-story homes which do not fit into a level landsarea - there are subdivision areas in the City where two-story homes are the only proper solution to the' lay of theftand. The Secretary, in answer to' an inquiry from Chairman Lively,. stated that the City Attorney has not had time to present an input on this portion (Section 1 ) of the Ordinance and the matter should not be granted more than one additional continuance since 'it is necessary to take some action in connection with this propps~d amendment. Commissioner Matteoni stated he is still not sure about the question of multi-elevations in hillside areas~ Maybe~tjat should be defined in another category.~ ~ Commissioner Marshall stated that he is suggesting that this be done and if that is incorporated into the ordinanc~ a limitation which says that this ordinance applies to developments on slopes of less than "X" percent if the average slope is greater than 20 percent. Commissioner Matteoni agreed and stated that a preamble be added to the Ordinance explaining what we are attempting to do by adopting this Ordinance, i.e., protect privacy of neighboring property Owners, and limit interference of views, etc. Commissioner Matteoni ~heni:.~:.' commented on Chairman Lively's suggestion that the building of a two-story houses on a single building-site might damage neighboring houses. This matter needs some attention from the City Attorney since some definite specifics are'necessary as to what type of damage we are talking about~ His concern is primarily that the Ordinance be more definitive. Commissioner Martin agreed that Section 1 of the proposed Ordinance should be more clearly defined since he was, also, concerned it was not explicit enough. He could see where a second story-could be built over a garage and not go over the maximum height of thi~.t_X_yi~i~ feet since the definition of height is that distance measured~between'j the plate and roof. That definition has to be very!.well '~tated. He can recall where two-story ~esidences were backed to two (2) or three (3) lots. The neighbors should be considered and informed when a one-story residence is proposed for conversion into a two-story or when an accessory structure is proposed. Commissioner Smith noted that this could be covered by a Use Permit which would require a publid hearing. Commissioner Belanger stated there should be some notification to the neighbors of proposed two-story conversions, but, maybe, this does not necessarily have to be done by Use Permit application. -2- Planning Commission Minutes - October 23~ 1973 - Continued II A. Proposed Amendment - Continued Perhaps the Planning DirectOr could receive application for proposed two-story structures and then make the neighbors aware that such a proposal was submitted and an appeal process could,be initiated in ca~e the decision of the Planning Director is not acceptable to th~ appli- cant. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Belanger, stated that in a subdivision of five (5) or more lots the builder is allowed up to 50% two-stQry in the development. Commissioner Belanger stated that, perhaps, some implication should be included that the Planning Commission has the right to decide that a percentage of less than 50% is allowable. Some builders are assuming they have the right to the 50%. Commissioner Marshall stated he did agree with Commissioner Belanger that in some cases, depending upon the nature of the tract and size, a 50% two-story construction would be highly.desirable. It may be that in certain instances you would not want 50% you may want a 100%. The Secretary explained that 50% would be the maximum in a flat.- land subdivision. Commissioner Marshall stated that, maybe, anything'tb'_which slope density applies should be exempted from the proposed Ordinance. The Secretary stated that it is proposed that Design Review ApproVal be required for all hillside lots and the City Attorney will coordinate that into the Ordinance amendment. Commissioner Belanger Stated that-she would recommend that in Section (e) of the proposed Ordinance the % of site coverage should be scaled down. Commissioner Matteoni state~ that there was some suggestion before to work out the old % in terms of coverage. People do build second story additions over garages - maybe the way to pull down the square- footage is to exclude the area over the garage. Commissioner Marshall stated he.keeps getting the feeling someone will find a way to build a big house on a small lot and it can be a s~ngf~!story. By the same token someone may try for the most house for the money available. Someone may try to build a house that is not in proportion tO the lot. Anyone desiring a house larger than what is allowed on a certain lot should not come looking for a Variance, but should instead look for a larger lot to build on. Commissioner Matteoni stated that the Ordinance as written does not spell that out. Chairman Lively closed the public hearing for the evening at 8:14 P.M., directed the proposed Ordinance amendment continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Cofm~Littee and Staff. B. Proposed Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance NS-5, Section 10 - Regulations for Hillside Combining Zoning Districts - Continuedl Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 8:15 P.M. The Secretary explained that the proposed amendment to Ordinance NS-5 relating to HillSide Developments is available. It was the opinion of the City Attorney that rather than come up with any new regulations in the form. of Subdivision Ordinance Slope Density ~Resolution~ it"~would be best to have Design Review Approval for hillside developments and put that into resolution form; therefore, that draft is now ready for approval by the Planning Commission and for forwarding to the City Council. -3- Planning CommissiOn Minutes - October 23~ 1973 - Continued II. B. Proposed Amendment - Continued Commissioner Belanger noted that at the time the Planning Commission was looking at the Painless Parker Randh one of the problems involved was taking a very large area and averaging out the flat land with the steep land and coming up with more generous slope-density allowance than if individual parcels had been considered. Does the proposed Ordinance speak to that kind of situation? The Secretary explained that this situation was reviewed and in the case of the Painless Parker Ranch where the land is very steep the developer is proposing to utilize the flatter portion of the property for homes. Commissioner Marshall noted that if a developer kept acquiring land in order to bring the average of any grade down the net result would be.to allow the developer to build houses on land which wasn't really designed for that purpose. Chairman Lively stated that the intent of the proposed Ordinance is to determine the average slope of the parcel to be built on and not to encourage slope averaging by adding additional land. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Smith, stated that this ordinance would not affect existing individual lots since they would becom~ legal non-conforming sites, but these lots would still be subject to site development approval and/or Design Review Approval. Commissioner Matteoni asked if this Ordinance would set down how far the contour lines have to be set apart - it seems that the greater the detail the greater the application of formula. The Secretary ansWered~'_th~t'iLthe subject of contour lines'is covered in the Subdivision Ordinance NS-3~ Commissioner Marshall stated he is.interested in how actual computation of the figures in the Ordinance would apply to an actual development. The Secretary explained that some hypothetical cases could be computed to reflect what would happen if the figures in the Ordinance were .imposed on a proposed development.r Chairman Lively closed the public hearing for the evening at 8:29 P.M., directed the proposed Ordinance amendment continued to the next regular and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff. C. V-397 - Terence P. Woods, Old Oak Way - Request for Variance to Allow a Reduction in Front Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from October l0t 1973 : Chairman Lively reopened the public hearing at 8:30 P.M. The Secretary explained that the applicant and his architect were present. A meeting was held with the applicant, his architect, the Design Review CoLLmmLittee and the Variance Committee to further review this site. Commissioner Martin stated that, after meeting with the Design Review COmmittee, it was the feeling that some Variance wbutd be required for V-397, but the applicant would have to come up with a design to minimize the amount of Variance. Commissioner Belanger stated that as Chairman of the Design Review Committee she did request the applicant to submit a revised .plan for review by the Committee before a recommendation could be made. ' -4- Planning Commission Minutes - October 23, 1973 - Continued II. C. V-397 - Continued Mr. Wood, the applicant, stated that his architect did submit the plans as requested. ~ Mr. Woessner, applicant's architect, stated that the revised plans reflecting the changes requested were submitted. Commissioner Matteoni stated that since the plans have been submitted they could be reviewed at the recess and a recommendation made this evening. Cormnissioner Belanger agreed this would be appropriate if a report from both the Variance Committee and .Design Review Committee can be Coordinated during the recess.."'. '.--'.l.~"':... " '~...'.'.' Chairman Lively temporarily closed the hearing at 8:36 P.M. and referred the.matter to the Design Review Committee and Variance Committee for review during the recess. The matter of V-397 was reviewed at the recess;~.'h0wever, the matter will be concluded here for the sake of continuity. Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 9:55 PT.~M. Commissioner Martin explained that the revised plans do reflect changes in the setbacks, this is a difficult lot and the Variance Committee and Design Review Committee agree that some type of Variance is needed. The architect has done a good job in redesign- ingi~the plans. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to close the public hearing relative to V-397 at 10:05 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the subject request for Variance in connection with V-397 be granted as shown on E~hibits "X" and "Y" since the findings required under Section 17.6 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be made. This approval shall constitute Design Review Approval as well and.written reports are to be prepared byvth~-Sedr~tary=~nd'i~placed in the appropriate file; motion carried unanimously · D. UP-227 - Luceal Fitzpatrick, Sousa Lane - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Residential Care Unit - Continued from October 10~ 1973 Chairman Lively reopened th~ hearing relative to UP-227 at 8:36 P.M. Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee did meet with the applicant and the final presentation made at that time relative to the use of the building and site coverage was satisfactory to the Committee. Chairman Lively noted that the Staff Report dated October 23, 1973 relative to UP-227 recommends approval of the proposed Use Permit. Commissioner Smith recommended that the subject report be amended by deleting the words "for a period of one (1) year" from the last sentence in paragraph 1. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the public hearing in connection with UP-227 be closed at 8:40 P.M.; motion carried unanimously.. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff Report dated October 23, 1973 relative to UP-227 be. adopted, as amended, and the' subject.request for Use Permit to allow a six (6) unit residential-care home be approved as shown on Exhibit "A" subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. -5- Planning Commission Minutes - October 23~ 1973 - Continued II. E. C-171 - Mel DeSelle, Fifth Street - Request for Change of ZOning from "R-M-3,000" (Multi-Family Residential) to "C-C" (Community-Commercial) Chairman Lively opened the public hearing relative to C-171 at 8:42 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed and published and the appl{cant is requesting a Change of Zoning from "R-M" to "C-C" for the two°'0~'~'acre parcel which abuts the e~i~fn~"~'C" zone on Fifth Street. Tenants woul~ participate in ~ ~ any Par"f~ih~'D'i~tr~et formed'in that area. iCommissioner Smith suggested that, perhaps, the Planning Commission should consider for review a similar block of property at ·the other end of Eourth Street~ Rather·than just consider the one currgntly under consideration, Commissioner Marshall asked if it is the intention to develop on Big Basin Way and have a c6rridor parking strip and development at the rear of the parking strip or is the intention to build to the front and use the expansion as the parking area? The gecretary explained that the intent is to build at the front portion 'of the lot. He then read a Statement of Reason filed by the applicant and a correspondence flied by Mr. David Morrison of 19590 Juha Lane in opposition to the proposed Change of Zoning. Mr. Larry Tyler stated that this proposed Change of Zoning request would be in compliance with the parking district which was adopted several years ago, but not approved by the people in the district. The Secretary explained that those plans are available for review and consideration. Commissioner Martin stated he would like to see some combination plans of the T & F Development and the DeSelle properties bef6re · making a decision. Commissioner Belanger inquired if Mr. Tyler and Mr. DeSelle had discussed the possibility of coordinating the development of the two (2) adjacent properties. Mr. Tyler explained that yes they had and as a m~tter of fact the proposed Change of Zoning is a result of those discussions. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:52 P.M., directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred C-171 to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further study and review. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1075 - T & F Development, Big Basin Way and Fourth Street - Buildins Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from October 10~ 1973 The Secretary explained that this· is, also, a proposed development for the Village Area and is located at Fourth Street and Big Basin Way. Commissioner Marshall explained that this developer proposes to develop somthing like 40% or more of the remaining portion of the Village on the south side of Big Basin Wayl There are already three (3) interwoven developments in the Village and this would be the fourth and in addition there is the parking district. His concern is that the Planning Commission does not get too carried-away before it is seen how all these developments merge together. The Secretary explained that building-site approval does not constitute approval of any parking plan. The Design Review Committee would speak to the parking plan and ·coordination with the parking district itself. Commissioner Marshall stated that another matter that must be considered along with this is the abandonment of Fourth Street. The impact of all these items should be~considered~in total rather .~han individually. -6- ~ Planning Commission Minutes - October 23~ 1973 - Continued III. A. SDR-1075 - Continued The Secretary explained that the abandonment of Fourth Street .does not directly affect this property nor does it really affect the parking district itself. .~Chai.rman Lively noted that' the Village Plan has not been shown on the General Plan and he would like the Planning Consultant's recormnendation on this~ matter. Commissioner Marshall stated that an effort should be made by the developers of these properties for an integrated plan where everybody is in lockstep as to what. the City will wind up with in all respects. Commissioner Smith stated-that the parking-district situation is one that the Planning Commission should know something more about before going ahead with an~ of these individual applications, because if it takes as long to get this parking district through as it did the other one it will be four (4) or five (5) years from now before anything is settled. The Secretary explained that actually the plan that this developer proposes and in the case of the other properties that are in the parking district are in accord with the parking plan that was developed over the years and they do fit into that plan. Mr. Tyler explained that Mr. IrOnside, Planning Consultant for the City, is acquainted with those plans. Chairman Lively suggested that the matter be continued to allow time for further study. The Secretary explained that a written extension from the applicant is necessary before this matter can be continued. Mr. Tyler stated he will supply a written extension prior to November 1,' 1973. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to deny the request for Building Site Approval.for SDR-1075 unless a let. ter of extension is received from the applicant prior to the expiration date of November 1, 1975; motion carried unanimously. B. SDR-1076 - Almaden Development, Big Basin Way and/Fourth Street - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from October 10, 1973 The Secretary stated that in light of the action taken on SDR-1075 he would recommend a continued from SDR-1076 subject to receipt of a letter of ext~nsi6n:from the applicant. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to deny the request for Building Si'te Approval for SDR-1076 unless a letter of extension is received from the applicant prior to the expiration date of November 1, 1975; motion carried unanimously. C. SDR-1079 - Southland Corporation (7-11 Food Stores), Big Basin Way - Buildins Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from October 10~ 1973 The Secretary recommended that SDR-1079 be continued to the next regular meeting since purchase of that property is under consideration by the City. Chairman Lively so directed. -7'- Planning Commission Minutes - October 23~ 1973 - Continued III. D. SDR-1081 - James Dyer~ Vessing Road - Building Site Approval - 4 Lots The Secretary recommended that SDR-1081 be continued to the next regular meeting since the Public Works Department has requested the applicant to submit a revised map. Chairman Lively so directed. E. SDR-1082 - Charles Hecker~ Pierce Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary stated that the applicant had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and.expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Staff Report dated October 23, 1973 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed S~ptember 12, 1973) be·'approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. F. SDR-1083 - F.rank Schillace, Upper Hill Drive - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary recommended that SDR-1083 be continued to the next regular meeting in order to allow additional time to work out problems with soil stability and grading. Ch·airman Lively so directed. G. SD-1078 - AVCO Community Developers, Inc., Cox Avenue - Subdivision Approval - 18 Lots Commissioner Smith explained that the applicant did meetSwith the Subdivision Committee and was asked to work out a secondary access to Scully Avenue. The applicant has now presented a plan which is wholly unacceptable. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that Subdivision Approval for SD-1078 be denied on the basis the map as submitted was unacceptable;emotion carried unanimously. Mr. John Hanna, attorney for the applicant, was present and stated that 1) he was sorry he was unable to speak before the motion to deny was made and passed 2) at the time the maps for this subdivi- sion were originally prepared everyone assumed that the West Valley Freeway would be constructed 3) the subdivision proposed was sub- mitted with the idea that it would force the hand of the State to make a decision on this particular parcel 4) the matter did get a court decision, which required the City to approve the map pro- vided it met the Ordinance'requirements 5) at this point the State declared it had no further interest in this parcel so that left this property owner with a land-locked piece of property unless it can be tied into an adjacent developers property and 6) originally the though~ was that eventually the rest of the freeway strip would be developed and that would provide the needed access for the proposed development. Chairman Lively noted that there might be other ways to develop this property without as many lots that would be acceptable to the Planning Commission; however, the map as currently presented is not acceptable. The applicant can work with the Subdivision Committee and Staff to pro- duce a map for this develo}ment that would be acceptable to the Design Review Committee.'~'''~. RECESS AND RECONVENE -8- Planning Commission Minutes - October 23~ 1973 - Continued IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. James A. Rodrigues, Woodbank Way - Final Design Review Approval of Single-Family Residence - Continued from October 10, 1973 The Secretary read the Staff Report recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for this residence. Commissioner Marshall asked if the applicant had any comments rela- tive to the subject Staff Report? The Secretary explained that the applicant was notified that this matter would be on the agenda this evening and in view of the fact that he is not present he-Twou'ld ~.re~ommend that the matter be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directed. B. 'A~l'9'- T & F Development Co., Big Basin Way and Fourth St.reet - Preliminary Design Review - Commercial Building - Continued { from OctOber 10~ 1973 Chairman Lively directed A-419 continued to the next regular meeting due to the fact that SDR-1075 and SDR-1076 have not yet been approved and the Architectural AdvisOry Committee and the Design Review Committee are still in the process or reviewing this development. C. Landscaping and Fencing Policies re Planned Community Developments - Continued from October 10~ 1973 Commissioner Belanger submitted a report relative to Design Review Standards for "P-C" Development re fencihg and landscaping. Chairman Lively read the report which set forth general guidelines for the Planning Commission to use in reviewing design of fencing and landscaping in the "R-i-40,000" Planned Community area off of Fruitvale Avenue. Commissioner Marshall stated that he felt that planting rather than plain solid fencing is the more ideal solution since it is softer and gives a more pleasant environment wi~h a see through quality. If the owners of property in the "P-C" development are interested in delineatiod of their lot. lines there are other ways of accomplishing this other than solid,wood fences. Commissioner Smith inquired if the prgperty is fenced to the prescribed limit of Type "A" (described in the Design Review Standards) is it possible for the owner to go on with Type "C" and fence the rest of the property. Commissioner Belanger responeded that since Type "C" fencing involved plants she could see no objection to that. Commissioner Matteoni stated he had some concern regarding box, type hedges that would be equivalent of boar~ fencing in providing· screening. Commissioner Marshall stated that there are certain piantings that are as effective as solid-wood fencing and these form an·~m~en~51~·.screen- ing. · Commissioner Matteoni stated there would be a 16-foot strip outside the fenced area that might present some maintenance problems, but would be a further break from the~Bo"~'d~'f~l~'Bk. i· Commissioner Belanger stated, perhaps, something more specific could be added to the standards about this 16-foot strip landscaping. -9- Planning Commission Minutes - October 23~ 1973 - Continued IV. C. Landscaping and Fencing - Continued Commissioner Martin noted that it seemed landscaping along the outside of the fencing constitutes double fencing. Some of the residents of the "P-C" Development were present and expressed their oppostion to the proposed set of standards sub- mitted for consideration by. the Chairman of the Design Review Committee. : Commissioner Marshall stated that most of the existing one-acre areas in the Saratoga (with the exception of tract developments) do not have perimeter fencing. Chairman Lively explained that it was the intent of the "P-C" Development to create open-Space for the City of Saratoga as well as the residents of the area. Mrs. Margaret Dunn ofi9521 Douglass Avenue stated that with the West Valley Junior College and tennis courts across the street from this development the rural open-space atmosphere is gone'~? therefore, if the residents of this development desire fencing around their property they should be allowed to have same. Chairman Lively stated the ~eveloper intends to plant a screening buffer from Fruitvale Avenue and West Valley Junior College, and create a green-belt area around this "P-C" Development. Mr. Norton, resident of the "P-C" Development, stated that there is no means of irrigating these landscaped buffer areas and in effect the residents of this development have become the owners of these areas and responsible for the maintenance; however, with- out wate~ maintenance will be difficult. Commissioner Belanger explained that the Design Review Committee is scheduled to meet with the developer of the "P-C" Community on Tuesday, October 30, 1973 and all interested residents of the area are welcome to attend and discuss these matters at that time. Chairman Lively directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Design Review Committee. D. Tract 5244 - Osterlund Enterprises, Inc. - Saratoga and Cox Avenues - Final Design Review - Lots 7 and 8 - Continued from October 10~ 1973 Chairman Lively read the Staff Report dated October 23, 1973 recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for Tract 5244. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Staff Report dated October 23, 1973 relative to Tract 5244 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for lots ~7 and 8 in Tract 5244 as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B"; motion carried unani- mously. V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT None VI. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. Almaden Development Corporation, Oak Street - Request for City Abandonment of a Portion of 4th Street - Continued from October 10~ 1973 The Secretary stated that Mr. Trinidad of the Department of Public Works has a recommendation on this matter. -10- Planning Commission Minutes - October 23~ 1973 - Continued VI. A. Almaden Development - Continued Mr. Trinidad explained that the Public Works Department has studied this request and recommend against the abandonment of Fourth Street at this time since the connection tO Big Basin Way and Oak Street is physically possible., F~urth Street may be more desirable as the interconnect with Oak Street than is Third Street since Fourth would make a full four-way intersection at Big Basin Way and is, therefore, more likely to warrant a traffic signal. Also, if properly constructed, it can have a '~e'~e'Y ~.lope and a flat landing area at Oak Street. It would be advisable to!wait until the Planning Consultants make a recommendation relative to this matter in the General Plan Review. Chairman Lively directed the matter be held in abeyance until such time as the Planning ConsUltant's recommendation is received. B. John Vance - Request for Reconsideration of Conditions AllOwing 50% of Residences to be Two-Story The Secretary stated that a communication has been received from' Mr. and Mrs. Vance summarizing information that restates their postion on the matter of the Osterlund Development at the north- east corner of Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues. Mr. Vance was presentaand stated he would like to remind the Commission there is a petition on file with fifty-six (56) signatures protesting the construction of two-story homes in the Osterlund Development at the corner of Fruitvale and Allendale Avenue. The Secretary explained that the matter could~wait until after the. adoption of the two-story ordinance. The Emergency Ordinance relating to two-story construction applies only to existing h'omes proposed for second story additions. Chairman Lively referred the matter back to the Subdivision Committee for study and a report. C. .Referral of Land Development Matter in Santa Clara County for Stanley R. Lee~ McGill and Bohlman/Roads The Secretary explained that this is a proposal before the County Planning Commission and involves a four'.z (4) lot subdivision in Saratoga's Sphere of Influence. He then recommended that the matter be continued to the next regular meeting to allow additiOnaln"time for study and preparation of a recommendation. Chairman Lively so directed and referred the matter to the Staff for further study and a report. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Fire Access Road from Ambric Knolls to Toll Gate The Secretary read a petition received from the residents of Ambric Knolls Road requesting that careful consideration be given before allowing the closing of the fire access road from Ambric Knolls Road'tb~th~.2Toll Gate subdivision since this is the only means of secondary access. Chairman Lively referred the matter to the Staff for study and a report. -11- Planning'Commission Minutes - October 23~ 1973 - Continued vII. A. 2. Letter from R. B. Wilds The Secretary read a communication received from R. B. Wilds of 14633 Ambric"' Knolls Road suggesting several minor modifi- cations at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue, Big Basin Way and Saratoga-Sunnyvaler Road. He then stated that the matter has been referred to the Department of Public Works. 3. Memo to Planning CommiSsion The Secretary noted~. the '.~Ci~t,y ~Manager ' s memo in answer to a request made by the Planning Commission ]to have the ."~i~'At'FF~n~ey and City Manager initiate whatever legal proceed- ings 'a'~e necessary to cause the West Valley Jr. College District to desist from further. development of the Saratoga Campus contrary to plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The memo explained that the City Manager and the City Attorney cannot initiate legal action but can only follow through on its implementation once the City Council has approved such action. 4. Letter from Mrs. T. G.' Roland The Secretary read a communication received from Mrs. T. G. Roland of 20812 Fourth' Street expressing her objections to the location of ai~.7-11 Store at the former Richfield Station site 'on Big Basin Way. Chairman Lively directed the '.c.ommunication be noted and filed. B. ORAL 1. LAFCO The Secretary stated that LAFCO has asked that any ideas or suggestions in connection with the review of the Urban Service Area should be submitted and a map will be put together and the matter will be placed on the agenda for formal review. 2. WVJC Commissioner Marshall explained that he resigned from the West Valley Junior College Board and afeer considerable discussion with the representatives from the College he felt they were, also, concerned about the necessity of improved communications between the College and the City. Even though they felt the College went more than half way in trying to bridge the gap. Maybe things could be improved if the College Staff could better interface with the City Staff. Commissioner Belanger pointed out that the College does not have City approval for the .lighting for the tennis courts. Commissioner Marshall .explained that the contract for the lighting for the tennis courts has already been let. The Staff of the two political bodies should get together and sort out what has been approved and what has not been approved. Chairman Lively noted that, perhaps, .this can best be accomplished by working through the City Manager. -12- Planning Commission Minutes - October 23~ 1973 - Continued iLB. 3. Meeting Night for the Planning Commission Commissioner Smith recommended that the regular schedule for meeting nights (second and fourth Monday of each month) be changed because of the frequency of holidays falling on those Mondays. Chairman Lively requested the Secretary to look into this situation and come back with a satisfactory alternate date by the next regular meeting. 4. Guests Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Mary Moss of the Good Government Group, Mark Roberts and Lou Tersini of Osterlund Enterprises. He, also, thanked Ms. Moss for the coffee served at recess. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the .meeting of October 23, 1973 be adjourned at 11:45 P.M.; motion carried unan imou sly. Respectfully submitted, Secretary ' Saratoga Planning Commission J -13 -