Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-1977 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~BIISSION MINUTES lATE: Wednesday, February 9~ 1977 - 7:30 p.m. vLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale AVenue, Saratoga, California iYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Martin and Zambetti Absent: None B. MINUTES Commi~$.ioner_Ma~_hal!._moy¢~,__.~eqon~e~_.bX_gOmmi~ione~ _Lu~t.~,_fhat the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of January 26, 1977 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission, subject to the following correction: page 11, Item B, first paragraph - change word "landscape" to~'l~d~Wap.'' The motion was carried unanimously. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Composition of Consent Calendar Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the composition of the Consent Calendar of February 9, 1977)be appr0~d. The motion was carriFd unanimously. B. Items of Consent Calendar "Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Z~YiU'Yh~f'fh~Pl~"fi~i~g 'C~'fssxoD jgrant approval to the following application: ~t. Design Review a. 'ALSS6 - Saratoga ~o~hills Development .Corporation,-Du~ham Court,..Final D~sign' Revie~ A~oval ,_ Lot #5: Of Tract '#S893 ' -. 'Per .LEXhib. it L"A" ~and'the ' staff .... ~eDOrt d~t~ _~pbr~a~K_8 ,_ 1977; .'~s amend~ j .- .......... .' ' ~ ' ' j ' ' .. The motion was carried unanimously. III. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-1254 - Dividend Industries, Saratoga-Sunny~ale Road and Cox Avenue, 48 Lots - Request for Reconsideration of Conditions VIII-C and VIII-E (NOTE:. T~s matter was discussed at its agendized time, as well as after the Commission'-' recess at which time the applicant was present.) Note was made that the aeplicant was requesting ~n Writing reconsideratio~ 0f.Cpn~i~ion's :vIII-c and VIII-E of tentative subdivision appr6val~S~-~25~4~fSIl~.'s: C. Prior to final subdivision approval, Design Review Approval is required. E. ~vo-story structures are prohibited along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Staff explained that the-appeal period for this application had expired, and noted that the applicant had consequenti~.requ~sted of the City Council that Condition VIII-C be omitted in order to allow him.the opportunity to record the subdivision's final map. ~It was explained that the City Council referred this reque§t to the Planning con{m~s~ion" ~r'Con~ideration. ' ....... -1- PLANNING CO~tlSSION MINHJTES OF 2-9-77 III. A. SD-1254 - Dividend Industries - Cont'd It was pointed out that the Design Review Connnittee reviewed this request at its meet- ing of February 8, 1977, with note being made that the applicant desired to record his final map as soon as possible in order to sell individual lots to other7developers. It was explained that the final subdivision ~ap eould reflect the condition that Design Review AppRoval was'reqhir~d on each'lot'Within the subdivision. .Walter Muir, applicant, contended {H~F'~He matter of b'~i~H"R~ieY~ppro~'~l"~f ~h~ ihd~viaual l~s ~'w~ ~"fO~"~wo~£ory structures 'shou'la not' be addressed aS'part' of the subdivision approval, but rather ~h'~I~ybe handled at the time of individual design review application submission. FUrther, Mr. Muir stated that when the City Council recommended that he request this modification before the Commission, it was also suggested that he request reconsideration of Condition VIII-E regarding the pro- hibition of 2-story structures along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Muir stated that his architect could design two-story structures along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road~i~ '-from Highway 9, would appear to look like one-story homes. He explained that the roof p~tch in th~"rear'Qodid"be t'h~'~Rme as a single-story structure, yet the homeo~mers would have the advantage of a two-story home in the front. He stated that if the Commission would not delete this condition, then they would be reducing the design possibilities of t'his subdivision. He added that because of the 20-foot scenic easement along Sara- toga-Sunnyvale Road, the backyards of these sites had been reduced, and he contended that two-story structures would provide more rearyard~space for these lots. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. The consensus of the Planning Commis- sion was to revise the entire Section VIII of the Staff Report dated September 2, 1976 as follows: A. All project grading shall be contoured to retain natural topographic characteristics of site. (This condition was not changed.) B. Landscaping, sprinkler system and fencing along Saratoga-Sunn)~ale Road and Cox Avenue frontage is required with Design Review Approval. This includes design and landscaping of the scenic easement on Saratoga-Sunny- vale Road. C. The removal of any trees within the subdivision, except those in the streets rights-of-way and those designated as orchard trees, is prohibited. (Note was made by Mr. B~ir that only 2 lots out of the .prQp~e.d__4Lw-ould "~ave a potential problem relative to tree removal.) D'."Pribr'to'iSSuance of building permi't~ fo~ ~ingie-famii~'~e~idences, Design Review Approval iS required. ~E. Prior to final approval developer is to enter into Landscape Maintenance ~ Agreement with City and establish, through CC&Rs a landscape maintenance ~ district. The.CC&R's to be reviewed by_C__i~y Attorney_prior to final _~pp~Oval. to assure comple~ion of said condition. (This condition was not changed.) F. Two-story structures are prohibited along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Placement of all two-story structures within the subdivision shall be subject to Design _RevieY.APProva!- _ With regards to the above-referenced Condition (F), there was a difference of opinion expressed by the Commission. The Secretary suggested that this be modified to read:' "~'o-Story structures are prohibited along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road unless otherwise approved under Design Review Approval." · Commissioner Marshall felt that all two-story structures.within the-subdivision should be pinpointed on the final map. e Commissioners Callon, Belanger and Zambetti favored the condition as originally cited, pointing out that the intent of the condition had originally been to actually prohibit two-story structures along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. It was noted that the Commission's concerns at that time were based on the noise problems that two~y i structures ~iV~ ~ee '~h~e~ ~ ~n~ ~i~ ~r~aor, as werl~'fh~ Vi~'C~l""'bowli~'-~r~- '~.~ey aff~t.i!_I_~' was. ~0~e~ by ~aff that~ per~f-iw'p~ans submitted by the applicant -2- PLANNING CO~IISSION MINUTES OF 2~9-77 1II. A. SD-1254 Dividend Industries - Cont'd jthere were ~ive two-story structures proposed along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Staff explained that according to the applicant's sound engineer,. he did not/feel these twoL .story structures would have a problem with noise as long as there were no windows on =the sides or rears of the structures. Commissioner Callon noted that options had been given to the applicant at the time of tentative approval which included designing a street along the 20-foot easement which would have-.-allowed two-story homes to front onto Saratoga-Sunn,vvale Road. She noted that the applicant's response had been that the o~eyal{ ~0t yield would decrease with such a proposal. Commissioner Zambetti stated thaf he felt t~n~: design option for two-story structures .along Saratoga-Sunnyva~e Road ~h'~rd'~?eliminated at this. time so that ~i~cussion iof same would not h~ve to occur at th~ time of design review submission. With ~egards to the concern expressed by Mr. Muir relative to the de- creased rearyards of these Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road lots, Chairman Belanger pointed out that the applicant was under no obligation to build large houses on these frontage lots. · Commissioners Laden, Lustig and Martin found the Secretary's proposed condition to be acceptable. Commissioner Lustig stated that he would not be in favor of two- story houses on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, but he expressed the opinion that the appli- cant should be given an opportunity to present his views relative to alternative de- signs. Commissioner Martin expressed the concern that in the future if there were two-story structures located across from this subdivision, individual owners could apply for a two-story use permit for conversion of their single-story homes. He stated that if this was a possibility, he would ~refer having two-story homes along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road designed all at once at this time instead of in a piecemeal fashion. The Secretary stated that according to the ~vo-Story Ordinance, anyone within the City with an existing single-story house could applX for a two-story _ conversion use .p~rmit at any:time, and that each application would have tO/be judged :on an ~ndividual basis. He added, however, that the subdivision's CC&Rs could pro- hibit two-story structures along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. At this time Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti~. that the Planning E~'i~ion approve reconsideration of conditions relative to SD-1254 as written 'above. The motion was carried: Commissioners Laden, Lustig and Martin voted no. ~CH~i~ Belanger ~d~l~'d'~H~ applicant that he could appeal this decision to the' City Council within 1S days of Commission action if he so desired. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. V-461 William and Margaret Reid, 21110 Canyon View Drive, Request for Variance from the Requirements of Section 3.7-2 o~ Zoning Ordinance NS-S to Allow a Reduction from Sixty (60) Feet to Forty-Five (45) Feet in the Minimum Required Rearyard Setback for a New ~,o-Story House at 20057 Canyon View Drive in the "R-i-40,000" Zone; Continued from January 26, 1977 Note was made that this was a request for a reduction in the required rearyard setback, as part of the two-story ordinance, for a multi-story structure. It was noted that a design review application (A-549) had also been submitted concurrently with this appli- cation. It was pointed out that both the Variance and Design Review Committees had reviewed these applications and had made on-site inspections, and it was noted that Staff Reports had been prepared on both applications recommending approval. Commissioner Martin stated that per the Variance Committee's review, they felt the var- iance'would be. the best solution to the problems associated with this lot. Commissioner Martin e'xplained that if a variance was not granted and the applicant .domplied with , the 60-foot setback requirement, the house would have to be located on a steeper por- tion of the lot and would consequently require more grading. Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on V-461 at 8:00 p.m. As there w-e~e no comments, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the public hearing on V-461 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:01 p.m. Discussion followed on the design review application on this site (A-549)7'Co~mi~ioner Lustig explained that the house should not be considered as a pole structure, but ra~h~r a post and beam structure. He stated that the Design Review Committee felt that this design would be a very attractive addition to this area. PL.~NNING CO~B~ISSION MINUTES OF 2-9-77 IV. A. V~461 - William and Margaret Reid - Cont'd A question was raised relative to the location of the proposed swimming pool, as re- flected on Exhibit "A" of"~Concern was expressed that the swimming_.pool should be located on a flatter'pad in the rearyard area rather than in the side yard loca.i ..... tion shown on the exhibit. After discussion of this'concern, the Staff Report on A-549 was modified by the Commission as follows: e The fourth paragraph under Project Description referencing the proposed' swimming pool was deleted. e Condition (2) under Recommended Action was modified as follows: "Final details for the swimming pool and appurtenant structures are to be sub- mitted to the Planning Commission for approva}'~ The pool as sho~m on Exhibit "A" is not approved." The Secretary introduced into the record a letter dated January 27, 1977 from John A. Colistra, 21050 Canyon View Drive, requesting the Commission to require that Mr. Reid share in the prorata cost of the installation of a fire hydrant on Canyon View Drive. The Secretary explained that Mr. Colistra, and the adjacent property owner, Mr. Laughlin, had their respective building site applications reviewed by the Commission~at the same time. He pointed out that both applicants agreed at the time of receiving tentative site approval (June 11, 1975) to share in the cost of the installation of a fire hydrant as required by the Fire District. The Secretary noted that said hydrant had been in- stalled thus meeting the condition of the Fire District, and that now Mr. Colistra de- sired a reimbursement for said cost from Mr. Reid. It was explained that when Mr. Reid received building site approval, he was not conditioned to share in the cost of the fire hydrant installation (October 7, 1976). Consequently, it was pointed out that this request was not timely. At thi. s point Commissioner Callon encouraged Mr. Colistra in his attempts to try to convince the Reids to participate in the sharing of the cost for the fire hydrant, adding: "Because I really do believe that when everyone in a development shares in the benefits, they ought to share a portion of the cost." Staff was instructed to notify Mr. Colistra that his ~equest was untimely. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, t.hat the Planning Commission grant approval to application V-461 per Exhibit "A" and subject to the Staff Report dated February 4, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to.application A-549 per Exhibit "A" and per the Staff Report dated February 4, 1977, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. B. C-187 - Osterlund Enterprises, Inc., 59 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, Request for Rezoning from "R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential, Very Low Density) to "R-i-20,000" (Single-Family Residential, Low Density) for the Southerly 2.3± Acres of that 10.7± Acre Parcel O~med by the Campbell Union School District Located on North Side of Allendale Avenue between Dolphin Drive and Via Alto Court (Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Article 18); Continued from January 26, 1977 Chairman Belanger-'reopened the public hearing on C-187 at 8:25 p.m. Staff noted that the Subdivision Committee met with the applicant and several neighbors regarding this application, as well as the application for the compan{on subdivision. Specifically, it was explained that the neighbors expressed concern relative to the pro- posed circulation pattern of extending Fortuna Court to Allendale Avenue, and Staff pointed out that alternative circulation patterns had been discussed. It was noted that the applicant had submitted an alternative plan proposing that no connection be made from Allendale Avenue to Fortuna Court, but rather, using the emergency access onto Harleigh Drive. Co._mm~SS~9~F.._M~hall added that this proposed plan would not violate the City's policies relative to access, and he stated that such a plan would make use of the emergency exit which was preserved by the City Council on Harleigh Drive. Staffj stated that a report had not been prepared as yet pending further review of the proposed circulation pattern. Jim Harper, representative of the applicant, requested that action be taken on this re- zoning application at this meeting. He pointed out that the rezoning would only affect the actual subdivision and its circulation pattern by 2 lots. PL~NNING'CO~51ISSION MINUTES OF 2-9-77 ~V. B. C-187 - Osterlund Enterprises, Inc. Cont'd Discussion followed on this request, with note being made that a Staff Report-would'~ot be necessary for the Commission to take action on this application. The Secretary ex- plained that per City ordinances, the Commission was not bound to consider a Staff Report; however, the Staff was bound by ordinance to prepare a report. He added that the only finding that would be required of the Commission in its motion on this application would be iah~he rezonlng~'~6'dl'd'be consistent ~i~h the General anP~d'it'~do'Ft~d'~le'~S. 'As there were ~o additional comments, Commissi6ner Marshall moved, seconded by commis- si~er'E~i'~th~ '~"p~biic"Kea~ing'0~ c-187 be closed. The motion was carried unani- mously, and the public hearing on C-187 was closed at 8:35 p.m. Connnissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Plannin~'C0~mission make the finding~-~ that application C-187 for rezoning from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 is consistent with the 1974 General Plan and its adopted elements, and transmit the recom- mendation to the City Council that C-187 be approved. Discussion followed on this motion. Commissioners Callon and Zambetti stated that they would not be in favor of this action. Commissioner Zambetti stated that approvln'~ this rezoning would better enable other R-1-40,000 lots fronting on Allendale Avenue to receive ~imilar rezonings, and he stated that he did not approve of the increased lots, increased traffic on Allendale Avenue, and the increased number of driveway-rentrances onto Allendale Avenue that these changes of zoning could effect. Commissioner Callon pointed out that the General Plan had specified Allendale Avenue as being a particularly difficult street with .Fegard~ to trafEic patterns, and'~he stated that she could not vote in favor of even 2 more lots fronting onto this street. 'AdditioHally, she stated that philosophically she could not support zoning that would permit more?.houses iH one area, while the City was calling for lower density in other areas within the City, is., the hillsides. Commissioner Marshall reminde~ the Commission that previously it made a recommendation to the City Council that R-1-40,000 frontage lots on Allendale Avenue be rezoned to "R-1-20,000" to provide for better transitional zoning. He noted that the City Council had not as yet acted on this recommendation; and he pointed out that as presently zoned, R-1-40,000 was not consistent with the General Plan in that this area was called out for medium density zoning. He stated that he would be voting in favor of this rezoning application because h~felt it important to remain consistent with previous Commission action. He added that the concern relative to possible future development would only involve 3 pieces of property on Allendale Avenue, and he stated that this was of less import ~t~iFt'ha~fh~b'~f'ppal~i~g ~f'~h~ire area. Regarding the concern' expressed relative to additional driveways, Commissioner Marshall noted that this change of zoning could effect one ~'~iYio~d~'iveway entrance onto Allendale Avenue. Regarding Commissioner Callon's concern relative to'h~ll~ide densityy'C'O.~issio'ner~= Marshall pointed out that the General Plan consultant recommended that the Commission consider increasing the density in the flatlands of the City in order ko preserve the lower density in the hillsides. He stated that although he did not agree with the R-1-6~000 zone that the consultant suggested, he did feel that R-1-20,000 lots were of a relatively large size. Commissioner Marshall ended his statements bf pointing out that at the last publi6 hearing those neighbors who expressed concern over this applica- tion were only mildly concerned with the actual change of zoning. He added that their /ma3or concerns were with regards to the p~iSle extension of Fortuna Court. At this time the motion made by Commissioner Marshall was carried; Commissioners Callon and Zambetti voted no. V. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-529 - W.C. Garcia & Associates, Prospect Road and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval 1 Lot Commercial; Continued from November'f0, 1977 Staff recommended that this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meet.ipg of March 23, 1977. It was explained that?when ~-529 and A-530 were continued to the LFebruary 9th meetlng~ it was felt by staff that these applicatlo~'~i~h~ be ready for .... action. Staff noted, however, that the applicant was still in the pr?cess of 0~aining -5- PLANNING CO~IISSION MINUT] OF 2-9-77 V. A. A-529 - W.C. Garcia ~ Associates - Cont'd information requested by the Commission relative to this pr'~j'ect, and that a status " report of the findings made thus far would be presented at a special Conunission Committee- of-the-~%~ole meeting s~heduled for February 17, 1977 at 7:00 p.m. in the Crisp Conference Room. It was added that this particular item had been allotted 30 minutes for present- ing the status 'report on the 17th. Staff also noted that the Land Deyelop~en~_ ~9.m~__itt_e.~ had not as yet granted tentative building site approval to these applications pending receipt of the i~formation requested by the Commission, and it was the opinion of the -' Secretary that final design review approval of A-529 and A-530 would not be granted by the Commission until tentative site approval had been granted. Two members of the Northwest Saratoga Homeo~mers' Association, Frank Siegle and Dick Hathaway, expressed concern over the short notice of.these items on the February · Commission meeting, as well as over the short amount of 'time given to ~his item at 'the Febrdary 17th Committee-of-the-I~ole meeting. The Commission explained that the Committee-of-the-~%~ole meeting would be addressing the Bohlman Road slide area, the hillside water assessment district and the General Plan amendments, along with this shopping center project; and it was pointed out that this special meeting had been scheduled as a report session only. Additionally, the Commission explained that no action would be taken on any item agendized at this Special meeting. Relative to the complain~ issued by Mr. Hathaway regarding the short notice, Commissioner Marshall noted that per State law the City was required to continue agendized matters to a date specific so that members of the audience would be on notice as to when an item would next be heard by the Commission. He pointed out that both Mr. Siegle and Mr. Hathmqay had been present at the November 10, 1976 Commission meeting at which time this matter was continued, and he expressed the opinion that there was an obligation on the part of the public to remember to what date interested items were continued. It was added that at the time of the November 10th meeting, Staff had made an educated guess that by the Commission meeting of March 9, 1977 this project would be ready for design review approval. It was noted that the recommendation to continue these items to the Commis- sion meeting of March 23, 1977 was also based on an educated guess. Members of the public ~ere invited to attend the Committee-of-the-t%~ole meeting to receive-} along with members of the Commission and Staff, a status report on this shopping center project. It was reiterated that this session was for receiving status reports only, and that no action would be taken.. Chairman Belanger directed that applications A-529 and A-530 be continued to ~he Planning Commission meeting of March 23, 1977, and she referred these matters to the Design Review Committee for further review. B. A-530 - Ira Kirkorian, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Commercial; Continued from November 10, 1976 See Item V-A. C. A-537 - Security Pacific National Bank, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Commercial; Continued from January 26, 1977 Note was made that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter on several occa- sions, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. The following comments were made by the Commission relative to the design of the building: e Commissioner Lustig stated that although he was not satisfied with the corners of the building, he felt it appropriate to take favorable action on this application. · Commissioner Marshall stated that he felt the roof was representative of.other , Security Pacifid bank buildings, and he expressed the opinion that the design was "totally distasteful in terms of matching our stated desire for. the Village." ® Chairman Belanger stated that she did not like the design of the building, and intended to vote against approval of this application. o Commissioner Laden stated that she had difficulty in determining what the "Village design" was, pointing out that although this building was not of a Victorian or Spanish mode, she felt it would be a benefit to the Village. She pointed out that she felt the Bank would:maintain'the building and landscaping "as opposed to some of our Victorian structures with paint peeling and weeds growing in the front yards.-' .~? ar~ loo~ing ~or people:coming to the Village to do business, and to me this is -6- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE, S OF 2-9-77 V. C. A-537 - Security Pacific - Cont'd ..... more appealing than'rs~me"'o~'~'~resent structure~'t~"'~'~ave in the Village." She added: "I see many buildings downtm~m that in no way are we going to get rid of or improve much on, and they are still going to be there as a blight." She stated that she did not f~na the proposed building objectionable, and she favored approval of same. .o Commissioner Martin agreed with Commissioner Laden's comments, further pointing out that he felt it to be inappropriate for the Commission to tell the applicant that he was not matching the design of the do~mtm~m district when there were several build- ings do~to~m that were as modern in design as the proposed Bank building. ® Due to the division of opinion on this design, Commissioner Marshall suggested that the Commission refer this matter to the Architectural Review Committee for "an objective view of whether or not in their judgment this design fits in with the downto~m pattern." It was noted that this Committee was comprised of 3 professionals (~h"~hitect, a designer and a landscape architect) who on occasion offered their ~ professional judgment on design review matters. It was added that this Commi'ttee had no negotiating power, and that it met infrequently. Commissioners Zambetti and Callon both agreed to this proposal. Commissioner Callon stated, however, that if referral to this Committee meant a delay past the next Commission meeting, she would ;favor approval of thi~ design. James Foug, applicant's architect, requested that he be allowed to present his views be- fore the Architectural Review Committee when it met. Commissioner Marshall explained that the Architectural Review Committee ususally did not meet with applicants "because one is starting to get into the professional challenge-type of thing." It was concluded, however, that the applicant could meet with the Design Review Committee subsequent to the Architectural Review Committee's review. At this time Commissiner Laden moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-S37 per Exhibit "D" and the Staff Report dated February 8, 1977. The motion was-not carried; Commissioners L~dFn, Lustig and Martin voted yes; Commissioners Belanger, Callon7 Marshall and"'Zambetti voted no. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that applTi~"~ioYAzS~' be referred to the Architectural Design Committee for review and report to the Design Review Committee for subsequent report to the Planning Commission at its meeting of February 23, 1977. The motion was carried: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Marshall and Zambetti voted yes; Commissioners Laden, Lustig and Martin voted no. Alexander Passovoy, representative of the applicant, stated that the Bank had!engaged_ Mr. Foug "because we consider him possibly to be one of the most outstanding:ardh~tects in the area. He has an outstanding reputation, and I feel I must defend it." 'Wi~h regards to the motion referring this matter to the A~chitectural Review Committee, Mr. Passovoy stated tha~ ~_e~fh'Fresult of this review would ZS~"'~d~i~H'b~ committee." He .contended that the result~ w'r6~fd' not be to anyone~nF.A~i't'i~IIY,'~'~'~i't~'~e~''~ Mr.'Foug's request that the Bank be all6wed to meet'with the Architectural Review Commit- tee during its review of this matter. At this point Chairman Belanger referred A-S37 to the Architectural Review Committee for review, and continued this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 1977. D. A-S49 - William and Margaret Reid, 21110 Canyon View Drive, Final Design Review-'Approval Single-Family Residence Located on Canyon View Drive; Continued from 1-26-77 See Item IV-A (V-461) : E. A-SS1 - Henry Fallek, Pike Road, Final Design Review Approval - Single-Family Residence (SDR-1292) - 1 Lot Staff noted that the Land Development Committee had not as yet granted tentative build- ing site approval to SDR-1292, and it was requested that this matter be continued. Chairman Belanger directed that A-SS1 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 1977, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. PLANNING COB~ISSION MINUTES OF ~-9-77 VI. MISCELLANEOUS A. Tracts #5922, #S923 and #5924 - James Day Construction Company and Eldred Kunkel Con- struction Company - Chester Avenue, Request for Opep. Space Credit Commissioner Marshall pointed out that the Subdivision Committee and Staff concurred in its recommendation that the applicants be granted a 50% credit for open space fees. He noted that all findings had been made per the Subdivision Ordinance No. 60, Section 13.8-6, and he added that the Committee felt this was an extraordinary situation in that the applicants were still donating more land to the City than was required. After brief discussion, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin~ that the Planning Commission make the findings'as outlined in the Staff Report dated____ January 28, 1977, and forward the recommendation 'to the City Council for approval of' the request fo'~i~b'~FFement of S0% ~or opep space fees on Tracts #5922, #5923 and #5924. THe m6tion was carried unanimously. B. SDR-1282 - Martinskis & Associates, Madrone Hill Road, 1 Lot - Appeal of LDC Requirements Regarding Fire Protection Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further review of this request with the Fire District and Water District. Chairman Belanger directed that SDR-1282 be con- tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 1977, and referred this matter to the Staff and Subdivision Committee for further review and report. VII. COB-B~UNICATIONS A. Written 1. Letter dated February 7, 1977 from Jane E. Hagan, 15401Bohlman Road, requesting a policy statement from the Planning Commission with regards to making additions to existing structures now within the Bohlman Road study area. Staff was directed to inform Ms. Hagan that a Committee-of-the-~ole meeting was scheduled for February 17, 1977 at 7:00 p.m. in the Crisp Conference to discuss such a policy. 2. Senior Citizen Housing Task Force Report.was given to the Commissioners for ze~Lie~t.__ =A cover memorandum dated February 7, 1977 was also introduced_ into .~he recordL{rom ~the CityL~anager requesting the Commiss{~Y'~' aft~d~nce at a City Council Committee- jFfrtth~--I~l'e~i~g to review this report. Note was made that said Committee-of-the ~ole meeting was ~cheduled for February 22, 1977 at 7:30 p.m. in the Meeting Room of the-Saratoga Community Center located on Allendale Avenue. B. Oral 1. The 'Secretary gave a brief oral report of the City Council m~eting held on February 2, 1977. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City Administration office. 2. Chairman Belanger continued the matter of Committee Organization to a future Commission meeting subsequent to the City Council app6intment of a new Commissioner to replace Commissioner Martin.. 3. Commissioner Lustig requested that Staff provide name tags for the Commissioners to wear at Subcommittee meetings for identification purposes. 4.Chairman Belanger welcomed Councilwoman Corr to the Planning Commission meeting, and expressed appreciation to the Good Government Group for serving coffee. VIII. ADJOURN~IENT Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 1977 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at ll:IS p.m. RespeCtfully submitted, / ~{a~ Van Duyn, ~ecr~y sko/