Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-1969 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAraTOGA PL~i~INING CO~,D!ISSION MINUTES TIME: Monday, 10 November 1969, 7:30 P.M.~ PIY~CE: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale Av&nue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Chairman Norton. A. ROLL CALL Present: Coma~issioners Bacon, Cri~p, Lively, Metcalf, Norton, and Smith. Absent: Co~n~issioner ~aus. B. MINUTES Co~issioner Smith moved, seconded by Comnissioner ~isp, that the reading of the minutes of the 27 October 1969 meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the follc~.Ting changes: page 1. . .under II. A. . .paragraph 1. .line 2. ..change "he" to "it"; page 1. . .under II. B.. .paragraph 2. . .line 1. .change "7:34" to 7:35"; page 2. . .under II. E. . .paragraph 8. . .line 4. . .change "times" to "items"; page 4.. .under VII. A.. .paragraph 4.. .line 2. . .delete "is referred to" and instead insert "should be decided y; motion ,carried with Conm~issioner Metcalf abstaining. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-170 - Saratoga Tennis Club, Komina Avenue - Request f,L,r Use Permit to Allow E>=pansion of Tennis Club - Continued fro~:~ 27 'October 1969 Chairman Norton re-opened the hearing at 7:36 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 10 November 1969 recommending that the subject Use Permit b'e granted. ~ ~. Foster, present to represent 6he applicant, stated that 1) he would request that Condition (3) of the Subject Staff Report be amended to allow use of the tennis courts at 7:00 AiM. and 2) playing could be 'limited to the rear courts at this time. Commissioner Smith stated that 1) 'the use of the co,=rts at the proposed time ~.~ould not be practical on Saturdays and Sundays 2) the Staff Report could be amended to allow playing at 7:00 A.M. on Mornday through Friday and 3) the parking requirements stated in the Zoning Ordinance have been met by the applicant. Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded'by Com~nissicner Bacon, to close the hear- ing at 7:46 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded :.by Commi.~s$.o~er Crisp, to'adopt, as amLnded, the Staff Report dated 10 November '. 1969 g~'nting the ~se Permit to allow expansion of~ the tennis club on the basiskt'h'e'f'inding's required under Section 16.6 of Ordinance NS-3 can be made and ~ubject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 10 November 1969 - Continued lIo B. UP-177 - William Kenny, Inc., Saratoga Avenue - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Real Estate InveStment Office - Continued from 27 October 1969 Contmissioner Smith stated that 1)'the Subdivision Connnittee did meet with the applicant 2) the required ~p revisions relative to UP-177 have not yet been made and 3) the parking requirements are still being worked out by the applicant. Chairman Norton, in view of the foregoing, did not open the hearing in connection with UP-177, directed the F~tter continued to the ne~t regular meeting and referred same back to'the Subdivision Comn~ittee. C. V-338 - San Jose Water Works, Pike Road - Request for Variance in Connection with Installation of a NeW Power Pole - Continued from 27 October 1969 The hearing relative to V-338 was re-opened at 7:48 P.M. The Secretary · ~ stated that nothing new had been added to the file. Co~issioner Crisp read the Variance Conm~ittee Report dated 10 November 1969 recommending that the subjec~ Variance be denied. Commissioner Crisp then recommended that the subject Variance Committee Report be amended as follows: page 1. .paragraph 3. . .line 1. . .change "hearing" tO "hearings"; change "was" to "were"; and change the end of the sentence to read "14 October 1969 and 27 October 1969"; page 2. . .paragraph 4. . .line 2. . .change "(b)" to "(c)". Commissioner Crisp explained that another method of accomplishing the desired installation is possible by going an additional ~:.(x:)..-fcet underground to the next pole. He further stated that the Pacific T~:i..~-~hone Co. was in complete a~reement (at the time of adoption) with the ordinance regulating undergroun~ utilities. o . At 7:54 P.M. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, to close the hearing in connection with V-338; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Crisp moved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, that the Variance Committee ReRJnt-d~ted 10 November ].969 be adopted, as amended, and the subject Variance be ~dYsince the findings required by Section 17.6 of Ordinance NS-3 cannot be made; motion carried unanimously. D. V-339 - Texaco, inc. saratoga-sunnyvale Road - Request for Variance in , , . / Connection ~,yith Sign ~eplacement The Chairman opened the hearing for V-339 at 7:55 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing were m~iled and briefly reviewed this file. Mr. Bob Dahl, sales representative for the applicant, ~Tas present and stated that the Texaco Co. intends to replace the present trademark sign with a new, more attractive, trademark sign. : -Commissioner Crisp'.stated that th~ Variance Co~ittee has already made an on-site inspection of the subject~ property. Chairman Norton closed the hearing for the evening, 'directed V-339 continued to the next regular meeting and r.eferred same to the Variance Committee for study. -2-' Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 10 November 1969 - Continued IIo E. C-124 - City of Saratoga, Big Basin Way - Request for Change of Zoning from "P-A" (Professional-A~ministrative) to "C-V~' (Visitor-Conm~ercial) - Continued from 27 October: 1969 Chairman Norton re-opened the hea~ing at 8:00 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the: file. Barbara Caldwell, 14605 Big Basin· Way, stated that t) she looked up her tax bills and found that they have increased from $2,700. to $3,700. per year and the tax man has informed her that if her property is zoned commer- cial the taxes would be increased to $4,000. by 1970 and would be doubled in the next few years 2) when she initially applied for permission to build nine apartments she was told she could build five only since Saratoga would be kept rural and low density would be maintained. Chairman Norton advied that the reports made to l~Irs. Caldwell were honestly made at the time, but the General. Plan has been changed since then. He then inqu£red if any information had been received relative to the tax matter in connection with the proposed re-zoning. The Secretary 1) stated that he did contact (at the request of the Subdivision Committee) ~. Richard Hayhie, Sehior Appraiser of t~le Santa Clara County Tax Assessor's Office and 2) read his report dated 10 November 1969 relaying Mr. Haynie's comments, specifical'ly, that a change of zoning of a property from on type of commercial zoning~ (Professional-Administrative) to another (Visitor-Commercial),whether is was developed or not, would not in itself increase the assessed value and ti~erefore the taxes on the property. Chairman Norton., addressing his comments to Mrs. Cal~well, stated that he wished he could assnre her that taxes would not go up, but apparently (juc!ging from Mr. Haynie's com~ments) the re-zoning alone ~,:i].l not cause taxes to increase. Mrs. Caldweli stated that she was. told by the Tax Asses~or that she could expect a substantial raise in her taxes and she based h..~·'-.' c~'~·~·'~ents on his inf orma t ion. Dr. Ann Fitzsimmons, property o~er on Big Basin Way, stated that 1) they would like their property to be zoned "C-V" (Visitor-fCommercial) 2) she checked with the county aSsessor'~ office and was tol!d that by 1980 all properties would be taxed on the basis of fair· marke~ value and 3) they bought their property on a commercial basis and paid~ accordingly. Commissioner Metcalf stated that there is a propose~ ordinance to eliminate apartments from the "P-A" (ProfesSional-Administrative) Zoning District. ~h's. Caldwell inquired if this wohld mean that she·could no longer have apartments on her property. Chairman Norton explained that her apartments would become legal non-conform- ing and she could retain the apartments for at leas.~ thirty (30) to forty (40) years. Co~n~issioner Smith stated that a Staff Report relative to this matter has been prepared on the basis of the~ opinion (requeste.~? by the Subdivision Committee) made by Mr. Haynie, Sepior Ta}= Appraiser,. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 10 Novemb<er 1969 recommending, with concurrence of the Subdivision Committee, that the subject change of zoning for all properties included under~. this application ((C-!24) be re-zoned from "P-A" (Professional-Administrative) to "C-V" (Visi~r-Commcrcial). Com~missioner Smith moved, second3d by Co,~aissioner (Crisp, to close the hearing relative to C-124 at 8:09 P.M.; motion carried unamimously. -3~ ; Plann~. Co:nmission Minutes -. 10 November 1969 - Continued II. E. C-124 - Continued Commissioner Smith moved, secondezd by Commissioner Bacon, to adopt the Staff Report dated 10 November 19':69 recon~ending that the subject change of zoning for all properties inc!~uded ~:nder this application be recommended to the City Council for re-zoning from "P-A" (Professional-Administrative) to "C-V" (Visitor-Commercial) on 'the basis the .objectives of Zoning Ordi- nance NS-3, Section 1.1 can be achieved and is in accord with the Saratoga Genera]. Plan; motion carried unanimously. III. BUILDi~,IG SITES A~'D SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-830 - George W. Day, Toll Gate Road - Subdivision Approval - 15 Lots - Continued from 27 October 1969 Commissioner Smith reco~mn~nded that this application be continued since the tentative map submitted by the al~plicant is not satisfactory. Chairman Norton directed SD7830 Continued to the meeting of 24 November 1969. B. SDR-831 - Ralph Anderson, QTaito Road - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from 27 October ].969 Co~issioner Smith stated that p~oblems relative to the tentative m~p and the access in connection with this application still need 'to be worked out; therefore, it is recommended that SDR-831 be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Norton so directed. The' Secretary stated tha~ a communication was r~Ceiv~d' from ~s. Carolyn'/ Par~]ue Walker..stating that the mature pepper trees which line the lane on which the proposed ~ubdivisi0n i~ located are of great aesthetic valne to not only her property but also tt~e surrounding properties and she would like them to .remain. C. SDR-832 - David L. Mendenhall, Mt. Eden Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 27 October 1969 Com~missioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Cop~ittee is still waiting for the applicant to submit a site d6velopment plan in connection with this appli- cation; therefore, a continuance to the next regular meeting is recommended. Chair~n Norton so directed. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-325 - United Presbyterian Church, Herriman Avenue and ttigh~,~ay 85 - Final Design Approval - Modification of Roofin~ Material Commissioner Metcalf stated that' 1) he recently became acquainted with different type of roofing material 2) it seems there are three classes of acceptable roofing materials 3); the provisions of the State Fire Code per- mits the Fire Marshal to grant exceptions or alternate roofing materials for places of public assembly 4) ~hes'e provisions has been followed until recently when methods and chemicals were' developed for making composition shingles that simulate weod shake at the same cost as the alternates previously permitted; therefore, no more exceptions are being made for places of public assemly. The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 10 November 1969 recommend- ing that the request for modification of roofing x~terial be approved. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated 10 November 1969 be. adopted and that the request for substituting heavy composition shingles in place of the originally proposed wood shake shingles be~'~'~d. subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried una~ilm'~y. -4- Plannin]I Commission Minutes - November 1969 - Continued B. A-334 - Burke and Moe Realty, Sar~toga-Sunnyvale Road - Preliminary Design ApDr ova 1 - commer c ia 1 Build in~ The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated lO November 1969 recommend- ing that Preliminary Design Appro~al be granted for A-334. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated 10 November 1969 be adopted and that Preliminary Design Approval be granted for A-334 as shox.a~ on Ey. hibit "A" subject to the condition stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. PROPOSED ORDINANCE- Requiring Certain Type (N.F.P.A. Classification) of Roofing Material for All New Strucutres Within the City of Saratog. a Commissioner Metcalf sta'ted that !) when the Design Review Committee met to discuss the applicant's request the representatives of the Santa Clara County Fire Marshall's Office were' present 2) the Fire ~arshall's representatives strongly recommend that the City a.dopt a fire protection roofing ordinance that would per,nit fla~.~abl'e' roofS./~(Type "c") only "in"'l~'~i½"'fiat areas and not perniit 'the Type"""c" 'roof i~ (a) commercial buildings or C]~j~ches or any place of public assembly and (b) in single-family residences in the hilly areas. Commissioner Metcalf further stated that he is in sympathy with the recommed- ation of the Fire ~iarshall's representative because of 1) the annual fires in the hillside areas in California and 2) he went through the Napa Valley fire in 1955 and he would hate to see something similar happen in Saratoga. He then stated that a map would have to be developed to determine what constitutes hillside areas and what should be considered flat land. Chairman Norton directed the propo'Sed ordinance continued and referred same to the Design Review Committee for a report at the appropriate time. V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Conmmissioner Crisp gave a summary of i'tems reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 5 November 1969 with emphasis on matters of particular interest to the Commission. VI. Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan Referral by City Council for Further Study - Continued from · 27 October 1969 Chairman Norton stated that a draft of; the General Plan Committee Report dated 10 November 1969 relative to the Park Element of the General Plan has been circulated to the Commission. Commissioner Lively gave a detailed 0ral report on the recommendations of the General Plan Cormmittee in accord with the attached· General '·Plan Ccmmittee Report. Chairman Norton inquired if Area 7 of the proposed park plan is the area proposed for eventual development of the golf course. Commissioner Lively explained that 1) the idea of a golf course is vague at this time 2) . some type of proposal is unde~ investigation and 3) nothing definite has been proposed to this date. Conunissioner Bacon stated that in Area,1 a park is proposed along the railroad and it seems to be midway up the left hand corner of Area 8 and Azule School which is not a long distance away from the prop6sed park in Area 1 and he ·wondered if the pro- posed park (Area 8) is really needed. -5- Plan}~ing Commission Minutes 10 November 1969 Continued VI. P~rk and Recreation Element of th!e General Plan - Continued Commissioner Lively explained tha.t 1) immediately east of the proposed park parcel there is a new subdivision development of 163-homes (Ditz-Crane). and the General Pla~ Committee felt that it would be a big improvement to the City to locate a park in this' area 2) this particular piece of property would be difficult to handle and i~ould provide a park for medium density homes in that area and 3)~ the recommen. dations made in the subject report are only proposals and the City Council wi,.ll have to make the final decision. Chairman Norton stated that 1) one important point was'mentioned by the Mayor in connection with the willingness of the Planning Commission to grant change of zonings in some areas to gain park sites 2) this matter is referred to on _th.e.._-top of page 2. .of the General Plan Committee Report and 3) he '~did not believe that the Planning' Commission had ever taken a position on this subject and he was wondering if they should do so at this time. The Secret.ary stated that a publi.c hearing has been scheduled for discussion of this matter. Chairman Norton reconm~ended that page 2. .under Item No. 2. .be amended to show the Planning Commission '.ref the second alternate proposal on p. ers page 23 and 24. .of the Park Cohsultant's Report. Commissioner Smith stated that the General Plan Report states very clearly that the pro'posal made in the 1968 General Plan is favored and that makes the choice very plain. Chairman NOrton stated that, he f'elt, since the Park Cc.-~ .~t~:'~ have stated they are going to do one of two things the Planning Co.'i~.~,~.~l.~z~.i.~:!~ should give them their preference. Cormnissioner Smith stated that the preference has been stated and why should another choice be made. 'Chairman Norton stated that it wiil then be left up to the City Council to choose one or the other of the Pa~k Consultant's alternatiVeS'. Commissioner Lively stated that ft is agreed that a central park is needed near the center of the City as shown on the General Plan and he could not see any advantage, from a planning standpoint, to state a preference of either of the Park Consultant's proposals. Chairman Norton stated that 1) generally he was not pleased with the first report submitted by the General Plan Committee 2) he now finds the current report dated 10 November 1969 not to his liking 3) he is not too happy about the recommendations made in the P~rk Consultant's report 4) he is concerned about the idea of night lights for tennis courts in the City and 5) he would reconnnend that the subject General Plan Co~mnittee Report dated 10 November 1~69 be amended as follows: page 2. .after No. 3. .add No'.. 4. 4) Visual Elements The suggestions in the consultant"s report for protection of two important visual elements, the southeast corner of Prospect and Highway 85 and the gore southwest of the Fruitvale-Saratoga Avenue intersection, are inadequate. This is a further reason for retain- ing the present designation of these areas as park sites on the Genera 1 Plan. Commissioner Lively moved, seconded by Commissioner .~!etcalf, that the General Plan Committee Report dated 10 November 1969 be adopted, as amended (No. 4. .page 2), relative to the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan and forward same to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Commission; motion carried with Chairman Norton abstainingt.' -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 10 November ].969'- Continued VI. Rodoni Corporation Yard Saratoga-Sunny~ale Road Chairman Norton explained that 1) the Conmnission was requested to make an on-site inspection of this property which.is now an expired legal non-conforming use and 2) the problem now~ is what can be done with this type of an arrangement. The Secretary stated that something should be required of the owner to make the area aesthetically more pleasing. Chairrmqn Norton stated that 1) it seemed that some type of policy position could be adopted when a legal non-conforming use ceases to be legal. 2) the owner could be requested to clean up tZ~is area or he would be required to stop using the property and 3) the Rodonis are old settlers in Saratoga and should be required to fence the area in' the meantime. Commissioner Bacon stated that the south half of the property there are some evergreens that are several ye. ars old and at the high school boundary there are some decidous trees, but fencing wonld be a better solution for improving the area.. Chairman Norton requested the Secretary to refer this matter to the City Council with the Planning Commission recommendation tha. lt the property be properly fenced to provide screening. Grand Auto Store - .Prospect Road The Secretary read a cor~munication submitted by the Prospect Beautification Committtee stating their objections to the signs and :~displays at the Grand Auto store. Chairman Norton stated that it is obvious :that when approval is granted for a store that is "75% glass you will be able to see everything inside. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry fr6'm Chairman Norton, sta~,~.d that there is no expiration date for the Use Permit unless breach of conditions as stated in the Use Permit can be shown. : Commissioner Smith stated that the store has signs hanging inside tl=,iat can be seen from the outside. The Secretary stated that the Planning Con'unission could h01d hearings on the subject Use Permit to find out what the applicant .has to say on his behalf. Chairman Norton stated that if Grand Auto is permitted to 'have additional signs then the Planning Commission will have a problem with the Big Tree Shopping Center people when they apply for a sign varaince. The Assistant Planner explained that letters have been sent to the Grand Auto people in connection with their signs. Chairman Norton stated that if a series of letter and violations were compiled the planning cormn~ission would have a basis for some kind of action. .Accessory Structure Chairman Norton stated that a copy of the .proposed accessory structure (as' drafted by the City Attorney) was in his file and he wondered if the Planning Co~m-nission was to do anything about the matter at this time. The Secretary explained that it was placed in the folders for information only at this time and the matter will be dismissed and studied by the Subdivision Committee and Planning Com~nittee of the City Council. -7- ~lanning Commission Minutes - 10 November 1969 - Continued VII. NEW BUSINESS Remodel.ing Over 50% TFhe Secretary stated that the City Attor%ney has submitted a~ answer to a letter written to him by the Assistant PlannerSrelative to a method of circumventing Building Site Approval requirements in ~onnection with remodeling a home several different times and each remodeling constituting just'under 50% of the homes value; thereby, en.ding up with an almost brande new home by doing it in stages. He further stat ed that 1) the City Attorney suggests that the ordinance be modified to avoid the possibilities of a re-occurence of tbis'.problem 2) he brought the matter to the attention of the Planning Commission to.see if they an Ordinance amendment in connec- tion with this matter worthwhile and 4)' when a homeowner is allowed to do this he avoids payment of storm drainage fees and road .improvement requirements. Chairman Norton stated that everyone should be required to meet the same require- ments and requested the Secretary to schedule the proceedings necessary for an ordinance amendment in connection with this matter. VIII. COb~ICATIONS A. WRITTEN SDR-829 - Edward T. Wild, Fruitvale '.A~enue - Request.for Reconsideration of Conditions The Secretary read a communication received from Mr. Wild requesting reconsider- ation of conditions of his Building 'Site Committee Report dated 14 October 1969 relative to the Fruitvale Avenue improvements. Chairman Norton directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivisio~ Committee for study. B. ORAL Chairman Norton noted, with regret, the absence of a Councilman and acknowledged with pleasure, the presence of Mrs. '~en of the Good Gove~' '..=~ Group, Mr. Naugle of the Prides Crossing Homeowner's Association, and Dr. l~-,~omer of the League of Womern Voters. He, also, thanked M~s. ~en for the coffee to be served after the meeting. X. ADJOURD~NT Chairman Norton declared the meeting adjourned at 9:45'P.M. Respectfully submitted, j -8- CITY OF SARATOGA 13 NOVE,'..iBER 1969 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY ~&~GER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Park Element - Saratoga Genera! Plan At its regular meeting of 10 November 1969 the Planning coxremission voted to approve the enclosed General Plan Committe& Report dated 7 November 1969 relative to the Park Element of the General Plan and to forward same to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Cornmiss{on.' Planning Director SMW/j CITY OF SARATOGA 7 iqOVEf,iBEii 1969 'TO: Chairman, Planning Commission FROM: General Plan Con~.mitt:ee SUBJECT: Park Element saratbga General Plan PARK ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN The General Plan Committee has received :the Park Development Program as prepared by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey, dat.ed July 25, ].969. This report, together with the June 2 report and its addendure by the same firm, ~.~ere the basis on ~.~hich .. ~ the Planning Commission held public hear'ings and the General Plan Committee based its report of September 22, 1969. The r:.eports of the Parks & Recreation Commission of 5 August and 6 August 1969 were not r!eferred to the Planning Commission until October 8, 1969. TIle Final report of the Parks Consultant: dated October 22, 1969 contains the site designations referred ito herein. In ortler to prevent confusion, we have taken the liberty to study this, Final report and to base our comn~.ents on it. The recent referrals by the Councili back to the Planning Commission have been considered and are, in most cases., cover:.ed by the Parks Consultant Final report. We do not have recom~nendations on priori:ties or acquisition costs as these seem clearly the responsibility of the Counci'l. Our recommendations are as follows: General. 1) Pathways - No changes have been proposed for the areas shown ' on the 1968 General Plan Map as Path~ay, Buffer Areas. Tilere are many areas in Saratoga where a network of trails, paths and walks'may be 'est'.abliShed, and there are path~,:ays that a a future detafled Pathways plan may eI. irn{n~te. The Pathways plan should provide '.pedestrian-equestrian access along the natural trails throu:ghout Saratoga. Since no detailed plan exists, we continue ..to recommend the P.athway-Buffer zones as they exist in the 19~68 General Plan. 2) Central Park Concep.tj - The 1968 General Plan proposed a 20 acre "Central Park" in the area surrounding the City ttall. The Parks Commission and its Consultant have recommended designation of the total area bounded by Fruitvale, Douglas Lane, Wildcat Creek and Herriman E::tension as the area in which a 25 acre park' should be located. This area is removed ~ fj.- .... ~iU)' ~lall ~md present x'ouEh ~. A revision in the land use (and zoning) now shox.?n in the General Plan could allow hon]es on ~- acFe sites and provide adjacent open area for a park. Thus i~ may be possible for the City and its tazpayers to obtain ~].and for nothing. Our recommendation is to continue the ~urrent designation for the 20 acre Central Park. The u'ltimate deve].opr~ent plans should be carefully examined to be sure that Saratoga residents desire the 4 lighted baseball fields, 8 lighted tennis courts, concession stands, parking lots, etc. proposed for the central park. In an~ event, the area surrounding the City Hall would provide, in our opinion, a much more convenient and compatible area for a entral ~ ~" "C - ~ ark . 3) ~eif<hborhood Parks -.Our recom~nendations in some cases exceed those presented in tl+e reports studied. In these cases we feel great effort should be made to provide parks or parklets in the area where most of our citizens reside and there is a need for recreational. areas. Other areas of Saratoga are rural in nature and the citizens who own property i'n these areas have indicated ':they want it to remain as it is. In the very low density areas where the whole area is parklike or relatively open, we d~ not rccormnend any parks or other major public use. 4) Visual Elements - The suggestions in the consu!tant's report for protection of two important visual elements, the southeast corner of Prospect and Highway 85 and the gore southwest of the Fruitvale-Saratoga Avenue intersection, are inadequate. This is further reason for ret'aining the present designation park sites on the General Plan. Specific recommendations fo].lo~.zing the areas designated in the Parks and Recreation Commission Final Report: ~ Area-{~1 - We reco~mnend continuit%g the present designation o'f the entrance to Saratoga at the S-E corner of Prospect and Hwy. 85 as an entrance park. We ag~ee ~.;ith the designation of Area !-A1 adjaceat to the Azule :School site as a proFosed park. In addition, we recon',mend a neighborhood park along the rail- road tracks at Ted Avenue, approxi~.nately 4 acres. A~:ea #2 - We reco~nmcnd the "SCully Triangle" 2A-1 and the area bet~.~een Saratoga Ave. and R~doyka Drive also designated as 2-A1 specifically Lot 5, :;34, 35, and part of Lot 37 as shown in · Book of Maps #386 Page 17. These areas should be designated as fnture park sites on the General Plan. A pedestrian connection from the Scully Area to the Azu!e Area is 'desirable and recomr~ended. Additionally, we. recormnend designation of an area now under a subdivision development plan. This site would provide a fine park near heavily populated areas. This site, on Co=c and Bellwood Drive, could be appro>~imat~!y 7 acres. Area ~3 - The e>zisting Generai Plan park adjacent to the E1 Quito Park School should be expanded to include all of the local co~mercial area North of Cox Avenue, excluding the corner pre. sently occupied i~y a service station. This change increases the size ~f the present park area now shown. This site is designated 3-A1. Area #4 - 1]~e present Path~ay Buffer Zone no~.~ shown in the General Plan should remain as designated. Gardina..r Park should be e=~panded to include specifically Lot 184~ Book 391~ Pate 11. This would coincide '~.~ith the current General Plan designation. The General Plan Committee does not. recommend parks or other recreation facilities in the center of t~e area bounded by Allendale, Fruitvale, and Quito Road. This area is rural in nature and should remain that way. Increased densities should be avoided to prevent destruction of this rural atmosphere. However, there is a potential park site in close proz~imity to higher .density areas North of Allendale, as well as adjacent to and easily accessible from this large, very low density area. Tais parcel of property is on the South West corner of Allendale and Chester Avenue. We reconm~end that this ~property be ~ho~.~n. on the General Plan as a potential park in lieu of site 4-C1. An even better site -3- Area =,~4 continued : is that now shown for K-6 school, North of Allendale and .. East of the Church 6f Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.' This site is now owDed by the Campbell Elementary School District. It is our understanding that the District may relinquish this property in the near future. On this possibility, we recommend this school 'site be shown alternatively as a park site. Should :the change from school to park occur, we would elimina,te the park designation for the 'site on the on the South West corner of Allendale and Chester Avenue. We recommend continuing study of this area to protect its rural atmosphere for the area residents ~nd the nature of ~.he Saratoga Community as a vJ~ole. Area ~5 We reconm~end the co~itinuing study of t'he need for a park in this area. Area residents should be contacted regarding their specific needs. We do not recommend any park designation at this time. Area ~6 - We recomntend e;<tensi'on of existing tlakone Park to include ' the area designated 16-A2. The school lan.~, 6-B3, should be designated as a p.otential park site in case the school district should late'.r relinquish the property. 1]~e 4th Street right-of-way,'. 6-C3~ i~ suitable for :'public use and should be designated, as a park site. No Other park sites are recommended for inclusion in the Genera]. Plan at this' time. We recon~mend continuing study of the need for and availability of additional park sites in this area. Area ~7 We recommend no. changes in Area 7 ~.~ith respect to Park sites now sho~.~n the the General Plan. The areas now sho~,7n as a Central Park (at the Gore of Saratoga and -4- Area ~!,~7 continued Fruitvale Avenues and in the vicinity City Hall and Youth Center:) should be carefully studied for the optimum park- conf igura t ion. · Area ~8 - The parcel designated 8-A1 corresponds with the existing General Plan and we app-rove this designation. We also recommend continuing the designation for the Park & Pathway Buffer Zone along the S.P. tracks. 'l~e South-ease corner of 'Coz-a Avenue and H~i:y. 85 should be designated as a Park. This area is sho~.~n as 8-B1. Our recommendation locates this park slightly to the West to prevent the creation of a "prOblem parcel" if the location were to be designated as shox.2n in the report. The parcel 8-C3 is under public control now and should be designated as a parl~ site. Parcels 8-D3 and 8-E3 are not recomn~ended at 'this time. Further studies should be made to deterrain.' '~ '..q~irements and the possibility of a park which ~.~ould span the creek in the area of parcel 8-E3. A change in location is reco~r~nended.for the park site shown as 8-G3. A better location, more 'centrally located ~.~ithin the area, is the parcel of land on the SE corner of Hwy. 85 and Miljevich Drive. The need for parks in densely populated areas is apparent and a large Reighborhood park in this new location may serve a great many Saratogans in the North~.;est sector of the co~ranunity. We recom~uend continuing study on the feasibility of joint use of the parcel designated 8-F3. No designation is prop?sed at this time. Area ~'9 We recomn~end that Parcel 9-A1 and 9-B1 be shown as par~% uses This would be an addition of part of Parcel 12, Book 503, Page 21. -5- Area !99 continued We do not recommend designation of Parcel 9-C2 at this time. We do urge further study to determine the need for and location of neighborhood parks which may serve the residents of this repidly developing area. Particular attention is directed toward locations in the medium density areas along Hwy. 85. The Congress Springs resort area 9-])2 is' strongly reco~mnended for park designation. The Wildwood Park area is already a public park and is so shown on the General Plan. As mentioned earlier in this report, 'the priority and development cost is the responsibility of the Council. However, we offer comment on the specific improvements recommended for the parks as presented in the Parks Consultant 's Final report. The Final report has recognized that Saratoga b "' .f,..' schools which provide or can provide substantial' recreation facilities. Careful evaluation and study must continue to de.termine fully the desires of Saratoga Residents as to the final development of parks. The development and long term maintenance must be'projected and carefully considered. Noreover, extensive development of facilities in the park sites will directly influence the character of the City itself. Phil {~.... p .2e xy, ..3~Na irman Charles H. Smith -6-