Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-1971 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMbIISSION MINUTES TIME: Monday, 25 January 1971, 7:30 PoMo PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Lively. A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fagan, Krads, Lively, Marshall, Martin, Metcalf, and Smith. Absent: None. B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, that the reading of the minutes of the 11 January 1971 meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed to the. Commission with the following changes: page 3. . .last paragraph. . .last line. . .delete "since it is located in the Village area." page 5. . .under Resolution No. 117.. .line 1. . .correct spelling of "out stand ing ly". C. WELCOME Vice-Chairman Lively introduced newly appointed Commissioners Roderick V. Fagan and Gerald S. Marshall. He remrked that Commissioner Fagan, Manager of Employee Relations at General Electric, Co., was former president of the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners ASsociation, served on the Personnel Advisory Committee for the City of Saratoga. and is a volunteer attorney for Legal Aid Society. He then observed that Gerald S.' Marshall, Programs ~nager for GTE-Sylvania'.s Western Division, is a member of the West Valley College Citizen's Advisory Board and now serving as Vice-Chairman of the Board and is a member of the Good Government Group. The Vice-Chairman then congratulated Commissioner Smith on his reappointment to a second term on the Commission. D. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Smith nominated ConLmi'ssioner LiVe'ly f_o_r Chairman 0f the_.Plan--ning Commission for 1971. Commissioner Kraus moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, that nominations be close'd; motion carried with Commissioner Lively abstaining. It was moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Secretary be directed to record a unanimous ballot for Co~mmissioner Lively as Chairman of the Commission for 1971; motion carried with Commissioner Lively abstaining Commissioner Kraus nominated Commissioner Smith as Vice-Chairman of the Commission' 'for 1971. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, that nominations be closed; motion carried with Commissioner Smith abstaining. It was moved by Commissioner Kraus, seconded by Commissioner · Martin, that the Secretary be directed to record a unanimous ballot for Conm~issioner Smith as Vice-Chairman of the Commission for 1971; motion carried with Commissioner Smith abstaining.· -1~ I. C. ELECTION - Continued Conmmissioner Smith ·nominated Stanley M. Walker, Planning Director as Secretary of the Connnission for 1971. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that nominations be closed; motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Secretary be directed to record a unanimous ballot for Stanley M. Walker as Secretary of the Commission for 1971; motion carried unani~mously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Co~mmissioner Kraus, th_a_t_th~...Co,~misS.~n express its appreciation for the efficient service rendered to the Planning Cor~mission in the past year by ~rs. Joan Loher, ReCording Secretary; motion carr ied unanimous ly. D. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Commissioner Lively then made the following Committee Assignments with the alternates as noted: SUBDIVISION CO~4ITTEE GENERAL PlAN CO~IITTEE Commissioner Smith, Chairman Commissioner Metcalf, Chairman Commissioner Fagan Commissioner Martin Commissioner Kraus Commissioner Smith Alternate: Alternate: Chairman Lively Commissioner Kraus VARIANCE CO~IMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW CO~v~fiTTEE Commissioner Kraus, Chairman Commissioner Metcalf, Chairman Commissioner Marshall Commissioner [~rshall Commissioner Martin Con~missioner Martin Alternate: Alternate: Commissioner Fagan Commissioner Fagan Commissioner ~rtin commented that since the Subdivision Committee has a great deal of work perhaps some of their load could be relieved by redistri- buting some of their assignments.. He suggested that the Change of Zoning applications be assigned to the General Plan Committee. Conmaissioner Smith stated that if the work load increases and the Subdivision Committee finds it oppressive then the members of the Committee will notify the Chairman. Commissioner Metcalf advised he may be gone the entire month of May; therefore, he would like to meet with the General Plan Committee on Saturday, 30 January 1971 to formulate some plans for the forthcoming General Plan Review. ...... "'chairman Lively requested the Secretary to schedule, in the early part of March, a Study Session relative to the General Plan. E o PlANNING POLICY CO~D4'iTTEE Commissioner Kraus, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Lively, stated ~ that he would continue to serve as the Planning Commission representative to the Planning Policy Con~mittee. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-137 - Alfred F. Dumas, Inc., Prospect Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-l-10,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-l-10,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned Community) - Continued from 11 January 1971 The hearing was re-opened at 7:47 .PoM. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file. -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 25 January 1.971 - Continued IIo A. C-137 - Continued Mr. Bob Mathot, applicant ~ s representative, stated that 1) the problem is the same as it ~as the last time the matter was d~scussed with the Commission'and that is the number of units 2) the property is bordered by Prospect Road, the future free~ray 'and Blue Hills Subdivision 3) it is triangular in shape with very limited access and with no access to the East or West 4) the plea for twenty two (22) units is based .on the fact tl~at the plan, as proposed, would allow for 4.8 acres of open space that would be planted and then cared for by the Homeowne. rs Association 5) it is proposed that the streets be public and the. s~;,imaning pool and open area be maintained by the Homeo~,mers Association 6) with the twenty two (22) units coverage would be less than .'98 acres 7) the ordinance does not formally state how many units are allowed under "P-C" zoning 8) on the basis of regular zoning. ~.ixt_ee.n_~ (._1~)~ units would be allowed and 9) at least twenty two (22) units are necessary to afford, financially, the open space and recreation area. Commissioner Martin inquired about' the annual cost per homeo~.mer for the maintenance of the pool and open area. Mr. ~-~thot stated it would be approximately $40.00 to $50.00 per month for each ". ind iv id ualh ome o~,ra er. Chairman Lively explained that the= cost is really not the concern of the Planning Conm~ission; however, the number of units is and that must be the concern at this time. Commissioner Smith read the Subdivision Committee Report dated 25 January 1971 recommending that the subject request for Change of Zoning (C-137) be denied. Commissioner ~rtin asked what the lot size would be on a sixteen (16) lot subdivision for this property. Commissioner'Smith answered'th&t they would be approximately 10,000 square foot lots. : Commissioner Martin stated that the map shows some lots to be greater than the 10,000 square foot lot size. The Secretary explained that this is due to the odd shape of the pro'perty. Commissioner ~rtin asked ~.That maximum number of lots does the Subdivision Committee feels could be planned for the subject property. Commissioner Smith explained that 1) on the basis of a recent City Council suggestion a "P-C" Zoning might increase the normal subdivision yield by about 10% 2) the case ~.zas one in which the applicant had requested seventy two (72) lots 3) the City Council affirmed the Planning Commission recommend- ation for denial and suggested the applicant consider fifty (50) lots and 4) the purpose of a "P-C" Zoning is not to' increase density. Commissioner Martin stated he agreed ~,,ith the City Council on the aforementioned ruling; h~owever, he felt, this application is a different situation. Cormmissioner Lively stated that th'e City has to be careful in how the "P-C" zoning is allowed to be used and advised he is in agreement with the Subdivision Committee Report. Commissioner Martin stated he agre'ed; however, this property is a difficult triangular piece and, he feels, the Planning Commission should take this into consideration. He further stated that, he felt, "P-C" zoning would be a proper zoning for the subject property. -3- Planning-Commission Minutes ·- 25 January 1971 - Continued II. A. C-137 - Continued ~ Commissioner Kraus con~nented that a "P-C" zoning could be approved allowing sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) units, but not for twenty two units as proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Smith advised the Subdivision Committee did meet with the applicant several times and initially considered the applican~'s request for twenty seven (27) units and after arbitration the number'Of units were reduced to twenty two units and 'n6w there is 'an impasse S'i'~e the Subdivision Committee fees that twenty two units would be too Big a percentage increase over the normal subdivision..f.o_r. the same piece of land. Commissioner Smith moved seconded by Commissioner Kraus, to close the public hearing relative to C~137 at 8:12 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, to adopt the Subdivision Committee Report dated 25 January 1971 relative to C-137 and recommend to the City Council that the subject application for Change of Zoning be denied on the basis that the proposal does not meet the objecives of Article 1, Section 1.1 of Ordinance NS-3; motion carried unanimously. B. C-139 - Malachy J. Moran, Saratoga Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-i-20,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-l-10,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned Community) - Continued from 11 January 1971 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 8:13 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file other than the revised map. · Mr. Moran ~..~s present and stated that 1) the original application requested rezoning of the entire property and a little misunderstanding resulted 2) he now requests the revised Change of Zoning for only that portion of the property that will actually be rezoned and based on total acreage it would be a fraction less than the original request 3) the topography basically has two level areas, the upper area near Saratoga Avenue and the lower area near Lannoy Court and there is not a gradual change, but rather a sharp slope '4) the access is constrained on all four sides - on the Saratoga Avenue side there are sixty (60) some trees 'and two houses - the only way to provide access there is toz move 'a garage 5) economically it would .not be feasible to develop the subject ~r0perty under the existing "R-I-20,000" zoning and 6) in requesting the subject zoning he ·would maintain essentially the same density as shown in the General Plan. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairraan Lively, stated that it is not necessary to renotice the Change of Zoning since the applicant is asking . for ~__..C_.h_~ng_e_...' of _Zening on .a_. !.eS~er...a_r..ea than._..~.ras . ~_iginally requested. Mr. Allen Morgulis, 19861 Lannoy Court, stated that 1) he would like further opportunity to look at the new pr. oposal since he and other residents of the area did object to the original proposal 2) the f~irst plan showed some abrupt changes that would aesthetically affect the other homes in .the area 3) he .and his neighbors studied the original Change of Zoning request before voicing any objections and 4) it is their desire that the General Plan be well retained. Chairman Lively ·explained that the matter will be r!eferred to the Subdivision Committee and the plans will be available for revi.ew. Mr. Joseph M. Zerboni, 19951 Lannoy Court, inquir~d if the communications filed relative to the original request will, also.,, :apply to the revised request or will it be necessary to submit additiom~a'l connnunications? The Secretary stated that, actually, those items ~at were submitted in opposition, it would be up to those people to reim;s.tate them if they choose to do soo Commissioner Smith recommended that a notice be se~.t to residents within 500-feet of the subject property; so, they can be ~made aware of what is happening. -4- Plannin~ Co~nission Minutes - 25 January 1971 - Continued IIo B. C-139 - Continued Commissioner ~rtin agreed that this would be a good idea to point out that it is a .r.e. yi_S_~d. Pr?P0S~.·: ........ The Secretary stated that it ~,~s his understanding that the b~asic lot lay-out is still the same. Mr. Moran stated that 1) yes the basic lay-out is the same 2) the cross-hatched area in the paper did erroneously' show the two "R-i-20,000" lots with houses on them as being r~one·d"t0' "R~i-10,000'' and 3) the objections have been to the increase in the density and he has tried to show that he is going to maintain the same low density for the property as indicated on the General Plan. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 8:32 P.M., directed C-139 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for study. C. C-140 - Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "C-N" N~hborhood-Commercial) - Continued from 11 January 1971 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 8:33 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file. No one ~as present to represent the applicant and no one in the audience wished to comment. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 25 January 1971 recommending that C-140 be denied. Commissioner ~artin stated that at the last meeting there ~.:as some question as to whether this property ~..~as included in the original Master Plan approved under the Use Permit for the church and he is wondering if this matter has been resolved. The Secretary explained that the original Master Plan ~..~s reviewed and it · ms found that the subject property was designated for recreation and open .space use by the church and there were no buildings sho~.m for the property on the Master Plan. Cormn~issioner Martin remarked that if there is a change in the ~-~ster Plan it would require a change in the Use Permit. Commissioner Kraus moved, seconded by Co~nnissioner Fagan, to close the hearing relative to C-140 at 8:40· P.Mo; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconde~ by Connnissioner Kraus, to adopt the Staff Report dated 25 January 1971 relative to C-140 and recormnend to the City Council that the subject application for Change of Zoning be denied on the basis the objectives of Section 1.1 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 cannot be met for the reasons stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. D. UP-198 - Saratoga' Foothills Development Corp., Miljevich Drive - Request for Use Permit to Allow a Model Home Sales Office Chairm~n Lively opened the hearing in connection with UP-198 at 8:41 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed and the applicant is requesting a model home sales office for Lot 2 in Tract 4825. Commissioner Smith stated that it. seemed the Planning Commission did have a policy that no model home sales office would be approved for less than tx.;enty"'~20')' lo~s. .-5- Planning Commission Minutes - 25 January 1971 - Continued II. D. UP-198 - Continued The Secretary stated that in ·fu~.e d·eVe!0Pment there t.;ill be more than twenty lots in the subdivision, even though ,' ·the first unit is below the .required twenty (20) lots. ~ir. Jerry Lohr, applicant stated, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Smith, that the plan is to have the one model-home sales-offi~ce for the entire subdivision. The Secretary recommended that UP-198 be continued to the next regular meeting .t_0_~.!lo·V the applicant time to submit a map showing all the lots. Commissioner Smith stated that if the applicant does submit a revised map in sufficient time the Subdivision Conm~.ittee can prepare a repor. t relative to this matter prior to the next regular meeting. He'suggested that'·the applicant could submit a tentative map with total number of lots and unit development of the subdivision. Mr. Lohr explained 'that the tentative map was refiled last year and with the foreclosure the property= had to be divided. Mr. Robert To McFarlane, 20340 Glasgow Drive, stated that 1) since he has lived at his present address there has been every six (6) months an in~i~a~io~' that Glasgow is going to be extended to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road or to Miljevich Drive and is the first time he has ever been notified of a hearing involving Glasgow 2) when he purchased his home it was with the condition that everyone provide outside lights from dark to da~.~n 3) usually after midnight the lights are out and he is womdering if this condition will be imposed on the owners of the new homes 4) he would recommend sensors to make sure that everyone provides the required lighting since it does reflect on tile insurance of every resident in the area and 5) the fence at the dead-end has. been removed and this presents a potential hazard. Chairman Lively noted that the subdivision map indicates Glasgow will go through to Miljevich Drive. He further noted that the light requirements are probably part of the deed restrictions and it is not within the jurisdiction of the City to enforce deed restrictions. If the they are to be enforced it is the homeo~.n~ers responsibility to take it up with the · neighbor s. Mr. Lohr explained that the concern is that there be a construction barricade (where the fence was located at the dead end street) so no one will fall into the excavated area.; however, there will be no vehicular traffic do~.rn this road during construction. He ·further noted that the problem at present is the removal of the large dehydrator located on the property. Chairman Lively closed tile hearing for the evening at 8:56 P.M., directed UP-198 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Sub- _. division Committee for study. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS Ao SD~-873 - GPorge .Stathakis, Michaels Drive - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 11 January 1971 }it. Jerry Jordan, applicant's representative, was present and stated that he did review the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. ~6- Planning COmmission Minutes - 25 January 197]. - Continued III o Ao SDR-873 - Continued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that_.th.e..' Building Site COmmittee Repor~_d.at~d..25 January 1971 relative to SDR-873 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-2", filed 25 January 1971).be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. ~ B. SDR-878 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., Saratoga Avenue - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 11 January 1971 Commissioner Smith recommended that this matter be continued in order to allow time for the Design Review. Committee to review the design plans relative to this matter° : Chairman Lively directed SDR-878 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee. C. SD-879 - George Lampros, Hume Drive and Pfedmont Road - Subdivision A_poproval - 9 Lots Comn~issioner Smith stated that 1) the Subdivision Committee did meet with the applicant's rep~es_entat~.ve, ~. Heiss, tO_ d._iScuSs tJ~is .matter__2) ~,~. Heiss would like approval of one building site now and the other eight lots later and 3) he would recommend that the matter be continued to allow time for further study. Mr. Heiss, applicant's'engineer, stated that 1) the access drive~..~y to the one lot is approximately ll-feet wide, but by doing some clearing it can be ~idened to about 13 or. 14-feet 2) hopefully, no excavation will have to be done to the natural slope 3) the access drive~.mys to the other lots will meet the 18-foot criteria 4) the 13-or 14-foot drive~y will be left intact after construction of the new access driveways for the subdivision, but only to serve as. an emergency road; hox.Tever, it will be barricaded in order to discouFage traffic other than emergency. Chairman Lively directed SD-879 continued. to the next ~egular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for study and a report. D. SD-880 - Herio____n Roofing~ Inc. Prospect Road - Subdivision Approval - 21 Lots Cormn~issioner Smith recommended that SD-880 be continued to the next regular meeting to allow time for further study. Chairn~n Lively so directed. E. SDR-88_______!l- Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Allendale Avenue - Building Site Ap3roval - 1 Lot Mr. Paul ~[arkling, architect, questioned Item "G" as to the width of the · trail easement. The Secretary explained that normally the easement width x.~ould be a 10-foot wide right-of-t;~.y. This is not indicated on the tentative nk~p; therefore, it might be well to specify the ~,~idth in the proposed conditions of approval. Commissioner Smith reco~mmended that Item "G" of the Building Site Cornmitre Report dated 25 January 1971 be amended to read as follows: "G. Provide Trail Easement 10-feet wide along southerly side of creek at rear of subject parcel." CoffLmissioner Smith moved, seconded by Conmtissione~- Kraus, that the Building Site Co.:m.mittee Report dated 25 January 1971 relative to SDR-881 be adopted, as amended and that the tentative :nap (Exhibit "A.-i" filed 21 January 1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth is said report; motion carr led unanimous ly. Pfanning Commission Minutes - 25 Janua.ry~..1971 - Co. ntinued IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-27.____!1- John Rodrigues, Big Basin Way - Final Design Review - Review of Elevations Connnissioner Metcalf stated that .the applicant has submitted exterior elevations for the rem~-~ining two '(2) to~.mhouses (Lots 37 and 38) and a revised elevation for Lot 39. He further stated that Staff Report dated 25 January 1970 recomanending that Final Design Approva-1 be granted for the e={terior elevations for a third to~.mhouse-complex. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded 'by Commissioner 1/~rtin, that the Staff Report dated 25 January 1971 be adopted and' that Final Design Approval be granted for the exterior elevations for a third to~ahouse complex as shown on Exhibit "I"-subject to the condition stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. B. pS-67 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corp.., Miljevich Drive and Highway 85 - Final Design Review - Temporary Subdivision Identification After a brief discussion, Corranissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Co,~nissioner ~rtin, to adopt the Staff Report. dated 25 January 1971 recomanending that Final Design Approval be granted for a temporary on-site subdivision sign to advertise lots in Tract 4825 as sho~.m on Exhibit "A" "B" and "C" 'subject , , to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. Co A-361 - Church of Jesus Christ of I~tter Day Saints, Allendale Avenue - Final DesiJ%n Revie~ - Institute of Religion Commissioner Metcalf explained that the application is for an institute-of- religion building on property located to the rear of the main church building located on Allendale Avenue. He further explained that the color of the sample brick submitted for approval is about thirty (30) shades lighter than the color originally proposed. The Assistant Planner stated that an additional condition be added to the Staff Report dated 25 January 197'1 r'~iative' to'~'-'3~l as f0il6wS: "(5) Color of brick to substantially match the existing buildings." Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Comanissioner ~-~rtin, that the Staff Report dated 25 January 1971 be adopted, as amended, and that the Final Design Approval be granted for the institute-of-religion building as sho~.ra on Exhibit "A-I" and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. Vo CITY COUNCIL REPORT Chairman Lively gave a summary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 20 January 1971 wi~h emphasis on items of particular interest to the Com-aission as follows: 1) Appointment of the two new Commissioners Roderick V0 Fagan and Gerald So }~rshall and the reappointment of Commissioner Charles H. Smith to servs on the Planning Conunissiono 2) Council adoption of a resolution to establish a m?morial to Admiral. Fred G. Crisp, Planning Commissioner, by dedicating, in his honor, the large conference room in City tlallo -8- Planning Commission Minutes - 25 January 1971 - Continued VIo OLD BUSINESS Ao UP-189 - James R. Davi, Sousa lane - Request for Extension - Continued from 25 January 1971 CommisSioner Smith advised that the applicant did receive a letter from the State and they expect to have a final certificate in thirty (30) days; therefore, this-matter should be ~ontinued.' ................. Mro Scott Davi, applicant's son, was present and stated his Father spoke with a State representative this afternoon and is'still waiting for Federal approval for the convalescent hospital and he will notify Mr. Davi, Sr. as soon as the approval' is received. Chairman Lively, in view of the foregoing, directed UP-189 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Subdivision Committee, B. PROPO~L for Establishing a Roofing-l.~terial Ordinance and Fire-Retardant Roofing-Material Zone - Continued.from 25 January 1971 The Assistant Planner displayed a photo with an insert from the County Fire 1.~rshal's Office indicating the areas ~.~here zoning lines should be established ~.~here fire-resistent roofing-material would be required. The line or zone was chosen, because it corresponds to the "Hazardous Fire Area p adopted for all of Santa Clara County. Chairman Lively commented that according to the photo the zone line ~ou!d run doom the two (2) ~'in roads in Saratoga (Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road) and in order to build in this particular area special roofing--material ~7Ou!d be necessary. He then inquired if ~'his "means t'h~t' if a roof is redone in this area the homeowner would be committed to replace the roof with fire-retardant material? Chief John Baker, from County Fire M~rsha!'s Office, ~,~s present and stated that 1) the County Fire Marshal has been working with various fire districts to establish a uniform fire-resistent ro0fi~g-material zone-line 2) the Fire ~rshal~s Office did not ~.Tant one jurisdiction to establish a line without the cooperation of the other jurisdictions involved 3) it appears that the proposed line would be the easiest to administer. 4) the area which is indicated is hazardous, because of brush-clearance fires, motorcycle sparks, fireplace sparks, and etc. and 5) if a flying branch or spark landed on a roof without the fire-retardaht material it would be hazardous since another fire could result. Chairman Lively stated that the ordinance nmy have more to it than just regulating roofing-material. Chief Baker stated that any other' rules and regulations are already stipulated by the County Fire I~rshal. Co~n~issioner Fagan inquired if the to~ of Los Gatos had acted on this mat t er ? Chief Baker stated that they are working on it and it is hoped they will come up with a plan shortly and the ~p has been established in the hope that the d~signated areas will be adopted straight through the County~ ~, Jerry Lohr, Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., stated that 1) he realized the simplicity of adopting the proposed line, but as a homeo~mer and developer in the subject area he does own a number of lots that will be affected by the proposed ordinance 2) some exceptions should be noted in the ordinance since some .lots are Dne-third acre in size and are situated' on flat land. Commissioner Smith inquired if it. would be a big hardship to ask someone to put fire-proof roofing on their house~ -9' Planning Commission Minutes - 25 January 1971 - Continued VIo Bo PROPOSAL - Fire Retardant 'Roofing .Material - Continued Mr. Lohr suggested that there would be some additional financing involved and he would like to know how the new ordinance would affect future ·development in new subdivisions. Chief Baker stated that 1) it ~.~s the suggestion of the Fire~Marshal~s Office that the National Fire Prevention Assoication Standards be used 2) the industry is working very hard to __c__0~e..·_Up with a UL approved roofing material 3)" ~,~i'6'h" ~h'e mat~iaiS 'aVaii~ble today the"aesthetics of a fir~' zone·· would not be hurt by·using the fire resistant n~terial ·and 4) places of public assembly already use the fire resistant material. The Secretary recon~ended that a zone line be established at this time since the ordinance itself ~.~ould have to be adopted by the City Council. Mr. Lohr stated that he ~s in the process:of designingot. homes in one of the immediate zones and he wondered how .the ordinance would affect the design plans. Chairman Lively stated he would like to continue ._th~___m~__t__t.~K. t~..~e~_e. rmine what neighboring com,~unities are doing. Chief Bal~er, in answer to an inquiry from Cormnissioner Metcalf, stated that he talked to Tom Inglis of Monte Sereno and he indicated he, as an individual, is in f~or the fire zone line. ConLmissioner Metcalf stated that i) this matter ~as discussed before and then at the time of~··Berkeley fires the matter ~.:as again brought up for review and 2) there is no great hurry, but something should be done before the season begins again. Commissioner 1,~rshall suggested the zone line should be adopted so the City Council can act on it. Chairman Lively directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting and requested the Staff to find out what the other Cities in the area are doing relative to this fire zone line. VII. NEW BUSINESS AGRICULTblAL PRESERVE The Secretary stated that there is a memo from the City ~nager referring to the Planning·Commission for consideration the lands· of Paul Masson, Charles M~ridon, and John F. Torre as possible Agricultural Preserves. tte further stated that the Staff did prepar.e a Staff Report relative to this matter° Chairman. Lively directed the.matter continued..t. 0 .the .next· reg~l_~_r__ and referred it to the General Plan ~ommittee for study and a report. TRAILS AND PATHWAYS The Secretary explained that there is a memo from the City ~.~nager stating that the proposed Ma. ster Plan for Trails and Path~.;ays has been referred to the Planning Commission for consideration in the course of the next General · Plan Review° Chairman Lively stated that this plan has been formally adopted by the Park and Recreation Commission; so, ~,Tithout objection, the proposal is referred to the General Plan Committee to be included in the 1971 review. -10- - planning Con~mission Minutes - 25 JanuarX 1971 - Continued VIII. CO~R,~NICATIONS A o ~IlTTEN None B o ORAL Pla!lnin~g ~qliC~ Co~m~issioner Metcalf a~vised that Commissioner Kraus and ~imself have both been attending the Hillside Subdivision Committee meetings and, perhaps, one representative from the City would be sufficient. Co~issioner Kraus stated he does not represent the City at the Hillside meeting, but is actually the Planning Policy Committee representative. Commissioner Metcalf noted that in the official list of members representing the City Commissioner Kraus is listed and Con~issioner Metcalf is not. Chairman Lively sai~ that the member list will b~ straightened out and aske~ Connnissioner Metcalf to continue serving as the City representative to the ttillside Subdivision Committee meetings. Con~ent on Commissioner Appointment Con~issioner Metcalf stated that he di~ not like to continue a controversy, but the press reports that one Of the Councilman did not vote for the newly appointed Planning Commissioners, because no woman ~s appointed. Co~n~issioner Metcalf continued that he considers the issue of male or female to be totall~ irrelevant in choosing a qualifie~ Corm~issioner. He believes there should be only one criterion for selection, and that should be the capability of the individual to serve the Cit'y of Saratoga in this capacity, without regard to race, color, creed~ age~ or sex. ~ees Eo~issioner ~rtin stated that 1) he felt the City is a little remiss in enforcing the Subdivision Ordinance requirement that some kind of tree planting plan be submitted along with the tentative map 2) it stated in. the ordinance that no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until all trees (required for a subdivision) are plante~ 3) the final ~p should not be approved until the tree requirements are met 4) the new Code Enforcement Officer could, perhaps, be ~elegate~ to Check this out and ~)~ in a lot of areas the subdivider has done a beautiful job 'in'a'portion of the subdivision yet in another .portion the trees are still not planted. Chair~n Lively suggested that .the subdividers be informed that; hereafter~ the City will follow up on the tree planting requirements. Guests Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of ~yor Rgbbins and Coundilman D~er, ~s. Star~ and Mr. Binkley of the Good Government Group. He, also, thanked Mrs~ Stark for the coffee she served at recess. IX. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Lively declare~ the meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Secretary Saratoga Planning Commission j -11-