Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-1972 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ******************** TIME:- Monday, November 13, 1972 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City .Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL · Present: Commissioners Bacon~ Bel·anger, Lively, Marshall, Metcalf, and Smith. Absent: Commissioner Martin. B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the reading of the minutes of the October 24, 1972 be waived and they be approved as distributed with the following change: page 8. ~under· G. SDR-1000. .paragraph 12. .add the following sentence. "The Planning Director is directed to investigate the matter further with the Public Works Department."; motion carried with-Chairman Lively abstaining. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ·C-160 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "R-i-40,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned-Community) - Continued from OCtober 24~ 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the public.hearing relative to C-160 at 7:36 P.M. The Secretary read the Staff Report lrelative to C-160 dated November 13, 1972 recommending that· the subject change-of-zoning request be approved.· The Secretary·explained that the revised map dated November 13, 1972 shows modification of the Herriman Avenue.alignment at Fruitvale Avenue and at the western end of the road where the radius was adjusted. Mr. Lou Leto, present to represent the applicant, stated that the revised map shows!) the two (2) lots at the end of the street have a change in s~de-yard setbacks and 2) the future Herriman Avenue alignment. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from commissioner Metcalf, explained that 25% of the driveways in this development-will·be curved with the garages · facing the side or rear. CommiSsioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to close the hearing in connection with C-160 at 7:47 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner BacOn, to adopt the Staff Report dated November 13, 19721 and reConnnend to the City Council that the subject application for change of zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "R-l~40,000" "P-C" (Single-Family Residential Planned-Community)be approved·on the basis the findings required under Section 18.6 and 18~11 of the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be made for the reasons stated in said report and subject to the conditions set fort~··~herein; motion carried unanimously. _1_· Planning Commission Minutes - November 13~ 1972 - Continued II. B. C-162 - J. Barry Gray and Associates, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-I-IO,O00" (Single-Family Residential) to '~P-A" (Professional-Administrative) Chairman Lively opened the public hearing relative to C-162 at 7:49 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed and published. He then read'communications filed in favor of the proposed change of zoning by the following: 1. Kathleen R. Braunreuther 13810 Quito Road, Saratoga. 2. James M. Benham 20611 Ritanna Court, Saratoga. 3. Louise C. Ransone 20467 Chalet Lane, Saratoga. 4. Walter W. Powers. 1628'1 Matilija Drive, Los Gat0s. 5. Leo A. Berti, Vice-President Paul Masson Vineyards Saratoga Avenue, .Saratoga. 6. Stuart Smith 20568 Lomita Avenue, Saratoga. 7. Mrs. Edward E. Crecelius 13750 Surrey Lane, Saratoga. The Secretary, also, read communications filed in opposition to C-i62 and submitted by the following: 1. Alex Horvath 20330 Los Gatos Road, ~aratoga. 2. Mary Lou Maas 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga. Two (2) Letters 3. Albert and Rosaleen Spears 14561 Westcott Drive, Saratoga. Mr. Gray, the applicant, submitted a Statement of Reason and read same Chairman Lively asked Mr. Gray if he was aware that the 1972 General Plan recommends that the land-use for the Georgian House property remain as ;'R-i" until further study can be done under the 1973 General Plan Review? Mr. Gray explained that he is aware' of the 1972 General Plan; however, he presented his proposal to the City Council and the Council in 'turn. ,.recommended that he take the matter up With the Planning Commission. Mr. EUgene Stran, 19171 Allendale Avenue, stated that .he did not feel an investment house (of the type proposed) would be detrimental to the community. Mr. Pete Pasetta, 202.51 Saratoga-LoS Gatos Road, stated that 1) he is opposed' · - .' '. to the proposed change of zoning 2) the recommendation made .in' the 1972 General Plan to retain this property as "R~i" should be upheld 3) residents of this area have been secure in the.knowledge that the.zoning in this area is resi- dential 4) the Georgian House is no different from any other residence in this area 5) if the Change of Zoning were approved it must be assumed that this applicant could go out of business and then some other,l less desirable, use would be allowed on this property 6) the site includes two (2) acres and other structures could go on the property some 'day and 7) he is convinced' that if the zoning for the subject property is changed it will affect other areas in the City where similar sitdations exist. Planning Commission Minutes November 137 1972 - Continued II. B. C-162 - Continued Mr. Buford L. Bissell, Jr., 12790 Ione Court,· stated that 1) he has been acquainted with the applicant·and the firmhe (the applicant) represents · for quite some time and both are v~ry reputable 2) the use proposed for the subject property is a very-low~traffic-type operatfon since most of their bUSiness is conducted via telephone and 3) a large number of people · -~-. in Saratoga will make use of this service. The Secretary explained that the property could"be granted a conditional change of zoning which would limitlthe use of the Georgia~ House to a brokerage office and if that use were abandoned the zoning would auto- · matically revert to "R-I" zoning. The applicant, in answer to an inquiry from Chairman Lively, stated that he would not find a·conditional change of zoning objectionable. Chairman Lively explained that since a recommendation has been made in the 1972 General Plan and because there. are other features that should be considered in connection with .this;·request he would recommend that the . matter be set aside for study at th·e time of the Major General Plan Review. Commissioner Marshall advised that'the City Council has specifically instructed this applicant to file a formal application with the Planning Commission; therefore, it would be. unfair to refer the matter to the 1973 General Plan.Reivew. . Chairman Lively stated that if the matter is not held over for study then the Planning Commission must deny the change of change of zoning request · in accord with the recommendation made in the 1972 General Plan. The secretary explained that it is not mandatory for the Planning Commission to follow the recommendation of the 1972 General Plan. It has been the policy to do so in the past but it is not required by law. Commissioner Marshall stated that,'·he felt, it would be more fair to deny C 162. because the applicant.would·then have the option of appealing to,~..t~e City Council Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision ·Committee suggested to the applicant that he appear before t.he City Council and now the City Council has referred the matter back to the Planning Commission and the applicant has filed for change of zoning; therefore some clarification or ruling is in order at this time. The Planning Commission is in a postion to act not only on the change of zoning but to recommend compatibility with land use in this area. 'Bette Bissell, 12790 Ione COurt, stated that .the antique shop presently in operation at the Georgian House is allowed·and certainly generates more traffic than would a brokerage office. Mr.'Craig Maas, 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, stated that 1) there·are some·things that are really important to him and one item of particular importance is the community in which he has grown up 2) the rural idea of Saratoga is a great asset 3) the recommendation of the 1972 to retain the subject property as "R~I" should be upheld 4) he realizes there are .· growing needs in the City; however, what Saratoga represents is Unique · and this is a great drawing power 'to a·great many people 5) the proposed· change of zoning very definitely would affect how Saratoga is going to grow,- if this is allowed What will be next? 6) a change in the Pace property (located in the same general area) has, also, been proposed for development 7) the subject request should be continued and the entire area should be taken under study 8) if the subject change of zoning were approved several problems would be involved a) additional traffic b) additional noise and c) water drainage problems 9) he has resided in the Saratoga community for 21 years and any area presently zoned "R-i" should remain as "R-i" 10) it is ·not fair that the homeo~ners in this area should have to mobilize everytime an application is filed to change .......................................... ~he zoning on the'subject property and 11) some decision should .be made and abided by in order to provide 'the residents of the area with some security~ Mr. Maas then submitted a petition containing 62 signatures in opposition to the proposed change of zoning. Planning Commission Minutes - November 13~ 1972 - Continued II. B. C-162 - Continued Commissioner Metcalf stated he fully understands how t~e citizens feel about the rural atmosphere of Saratoga and the Georgian House but one fac[ that should be kept in mind is that one alternative opportunity open to the present property owner would be to tear down the Georgian House and construct seven ho~Ses on the subject· property. Chairman Lively closed the h·earing for the evening at 8:36 P.M., directed C-162 continued to the next regular.meeting, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and General Plan Committee for further study and a report. C. UP-221 - Mobil Oil Corp., Highway 85 and Big Basin Way - Request for Use Permit to Allow Reconstruction of Service Station Chairman Lively reopened the hearing in connection with UP-221 at 8:37 P.M. The Secre[ary stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed and published. .... Mr. Neil K. Chase, 14345 Saratoga·Avenue, present·to represent· the applicant stated that the type of station proposed is placed in only the most prestigous areas. Approval of this use permit will result in the clean up of. a very important corner in the village area. Mr. Allen Hume, realtor pre~ht'to represent the applicant, stated that the new station will be slightly larger but not substantially Commissioner Marshall explained that the new station will be from 20% to 25% larger than the existing one. Chairman Lively inquired if the applicant had consulted with the Bay Area Pollution Board in connection with this matter. Mr. Chase explained that this·matter had been presented to the Bay Area POllution Board and the Boar'd advised that it was necessary to obtain City,.approval prior to any reivew·of the plans by that agency. Commissioner Bacon pointed out that while the building size will be increased by only 25% the total yard area will probably be increased by at least 100%; thereby, technically creating a new station at this significant corner. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the·evening at 8:45 P.M., directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting, and referred UP-221 to the Subdivision Committee for study and a··report- D. UP~222 - Doreve Corporation, Sara'toga-Sunnyvale Road - Request for USe Permit to Allow a Swim and Racket Club Chairman ·Lively opened th~ hearing relative ·to UP-222 at 8:46 P.M. The Secretary ·stated· the NotiCe of Hearing was mailed. He then read a communication received from Mr. and Mrs. Frank Schillace of 13057 Brandywine Drive· and a petition signed by fifty-one (51) ·. signatures both filed in opposition to the proposed use permit. -4- Planning Commission Minutes - November 13~ 1972 - Continued 'II. D. UP-222 - Continued Mr. Rally Davis, architect and planner, present to represent the applicant, stated that t) the applicant proposes to develop a private-tennis-club,. a small swimming pool, and with a lounge in the main building 2) traffic would have ingress from saratoga-sunnyvale Road;.therefore, would not disturb resi- dents of the neighborhood 3) the use proposed could not be considered comm- ercial since this is the type of use normally found in a residential neighbor- hood and ) the membership of the club would consist of approximately 200 to 250 people. Mr. Doreve, the applicant, stated that 1) the membership would consist of professional people 2) the plans for the club do not include facilities for small children 3) a total.number of six (6.) courts is proposed 4) 'Saratoga residents would be g{ven. first preference for membership 5) the plans do not include extending Brandywine 6) a fence will be placed around the entire property and a defi. nite attempt will be made to maintain a rural atmosphere 7) there is a natural creek at the rear of the property 8) the club would close doom at 9:00 P.M~ 9) tennis is not a particularly. noisygame and will not attract a great number of spectators 10)" a study has been done to determine locations for this club; and Saratoga and Santa Cruz showed the greatest demand for this type of. club 11) this.use'would' provide recreation for residents of the City 12) this use would be very beneficial to Saratoga and 13) the proposed club would be a profit making venture. Chairman Lively explained that the Zoning Ordinance permits a non-profit organization 'in a residential .area but does not permit-a profit-making organization; therefore, this request should be for a Change of Zoning rather than for a Use Permit. Commissioner Marshall stated that. this .applicant met with the Subdivision Committee and it was his (Commissioner Marshall's) understanding that it would be a private tennis club. Chairman Lively explained that the club would be privately owned but. commercially operated. Mrs. Venator of 21120 Wardell Road stated that 1) she belongs to. the Brookside Club 2) there does not' seem to be any need for additional private tennis clubs in Saratoga 'since the Brookside Club always has memberships for sale and 3) what is really needed is some. public tennis courts. Mr'. George K. Schwind of 13060 Paramount Drive stated that. l) he signed the petition filed in opposition .to the proposed use permit 2) the ' tranquillity of this neighborhood Would definitely.'be.affected by. with this proposed use 3) 'it-is his earnest. hope that this .application for use permit will be denied and 4) the applicant stated there will be no nightstime tennis if the use is approved, but what is.to keep him' (the applicant) from changing his mind? Chairman Lively explained'that the use could only be approved as a -' · conditional use and the Planning Commission can put a series of condi- tions on the use permit-that would prevent any unexpected or unauthorized activities. Mr. D. A. Daggett of 13020 Apollo' Way stated that he is opposed to.the. subject. application primarily for reasons of traffic and the number of'people that would be attracted into.the neighborhood by.this use Chairman Lively .closed the'hearing for the.evening at 9:.15 P..M., continued the matter to the next regular meeting and referred UP-222 to the Subdivision Cormnittee for.study and a report.' -5- Planning Commission Minutes - November 13~ 1972 - Continued Iio E, V-388 - Gary Gordon, Bank Mill Road - Request for Variance to Allow Reduction in Side Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from October 24~ 1972 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing at 9:16 P.M. ~' The Secretary read 1) a Statement of Reason filed by the applicant and 2) a letter received from the Tollgate Homeowners Association filed in favor of this variance. The Secretary explained that the width measurement of this lot accord- ing to the Zoning Ordinance is ll0-feet; however, the applicant finds it to be only 108~-feet. The formula. used by the applicant was checked by the Department of Public Works and that Department backed the applicant's mathmatical figures. Commissioner Marshall explained that. l) the only reason the house is proposed to be located in a position requiring a variance is because this is where the applicant wants it 2) the applicant has situated the house in such a way that all the trees will be saved and that is commend- able 3) '.if the variance were granted the proposed house and the one exist- ting next door would be too close logether 4) the main reason the applicant wants the house in the proposed loc~tion is for retention of the view and the floor plans - there is really no hardship involved and 5) the house can be placed on the lot without a variance, but not in the location proposed. The applicant was present and stated that 1) he has worked very hard 6o design this house and has made some sacrifices on the floor plans 2) he has tried to design a house that would be harmonious with the lot and 3) some consideration should be made for the irregular shape of this lot. Mr. Mike Flick of 5573 Ora Street, San Jose, stated that he owns the.lot adjacent to the applicant's and if this variance is approved the view from his (Flick's) lot will be obstructed. Chairman Lively closed the hearing 'for' the evening at 9:42 P..M., directed V-388 continued to the next regular meeting and referred same to the Variance Committee for study and a report. He further requested the Secretary to determine the proper" measurement for this lot. III. 'BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-982 - Charles Guichard, Wardell Road - Building Site Approval - 3 Lots - Continued from October 24~ 1972 The Secretary explained that 1) originally the applicant proposed a three (3) lot subdivision 2) due to slope-density requirements the ~ubdivision Committee requested the applicant to submit a revised map showing a two (2) lot subdivision 3) the applicant submitted the plan ~-- just prior to .this meeting; therefore, the Subdivision Committee has not had an opportunity to review said revised map. The applicant was present and stated that 1) the only change in the map is the deletion of a boundary line; thereb~ leaving something like 20,000- square feet of excess property 2) this excess can be added to his own existing'~rivate-residence.and yard-are~'and 3) the revised map is the fourth map submitted for this appliqation and he would encourage the Planning Commission to act on the matter at this time. M~s. V~nator of 21120 Wardell Road stated that 1)' she objects to this d'evelopment 2) the Planning Commission has always assured her that only three.(3) dwellings could exist off of a 20-foot dead-end easement there are three dwellings there now and if the proposed development is allowed there will be four homes 3) parcel'29 of this subdivision is a very steep piece of property and the access road to parcel 29 is very poor and iS already too close to her house and 4) before the applicant purchased this property the neighbors informed him the land was not subdividable. Planning Commission Minutes - November 13~ 1'972 - Continued III. A. SDR-982 -.~ontinued Commissioner Smith stated that in order for this matter to be continued the applicant must grant'the Planning COmmission a thirty (30) ~y extension. '~- The applicant stated that he did hereby grant the reqneSted thirty (30) day extension and explained that he would submit a letter stating same. Mr. Pecsar of 20880 Wardell Road stated that 1) if necessary there will be legal action taken to prevent development of this property 2) he concurred to allow the applicant to remodel the old barn located on this property 3) the existing residents of this area bear the burden of maintenance of the access road 4) the applicant has taken it upon himself to move some pipe line which did not belong · to him' and 5) if any more similar incidents occur steps will be taken to restrain Mr. Guichardo Chairman Lively directed SDR-982 continued'to the next regular meet- ing and referred the matter to the.Subdivision Committee for study. B. SD-992 - George W. Day, Fruitvale A~enue - Subdivision Approval - 21 Lots - Continued from October 24~ 1972 'The Secretary stated that the applicant did review the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Belanger recommended that Condition 11. of the Subdivi- sion Committee Report dated November 13, 1972 be amended to read as follows: "11. Provide decorative wall or fencing, along Fruitvale Avenue as required by the Design Review Committee." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Sub- division Committee Report dated November 13, 1972 relative to SD-992 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed November 13, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. SDR-993 - Ralph Anderson, Quito Road - Building Site Approval 3 Lots - Continued from October 24~ 1972 Commissioner Smith recommended that this matter be continued to the -next regular meeting in order to resolve complexities in connection with road improvements. The Secretary .pointed out that additional time is necessary to extend this application; therefore, a letter of extension 'should be obtained · from the applicant. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by CommiSsioner Marshall, that SDR-993 be denied unless a letter of extension'is received from the applicant; motion carried ~nanimously.. Do SDR-994 Jonathan Rueloffs, Woodbank Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Continued from OCtober 24, 1972 The Secretary recommended that SDR-994 be continued to the next regular meeting to allow additional study in connection with percolation tests. Chairman Lively so directed. Planning Commission Minutes November 13~ 1972 - Continued III. Eo SDR-999 - Ao Thomas Barrie, Pierce Road - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from October 24~ 1972 The applicant was present and stated the conditions of approval had been reviewed and were not objectionable. ~.~ Commissioner Metcalf stated that he did not feel the tentative map ' ' contained adequate information. The Secretary explained that all the necessary information had been supplied and the tentative-map requirements have been met. Commissioner Smith moved, ·seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Building Site Committee Report dated November 13, 1972 relative to SDR-999 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed October 13, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried with Commissioner Metcalf voting no . F. SDR-1001 Willard Lynch, Big Basin Way - Building Site Approval - ·1 Lot - Continued f. rom October 24, 1972 Commissioner Smith recomended that each individual Commissioner make an on-site inspection of this property. Commissioner Marshall explained that members of the. Variance Committee ~.' did visit this site and found the buildings in very bad condition. Even '~ if the applicant were allowed to remodel the buildings they would probably revert to rentals and in due time again end up as problems. Chairman Lively directed SDR-1001 continued to the next regular meeting· requested the Commissioners that had not' visited this site to do so at their convenience. G. SDR-IO0~ - Mobil Oil Corp.', Highway 85 and Big Basin Way - Reconstruction o__f Service · Station - 1 Lot Chairman Lively stated that since UP-221 has been continued SDR-1002 must be continued to the next regular meeting since the two (2) appli- cations are directly connected. H. SD-1003 - Stoneson Construction Company, Springer Avenue - Subdivision A_pproval 16 Lots Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the , Subdivision Committee Report dated November 13, 1972 be adopted and · that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed November 2, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unani- mously. I. SDR-1004 - Bruce H. Owensi Loma Rio Drive - Building Sit'e Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary stated that the applicant did review the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Build- ing Site Committee Report dated November 13, 1972 relative to SDR-1004 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed November 1, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; m~tion carried unanimously. '~. ..~ Planning Commission Minutes - November 13~ 1972 - Continued III. J. SD-IO05 - Kosich Construction Co.~ Verde Vista Lane - Subdivision Approval - 8 Lots The applicant was present and stated that he had reviewed the pro- posed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacbn, that the Subdivision Committee Report dated November 13, 1972 relative to SD-1005 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed November 2, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. Ko ~_D.R-1006 - Ignatius Aprile, Saratoga Avenue -.Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The Secretary stated the applicant did review the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded' by Commissioner Bacon, that the Building Site Committee Report dated November 13, 1972 relative to SDR-1006 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed November 1, 1972) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. L. SDR-1007 - Ralph Pearsony E1 Quito. Way- Building Site Approval 1 Lot The Secretary recommended that SDR-1007 be continued to the next regular meeting. Chairman Lively so directed. M. SDR-1008 - J. F. Zeid~ Palomino Way - Building Site Approval 1Lo~ The Secretary recommended that SDR-IO08 be continued to the next regular meetingj Chairma~n Lively so directed. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-360 - Grace Methodist Church, Prospect Road - Review Final Parking P_rogram for Church Facility - Final Design Review Commissioner Metcalf recommended that A-360 be continued to the next regular meeting in order to allow the applicant time to submit a more suitable map which clearly states the plans for parking. Chairman Lively so directed. B. A-391 - George W. Day, Fruitvale Avenue - Review of Residence in "P-C" .(Planned-Community) Development - Final Design Review Commissioner Metcalf read the Staff report relative to A-391 recommending that-Final Design Approval be granted"for Lot 10 of Tract 5150. He then amended said report as follows: Add condition (b) ~ "(b) StucCo to be used only on rear elevation.'." Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated November 13, 1972 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design ApproVal be granted for A-391, Lot 10 of Tract 5150'; as shown on on Exhibit "I" and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. C. A-397 - Dr. I. N. Abrams, Edina Lane - Lot 17 (Tract 5233) - Two-Story Home -.Final Design ReView Commissioner Metcalf explained that 'the Planning Connnission approved a one-Story home for this lot and the~Design Review Committee did meet with the applicant and two (2) of the neighbors to discuss this matter. The neighbors are unwilling to gran~ their approval for a two-story home for Lot 17 of Tract 5233. Planning Commission Minutes - November 13, 1972 - Continued IV. C'. A-397 - Continued ~Chairman Lively explained that the City Attorney has been consulted on this matter and he agreed that the recommendation to retain this site as iota for a single-story residence only is valid. Cormnissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the request to allow a two-story home on Lot 17 of Tract 5233 be denied and that the requirement that a single-story home only be constructed on Lot 17 be enforced; motion carried unanimously. D. A-403 - Mobil Oil Corp., Highway 85 and Big Basin Way - Reconstruction of Service Station - Final Design Review Chairman Lively directed A-403 continued to the next regular meeting in order to allow time to make a determination regarding UP-221 and SDR-iO02 both of which have a direct bearing on the subject appli- cation. Chairman Lively directed that this matter be given careful consideration since the location Qf the proposed structure involves a very important corner in the vill.age area. Eo A-404 - L~n Sullivan, Big Basin Way - Identification Sign for Bar and Restaurant - Final Design .Review .,Commissioner Metc~lf moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated November 13, 1972 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for A-404 as"shown on .Exhibit "A". subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously.' V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT The Secretary gave a brief summary of items reviewed and action taken at the City Ceuncil meeting of November 1, 1972. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. 1972 General Plan Review - Referral by City Council for Report onSpecific Items Commissioner Metcalf read the report of the General Plan Committee dated November 13, 1972 listing their recommendations regarding reconsiderations as requested by the City Council. The report was amended as follows: Item 1. a) amended to read: "a) Draft and forward to .the Council an ! Emergency Zoning Ordinance defining and regulating these properties." Item 2. paragraph 1. to read: "2. Retirement Housing - The Retirement Housing Study of.1971 concluded that certain sites were suitable for such housing. Rather than specifically reserving such. locations, we recommend that land presently shown as "R-M" be regarded as eligible for retirement housing. Other areas can be considered on their merits." Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adopt, as amended, the General Plan Committee Report dated November 13, 1972 and that same be forwarded to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning.Commission; motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes - November 13~..1972 - Continued VI. E. West Valley Jr. College - Continued The Assistant Planner reviewed the status of the West Valley Junior College Master Plan. A written report relative to same was, also, submitted. Chairman Lively requested the Staff to communicate with the college and make known the discrepancies between the college Master Plan and those buildings that have received approval by the Planning Commission. He further stated it should be emphasized that.the City of Saratoga would like to process under Design Review all buildings that are proposed for development by the West Valley Junior College. VII. NEW'BUSINESS NONE VIII. COMMIJNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. ~-176 - Ditz-Crane~ Yuba Court - Request for ExtenSion The Secretary read a letter received from the applicant requesting a one'(1) year extension. Chairman Lively referred the matter to the Subdivision Committee and directed UP-176 continued to the next regular meeting. 2. C-154 - Thomas.D. Kidson, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road ~ Request for Withdrawal The Secretary read a letter received from Mr. Thomas D. Kidson requesting that he be allowed to withdraw his application (C-154) for change of zoning and that his filing fee be refunded. Commissioner Smith moved, secoDded by Commissioner Bacon, to approve..' the subject request fer withdrawal-in connection with C-154; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lively explained that.any refund of fees must be approved by the City Council. 3. Review of Multi-Family Residential Zoning in SaratoSa Commissioner Marshall stated that a summary of "R-M" zoning in the City has been prepared and a copy placed in each Commissioners folder for their review. B. 'ORAL Guests : Chairman Lively~acknowledged,' with pleasure, the presence of Mayor Smith, CoUnCilman Bridges, Mrs. Ruth Owen and'..Mr. Lueck of the Good Government Group. He, also, thanked Mrs. Owen for the coffee served at recess. IX. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Marshall moved,.seconded by Commissioner Metcalf, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of November 13, 1972 at 11:45 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, S~n~iey M./Walker, Secretary. Saratoga Planning Commission Planning'Commission Minutes - November 13.~...1.9.72,.- Continued VI, A, 1972 General Plan Review - Continued EMERGENCY ZONING ORDINANCE 3E-10 Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the interim emergency-zoning ordinance 3E-10 be recommend&d to the City Council for their adoption; motion carried unanimously. B. Retirement Housing Standards - Continued from October 24, 1972 Chairman Lively recommended that. this item be removed from the agenda since a recommendation to. resolve the matter was made under the previous agendized item. C. SDR-895 - S. B. Walton, Saratoga, Hills Road - Request for Reconsideration of Conditions - Continued from October 24~ 1972 The Secretary read the Staff RepOrt dated November 13, 1972 recommending ~hat the subject request for.reconsideration be approved. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the Staff Report dated November 13, 1972 be adopted and that condition II-B of the Building Site Committee Report relative to SDR-895 be modified as requested; motion carried unanimously. The Secretary stated that the applicant has, also, submitted a request for a one (1) year extension for SDR-895. Chairman Lively referred the subject request for extension to the Subdivision Committee for study and a report at the next regular meeting. D. SDR-1000 - William K. Brown, Mendelsohn. Lane- 1 Lot - Modification of Conditions The Secretary stated that the applicant has made a request for reconsider- ation in connection with the road improvements on Mendelsohn. Chairman Lively stated Chat someexisting trees would be affected by any road wideninK. The revised Building Site Committee Repor~ dated November 13, 1972 was amended to eliminate the two'(2) conditions relating to road improvements. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the revised Building Site Committee Report dated November 13, 1972 relative to SDR-1000 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed OCtober 13, 1972). be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. E. West Valley Jr. College, Fruitvale and Allendale - Warehouse Location Modification and Status of College Master Plan The Secretary explained that comments from several Planning Commissioners relative to the various alternative locations proposed for the college warehouse building were forwarded to Mr. Jim Hardy, president, West Valley 3unior College. Commissioner Metcalf stated that a consensus of the members of the Planning Commission indicated that site "C" was most favored. Chairman Lively stated that it would be apprqpriate to determine the reaction of the college regarding the recommendation by the members of the Commission. Mr. Steve Keller, present to represent the college, stated that he had not had an opportunity to review these comments; therefore, could not make any comments relative to same at this time. "