Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-24-1974 Planning Commission Minutes OF PLANNING MINU~ES *************~***** TIME: Wednesday, April 24, 1974 7;30 p.m.' PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting ***********~********* I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A'. ROLL CALL Present: CommissiOners Belanger, MarShall, Matteoni, Smith and Woodward Absent: Commissioner Martin " .....~ B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by!Commissioner Woodward, that the reading of .the minutes of April 10, 1974 be waived, 'and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Woodward presented an oral report of the City Council Meeting of April 17, 1974. A copy of the minuteb of this meeting is on file at the City Administration office. Of special interest was the passage of Resolution 687 commending Councilman Dwyer for his years of service on the City Council. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery, Ihc., Prospect Avenue - Request to Permit a Temporary Office Trailer The Chairman opened the public hearing on UP-239 at 7:38 p.m. The Secretary stated a Staff Report had been prepared relative to this which recommended approval of the request for a temporary office trailer on the leased land from the State in the West Valley Freeway right-of-way off Prospect Road. Mr. Stockard, applicant, acknowledged2 receipt and acceptance of the terms of the Staff Report. Mr. James McPhail, 12339 Marilla DriVe, expressed concern that his family room overlooked this trailer site. It was, pointed out that the trailer would be located on the farthest side of the freeway r~ight-of-way, and that appropriate screening and landscaping would be required. A gentleman residing on Marilla Court asked how much wholesale traffic would be anticipated, and what kind of sewage facilities would be used. Mr. Stockard ex- plained that the nursery was a growing-yard rather than a wholesale nursery, and that large sections of the trees would be developed at one time; consequently, there would be a very small amount of traffic. He further added that portable sanitation units would be used. Mr. Turgeon..~sked if the proposed trails project of the General Plan would be prevented if this Use Permit was granted. Chairman Marshall replied that the i"' proposed trails plan wou'fd]~ot be prevented inso'~h'~ih~N~s'~y was temporary, on leased land'~r'~he'S'~'~"~d 'ff necessary, ~buld be'cleared out in a short time. Commissioner Belanger requested that 'Condition 4 of the Staff Report be amended as follows: "Telephone and electrical ;wiring to trailer to be underground." There were no further comments made. ~1- April 24~ 1974 Minutes A. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery - ~ontinued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by'Commissioner Woodward, that the public hear- ing on UP-239 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 7:49 p.m. : Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by;COmmissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated April 24, 1974 relative to UP-2~9 be accepted, and the request for Use Permit to allow a temporary trailer be granted subject to Conditions (1) through (8) of the report, as amended. The motion was carried: 4 ayes and Commissioner Matteoni abstained because he did not.hear all of the testimony. B. UP-240 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Shadow Oaks Way, Request to Permit a Model Homes Sales Office The Secretary stated that a Use Permit had been requested to allow operation of a model homes sales office on an ll-lotZsubdivision on Shadow Oaks Way. He explained that past policy relative to model-homes sales-offices indicated subdivisions of 20 lots or less should not be allowedfto have model sales offices. He stated that in the light of this policy, a Staff Report had been prepared dated April 24, 1974 in two parts: one part reaffirmed this past policy and denied the request, and · one part recommended approval subject. to conditions stated within the report. He added that Staff =ecommended approval%of this request. Commissioner Smith explained that this Sales Office Policy had been adopted in September 1969 at the request of the Subdivision Committee for the purpose of allowing Staff to sift through the overwhelming amount of applications submitted. He stated he'felt the Policy should be modified to reduce the number of lots inso- much as the tracts were smaller now than they had been in 1969. Mr. Turgeon, representative of the applicant, stated the Corporation would be vacating their present model-homeS sales-officesion Wardell Road if this applica- tion was approved. He added that other model-homes sales-offices at the following tract locations would be consolidatedlinto this one sales office on Shadow Oaks Way: Sevilla Lane - 1 lot; Fruitvale'Avenue - 15 lots; Michaels Drive - 8 lots; and Shadow Oaks Way - 6 lots. Because there were actually 30 lots involved, · Mr. Turgeon requested the time limit on this Use Permit be extended to six months, and added that the Corporation would be willing to post bond on this matter. A question was raised as to Item 4 of' the Policy relative to the subdivision's having a non-tract sales office within two miles of the nearest tract. Mr. Turgeon stated that he had a resale real-esta'te office on Highway 9 within two miles of this proposed office, but that new homes were not sold there. Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the public hearing on UP-240 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m. ~ The matter of the Sales Office Polic~ was addressed at this time, and the ques- tion of reducing the minimum lot requirement was discussed. Commissioner Woodward suggested this number be ten lots. Commissioner Matteoni felt the number should be higher in order to encourage developers to consolidate sales offices. Chairman Marshall directed the Sales ;Office Policy be referred to the Subdivision Committee for review and modification, and requested that a report on this matter be made at the next Planning Commission meeting. The Staff Report was next discussed and the following amendments were made: 1. Condition (a): This Use Permit {s granted for a period of six (6) months from date of approval and subject to extension upon receipt of applica- tion and review by the Planning Commission. 2. Condition (b): Use is limited t0 sale of lots, with or without houses, within the tracts now under development by the contractor. Use as a construction yard, or for administrative or engineering functions is prohibited.· ~2- April 24~ 1974 B. UP-240 - Saratoga Foothills DevelopmeAt Corporation - Continued 3. Condition (e): Use Permit is revocable in the event any of the conditions are not fulfilled, or in the event.there are parking problems?-ass0ciated with the model homes sales office a~jacent to Saratoga Avenue. This Condition (e) was added after the matter of potential parking problems on Saratoga Avenue was discussed.: It was pointed out that the Sales Office Policy stipulated the location of%a sales office to be on an internal street of the subdivision, and that this;model home faced a major thoroughfare. Mr. Turgeon explained that the only other house which could be used as a model home was 2~ months from being completed. He further stated that the model home chosen was 70 feet from Saratoga Avenue, and that there was sufficient parking space available on Shadow:Oaks Way to handle traffic. He indicated the Corporation would take responsibility of preventing parking on Saratoga Avenue, and agreed to the addition of Condition (e). There were no further comments. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by%Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated April 24, 1974 relative to UP-24Obe accepted, and the request for a Model Homes Sales Office be granted subject to Conditions (a) through (~) of the report, as amended. The m6tion was carried unanimously. C. V-404 - Robert Miller, Lomita Avenue ~ Request for variance to Allow a New Two- Story Residential Structure o~ Property Not Opposite or Contiguous to the Same (Section 3-7-2 of Ordinance NS-3) The Secretary stated the applicant proposed a new two-story house off Lomita Avenue, abutting the Madronia Cemetery. He explained that the new Two-Story' Ordinance provided that "conversions of existing single-story houses to two-story houses required a public hearing and a use Permit. Also, new one lot, two story houses must meet the given setbacks of the Code and they must be contiguous to a two-story structure." He noted that ~he latter statement was the issue in this matter, and that it was Staff's opinion that the intent and letter of the Ordinance was not met by this application. He explained that Mr. Miller had requested a second opinion be given, and that Staff recommended this be referred to the Variance Committee for review. He added that this had been referred to the City Attorney for interpretation. It was noted this matter had not been:publicly noticed, and was thus an informal hearing. Chairman Marshall opened the informal public hearing on V-404 at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Robert Miller, applicant, was present and contended the proposed house was contiguous to a two-story dwelling next to the cemetery. He further requested that a second opinion be given on this matter. Chairman Marshall explained that the Two-Story Ordinance was newly adopted, and that this was the first issue to come~before it. He recommended 'this matter be referred to the Variance Committee for an on-site review~ and that a duly-noticed public hearing be held on this.'at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. He added that if the application was ~enied, Mr. Miller had the right of appeal to the City Council. A gentleman from the audience, residing at 20610 Lomita Avenue, stated he had a contiguous lot to the applicant's property, and requested he be allowed to attend the Variance Committee meeting relative to the interpretation of the Two-Story Ordinance. A lady from the audience stated her property was close to that of the applicant's, and indicated she would object to the Commission's granting approval of this request. There were no further comments' made. Chairman Marshall closed the informal public hearing on V-404 at 8:45 p.m. -3- 1974 Minutes~ C. V-404 - Robert Miller Continued Chairman Marshall directed V-404 be dOly noticed and be continued to the Planning Con~nission meeting of May 8, 1974; that this matter be referred to the Variance Committee for an on-site review with ~he applicant on May 4, 1974 at 9:00 a.m.; and that this be followed by a meeting with neighbors on-site at 9:30 a.m., May 4. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-1057 - Gerald D. Butler, Walnut A~enue, Subdivision Approval - 6 Lots; Continued from July 23~ 1973 The Secretary stated this was a request for a 6-lot subdivision off of Walnut Ave- nue adjacent to Saratoga Creek. He stated a Staff Report dated April 24 had been prepared in two parts on this matter: one part recommended approval of the request subject to conditions contained. therein, and one part recommended denial of the request based on exceptions to the Code and'the number of variances the City would be required to make. He added that Staff recommended denial of the request based on the following reasons: (1) Lot #1 could not meet lot-depth requirements; (2) due to Lot #i's proximity to rearZyard precipice, there/was a question of public safety; (3) the proposed access would result in an illegal sideyard situa- tion relative to the house on the west; and (4) the W. Peck property located to the southwest of the project would be landlocked. Chairman Marshall gave a brief history of the application, and explained that the problem at this point was that the subdivision would create many automatic variance situations which the City would not be willing to make. He added that the denial was without prejudice which would allow the applicant to refile. Mr. Reckenmacher, the applicant's representative, stated that this application had been brought before the Subdivision Committee four times; and that at the January 17 meeting his understanding was there would be no problems with the general configurations subject to Flood Control approval. He stated Flood Control approval had been given, and at the February 6 meeting, the Subdivision Committee had indicated a variance.could be granted on the one lot which did not comply with the Code. He further stated that Mr. Burns of the Flood Control District had made a mistake in his letter of April 18 to the Planning Commission which had been corrected to state that the top of the bank would be the right of way but would require a 15 foot building Setback. The Secretary confirmed this statement, but noted that L~t ~1 still remained very awkward in that there was a 30 foot precipice at the rear of the property. It was felt that because of the precipice, even iS fenced, a public safety problem would be created. It was further pointed out that Lot #1 aggravated a non-con- forming side yard situation on property to the west. Commissioner Woodward stated that she' felt there were too many lots for the amount of space, and that there was a moral obligation on the part of the developer to not create a hazardous situation. Mr. Cliff Beck, another representative of the applicant, stated that there were many hardships involved in the development of this property: (1) the size was difficult to develoR; and_.(2) there were tremendous improvement costs in- volved (approximately $80,000)~ He added that on a 6-lot basis, these improve- ment costs would barely be covered. Be further explained that the previous owner had been required to install a storm drain through the property as well as a sewage line, and that certain pieces of property should not have to bear all of the cost burden. He concluded tha~' because of the hardships faced in the development of this property, the developer should be given some leniency. Commissioner Smith ~'~l~'ined that the Subdivision Committee had been discussing this matter since M~re'h 1970 with various representatives of various developers. He stated that the.reason why some of: these variances had not been pointed out April 24~ 1974 Minutes A. SD-1057 - Gerald D. Butler - Continued earlier was that the Committee had to'wait until Flood Control and the developer worked out a solution to the creek problem. He emphasized that the City should not create an illegal lot by allowing'! substandard depths or improper clearances on the lot to existing houses. He recommended the application be denied. Commissioner Belanger commentedT"we C~nnot engineer this at a public hearing~ ?~'~d')asked that Commissioner Smith call for the question. There were no further comments ma. de. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated April 24, 1974 relative to SDR-1057 be accepted, and the request for subdivision approval be denied without prejudice on the basis of the condi- tions of the report. The motion was carried unanimously. B. SDR-1093 - Dav'id N. Grant, Canyon View Drive, ·Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from April 10~ 1~74 · The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted a revised map which depicted the access of the adjacent property (SDR-1090). He further stated that prior to granting final building site approval·, the applicant was being asked to demon- strate that easement rights had been granted. He added that a Staff Report had been prepared dated April 24, 1974 which recommended approval of this request. Commissioner Belanger recommended Condition "S" be amended as follows: "Prove irrevocable access easement rights have been secured." Mr. Dan Apker, representative of the ~pplicant, was present and submitted a map ~h~i~ he stated mee the requirements of Condition "S". ~Mr. Dan Trinidad, Depart- ment of Public Works, stated that on ~he surface, the map submitted offered proof that this Condition had been met; he added that he would review this matter further. There were no further comments. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by: Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated April 24, 1974 relative to SDR-1093 be accepted, and that the tenta- tive map (Exhibit A-2 filed April 11,;. 1974) be accepted subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (s) of the report, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. C. SDR~ll00 - A.R. Woolworth, Brandywine. Drive, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots; Continued from April 10~ 1'.974 The Secretary stated that the applicant would be submitting revised plans, and recommended this matter be continued.· It was noted that time would expire on this prior to the next Planning Commission· meeting. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the application relative to SDR~ll00 be denied subjec'·t to receipt of a written extension from the applicant prior to the expiration dat'e. The motion was carried unanimously. D. SD-1101 - Avco Development Corporation, Cox Avenue Subdivision Approval - 18 Lots; Continued from April 10~ 19'.74 The Secretary stated the Staff Report of April 24, 1974 was in two parts: one which suggested minimum conditions be' imposed in the event the Commission approved the design; the other part being a re:commendation for denial based upon design criteria. Chairman Marshall gave a brief histor'y of this application, and noted that pre- vious development of this property had resulted in a long,narrow cul-de-sac which provided no access. Mr. Cecchi, representative of the app, licant, stated that the only economically feasible solution to this access problem had been to provide for an emergency · April 24~ 1974 Minutes 'D. SD-1101 - Avco Development Corporation - Continued right-of-way. He stated they had requested clarification from the State Depart' ment of Transportation on their'l~tter of April 16, 1974, and indicated that the stipulation contained in this lette~ ½egarding a Highway Commission resolution had been part of the State's Code for many years. He further pointed out that Avco was aware of the City's goals relative to the freeway right-of-way, and stated that they had tried to provide for these goals in their plans. Relative to this, he cited statements from the proposed 1973 General Plan: Item 8, Area C; Stem 2, Area D; and Item 3, Area D. He concluded his statements with the request that if the application was to be denied, could it be denied without prejudice. Chairman Marshall indicated the Commission would not object to this request. Commissioner Smith stated he would like to commend Mr. Cecchi on 'the cooperation received from him by the Subdivision Committee in attempting to solve the access problem. He stated that the developer had tried negotiations with owners of adjoining lots, but had not been successful. He indicated that he felt their efforts in finding a solution to the access problem had been noteworthy, and stated, "I will personally vote against the denial." He further recommended the Staff Report be amended by deleting everything after the first line of Item 2, and based this amendment on the fact that the 1973 General Plan had not yet been adopted. After further discussion, Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that approval of the tentative map be denied/without prejudice based upon those reasons in the Staff. recommendation for denial relating to design criteria for cul-de-sac streets (exceSsive length and inadequate emergency access), and the policy against double frontage lots. The motion was carried: 4 ayes; Commissioner Smith voted no. E. SDR-1102 - Mike Purcell, Big Basin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Commercial; Continued from April 10~ 1974 The Secretary stated a Staff Report had been prepared on this which recommended approval of the request. He explained that this project was conditioned for design review and it was dependent upon the formation of the parking assessment district. He added that if the parking district failed to go through, the appli- cant would be required to submit new plans which depicted parking. The applicant was present and acknowledged receipt and acceptance of the Staff Report. There were no further comments made. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by. Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated April 24, 1974 relative ~o SDR-1102 be accepted, and that the tenta- tive map (Exhibit A filed March 19, 1974) be approved subject to General Conditions ! and Specific Conditions II (a) throug~ (o) of the report. The motion was carried unanimously. F. SDR-1103 - Fred Marburg, Sarat0ga-Sunnyvale ROad, Commercial Expansion; Continued from'April 10, 1974 The Secretary stated input from the Santa Clara Valley Water District had not been received, and recommended this matter% be continued. It was noted that a letter from the applicant dat~ April 23, 1974 had been received which granted an exten-. sion to the Planning Commission meeting of May 8, 1974. The Chairman directed this matter be ~ontinued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 8, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Co~fm~ittee for review. G. SDR-1104 - Ben Yates, E1 Camino Grand~, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots; Continued from April 10~ 1974 ~ The Secretary stated a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter which recom- mended approval of this request. April 24~ 1974 Minutes G. SDR-1104 - Ben Yates - Continued Mr. Lou Frankel, representative of the applicant, acknowledged receipt of the report. He questioned Conditions K and L which stated that the applicant must com- ply with the requirements of letters from the Health Department and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Secretary explained that these conditions were standard, and that there were no specific conditions requ~red. Commissioner Smith corrected the Staff Report to provide for the standard pream- ble. There were no further comments made. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded'by Commissioner Smith, that the Staff Report -dated April 24, 1974 relative to SDR-!103 be accepted, and that the tentative map (Exhibit A-1 filed April 15, 1974) be.approved subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (z) of the report, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. BREAK: 9:50 p.m. MEETING REOPENED: 10:05 p.m. H. SDR-1105 - Danforth Apker, Sperry Lane, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots; Continued from April 10 ~ 1974 The Secretary stated a Staff Rep=.ort had been prepared on this matter which recom- mended fapproval of the reque.st. ! It was noted that revised maps were not required depict{ng easements and water drainage course insomuch as Condition "M" of the Staff Report covered this drainage course requirement. Mr. Trinidad ·requested that Condition "N" be stricken from the Report, and called for renumeration of the remaining conditions of the Report. Mr. Ralph DiTullio, applicant, acknowiedged receipt of the Staff Report and asked for clarification of same. Chairman Marshall gave an explanation of the Report's conditions, and recommended he confer with his engineer, Mr. Dan Apker, for further clarification. There were no! further comments made. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by~ Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated April 24, 1974 relative to SDR-1105 be accepted, and the tentative map (Exhibit A filed March 29, 1974) be approved subject to General Conditions I and Spedific Conditions II (a) through (s) of the report, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. I. SDR-1106 - Mary Lynn Dutro, Big Basin' Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Con- tinued from April 10~ 1974. The Secretary stated this matter should be continued in that input from the State Highway Department had not been received. It was noted that time would elapse on this application prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by' Commissioner Belanger, that the application relative to SDR-1106 be denied subjec.t to receipt of a written extension from the applicant prior to the expiration dat~. The motion was carried unanimously. J. SDR-1107 - Caryl Groteguth, Ten Acres Road, Building Site Approval 1 Lot; Con- tinued from April 10~ 1974 The Secretary stated a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter which recom- mended approval of the request. The applicant's ~e·~resentative was present.and acknowledged receipt and acceptance of the Staff Report. There were no further comments made. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated April 24, 1974 relative to SDR-1107 be accepted; that the tentative map (Exhibit A filed March 29, 1974) be approved subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (v), including the asterisked note explaining Items_ (i) through (v) of the report.. The motion was carried unanimously. April 24, 1974 Minutes K. SDR-1109 - John Terrill, Pierce Road,~ Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from April 10 ~ 1974 The Secretary stated that the applicant had been requested to submit revised maps, and recommended this matter be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1109 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing'of May 8, 1974, and referred this~matter to the Subdivision Committee for review. L. SD-1110 - Dividend Industries, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Subdivision Approval; 18 Lots; Continued from April 10p 1974 The Secretary stated this matter had not been adequately reviewed, and recommended this be continued to the next meeting~ of the Planning Commission. It was noted that time would elapse on this matteriprior to the next. meeting of the Plann_ing Commission.. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded byiCommissioner Belanger, that the application ,relative to SD-1110 be denied subject to receipt of a written extension from the' ~ap~l%cant' prior to the expiration date. The motion was carried unan'{m~usly. M. SDR-1111 - Royce Kaufman, Canyon View:Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from April 10~ 1~74 The Secretary stated a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter which recom- mended approval of the request. The applicant was present and acknowledged receipt of the Staff Report. He asked for clarification on Conditions L and;iQ. Mr. Trinidad explained that Condition L was a standard condition.; Chairman Marshall suggested Mr. Kaufman contact the Fire Department for further explanation of 7Condition Q. There were no further comments. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated April 24, 1974 relative to SDR-1111 be accepted, and that the tenta- tive map (Exhibit A filed April 1, 1974) be approved subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (t) of the report. The motion was carried unan imou sly. The Secretary stated that the files on th~ following applications were not complete, and recommended these matters be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission: N. SDR-1113 - Carolyn R. Buehner~ Allendale Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot O. SD-1114 - Ruth & Going~ Montalvo Roads; Building Site Approval - 5 Lots P. SDR-1115 - Marvin Kirkeby, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building Site ApproVal - 3 Lots Chairman Marshall directed that SDR-1113, '.SD-1114 and SDR-1115 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 8, 1974, and referred these matters to the Subdi- vision Committee for review. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-391 - George W. Day & Company, Fruit'~vale Avenue & Douglass Lane, Final Design Review; Single-Family Resident'ial~ 1 Lot (Tract 5327~ Lot #20) Mr. Don Burt, City Planner, .read the S. taff Report dated April 24, 1974 relative to this matter which recommended approval' of the 'final design request. He pointed out that the house would be situated diffe:.rently than what was shown~'on the approved Site Development Plan. -8'- April 24~ 1974 Minutes A. A-391 - George W. Day & Company - Continued Mr. Lou Leto, representative of the applicant, explained the reason for situating the house differently, as shown on Exhibit C-C-l, was because of the position of the swimming pool. A question was raised as to setbacks relative to the adjacent Lot ~19, and it was noted that these setbacks would not be less than those shown on the approved Site Development Plan, The Staff Report was amended in the following ways: 1. Paragraph 2, second sentence: "The street elevations will consist of vertical wood siding; the rear elevations will be of stucco." 2. Condition (a) was added as followS: "That a condition be incorporated'into the subdivision's deed restrictions, to be reviewed by the City Attorney, stating that the design and location '~"~ of all interior fencing and/or poqls for each lot of Tract 5327 be submitted to the Design Review Committee of.the City of Saratoga for review or approval." 3. Condition (b) was added as followj: "Stipulation that rear yard setbacks of Lot #19 be not less than those shown on the approved Site DevelOpment Plan." There were no further comments. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded!by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Staff Report dated April 24, 1974 relative to A-391 be accepted, and final design be granted subject to Conditions (a) andZ(b) of the report, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. B. A-429 - Church of the Ascension, Prospect Avenue and Miller Avenue, Final Design Review - Religious Education Center; 1 Lot Mr. Burt stated that the architect had requested this matter be continued due to revisions being made to the final design. Commissioner Matteoni requested that the Architectural Advisory.t~m!mittee be asked to assist the Design Review Committee on the review of this application. There were no further comments made. Chairman Marshall directed A-429 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 8, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and the Architectural Advisory Committee'for further review. C. A-430 - Almaden Development, Oak Street, Preliminary Design Review - Multiple Family Residential (6 Units) Chairman Marshall directed that Item A (SDR-1076) of Section VI-Miscellaneous be addressed prior to the matter of A-430. The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted a revised map (Exhibit D) relative to SDR-1076. It was observed that a note on Exhibit D indicated that the responsibility of the walkway should be that of the Parking District. Chairman Marshall explained to the applicant, Mr. Franklin, that the City Manager had specified the responsibility of installing the walkway would be that of the townhouse development; and that if Exhibit D was not amended to reflect this specification, it could not be adopted by the Planning Commission. Mr. Franklin stated that he felt the walkway expense should be the responsibility of the Parking District in that: (1) ~the original owner had been told that when the commercial area was developed, a Walkway must be installed; (2) the walkway would serve all of the commercial area as well as the townhouse development; and (3) if the Parking District did not g0 through, the townhouse development would have to install the walkway anyway. -9- ~ "'~7'~ril 24~ 1974 Minutes C. A-430 - Almaden Development = Continued Discussion of the note on Exhibit D fSllowed, and the applicant stated, "If you want to strike that out, that's O.K. with me." Chairman Marshall modified Exhibit D By depicting a double cross-hatch indicating the walkway be part of the townhouse development. He signed his endorsement of' this modification on both copies of the Exhibit. There were no further comments. Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded'by Commissioner Woodward, that Exhibit D of SDR-1076, as modified and signed by Chairman Marshall, be accepted as the Exhibit of record. The motion was carried unanimously. At this time,. Mr. Trinidad recommended the original Staff Report be amended to include that the applicant comply with the State Map Act. This was so directed by Chairman Marshall. Mr. Franklin requested the parks fee be waived in lieu of this walkway expense. Chairman Marshall stated this would be a matter for the City Council to deter- mine, and stated he felt the City maylbe receptive to this request. The matter of A-430, Preliminary Design Review, was next discussed. Mr. Burt read the Staff Report dated April 24, 19~4 which recommended approval of this request. Commissioner Belanger requested the Staff Report be amended as follows: 1. Recommended Action: Preliminary Design Approval as per Staff Report and Exhibit "A" and "B", and subject to the following conditions to be shown on final drawings: 2. Condition (b): Submit for final design approval the design and location of stairways and walkways on Fourth Street prior to receipt of final building site approval. 3. Condition (j) be added: Final drawings to depict roof stacks and vents. Commissioner Belanger further requested that the color be specified on the Staff Report, but it was noted this was part of Exhibit "B". Mr. Franklin questioned whether the present flora could be incorporated-as part of the stairway landscaping. Chairman Marshall stated this could be acceptable, but advised Mr. Franklin that landscaping plans would be required on the walkway installation prior to granting final design approval on A-430. There were no further comments. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded:by Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated April 24, 1974 relative ~o'A-430 be accepted, and that preliminary design be granted subject to Conditions (a) through (j) of the report, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. V.. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR-1076 - Almaden Development~ Oak Street Submittal of Revised Exhibit See Section IV (C). VI.' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATIONS The Secretary reported that the draft EIR on the Painless Parker property was presently being reviewed. It was noted that the traffic increase on Prospect Road had not been mentioned ~ the report, and it was suggested the report address this matter. Commissioner Belanger stated that the Hillside Committee of the County Planning Depart- ment had prepared a traffic study on the Monte Bellow Ridge area, and inquired~! April 24~ 1974 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATIONS - Continded if this study related to the Painless Parker property. Mrs. Greeley, a lady in the audience, reported that the study did not'include this matter. After further discussion, Chairman Marshall directed the Secretary to report on the findings of this study at the next meeting of the Planning Commissi6n. The Secretaty then stated that Mr. Moerdyke, representative of the Painless Parker development, had requested the City Attorney to determine the project's progress. The City Attorney reported at the City Council meeting of April 12 that continuing this matter off the agenda was not appropriate, even with the absence of the final EIR. It was determined that the Painless Parker application for a change of zoning (C-172) should be reagendized for a future Planning Commission meeting. The Chairman requested that the developer be asked to set a time.for the matter of C-172 to be heard before the Planning Commission, and that the Secretary report this time at the Planning ~pmmission meeting of. ~y 8. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. Written 1. Input from Mr. Miles Rankin which.requested that Resolution 506, Architectural Advisory Committee, be included in the 1973 General Plan. 2. A seminar entitled "Short Course for Planning Commissioners" to be held on May 31~June 1 in San Francisco. Interest of attending this course was indicated by Commissioners Belanger, Woodward and Marshall, and the Secretary was directed to'deter~i~'~if funds would be available for same. B. Oral 1. The Secretary announced that there would be a Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on Tuesday, May 7 between the City Council and Planning Commission. The General Plan will be discussed as well as a presentation given on senior Citizens. He stated that more information would be provided on this meeting at a later date. 2. Mr. Greeley asked when copies of ~he final and preliminary ~IR on the Painless Parker property would be made available. The Secretary~ stated that he would ask the consultant to identify a point in time when the EIR would be released, and added that it would probably be made available to the public within a month. 3. Commissioner Belanger inquired about the outcome of the meeting held April 22 regarding the Water District fencing issue on Wildcat Creek. The Secretary stated that the Parks and Recreation Department had attended this meeting, and that he would make a report on this matter at the next Planning Commission meeting. 4. Chairman Marshall expressed appreciation to Mrs. Parker of the Good Government Group for serving coffee. VIII.ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 1974 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Marshall adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles Y~v.'~{ow~,~ ~ting Planning Director -11-