Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-28-1980 Planning Commission Minutes%~ .'~' ~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 28, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners King, Laden, Schaefer, Siegfried, Williams and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Marshall Minutes Commissioner Siegfried moved to waive the reading of the minutes of May'14,".y. 1980 and approve as distributed. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP-451 Ronald and Linda Tate, Request for a Use Permit to allow the V-525 - construction of a 500 sq. ft. cabana over 6' in height within the required rear yard and a Request for a Variance to allow two arbors to provide minimum 10' and 11' side yards where 20' is required and to allow one arbor to provide a minimum 27' front yard where 30' is required, at 15250 Sobey Road; Continued from April 23, 1980 The correspondence received on these applications was noted into the record. Staff described the proposals for the use permit and variance. They indicated that they had been able to make the necessary findings for the use permit; however, they were unable to make the necessary findings for the variance for the arbors. They explained that they are, therefore, recommending denial of the variance, and feel there are sufficient alternatives. Commissioner Siegfried reported on the on-site visit. He commented that he had looked at the site from Dr. Colangelo's home, and he had no particular problem with the use permit. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he felt that the cabana is essentially in a side yard area and is the proper location, and it will not have any effect upon the neighbor- hood. However, he added, he feels it is inappropriate for the Commission to grant the variance for the arbors. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he felt particularly the area adjacent to the bathroom and spa really has an impact on the neighbors~."'H~comi~eh~d'~ha~'-H'e"f'e.!t"th~-'°H~ous-e' itself has some rather significant visual impact and'~e did not feel that should be increased. He explained that he felt that the one arbor could be moved to be brought within the proper setbacks, and on the other side it might still require a minor variance. The public hearing was opened at 7:44 p.m. Dr. C. Colangelo, 15270. Sobey Road, again requested that the variance for the arbors, particularly the two that flank his side, be denied. He stated that the Tate home is huge and should be ample fo~ a family of three. He added that there is certainly enough natural screening from the row of trees on his side of the property line. Dr. Colang61o stated that he felt the needs for these additional structures should have been anticipated since the property itself is rather sizable. He commented that he felt the privacy that had been stressed could be provided by stained glass, drapes, blinds, and curtains. Mrs. Colangelo stated that the applicant has offered to put up full ~ '= P'lanning Commission Page 2 Meeti'ng Minutes '5/2.8/8.0. ? UP-451 Vo525 (cont.) grown trees, which they appreciate. However, she stated, they could not aba'ndon their position of urging a denial, since they felt that if the Commission grants this variance. tja~'~'~~"="~l'~"7~' set. David Takamoto, the architect, discussed the design. He stated that there are restrictions to the property in terms of the setbacks. He added that whatever there would be added will be below the vision of the trees that are existing, so it would not impact the privacy of the neighbors. Mr. Takamoto ~'!i~e~d"~H~.~ he felt the Commission had significant reason to grant the variance. He ~dded that, if need be, the trellis in the ~'~.4~'d'a't~0'~-o~S6b. ey~' ~.~d~!~--'~be taken down. Mr. Takamoto stated that they had at one time planned to put in some kind of fence to give privacy to the bathroom area, but it would have been necessary to have a 10 ft. fence to do this. He added that any alternatives relative to natural planting would have to be 10 ft. high and fairly dense. Jack Butanica, the landscape architect, stated that they had considered foilage. instead of a structure, but he felt that a structure is more secure. He added that he felt the arbors lessen the impact of a large structure and the structure will also lessen the impact of the noise from the equipment. Tom Coe, a neighbor who lives across the street from the Tate home, stated~that if the same objective was achieved by just raising a 10 ft. vertical fence around the bathroom area without requiring any type of variance, he felt that this type of approach would not.be nearly as .attractive as what the applicant is proposing. He added that this treatment achieves an outdoor effect, and he urged for the approval of the use permit and variance. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it should be kept in mind that there are some things that can be done over a period of years to accomplish the same effect from the privacy standpoint, using trees and landscaping. Since no one else appeared, Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she' viewed the landscaping as a way of mitigating what perhaps people see as being very large as far as the home is concerned. She ~'~j~jd~that she would vote for the trellises since she felt they will visually make the house appear more in scale. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she felt the plans had been very carefully considered. She stated that she sympathized with the Colangelos, but felt that when the planting and fence go in, it will actually look much better. She indicated that she felt the two arbors and bathroom treatment would be better than leaving them plain. .Com- missioner Schaefer added that she would vote for the cabana since it will have a. visual effect of being only 12 ft. high. Commissioner Williams stated that the lot itself is quite unusual and is also depressed slightly. He commented that he felt the applicant has done an outstanding job of trying to mitigate some serious problems. Commissioner' Williams noted that he did not have any problem with the arbor in front but is strongly concerned about the addition along the bath. He al~o commented that he did not object to the use permit for the cabana. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he is not totally opposed to the variance in front, other than the fact that he felt there really isn't a need for the variance on the Colangelo's side and feels that a~bor could easily be moved. He added that he is totally opposed to the Pianning Commission ..... '.- Page 3 Meeting Minutes 5/28/.80 · UP-451 - V-525 (cont.) variance for the trellis and arbor in the bathroom area. Commissioner Zambetti commented that he would approve the use permit. However, he' added, he would have difficulty in approving the variance for the bathroom and also would have some difficulties with the arbors because they do encroach the front yard. Commissioner King agreed, stating that he felt. there are some other solutions, particularly with the bathroom and the trellis issues. He stated that he felt some natural planting might serve some of the same goals. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve UP-451. Commissioner seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was clarified by Staff that if V-525 was denied without prejudice, this would allow the applicant to reapply with a different proposal, which could try to meet the Commission's desires. Commissioner Siegfried moved that V-525 be denied without prejudice, since he felt there are some options with the trellises in the front area. Commissioner King seconded the motion. Commissioner Williams commented that it is rare that the Commission sees a set of plans and presentations as complete and outstanding as in this application; ]however, it is just simply a case that it impacts the Colang~lo~s property on that side, and particularly with the bath area there. The vote was taken on the motion to deny V-525 without prejudice. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer voting no. The applicant was requested to work with Staff on submittal of a new proposal. 2. V-524 - Immanuel Lutheran Church, Request for a Variance to allow the · ~ · '~hUr.'ch- t'o.: 'i~c~e~'~'e 'the '_h'~ {~h~":~f 'i't:S ;'-:~.~6~".' k~t'~e'd'.t'SWth~._.: newly constructed church from'g'5i 'to' 63' which would be 8' higher than permitted by ordinance, at 14103 Saratoga Avenue; continued from April 23, 1980 Staff reported that an on-site inspection |had been made by the Commis- sion. They indicated that there had been a petition received from 21 homeowners in the area, requesting that the cross be relocated to the Saratoga Avenue side of the church, and not be lit. The public hearing was reopened at 8:10 p.m. Richard Johnson, 13226 Glen Brae Drive, .stated that he was a member of the church and Chairman of the Building Committee. He stated that they regret that there }has been concern by the neighbors on this issue. He discussed the rationale for the cross as it stands and the request for the variance. He indicated that there were two strong reasons for the design as it is, in which the cross really is a-part of the building even though it is not physically attached to it. He explained that they feel very strongly that the cross is a vital part of the worship atmos- phere and it should be associated with the sanctuary building itself. Secondly, he added, they would not like to be just like other churches and have the cross out front; some different architectural treatments are appropriate. The landscaping that is planned was discussed, along with the lighting program and the color of the cross. It was noted that there had been a meeting between the church and the neighbors, which centered on the impact of the entire church, as well as the cross. Mr. Johnson stated that there ]had been a suggestion for putting a fence along the parking lot as a potential additional screening. He stated that they had looked into the cost of doing so, but would like it to be - 3 - '=' P'lanning Commission ' Page 4 Meeting Minutes 5/28/80 ' V-524 (cont.) a temporary fence until further planting had developed. Mr. Johnson explained that there are two crosses, and one of the design goals of the church was to bring the outside in. He stated that there are two windows behind the chancel, which is the front of the church, so when worshipping inside you see the lower cross through those windows. He indicated that the tall cross is really a part of the design of the building though not attached, and the purpose is to identify the building as the worship building and predominant symbol. Commissioner Schaefer stated that there are very few crosses as large as the current ones in Saratoga. She indicated that she felt it impor- tant to have a cross but did not understand why they need to be so large, and they seem to be more lighted and look more commercial than smaller ones. Lloyd Johnson, representing the architect, stated that the size of the cross is entirely in relationship to the size of the building, and to put a small cross on that particular design would be a misfit. Tom Kenyon, 14024 June Way, stated that the discussion at the meeting centered around landscaping and the lighting of the cross and other lighting. He noted that the fence had been discussed. Mr. Kenyon raised some questions on the lighting of the cross and its continuance. He commented that the church has already taken steps to install much softer lighting on the side of the church to create a more pleasant effect. Mr. Kenyon stated that they still were opposed to raising the cross 8 ft. John Campbell, member of the Council of the church, stated he was present during the on-site inspection and also at the meeting with the neighbors. He explained that the main objection of the neighbors had been the lighting of the building itself and the lighting of the. cross. Mr. Campbell indicated that they will landscape heavily around the back and edges of the parking lot. He added that if they put up a fence it would be a temporary one that would be taken down as soon as the lands. caping was mature enough to block the View. He stated that they would' urge that this variance be granted, as precedents have been set with other churches in the area on the height of their buildings. Mr. Campbell indicated that the lighting on the cross is on the same time clock as the security lights. Judy Gerhart, 14011 June way, questioned the timetable on the landscaping and the commitment on the fence. ~ Mr. Johnson explained that as of yet there had been no firm commitment on the fence. FIe stated that landscaping is part of the original design review and will be planted before the rains come in the fall. Kay Kenyon, 14024 June Way, reemphasized that the neighb'ors still do not want the cross raised, particularly during the evening if it i.s going to be lit. She stated that the lighting is going to be more dramatic if the cross is raised. Mrs. Kenyon noted that she felt there would be fewer objections if the cross were raised and not lighted at all. She explained that it is the lighting at night that most concerns the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson stated that they do wish to light the cross, but ]~'~.'1~. ~he issue could be discussed further. He added that throughout the country one of the landmarks of the skylines is almost always the local church and the topmost point of the christian church is the cross. Pastor Amundson stated that they had tried to work with the neighbors and are not rigid in their positions. He commented that the lighting is an issue on which they would try to compromise. He added that he felt, with landscaping and changes in the lighting program if necessary, that a compromise could be reached with the neighbors. Pastor Amunds0n 4 Planning Commission Page S Meeting Minutes 5/28/80 V-524 (cont.) pointed out that crosses have been quite small but have most always been accompanied by big steeples, and they are almost of the past now with the cost of wood being what it is. Since no one else appeared, Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he could understand why the church wants the cross in that particular location. He added that the whole nature of the building focuses on that particular location, as a cross is a sign of christian worship. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he could understand the neighbors' point of view because the cross is imposing from June Way and other locations. He stated that he felt some reasonable compromise could be reached. He indicated that he felt they need the additional height. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would be in favor of the lighting being minimized or only on during nights of worship. He also stated that he felt perhaps the color of the cross could be changed to a more neutral color. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve V-524 per the Staff Report, making the findings. It was the consensus of the Commission that there should be some time limit on the lighting of the cross. Commissioner Siegfried amended the motion to condition it to be lighted not beyond 10:00 except when services are later. Commissioner King seconded the motion and the amendment. Chairman Laden commented that she felt that the cross from almost any point of view'.~ji.S' at an appropriate size as it stands, and she does not see the need for the cross to be increased in size. She stated that it signifies that there is a church there. Chairman Laden added that, ' if the variance were approved, she would certainly suggest that the amendment for the lighting be a part of the approval, but it should be added that t~_lighting program be reviewed in 90 days to ensure it is meeting"t]~'_.ne'eds.'6'f~both the church and the neighbors. The vote was taken on the amendment to allow lighting of the cross until 10:00 p.m. on any evening except those when there are services, and then it could be lit until those services are over; the lighting program shall be reviewed after a 90-day period. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer voting no. The vote was taken on the motion to grant V-524, making the findings per the Staff Report as amended. The motion was'carried, with Commis- sioners Laden and Schaefer voting no. 3. UP-457 - Doyle Whitlow and Melvin Hurwick, Request for a Use Permit V-528 - to allow the subject site to change ownership, remodel the A-715 - existing structure, and continue operating under UP-97, and Design Review Approval for the sign, and Request for a Vari- ance to allow a free-standing sign, at 18560 Prospect Road Staff described the proposal for remodeling and the free-standing sign. The public hearing was opened at 9:00 p.m. Lloyd Anderson, an employee of Delta Queen Management Company, stated that their company is taking over the car wash in question. He stated that they have received a letter from·the Sanitation Board, stating that they do have the necessary clearance. Since no one else appeared, Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Williams, ,~_~'~rov'~'k!F~S.y.p~r' the -~S~aff Report dated May 20 1980. The motion was "'6a'rrie'd"unanimSd's.ly~= .... ' - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes 5/28/60 UP-457 V-528 A-715 (cont.) Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V-528, making the findings, and stating that the sign i~' necessary because of the way the car wash is set Pack from the street. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, stating that this portion of Saratoga is the only corner of commercial that Saratoga has that is bordered by San Jose on all three sides, and he feels they have to be competitive with the other areas. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-715, per the Staff Report. Commissioner Siegfried seconded t]~e motion, which was carried unani- mously. Break 9:10 - 9:30 p.m. 4. UP-458 - John Cuda, Request for a Use Permit to allow the construc- V-530 tion of a 20' x 24' garage 12' in height which would pro- vide a 6' rear yard where 25' is required, and Request for a Variance to allow the construction of a 20' x 30' attached carport which would provide a 30' rear yard where 60' is required, at 208.70 Verde Vista Lane Staff described the applications, stating that there are other options mentioned in the Staff Report. They indicated that they were unable to make the necessary findings and are recommending denial of the appli- cations. Letters received in opposition were noted into the record. Commis- sioner Williams gave an on-site inspection report. He described the site and the design of the house. He noted that there was evidence that there has been slippage on the adjacent hillside area. Commissioner Williams stated. that there was also the question of grading of a drive- way along the narrow distance between the house and the southern part of the property. He explained that he was concerned about clearance for this driveway, as well as visibility and grading. He added that there appear to be other alternatives and stated that there are certainly ways of putting the double garage and extra parking down below closer to their existing grading than there is at the upper level. Commissioner Williams noted that the applicant had not been at the on-site inspection to discuss~.options. The public hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m. John Cuda, the applicant, described the proposal. He stated that the lot is lower than the neighborhood around him and it is difficult to obtain good privacy until the trees grow, and even then it will be difficult. Mr. Cud. a added that he also needs added protection against the rainfall in the area of the attached carport, and the new roofline would provide this. He stated'that if he put the garage in the center -of the front lawn everyone could see~'iF~i~ the proposed site for the garage and carport cannot be seen by the street or the neighbors. The applicant discussed the slide that had occurred last year and stated that it was not because the soil is unstable but because of poor design. Mr. Cuda commented that he would like to at least get some better --options from this Commissioner Williams added that this was a steep site, and he felt the garage would need to be carefully engineered. Chairman Laden stated that she has some strong feelings about an application which asks for an additional driveway of 170 ft. in an area where you already have a driveway with a large turnaround. She explained that this is an area with a slope and she felt that as little ~ ~lanning Commission Page 7 .,, Meeting Minutes 5/28/80 UP-458 - V-530 (cont.) as possible should be done to cover that with impervious surface and grading which will have an impact on erosion. Chairman Laden indicated that she personally has a great deal of problem considering a structure that is 6 ft. away from the neighbor's fence, regardless of whether the neighbor chooses to have his house near it or not. She added that the City has setbacks for some very specific reasons, and this request is a great variation from the ordinance, when the property in fact would contain this particular structure in another portion of it, maybe not as conveniently for the applicant, but certainly with less impact on the hillsides and the neighbors. Commissioner King commented that one of the concerns that always comes before the Commission is the setting of precedents, and by pushing each item to the extreme the applicant is testing that principle in every way, and he should consider that when working on alternatives. Staff stated that, while the applicant has expended a great deal of effort, they have some trouble with the accuracy and quality of the representations. They explained that they don't agree with the numbers and are concerned about the driveway slope. Staff indicated that, since the existing slope in back of the house now is very close to 2:1, to cut that slope steeper to accomplish this proposal creates a landscaping problem and a slope that is inconsistent with the Grading Ordinance. They stated that they would like to have an opportunity to give the applicant more technical guidance and need the applicant or engineer to give diagrams that are specific and accurate in figures and detail. Commissioner Siegfried stated that there have to be other reasonable alternatives, and the present proposal is really pushing to the absolute limit the request for a variance. It was the consensus of the Commission that they should tour the site and will work with the applicant and Staff to find a suitable time. It was directed that this item be.continued to the June 25th meeting. 5. V-529 - Wells Fargo Bank (R. L. Haas), Request for a Variance to allow one lot of a two-lot subdivision to have an average width of 128 ft. where 150 ft. is required, at 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Staff described the variance request. It-was further clarified that the slope of the lot is over 10% and a 2-story residence could be built on it. Commissioner Williams stated he did inspect the site and described the lot in question, stating that it had a peculiar shape. It was noted that this lot would take access from Bainter Avenue and part of Bainter is in the County. The public hearing was opened at 10:05 p.m. Frederick Dorr, 19460 Bainter Way, stated that he owns the property adjacent to the lot in question. He explained that his property is along Bainter Avenue, and the County abandoned Bainter along side of his pro- perty in 1955. Therefore, according to his deed he explained, he owns property to the centerline of Bainter Avenue, and it appears that he would have to deed part of his property to enable the road to go through for access to this site. Mr. Dorr commented that'he objected to the project on the basis of increased density. Staff indicated that the tentative 'map shows that the site does have access to Bainter Avenue. Ron Westfall, the applicant's engineer who prepared the map, explained that it was prepared essentially from record data as far as the parcel on Bainter Avenue and the creek is concerned. He added that the total property has not been surveyed as yet, but that all record data indicates that there is adequate access to the property. Mr. Westfall stated that 7 '~'Planning Commission Page 8 Meeting Minutes 5/28/80 V-529 (cont.) they would confirm this as soon as possible. Staff commented that they would recommend a continuance of this matter until the issue of access can be resolved between the parties in question. Dr. William McLaughlin, 19310 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, stated that his property borders the northeast corner of this property. He commented that they do enjoy a very nice area back there, and to put a home in the center would significantly change the character of~the area. Dr. }~cLaughlin explained that 'he would not 'like to see this done, especially with a lot that needs a variance. Discussion followed on .Exhibit "C", which had been submitted by the applicant to illustrate how a lot could be fit within the parcel in question by modifying the configuration of the line dividing the entire property. The possibility of a third lot being created by this modifi- cation was discussed, and it was determined that the legality of this third lot should be considered' further. Ronald Haas., the applicant, explained that Exhibit "C" had been sub- mitted as an example of how the remainder of Lot "B" would theoretically meet all of the requirements if it was assumed that a small area was not part of it. He commented that this was not an actual plan for the development of this site. Chairman Laden indicated that she has some concerns regarding noncon- forming lots, even though they may become legal lots by the granting of a variance. She added that she would find it very appropriate to see and approve a design at the same time if the variance were to be approved, to ensure that the Commission and the neighbors would be comfortable with th'e structure that will be built on that site. Commissioner Siegfried commented that the applicant may be creating a lot that might not meet ordinance requirements. He stated that he has some difficulties with the variance process to enable this kind of a lot split. Hrs. Maynard, - a'~:i..d~w"'afid~n'er' o ~' the'-pF0'pe.'Ft~,~.Tg-~t~'d 'ft~i~.- S]~e ]~d. offer~ :i~H ."{~.'i'~'~ .i 1 "t h 6"2 :~"a'~'l '~'_ii.~ '.~ ff& 6~ i'{'~"!5', }'~1' 'n-dli ~h b.8~ S' ,-.-'- ~h ~' a d.~ ~i ':.~ h'a't' ~'h e needs the money"and must sell, even though she has become very attached to the area. She commented that if the lot cannot be split she will have to' move away, and she would like to stay on the upper part of the property. Gary Vendeweghe, an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Lucas, explained that the site is very unique and that the character of the area should be preserved. He stated that the Lucases will be able to see the pro- posed two-story home, which will be a large, high residence. Mr. Vandeweghe added that the neighbors do not wish any structure in that area. Mr. Don Lucas, 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, stated that the area is very unique and serene. He explained that when they bought their home the lot in question was unbuildable because of its narrow width. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he was opposed to c~eating this lot and would have difficulty in approving the variance. It was the consensus of the Commission that there.""shoUld"'be an on-site inspection and the legalities of the lot should be considered further. The applicant'was requested to stake the property to show where the house will be and also where the boundaries of the lot are, for an inspection on Tuesday, June 3, 1980 at 7:00 p.m. It was directed that this item be 'continued to the regular meeting on June 11, 1980. - 8 - Planning Commission Page 9 Meeting Minutes 5/28/80 · 6. V-531 ~- 'Gerald Christensen, Request for a Variance to allow a pro~ posed swimming pool to provide a 10' side yard where 20' · is required, at 14330 Cordwood Court · Staff described the proposal for the pool. They commented that, with a retaining wall, the grading can be mitigated. Commissioner Williams gave a report on the on-site visit'. He explained that this is ·a split level site, and the proposed location seems t'o be best for the pool. Commissioner Williams commented that the 'proposal does not· affect the adjacent neighbors. The public hearing was opened at 10:50 p.m. Mr. Christensen, the applican·t, stated that he had discussed the pro- posal with the ·adjoining neighbor, Mr. McKinsey, who indicated that his proposed home will be built on the extreme side of his lot, and the pool would not have an .imp·act on it. Miles Rankin, realtor, addressed the Commission,. stating·that he had the subdivision' map for the·vacant adjoining property for the Commis- sion's review, if desired. Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. CommissiOner' · .Siegfried seconded the motion, which Was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to deny V-531· without· prejudice, un·til.'the homes for the three adjacent lotS' have proposals sho·wing their locations There was no second to this motion, and it thereby failed. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V-531, making the five findings, on the basi_s of what is defined as the' side and rear of the. lot and how it takes access. He added that he felt this was 'an appropriate loca=tion for the pool site. Commissioner W~illiams' Seconded the motion, agreeing that he felt the findings could be made and that this is· the most appropriate location. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Zambetti voting no. DESIGN ·REVIEW 7. A-675 - Osterlund Enterprises, Chester Court, Tract 5924, 5 lots, Final Design Review Approval; Continued from May 14, 1980 Staff reported that a site visit·has been scheduled for July 15, 1980, and it .was di. rected that this item be continued to the-July 23, 1980 meeting.. 8.. A·- 714 - Gerald Butler, Vickery La~ne, single -·Family Residence, One' Lot, Final Design Review Approval .. Staff reported tha·t they are recommending approval subject tO the con- ditions in· the Addendum and Staff Report. It wa·s noted that the home structure has been redesigned, and the grading was discusse'd. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-714 per the Addendum dated May 23, 1980 and 'the Staff Report dated May 21, 1980. siegfriea, ana .was cartlea C OMMU N I CAT I ON S Written ' ~1. SDR-1452, Robert Cirell, Cunningham Place, Discussion of Condition. II-D (turnSround b'ulb) - Mr. Ron Becker, Cunningham Place, addressed ~he Commission, ·stat·ing that the 'neighbors had not been notified of the previous meeting when the tentative map had been - 9 - ~.~'~'Planning Commission =~ Page 10 '.Mee'ting Minutes' '5/2.8/8~0 Written C0mmunicat ions (cont.) app.ro'ved. He stated that they wish the cul-de-sac bulb on Cunningham Place to remain. Staff commented that if the condition to remove the bulb is deleted and · the neighbors then change their mind and wish it removed at a later date-, the developer will not be obligated to remove it. The Co'mmission point'ed out' that they 'h~d a lengthy discussion on the bulb at the earlier meeting, and the fact th.at they are unsightly and create a safety factor had been c'onsidered at .that '.time. Chairman Laden stated that it would b.e appropriate for .the neighbors to sign a letter or petition, stating they wanted the bulb to remain. Mr. Becker stated that he would have the. nei'ghbors do so and submit it to the Planning Department. It wa's indicated that the item would then be put on the Consent Calendar for the next meeting. O.ra 1 1. City Council Report Commissioner King gave a brief report on the meeting held on May 21, 1980. A copy of the minutes of 't. his meeting is on file in the City Administration Office. 2. There was a di. scussion on requirements for the heating and the use of solar energy. 3. Chairman Laden thanked Councilwoman Callon for attending the meeting and the Good Governmen~ Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT ~Commissioner Zambetti moved'to adjourn the meeting in honor of Tanso Ishihara, who was caretaker of- Hakone Gardens, and who recently died in Japan. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which Was carried unani- m0usly. The meeting was adjourned at 11:33 p.m. RSR:cd