The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-24-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CITY 0}': SARATOGA PI,ANN]2NG COMMISSION MINUTI2S DAT~: Wednesday, .September 24, 1980 7.:30 p.m. ..PLACE:' Ci. ty Council Ch. ambers, 13777 F'ruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA ~I'YPE: '- Reg~l. ar Meeting .'. Presen't:' Cornmiss-loners King, MBrslial.1, Scha~fe'r, Siegfried, IVil~l. iams arid A/4~c4nt: Comntissioncr Laden Mi. nute~ .... ' ,It .'~as-..moved b'7 Comm:i~sioner Zambetti', seconded 1~), Commissioner Schaefer, waive the reading o'f the minutes of" September 1(),"].980 and approv.'e' as distri- ' .-' buted. 'The mot'i. on ~qas carried, .~,,ith Commis~ion. er I~:i. lliams abstaini.'no since he ...... · ~qas not present at th.e m'eetino . , CONSENT CAL.[ZNDAR' .. ':' ""t'.".S1)R.-3...555 .-. Richard and Victoria Ohren, Bank Mill Road. 1 Lot, Fina. 1 ..... Building Si. te Approval 2.;"'SI)R-i448'- ROnald Haa. s, Bain'ter and :~u'sti.'n 'Way - 2 lots, Pinal Building. '. · It ~vas. moved by C6mmissio. her Zambetti, seconded by Commissioner King, to .. .... '.'approve .the .above 'i'tems' listed on .the Consent Cal. endar. The motion ~qas ~ '. ,,' · PUBLIC H.[ZARINGS -' 3a.:.Neg'ati.ve l)ecl:aration -. tJ~-467 Dese-Ft..Per. rot~um 5b.[11:~-467 Desert PetrOleum, Request for a Use'Permit to allo~" exte'ns:i. ve. · '. ':. remodeling .and reconstruction of' an' existing 'Legal non-conform2 "' .... "" ing~ .gasoline service 'star. ion.' ~.'n '.'the""C-N". (Nei. gbborhood-Commer- "-"-' '-' "' cia. 1.)- District, a.t 1260.0 Saratoga Avenue; Continued F'ron~ Septem- '.~: . 'Sta'-fff r-eport~d that t-he appli'cant has r.'equested that thi. S item be' continued "to al. low the Commis~ion to-.consider the Negatfve Declaration, the Use Permit -" .,-...and the' Design Reviexq at one time. ~-- .-. :.' Dave ~qoyles., represehting.the 'quito llomook, ners. Association; stated. tt~'at ..:. .. t.l~e),-'had .met and the consensus .~,as that the imp'rovements proposed x,~ere on. thL~ .~d~ole very good.-and.. x,,elc0med by t'he nei'ghbo.rhOod. He stated' that t}~e'y ~,,ould not ~ike' to. see this use. el.:i. min. ated. Mr. Moyles indica. ted that ~he hoU'Fs':'of. 0p'erat'ion had not been raised a.s an 4. ssue; the peopl~ seemed to be . "" concerned a-b'out the a. Vai lability of gas He noted that one elderly cgap~e. .-. did compla./n that. tj~e .lTumes k~ere rather obnox:i. ous. Staff i_ndicdfted that " ~.'h.e ne~, '~aci.lit:tes ~,oul'd incorpora. t.e. ne~, venti. n.g equ'ipment xqbiCh is · ',.f.ohn G'r'ove'~', :18700. Wooda.'Ie Court, stated that he h. ad .revi_~we'd the plans a'nd noxq.. has a better understanding.of.~qhat is involve. d. The expansion o1: the "stati'O'n.~'a.s di.s'cussed,..and Mr. (froVet state'd th.a('he Objected. to the expan- sion because :i.t ~,,i"l.'l bring ~no.re traF[ic and mor. e noise. He commented th. at .b6 'feels this is contrary to the intent of th.'e. Gene'ral. Plan. Mr. Grover · ' 'indicated 'that he h. ad obtained signatures '[rom 20 adjacen.t neighbors, xd~i. ch '.' 3~'P]_anning commission Page 2 .... Minutes * 9/i.'2~1/80 L t.lb-467 (cont.') .- he"submitted, objecti.'ng to this. projec-t. He stated tIiat, if th.e station : .we.re.to remain as it i_s or remoddled and retained at its p'resent capacity, · " the"~e would. still be gas ava:ilable a.t that location. M'r. Grover commented that th. erd are 7 oa=iSoline stations within one mile of that location l-l~ speci_tFica. 11y 'obj'Gcted to' the station remaining open until midnight'. 'David Auld, 1887.3 Dundee Avenue~ Stated th'at he lives in t.he Quito di. gtrict' and would ].ike to-see the gas station removed.' M.r. Grover also Commented that h'e hoped the Commission would recognize tile. ~eel. i.'ngS of the residents i.n t'he immedi. ate v:[ci.n:i. ty that are affected b}~ noise and traffi&, 'and hoped 'that the CommissiGn is not -in-f].uenced by repreS.ent:ati. on of' a 'large group. He'.a'dded th. at if' he were given the' Choice of modernizino' the station or having i.t stay the way it 'is 'of CourSe he woul'd w-ant 'it mode'rn"i. zed but On.'ly i.f 'it. wou].d stay at the same Capacity,· since th. at .is the :i'ssue. " .I.t.-was pointed ou~ to-Mr. Grover'that the. C.ommiss:ibn~.s decision. would b'e '.'. 'made 'on .the basi. S-'o'f .tile issues 'their are raised' from a 'planning standpoint, add not based on a.'number 0f si,gnatures. -. Staff commented that, Under the 'current situation, the-gas station is " . tillowed to operate with whatever' hours they have. They explained that if a use permit Were to be grantgd, the Plann.i. ng Commission can set hours and they'would have continuous juri:sdiction' over it. If the condj.~ions. o'F the use 'perm:tt are not met, 'the Plannino COmmission can revoke it " ""The revenues to the City were discussed. Mr. Grover commented., that he would not wan~ the Commis~ ion L to approach- th.:i.'s matter. as ..OZn.~'.~:O'f2.. ~evenue, as opposed'to a matter that concerns th.e ci. tizens.. Since no' one else appe'ared, it was.direCted that '.this item be continued to October 8, 1980... 4. A'-727 - C]ayto'n '].'-ho~as', Request .for 'l)Qsign. Review' Approval for'a two- story, si. ngl. e-fami]..y dwelling that .will be over 22' in he:Lght · (32.5' average) on a lot with .an average slop.e less than' 10qi, at 13958.Ches"ter Avenue, per Ordinance 3E-1(5', an Emergeficy Ordinance · adopted by the City Council. .. It was reported by Staff' that this is the'.first application affected.by the Eme'rgenc70rdi'nance recently pu.t' into.effect by th.e C-i. ty Council.' Staff 'reqhested that th.~s app].ication h'e con.ti. nued beca. use~ in measuring .the ' h. ei. ght of this structure under the new procedure, which is from average grade to tl~e top of 'roof, this house a.'s proposed exceeds the 30 ft.' maxi:mum. height limit as 'allowed by the. cod~. Staff stated' that there 'are 'tWo opti. o'ns 'for the appl. icanl~;.'. 1] .red:r~ce the height of the structure" to · c'on'form to th9 30 'ft. maximum, 'or-'~)maintai:n the. structure at 32'+ ft. and".apply .fo~'a. variance. Staff notGd th. at 'the applicant has... a. sked for .. con'ceptual approw4.1 .on th.e :Fact" that he will lower the house; however, they .'were ..recommending continuance to' the Oc.tober 8th meeting. The .public hearing was opened.. at 7: 56 p .m. Clayton. Thomas, ~he'app!icant, stated. that ~his ]ionAe. had b~en 'de'ni. ed' a .year ago'-because 'i.t was too ~.arge. He explained that they l~a. ve rede- · ' s:i. gned it'now much fo .the desi.-res of the Commissj. on. Mr.. Thomas added. 'th'at the arc.hitect. has indicated they could ].owe'r it 2~-ft., and th. ey have just. suhmirted a ..rendering to the Sta.:~f. I--Ie stated that the ne:i. ghbors are in a. gr~ement with .the proposal. .It was. the cOnsensUs' of 'th'~' CommiSsion that 'they need revised draW:ings. showing'the changes befo're they can approve th-is design. The a. ppl~cant · was requested to submi.'t drawings showing these changes, and it was' d. irected .that this item be continued. to October .8, ]980. Planning' Commission' ·Page 3 'Minutes -. 5a.. Nega-tive Declaration - S1')R-1473 Dr. Norman Baker ." '~' 5b. "SDR-1473'- Dr. Norman ·Baker, l~equest [7or Tentative Building Sit~ A'pproVal fo'r 2 lots on a 1.15 acre. parcel i'n the R-1-12,500 zoning · . district near the 'terminuS' of Marion Road (south side) -. COmmissioner Willi ams. abstained on the discussion and voting of this matter beCaUse. of a possible conflict of interest. .. ~ Staff gave. the history of' the previous appli'cation for 3 10'ts, 'wh. ich '!~ad "~2'equi'red a. variance. They commented that this 2-1ot plan is still. in violation bE the Subdivision Ordinance policy Which dictates .that only. 1'5 10ts may access on·to a street'with a single access, and' Staff is recommending denial. -. .- T'he publi~ hearing was opened at .8:0~ p.m'. · A l'etter. f'rom Mr. and Mrs'. Campbell, opposi.~g this appli'cation, was noted. into'the record. -: Lynn Bei.~nger, ·1625 the Alameda', representing the applicant, submitted a.' letter which requested.. that .'the Commissi'on make it and the exhib~.ts attach. ed a part o~. the public t~earing .redord. ..She explained that .the exhibits' are essentially a. porti. on of the former hearing on.. the 3-lot subdivisions and -' a letter-from Dr. Baker.at that. time, comp.a.r:i. ng,hi's application with sim:~.lar applications .in-the City where the pre-*ex-i. sting' situation was more than 15 lots on a cul-de-sac. She added th. at sh.e had included speci. fic findi. ngs which they felt can be' made, in terms of. the ffa. ct tha~ we are not dealing here with an i..hcreas'e of uses; in fact the ~a. fety-situation Of that road will be improved with a standard turnaround; a. h. yd~'ant will be-added and a buil. di'ng removed.' MS. Belanger stated that these lots are .now i..n. complete · conformance with the Subdivisi. on Ordinance; as. well as in excess O'ff the.. zo'n. ing requirements. Commissioner Marsha. ljl' commented. [h. at the answers to Dr. Ba. ker'S let'ter were.· giVGn at ..the previous' meet.ing, arid t.hey have not changed. Ms. Bel'hnger ~t~ted that they feel tl~e arguments in behalf of the 2-1. ot sub- division outweigh'those against. -.. Bi'l.'l l-l. eiss, the-engineer, commented that "~he neighbo.rS wer~ interested in maintaining.the status. quo; they want no through connections. .He added 'that the}~ were providi'ng.a. 'fu!:l: -cul-de-sac as.' part· of this project, and · the full bulb is be~ffg.. placed-on the pr.operfy' 0f :-Fthe .~pplica'nt. · M~. Heiss .. .noted that '~h. er.e are 'tWo. existing-homeS'on the property an'd"t'H. ere 'will'be ~wo. homes in the final aHal.ysis. He commented th. at the lots are 'larger than the:mind. mum zon't~g7 req.uirement, 'and they fee'l~' it i's a. fai. r proposal .for the prop. erty. Mr.' Heiss i'n'dicated that all b:F the present structures at6 to .be remQved and two new.homes placed On. j.t. The posSibil.ity of the : main home. be&ng a histGrical' st'rUc~ure. ~y~s d:'isjcuss~d'~ :'~. .' Ms. Belanger stated tt~at they had been discussing this possi~il. ity with -' Wj_l-'lys Peck, and they are trying to work out some' procedure by which the building c~n be. saved· if it does 'in fact 'have some liistorical.. significance.. CommLss'io'ner Zamb~tti. COmmented' 'thar it was his understanding ·that-there has been something added'.on t.o the main hous'e, and Mr. Peck had indicated they were trying to'determine if th.e home was o-f hisforical significance, ~nd .if it were' to be ·removed from the site and relocated. Cla.~r Althouse, 20659' Mai-i0n' Road, stated· t. hat he did not have a problem with What 'is being proposed, but would like to hav'e the. Planning Commi. ssi'on. determine what the plan'is for the street and what· is going to be e~talUated. : H'e commented that-tlie'~e.'is a ].ot of land..value 'tl'~ere and a lot of economic 'prOssure'~'and every time: a new development comes along the'r~. is anoth. er hodgepOdge. "Mr.. Althouse asked what wou]d be .the future decisjon. s on that s~reet. .. COmm'issioner Marshal]. explained.. that what has happened on Marion Rd. in the Plannino Commission Page 4 '.' Minutes 9/~',~)/8{} SDR- 1.475 (toni.) last four yea'rs (with the exception Of rh.e_CR~rfiY'O'i:l ].'or') ~a~e "~il:.!' .:" the poss:U~il. ity of a through street. 'Commissioner Z-ambetti. commented.that there have bd'en 'deferred :i.,iproVement agreere'tin. Is in that area, and all.' of tlne Sta. ff Re'ports have been consistent; with. a 'great deal' o'f p]_{~hning in that area: He stated tt~at his concer'n was to make:Marion..a cul-de-sac i. nsteacl-of a. thr6ugti street. ...... It was cO'mmented that there. are ph.l'cs .of dirt arong the fenCes'.on Ma':rion., and take away the 'g!:S9ilCS}: It .was explained that it. was .up to the' Ci. ty CoUndi i' to take up-the deferred improvement' agreements. Tom .Workman, 20673 Marcion Avenue, stat3d that. they d'o not want a through street' a. nct consider this.proposal as settl. ing' that issue. 'He added the. dirt. 'pil:es. ar~.of sOme..concern'. Mr'.. WOrkman stated that th6y would " like to see. a. 'c~l~.de:sac an'd ~he homes be' 'of the standard-th.~y desire .-. {here. Id~. indicated that, :a.s long as there is no increased density on · the s't. rect, he wou].'d favor' Dr. BakeY's proposal. · . Ba.rtjara-k)oes'ter, 14:25~, Bt.irn~',.Way','..stated ~!~at".they do not want a through. ..'~treet.- 'She' c6~'mented..:.tlhat' ~h.e sees _'th.e:' density. increasing greatly 'if ..--tlne'rc. arc two single-family houses built there, and She would .prefer · See just 'one. . -~. - ..... Comm:iss:i. Oner Marshall "Commented on' th.e letter. from the Campbells, stating that there would' be. the same number of hpmes there, and the plan .eventually i.s to pave tlie'.'Strect:' to'City" standardS. He-noted'that Mr. Campbell stated that the tUrnaround. is needed for, access, which suppor'ts the contention for a .cul-de-sac. Commissioner MarShall. a.'dded that .the addition of a fire hydrant would. be seen'by. the Fire Department a:s a major. plus for th.e area.. He commented that, .on the 5-lot sub. diVision, hc had stated that he cou].d f:i nd i.t possibll e, wi'thin reason, .-to cons ider ' a. 2 - lot 'subdivision, the " caveaCt be.ling'that somethi. ng has' to accrue to the City in the form of a 'beii~fit. Commissioner Marshal'l 5rated that the benefits wdu]d be el:imina. t-. ing a legal. nonconforming 'situ'ation, the 'creation of 'the cu].-de-sac, which. would settle for a.l'l ti,ie the qu~stiOn' of when th.e 'road. is going to be. a th:rough. st'recti and it a. lsQ sets a'pa.ttern' which is c.ons:isten't with that which the C0.mmi. ssion tnas done on-other propCrties.' ..Ben Warren 'addressed' the Commission, 'stating that he was ._2&'l:6¥i'h.g eScrOw...o~:"' l)ay's property, and he has' pu~'a. lot'of money into concrete and b'r:i. cks in the' Front yard. [:le added that he has a].read. y had to put up barricades to .'... keep' people from ~Sading ar'ound and leaving tire pri. nts. Mr. }Vat'ten stated th.at th. erc must be a cu.l-de-sac, because the people do not want.' a uhrough street. 'He' comntented that he.would like to see this project approved · that the' cul-de-sac cotfl. d be put in. Brad Renn, 20625 Marion, s'tated .that they w0u].d like to know the plans for the street, since tliey have to widen s~.d~'fjfj~f0'ai"~'Sf.~the'~'F'L-10~'~'.2' commented that they were gOi~g to take this~..'matter and the Wilson deferred improvement agreement ~o' the City-Council .to get verification on whether ..- tlne agreement shoul. ct be called tfnd.Mr. Rcnn w:ill make his 'improVements, ¢'1. "' or for Mr. Renn to also. get a d(~ferred improvement agreement. .They i. ndicate that, prior to Mr. Renn actual'ly.' mak:ing the.improvements, they wi]_l go to the City Council. 'Mr, Renn was requested to' disc. uss this matter with .' the Public Works Depar-tment. DOrothy Stareper, 20562 Ma. rion Roe'd, .asked if. the'y make Marion a cul-de-sac, what w. ould happen. ':i.f sh.e would like.to develop her property later. ,.,. Planning 'CommiSsidn "' ·Page 5 .... "... M.inut.es - 9/f274YSO " SDR-1473 (cont'.) ,. : "' COmmissioner M. ar.~hall explained tha.t, under the existi. ng pol:ic.y . .~t """' would .be very difficult. He stated that' the Cominission has not all.owed new .-development of more th. an 15 homes 'wher'e there i's no other access. -. Commission. er Marshall added that, if this proposal were approv-ed, i'f there was another'.situation on Marion where there are 2 houses On..1 lot', "' and using the rationale. that.. applied on springer and one- 't4~a't has been. d.i.k&ussed beret. o'iven no.increase in the desnitv of h0usin~, 'it ..mi. gh't-be · "' all.(~ed~. Howe'veer-,. ~o. S-ubd~vide, a.s ·being suggested, and bu':i. ld new houses, .' h~s not been allowed, with one exception which was .granted by tlYe C;i_ty ."'...: CounciI and' was . an. unusual ..s itua t.ion. : '. '.' -",' ..- . '['~ wa.~ ..dl. ai-:i. fied'to Mark" Ebner, 20636 Marion., that .there are tw~ .. on the.. prop.er~y..that ..are.2 le.gal nonconforming.- ."':l'hey were' built' to. City · o.r.d:inances a.nd.buil.t",lega. ll~ ~t the time, .but do not meet City standards now., .It was noted that.all structures will be.rem0~ed and there will be · two new houses. '. Sin. ce-no..one else. appeared, CommisSioner King moved to-close .the 'publi'c ": hea. ring. Commissioner Schaefer' seconded the motion·, which. was carried' . · klna liii_mous I y . . · · -.', .:: 'Commi's'si. oner Zambetti stated. that t~e fe~t it was i'mportant that sometln.ing be' in ~he' Sta. f~ Report to alert th.e M. Storical-foundation to look i. ht'o .- .-th~ borne and see 'if it sh'oUld be s~ved. Such.a condition was'discussed, and it was determined that .first. 'i~ shoU. ld. be decided if there j.s a. .problem' and whether 'this is a historical. structure. .It was also pointed -' out ttlat the City 'does not have-a Historic Preserva~.ion .Ordinance or :" .~ny proVi_sion under w-h~ch .such a c6nditi0n could b-e required. Commissioner Marshall noted that rhere :is a California Historical. La~dmark. Co'mmittee, , 'and if'it wdre determined that '.it.was a h~stOrical iandma'rk and action :,.was-ta. kcn t:o have· it designated as a .State historical landmark',' then th.e Sta~e rules would. apply..- . . "' Commi.'sSioner 'Zambetti stated .t'h'at Wil-lya Peck o'f:the Historical Society had discus'sed th.e poss-il~ility of not preserving it on'that site. I..le added.· that he would like tO move for'approval 6f.the 2-1ot subdivision, si.nce h.e would like to see Mar.ion R. oad a cul-deTs:ac. .. Commfssioner Schaefer commented th. at 'she would like to s.ee the mat'ter ':' · co~itinued., since she feels there are stren..g~hs and weaknesses on both ..' si'd. es, but thinks there iS-an unresolved.issue. Sh6 added that-people· "-" wh.o liv:ed on that street for many years'with'the.intention of being able- .. "someday to divide their prop. erty are going .to find themselves unable to d.o so, ahd she thin'ks that an unfair situation will be created ' "'-'" Commissioner Marshall 's tated "that he does not hear a large public S6.n. timent · " ;. ' again. st 'Dr. Baker for 'a 2-.lot subdivision; he d.:i.d hear-it against 'a 3-1.ot .:"..- -subdivision. H'e addeel ~hat .he has heard a strong· indlination toward '. · ' " cul.=de-S'acing, and approval of this p'roject 'will achieve that 'Cb'mmi. ssioher .~ambetti moved to approve ~he Negative Declaration for St)R- 1.~..7"3'.. Cornmiss i_oner Marshall seconded the motion.,.-.Whi. Ch' was .carried wit. h Commiss. ioner. 'Schaefer dissenting. .. -' """ Commissioner. .Zambetti':mo.ve.d to .approve .SDR-1473, ~i.'th.a condition added' .... to....tt~e. Staff Report that ."Al.1 structures shall' receive Design Review Approval prior to issuance of 'bUildi. ng permits, 'and. all-the. homes' sha. ll - .... · . be' compati. ble with other homes :i.n-. the' pe:ighborhood." Commi'ssioiier Ma:rsliai-.1. se'c0nde:d rhe motio. n, with 'the addition that the findihgs 'b~' ......: .. made .,C~H:'dF:'i~i'e proposed d. evelopment .provides a bene:fi.t to both. the City ..'a.na the..appl~_cant; the beige fits to the Ci.ty be'ing..1) 'the elimination of .... -'~: legal-nonconfOrmi. n'g uses'; and 2) th.e resolution o~ 'the.'cu~-de-saci'ng of .. :the s'-t:reet.. Commissioner Si.egfr::i. ed. ad..ded 'that he th~nkS that the ·fact·. ,. ...th'at .ttie're. are two exis. ting st:ructdres that can be legally occfpied, and' 'they will .be replaced with two strtictures, says that we are in conformance with. the: General Plan requirements; Comm'issioner Marshall added .that we 6 Plannin.g Commission Pa. ge'6 Minutes ~, 9/~!27~;,/'8.0 ,, SDR-1473 (cont.) a've also' Consistent""With .Ithe Gene'~al Plan. '~ The. motion.was carri:ed, with Commissioner Schaefer dissen'ting. 6a.NSga~ive Declarat~_on UP-468 - Ri. chard Raynes 6b. UP-468 R~chard RayFe.s., Requesf fo'r"'a Use Permit to allow the Construc- tion o-f a rec'reatiOna-l' cou~-t on a lot. with an average slope greater than 10% on the east side of Sobey Road about 700 ft. south of Spring' Br6ok Lane Staf~ .repo'~ted' tha~ .th.e~'are re~ues. ting that th~s 'i'tem be continued. .They .indicated. 'that they ]~a'Ve some ~'oncerns' becaus.e 'the hou's.e will have to be S~ifted and ~.he~ 'hav'e not seen a'total sit. e'-plan which shows the house and the tennis cour. t. ..... · ~he 'public hearing'was opened at 9:Ol'p.m.. It~ w~s- directed that jtbis ·item be. c0nt'inued to Oct~ober 8, 1980. 7a..'=NegatiVe.Declaration SDR-1472 - QUito-Sarat'oga Center, .Imc. 7'b. V~539 -. Quito-Sar'atoga Center, Inc., R~ques't for a Variance to allow a SD~-1~72 -22' high commercial str~ctur-e and a 25' high commercial A-725 '~ .struct'u're-to be constructed.where 20' is .the maximum heigb~ " limit; Reques~· for Tentative Build~.ng S~te Approval' amd Design Revie'w A'pproval for the construction of 'a 5,800 sq.. ft. financial building and a 22,68.1 sq. ft. two-story offic'e and retail build- :ing at the northwe's~ corner Of Cox Avenue and Pas'eo Presada Staff gavd a des'cri~ption of the project. They repor'ted that the applicant · .. has' moved the building-'about 17 Ft. fur.ther away from the intersectio~ of-Paseo Presada and Cox AVenue. They explained that this .movement has .eliminated two map~ trees that exist on the site., bu~ the 'applicant. will pS~t in specimen trees to replace them. Discussion followed on the possibility of a mid-bl:ock cross-walk to ". facilitate access-from one side to the other, 'Drimar~ly because~ of the retirement.~.~ousing. The Public. Works Staff commented: that they'generally prefer them at i. nt'ersections but have no p~0~)lem with this' proposal. commissioner' Schaefer commen~ed that she has some very strong concern. s about havin. g a two-story buildi. ng placed. in that area. The public hearing was opened at 9:32 ~p.m~ Dave Moyles, 13179 Paseo Presada, representing the Quit. o Homeowner's Association,.' stated that they h~ve notified a lot of people and have met with the' ~evelopers. '~e explained that their primary concern is traffic, "the intensit. y of the use, not t. he building itself'~ He commented tha~ they. do not feel the traffic study wh'ich has been made is really an accurate assessment, and they feel they would l~ke more in'formation. The egress and ingress were discussed. . Mr. Moyles commented that student.S -. who are handicapped from E1 Quito School' use Paseo Presada and Cox Avenue. fo'r their daily walks,. and he suggested the use of median strips. He discuss.ed their other concerns,. including use of neighborhood streets ~or · deliveri. es, sto.rm sewe~rs, t.rees, bulletin b6ard. in shopping 'center, .and a mid.-street cross walk with a bench'for the sen~ors. Mr. Moyles'also d. isCussed the ~m~g~'z.s-ti.~n'~: at the Golden Mushroom Pizza Restaurant, along with the w~ndalism, drag 'racing, and' con.sumption of alcohol in.th~ park- ing lot. He stated that he feels there Should be addi[ional security provided by the tenant oi~ developer, and additional lighting. Mr..'Moyles .indicated that ~hey favor th.e Professional-Administrative uses; they would not favor another restaurant. It was pointed out that ~here is .a com- dition in the buil~in~ site approval that no restaurant use is .allowed on 7 Planning' Commission Page 7 Minutes - 9/'~4/80 V-539 - SDR-1472 A-725 (cont.) th.e site. David .Auld, ].88.73 Dundee Avenue, stated that he was concerned about traffic. I4e indicated that he would like some sort of moratorium in that 'ar~a, since there are a lot of problems that are not resolved. Mr. Auld commented that 'he felt a good exact traffic count was needed.. He also suggested that the Commission consider a pedestri. an overpass · . to .niake it safe for Senior citizens and. the school children. Ka'thy Lagold~ick, 12860.Paseo PreSada, commented on the.activities of the Golde. n Mush. room and the parkfT.:L'; in he~ neig!~[.~orhood. She explained that she cannot get any sleep'-because of .the activities in that neighborh. ood. .Ms.' Lagoldrick stated that the're are bottles on her lawn and something -· needs .to.be done abont the ~:i~_~Y..~l~'.sT_m_~'~'.fL~. to the' neighbors. She stated that this' particular p'roject only disturbs her in terms of the density of 'the traffic and whatever the retail· store is goino to be' she is nervous abo~t. .it' possibly'being a. 7-1.]_ type or Something that will furnish more undesira- bles at that corner. ~]aus. Richte'r, the owner of the pr'oj'ect, addres'Sed the tra. ffic. tie also: stated th'a.t they had inhe'rited the Golden Mushroom situation;. howeve'r, the restau~:an.t is now'~,:r,e~°f~[Tn~'~ and want to U'pgra·de. He st'ated: that they will try to keep '~'h~' t,'o a m·inimum and will do eve'ry- · . thing possible within the terms. of the' ].ease. He commented .that they als'6 want to provide the two 'cross-walks, one'a't the intersectio'n and one' at mid-street, and will also provide Beneches fo~ the-seniors. :·7"k~'n_~'d_':Z:Martinez. gave 'a. prese'ntation on the traffic s~ud'y that had been -- maae. Commi.ssioner Marsha].l. commented that he had'a problem with the bas~ on which the figures. have been c0nst'ructed. I.-Ie asked' if th.e West · .Valley College 'traffi. c"had been. taken into consideration for ~he peak hour .. 'traffic volume, 'which o'ccurs in the morning and again in the e'arly evening; also 'the area on Cox, extending' from tH'~ exi.sting sh. opp..ing cente~ back to -Saratoga Avenue. : 'Mr. MartineZ ~xpl.ained the base 'figUre and the 'calculations. He i~dicated that 'the anticipated t'raffic volumes ref:lected in the report are the wors.t possible conditions 'from the general' projection. of traffic. Stated that i~e fee:is it includes all Of the curr~ent growth in that area but not the ultimate growth. 'Commi-s~ioner Marsha]_l commented th. at the City ought to be doing some measur. ement Of what the ultimate traffic fl. ow are and. what. the design ., solutions are "for th. at traffic 'flow in and'around 'the shopping center and " adjacent s't"-reC4ts. I4e .stated. that.he felt the ~act should be recognized that very shortly, with this addition and. given any pressure in the future to develop j.n. that area', there will be a very serious .traffic problem in th. is 'area ~ Mr. Moyles commented. that he would 14ke th.e Commission to keep :in mind 'that th'ei.r area wi'll have to live with. the aggregate consequence of all of th.e ul'~imate growth in ttiat area. Commissione. r SiegfriO'd'stated that h~ had' £h.~. following' Observations: 1) l-I'e feels~ som~ addition'a]. study is nd'eded. t'l'~at takes into adcount the .,. c.ondomi'niums. that a're being deve]_op.ed and other potential fu'ture develop-. · . ment in that area. as far .as tra.;ff:[c- ~.s eon'cern. ed; and 2) There should be' some Way that we 'can donstrain 'the flow.' of tra. ffic from this particular' piece of property .~ZO~= that. it would at..lea. st reduce the impact that this : project has, to ho'peftr!.]y direct .the..tra.f:fi,C out of the residential area. .. CommisSioner King commented that he had concern about the alternate use of Bui].ding B. ~laus .RiChter commented that th. ey 'were not contemplating another restaurant and the alternate use 'wOuld be offices. - 7 - Plan.ning Commission Page. 8 Minutes V-539. SDR-1472 - A-725 (cont.) It was .th.e general feeling among the Comm~ission that there is no pro'biem with the variance application and they could act on it'at th~is time and contin. ue the othe'r items. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he-ha.s difficulty wi'th'a t.wo-st'ory .bu~ilding in that location and. would be voting no. CommisSion'er Zambetti moved to close the public hearing on the varianc'e ap~plication. Commissioner'Marshall seconded the mot.ion, which was. Carri'ed unanimous ly. ...," Commissioner. Marshall moved to approve V-539.per the staff Report, makifig the 'ffindin'gs. Commissioner Willi'ams seconded t.he motion, which. was ... carried., with Commissioners Schaefer' and Zambet'ti dissenting.. It was. directed. '.that' a study sesi0n will be' he~d on October. 21~' 1980 on" SDR-1472 and A-725, and 'these items will be continued to the' regular .- . '~ meeting on November 12, ]_98'0. E~n the 'interim the concerns regarding the'. mitigation of.traf.ffiC generation specific to this site and the neighbors' concerns regarding the night-time activities can be consid. ered. It was pointed out to the applicant that consideration should be g~ven to keep " the congregation of the cars from~the back of the lot. .. · DE'SIGN REVIEW ' 8, · A- 726 - .Quito-saratoga' Center, Inc., -Sign Program at southwest corner of Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada, Final Design Review Approval. Staff describ. ed th.e .proposed sign program. Staff suggested that all of' the previously eXisting-signs that don't conform to the sign program., as proposed. by the applicant, should be deleted. It Was also noted that there should be' a condition which states that approval of tliis program. does not constitute approval of the exact- signage shown as .a-repr.esentation'. Ric.k. Jones, of the Urban Design Group, "discussed the possibility o'f using some sort of architectura. 1 decor a.t eitl~er side of the' signage. It was dete'rmin~d that this ·would. be allowed, wiSj~ the E~ipula~i~'n that logos pe~ se do 'not fall within that category, ~na'~'H~d~~6'ff~'a~ be subject to Staff approval. '- Commissioner Zambetti moved'to approve A-726 per tl~e Staff Report dated September 18, 1980, amen'ded .to rea. d '~All existing signs i'~ the s'h6pping center. theft do not conf.o.rm to the pr. oposed pro'gram shall be removed and · replaced within 6 months..'.'; ."Approval of this sign.~ge program does not constitute a.pproVal of the exact signage shown as a representation in the exhibits provided' by :th'e applicant."; and "Architectural sign design features that are not logos are. allowed subject to Planning Departmen. t'. review and .apprOval. Said deS. i.gn .features o~ details shall not be included .'.. in the-square footage calculation of-individual tenant signs."' Commis-. sioner Marshall seconded 'the motion, which' was · carried unanimous'ly. . 9. 'A':.7'32 .'~ Ron.~ia'-I.[aas~ Camino Ba~co', S~ngle-Family Residence, Final. Design .... Review Approval -2 Staff des'cribed. the pres.ent p'roposa.l~. s'tating ~}~at se~e'ral building de'signs have been =[~Yi~'~O?~'_~j~ for this site in th.e recent past 'and have e-ilther' been' denied by"'tlle Planning COmmission .or the City Council... Staff gave a comparison of this design a. na..that' appToved by the'Arch].tectural ReView Commi'ttee and .denied. by th.e City 'Council.. :Commis~'ioner MarshalX commented. "that the 'n'e'i. ghbo'rs. are go'ing to' be 106king at the back 'of thj_s home and that needs t0 be "addreSsed. He stated that he has difficulty wi'th the fact that the s~.ope calculations .suddenly chan. ged so dramatically. It was explained ]~y Staff that' the site slope .. 8 Planning Commiss i'on " Page CVg~" Minutes - 9/..2,~780 'A~732 (cont.) calculations had been revised per the new ordinance. CommissiOner Marshall stated he would like these figures rechecked. 'Rob Haas, th.e applicant, stated· that th. is current design was the com- promise, design that the Waxma'ns were 'agreeable tO; however;~ the Archi-. teCtural Review Committee had felt the other was more desirable. Colonel Barco's .,o'~6'~:~{'~'s were discussed "~a-ff:-no-t~a"~'h'~,t the two- · sto~y design:was a major ~ssue and concern with the size of the structure being dompatible with the existing neighborhood. The-:City Attorney stated th. at the primary reason th~ City Council had upheld Colonel Barco's appeal. on the previous design was '2n'O~:necessarily based on an. interpreta- tion · of the tWo-story ordinance,. bU'{""~imply a conclusion that .the house was too massive and high Eor the site.. .~t was determined th. at this design should 'be sent b'ack to the' Architectural. lieview Committee to get their opinion and comments on this design versus the previous 'one. Commissioner Williams. als'o commented that i~e 'thought. the dormers are out of character on the' plan, and would ].ike the Committee to advise whether they a. re acceptable or if they should be -.:t'5'm.dved. It was also noted that the Calcu. lation figures should be ver-ified b'efore the next meeting. It was di'rected ·that this item be continued to October 8, 1980. ' MISCELLANEOUS 1'0. R~view 'of Capital "Improvement ··Program for Consistency with General Plan -.' Commissioner Zambetti moved to recommend to the. City Council that tile 1980-81 Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the 1974 General Plan. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mous ly. COMMUN I CAT IONS ~ .. ' '.'" Written 1. Lette~ from' Ni~'I Inddstries,. Inc., dated September ].9, 1980. Staf~ reported that they had discussed with the City Attorney the possibility of .a .medical doctor being. located wi.th. in the new. 'sh0ppi~g complex ~.'the Village, and it ha.s been detgrmi'ned.: that-'i't is not an appropriate' use. They- stated th. at the Commission can request that this" be placed 'und.er the "C-C" uses with a conditional use permit. It w'as the consensus of t]~e Commission that it would not be an appropriate use. 'Staff was ·requested to send a .letter indicating the ·Commission' s det'ermination .. ~ l~etters fro'm M'r Pache re SDR-1465' Staff reported that Mr.. Pache has asked· for a clarificati'on of·some of the conditions of Tentative Map Approval for SDR-1465. COndition VIII-D was discussed, and it was determined that 'the old barn on the ·property ShoUld be '·removed prior to Phase II expansion.' Commissioner 'Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner King, t'o reword this ':condition to-read: "Existing barn shall be removed prior to 'the Phas'e II expansi:on." Regar'ding the conditions under the Public Works Department, II-C and .ii-I)--1, it was clarified that it is 'not the intent of. the Commission to require. the applicant to provide a. sidewalk on any property other than. his. own. It w'as explained· by the Pub'lic Works Staff that there is. an existing storm d. rain in 4th' Street that 'can be tied· into. There. is also a drop-inlet in the curb and ·gutter i:n front of the property, which, depending on grade, can be ti:ed into, whi'ch would save the cost of cutting the street and the co·st of the manhole .' Oral 1. ·City Council RepOrt- Commissioner Schaefer gave a brief report on -the City Cancil m'eeti'ng held on September 17, 1980. A copy of the miHutes of .fhis mee'ting is:.:':.on file in the City Administration Office. 2. Vice-Chairman 'Sieg'f'ried. th~'n. ked the GoOd Government GroUp for at{end- ing and serving Coffee. 9 :?~.'.'ff' ~l'anni!~g Commission Page .i, 0 ~ "'.. Minutes 9/24'/1980 ADJOURNMI. iNT c -~, , It'. vas moved by Commissio.ner Mars'h'al-1.'. seconded by.-Co~n~{ssioner Zambetti, t.o adj,0urn'the meeting. The motion· was carried unanimously, and the meet'i. ng ~,as adjourned at 11:19 p.m. " Respectfully submitt.ed, 'ecret~ry ' , -} . RSR: cd "'