Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISS'I'ON M I N U T E S [)ATE: Wed. nesday, Ja. nuary 14, 1981 ~7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitva. le Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular MeeLing ROUTINE ORGANI ZA"I'ION . Present: Commissioners .King, Laden, Marshall, Scha. efer, Siegfr.i. ed., and Z a m b e t t i Absent: Commissioner Wil'l.i. ams M'i. nut e s The following correction was made to the n~'i. nutes of 1)ecember. 10, 1980: On page 5 in the third pa. ragrapt~, th6 second. sentence should read "Commissioner Marshall commented tha. t he.would not expect any .nonconforming use to be allowed forever." With that c'hange, Commissioner .King moved to waive the · reading and approve the minutes of December 10, 1980. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried una. nimous'l.y. CONSENT CA[,ENDAR 1. SDR-1474 John Fe'l. ch, Thelma Av'enu~, 1 isot, Final Building Site Approval Commissioner Zambetti moved to a. pi~rove the above item on th.e Consent Calendar. Commissioner Marshall seconded the mot.:kon~ which was carried. u n an i mo u s I y. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. GPA-8'I.-1 Amendment of the 1974 Genera'l Plan Land Use Element and General Pi'an Text Rega.'rd:i. ng: (a) S'kte of Administrative Offices 0f the Saratoga Union School District, 2.5 acres on Aloha Avenue (b) Brookwood Lan&', APN 503-23-38, 2:96 acres adjacent to Wildwood Park (c) Parcels APN 517-13-'14 and . 517-13-15 , 16.0 acres (d) Glen. Una Area Commissioner l.,aden. abstained from tla'e discussion and .vot:ing on these-"items because of?possible conflict of interestj' and removed herself from the..' stage. Staff explai. n. ed that the issue is to bring the General l'~lan and th.e zoning map into confo'rmance, per the 1974 Zoning Conformance. Law. Staff commented that the. General P'l. an designation is for School...Faci l.ity. The area which is being" fdCg'mme~ded for m0d:Efi~ation2"'iS '[l~e'7"ffoHt ~2.5 ac.re parcel. Th.e underlyi. ng zoning is R-1-10,000 and R-l-15,0()(l. The pub.lic heari. n.g on GPA-81-1-a was. opened. a.t 8:35 p.m. Gl. enn McN'tchol. as , Sui~erj. ntendent of the Saratoga Union School District, stated that he concurs with th.e Staff Report and recommendation, an.d ~,,ould ask that the Con,nission approve the resolution. Plan. ning Commission' Page 2 Minutes-.- Meet-ing 1/].4/81 GPA-81-1-a (cont.) Comm.issione-r Marsh. all moved to clos~ the public hearing. Commissioner Za. mbetti seconded the 'motion~ wh. ich.was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve Reso].ution GP.A-81-1-a, recommend- ing to the City Council that they amend the 1974 Land Use Element from School Facilit':i:es to Medium I)ensit');! Residential for this 2.5 a. cre parcel, making the-finding's. Commissioner Marshall seconded the'motion, which was carried, with Commisgi. 6n'e~ Ladeh abstaining. GPA-81-1-b ., . Stal.:17 explairled that the General Plan designat:i. On was for Proposed 'Park'. The [-'arks and Rec'reation Commissi-on: has d. cte~mi'ned that it is not. feasi- ble, from the standpo'int of economi.cs, to develop this additional 2.9 acre parcel, and for that reason they have stated that i.t should oo to the underlying zoning. Our attorneys have directed us to either change the Genral Plan or buy it for a park, or zone it open spa. ce and al'/ow :some use on :it. Commissioner Schaefer stated that when she was on the Parks C'o'mmiss4'On the issLle. was dropped, because at that time there was no money in the City. She suggested that possibly this shou.ld go to the public durino the General Plan review, unless there i...s a. need to get i.t clarified right 'now. Commi. ssioner Zambetti gave the histGry of this site duri. n'g tile time he was on the Parks Commission, and noted that there had. been' problems with pol'i. cjng that a. rea. The public. he'ar:i. ng was opened at 8:d5 p.m. on GPA-8i-I-b. Woodruff Tompk_i_ns, representing tire. owner, Dr. Charles joh. nson, stated that tl~ey wouZld like to see the General Plan agree with the zoni'ng map. Commissjon. er Ma'rshall stated that the City Council had previously indicated no fee.l.:i_n. gs f-'or con. sidering any exp~nd. iture of funds fo'r acquisition of this land, but rather encouraged that it be brought before t.h.~ Commission and dealt w.Lth expedi. ti. ously. He added that he felt that fact, along with the Parks and Recreation Comm-i. ss:Lon's position, would suggest that the Commission not delay on the matter., Con,missi. o'ner Zambetti moved to close the public hearino on GPA-81-1-b Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, (qhich was carried unanimously. Commissioner King commented that '~h.is is a pa'rticu.'larly interesti. ng and attractive site. He stated that once this is converted to h. ousing, the City can never recover 'it as_ a. park.. : Th.e Deputy City. Attorney commented that this' item should probab'l.y not be delayed, since the applicant does desire to do something wi. th his land. IIe added that, whi. le he appreciates. the sentiment to preserve this space, the hard 'rea'/i. ty i.s that you can' t. Show ·land on a General Plan as a park w:i. thout eventually following through with that~ otherwi. se you end up with a .virtual condemnation Staf:f ind-i. cated that this item had been discussed by the Parks and Recrea- tion Commission recently. S2'ta=.f._;f sta. t. ed. that .they can transmit tile feeling of the Commission regarding their concern about the feasjb:i.'l. ity of pur- chasi'ng thi. s s.ite because of its proximity to the Vil.lage, and include that as one of the opti. ons under thb recommendation. Commissioner Marshall com,nented tha~ it :is ~eason. able to sa'): that a major.ity of the CommissiOn would enaorse the retention of this land a.s a park, but they recognize that this is only possi'b'l.e and practical if the City buys-it at th:Ls point. I:t was the consen. sus of the Cornmiss on that their comments should be GPA-8.1.-1-b (cent.) transmitted to the City Counci'l., and the Comn~ission shou'ld act. on the 'resolution at thi. s t:Eme, in faj rne5~ t.o the owner of the land. The l)eput); City Attorney commented ~ha.t an amendment to the General Plan does not constitute a. pproval of an),' pa. rt:i_cula. r building project, and the appl. ica. nt wi.l'l have to go th'rou~h the standard process and satisfy ~d'~.a. tever requ.:irements may be iml~ose~ at. that time. Commi. ssioner Marshall. moved to adopt. l~esoluti on GPA- 8].- 1 -b , recommending t.o' the (2ity Council that the 3_974 Land. Use E'l. oment' be amended from Proposed Park. to Med. iun~ Densj_ty Resid. entiaZt ~or this 2.9 acre parcel, making the :fihd-tngs. Comm:issioner Zaml~etti seL:onded the mo~.ion, which was carri. ed, w:kth Comm.tss~0ner Laden abstainin. g. GPA- 81-1-c Staff stated that th. is is a.]so an a'rea that was designated a.s a. Proposed Park. .They added that in this s:Ltua. t4on the Parks ~:~ Recreation Commiss:i. on is desirous of maintain~.ng the' westernmost two acres 'for a parking 1. or. The 'puhli. c hearing was opened at 8:.,~.6 p.m. on GPA-81-i-c. Since no one appeared, Comm:i. ssion'er' Zambetti moved to cl. ose the public hearin,,' · Commiss:io'ner Marsha. ll. seconded the motion, which was c.arried un an :i. me u sly. Comn~:i. ssioner King commented that, r'efe'rrj. ng to th.e former item, since the Ci. ty.apparently has money for 9,~ . ~ acres somewhere, he woulcl. recommend that the City Counc:i. 1 donsider the opt:i. ons as to what 2.ti acres to spend i_t on. He stated that Hakone has a. lot of park:inS, as 'far as he is concerned. Comm'i. ssioner Schaefer agreed, starLug that perhal}s the City Council shoul. d review aga'in as to where th.e prj. o'r:i. ty is. Comnfissioner Zambett:i. moved to app'r.ove Resolution GPA-81-1.-c, recommending to the C:i_ty Counc:i. 1 that the 1974 l,and Use Element be. amended from 'Prot~osed Park to Very flow Dens.Lt), .Residenti. al for th. is 14.0+ a.c're parcel, ma. ki. ng th.e fj. ndings. Commissj_oner Marshall seconded ~he mot:i. on, xqh'i. ch was carri. ed, with Commissioner Laden absta-i n:i. no Staff explained th.a.t they are n. ot r'eCommendi. ng that the Commissio. n approve any reso'lution on thi. s item. They descr:ibed' the area, and :i. ndicated that there i.s a. statement'in the Genera. Y1. Plan tha. t al. 1 undeverl. oped parcels th:i_s a.'rea wj.l. 1. be deve'toped :i.n a 1. 'acre m.inimum, and the zoning. does not sta"te t.t'~a.t. Sta.:ff stated tha. t th. eyT fee]. the most appropr:tate action is to oo to the General Plan Advisory 'Committee for review. (iommi. ss:i one r Marsha't1 co~mnented tha..t during the publ. 4. c sessions h. eld during the 1974 General Pl. an consid'eration, which we're gene'rally findocu- mented, the ~b'-ca'l.l. ed Gl. en Una. area 'was not indeed that, but was land descr:i. bed by.some people' unfa. miliar: with the'C:i. ty as Area I; yet it is' chara. cte'r'i. zed as being part:i~al]y G.l_en tlna., l~a. rtia'Ll.y the Montalvo area, partj_all. y A]oha, etc. FIe added tha't he fj_'rml. y bel. ieves that the proper form for dealj_n.g with this a.'rea js th.e General Pl.a.n Rev'ifew Comm.i. ttee. Staff sta. ted that, regarding the Mendelsohn area, there is one document wi. th regards t0 the precedent 1.~eing set j.n terms of the' R-l.- 20 000 zon-. .i. ng. 'l'h. ere is a City Counci. 1 po'l.Lcy statement' regard:i.-ng the consistency of the Zoning Ord.knance w~th the Genera'[ Plan, dated May- 7, 1975. states that th.e Commi. ss:ion's revj. ex,~ of th. is area _i.s des.i_gna. ted as very low and low d. ensj. ty. StaiTf stated 'that the City Attorney reviewed. thi. s document and said that there is probably too much l_atitude. Plarming Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 1/14/8,1 GPA-81-1-d (cont.) Commissioner Marshall stated that this po].icy was created because, at that t:ime, :i.t was pointed out to the City Council that the .City was inconsistent, and the purpose of tll~Ls policy statement was. to' allow 'a certain degree of flex.ibility, so t]~a.t the Genera]..Plan and the zoning map would be consistent with each other. The public hearing was opened at 9:08 p.m. on GPA-8].-1-d. Staff explained to. Lynn Belanger that they had indicated to the Ci. ty Council a.t a previouS. time tha. t they would be taking four particular sites out of'fco'ntext because th. ere had been some app'l.:i. cations sul~m.itted. H'e clarified that the hearing. a.t this time j_s not aimed at any specific parcel. Councilman Da. le 'Watso'n stated tt~at he 'felt the Genera]. Plan Ad. vis'o'ry. Committee should review th. is .item, to d. ea]. with some of the po].jcie's wh. ich have been addressed. Commissioner Marsha].l moved' to close t.l~e public hearing on GPA-8].-1-d. Commissioner King.seconded the.motion, which was ca'rried unanimously. It was directed that this item be referred to the General Plan Advisory Committee for review. Break 9: 15 - 9: 30 p .m.. 3. A-747 Norman'Baker, Marion Road, .Two-Story, Si.ng]e-F.amj]_y Residence, Final Design Review. Approval. It was .noted that 'th. is item was not{ced in the paper; however, the appropriate in. format:ion for the mai~inos to the property owners within 5()0 ft. was not submitted. The public hearing was' opened at 7:40 p.m. Since no one appeared, it was directed that this item be continued to the meeting of ,.lannary 28, 198].. '.. 4. UP-475 - Saratoga ]:oothil. ls Development Corporation, Request for 'a Use Permit to allow a mode]. home to be used as a temporary real estate sales of:fice in the Saratoga Parkside mu].ti-family resi- dential development, on th.e east side of Saratoga Avenue about 450 ft. south of Bucknall Road Staff explained the present proposal... They ~:n. dici~ted th. at they do not anticipate any adverse impacts and believe there is su.fficient par'kring. Commissioner Marshall commented that: the Commission has requested in the past in new subdivisions that model home sales offices be located so they d.o not impede the public r:i. ght-of-way. The public hearing was open. ed at 7:45 p.'m. ,.lerry I_,ohr, Presiden-t of Saratoga Footh. ills 'Development Corporation', discussed the parking and the locati.on of the 'sales' office.' 'Commissioner Marshall commented that he was sug~yesting that the mod. e21 home 'sales office be moved to where the parking is within the deve].opment. Since no one else appeared, Commissioner Zambetti' moved to close the public heari'ng. Commissioner Marshal'l seConded'the moti. on, which was carried' unanimo.usly. Further discussion followed on the location, and it was determined that' a. condition shou].d be added to the Staff Report, to 'read "The mode]. home sales office shall be no cl. oser to Saratoga Avenue than U'n4:.t #4 of 4 P].ann'L'r~g Conm~:Ls-~'i. on Page S Meeting K~.].nutes -.. 1/.1.4/8.]: UP-475 (cont.) Comm:i. ss:i. oner S.iegtTr:i. ed moved to approve uP-'4Z.$, per the Staff Report dated january S, i981, a.S amended. Commi. ss:i. oner Marsha. ll seconded the motion, wh:i. ch was carr'/ed unanimously. S. UP-476 Patrick 1).rumre, 18803 McFarland Avenue', Request Cot a Use Permit to al. lowa detached garage .over 6' .Ln he:tght (1_5' ma'xi. mum) t.'o be located j_n the required rear' ya'r.d (3' from"side and rea. r property " 'lj_nes) ', Staff described the proposal.' They ~tated that the min.'~mum setback IFor any structure j.n any area of the C.i_ty is 6 ft., and they would not recommend that. an')~ structure be approved that would be c]_o'ser than that. Staff j. nd:i. cated-'that they had listed three opt~.ons that could be used~ They stated they a'Lso had con. cern w:Lth this proposal, :i.n that immed:i..ately adjacent to the site to the west there is an existing 13 ft. hj. gh. accessory st'ructure wh:i. ch' al. soh. as a. 3 ft. setback. Also to .the n.ortt~ there is .an' accessory structure about 6 t~t. high which is part o,t7 the fence of th. at particul_ar property. Staff redommended denial Of the appl. i. cat:ion, since there are options ava:i..l. abl. e, wh-i ch are 1. i. sted in the Staff Report. Commi. ss.i. oner Marshall' commented that over 'the years there have been a rather large number of. appl.i. cations under tt'~e var.2iance procedure for a detached garage j.n the E1 Qu'ito .Park area. l-le s.tated that the F-ire Marshall. and Fire Ch.i.e:f had previously stated that, .if we were to' allow a garage such a.s that characterized by th~s ai2~pl-i.c~t:i_on, we.'would. soon have four garages co-l. ocated on each and every set of our 1. ors, a].l w:i. th.:in a. few feet Of each 'other, and each const:Ltutin~ an~.extreme f4. re ha. zard. Th~ Lsnd Use Committee ~.ndicated'that the Staff lieport adequately covers the situation as observed by them. The publ. ic hearing was opened at 8:03 p.m. Th.e appl~cant descr:tbed his proposal. LIe' stated that he wouid l'i. ke to remove the garage .from th.e .l'i. ving room for h:i.s family', and ~.qoul. d 'prefer to keep .the veh. ic'Les in th.e back corner,' ~lw~ty from the home... He :i. ndi. cated that Option #3,' with a 6 ft. 'setback:, woul. d be .1.~.w~l~le j.n terms of access, but the other two. opt:i. ons would not be acceptable. Dave Mo)~l. es, 1.31.79 Paseo Presada, spoke j.n support of th.e appl~.cati. on. He stated. that they' have had problems :ijn. that area wi.t.h not only .no'n-en.Corce- ment of the code regulat'i. ons'by the C4t'y, buL non-compli. ance by .the resi- dents themsel. ves. -lie a. dded that he ;thot~ght it would be ash. ame at this po:i. nt to beg:i.n strLct enfo'~:cement w.i..th the applicant'," who' has asked for gu'idance from the City and made modifica. t'ton to try to comprom5tse his needs w:ith the C :i. tv Comm:i. ssioner Zambett.~ moved to cl. ose~ the pub].~c hear].rig. Comm~ss:i. on. er Kj. ng seconded .the mot~on.~ which. was Carried unanj. mously. Comm~ssj. oner Schaefer :Lncl~cated that: she would'like to pursue the possj- bi.l.~ty of h. aving the 6 ~t. setback o:n the s].de~ but poss~bl.v 'a ].(') or ].S ft. setback from the rear, wh-i. ch wou. ld s:t~.~] leave p~enty of play area, and it wou:l.d be removed ~'rom the house. '. She explained that she was concerned~ that the Cj. ty has certa. in setbacks ~ and yet cont:i.n~a. lly go ahead and grant Comm].ss.i. oner Ma'rsha.ll. commented that: he did not thj. nk that would be fa-Lr, s-i. nce the m:i.n.:~mun~ setback '~'s 6. ft., and a 10 or. ~5 ~t. setback :Ln the rear would destroy the a. pp'ZLj. cant ~S ut-i lizat:i. 6n of hj.s property.. 'It was the consensus of the C:omm~ssion' that they wou.ld be ~.n'. ~avor o~ Opt:ion ~'3, ma:i_nta:i.n~ng a 6 ~t. setback. It was determined that th.j.s matter should be continued, and the a. ppl~cant asked to su. bmj_t a. ne~q drawing, show- :ing the 6 ft.' setback on the s~cle and rea. r. '[JP-476 (cont.) · : . Commissioner Zambetti moved. to app'Fove [11'.~-476 in concept, to a]7i_ow, under Option. #3, that the structure maintain a 6 'ft. setback from the sj. de and rear yard., ~nd.. a. new e'xhibit be subm.ittc'd' showing th.e locati_On of 'the new garage unde-r. Option If3 a. nd:a ].a'ndscaping plan :i.n the 'fron. t; maki. ng the f'i. ndings. Commissioner'Ma'rsha.1..1 seconded the motion, which was carried, with Cornmiss'loner Schaet:e'i' dissenti:'ng. ]Yt was directed that th:Ls j. tem be con'tinued to 'the meet:i. ng of-,Januar~ 28, ]_9821. for f:inal approva. 1. DES]iGN REVIEW 6. A-748 - David Moyles (Quito [-lomeox~n. ers Association'), Subdivis:ion/ neighborhood Identi. ficat.iOn Sign, McF:ar].and and Sara. toga Avenue, Fina21_ Design Review Approva] This :item wa.s discussed allong. with~.EP'-15 (Request-for an Enc~*oachment Permit). StafJ~ described the prop~sa']_. "l'h. ey stated· that the Public Works Department has :ind. icated a concern wj. th the sign be:ing a.n obstruc- tion, do-i.n~ considerable damage to'any vehicle that h-it it Therefore, th. ere is a condition that a breakaway feature be designed into the sign. Discussion foZ1.'l. owe'd on the de'si. gn for the break.awa)~ sign. TIt was deter- mined that-Publi. c Woi'k~ will review the desi'gn configuration for the sign, which wil.] in fact purport to keep' vanda'ls f'rom..hreaking the sign d. owl], but will' n. ot d. en~ol.:ish-a car or :i. ndividual].y :i.f a. ccidenta. lly hj.t. Commissione'r Schaefer commented. th'at she would like .to see 'the s.i. gn placed .:&rrther back from Saratoga Avenue, mak~.ng it much 'safer. l)av:ijd Mo):l. es, 'Paseo Presada, sta. tea that setting the sign further back wou:I_d be acceptable. The con. ditions of the Staff Report were discu'ssecl, and Mr. Moyl. es stated that the cu'ri~ was s.hatt. ered long before th.e sign was contempLl. ated, and he fe'l_t that': restorin.g.it.to its previous s.ta. ge wou1. d. be the ~esponsibi. lity of the: C:ity. D.i_scussion followed and j.t was determined that th.e cost:of repairing the traffic :[slan. d curbing wOu'ld be m:i. nima.t, and the condition shouZl. d remain a.s 'i.t :is stated. 'It was determ.Lned that there shoulH a].so be an add:ition to C'ond:ition' No. 3, statj. ng "Any damage to the s-i. gn shal. l. be repaire'd j.n a period not greater than 45 days. The 'C:it~; maintains the right to r'epair or remove the sign and bj.'[.1. the homeoWners i'n the absence oF such action." Commissi. oner Siegfried moved to approve A-748, per th.e Sta. ft7 Report as amended. Commissi. oner King seconded the motion, w]]:ich wa's carried unanimohs 1y. .. Commissi. oner Zambetti moved to a. ppTove EP-21.5, with the. cond.-i tion'that Exhibit "B" be amended showing the s'ign set back 20 ft. from 'the northwesternmos't edge off 'the tra-tTlY'.ic i. sFl. and. Comm.j. ss:i. oner Marsha].i.. seconded th.e motion. The Deputy City AttOrney stated th'a.t, for the sake of cons:istency, the Design .Reviexq approval and thei Encroachment Perre:it should a.].'l. carry the same conditions. '. Commj_ssi. oner Zambetti withdrew h'ks~. motion on ]~P-].5, and Commissioner. Marsha]:l. withdrew his second· to th'e motion. .; Commission. er Siegfri. ed moved that :,the l)esign Revj. ew A-7~8 motion be a. mended to show th. at Condi. t~.on No.. 5 sha'l.]. be .added, to read: "Exh. ibit "B" shall be amended to show a 20 ',['t. setl~ack ·from the northW~ster~most edge ojF't. he tra. fi'ic -island, rather: tha. n a '1 0 ft. setback." Comm-i. ssioner Zambetti. seconded the amendment. iThe motion was carr'i. ed unanimous.l.'y. CommissLoner Zambetti moved to app.,rove EP-15, amen'd.[ng the Staff lieport to i. ncorpora. te the conditions 21. i. st.ed in l)esi o'n Review. A-748, with the Planning Commission. Page 7 Mee. ting~Mi.nute$- 1/14 A- 748 an.d EP- 15 (cont.) ' stipulat:iofi that the appl.icant comply with. the amendment of Exh. il~-i.'t "B" to show a 20 ft. setback from the northwesternmost edge o.f the trai~fi.c i. sland. Commis_~ioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous iy. ..' The Deputy City Attorney stated. that the conditions= now being added into the encroachment permit wou].d :mean that if the homeowners associa- tion failed to replace the si. gn aft, er it was knocked down, the Commiss.i. on would have the right to pu].l the permit, since'there would be continuous j ur:i. s diet ion. .. 7. A-749 .James Rosenfe].d, ··144721. Bj_~ Basin Way, Sign Program, l"'inal Design Rev'iew Approval. Staff desc'ribed the proposed signage. Commissioner King stated that l~e has a problem with the signs that have been i.n this area, temporary s:igns, menu signs, etc. He stated that he2 1. iked this sign and hopes it will r.epl. ace the unattractive signs that: |lave been used. Commissioner Laden stated that she :thought th. ere would be a single identification sign rathe'r than inciivi. dual store signs. She stated that she was rathe'r concerned that th.is .sign is too tall and imposing.- Sta. FtF explained th. at tile signage. for the shops. would be. technicall. y i. nvisible from the street. Warren [-Ie i. d, the arch. itect, explai. Hed tile d~.sign. and construction of th.e sign. Comm'issioner Laden stated that she was not compl. arin:ing about the design, but feel. s it is extremel.y 14. igh. She suggested that possibly a'no.ther 2 .ft. could be din~inish. ed l!etween the top of the pl. anter and the bottom o:f the sign. , Mr. IIeid explained that to put the fsig'n together and make it stand and wea. tl}er,_:_j:t i~a.s to be of structured proportion that can be bolted together. Commj. ssi. oner Marshal.'l moved to app'~ove A-749, w:i. th the :inc'l. us:i. on of Exhibit "D" showing the i. ett'ering, as i. ndicatin~ the approved s i. gnage for three of the f'ive indiv-i. dual signs, wj'th:Condit. ion No. 4 being added, to read: ':'Approval of this sign prog'ram doe.4 constitute approval of the three signs shown in E:xh:i_bit "D", but not.. a rep'resentation of yet to be designed signs. Any further s. ignage on. site shal]. be subject to a. dd.:i.- tiona. 1 rev'i. ew by the Pl. ann'ing Commission." Commissioner Siegfried seconded th.e moti. on, which Was' carried', with Commiss'ioner Laden. dissenting. 8. A-750 - ,lohn McNulty, Sobey Road·, .Two-Story, Single-l-"ami.l.y Residence, Final Des-ign ReV'i_ew A. t2pro~al Staff described the proposa'l.. The)~ indicated that th.e condition under the SDR for th:i s 'particu!Lar lot i. ndj ca·ted that a swimming pool ].ocatj on had to be apl~roved at design review. No swimming ·pool· has been proposed on this particula'r a. pplicati'on'; therefore, if tile appl:i_cant were to put 'in a pool, it wotlld h'ave to come back for a sepa'rate design review approval. Comm~.ssjoner Marsha'l'l stated that ~he Commiss.i. on should ask that the -. api~licant .i. ndicate :i.f :it is his intent-i. on to have a pool; that'he shows its.location, and the Comn~ission can verify that it is reaso'nable and. practical to d.o it. Commissioner.~'larshal. 1 also commented that there was no drawing showing th.e garage level. |)on Gerth, tile building des:igner, discussed.the garage area and wine ., cellar area. He. stated. th. at the o~,..'ne'r did not plan to have a. pool, and. it would not be 'flair to require hi.~h to site th'e ].ocati. on for a pool, since he felt :i.t would best be sited· by the person who wants it. It wa.s th.e consensus of the Commission that the design of the house is P].anning Commi ss i. on · Page 8 Meet.;ing~ M:i_nutes' - 1/14/8]. . A- 750 (cont.) a'good one, bu.t .that pre-p].anni. ng ~o'r any future pool should be done at this time. .l't was directed thar. this item be continued to tile meeting o'f January. 28, _1981, and the applicant was requested to.subm:it a. plan show:i. nga potential pool and. a .]ower :fl. oor plan. M I SCI.:! LLANEOIJ S 10.Tra. ct 6528,' Blackwell Ilomes, Inc. (Parkor Ra. nch, 'renta. tive Map, Request' for One-Year Extension Comm:l. ssi. onjer 'Ma'rshall moved that. a 'one-yea. r extension be granted' i.n the matter.of Tract 6528; Blackwell_ Honies. Commi_ssi. oner Sieg:frie. d gran. ted the motion, wh:lch was carried unani'mously. .. COMMUN I CA'F I.ONS Wr:i_tten 1. Letter dated [ecember 3]_, 1.98(] from Blackwc].] Hon~es, regarding modi. f:i. cation to l)esi. gn Rcv:iew 'applica-TTon A-699. :~'~7{T:"a~'s~il}ed th~ ]nod:i-.. ficat:ions propos~'a'TB'~ii~. design review. COmm_issioner'Marshall moved to approvc Modifi. cati. on to A.-699, per the. Staff Report., Commissioner Zambetti seconded. tile mot:ion, wh:i.c]~ was carri. ed'unanimous].y. : 0 'r a. ]. ]. City C0u. Uc:i]__J~epqrt .- Comm'~ss:i. oner Ki.n¢, gave a brie'f repo'rt on the Ci. tv Council. meet'xng on l'.)ecember 11.7, 1.980, and Commissioner.Schaefer gave a brie:f report on tire City Council meet:ln.g on January 7, 1981.. Copies ore these minutes are on f:i'le in the City Admi. nistrat:lon Of-f:i. ce. 2. Cha. irman Laden thanked the Outgoing Commissioners, commiss:i. oner Marsha. ll, Si. egfried and Wil]iams, .for ~'11. of the:it past support and conmmn. ded them .for' the:it ded:i. ca. tion and service to the City. 5. (:hairman I, aden thanked Counc:i.].nn-~r~ Watson, the Good GOvernment Group, and a representati. ve from the l~0s Ga. tos 'rimes-Observer for attending the me e t i rig. 'A 1_). J'O U R NM E N T : Sta. ft7 noted th. at there was a .request f'or Fi. nal Bui].ding Site Approval for an over 50% expansion that arrived :in. the. office too-:late 'For this agenda..." it was determined tha. t thi. s item wil]. be considered at a Reguj. ar Adjourned Meeting .'on Tuesday, ,Jal]llary 20, 1981, at 4:30 p.m. i_n th.e Cr~isp Conference ROom. At · . .'/(1:45 p.m. the meet:i. ng was continued t.o that da. te. Respectful I y subm:i. tted, Secretary RSR: cd.