HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, August 26, 1981 7:30 p.'m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll 'Call
Present: Commissioners Bol'ger, Crowther, King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and
Zambetti (Commissioner Laden arrived at 8:10 p.m.)
Absent: None
Minutes
The following add.iti. ons"~wer'e:.made to the minutes of August 12, 1981: On page
1, at the en.d of the second paragraph under .A-778, "Concern was expressed as to
whether the Fire Chief, in his letter, c'ould revise the conditions required for
the water supply. It was indicated that' the conditions must be met and they
cannot be revised by the Fire Department." At the end of the third paragraph
under A-778: "Commissioner' Crowther indicated that he could not. accept a formal
geology recommendation to the Planning Commission that was not signed by the
City Geologist." On page 3, at the end of the third paragraph under V-550,
"The question was raised as to whether the City had been consistent'in subtract-
ing easements when computing site area', with particular reference to lots in the
Parker Ranch development and a recently approved development on Big Basin Way.
The Deputy City Attorney indicated that street easements are excluded when the
site area is computed; however, other types of public or private easements are
not." The following corrections were made: On page.6, under A-775, the motion
to deny was seconded by Commissioner King. On page 7, under UP-506, the first
sentence in the fifth paragraph should read: "Commissioner Schaefer stated that
the demand for this type of operation is: great; however, after visiting the site,
she feels that this particular location has some real p'T.oblems,"' On page 9,
the fifth paragraph under SDR-1164 should read: "It was the consensus of the
Commission that they would be in favor o'f considering changing the restrictio. n
for the contiguous Planned Community homes, but not just one individual lot."
With these changes, Commissioner Bolger .moved? seconded by Commissioner Zambetti,
to waive the reading of the minutes of ~ugust 12, 1981 and approve as distributed.
The mot'ion was carried unanimously.
CONSENT. CALENDAR
SDR-1481 was removed for discussion. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by
Commissioner' King, to approve the remain. ing item listed below.
1. SDR-.1452 - Robert Cirell, Cunningha'm Place, 4 lots, Tentative Building Site
·. Appr'ov'a'l, Reque'st 'fOr One-Year Extension
The motion was carried unanimously.
Discussion followed on SDR-1481, Wes Behel, Peach Hill Road, 1 Lot, Building
Site Approval. It was clarified by Staff that the site is conditioned for
1,000 g.p.m. of water. They explained t:hat the applicant had appealed that
condition to the City Council and they denied Mr. Behel's appeal; he is required
to obtain the 1,000 g.p.m. Staff indicated that this condition is covered by an
improvement bond. They also commented on the existing fire h?drant on Peach
Hill ROad and indicated that the aDplicantwi"li have to provide a water main to
Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded b~ Commissioner Bolger, to approve
SDR-1481. The motion was carried unanimously.
Planni~ng Commission Page 2
Meeting Minutes 8/26/81
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3a. Negative De'cl'arat'.ion --.V~.55'6 --.'Jac'ks'o'n/Woo'ds
3b. V-556 --. Jackson/~oods, 12300'Saratoga--Sunnyvale Road, Request for Variance
3c. A-780 - to 'allow (1) The 'co'n'struction of a two-.story office building to
maintain a hei'ght of 26' where '20' is the 'max. height allowed;
(.2) Parking in the rear yard where it is not normally allowed; and
(.3) The construction of a soundwall over' 6' in height, and Design
Review ~p'pr'ov'a'l"of.'the.'o.ff'i'ce 'build'.ing
Staff gave the l~'s.t':ory of this projec. t.and described the current proposal..
Vice-Chairman Schaefer commented' that one of the members 'of the Architectural
Review Committee had looked at the plans, and he had suggested a pathway in
front 'and had also' indicated that ci'tizens, during the General Plan review
meetings, had stated that they are v'ery concerned about the appearance of
buildings.within the City. She noted that a letter had bee'n received from
some of the neighbors regarding height', windows, privacy factor, reduction
of parking, the 8 ft. wall, entrance. to the driveway and cirdulation plan,
landscaping, and parking lot lights.
Staff commented that they had discussed the driveway access with the City's
Traffic Engineer, and he had indicated that the' access as proposed would be
the most desirable. 'The 30 ft. buffer between the residential and commer-
cial area was discussed, and the various options of eliminating the ten
parking spaces and dedreasing the square footage of the structure, or
shifting the building to the east and putting the parking in front.
The public hearing was opened at 7:5~ p.m.
Rob Winter, of the S.D. Brown Development Company, and Warren Jacobsen, the
architect gave 'a presen.tation on the project. The parking, landscaping,
Setbacks and height' of the' building were discussed. Mr. Jacobsen discussed
the trea'tment of the windows, stating that he did not feel that the third
row of wi'ndows creates th'e impact of a third story since there is enough
di~fer~.n~i'=al in the 'siz'e of the' windows'. He indicated that low light posts
would be' installed for the parking lot. Staff noted' that there will be
a condition added to the' Staff Re'port regarding lighting.
Mr. BeneVento, 12270 ~irkdale Drive, noted that 'he had submitted a letter
regarding thi's project. He addressed his concerns regarding the parking
in the rear and the 30 ft. buffer area. He also stated his objection to the
height and the square footage of the building. Mr. BeneventO commented
that he feels that~ther'e seems to be a rewriting of the ordinances through
the doctrine of common privilege. lie added that he had purchased his pro-
perty,'~ev~'-~ough it j~b.u~s~commercial.,.:..beca~.e. hle.-.felt there were ordinances
to protect the residential area. Mr. Benevento added that, in general, he
is in favor of the project but he would like to see a compromise.
Roger Pelton, President of the Nort'hwest Saratoga Homeowners Association,
stated that his association supports.the recommendations and comments made
by Mr. Benevento. He commented that'they do not want the continual erosion
of reasonable construction codes ~hiCh jeopardizes the quality of life of
the homeowners that are adjacent to these sites. Mr. Pelton indicated that
they felt this proposed building is dnappealing and presents a potential
for invasion of privacy, both from the rear windows and from the acoustical
sounds from the 're. ar park.ing.
Commissioner Crowther stated' that he'strongly sympathizes with the comments
regarding the gradual erosion of the City's ordinances and the fact that
the City has been making progressive 'deviations in the ordinances. He
expres'sed concern regarding .setting ~ precedent by allowing an encroachment
into the buffer zone.
Commissioner Zambetti expressed his concern regarding the bulk of the
building with the intensity of the uses. He added that he finds the office
building to be a little too large to accommodate the amount of traffic
that would be generated and would circulate within the narrow lot. He
asked the applicant if they had conta. cted thp adjacent property owner to
the north regarding a type of land purchase or lot line adjustment.
Mr. Winter stated that they had contacted that neighbor, not regarding
the purchase of any property or movin~g a lot line, but to inform him about
the project. He noted that this would be a condominium sf. tuation and not
2
~P~'anning Commission Page 3
Meeting Minutes 8/26/81
V-556 and A-780 (cont.)
a s'tandard office, and would give. a lower density use.
Mr. Jacobsen, when questioned about the feasibility of eliminating the
higher windows on the east elevation., commented that they could be dropped
down or eliminated. He commented, however, that he did not under'~.tand the
objection to them. It was noted that 'the concern had been the visual
impact at night.
Mr. Benevento stated that he felt a combination of compact stalls and/or
some sizing down of the building would certainly take care of the parking
requirements. He commented that he felt that the applicant is obviously
trying to lower his' cost of construction and is, therefore, proposing to
have a larger building. He stressed again the need for a compromise.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this item should be continued
to a study session on September 29, 1981. At that time the following con-
cerns will be addressed:
Parking
Windows
Height
Lights
Landscaping
Bulk
30 ft. buffer
~ Pathway
Loading Berth ~
It was directed that this item be continued to the regular.meeting on
October.14, 1981.
4. A-779 - Dividend Development Corporation, Request for Design Review
Approval for a single-.story~dwelling that would be over 22 ft.
in height (28 ft. max.) on a lot with an average slope less than
10% in the R-I-.20,000 zonin~ district, on Carnelian Glen (Lot #3,
Tract 6722)', per Ordinance NS-3.4'7'
Staff described the current proposal. The percentage of impervious coverage
on the si'te was .discussed. The easements on the site were also discussed.
Chairman Laden clarified that there is a scenic easement that surrounds
the creek that runs to the front portion of this property and a public
t~ail easement along the rear portion. Staff noted that the setbacks were
figured from the' fence rather than the easement.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would like to ask the applicant if
it would be possible to have a pathway through this area, to connect to
the bulb of the horseshoe on Carnelian Glen. She explained that children
going to Oak Street would use that pathway.
The public heari, ng was opened at 8:45 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commis-
sioner Monia moved to close the public hearing.' Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
The location of the path and the feasibility of fencing it was discussed.
Commissioner Crowther expressed his concern about the computation of set-
backs. .He explained that if the residents are allowed to put their fence
along the b~ck of the lot, obviously that trail can't exist... Therefore,
if the residents are going to fence their p.roperty they have to move the
fence to the front of the easement, which practically would reduce the
setbacks. He asked if they could build a fence on the ,west-.Sid~ 'of the
easement.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that they would be violating the easement
if they obs'tructed the trailway. He added that, if the~ desired to put
in a fence, they would have to put it on their own side of the easement.
Chairman Laden stated that she felt that the easement should be well docu-
mented on the face of the next design review of this tract, and any'~
material connected with it from the CC&Rs be given to the~..Commission for
their review.'
- 3 -
Pianni!ng Commission .. Page 4
Meeting Minutes. 8/2.6/.8.1
A--779 (cont.)
Commissioner Crowther' stated that he' was concerned about how close the
trail is 'going to be 'to the house, with 'only a 35 ft. setback from the
· other si:de 'of the easement. The tra'ct map was reviewed, and the Deputy
City Attorney stated that perhaps a provision could be added that no
obstruction of any kind shall be er'ected in the 'right-of-way area.
Commissioner Crowther expressed concern as to how that might influence
the location of the structure.
· It was pointed out that a fence might be too restrictive, and the possi-
bility of a hedge to delineate the pathway area was discussed. It was.
clarified that it is an equestrian-.pedestrian lane from Sobe'y Road to the
Montalvo area. The Deputy City Attorney' commented that any future owner
of the lot will be getting a survey wh'ich will show the location of the
easement.
Commissioner Zambet'ti moved to close'the public hearing. Commissioner
King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissi'oner Crowther commented that2, since the applicant was not present,
he would like to continue 'the matter. Commissioner Zambetti moved to
approve A--799, for Lot #3, per Exhibits "B" and "C" and the Staff Report,
amended to include a condition that the applicant be required to delineate
the pathway easement along lots #1, #2 and #3 with 'appropriate landscaping.
The Deputy City Attorney commented that he would have a problem of expand-
ing the scope of the approval to include a lot that is not before the
Commission' for approval. Commissioner Zambetti amended the condition to
re~d that the applicant be required ~o delineate the pathway easement
along Lot #3 with 'appropriate landscaping.
Commissioner Crowther commented that'he was concerned about the fact that
Lot #2 and Lot' #3 are 'tied together in that they will be using a common
driveway. Chairman.Laden stated that she thought there was some del. inea-
tion about the easement in the subdivision of this land, and perhaps some of
the problem about the easement could'be resolved if the Commission could
review the conditions of the subdivision before or at the time of another
design review application for this tract.
Commissioner King seconded to the motion to approve A-779, with the con-
dition as amended, and suggested that Staff communicate with the applicant
about the concerns of the Commission'regarding the easement in general on
all lots. The motion was carried, w~th Commissioner Crowther dissenting.
5. A-783 - Norm Epstein, 20279 Pierce Road, Request for Design Review Approval
for a second-story addition. to a single-story dwelling, per
Ordinance NS-3.47 :
The proposal was described by Staff.' They stated that conditions have been
added to the Staff Report which would help mitigate any privacy impacts.
They explained that there have been two 2-story conversion hearings on
this project, and this application is being considered under the new Design
Review Ordinance. They noted that there has been considerable objection to
it by neighbors who want to maintain the 1-story neighborhood.
The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m.
Norm Epstein, the applicant, submitted photographs and noted that some of
the neighbors who had signed the petition in opposition had rescinded
their objection to the project after reviewing the plans. He stated that
he had acquired a report from an appraiser, which states that the addition
would improve the neighborhood in general and would increase the value of
the other homes. Mr. Epstein explained that his wife had been told that
she was unable to have 'children; therefore, they had felt the present home
was adequate. They now have 3 children, and his mother-~in-law now lives
with them, he added. Mr? Epstein stated that they had considered other
homes but had found nothing that was suitable financially. He indicated
that his architect had been unable to make the needed addition on one floor.
He commented that 'they had lowered the design another' foot, and it is now
5 feet above the ex'isting house. He explained that, because of the sloping
terrain, the homes on the other side of the street are now about 5 ft.
higher than his home. Mr. Epstein commented that he felt they had tried
to satisfy the neighbors.
- 4 -
P~annfng Commission ~-' Page S
~eeting Minutes 8/26/81
'6-.7'8.3 (.cont.)
Commission·er King commented that one item which seems to be of concern
to the 'neighbors ·is regarding the compatibility of bulk with adjacent
structures, which falls under Section 4f. of the new· ordinance. Mr.
Epstein stated that he feels the Staff Report has dealt with the privacy
issue. He added' that the 'only impact on privacy is on the house directly
to the rear.
Dave Young, 20218 Pierce Road, state.d that he had written a letter to
the Commission and had talked to the' neighbors. He commented that the
general feeling of the neighbors was' against two-story additions. Mr.
Young stated th·at they feel the ordi~nances were established to protect
the homeowners, and they bought theFr homes with that ·in mind. He added
that the 'legislative aspect of the s.ituation is that the ordinances either
be.changed to meet the· public needs and requirements or that the people
live by them until they are changed. He indicated that the other .iss·u~ ~·
was e. motion. Mr. Young stated that ~he could identify with Mr. Epstein's
circumstances'; however, when he put in his pool he made the changes to
conform to the ordinances and the ·ge~ner'al architecture of the neiohborhood
He quoted the ordinance which covers the location of two-.stories. He
added that he did not feel pine trees will mitigate the privacy impact,
and this addition will impact his view of the hills.
Commissioner King pointed out to Mr. Young that the portion of the old
ordinance which he was quoting regarding two-story additions was eliminated
in the new Design Review Ordinance. Commissioner King stated that he
feels that this proposal meets all the exact requirements of the new ordi-
nance. He added that he can only see one guideline under which Mr. Young
may be· protesting, whi·ch ·wOuld be Se.ction 4f.
Mr. Young asked the Commission to defer their decision until he could
review"the new ordinance~ Commissioner Crowther stated that this raises
a concern on his part, since the new~ ordinance was 'being billed as being
more restrictive and protecting the· community more, and this example seems
to indicate the opposite.
Ann Dempsey' stated that she lives immediately adjacent to the applicant
on the west side. She commented that they feel very much that their
privacy will be invaded by the proposed building and they will suffer
economically. She added that most of her neighbors feel the same. Mrs.
Dempsey noted that the trees on'Mr. Epstein's side have been completely
denuded of leaves twice .'from the 'frost, and they do not help mitigate the
impact on privacy. She e~plained that they love to be in their back yard,
and the ·Epstei·ns will be able to view into thei·r back yard.
Ray O~tman, 12770 lone Court, asked for a clarification of the new ordi-
nance. Chairman Laden explained that the prior ordinance was very subjec-
tive in nature, with Very few restrictions in height and bulk. She added
that nine 'months' had been spent on drafting the new ordinance, and there
were many public hearings on it. She indicated that'the new Design Review
Ordinance is more restrictive and le~s subjective in siz~ and in the
determination of how an addition can'be ·added. Chairman Laden added that
specific attention was given to an addition or infill situation in an
· existing neighborhood. Staff explained that this sort of conversion pre-
viouS·ly was a public hearing for a use permit by the Planning Director under
the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Crowther' pointed out that the.par~ o'f the ordinance that Mr,
Young had previously referred to were in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 3.7-2,
which states 'that, where a single--story exists, no new multi-.story resi-
denti·al structure shall be allowed opposite to or contiguous to same. He
added that 'the're were standards on coverage for each of the zoning districts.
Commissioner Crowther commented that the new Design Review Ordinance
repealed· this and repealed all of the standards with regard to coverage
in Section 3.7. He noted that the 42% coverage exceeds what previously
would have been allowed, which was 35% for single-story structures in a
R--1--12,S00 district, and '20% for a two--story structure. He stated that he
is concerned because he sees this as an example. of a case where the new
ordinance ·is much 'more lenient than What previously existed.
Frank Reyda, 20227 Pierce, expreg·sed:his opposition to this addition, for
the· reasons 'that have been mentioned.
5
F~-lann-ing CommiSsion .~. Page 6
Meeting Mi'nutes' 8/'26./8.1.
A-.78'3 (cont.)
J. W. Farrow','20243 Pierce 'Road, stated that he had lived' in the 'neighbor-
hood for 25 yea'rs' and has known th.e'~'applicant as a neighbor and friend
for a number of years. He 'commented that he did not feel the 'addition
was a bi'g request, and'it is' not a ~ommercial project that he is request-
ing. He added that he feels that the' applicant deserves' the chance to
stay as a good neighbor.
Mr. Epstein stated that he felt tha~ this addition would in no way impact
the Dempseys' privacy. He 'also indicated that Mr. YOung cannot see his
present home, nor will he be able t~ see the addition.
Mrs. Dempsey'brought up the 'possibility of the applicant or a future
owner putting in wi'ndows' at a later date. Chairman Laden explained
that if the plans are 'changed from the existing building permit, the
City has the right to ask him to fill the windows in.
Carmen 'Lawrence, 20272 Pierce Road,=stated that they had submitted a
letter in favor.of the project, and.they would like to re6mphasize~their
position at thi's time.
Chairman Laden noted into the record the numerous letters, both pro and
con, on this project.
Commissi'oner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia
seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissent-
ing.
The original CC&Rs of the Argonaut Subdivision were discussed. Staff
indicated that the 'CC&Rs h~d stated~that there would only be one-story
structures in th.~ subdivision. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the
CC&Rs are subject to private enforcement. He explained that it is the
City's position' that if private parties are allowed to regulate through
the CC&Rs and took the position that the City is bound by them, that would
be in effect a deferral of the legislative process and it would be allow-.
ing the private sector to in effectSregulate 'and legislate on behalf of
the public sector. He added that the exception. would be those situations
where the City itself insists on certain conditions to be put in the CC&Rs
for the public welfare, with the right of the' City to enforce it. He
~ommented that the applicant is not'relieved at all from his obligation to
abide by the CC&Rs; however, the City is not the body to enforce them. The
DepUty City Attorney stated that the Commission's determination should be
made on the 'City code and ordinances, and specifically the Design Review
Ordinance.
Staff clarified that the bathroom w~ndows face the Demsey home and normally
would be obscured glass. They indicated that there is a requirement that
there be secondary access from the s'econd story a minimum of 42" above;
therefore, two'~.story windows where ~hey could not see out is not practical
unless there is 'another access from 'the second story.
Commissioner Schaefer suggested havi:ng sky lights. She stated that she
feels that the'ones. story design has been the one security that people feel
they like. Sh.e added that she feels the people have a right to their
second stories', but feels the Commis.sion has an obligation to maintain
the. privacy of back yards because t']~e bac~ yard is part of the home. She
indicated' th.at sh.e would like 'to exc'lude the windows and put in a sky light.
Commissioner Zambet'ti stated that he. would not vote for the application
because he feels 'it has a growing effect to produce more two-story homes
along that street. He indicated' that he would be in favor of some kind of
addition in the rear; however, he '~e=alizes this would be difficult on this
lot because of the pool and equipment. Commissioner Zambetti stated that
he feels this is a neighborhood deci~sion, and he feels the neighbors do
not want two-~stories. He 'added that., from a planning standpoint, if this
two-story is approved the'r'e would be. two-~story homes throughout the whole
street in a matter of yea'rs.
Commissioner Crowther stated that, w.ith regard to the Design Review Ordi-
nance, Section 4, it is 'still somewhat subjective, and he feels that many
of the issues' like' views and privacy~ are really subjective in terms of the
neighb'Ors'.' He 'explained that if alli of the neighbors came in and were in
- 6
~-'.P~anning Commission Page 7
-' Meeti.ng Mi. nutes!'8/26/.81
A- 783 (cont.)
favor of it, I would have a different view. However, since many of them
are concerned, he stated that he would vote against the application,
because he feels the Commission has to consider those subjective views
ahd""he is somewhat concerned about the bulk of the structure and the
appearance of it in that particular neighborhood. Commissioner Crowther
added that b~ aid not feel such issues should be pushed into court,".-Since
· 'tile_ 'l~e -i: ~}i'.5 Ors_ c 9 ui d -en .fo ~.~.e th.e CC'~ .l~ ' ~. p-;Z~gjM;~t .,' ' the' Co~m'~. s s i':6n'. db Lf]jd. b e
doi_ng Mr.. Eps. t~inl.."~...'T fa~0.~. by.~qtifg against the pr0j6q$.'i he" a. dded. 'tfe-._.
.-'commentrid that he Was.. op'posed to .the 'section Of the orHinance 9h'e~6 the
existing ordinances' were repealed'and made more lenient,
Commissioner King. stated that he believes the application does meet
absolutely the intent of the ordinance. He commented that one of the
major concerns of the community was the ability to make additions to
homes. :
Commissioner King moved to approve A-783,.feeling that it exactly meets
t.he intent of the Design Review Ordinance of the City of Saratoga.
Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, which failed,.with COmmissioners
Bolger, Crowther, Monia, Schaefer:and Zambe'tti dissenting.
Commi'ssioner Crowther moved to deny A-783 without prejudice, on the
basis of Sections 4a and 4d of the Design Review Ordinance. Commissioner
Monia commented that h.~':"h.ad..not'h.~ard. ~ny consensus that would allow any
two-story building going in that location, and on that basis'he felt the
motion should be to deny. Commissioner Schaefer stated' that possibly
there are some relatively simple adjustments that could make the proposal
acceptable. Commissioner' Crowther agreed with' Commissioner Monia's
comments and amended' the motion tO deny,A--783, on the' basis of Sections
4a and 4d of the Design ReView Ordinance NS--3.47. Commissioner Monia
seconded the motion. :
Chairman Laden stated that she felt that thd,"Commission spent a great
deal of time discussing the economics and"real'{tie~ of. the City. She
commented that the Commission has ,allowed second-story additions in the
Quito area with almost no denials;l they have allowed second-story addi-
tions in many areas of the City. :She added that she feels that this
application meets the criteria of 'the new ordinance, and she feels it
'should be based on that. Chairman Laden indicated that she had done an
extensive survey of the Argonaut area, and there'.are a number of two-
story homes in what she feels most. of the people in Saratoga would con-
sider Argonaut. She added that, oin the basis of the new Design Review
Ordinance, she would be voting no ;on the motion.
The vote was taken on the motion tEo deny A-783. The motion was carried,
with Commissioners King, Laden and' Schaefer dissenting. The applicant
was informed of his right'to appea.1 the decision to'the City Council
within ten days. :
DESIGN REVIEW
6. A-777 -. Quito-.Saratoga Center, Inc., Cox Avenue, Free-.standing Sign,
Final Design Review Approval
It .was directed that this item be continued to the meeting on September 9,
1981.
7. A*:78t L:...'-;Cal-Neon, 12100 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Sign Logo, Final Design
Review Approval ,
Staff described the' proposal. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve
A-.781 per the Staff Report and Exhibit "B". Commissioner King seconded
the.motion, which was carried unanimously.
MISCELL'ANEOUS
8. SDR-1307 -- Saratoga Federated Church, Oak Place and Park, Modification
to 'Parking Lot
Staff explained that this is a modification of the building site approval
map based on the expansion of the church parking lot. They noted that
the ..:'C(~X· Cq~.~il'. h~d 'uphe1'd"the "~beal"' of ' th'e' ch~rc't~ 'on '~Hi'g" application.
7
· =~'Pla~ning Commission Page 8
~Meeting Minutes 8/2.6/81'
SDR-1307 (cont.)
Commissioner Monia moved to deny modification of SDR-1307, due to the
'fact that it was the consensus of '.the Commission that the parking lot
should not be expanded in the first place. Commissioner Crowther
seconded the motion, which failed, with Commissioners Bolger, King,
Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting.
Commissioner Crowther commented th.at if the modification were to be
.approved, he would like to see the second condition changed regarding
the trees.
CommiSsioner King commented that, 'during the City Council's action
in approving the parking lot, ther.e was some discussion by the
church wherein the low-cost housing badly needed by this community
and well recognized by this Commission would be relocated to another
site with certain other conditions;. He asked if the approval had been
conditioned to reflect this. Staff explained that the rezoning of Mr.
Neale's property was approved, and; he has agreed to purchase one or
possibly two of the homes. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that
arrangements are being made to hav~ one structure moved onto his pro-
perty, and possibly others as well'.
Commissioner King moved to approve' modification of SDR-1307 per the
Staff Report. Commissioner Monia Seconded the motion.
Discussion followed. on the landscaping in the middle of the parking
lot. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels the Commission should
become more active in getting landscaping in the middle of the parking
lots to make them' more attractive and provide shade.
Commissioner' Crowther moved to amend th.e motion' to change 'Condition
No. 2 to eliminate "wi'thout issuance 'of tree removal per'mits" from the
condition and add the sentence "Trees shall be boxed to prevent damage
during construction." The' motion' failed for lack of a second.
The vote was taken' on the'.motion tO approve the 'modification to SDR-.1307.
The motion was carried', wi'th CommiSsioner Crowther dissenting.
COMMUNI CAT.I ONS :
Wr itt'e n'
' 1. Chairman Laden read a letter from the City Manager regarding
Parking Assessment District #3.
2. Chairman Laden noted a memorandum from the City Manager rega'r'ding thc
City's reo'rganization. It was noted that 'Mr. Robert Shook, who will be direc-
tor of Community Development, will be dealing with current planning and should
be appointed Secret'ary to the Planning !Commission: Discussion followed on
Advance Planning issues, which will continue to be handled by R. S. Robinson.
Oral
1. City Council Commissioner Zambetti gave a brief report on the
City Council meeting held on August 19, 1981. A copy of the minutes of this
meeting is on file in the 'Cit~ Administration Office.
2. The Commission thanked R. S. Robinson for his past support as
Secretary of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve
Robert .Shook as the Secretary of the Planning Commission. Commissioner King
seconded the motion, which was carried 'unanimously.
3. Chairman Laden thanked the '.Good Government Group for attending and
serving coffee.
ADJOURNME NT
Commissioner Zambetti moved to adjourn Zthe meeting. Commissioner King seconded
the motion, which was carried unanimously. The m&etfng'was adjourned at 10:45
p.m.
RSR:cd