Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~MISSION M I NUTE S DATE: Wednesday, December 9, 198i - 7!30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 FrUitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANI ZAT ION Roll Call / Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowthe~, King, Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti / Absent: Commissioner Monia Hinute s The following changes were made to the minutes of November 17, 1981: Page 1, under ~!~inutes, should read that they were approved· as modified. Page 2, add to first sentence in fourth paragraph, ~:which appear to be inconsistent with the General Plan.:' Page 3, fifth paragraph, the first sentence should read: CommisSioner Schaefer stated that she feels very strongly that programs like Developmental Learning Associates are b'adly needed in this area .... She added that child care is also badly needed. Page 8, second paragraph,I the fifth sentence should read: He added that if .it i-s found that the City owns it, then the applicant may be required to maintain it because it is an integral part of the overall develoDment. Page 11, ninth paragraph, the second sentence should read:. She explained that she voted agai.nst the ordinance because she feels it ~Ya-s ~igh].y restrictive upper limits, .and she questions their validity. The question arose as to the effective !date the conditions of UP-510 (r.~Ioreland School District) would apDlv. The Commission. requested an excerpt from the verbatim minutes for that application, 'in order to clarify that point at the next meeting. Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading o·f the minutes of November 17, 1981' and approve them as amended, with the exclusion of the section rela- tive to UP-510 (~oreland School Distridt). Commissioner l(ing seconded the· motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Zambetti abstaining since he was not present at the meeting. PI;BLIC !'lEARINGS la. V-562 - C. M. Mayo, ReqUest for a Variance and Design Review App'roval lb. A-794 to allow the construction of a two-story dwelling which exceeds the floor area ratio by 18.% where 5% is the maximum allowed at 18801 ~'Iontewood ·Drive; continued from No'vemb'er ].7, ·1981 , Chairman Laden explained that there had previously been a split vote on this matter, and at the last meeting there was not a full Commission and the matter was not heard. She noted that ·there was not a full Commission at this meeting. She stated that the applicant may choose at this time to either have the matter heard tonight and waive the right to be heard by a full Commission, or request that the matter be continued to a future date when the full Commission is present. Jim Lyle, the architect representing the applicant, stated that the applicant would like to waive the right to be heard by a full Commission and would like the matter heard at= this meetring. The D~puty City Attorney advised the Commission that their motion should be a motion for recon- sideration, and if that motion fails for any reason, including an evenly split vote, then it shall. be deemed a denial. He added that the applicant would then have the right to appeal to the City Council within 10 days. Commissioner Schaefer moved to reconsider the matter, in order to expedite the decision. Commissioner Bolger~ seconded the motion, which was carried unan. imous ly. ' -~- The Staff described the DroDosal. The public hearing was reopened at 7:55 p.m. Planning .Commissi Page 2 ~eting Minutes - 12/9/91 V-562 and A-794 (cont.) Jim Lyle, the architect, gave a presentation on the project. He showed slides of the site and the neighborhood. He noted that a hardship with the lot is the pre-existing location of the house and the peculiar angle, which makes it difficult to use alternatives. He clarified that the solar collectors would be stored on the racquetb~ll court. Commissioner King moved to close th9 public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner' Schaefer commented that she had visited the site, and she feels that the City has an ordinance that ~vas based on careful research and thoughtful comparisons, but nevertheless she thinks that it has resulted in some arbitrary numbers. She discussed each of the necessary findings, and noted that she could make these findings. Commissioner Laden stated that she feels that this house fits the lot and the neighborhood. However, she added, she cannot personally make the findings for this variance, because she feels it could be reduced to meet the requirements of the-ordinance. :She indicated that she feels that the ordinance is restrictive and she fe~ls it deserves some review by the Commission, but in the meantime she thinks that there'is a difference between'the Design ReView Ordinancezand the qualifications of passing a variance, and she cannot per'sonally make the' findings for the variance as required' by law. Commissioner Bolger statea that he disagrees that the numbers i~' the Design Review' Ordinance are arbitrary; he feels that there was a good deal of input that was 'given by both Staff and the public regarding the numbers. He added that they may need to be fine-tuned, which the Commission will be doing in a very short per'iod of time. He commented th'~t he' feels it would be inappropriate to break off this racquetball court for just the sake of trying to make it a separate type of entity. He added that he feels it' should be: an integral part of the building, and he will support finding thi's variance. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels the applicant has all of the nei~ghbors supporting this project, and he feels that it meets all of the conditions and findings needed for a variance. Commissioner Zambet'ti indicated that he could not make the necessary findings for the 'variance. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve V-562, making the findings pre-. viously discussed. Commissioner' Bo!ger' seconded the motion. The vote was taken', which was evenly split, !vith Commissi'oner's Laden, Zambetti and King opposing the variance. The' Deputy City Attorney clarified that this motion would be interpreted as:a reconsideration of the prior motion, which has again resulted in an evenly split vote and therefore 'deemed to be a denial. He added that the 'applicant therefore has the 'right of appeal to the 'City Council. 2. GF-333 Consideration of'a Revision to the Slope Density Formula in the HC-IRD District to a 2-10.A~re Straight Line Formula; continued from NOvembe'r '17, '1981 .... · The Deputy City Attorney passed out the new draft of the ordinance and explained the changes' that have been made. He commented that an issue that is not in the 'ordinance but should be considered' by the Commission is 'the question of retroactivity and the extent t'~.. which the Commission would like 'to make this ordinance applicable to projects ~hare are now in process. He noted that it would' not affect lots' of rec'ord~ they would simply be'come nonconforming lots un'der the new ordinance. DiscusSion followed' on this subject,' and th.e' D~eputy City' Attorney was requested to supply information on how many appl'icati'ons 'this would involve. The public hearing was reopened at 8:32 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, spoke t~o the fact that he felt that the se'ction of the sentence s.tating that those areas having a slope exceeding 40.% are excluded from the"density c!omputation should be deleted from the ordinance. He added that he was ag.reeable to the statement prohibiting building sites on sl'opes over 40% a.nd also agreed'with the geologic restrictions. Mr. Heiss noted that Measure 'A' does not have the exclu- sion of those areas having a slope exceeding 40% from the density - 2 - P~lanning Commission -.- Page 3 Meeting Minutes -. 12/9/.81 GF- 333 (cont.) computation. He stated that he fee~s it is appropriate that the City utilize Measure 'A' in this ordinance as it was studied, approved and adopted and is being applied'. He added that this particular hill- side area is certainly no more sensitive t'han'the Measure "A' area, and he feels one formula should be used.~ Commissioner Crowther commented that in the Specific Plan it indicates that no home or other structure shall be built on an area with an average natural slope that exceeds 30%, and the consultant who has been preparing the information to the City to implement Measure 'A' evaluated the' effects of excluding all lands with average 'slopes over 30%. He added that he would change the '40% to 30% 'in this ordinance. .He clari- fied that the consultant has interpreted that section in Measure.'A' to imply that when you can't build a structure on any land with an average natural slope that exceeds 30%, tha~ land should be left out of the density computations. He noted that the consultant ~reparing the re~ort has prepared a table showing the density based on that interpretation. Mr. Heiss stated that he had not heard of that interpretation, and that it has always been his understanding that the effort was to prevent the construction of home sites on steeper terrains. He indicated that he has no argument at all with that particular philosophy and that prohibition makes sense. He explained that, if~you look at the table, as the land gets steeper, the'parcels get larger; therefore, the formula in its very nature takes into consideration the fact that steeper land requires larger parcels, and the formula that exists does that-. Staff commented that the City Council did consider the possibility of modifying the Specific Plan to use the 30% slope instead of the 40% slope, as the threshhold, and after deliberation the 40% figure was left in the plan. They stated that in 1979 the City Council determined to exclude those above 40% areas in the HC-RD interpretation and that has been a matter 'o~f policy in interpretating the HC-.RD Ordinance since that time. Cliff Beck, civil engineer, also stated ~hat he does not feel that deduct- ing the 40% slopes from the gross calculation is quite appropriate. He added that he feels the ordinancesstates very clearly that you cannot build on those areas~ therefore, to. further ~enalize those lands for that purpose does not seem to be 'an equitable ~agreement. Mr. Beck indicated that he feels ther'e should be more study done on this subject before the zoning is changed. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, stated that she had been very pleased that the Commission was progressing on this matter. She urged the Commission to proceed, and stated that she would agree to a moratorium if that is going to indeed stop the process wh.~ile it is being studied. Freda MacKenzie addressed the Commi'ssion, stating that she is included in this area and asking how it would affect her relative to the acre that they had purchased next to them. The Deputy City Attorney explained that if it is an existino lot of record, u~on'~assage of this ordinance, even though it may be less in terms of area than the amount required, it would then be a nonconforming lot and it wo'uld still. remain buildable. He clarified that his previous ~oint concerning retroactivity was not as to. legal lots of record, but whether the Commission wished to take it a step further following the present language in the HC-RD Ordinance which refers to areas reclassified as HC-.RD and whether building an~lications should be exempted from that that have already be'en filed ana*are pending. He added that, with this ordinance,Z the HC-.RD classification 'is not being changed, but in effect the density requirement is being increased. .!'C~'~'~."~'s7 j'dn'e ~" ~'H ~ .~ d ~'-~ ~'~ ~'~" ~ ~'d 6H d~ ~'.'.~ C~i~'~"~ ~'6~'~Y-' K'~'~ ~' T-'.'.'~'6'7 ~i 6~'~"" ~']~ ~ '~ "':~ ~tro-u'td'.,~.e~ ,c.~ntinu~,d. t':~_.a'_=s~udv ~es s..i6n ,-_.since- .3~e.._j:fee lS:~'~=~'~:~h0ul. d be .6he ~.iO'n{~'!~rF~'-].'~:.F':of ~'6 hillsi'd~s'~' instead 'of' '~ding up with Commissioner Crowther commented that one of the main purposes of moving with this ordinance was to avoid the kind of problems"' th'~t occurred in the past. He added that he felt the Commission is.trying to be consistent in taking the density sections out'of Measure 'A' and the Specific Plan and amend the HC-RD with that minor modification. - 3 - Planning Commission ~' Page 4 Meeting ~inutes - 12/9/81 GF-333 (cont.) Commissioner Bolger stated that basically he feels the Commission is trying to achieve consistency and mo~e expeditiously. He added that he thinks all of the information that i~nec~'Ss'ar~.~.~."~e 'f~.r~ard On "this= ordinance should be' readily at hand.' Chairman Laden expressed~her concern that she feels the Commission is only dealing with one part of the ar'ea, which is the density, and is not dealing with all of the other issues that go along with making it con- sistent with'the Measure 'A' area. .She indicated that she would like to consider it on a larger sco~e and resolve some of the other problems such as circulation, sanitation needs,' water needs, etc. She added that Measure 'A' was studied as a total picture, and. she is very concerned that that will not be the case with this ordinance. Commissioner Crowther commented thatZ he feels the Commission will have to consider those other problems, but that may take at least a year. He stated that the intent now was to just bring one of the mos't important things into compliance ~s early as possibi~.~ so the City ~on"t.get into the kind of troubles that occurred relat~ed to density issues.associated with Measure 'A' Further' dis~.~ss_~on fo!.!owed.,. and '~hej.'V0t~ was taken.on the motion to.close .th.~..pu~'li'~ hea~ing. -The motion f. ailed,=,with Commissioners King, Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting. ~t was directed that the public hearing will be continued to the meeting of!January 13, 1981 and to a study session on January 5, 1982. Commissioner Crowther requested the.City .Attorney to supply wording for the area of retroactivity. He added that he feels that the' Commission should be consistent with the words that are in the S~ecific Plan which say that no home or other structure shall be built on an area ~.vi~h an average natural slope that exceeds 30%. He 'indicated that he feels that wording on the slope limitation should be incorporated to be consistent ~vith what the Staff consultant is preparing for implementation of the Specific Plan. 3. UP-.511 - J. Teresi (Hagan), Request for a Use Permit to allow the con- struction of 32 condominium units on a 2 53 acre site designated for Planned Development in,the 1974 General Plan south of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknail Road; continued from NOvember 17, 19'81 Staff described the proposal and explained that a use permit had been approved in 1979 and appealed to the City Council, who added conditions to the project. They added that the applicant was not able to proceed with the project and has now reapplied for a new use permit. The correspondence received on the project in opposition was noted. The public hearing was opened at 9:12 p.m. Bernard Hagan, of Hagan Construction Company, gave a presentation on the project. He introduced Mr. Andy Beverett, Chairman of the Housing Committee of the Senior Citizens CoOrdinating Council. ~r. Beverett discussed' the merits of the project and the community support for it. He also discussed the status of the real estate market for the' current year and the foreseeable 'future. He encou'raged the Com- mission to give the applicant a chance to do some of the' things the pro- ject was originally intended to do. Margaret Russell, Saratoga Glen Place, stated that she feels the zoning sho'uld remain the R-l-10,000 as it ~s now on this property. She indicated that she feels Saratoga Avenue is overloaded at this point. She added that she feels there is spot zoning. along that street, and since it is the gateway to the City, she feels the're should be a definite and unified plan. Jim Russell, 12776 Saratoga Glen CoUrt, asked the Chairman to read the letter from the Park l~oods~Homeowners Association into the"record, stating their concern regarding the proj'ect. - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Me~t"ing Minutes·-. 12/9./81 ./ UP-511 (cont.) Commissioner King moved to close the ~ublic hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which·was carried unanimously. The setbacks and parking spaces we·re ~discussed. There was a consens·us that larger setbacks we·re needed on S=aratoga Avenue ·and Bucknall Road. · 'thi~=:'~'~Oject we.re' in~hsis~'ent~'wi'th th.e ··General · ~'G=e~.~r'E-1 ..~]~n Adv~ s~ry.'- ~mmitte~.=~'~s' doin~ Dlanning ~'n t']~.i~. ~a~.~-H'~'-' and t~e '.~!~e'els "'~his ~j~O'uI'd be take~ 'into consider·at ion.' Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve UP-511, per the conditions of the original UP--410 and the Staff Report.dated November 12, 1981, amended to state·F~that the setbacks on Saratoga~Avenue and Bucknail Road will be 25 ft. from the property line; making~the-·f~ndings. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. 4a. V-564 ~ M. Oudewaal, Request for a Variance, Building Site Approval, and 4b. SDR-·1510 -~ Design Review Approval of an'addition to an existing office 4c. A-801 -· building to maintain a 7'.side yard where 17.2' is required and to allow ·a front property~line ·adjustment to maintain a 4' front yard wh'ere 25' is required, at 14375 Saratoga Avenue·; continued from No'Ve'mber 17, 198'.1' Staff described the proposal. The setbacks and parking spaces were dis- cussed. The public hearing was reopened at 10:30 p.m. Warren Heid, the architect, gave a presentation on the project. When asked how the project affects the problems.with stabilizing the creek bank, ~r. Heid stated that there is a soils engineering report and they have worked with the Flood Control. He commented that all of the geological require- ments will be met, and it is the opinion of their structural engineer that the building will not affect the creek. The Santa Clara Valley Water District conditions were discussed. Commissioner Crowther commented that the General Plan specifies that the creek banks are to be kept in their natural state and should not be lined with concrete. The use of alterna- tive methods of dealing with the erosion were discussed. There was a con- sensus to change Condition VI-B to read: "Creek bank should be stabilized. Alternative materials other than concretes=sack, such as turfstone or other aesthetic materials, shall be considered. Placement to be approved by the District.'.' Staff pointed out tha.t the last sentence of that condition had stated that if sack concrete is not used, the District will not take responsibility for damages, Staff w'as requested to confer with the Water District to confirm that other materials can be use·d. It was determined that ~'bank stabilization" should replace "sack riprap" in Condition VI-G. Mr. Heid questioned Condition V-B relative to ·the ·42 ft. radius required by the Fire District. He indicated that he felt it would be ·difficult to meet that requirement when the appli~cant has no control over the property next door. It was determined that the condition should be changed to read: "Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 42 feet or other radius as approved by the Fire District." Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, wh·ich·I~as carried unanimously. Parking s~aces were discussed, and it was noted that space #1 and #2 may not be accessible. Mr. Heid stated that the location of a dumpster for garbage will be·in back of space #1. It was determined that con- ditions should be added to the Building Site Approval and Design Review as· follows·: "The size·of the building ~ill be dependent upon sufficient parking in compliance with ordinance standards", and "The applicant shall submit a revised Site Development Plan showin~ location of garbage dumpster for Staff Review and Approval." Commissioner King moved to approve Vo564 per the' Staff Re~ort dated November· 12, 1981 and Exhibits· "B'~ and "C", making the findings. Commis- sioner' Bolger seconded the· motion, which· was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to a~rOve SDR-1510, per Exhibits "B" and "C" 5~- P~··anning Commission ·'° Page 6 ~eeting Minutes 12/9/81 V-564, SDR-15'10 and A-801 (cont.) and the Staff Repo.rt dated November ~0, 1981 as amended. Commissioner King seconded the motion, wh·i·ch was ~arried' unanimously. commissioner Zambetti moved to ap~roy·e A~801, per· Exhibi·ts "B~', ~7C" and "D" and the 'Staff Report date'd Nov'embe'.r' 30,' 1981 'as amended. The motion was ca·rried unanimous·ly. 5a. Ne'ga't'i've 'D'e'cl'a'r'a't'i'o'n - SDR'-~I'511 5b. SDR-1511 - C. Neale, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for 2 lots in the R-M'-4,000 ZOning. District.at 14230"Saratoga- " '.' '.Sunnyv'al'e R'o'a'd It was noted that thi·s item would be! continued in order to have an on--site vis'i't.' Th~ public hearing was o~ened at 11:04 p.m. NO one appeared to address the Commission. It was directed that this matter be·~ontinued to an on-site· visit on Feb·ruary 16, ·1982 and the regular me~ting of February 24, 1982. The applicant was asked to submit a letter of extension. 6a. Neg"ative' Declarati'o'n"'-' V-56'6'-' M. ·Chang 6b.· V-566 -· M. Chang, Request for a Variance to construct a tennis court on ~a slope greater than 10% in the HC-RD Zoning District at 21200 Chiquita' Way Staff described the proposal. It was noted that a letter had been received in opposition to this tennis court. The public hea'rin~ was opened at 11:~0 p.m. Melvin Hill, civil engineer, described the lot and discussed the trees on the 'site. Mr. ~on representing the applicant., discussed the ·findings. He stated that he fee·is this proposal would improve the view of the ·area and there would be no aesthetic impact. He noted tha~t none of the·other properties in the area· have room for a tennis court. Commissioner· King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the·motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a cons·ensus that the findings ·could not be· made to grant this variance. Commissioner Zambet·ti moved to deny V-566, on the basis that the ·findings cannot 'be made, per the!·Staff Report. Commissioner King- .seconded' the motion, whi·ch·was carried with Commissioner Schaefer abstain- ing. 7. GF-331 Consi·deration of an Ordinance of the··City of Saratoga adding Arti. cle 24 (·Appeals) to Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance, and · repealing and amending various inconsistent and superseded ....... · 's'ect'.ions' of"th.e"Zoning"Or'dina'n'c'e Discussion followed on the ordinanceS. It ~vas the consensus that this item should be ·continued to a stud~ session. The ~ublic hearing was ·o~ened at 11:21 ~.m. No one appeared to address the ·Commission on this matter. It wa's directed that this matter be ·continued to a study session on January 5, 1982 and the regular mee·t~ng of January 13, 1982. 8. GF-·334 --Consideration of an Amendment to the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance Auth~orizing ?~anufactured Homes in all Residential Districts " Wi'thi'n"th'e C'it'y o'f S'arat'og'a,"'a'n Ordina'nc'e 'R'equi'r'ed Under SB1960 Discussion followed on th·e ordinance. It was the consensus that this item sho'uld be ·continued to a study session. ~estriction of the ordinance to R-i-10,0O0 zoning districts only was discussed. P~anning Commission Page 7 ~eeti·ng Minutes ~. 12/9/8! The pub. lic hearing ~as 'opened at ·11:28 ~.m. No 'one 'appe~re.d to address th'e Commi.ss'ion' on thi's matter'. It was 'directed that ·this matter' be 'co'ntinued to a study session on January 5, 1982 and the regular mee·t·ing of January 13, 1982. 9. GF-.335 -.. Con'si'der'ation of an Ordinance Adding Article 'llA to' the City ...... of-Saratoga.Zoning Ordinan. ce,. Relating.to Control of.Adult .... · '.".E'n't'e'r'ta'i'n'm'ent'Fa'Ci'liti. es. Wi'thZi'n the"=Cit'y of 'Sar'atOg'a" Discussion· followed on· the ordinance.' It was the· consensus-·that this ordinance is not needed in the ·City jof Saratoga. The ·public hea·ring wa·s opened at 11::35 p.m. No one 'appeared to address th.e Co'mmission on thi's matter. Commissioner· Zambet'ti moved to close the ·public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was ca·rried unanimously. Commissioner· Zambetti moved to reques·t Staff to forwa·rd a memo to the City Council, expressing their fee·ling that this ordinance is inappropriate and is not needed in the City of SaFatoga. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. It was~note·d by the Commission that they· feel to institute such·an ordinance may be more ·detrimental than not having an ordinance. The vote was taken on the ·motion. The ·motion was carried unanimously. DESIGN REVIEW 10. A-800 Black~ell Homes, Lot 19, Tract 6526, Final Desi'gn R'ev'i'e~¢'Approv'al Staff described the current ~ro~osai. Discussion followed on the design. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-.800, per the Staff Report dated December 2, 1981. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which ·was carried, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining. ~4ISCELLANEOUS 11. John Zavoshy, 14081 Pike·Road, Requ~est for Modification to Site Develop- ment Plan· for' Fe'n'ce' ~. Javoshy stated that he was requesting to enclose his property, as others have done in the area. Discussi·on Ifollowe·d on the project. It was determined that Condition 2 of the ·Staff Re~ort should read: "Fence to be constructed a minimum of 25' (fr, ont yard setback of HCRD) from edge of easement of Pike Road, outside o·f the site distance area for Pike Road and the adjacent driveway, where po'ssible, but to allow the entire orchard area to be fenced in. Exact location is to be approved by Staff." Commissioner Bo!ger moved to approve 'the request' for the' Modification to the Site Development Plan for the fence, per the Staff Report dated October 9, 1981 as amended. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter dated November 4, 1981 re A-·725, from Neil Beman. Staff explained tha't the applicant was requesting modi'f~cation of an approved mason- ry wall, in the Quito Shopping Center. Discussion followed on the proposal. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve·the modification for A-725, per the Staff Report dated December 2, 1981. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. ·Oral 1. Commissioner Zambetti was appointed by the Commission to serve· on .the Heritage-C=6~m~'~0n~.. ADJOURN~4ENT Commissioner Zambetti moved to adjourn. thee meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner· King and was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned Planning Comm'issi. on .... P~ge '8 Meeting Minutes - 12/9/81 at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _~ber't S. Shook' Secretary RSS:cd EXCERPT FROM PLANNING' IM.~MINUTES UP-510-Moreland) KING - I think that we have had a lot of public input at the Committee-of-the- Whole meeting and I think we have heard from One World Montessori School and I guess that I have gradually come to, personally come to a few concerns about this. I guess some of my concerns would reflect what the neighbors said. I am not sure that One World Montessori has taken the full responsibility for the management of this site that is implied in either our ordinances or for that matter, in their lease which may not be before us, but it is a concern to us. I think that we all show the same concerns of the neighborhood and about the school site and so forth but we have before us an~ applicant, a reluctant applicant who has not truly dealt with the ordinance he Was'dealing with. As I look at the site with signs up and so on, it is difficult tO see where the applicants themselves are dealing with the commercial aspects of= many of these things. You can-argue that this one is desirable and that that one is not and I ,~hink that it has been pointed out that that is not before us, so I guess I have some concern about it. On the other hand, I wonder'··~·~·····'~if thinking to what Mr. Reasoner said, I believe ,t'hat·he is the Superintendent 'of Moreland ·School District who spoke to us, I believe that there is a possibility that t'his site may be boarded up in June anyway. So I guess I wonder if there may ·be something we can consider to let things wind their way down for the next six months and end the issue .... a couple of thoughts .... BOLGER - I would like to make a comment, I think that Mr. Green made a very· good point and the fact is that there iare a number of different services that are being provided to this community, whether they be profit or nonprofit, that really has very little bearing, where as the services that are being provided to · the community, I think that what I would like to do is that some time in the future, that we take a very hard look at this particular ordinance. I share Mr. King's feeling that there has been a lack of policing that is occurred on this particular site, however I wonder whether.or not it might be possible that we could get these two different parties back together, the people from the leasee as well as the neighborhood, then we can achieve a satisfactory solution. It may be a moot point but I think that these services are very much needed in the community. CROWTHER -· I have a couple of other comments I think that we should try to be con- sistent and I recall another school site where I believe we restricted the use of the site to no later than 6:00'p.m. or something of that sort, with only infrequent use in the evening. I personally think that the same condition should be placed on this site. I strongly oppose use on the weekends because that extends it beyond the normal use of a school. I would also like to see that condition placed on the site, no intensive uses on the weekends other than for recreational purposes such as the use.of the playing fields and that sort of thing, which is the same kind of use you would have'at the grammar school there. I don't think that we have the information to decide whether ,Development~Learning Associates should or should not be used on the site. I think what we should have general criteria that reflects on the neighbors' concern and put those in the conditions rather than taking specific shots at specific organizations. That is that if we can control the traffic and keep the use down to certain limited hours and that sort of thing, I think that willsachieve the objective. LADEN - Are you suggesting that one of the conditions be no evening classes and I don't recall any other school that we did that with. CROWTHER - There was a recent Use Permit with the E1 Quito area. S~AFF" - Commissioner Crowther is referring to a Use Permit for a nursery school in the E1 Quito Area and there was a limit in terms of the operation on the weekend. CROWTHER - I would take Condition 4, and change 9:30 to 5:00 p.m. and the lockup time to 6:00 p.m. SCHAEFER - Excuse me, I think that anyone that has been involved in child care who works and needs to pick up children realizes that if you hold down a job from 8 to 5 you can not possibly pick up a child before 6:00. It is extremely difficult. CROWTHER - If you want to make it 7 that's alright, or 6 that's fine but I think that 9:30 is too late. SCHAEFER - The other point on that is tha2t if we are going to have dancing classes and things like that, dancing may sound frivilous to some, but dancing of this nature as has been explained to me is much beyond that. I think that pag'e 2 EXCERPT P.C. MINUTES-11/17/81 · UP..-510 - Moreland having classes perhaps go until 9:00 would be a more reasonable kind of thing and have the rooms locked up at 9:15, rather than closing it down. An then perhaps having that go only through June and in June it would be a total new thing when this lease is up and the school district m~y decide not to do anything further with it. KING - I guess I wonder that if there is a. concensus that we ought to try to · generally regulate the use of that which would approximate the use of an elementary school and then maybe we could work around that kind of a concept. LADEN - I guess I have a problem and I'll State where I'm coming from right at the begining. I believe that, had the. applicant who is here ~onight read and followed the lease which required the obtaining of a Use Permit, we at the Planning Commission wouldn't be in the uncomfortable position of having tenants who we are about to drive out'in~the'street. I think that our ordinance is very clear at this time; unfortunately it says nonprofit. schools.. I have no problem putting conditions on those schools that meet the ordinance or those uses on the school that meet the ordinance: I have a problem'putting conditions out.there on p~rti- cular'.activities and businesses that do not meet the ordinance. I don't think that that is what we should be doing. I think that if we wish to change the ordinance, I suggest that the City Council changes the ordinance, then we should do that. I think that before us tonight iS whether we follow the ordinance and issue a use permit for nonprofit schools or whether we are_going to follow the ordinance and issue use permits'for everybody who is now there or anyone else who may come and try to control those. I think that those are the two issues that we are trying to deal with and I think that the controls have to come after who we decide who we are going to control. My personal opinion is that we have to meet the ordinance and then condition the use from there. ~ROWTHER - I think that what Commissioner king said is very im~tant, which I strongly agree with, that we should try to condition the use to be consistent with that of an elementary school. LADEN - Fine. Alright, we are talking aboht the conditions under Recommended Action. Should we go th~Qugh these one at a time or .... The applicant has suggested Condition #1 with a maximum number of students which will be no greater than that shown on Table 1, he feels that ~hat is too restrictive, is there any agreement on the part of the Commission to' omitting that? CONSENSUS THAT IT SHOULD STAY. LADEN -.Alright, fine. We will skip Condition #2 for now that seems to be the essence of this discussion here right now. Condition #3 is the additional parkin~ Commissioner Crowther has suggested that we do not require the additional parking to be paved and striped but that parking whould be limited to on site parking as it presently exists. Is that in agreement? SCHAEFER - I don't agree .... I mean that I agree that we should not add additional parking, but why not remove the. barricades so that they can park right on the existing land. LADEN - I think that might be inherent with what he is saying if they can provide appropriate parking. SHOOK - I might just remind the Commission that the reason that the 'paved parking is included in the Staff Report was based on the comment that some of the neighbors Were concerned about the parking, and the dust and the problems created by that. CROWTHER - I would like to restrict it to rthe existing parking places on site and indicate that the Use Permit...a~condition of the Use Permit, is that they not.have any uses that would create a need for parking beyond the available capacity of the site. CONSENSUS LADEN - Alright, Condition #4, classes sha~ll not be conducted later than 9:30, is that deemed to be a problem? I. guess I didn't hear that nighttime was as much of a problem as the general traffi'c flow. No? If there is a way of finding out does that make a difference to the nei'ghbors or is it equally part of the whole problem? CROWTHER - Well again coming back to the ~undamental principle of being consistent with elementary schools I think that some nighttime use is possib~ pa~e'3 EX'CERPT P. -MINUTES-11/17/81 .permissible like the nighttime use you get at elementary schools .... an infrequent thing that an association might use the site once a week or something but no~.~a regular everyday activity type'.. I would 1.ike to see it restricted, the same"~e did for the use of the E1 Quito site .... that no regular daily activities should operate beyone 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. and that there can be infrequent use of the site for special meetings but that would be inf.requently. LADEN - Is there a consensus on'7:00 p.m.?! I do not hear that there are any other objections either by the applicant or the Commission at this time so .... We went rather quickly by Condition ~#1, now that I sense what was going and I would like to take another moment on that. Looking at your point again of multiple populating of the site seems to be part of the issue and I wonder if we can tie in Condition #1 with the maximum number per day and that therefore deal.' with trips and it deals with a lot of concerns from the neighbors again. I agree in concept with normal use of the school. z I assume that Condition #1 means that if the uses are not allowed, that those nu'mbers of the maximum would be the maximum taken from the allowed uses, not the total Table. Is that correct? STAFF - Yes. On Page 3 of the Staff Repor~t on the summary of the number of 'students that might be allowed on ithe site are only the permitted uses. I~'~s on Page 3, its the second paragraph about the same number of students .... 170 - 190 would occupy the site between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. which is really the bulk of the permitted uses. That number drops if we eliminate Developmental Learning Associates, Inc., part of Dance Plus and part of Fitness Unlimited, but those are not the major users so we figure at least .... well, approximately 150 students per day, in that range. BOLGER - I guess I'm a little troubled with where you are going with this, we've only heard from Mr. Jacobsen that as soon as he looses one tenant he is out searching for another so I don't think that we should necessarily tie this' condition to the existing population~ we should concern ourselves with the number of students or something that relates to the traffic problem. CROWTHER - Would it be possible to work i~ generally and state that the maximum number of students occupying the. site shall not exceed its capacity as an elementary school2. LADEN - That's fine. Is everyone agreeabl:e? Now we are down to the Use Permit and permitted uses, Condition #2. i That I think is the essence of what is here in front of us tonight.. I guess w.e, at this point, could probably stand a motion as to what direction we are going. KING - I wonder if we might not deal with ia June time frame rather than our present time frame and possibly all'ow things to run their course, yet giving everyone the assurance that something was ahead of us. So based on those comments I would move to approve UP-510 per the Staff Report as modified by the various reconm~endations here this evening;' however, making it effective in June of 1982 to allow the organizations time to '.straighten out their various affairs. LADEN - Then what you are saying is that this Use Permit would not be effective until June of 19827 ', KING - I'm suggesting that the restrictions to allow the lessor and the tenant seven (7) months or .so to clean up 'their affairs .... Yes LADEN - Is there a second to the motion? SCHAEFER- Second LADEN - Is there discussion? DEP. CITY ATTY. - The 'permit you are approving would permit those uses .... legeti- mate those uses that are there now and I suppost what you are saying is a directire to Staff not to initiate action to in effect evict those who do not conform. KING - I wasn't proposing to put the Staff in such a position, what I was thinking when making my motion was simply to allow time for the school district and one World Montessori to deal with the issue, rather than put some abrupt conditions on it. SCHAEFER - Is it perhaps possible to have .a Conditional Use Permit with a review within say 60 days to see whether or not the affairs have been brought in order .... ?a~ 4 . EXCERPT P. C~. MINUTES-11/17/81 7· · ..... UP-510-Moreland LADEN - I guess what we are really saying is the Use Permit is granted as to those uses which the Commission finds to be in compliance and those uses which are not, ·are really given until June to find other premises or to effectuate a change in the ordinance. KING - That was my intent. CROWTHER - So you would allow them to keep operating in the evenings and so forth... LADEN - No, he's saying with the Condition=s as modified with the operation being ceased at 7:00 in the evening; with the mass of students being limited in the number that would normally be conditioned for the school during regular education hours. KING - I was moving toward all the other exceptions with the exception of evicting, the nonordinance tenant or two prior to June. LADEN - Mr. Toppel, do you feel comfortable that we have enough evidence to state that these specific organizations 'do not qualify under the ordinance? DEP. CITY ATTY. - Well, just on the basis of the public input, the ordinance is clear, wisely or not~it does make a distinction between profit and nonprofit organizations and that there doesn't seem to be any question that the particular operations listed here may ,not fall within the nonprofit classifi- cation. LADEN - Alright, there is a motion and a s'econd on the floor, is there any further discussion? CROWTHER - Did we agree that weekend use ~ould not be permitted other than for recreation? LADEN - I don't recall that that was accepted by the majority. CROWTHER - It is something that would violate the general criteria of an elementary school ..... LADEN - Were you suggesting th·at we restrict the weekend uses? CROWTHER - Yes. LADEN - It is an additional condition that you wish to put in? I think that whether the use or not under the leasemi think that the school district has allowed soccer and other recreational use. CROWTHER - I'm excluding recreational use, that's fine. LADEN - You"re essentially talking about ~he church use. CROWTHER - Uses which generate a lot of traffic. LADEN - Is there a consensus to eliminate~weekend use?· SCHAEFER - After June I would certainly say to eliminate the weekend use, but I don't feel comfortable doing that now because they fall under the ordinance. LADEN - Is that the general feeling? King ·.I - I'll go along with that. LADEN - May I have a consensus .... Thank you very much .... Now are we going to have an opinion? = DEP. CITY ATTY. - I just think that is is necessary to clarify what we are talking about is the effective dates because I think that I'm confused now. Is the motion for the Use Permit to be effective now with a condition that those uses not in conformance with the.ordinance be removed by June or is the motion for the Use Permit per say to be effective in June? KING - I intended the former, the conditions of the Use Permit will be effective now, however that· the nonpermitted uses be allowed until June of 1982. Pa:g~'5 j EXCERPT P. C'~' , MINUTES-11/17/81 ~ / UPi510 - Moreland / DEP. CITY ATTY. - So that the condition "of the Use Permit is those uses that are not in compliance with the statute must be removed by June. That leaves the applicant in a position then if he does have a renewal of the '- lease if the Moreland School District wants Go continue the arrangement, he then has a Use Permit to continue with those other uses at that point in time being eliminated? LADEN - I believe that is correct, with the other conditions as stated. DEP. CITY ATTY. - This in effect then becomes Condition #9, well no, its part of Condition #2, that you are setting a time frame for removal of those other uses. KING - Correct LADEN - There is a motion however unclearly stated and there is.a second in front of us, all of those in favor? SCHAEFER - I have one more comment .... on this 7:00 time that we settled on and there are classes that are now ongoing that 5o to 9:30 and I don't know when they stop; probably they stop in December. I think that because of the total inconvenience it would cause people that signed up for those classes and everything else, if possible to have it goZuntil the end of 81. LADEN - I would say that.we already have confusion enough; I would like to voice an opposition to that and they will probably have to reschedule some of their classes. Alright, all of those in favor of the motion as stated with all of the conditions of the Staff Report, as amended: CROWTHER, KING & SCHAEFER - Aye BOLGER & LADEN - No LADEN - Motion carried on a 3-2 vote and Up-510 is approved per the Staff Report dated 10/14/81, as amended. ~