Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-1982 Planning Commission Minutes· ~, 2,/:~':~~'~ .... CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO.M~:4ISSION M I'NUT'E S DATE: Wednesday, January 13, 1982 - 7:30 PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUT INE ORGANI'ZAT ION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowt~er, King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made 'to the minutes of December 9, 1981: Page 5, the second paragraph should rea'd: Commissioner Crowther indicated that the ordinance and its application of this project were inconsistent with the General Plan. He 'stated th'at the General Plan Advisory Committee is doing planning in thi's area, and he feels this should be taken into consideration. Page 6, add: Restriction of the ordinance to R-l-10,000 zoning districts only was discussed. Clarification of. the minutes of November 17, 1981 regarding UP-510 was discussed. It was determined that, since it was unclear as to the intent of the motion .regarding the conditions of UP-510, this item will be agen'dized for the ~C'd.m.'miS~"i~ri"'.'m~e~!n'g ohj 7J~n.u~y: 27th'~ fO~'-re~-nsider~-.' ~:. ,..~:i0.n':2' The detailed transcript prepared of the hearing on UP-510 should be referred to in terms of clarification of the Commission's vote on this item and this verbatim transcript is incorporated as part of those minutes (with the change that the statement attributed to Comm. issioner Zambetti on page 4 was made by Commissioner King). Comm.issioner Zambetti moved to waive the reading of the minutes of December 9,' 1981 and anprove as amended. Commis- Sioner r w.ther econd d .the mo ion s~vh'ch w carr.'.ed .... ~if'h .Commiss'ioner ,.~on~a s Annual Reorganization Election of the Chairman, Vice-Chairm'an and Secretary of the Planning Com- mission for the following year was held as follows: Chairman: Louise Schaefer, Vice-Chairman: Alan King, Secretary: Robert S. Shook (Commissioner Monia was also nominated for Chairman; Commissioner Bol. ger was nominated for Vice-Chairman) Commissioner Laden expressed her pleasure in being Chairman for the last three years and turned the gavel ove~ to Commissioner Schaefer, who thanked the Commission for electing her Chairman. CONSENT CALENDAR Staff removed A-802 from the Consent Calendar, explaining that there had been a verbai request 'for withdrawl 6f this application. They suggested that this item be continued unti'l such time as a written' request has been received. A-805 was removed for discussion. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the balance 'of the items listed below. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was 'carried unanimously. 3. SDR-1295 - G. Fardab1 (Grutchfieid/Politi), Deer Canyon Lane near Glenmont, Request for' L'ot' 'L'i'ne' .~d'jUstment 4. SDR--1461 - Warren Sturla, Cox Avenue 'and Saratoga Creek, Request for One- Year Extens~'on '. .......... 5. 8DR-1462 - Donald Schaffer, 20015 Cox Avenue, Request for One-Year Exten- sion · Discussion followed on A-80S. CommiSsioner Crowther stated he was concerned because the deck is being built over an existing channel. of a creek, and appears that the 'foundati'on is in the creek. He indicated that he would like a hold harmless clause associated w~h 'this approvai. Commissioner King gave an on-site report. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-805, Lewis Franklin~ 13209 Padero Planning Commission Paoe 2 Meeting Minutes 1/13/82 A-805 (c6nt.) Court, with the condition that the applicant sign a hold harmless clause in regards to the construction of this deck over the Swale. Commissioner Bolger seconded the '.motion, which was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. GF-331 - Consideration of an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga adding Article 24 (.Appeals) to.Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance, and repealing and amending various 'incons.istent and superseded sections 'of the Zoning Ordinance; continued from December 9, 198'1 Staff reported that this item had been reviewed at a study session, and the City Council has requested' that the Commission review it again. The public hearing was opened at 8:03 p.m. No one appeared to address the' Commission, and it was directed that this item will be continued to a future study session. '. 7. GF-333 - Consideration of a Revision to the 'Slope Density Formula in the HC-RD District to a 2-10 Acre Straight Line Formula; continued from December 9, 198'1 Staff suggested that this item be continued to January 27, 1982, in order to hea'r it concurren'tly wi'th the .Specific Plan Implemen. tation Ordinance. The public hearing was opened at'8:04 p.m. No one appeared to address the' Commission. It was airected.that this be continued to a study session on January 19, 1982 and the regular meeting of January 27, 1982. o GF-334 - Consideration of an Amendment to the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance Authorizing -,x. ianufactured Homes in all Residential Districts With'in the City of Saratoga, an Ordinance Required under 'SB'1960, St'ate o'f 'Cali'fO'rni'a;' conti'nued from Dec'ember 9, 1981 Staff reported tha't the' 'City council has indicated their feeling to allow the manufactured homes in all residential zones. The Director of Community Planning and Policy Analysis stated that he has revised the ordinance 'per the' Commission's direction at the last study session, to specify only allowa'nce in the R-i-10,000 zoning district. Commissioner' Crowther questioned'whether there was a consensus at the City Council meeting to al].ow manufactured homes in all residential zones. He stated that he strongly believes that it should be restricted to R-l-10,000. He added tha't'otherwise peoDle may make applications that are impractical and probably would not' be approved. The public hearing was opened at 8:07 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the ordinance, specifically the definition of manufactured homes and temporary. use. The Deputy City Attorney commented that the City has every right to. impose the same restrictions and requirements as they would on any othe'r type of housing, but can not put excessive or additional res'trictions on manufactured housing per se. Commissioner' Crowther moved to approve 'Resolution GF-334, recommending. to the City Council that this ordinance b.e' 'apDroved, allowing manu- factured homes' in R-l-10,000 zonino distr~cts only Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. Commissioner' Laden stated that she disagreed with limiting it to R-l-10,000 zoning districts only:, since she feels that all citizens should have the rights and privilege of having a manufactured home and should be governed by the same 'Iaws 'and under the same ordinances. Commissioner Monia indicated that he would like to see this as a slower process under direct control of the Commission and Council in this community, rather than just' opening it up in every area. FIe added that the City does control the size of houses and lots, depending upon - 2 - · j~ ~'~ Planning Cornmiss io Page 3 ~eeting Minutes 1/13/82 GF-334 (cont.) area, and he feels this would be consistent by initially starting off and seeing what the impact might be. The' vot~'was-.taken on the 'motion~to approve GF-334, limiting it to R-l-10,000 zoning districts. Th~ 'mot'iOn failed, with Commissioners Zambetti, Schaefer, Laden and King dissenting. Commissioner Laden moved to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the ordinance to allow 'manufactured homes' in all residential districts within the City of Saratoga. Commissioner' King seconded the moti'on, which was carried~ with Commissioners Bolger, Crowt'her and Monia dissenting. 9. GPA 82-1-A -. Saratoga'Union School District, Consideration of Changing the 'General Plan Designation from Community Facilities- Elementary School t6 Medium Density Residential on the 10.588 acres"designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN 391--04-11, located at the northwestern corner 'o'f Via"E's'cuela' a'nd 'Glen"Br'ae Dr'i've The Director of Communi'ty Planning and Policy Analysis described the proposed chan~e. He indicated that the Staff Re~ort mentions various o~tions which 'can be considered and that Staff is recommending Medium Density, which 'is R-1-.12,500 ~oning for the site. The 'public hea'ring wa's o~ened at 8:29 p.m. Glenn McNicholas, Superinten'dent of the Saratoga Union School District, spoke 'on behalf of the' district and stated that they support the Staff's recommendation. Paul Friedl, 13240 Via Blanc'~-'.i~aic~'~ha~'."h.~_~e~lt.t|~'~i~e should be reserved for o~en space and recreation for the children' of Saratoga. He suggested lenasing the building to pay for the upkeep of this land. Dr. McNicholas discussed the issue 'of alternate financial considerations. He indicated that, witho'ut the s~le of some 'of the district's property, it is very possible that in the near future the district will be com- pletely bankrupt. He commented that if they c~h~'~ rezoned and they have to abandon it they will have ~o' '0ard up the windows. Dr. McNicholas commented that they needed revenue from the si'te, and if they could lease it. for approximately $500,000 to $600,000 a year, they would never' sell it'; however, that has not been feasible. He discussed 'the declining enrol.lment and indicated that probably within eight yea'rs the're will only be one. 'school in this district. He added that young people 'are not mov'ing~ into Saratoga because of the cost. Commissioner Crowther suggested'~that possibly th'~ '.fina'Hcia~ bl~ms of the district could be solved by the citizens, since Saratoga presently has the lowest open sp.ace of any city in the County. He added that the general consensus' at the General Plan review meetings was~that the' citizens wanted fh6~s~'si~eS"k'ep.t"i'n"th~ir 'p~jen~..status with 'use 'of the buildings permitted for various uses to gain some financial income. Dr. McNichola.s commen'ted that that was not being realistic; very little 'income Wo~uld be made by doing that. He noted that, under' the 'new' laws' and regiulations, the' City could buy the site for 25¢ on the dollar ~f todays" market value, if they wished. William Wolf, Via Escuela asked 'for clarification on the zoning proposed. Staff clarified that they we're recommending R-1-12,500, which is the present zoning of the area'. They added that multiple housing is not being recommended; there will no't 'be a condominium type..pr0~ect. Mr. Wol£-~' 'stated. that he was concerned about the statement'~=~'Hg. th'~. PD designation in the 'Staff Report. Bert Toevs, of the General Plan Advisory Committee, stated that their area h~d come up with a minority recommendation that at least a por- tion of the Congress Springs School site be considered for multiple dev'elopment be'cause of its loca'~ion. Marlene Duffin, 21241 Canyon View, stated that she had the feeling that possibly the 'Commission felt that the 'trustees' of the Elementary - 3 Planning Commissio Page 4 Meeting Minutes - 1/13/82 GPA 82-1-A (cont.) School District are not really seriously concerned' about long term planning of school facilities'. She commented that over the years they certainly have 'studied this subject and they' support Staff's re c ommendat i on. Carl Sullinger, 19721 Via Escuela, stated that he had no objection to the zoning proposed by Staff.' George Rishell, 13010 Glen Brae Drive, expressed his opp6sition to multi~!e family housing and stated that he felt R-1-12,500 zoning would be consistent with 'the current zoning. Doug Crice, 19623'Via Escuela, stated that he supports a park on that site. He indicated that he also.would support R-1-12,500 zoning~ but would be opposed to leasing the building since it would change the character of the neighborhood. Leo Hasb'rOok, 130'76 Glen Brae, discussed the dust storms and fire bombing they get in his area' from the fact that the school is there. He also' .stated that the '~ark on the street is 'a ~roblem; the traffic is heavy, and another par'k wouldZ ma~e the traffic situation intolera- ble. He added that he would recommend single family homes con. sistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Laden commen'ted that she had sat on a committee that had been formed by the Board of Trustees of the School District to discuss the use of school sites in the City. She indicated that their recommen- dation at that time had been' to h~ve the' school maintain all of the sites and that they not se'l'l any'. of them. HoweVer, the' 'realism of today's financial world h~s chan~ed that,' and she feels the school district has a financial obli.~ation to its children. She added that hopefully, if there is a surge of ~ublic interest and the citizens want to get a tax or bond issue Fro buy that ~ropertv, that will be done; however~ she feels 'the Commission must deal w~'th the problem at thi's time. Commissioner Crowther expressed his concern that R-1-12,500 zoning may be' too dense; perhaps R-I-20,000 zoning would alleviate some of the problems that will result 'because of residential development. He commented that he' 'fee'iS the' Commission does' not have enough information to evaluate' '.~H~ DroD0sal; there'~is 'no 'Environmental I~act Report and the traffic impacts have not been evaluated. Commissioner King moved to Close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded' the' motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden moved to adopt the Staff Report and Resolution GPA 82-1-A, recommending to the .'Council Council the Droposed change in the 'General Plan des i'gnat ion~. 'Commissioner' Monia seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther indicated'a problem with' the sentence in the Staff Report 'that states that Staff would recommend to the City Council that serious 'considerati'on be 'given to 'determine if multiDie h. ousing under a PD designation would be appropriate for the 'site. There was a consensus to strike that sentence from the' 'Staff Report. Commissioner' Monia stated' he 'seconded the motion because he feels this is .probably the bes't utilization of the site. However, he does have a problem wi'th the fact that the' school district hasn't tried to offer somethin~ to the City for' all o'f' the years of service that the City has given it. He indicated thai he had-l~oped to see' the school dis- tricts at 'least offer some reasonable 'amount of property for open space as a contingency to get the 'rez'oning, and he feels that the City is losing some cultural benefit by giving up all of that open space. Discussion followed on the poss~.ibility of having any of the land considered for' open' space. 'The~ 'Deputy City Attorney stated that the Commission could, at a later date, as Dart of a development proposal, recommend a ~olicy statement,. that during the course of development of thi's ~ro~ertv , ~or+ions .~hould 'be' al~o'ca~ed. for open- space ~ that is - 4 - Planning Commiss Page Meeting Minutes 1/1.3/82 GPA 82-1-A (cont.) contained in fact in the Staff Report. The vote was taken on the motion to adopt the== Staff Report, amended to delete the 'sentence referring .to the' PD designation, and R~Solution GPA 82-1-A, recommending approval to the CounCil of the proposed change. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. 10. C-198 - Saratoga Union School District, Consideration of Rezoning from A-Agriculture to R-1-12,500 'on the 10i. 588 acre marcel designa- tion in the' 'Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN 391~04-11, lo'cat'ed at' 'the n'o'r'thwes:t'e'rn' c'orne'r' 'o'f Vi'a 'Es'CUel' a'n'd' Glen Brae The' 'publ'ic hearing ~vas opened at 9:25 p.m. William Wolf, Via Escuela, again,asked about ~he planned development designation, and it was clarified by Staff that it will not be a planned development. Commissioner' Laden moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the moti'on, which.was carried nnanimously. Commissioner Zambett'i' moved to adopt ResolutiZo. n C-198, recommending to the' City Council that the property be rezoned': from Agriculture to R-1-.12,500, making the findings .in the Staff ~Report and deleting any reference to Planned Development, Commissioner Monia seconded the motion . Commissioner' Laden suggested that it might ben 'appropriate to forward, along with 'the resolution to the~ City CouncilJ, a letter requesting that open space land be dedicated, if appropriate... Staff suggested that a better' solution wo'uld be 'to wait until an application comes in on the property. Commissioner Crowther stated tha~ he would v~te against the motion for two reasons: (1) he believes that R-1-12,500 .is too dense; he thinks it should be R-.1-.20,000, and (2) he could no~ agree with the Negative Declaration. He added that in this case he feels it is inappropriate because of th.e public concerns 'that h~ve been expressed. The vote Wa's taken on the' motion'. It was carried, with Commissioner Crowther' dissenting. Discussion followed on the letter to be sent to the City Council regard- ing open space. It was determined' that more guidance should be given to the Council as 'to' '.the amount bf open s~ace the 'Commission is con- sidering. It was det'ermined that, as part of the' discussion on the General Plan and the various 'act'ion programs :.that will be held by the Commission' within the next six weeks, the Commission could clearly state 'at that time 'that some open space be included in this project at ~the time of development. It wa's 'determined" that the Commission will then have time to 'study this sub'j'ect further ~and make a recommendation to the City Council. Break - 9: 35 p .m. - 9: 50 p .m. 11. GPA 82-1-.B -. Moreland School Dis.trict, Consideration of Changing the General Plan Designation from Community Facilities-Ele- mentary School to Medium Density Residential on the 11.57 acre ~Darcel designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN 386-10-60, and known as Brookview School at · 1'2'.30'.1' Rad'oy'k'a' Dr'i'v'eF The Director of Community Planni'ng and Policy Analysis described the propose'd change. He indicate.d' that there 'is'no necessity to rezone the 'prop'er'ty since it is already, zoned' R--i-10,000. He added that Staff is 'rec'ommending Medium Density, R-I'-10;000, for this change. A letter in opposition to the 'change, from the! Saratoga Park Woods Home- owners Association, wa's noted. Commissioner' Crowther state'd' that the General Plan now shows this as an open space 'site 'and inventorines it as open space; according to State 5 Planning Commiss Page 6 Mee.ting Minutes 1/13/82 GPA 82-1-B (cont.) law, anything inventoried as open space has to be zoned that. Staff clarified that the site has been ,designated in the inventory as open space, but in the Gener'al Plan Land Use Elemept it is designated as School Faciliti'es. The public hearing was opened at .9:50 p.m. Mr. Reasoner, the Superintendent ~of the Moreland School District, discussed the financial position of the' district. He 'commented that at this point 'the board.has made.no decision to sell either Brookview or E1 Quito School'. Mr. Reasoner e.XDlained that in 1977 a Property Advisory Committee' was establ'ished and at that time recommended to sell both Brookview and E1 Quito 'sites'wh'en it became appropriate. In the meantime the district has tried to maintain those sites by leasing them. The District has now requestedFthat the Committee again conduct public hearings and meetings were hel'H recently regarding the future 'use of those sites. Mr. Reasoner discussed the subleasing of the Brookview 'site"and the' concer'ns expressed by the residents of that facilit~-~'"particularly in connection with the public use in the evening. He stated that they were 'looking at the possibility of selling one or two' sites to help fund the operating expense for maintenance of the othe'r' school si'tes.' He added that the money received from the sale cannot be used .for the 'instructional program or for operating expenses. Mr. Reasoner' indicated that th.ey:can only keep the portion of the money accrued from leasing that is required t0 maintain those sites in terms of maintenance and improvements. Mr%. Reasoner stated that, under legal provisions, the 'City ~has the first right' on the E1 Quito Park property, should it wish to :purchase tha~ at 25% market value. Ite added that the 'district would .like 'to wOrki with the City in trying to work out such an agreement, should the board decide to sell that site. Mr. Reasoner expressed concern regarding the continuous leasing of Brookview and the communicati6n from many Of the homeowners that the current use of.the' site is not as desirabl'e as single family resi- dential homes would be; therefore, he.urge'd approval of the Staff's recommendation that the General Plan designateion be changed to R-l-10,000. The leases on the school sit~s"we'~e discussed~. The letter from the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners was referenced., which stated that they wanted Brookview leased on a long term basis 'and that it not' be closed and rented out. Mr. Reasoner stated that .the: letter seemed contra- dictory, in that th'e information'he' rec'eiVed prior to that was that the residents would prefer to have it sold and used for single family dwellings. : Randy Snyder, ExeCutive 'Board Members of the =Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, stated that they wan!ted the open space maintained. He indicated that 'it was their o~inion, from the meeting held last night, that the Sc'hool district was: not considering se~ling the Brookview' lsite; ho'weVer, Mr. Rea~oner has imD!ied'a different feeling. Mr. Snyder' commented that they f~e'l, as an organization, that any abuses by the subleaseeS that existed in the 'past have been corrected by the Commission's action and could be.correCted in the 'new contract that Morel'and will negotiatewi'th the'primary.leasee. It was pointed out 'to Mr. Snyder.that lettersi had sent to the Commission over the signature of ~supposedly 'a member of the ~xec'utive body of his 'group,.regarding thte use permit. She added · that in those'l~'ters'unhappiness with the subleasees of Brookview had been expressed. Commissioner Laden commented that a number of people from .the Saratoga Park WOods area' had spoken !re that lease, indicating they would prefer homes instead' Of leases. Mr. Snyder admitted.that there were individuals who had said they were speaking officialIv for the 'grou~, who in fact were speaking for them- selves. He added ~hat that is not the position of their Executive Board and that Mr. Gilovich,' who wr'ote 'the letter, is no longer with the' Group. Allen Aspi reinforced what Mr. Snyder had said as to the consensus of the people appearing at the meeting last ~ight. He stated that he would endorse the 'continued use' Qf the school by activities oriented towards children and operati'ng under' the 'constraints of"the use permit. - P!'a'~ning Commiss Page 7 Meeting Minutes 1/.1~3/82 GPA 82'-I-B (cont.') Commissioner Laden sugges·ted that, since there seems to be some haziness ·abOut th·e moti·on for the use permit,! and since it it will be agendized for the next meeting for reConsi·deration, perhaps this discussion could be ·deferred until the· ·motion· is clear and the City Council has made a decisi·on.'· She added that by that time more information may be available 'from the ·schOol district as to whether they could in fact exist under' the' ·interpretation given the Commission and the· Council on a lea·se basis 'at all. Commissi·oner Crowther commented that ·there wa·S no haziness regarding the ·use permit excemt as ·to the ·timing of the conditions, and he felt that the ·Commission should take' action· on this item at this time. Commiss·ioner· Laden· stated that the City Council may interpret the allowable use permit differently~ and perhags it would have an impact on what the school will eventually do wi·th the site. Daryl Becket, 18699 San Palo Court, stated that he feels the City should look seriously at buyi·ng both of the sites at 25,~ on the dollar, resell one and take the ·profit to support the other to keep it open for open space. It =was explained· to .Mr. Becker that the City could not· do that; they could buy the site and· keem it, but could not resell it. ~'!r. Becker' stated· he ·would support 'the lea·sing of the school and would be against· multiple housing. Bill Hour, Business Manager for the Moreland School District, stated that 'they have expressed some doubt about the possibilities of leasing the school, but have never threatened to board up a school. He explained the Naylor Bi·ll, wh·ich ·states that if the site is purchased by the' City for 25% of market value, it is required to be us~d"s'ole't'y for open' space; at ·such ti·me that it ceases to be used for that mur- pose, the ·~chool district then' gets the o~tion of buying it back. Commissioner Laden· moved to close the public hearing. commissioner Zambe.tti seconded· the motion, '~h'i'ch .was carried, with 'COmmissioners Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting. Commissioner Bolger commented that he would have a great deal of trouble finding a Negative Declaration on this particular project. He indicated that his feeling would be to keep this site as open space, subject to the fact that ther·e would be a 10ng term leasee that would be able to maintain the 'property. Discussion followed on continuing this item t·o a study session on school sites or dealing with this 'item separately. Commissioner Crowther stated that he felt it would be detrimental to the applicant if the r. equest' wa's just turned down and .h~ f~e_e'l's '~'~citi'z'ens h~Ve .a. go.od ·basis .for. mak'~'g..,t'he' ~e~Ues't th'ey..'h~e .m~de ~" He' '~omme~t~""'°tHa~ he wou]d 'hav~ a great deal of trouble approving the ·proposed change as it now stands. He agreed with ·Commissioner Bolger regarding .an Environmental Impact Report. He ·stated· that maybe· 'the 'COmmission >.,zill want to reconsider the propose·d change at some late·r time~ but he feels the Commission should act on this Darticu]_ar applicati·on at this time. Commissioner Crowther moved to r~Commend 't.o.t.he City conn~'.il ,tha,t · ~]PA 82-1-B be denied with·out prejudice. The timeframe wi'thi·n which the school ·district could find a leasee wa·s discussed. Discussion also {ollowed on the motion. Commissioner Crowther explained that he is suggesting that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the school district '·s request for the change in the General Plan d. es. ig_nati'on be d_e. Uie. d__~.ith.ou_.t prejudice·, which in effect would leave ~th.e' "General~ Pi~'-in its' ~re'sent f'~rm,.~. "~q~c-]~'he 'feels i's what th~ ~iti'zen~'~'re-requestingl The"'vot-'e wa's take·n· on the motion"to rec'ommend denial witho'ut prejudice for GPA 82-·!-·B. The ·moti·on was ·carried, with Commissioners Laden and Schaefer dissenting. Planning Commi Page 8 Meet'ing Mi'nutes' 1/13/82 12. GPA 82-1-C - Moreland. School District, Consideration of Changing the General Plan designation from Community Facilities- Elementary SchOol to Planned DeVelopment--Residential on the ·northern 4.891 acre ·portion :of an l!.173·acre parcel designated in the Santa Clara Co~unty Assessor's Book as APN 386~14-.04, and known· as E1 ~uito' Park School at · 18720· B'uckna'll R·o'a'd The·~Direc·tor of Community Planning and Policy Analysis described the proposed change. He '.indicated that Staff is recommending that the northwe·stern part of the· site be Planned Deve~lopment with a density of 1 unit per 6300 sq. feet, wHiCh is much ·less than the Hagan project and less dense ·than what is being requested by the ~chool district. He added that ·the· other side of the site Would be ·R-l-10,000 or Medium Density. The· Dubl'ic hearing was opened at 10:50 p.m. Mr. Reasoner expressed his confusion regarding the previous action on GPA 82-1-B. He reiterated tha·t the school board has not made a dec'isi.~n to sell the sites, but they may need to be in the position't~ .s=ell...-~On~.'O~"'~hem,:in view of the 'fact that they have not been able to find"lease·~·s ·for the ·two sites. He ·added that the reason for request- ing the· PD zoning was that it was their understandi. ng that this would provide for maximum flexibility.. Mr. Reasoner commented that they did want to work with the City to come up with ·some creative use of this site. He indicated that he feels Staff's redommendation would severely limit the creative use of the·site in terms 6f a development that would be consistent with the· park and Wi·th the unique nature of that site. Mr. Reasoner suggested that 'both of the sites be discussed at a study session. Brett Cross, 12601 Paseo Cerro, .stated that the Hagan/Teresi property is on appeal before the' City Cou.ncil; therefore, it is not certain whether there will be R-.1-10,000'homes therefor condos. He commented that he 'feel's to go ahead and put 'a small se'Ction of PD in there seems to be 'inconsistent with the 'fact that directly across from that proper'ty is R-.1-10,'000 zoning. Mr. Cross 'added that he feels his neighb'orhood is becoming chopped up. He 'indicated that he feels the best solution would. be' that thi'sZ pyoperty be incorporated into the E1 Quito Park and ..%1~ .b~5~.~7'~U'a'de 'e.~'p'ande;d; Dan Guiterrez, President of the iE1 Quito Homeowners Association, stated that, with this planned development, the ·City is asking them to accept more density in ~heir area and ~heir street·s·cannot·take it. He added that he would hope that negotiations ·can take place to try to· keep the facility as an educational facility. Kathy McGoldrick, 12860 Paseo.Prd~·ada, explained that she is the General Plan Advisory Committee representative for that area. She stated· that they wrote into the ·General Plan that you have to take a look at the cumulative effects of everything that has gone on in E1 Quito Park School. She added that the ·people clearly stated that for the Abrams property they wanted senior citizen housing, but for everything else ·they· wanted single family dwellings. Ms. McGoldrick commented that the ·heighb·ors at.the Moreland·meeting said they wanted the school·district to keep· the school open·:·however, she understands where the di. strict is coming from. In closing, she added that the neighbo·rs would like the school to stay open., but ·if it must be sold, then they want the lowest possible density. Lucille ·Rider stated that she lives in the Saratoga Park Woods area but was representing her daughter who lives on Cox near Quito Road. She commented on the traffic, the trash thrown on the lawns, the condos·, et·c. She added that she feels that ·that area has become the dumping ground of Saratoga. She· feels that ~the citizens who have lived there for a long time should be considered. : Bob ·Black,' 12750 Paseo PreSa'da, ~sked why that area is getting all of the condos and apartments. lie eXpreSsed con~cern for the streets and all of the traffic. - 8 - ""' Planning Commissi'on' Page 9 ~ee't'i'ng Minutes -. GPA 82-1-C (cont.) Barbie Almer, 13774 Pas. eo Pres'a'da, addressed the' traffic issue. She 'stated that, if the're 'is going to be a school open on that si:.e of Saratoga, the logical place' 'wb'uld be 'El Qu'ito Park. She ad~:!ed that she 'feels in ten years th.e-children will be .ther'e, considering% the number' of. preschooler's 'and b~bies' in the area, Tim Hale, Paseo Flora, also 'addr~ss'ed the traffic issue, stating that the're wa's a lot of commute traffic. Harvey' Sanden, 18301 Purdue 'Drive, re~res'enti'ng the Sunland Park HomeoWners Ass'ociation', stated that they were in total support of the res'i'dents .' Discusson followed on whether to' continue this matter to a study ses- sion. Commissioner Crowther stated that he did not see any purpose in continuing the public .hearing, s~.nce the issues are fairly clear and he would like to take ~an action similar to the 'previous one. A vote was taken on wh~,ether' to 'close the public hearin,~. It was determined to continue the '~ubliC hea'ring, with Commissioners Monia and CrOwther voting ag%ainst"'the continuance. It was directed that the public hearing wi'll be 'continued' to 'a study session on February 2, 1982 and the reg'ular meetin;.g of Feb'ruary 10, 1982. The Deputy City Attorn'.ey' clarified that the first application, having been denied without prejudice, will be forwarded to the City Council unless the Commission-det'ermines 'that it wants to consider both applica- tions · at one 'time. He added that,' in that even't, the Commission might move to rec'onsi'der their earlier,action and nut GPA 82-1-.B on a study session also. : After further discussion Commiss~'0'ner Schaefer 'stated that .'{.'~ 6o~h sites we're studied further at a study Sessi'on, ~.t would offer the opportunity for some logical plann.ing for the school district and for the City. Commissioner Crowther Commented that he has not been presented with enough information to be in favo~ of the ,.pp~..ications. Commissioner Bolder agreed, statin~r that he feels the residents are very clear in their position, but thb school district has not been very clear on this particular case. FIe added th'at he would be in favor of looking at other alternatives 'and deter'mine what the school district has in mind. Commissioner King moved to continue both applications, GPA 82-1-B and GPA 82-1-C, to a study session and reconsider' the Commission'.s POSitiOn on these issues.' Commissioner ~.,ionia seconded' the motion, since he feels that 'they sh'ould be 'consi'dered together'. Commissioner Bolger commented that he feels it is up to the school district to make the presentation, and the Co'mmission sh'ould not be' .trying to 'do their work. f6r them. The vote was taken on the 'motion to continue both 'items and reconsider GPA 82-1-B. The' motion was carried, ~vith Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. It was directed that these items will be continued to the study se'ssion' on February 2, 1982 and the regular meeting of Feb'ruary .10, 1982. Commissioner Laden suggested to the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners " Association that 'they supply the ;Commission with the number of peoDle in attendance and the number of Deople they actual].y represent as paid members 'of their asso'ciation', so the confusion will not continue to ex'ist'. Staff stated' that they' felt it would be advantageous for the school district and the' residents to meet together prior to the study session to clarify their position. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the motion was to reconsider the denial wit~o'ut prej'udice on GPA 82-.1-B, and that Prevailed, and that denial with'out prejudice has. 'be.e'n reversed. Therefore, the subject remains open' and subj.e~'t to a vot:e at the' 'next meet'ing following the study session. . . . -...~ ..... ~.-. ....z,..~ - - 9 ~- .~. ~=.. .... -... .... .... r ' F!~ P.-~'anning Commissio Page 10 '~ Meet.i'ng Mi'nute's '1~1.3/.82 13. A-790 W. Kramer, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story addition to 'an ~existing one-story r. esidence at 1'34'2'7 Chr'ist.i'e 'Dr'ive Staff described' the proposa'l. THe icorres'pondence rec'eived in opposi- tion to 'thi's project wa's noted. The 'public hearing was opened at ll: 22 ~ .m. ~.r. Kramer, the applicant, st'ate'd' ~h~t he' had .~0~Si~de'~d. · ~H~nT'-~e'~n~,H~g the addition. He d~scribed the proposed addition, commenting that he Was.'building a ~wo-st'ory addition rather than build- in the' 'rear, due to the 'expens.e' 'inVolVed. Ralph Sutton, 13396 Ronnie Way, commented that'the whole neighborhood is now single-story, a~d if this addition is allowed, everyone will want to do the same. Sam O'Brien, 13386 Ronnie Way, agreed with the Staff recommendation to deny. He ind'icated that all .of the adjacent structures have flat roofs. Mr. O'Brien indicated that ~it would infringe on his privacy and it would affect property' valueS.' Mr. O'Brien added that he felt the a~licant has 'sufficient land in the .rea'r to increase his square footage, and he would not obj'ect .tO that. Mr. Kramer commen'ted th'at they' had ~seriously considered adding on in the back and had decided against it, because of the expense and that fact that he would have no back yard left. He noted that this is their second design, and .they have reduced the design considerably. He submitted si'gnatures of neighbors ~n approval of the ~roposal. ~.~rs. ~ramer added that~ they had coHtacted all of the neighbors. She cornmen'ted that they would be happy ~to build in the back yard if they could afford it. She indicated that they had unsuccessfully tried to sell their home. Commissioner King moved to 'close 'the public hearing. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, which .was carried' unanimously. Staff e.xplained that the usual pro~ed'ure is to speak to the variance first and then the' design review.. =However, they felt that, based on the 'ordinance, the 'Commission '.w~uld not be inclined to approve this design review. Therefore, they had not requested the variance applica- tion and fee previously. They added' that if the Commission wishes to approve this des'ign, they would gi~e conceptual approval at this time. Commissioner King commente'd that he has problems with this design under the general guidelines' for .d~s'ign review and would agree with the' 'Staff Report. He moved to deny A-790' per the' 'Staff Report dated December 22, 1981 and Exhibits 'B and C. The motion was carried unani- mously. The' applicant wa's not'ified of the 10-day appeal ~eriod. 14a. A-803 -- A. Moutafian, Request for =.Design Review Approval to allow 14b. V-569 -. the construction of a two'~-story single family residence over 26' in height and a Variance to reduce the rear yard setback " '. 'from 60" to '50' 'o'n 'Blu'e..:G'~m C'ou'rt Staff described the proposal, stating they were recommending approval of both items. Correspondence r~c~ived in opposition was noted. The 'public hearing was opened at 11:40 p.m. Mark Brogee, consulting engineer discussed the ~ro~osal and the set- b~cks .' Staff clarified that there is no possibility of futu~re-division of the site', since the lot is 'already ~severed by the access road and the portion on the Opposite' side 'drops ~of'f steeply into a ravine. The slope of the lot wa's 'discussed', and Staff clarified that the slope Under' th'.e building site is 'approximately 38'% and the overall si. te slope is 'approximately 40%. Frank HQrva_~.,' 15209 Blue 'Gum Court,' expressed his approval of the - 10 - Planning Commissi'on Paoe 11 Meeting Minutes -- 1/13/82 A-803 and V-569 (cont.) proposal, stating that his 'resi'dence Would be the most affected. Tom Coe, 1521.7 Sobey', st'ated that he"did not have any sever'e 'objec- tions. However', he explained that they had opposed this development two years ago wh'en it was 'ap~rov'ed, and now 'the applicant is asking for' an exception'. He added that 'lie is 'concerned about the total elevation height and what it is going to do to the appearance of the hillsi'de. Eilee'n Prince, 1S3S0 E1 Camino Grande, stated that 'they had purchased their house because of its rural setting and the 'fact 'that the ravine was open and would not be' built upon. HoweVer, the lot was subdivided and now .the applicant is asking to build a house larger than would normally be'put on this lob'.' She indicated that she and the neighbors were against allowing a taller home and'one that needs special con- sider'ation and restrictive 'setbacks. Mr. Brogee' described the design and sloge, stating that the design is for a smaller home than is allowed' per ordinance. Commissi'oner Bolger commented that 'theho'me appears much larger on this 'lot than it would on a lot of lesser slope. The slope density calculation used was discussed. Mr. Coe questioned the slope 'as sho'wn on the drawings, asking that the Commission clarify this point before making a decision. Staff clari- fied that th'ey had rechecked the.slope, and it is 40% for the site and 38% under' th'e house. The 'desi'gner for the 'applicant addressed the Commission,'discussing the' design of the house. Staff noted that they' were 'using the interpretation of the ordinance wh'ichWOuld allow the' aver'age slope 'under' the house to be 40% or under'. Commissioner' Crowther commented On the fact that this is a very steel? site 'and the possi'bility of using a hold harmless clause because of the'geOlogical hazards.' : Commissioner' King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti gave a rep6rt on the Land Use Committee on-site visit. He stated that he'h. as difficulties with a design on a 30% slope that does not step itself to the slope of the lot. Commissioner King commented' that 'this is a difficult site, and there may be an opportunity to design a house' that is more appropriate. He stated that he is troubled' wi'th the' design from a site 'point of view. There Was a consensus that th'is house should be 'looked at in a different configuration. Mrs.' Moutafian explained that this is 'the second set of plans because the first set was cut into a hillside, and the geological ~eo~le would not allow that because of the high retaining walls. She indicated that that design was for a stair-.stepping house, which did not comply geologically. She added that this design was done 'with the slope in mind, and the stair-.stepping garage does take 'into consideration that end of the slope being very steep. She' indicated that the geological people have approved this design. Mr. Brogee commented that this h~use has been designed for the lot, and it is a long and narrow house to minimize the grading and altera-- tion of the site. He noted that.'the' variance is requested in order to keep the 3--car garage. There was a consensus to conti'nue this matter to a study session with 'the 'architect and. neighb'ors at 7:00 p.m. on January 19, 1982, with the' Land Use Committee. The 'applicant was requested to supply more definite information relative to th'e slope of the lot and under the 'footprint. Th'e'information' ~egarding the background that into the current design wa's 'also'reques'ted. Conf~rmation of the 11 ~Pianning Commissio Page 12 Meeting Minutes'. '-. ·1/13/82 'A--803 'and V-.'5'69 (.cont.)' geology and slope calculations was also requested. 15a. A-.804 - James· EIder, Reques't' 'for' Des'i'gn ReView and Variance A.~proval 15b. V-.568 -.. to ~onstruct an addition· to 'an ex'isting two-S~ory resi'dence which 'excee'ds..the flo'o'r area'..rati'o..by'. greater than 5% at Commissioner· Monia abstained from the Commiss·ion's discussion and voting on this matter since he 1-i-·Ves· directly across the street and will be impacted by the proposal. Staff described' the 'proposa'l..' They' not'ed that the' applicant wishes to Change ·the original 'plan and add a sauna structure on to the addition and not have a sep·arated recreational room. They indicated that this would add an additional 312 sq. ft.· to the plan. The publ·ic hearing was ·opened at 12:16 p.m. Jim Eider, the applicant, read a zletter into the record, stating his reasons for desiring the addition·. He commented· that the topography of his proper'ty precludes him fro~ improving his ·home as the neighbors could and sti·ll stay in the ·currently proposed square footage guide- lines. Mr. EIder stated that it was ·financially impossible to sell his home and buy a larger one ·to meet his family needs, which includes five children. Mr. Eider submitted pictures of the neighborhood to show ·the comparison of the desi'gn to the ·other homes. Mrs. EIder read a signed petition from the ·n'eighbors, sho·wi·ng support for the proposal. '. Oscar Sohns, architect, submitted' pictures of the cavity surrounding the home. FIe gave a pres·entation on the p~;oject. The landscaping around the structure was discussed. Mr. 'Sohns indicated that they were going to put drains in behind the retaining walls and catch basins in the courtyard directly ~beh·i·nd the garage, in order to convey the excess water to th'e st'reet.' Vic Honia, Granite Way stated th'at the addition is ao~roximatelv 200-210 feet 'away from their home, and he'.-.and hi's wif'a"'do not really feel that the addition ·is going t'o have a visual impact on them. He commented that he feels the toDog:ra~hV should be taken· into considera- tion. Commissioner King moved to close 'the public hearing. Commissioner Zambett'i seconded the motion, whi;ch was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowthe·r stated that' he feels it would be totally inappropri- ate not to grant this variance, s.i·nce· ·it is in complete keeping with the ordinance, particularly wh·en 'all of the· neighbors ·are in favor of it. He added· that he ·feels it alZso indicates that the floor area ratio per· se used by its·elf is not ·nece·s·s·arily a very good measure. He ·moved to approve V-·568, making the ·neCess·ary findings, and speci- fically HeZ~n!~the· ·findings· to the particular conditions that are in Section 4 of" the Des'ign'-Revie~V O[dinance. C'ommissioner Schaefer seconded the moti'on, which failed', with 'Commissioners Bolger, King, Laden and Zambetti dissenting. Commissioner· Laden moved to appro. ve in conce~·t the design review. She commented that she· agrees in fact that this house does meet the intent of the Design Review Ordinance, and she feels the applicant has worked very hard not to impact the· neighborhood. She added that she thinks the design fits with ·the surrounding area and obviously the neighbors are in favor of it. She indicated that making the findings for the variance ·is difficult and she will vote against it, but would like to approve th··e ·design in concept and hope that the applicant can work within the ·design paramet·ers and '.perhaps reduce the size to meet ordinance requirem·ents. .Commissioner· Bolger stated th·at he thinks there are a number of different issues that ·pres·ent a problem with ·this particular site. He commented·· th·at the square foo·ta·ge is in excess of 40% over the permissible fIoor area ratio, and th·ere 'are ·also· ·setback problems; 12 - _~? ~P'~ning Commiss~ Page 13 ~e e.t in g .Mi'nu.t e s" '.l./..1.3/82 A-804 and v-568 (cont.) therefore ,. he 'cannot make the' 'findings .' Commissioner' Zambetti'. seconded' the' 'moti'on' to approve in concept. The' moti'on was carried, with 'Commissi'oner's King and Bolger dis~'enting. The 'applicant 'was 'informed' of the 10-'-day appeal pe.riod. 16. UP-514 -- J. Jordan and J. Hendricks',' Reques't for a Use Permit to modify an existin~ non'-.con'forming accessory structure over 6' in height' .in .the' reo'uired' rear yard at 19467 Saratoga- Los 'Ga'to's' Roa'd" St-aff described' the' application and the history of the site. They noted changes to th'e Staff Report 'concerning ti~e relocation of the window. The public hearing was opened .at 12:'45 p.m. Robert Booth, attorney' rep'resent~'ng the applicants, stated that they did not feel a use permit is necessary in this instance for the structure, which may or may not h~ve been erroneously built beyond the standards existing~at the time, but which 'in fact has been used as a guest' house'. He commente'd that the applicants do not intend to add a kitchen and will =put louvres on the window.' He urged approval of the 'use 'permit to sati'sfy Staff and hopefully the' neighbors, per the Staff recommendation'. Lynn Belanger, attorney representing ~r. Robbins, the neighbor, addres'sed the sections of the code pertaining to this structure. She'commented that they' were urging the 'Commission to approve the use' permit for the 'structure to be kep't as a storage facility and garage. She noted the ~etiti'on received on behalf of the Robbins' posi'tion. Charles Robbins, 19348 Monte Vista Drive, gave the histo'ry of the accessory structure, stating th~t~ it has rarely ever been used as a guest house. He added that allowin.g this use would materiall.y injure his property and impact his privacy. He noted a letter rec'eived from' Mr. Gatewood, addre'ssing the effect of the structure on Mr. Robbins' property. Walt Angres stated that he lives 'to the west of the structure. He agreed that this structure depreciates the' ~roperty and he feels t~e use 'is now bei'ng drastically ~changed from s~orage to a second family dwelling. Jes'sie McGuire, 15350 Bestview Court, stated that she' feels that any change in the use' of this structure Wo'uld be a detriment to the Robbins property. Jerry Jordan, one of the applican.ts, stated that the 'previous owner had allowe'd him to put the Wi'ndow. in. He added that they have no inten'tion of renting the structur~e;' however, they bought the property as an investment and are trying t'o 'improve the property. He commented that one of the' main reasons they bought it was for use as a guest house'. Discussion followed on a ~ossible recording on the deed to make any buyer aware of the fact that there is a use permit associated with the property. The Deputy City At'torney stated that perhaps 'the applicant would agree 'to a sti~ulation of some recording. He added that if the Commission decides to grant the use ~ermit but restricts the 'use, then it might be 'appropr'iate' to have that restriction recorded on the 'deed. Elizabeth 'Hendricks, one 'of the 'a~plicants, stated that the big attracti'on of th'e proper'ty was the' guest house, and it would be a shame not to Use 'th'~t buildin~ for' that pur_~os.e'. ~r. Robb'ins 'commented' that the di!fficulty is the size of the structure and the 'clos'eness to his prop'erty~. He 'stated' th'~t s'omeo'ne sooner or Planning Page 14 Neet'in.g. Minutes'. 1/.1.3/8.2 ~" UP-514 (cont.) later' is. 'going to tr.y to occupy that building, if it 'is allowed to be modified in the way propose'd, with' 'many people 'wh'0 are going to. produce'a lot of noise' 'and interfer'e'nce. Commissioner Laden moved to close the publ'ic hea'rin'g. Commissioner King seconded' the motion, which 'was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden st'ated th'~t she 'felt 'the problem here is that the 'str.uctUre Was built withi'n the 'setback 'and the'refore violated tho'se reg'ulati'ons 'of the City that we'r'e adopted to prote'ct the privacy of neighbors. She 'added that cover'ing the windows with louvres is not 'going to prevent a s'uccess'ive 'purchaser from tak- ing them down and then' having the 'same problem'. She commented that the're is no way Mr. Robb'ins' privacy can be totally pro- teCted if this is granted as 'a guest house. Commissioner Laden moved to grant UP-514, on the basis that the structure be maintained for storage and garage use only. She added that the wall in which '.the window is now 'presently placed should be filled in to its prior condition, and if there is to be 'a window, it will not be on that wall. Commissioner Zambetti seconded' the 'motion. DiscusS'ion followed on the' partitions that have be'e'n placed, and it was determined th'~t they would not have to be 'removed. It was det'ermined' that additional conditions should be 'placed on the 'use' 'permit, fh'~t the 220 wiring shall be removed, and tha't any ou'tdoo'r illumination will be no hioher than 6 feet. The vote 'was takenZ on the motion. The 'motion was carried, with Commissioner Kin~ dissenting~ 17. V-567 Richard Ohren, Request for a Variance to reduce the required front yard Setback from 30' to 15' for the con- struction of a single family residence at 21216 Bank Mill ' ' '. ' ROad · .............. Staff described the proposal~ They explained that a variance which' had been granted previously due to the topography of this si'te has 'been allowed to lapse, and thi's application will reinstate it. They explaine~l that the ~ variance was originally granted because of input from the City Geologist 'that to place the home within the setbacks would not provide 'as stable a location as that with the variance. It was clarified that no new 'SDR is required because thi's is a lot of record in a~ approved subdivision. Commissioner Crowther' expressed. concern because 'the 'site has a slope of approxi- mately 43%. The 'public hearing. was 'opened' at 1:20 p.m. No one appeared to' address the 'Commission. Commissioner King moved to 'close' the public hearing. Commissioner' Laden seconded th'e motion, wh'i'ch was carried unanimously. Commissioner' Laden' moved to approve V-567, per the Staff Report and making the 'necessary finaings. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissenting. M I'SC EL LANEOU S 18. V-541 - R. A. Maddalena, Big Basin Way; continued from November 17, · · 1'9'81' . ' '. ' '. '. '" .......... It was directed that this item will be continued to a future meeting. - 14 19. A-739 Michael'Valley, Kittridge 'Road., Review of Impact of Fire District Cond'.i'tions on"Des'ign of 'A'cce'ss Staff explained that 'the Comm'ission' had previously conceptually approved this applicati'on except for' the design of the fire access and turnaround. They des'c'rib:ed the' des'i'gn and noted that the' Fire 'District' h~s 'approved th'i's,' and the' soils en'gineer has also approved the design. Jim Harper', en'ginee'r', stated :that he 'concurred with the Staff Report. Co'mmissioner' King moved to approve A-.739 per the Staff Report dated November 4,198'0=.. Di. scuss'i'on followed on an addi- tion of a hold harmles's' agreement. 'Co'mmisss'i'on'er' King amended his motion to"add the condition' that 'the 'applicant enter into a hold harmless agreement. CommissiZoner' Laden seconded the motion, which wa's carried, with' Commissionezr's 'Bolger', Crowthe'r and Monia dissent- ing. 20. Staff Request for Zoning Ordinance Interpretation Regarding Saso Herb' Gar'd'e'ns', corner' of Fa'rWeZIl"and"Fr'uit'val'e 'A'v'enUe It was directed that th'i's item will be continued to a site visit and future meet'ing. CO~UNI'CATt'ONS Wr'itt'en 1. Let'ter dated December'..18, 1'9'8'1 re Spa Pe'ti'te, Inc., Quito ShOpping Cent'er. Staff re,or'ted that it has been requested by Spa P~tite to operate in the 'Quito Shopping Center, and this would necessi- tate' adding a health 'spa to the 'list of allowe'd or conditional uses in that zoning distri'ct. Discuss'ion =followed', and the're was a consensus to'have Staff bring it back as 'an 'addend'um to the conditional uses in that area, at which 'time it will b'e 'agendized. Oral 1. City Co'un'cil 'Repo'rt C.ommissioner Zambetti gave a brief report on the City Council meeting. held on January 6, 1982. A copy of the 'minutes of that meeting is on file in the City Administration Office. 2. Chairman Schaefer thank.ed the' Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee'. AD J OU RNME'NT Commissioner' Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Monia, to adjourn th~ meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned' at 1:35 a.m. SeCre't'ary RSS:cd