Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10-1982 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~ISS!ON MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 10, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti (Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia arrived at 7:50 p.m.) Absent: None Minutes An addition was made to the minutes of February 24, 1982, under SDR-1511 on page 6, to read: "Commissioner King 'reminded Mr. Neale several times that he had indicated at the Committee-of-the-I,~hole that he understood and agreed with the terms of the Staff Report." Connmissioner Laden moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to waive the reading of the minutes of Febru- ary 24, 1982 and approve as amended. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining since she was not present at the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SDR-1475 - Helen Amato, Saratoga Avenue, 4 lots, Final Building Site Approval Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve the item listed above. The motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. COnsideration of Amendments to the .1974 General Plan of the City of Saratoga; continued from February 24, 1982 Staff reported that revisions to the draft had been distributed to the Commission. They .requested a schedule from the Commission regarding · uture study sessions, and recommenlded a final public hearing after the study sessions, at which time the changes in the document could be summarized and the public allowed an additional opportunity for input 5'efore transmittal to the City Council. Discussion followed on a schedule, ~nd it was the consensus to continue ~this item to study sessions on April 6, 1982 and April 20, 1982 and the regular meeting on April 14, 1982. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Since no one appeared, it -~as directed that this matter be continued to the meeting on April 14, 1982. Commissioner Zambetti discussed Area J, the Village area, requesting Staff to review the old 1974 Village Design Plan, which was not adopted as part of the 1974 General Plan, to ensure that the summary of recom- mendations contained in that plan are included and comparable to the recommendations included in the draft. .Correspondence was noted into the record from M~.~" McLaughlin regarding °;~he transportation corridor and a representative of the Kosich property owner. Commissioner Crowther commented that he was somewhat concerned that the -."hrea plans which were submitted by the General Plan Advisory Committee do not seem to be represented adequately_~n..the document itself. He General Plan $?hd' 'ac~i6'n programs. .'It was'd.'~ermined"th'at 'thi~ will"Be - I - Planning Co.~Lmission Page 2 Meeting Minutes - 3/10/ General Plan (cont.) .r'evi~d" and.' d~i.'~'h~s~d. furt]~6.~"a~'~'he-'~'~y ~'ess~'o~ on A'~'~il 6 ....... '1982 ._ .... -.:~ ..... 3. Consideration of .Banendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance and the Grading Ordinance for the Specific Plan Area (Prospect to Big Basin Way); continued from February 24, 1'982 4. GF-333 - Consideration of a Revision to the Slope Density Formula in the HC-RD District to a 2.-10 Acre Straight Bine Formula; continued from FebrUary 24', 19'8'2 Staff reported that the list of concerns reviewed at the last study session were in the packet, and modifications will be made to the draft ordinance for the study sess'ion on March 16, 1982. Commissioner Crowther distributed a letter, replying to the City Manager's memo regarding the geology of the area. The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. on the above items. Since no one appeared, Commissioner Monia moved, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to continue these matters to the meeting on March 24, 1982, with a study session on March 16, 1982. Commissioner Monia suggested that,' for continuity, the language used in the Subdivision Ordinance relative to the fact that, in determining slope~ the contour maps should have distances of not more than 5 feet, '~'hOuld.a'l's0 ~ used in'this ordi'nanCe~" .... Commissioner Crowther agreed, but 'added that he feels that the language in the Specific Plan should be use~ and modified. The Deputy City Attorney discussed limitation of amendments to the Specific Plan. He indicated that it would be his position that any amendment to the Specific Plan would constitute one of the three per- missible amendments allowed each year of any General Plan. Therefore, the restriction would be any single amendment of the Specific Plan only, thereby leaving two remaining amendments during the calendar year for other areas of the General Plan. Commissioner Laden asked for clarification, stating that it is her understanding that public hearings, may be held three times a year to change the General Plan, but that more than one change can be made at that particular hearing. The Deputy City Attorney stated that that had been their interpretation, interpreting it broadly to mean change, no matter how many particular items may be changed, but the event of the change no more than three times a year, even though the change may cover more than one section of the General Plan. Commissioner Laden added that, if her perception is correct that the Specific Plan is in fact part of the General Plan dealing with a specific area,c:'~nle~s the City decides to limit the changes to the General Plan to once a year, it would seem that at any of those three heari~g'~'if.i~.-is'~ht'..2 forward, that an amendment could be made to the Specific Plan as well as to the General Plan. .The Deputy City Attorney answered that he thinks that is correct, and his main question is if the Commission has in mind the Specific Plan per se or restricting the ability to amend the Zoning Ordinance, which is an entirely different matter. He added that what is before the Commission at the moment is the Zoning Ordi- nance and not the Specific Plan. He commented that what Item 6 in the Staff Report is really addressing is possibly a recommendation to the City Council for some further provision to be included in the Specific Plan. He added that they have n0t2as yet determined if there are any particular rulings on whether you can limit the amendments to less than three. Further discussion followed, and the Deputy City Attorney stated that, in terms of process, in connection with the Commission's review of the General Plan, they could deal with the restriction on amendment at that time, if it is determined that there is nothing that would prohibit a further limitation from that already contained in the State law. There was a consensus of the Commission to further consider this issue during the General Plan review. .F -~P[~nning Commission "' Page 3 Meeting Minutes - 3/1 HC-RD Ordinance and Specific. Plan Area Ordinances (cont.) Further discussion followed on the wording to be used in the ordinance relative to the 5 foot contours. Commissioner Crowther stated that he thought there had been general agreement at a study session that the wording out of the Specific Plan should be used. He added that he did not feel it is incompatible with What Commissioner Monia had previously suggested, and his comment could be added to that wording. Staff commented that the wordage that had been used in the recommended change to the HC-RD Ordinance had been used for consistency. Commissioner Crowther stated that as the wording now exists, it is clearly incon- sistent with the Specific Plan. Discussion followed on the wording of the Specific Plan, and Staff stated that, to be strictly consistent with the Specific Plan, the phrase would have to be added "the average slope in the area could not exceed 30%". Commissioner King moved to adopt the wording of the draft as currently stated, with the language suggested by Commissioner Monia to clarify it. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther asked for clarification from the Deputy City Attorney regarding this matter, relative to the fact that if the wording is indeed inconsistent with the Specific Plan, as just stated by Staff, wouldn't'it be an illegal action. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he had not been at the study session at which this subject had been dis- cussed, and he would like to review the subject further, in order to understand the interpretations being made and comparing that to the language of the Specific Plan. He clarified that the Zoning Ordinance implements the Specific Plan and i't has to be consistent with the Specific Plan. He added that what' he could not comment on at the moment is whether..the p~tiC~!~r interpretations being discussed are consistent or not. Commissioners King and Laden withdrew their motion and second, in order to allow the Deputy City Attorney to make an interpretation at the next study session. It was directed that these items be continued to a study session on ~Iarch 16th and the regular meeting of March 24, 1982. 5. A-806 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a two-story single family residence on a hillside lot on Vintage Lane; continued~ from February 10, 1982 6. A-810 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a two-story single family residence on a hillside lot on Vintage Lane; continued from February 10, 1982 Staff reported that the applicant has requested that A-806 be continued indefinitely and A-810 be continued to the next meeting. The public hearing was reopened on. both of these items at 8:25 p.m. Since no one appeared, it was directed that A-806 be continued and reagendized and renoticed at a later date, and A-810 continued to the meeting of March 24, 1982. 7a. Negative Declaration - V-572 - P. Sanfilippo 7b. V-572 - P. Sanfilippo, Request for, a Variance to reduce the parking requirements for a bank to be constructed at the Argonaut Shopping Center on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road;'continued from February 24, 1982 Chairman Schaefer discussed some of the comments that had been made at the Planning Commissioners' Convention at San Diego, concerning dis- qualification on an item if there is a financial conflict. Staff gave a report on the proposal, stating that it had been continued from the last meeting and discussed at the Committee-of-the-Whole. They added that they could not make the findings and are recommending denial. The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m. Bob Egan, one of the founders of the bank, stated that he had met with - 3 - ,~lanning Con~mission Page 4 Meeting Minutes - 3/10 V-572 (cont.) Mr. Sanfilippo and discussed some of the conditions of the Staff Report. He added that Mr. Sanfilippo had discussed some of the stipu- lations with the City. Mr. Egan explained that they were concerned primarily about a variance for parking, and it appears to him and Mr. Sanfilippo that restrictions are being placed on them for things other than the parking problem. He commented that Mr. Sanfilippo agrees that the entrance is a problem and he wants to do something about it. How- ever, they feel that the easement into the adjoining property has nothing to do with the bank or the parking problem at this time. Mr. Egan added- that he feels the bank is very imp:ortant for the City and will offer a lot t'~'~ the community; however, he has the feeling that if some of these stipulations are put on Mr. Sanfil'ippo, they will not be able to build the bank there. The bonding for the signal was discussed. Mr. Egan indicated that Mr. Sanfilippo had been one of the people who initiated to get.the signal some time ago; however, he is very hesitant about the bond relating to it. Staff summarized their discussion With Mr. Sanfilippo, stating that he feels that an undue burden would be placed on him relative to the joint access to the property to the north, and suggested that the City provide the access, since they own the piece of property adjoining that. Staff added that Mr. Sanfilippo supports the construction of the signal, but is concerned about the term of the' bond, and the uncertainty as to what 50% of the share not funded by the=State actually means, now or in the future. Staff stated that Mr. Sanfilippo had also indicated concern regarding the possibility of prohibiting left turns out of the shopping center at the Brandywine entrance,~ since he feels that will have a major adverse effect on the center2 itself. Staff explained that in the packet is a possible modification to the entrance, and Mr. Sanfilippo agrees that there are some improvements that could be made at this loca- tion, but he would like that left open for possible addition~l..~.~gn work. Discussion followed on the configuration, and it Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing-.. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Monia stated that he would like a ruling on the Possibility Commissioner or Councilperson has a business affiliation with an appli- cant, then the best course of action would be to abstain on the grounds .that, even though the business may:not relate to the application before the body, the accusation still can be made of something other than neutral judgment by reason of a business affiliation that may result in financial gain. The key to conflict of interest is whether there is a financial gain from the application.or an existing financial relation- ship, even though it does not relate to the application. Commissioner Crowther questioned whether there would be a possible conflict of interest if a Commissioner or Councilperson is in a business whereby an ordinance may have a general impact on that business. The Deputy City Attorney.stated that the code'addresses financial interest and would relate to those applications from which there could be a finan- cial gain. It was determined that. none of the Commissioners would be abstaining on the vote regarding this issue. Discussion followed on th"e traffic flow of the center and there was a consensus that this was related to the variance and should not be a condition of design review. Staff commented that they were not suggest- ing that it not be a condition of the variance, but felt that the exact configuration could be left 6pen for further design; however, the presently proposed configuration would be available, which definitely improves the situation' and moves any possible confusion and congestion away from the intersection. There'was a consensus that Staff would determine the appropriate configuration f.or-..~he entEance and parking lot .'.~ommissio~r S~haefer commented that sh~ fe'~t th'at it i~ ~n the City's - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Meeting - Minutes 3/10/82 V-572 (cont.) Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve V-572, per Exhibit B-1 and the conditions of the Staff Report dated February 12, 1982, as modified. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he could make the eight necessary findings and discussed them. He .added that he felt it appropriate for the Cowmission to look at the parking ratios in the C-V and C-N areas, to see if they are in congress with what the City wants parking to be as it relates to twenty-five· years ago. Commissioner King seconded the motion. The possibility of a drive-up window was discussed, and it was the con- sensus not to allow this. Commissioner Monia stated that he would like to entertain the possibility of removing Condition No. 1, regarding the access, from the Staff Report.! He stated that he could not support the motion if the applicant is going to be required to venture into an agreement with some other land owner, because he feels that is a physical hardship and he feels it is a City problem. He discussed the findings further. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would have problems with deleting that condition, because all of the commercial zoning districts within the City have to be considered when granting a variance of this magni- tude. He added that there are certain districts in which the City would like to have mutual access agreements for e~emen~s for parking~. · districts, and he sees it applying· also to those commercial areas.' C0~'iSsio~er King pointed Out that the condition does not state that the applicant must enter into any agreement at this time as a con- dition of this development; it simply says if upon development of that property the City then determines it is necessary, the applicant will agree to participate in such a jo'int access agreement. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that it states that if the applicant agrees and the City allows him to build·the structure, the City can come in some years later and exercise their right under the agreement and require an access when the other property owner develops. Commissioner Monia stated that he felt it .W.oul~2 be difficult for any applicant to develop ~?~..-'~=~:~Sh~.~Dg.-c-e~er ~ the City is going to continue to .require that they suppl~ an ~cce~·S~' ~o somebody else's property. He added that he felt the motion to approve or deny should be on the basis of a variance for parking, not the. contingency on somebody else's property being developed and allowing access to that piece of property. Commissioner Crowther agreed, but ·for other reasons. He explained that he feels there is already a hazard5 at that entrance. He stated that he feels that condition should be ~emoved because it is fairly clear that that is an already overstressed condition, and he does not think it is appropriate to put more traffic in that area. Commissioner Monia moved to modify. the original motion to delete Con- · d·~ti6n No. 1 from the Staff Report. Commissioner :" mOtiOn.',' "Wh ic:h"' e~fed'~' '..w~f'.{g "C ~im'~'si~tra'~g~:g ':'B;6i g'e~.,h.'-:g~{~ ~ T'L-,~S a.fih~-f~:~' :': a~d-"'" Z'~5 ~'~"{:f 'ai%'.s'~t i'ng 2 "' =': ""':':: :~ "'~' "" "' "~ ........' .....- -"" .......~ :'.""~ ........."".' ":' "" commissioner Crowther stated that he has a few problems with the find- ings. He explained that there has been a lot of evidence presented showing that there is not a parking problem in that area of the shopping center. He added that the banking hours are such that they ~ould not correspond with the peak traffic and parking hours of the site. He suggested considering conditioning. the project so that the banking hours shall be limited to the normal banking hours; that is a key factor that will prevent any parking problems from occurring. Commissioner Laden moved to approve the Negative Declaration on this application. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The vote was taken on the first motion to approve V-572, per the con- ditions in the Staff Report. Co~missioner Monia stated that he would abstain from voting on the motion,.since he feels it is putting an encumbrance on the applicant. He added that he agrees with the project ~·00%, but believes that the bank will not be built in that area because Mr. Sanfilippo will not allow the ~ity to put that encumbrance on him. The motion carried, with Con~missioner Monia abstaining. - 5 - D nn Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes 3/10/8 V-572 (cont.) The ]0-day appeal period was noted. Mr. Cabrinha asked the Deputy City Attorney to give him a copy of the agreement regarding Condition No. 1 as soon as possible, so that they may discuss the language of the agreement with Mr. Sanfilippo. Break - 9:10 - 9:25 p.m. ~ 8. SDR-1515 - M. Gomez, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for 2 lots in the R-1-20,00'0 Zoning District at 14586 Aloha Avenue; continued from February 24, 1982 Staff reported that this item had been continued from the last meeting, at which time there had been a spl'it vote. The public hearing was reopenedat 9:30 p.m. Bernice Kane, 14611 Aloha, expressed her concern regarding some of the requirements asked of Mr. Gomez to obtain a building permit, mainly the closure of Aloha. She qu~tioped where the turnaround would be on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road.j.. ~ Staff explained that the turnaround will be near the Cermak driveway and the southwest property line of~the Gomez property. He described the proposal for the cul-de-sac bulb on Aloha and stated that there are to be only right-hand turns onto Aloha from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. He added that the mechanics for the design have not been completed. Mrs. Kane added that there were many questions in her mind regarding the closure of one of the most picturesque streets in the area, and she wondered how many signs and dividers will be involved. Staff indicated that there were resolutions and reports in the packet relative to the changing of the configuration of Aloha Avenue, which involves abandonment of portions of the existing right-of-way. They com~.ented that the resolution would in effect implement the abandon- ment that goes along with the reconfiguration and there was substantial input at the City Council public hearing in support of this. Staff added that there would have to be some kind of reversion of the Coun- cil's determination if, in fact, there is the intent to not proceed with the reconfiguration of Aloha. Commissioner Crowther commented that Saratoga-Los Gatos at Aloha is very narrow now because-of the wall, and he felt restrictions to prevent a left turn could be a safety fact6r. Staff clarified that if it is the intent of the Commission to not approve or reapprove what is an expired approval, the City Council would then need to rescind its prior action, or the City would be abandoning a piece of roadway that would be needed. They explained that the actual abandonment has not taken place because it was conditioned on the com- pletion of the agreements and dedications for this development. Cozette Cermak, representing her husband, Dr. Kenneth Cermak, stated that she strongly opposes the closing of Aloha Avenue. She commented that she does not feel Mr. Gomez should have to pay for this abutment which is going to create a worse hazard than is presently there. Mrs. Cermak added that the City would not allow them in the past to develop their property as they had wanted; 'they then took away their wall, and now they are going to close Aloha ~nd take away their livelihood. She indicated that she feels this will 'destroy the rural aspect of the City. She added that she is in favor of the Gomez development and does not feel that the additional amount of traffic generated at the corner is a safety problem. Mr. Gomez, the applicant, stated that the application conforms to all of the ordinances of the City and to the General Plan, and the applica- tion had previously been approved. He stated that there have been no changes and he feels it will enhance the value and quality of the neighborhood. = John Saunders, Mr. Gomez' son-in-law, also '=indicated that nothing had changed in the status of the project. He requested the Commission to not delay the project with the conditioning of the street. - 6 - Planning Commission Page 7 Meeting Minutes 3/10/82 _ SDR-1515 (cont.) Bill Sanguinetti, 18700 Harleigh Drive, reaffirmed what Messrs. Gomez and Saunders had said. He asked if there had been any changes or new evidence since this project was previously approved. Chairman~.~Schaefer explained that there may be no new'evidence presented, but there are different people on the Commission~ with different interpretations of the same evidence, and perhaps different people'speaking in the public hearing. Staff stated that the recomrnendati0n of the Staff is the same as with the previous application. Mr. Sanguinetti stated that it would seem that if there have been no changes and it complies, a change in the decision of the Commission would seem to be an .arbitrary thing, and he urged the Commission to approve it~ Mr.-Gomez stated that he had no problem concerning the bulb or turn- around. He discussed the area as it was in the past. Maxine McGinnis, 20511 Brookwood Lane, expressed her opinion that she feels a touch of young people is needed in the community. She added that the Gomez family have worked hard and tried to comply with all of the wishes of the City. She commented that she knows Mr. Saunders wants to rear his children here and she feels they deserve careful con- sideration. Commissioner Bolger asked how far away from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road will the home be located? Mr. Saunders commented that he was not sure; however, it complied with the requirements. Commissioner Bolger explained that his primary concern is that this home is going to'be very close to a very heavily traveled road, and Mr. Saunders ~y"". be coming back to ask for a sound wall because of the noise. Mr. Saunders indicated that he had taken that into consideration. He indicated that he felt that the shrubbery will have a good effect on buffering the sound; however, a masonry wall of some type may be necessary. He added that if it were requested, it would be some 20 feet back and probably not visible because of the vegetation that exists there now. Staff indicated that the structure itself has been required to be set back some 40 ft. from the roadway itself, and the setbacks are measured from the property line, not from easement line. They added that from the actual road surface the house Would be set back approximately 70 feet. Richard Drake, Gordon Court, stated his support for the applicant and made a plea. for continuity of government. He commented that he 'felt that, in fairness to the applicant in general to the people of the City, when an action has taken place as it was in this case, '~h~ commiS'si0~ '.~' should support the previous action land reaffirm the appr6Val "that' w~"made. 'Commissioner King moved to.close t~e public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner King moved to approve SDR-1515, per the conditions of the Staff Report. Commissioner Zambett'i seconded the motion. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she regrets that the time limit ran out for the applicant. She indicated that she feels that the Aloha area is a very dangerous one, and she is extremely concerned about the'configura- tion that has been designed for it 2and the blocking off of that road. She added that she does believe in the continuation of the process of government, even though the people change. However, she has very strong feelings on this and she feels extr'emely responsible for this vote, since the previous vote was 3-3. ~ Com~missioner Monia commented that he had originally voted against the application; however, he is now going to change his vote. He explained that he had looked at the site and studied the situation quite a bit. He added that he felt that the Commission hadn't considered the fact that the use of Aloha has been reduced somewhat because of the enrollment drop at Oak Street School. Commissioner Monia commented.that he is con- 'cerned about the signage and ruining one of the most scenic streets in the City, and possibly some of the hazard there. However, in looking at it'very carefully and considering the fact that there is an anticipated reduction in the number of cars that are'going to use that street, he -7. ~lanning Commission Page 8 Meeting Minutes - 3/1 SDR-1515 (cont.) now supports this application. Commissioner Laden stated that she. feels that the granting of the SDR to Mr. Gomez, even though he is conditioned for the turnaround, should not be held up on the basis~ that some.people.are concerned .about the turnaround. She added that that was not the Gomez' problem and was a City instituted action. ,She indicated that she felt the Cowmission should either remove the conditions or ask the City Council to reconsider. Commissioner Crowther stated that he totally agreed and he would like to see the conditions-removed, because he feels they should be separate from the SDR, and the abandonment of the street does not have anything to do with the applicant and is something'~the City initiates. Staff indicated that with the previous application the conditions were placed on it to allow for both options, i.e.., leaving Aloha in its existing condition and some improvements to it in its straight configura- tion and intersection with the highway, and also alternate conditions for the turnaround.' They added that the matter of which of those actions would be put into play was left to'the final determination of the City COuncil, and the Council did in fact approve the cul-de-sac and one way in only. They commented that if the Commission wishes to make an action in opposition to that, the net result will still be that the matter goes before the Council for some rehearing of the order to abandon. Staff stated that they felt that the improvement of the fronting property has everything to do with the site approvals and tentative map approvals. T~.oDeputy city Attorney stated that if the Commission wishes the City" CounciI'=to review the matter, any approval of the SDR,d~uld be with' ~ha~"~6ndition in it. However, the Commission could modify. it to ~t~ate that~ in the event of a change, the'applicant is relieved from that obligation, should the City Council review the'matter and decide to treat Aloha Avenue differently. Commissioners King and Zambetti amended their motion and second to include the statement made by the City Attorney regarding reconsideration of Aloha by the City Council. The vote was taken on the motion to approve SDR-1515. The motion carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. 9. GF-330 - Consideration of an ordinance of the City of Saratoga repealing' Section 3.3(g) of Article 3 of Appendix B, ~he Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Saratoga, and amending Section 3.2(g). of Appendix B, the Zoning. Ordinance of the Code of the City of Saratoga for the purpose of establishing Animal Control Regula- tions; continued from February'24, 1982' Staff distributed two pieces of correspondence received on this ordi- nance. They discussed the changes2to the ordinance. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels in general that the ordi'- nance is geared toward one area and, therefore, is restricting. everyone Unnecessarily. She added that she'feels that the ordinance is much too restrictive. : Staff noted that the Code Enforcement Officer had stated that the majority of the complaints have dealt with too many uncontrolled ani- mals. They explained that the existing ordinance states a reasonable number, with no definition of reasonable. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels that when there is an ordi- nance with a real credibility gap,.which this has, the City does itself a great disservice in adopting it.. Commissioner Monia suggested getting a consensus on whether or not the Commission feels an animal ordinance is needed. He added that the trouble with the ordinance is the numbers, and if.there is, a consensus that it is needed, he would suggest tabling it until sometime after the Specific Plan and General Plan review, to allow the Commission to reach some agreement as to what might be the'proper numbers to apply. - 8 - ~'~lanning Commission Page 9 Meeting Minutes - 3 GF-330 (cont.) The public hearing was opened at 10:20 p.m. Dr. A. Lund, 14720 Sobey Road, expressed his opinion that there has to be an animal ordinance. He discussed the smell of goats and the noise of roosters in hi-s neighborhood. He indicated that he felt the numbers and kinds should be determined, and that enforcement was important ~ Bill Notz, 18276 Purdue Drive, stated that he was the President of the Sunland Park Homeowners AssociatiOn. He indicated. that they had con- sidered the draft of this ordinance at their meeting because they have had a tremendous problem with animal control, mainly with dogs and cats. He commented that they had Voted unanimously to urge the Commis- sion to adopt the ordinance, and r.ecommended that a fine be put in this ordinance to cover the costs of en'forcing it. Commissioner Crowther commented that there is an ordinance on the books, and the key issue is enforcing it. Discussion followed on the enforce- ment of any animal control ordinance. Kathy McGoldrick,."~pO~'~ 'fo~ Mr'.'b~!-Guiterrez, the President of the E1 Quito t~onleowners Association, in favor of the ordinance. She added that the City needs some tight measures to counteract the situation with the many dogs in parks. Carolyn Felix, Sobey Road, stated that she feels that the original ordi- nance x,~as a good one, but it needs'to be enforced. She added that she would be in favor of a fine. Wilhelm Kohler, Via Regina, stated that he felt the draft ordinance is completely unenforceable. He commented that he felt performance stan- dards should be established, and that there should be a simple law with enforcement of it. He added that he felt the general problem is noise and smell, and fines should be placed and enforced. Discussion followed on possible enforcement by the Sheriff. Dr. Lund indicated that the Sheriff's office had informed him that enforcement of this sort of control would not be in their jurisdiction, and that he should contact the City. Gregg Nellis, 18366 Clemson, stated that he feels the issue is whether the ordinance now on the books should be changed, and that the Commis- sion should take up separately whether it should be enforced or not. He added that he felt the Commission should focus on getting something on the books at this time. : Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff suggested that the point Mr.~Kohler made regarding performance standards should be considered at a study session, since it would be a desirable way to control a difficult position. Commissioner Monia stated that he feels the ordinance is not really addressing what the problems are. 'He moved to table GF-330, leaving it up to the Staff to reagendize it at a later date."'- "'.. Commissioner Crowther stated that he might have agreed a week ago; how- ever, based on the input he questioned whether it should be tabled. He commented that he did not feel it ~ould do any good to pass an ordinance that does not have enforcement in it. Co~nissioner Zambetti seconded the motion the table the ordinance. He suggested writing a letter to the C.ity Council to ensure that there will be some enforcement in this area. Discussion followed on tabling the ordinance. Co~nissioner Bolger co.~unented that he felt there is a real need to get an ordinance adopted. Commissioner Laden stated that she appreciates that there are concerns, and the problem. is that the existing ordinance is not specific enough for a Code Enforcement Officer to enforce it. She expressed concern regarding grandfathering this kind of change in the ordinance. ?z".,.~lanning Commission O Page 10 Meeting Minutes - 3 ~. GF-330 (cont.) The vote was taken on the motion to table GF-330. The motion failed, with Commissioners Bo!ger, Crowther, Schaefer, King and Laden dissenting. Commissioner Zambetti moved to adopt Resolution GF-330, recommending approval of the Animal Control Ordinance to the City Council. Commis- sioner King seconded the motion. After further discussion, the vote was taken on the motion. The motion failed, with Commissioners Schaefer, Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissent- ing. Commissioner Zambetti moved to direct the matter to a study session on May 25, 1982. There was no second. Commissioner Monia then moved to direct the matter to a study session no earlier than June 1982. Com- missioner King seconded the motion, which failed, with Commissioners Crowther, Bolger, Schaefer and Laden dissenting. Commissioner Bolger then moved to direct the item to a study session on May 18, 1982. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners King and Crowther d~ssenting. 10. A-811 - Ray Leap, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a one story major addition to an existing residence at 1'4525 Sobey It was reported that the applican~ has requested a continuance. It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting on April 14, 1982. lla. Negative Declaration - SD-1458- John' Rankin llb. SD-1458 - John Rankin, Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval for 4 lots on Glen Una Drive It was reported that the applicant has requested a continuance. It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting on April 14, 1982. 12. SDR-1516 - Imperial Savings, Request for Building Site Approval to 1 lot (consolidation of 3 lots) to allow construction of a bank on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road near Oak Place Doug Adams, representing the applicant, requested a continuance of this item to April 14, 1982 and stated that they would submit a letter to that effect. It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting on April 14, 1982. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter to Chairman Schaefer regarding requests from the City Council concerning the General Plan, from Mayor Callon. 2. Letter from the Crepe Daniel Restaurant re outdoor dining. The Commission requested Staff to initiate proceedings to consider adding out- door restaurant use in the C-V Zoning ,District. Oral 1. Commissioner Monia gave a brief report on the City Council meet- ing held on March 3, 1982. A copy of .the minutes of this meeting is on file in the City Administration Office. 2. Chairman Schaefer thanked t'he Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd =