Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-1982 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 24, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE:. City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 'ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners B61ger,..!CrOwther, Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners King and Monia Minutes The following changes were made to the m{nutes of March'~!'D1', 1982: On..page 1, the .s:~.~xthj"!~a~'.agr~ph.~ the 'seC6nd sent'~nce"'j'sq~.ould ~ead': '.~!t~.:' e~pl~in~'d"~hat :the General Plan should come 'from the citizens, and that the first draft should include this information in the elements of the General Plan and action pro- grams." On page 5, the ~ixth .paragraph,.~Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. On page '8, fourth paragraph, in:the first sentence, "would" should be "could". The second sentence should read: "However, the Commission could modify it to state 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." Commissioner Laden moved to waive the reading of the minutes and approve as modified. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. To clarify the minutes regarding the General Plan, Commissioner Crowther moved that the Draft General Plan include the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee inputs in the specific elements and action. programs of the General Plan. Com- missioner Bolger seconded the motion. Discussion followed, and the vote was taken on the motion. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Schaefer dissenting, stating that they feel this should be addressed during the General Plan Review. CONSENT CALENDAR SDR-1480 and A-81S were removed for discfission. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, listed below.. The motion was carried unanimously. 3. SDR-1S18 - C. Mayo, Montewood, Over' S0% Expansion, Tentative Building Site Approval Discussion followed on SDR-1480, regarding the location and the further sub- division of the 2S,000 sq. ft. lot. Commissioner' Laden moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to approve SDR-1480.. The motion was carried unanimously. Regarding A-81S, it was determined that a condition should be added to read that any illumination will be shut off after 9:00 p..m., except when meetings are in session. Commissioner Laden moved to approve A-81S per the Staff Report, as amended. Commissioner Bolger seconded the 'motion, which was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4a. A-809 V. Bellomo, Request for Design Review Approval and a Variance to 4b. V-S?0 erect a sign which exceeds the maximum allowable area at 18S?0 Prospect Road; continued from February 10, 1982 The public hearing was opened at ?:S0 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. It was directed that this item be continued to April 28, 1982, at the applicant's request. - 1 - ~ ~.~ ~lann~'ng Commission Page 2. ~" Meeting Minutes 3/24/82 "' GF-337 - Consideration of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance and the Grading Ordinance for the Specific Plan Area GF-333 - Consideration of a Revision to the Slope Density Formula in the HC-RD District to a 2-10 Acre Straight Line Formula Staff commented that in the packet is the ordinance for the N,"-IR Zoning District, which has been reviewed by the Commissfon on several occasions, and the modifications that have been agreed upon by the Commission have been included. They added that there are several sections where the Com- mission had indicated that there was a need for a vote, and those have been so indicated. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the ordinance is to be recommended by the Commission to the City Council; that does not necessarily mean an affirmative recommendation, or for that matter a negative recommendation. He explained that the Commission tonight' is required to give a report to the City Council; they are not required to agree. He indicated that if anyone feels, for example, that they wish to vote no on the ordinance as a whole, but by reason of particular provisions that are contained in it, then certainly that point of view should be communicated to the Council in a ~emorandum. He added that he feels' that every Commissioner has the right to issue their own recommendation to the Council if there is not agreement by the Commission as a whole. The Deputy City Attorney noted the specific changes in the ordinance. He indicated that they have discovered a' recent state law which would require a change in Section 3B.4(f). He explained that this law has specified that a municipality may not require a: use permit in the case of a state licensed or certified family care home having 6 or fewer persons, and this section will have to be deleted or changed. He commented that the resolution would have to refer to the map that would be adopted as part 'of the ordinance, and the map which has been put before the Commission is basically the Measure A map. He explained that in addi- tion to the ordinance, the Comission would also necessarily be amending the'- present zoning map. The resolution would refer both to the text of the ordinance, as well as an amendment to. the present zoning map, which would follow the boundary lines of the Measure A area. He noted that the map before the Commission now includes lands that are located in the County; therefore, lines will be drawn to conform exactly with the City boundary lines. He added that if there are further changes to the ordinance and there is agreement by the Commission,' they will be incorporated in a revised dr~'f~t--~'~H'~t.'w~uld go to the City Council. The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Since no one appeared to speak, Commis~i'oner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, to close the public hearing. The motion w~s carried unanimously. There was discussion and voting by the' Commission on the ordinance as follows: Section 3B.3(g) - Commissioner Crowther stated that he believed that it was pointed out in a study session that neighborhood recreational facilities require special conditions associated'with them, and that it is more appropri- ate that this be made a conditional use so those conditions can be clarified and established. He stated that he a~reed with that comment and would like · to see Item (g) moved to Conditional Uses. There was a consensus for that change. Section 3B.4(f) - Discussion followed'on this section, and Commissioner Zambetti moved to delete it. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, nothing that this would be covered inZ Section (a) . The motion carried, with Commissioner Laden dissenting. Section 3B.5(a) - Discussion followed, and Commissioner Laden moved to leave this section as presently written. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, with 'Commissioners Schaefer and Crowther dissenting. Pla~nLng Commission -~ Page ,'Meeting Minutes 3/24/8.2 GF-333 an~ GF-337 (cont.) .S'ec~'3I~.~'6(a)=j~-~.)/~i Commissioner Crowther stated that he thinks it has been clari'fied by t~e' City.Geologist that the shallow slide areas are the areas that caused ~l~s~':. o~f iif.e in other counties during the severe rain storm, and he believes that Ms should be added to the categories in this section, based on that input. Discussion followed on this subject, and Commissioner Crowther moved to add Ms to Md and Mrf in that section. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which failed, with Commissioners Zambetti, Schaefer an~d Laden dissenting. should read "Ali quarries.. ...... ~.S~'2"~"j'~'Z'~6..~')-:'('r.~'ii~":~- Commissioner Ladell moved to' 'remove this section from the ordinance. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther asked Commissioner Laden to explain<'th&.7.~asis of her motion, since it has been pointed out that these are areas which have caused great property damage and loss of life. Commissioner' Laden explained that (1) Her inter- pretation of what the City Geologist said was that this is correctable. It is determinable by on-site specific studies as to whether this particular geological definition is buildable, and that the maps upon which the Com- mission works are 'generalized and not as specific as an on-site study would be, and (2) If these 'areas carry the danger load that Commissioner Crowther is interpreting it to be, then the '75% would not be adequate and would not relieve the problem. Commissioner Crowther' commented that this just sets the density of the property; it doesn't say that it can be built upon. Commissioner Laden commented that she feels this is an inappropriate way to set the density on this particular iss. ue. *(Addition below) Commissioner Schaefer commented that t'.he ~TY Geqlogist had indicated that he feeis the maps '.used are only 'a~dt~r~.~"~y7~.tbi'ff~200.'fb'6't., and she feels that 200 feet is a great deal when talking about building sites and property lines. She added that a site by site geological map is and will be required for every home or structure that goes into the 'hillsides, and if in this site by site geological map it is determined that there is a fault or pro- blem or potential problem with that area, then there should be performance standards reviewed by the City Geologist, who is a professional in this area, so that the site foundation. can meet these standards or not be approved. She indicated that she cannot agree wi',th the 75 percent as stated, even though she feels very strongly that the Commission has an obligation not to encourage people to build on any si'te that is considered to be in the least bit unsafe. She added that a procedure should be considered to attach these maps to the deed of record to alert any future buyer of the kind of detail that had to be considered when building on.'~'.the property. Commissioner Crowther commented that.h'e feels the proces':S Commissioner Schaefer stated is no different than t.he process that was followed in Santa Cruz County before the disasters occurred, or in some of the other counties where it was also a similar situation.. He added that he feels unfortunately the 'situation now is that the City has put itself in the spot where it essentially has to prove that it is unsafe .to build on this type of land in order to prevent building, because 'there is a lot of uncertainty in the geol0gy because 'it is not a mathematical science where there is an easy answer. He commented that the City is building houses on Ps areas, and the City Geologist had been asked if h'e could predict how much loss of life there would be if there were rainstorms similar to the ones in 1955, and he replied that he could make no such 'predictions. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he feels in this kind of circumstance where there is a lot of uncertainty, the person who wants to develop such a property should be required to prove that it is safe, and to do this he would have to remap the area and propose changes in the City Geologist's maps. Commissioner Laden stated that she fellt the Commission is mixing site specific development plan with how density is computed, and this particular paragraph is a discussion of density. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she agreed with Commission Crowther's comment that it is the applicant's responsibility to prove if a site is safe; however, she feels it can be done p'resently with a site by site map. The vote was taken on the motion to delete Section (iii). The motion was carried., with Commissioners Crowther and Bolger dissenting. *Commissioner Laden was asked i.f the develm~er which she rep es has interest in the Measure'-.A?-j~'rda, and shb indicated that' ~e ~hsnot. 3 P,..l~nning Commission .... Page 4' Meeting Minutes 3/2.4/82 GF-333 and GF-337 (cont.) Commissioner Crowther then moved that Section 3B.6(iii) be replaced by the Area A General Plan recommendation on density establishment, which desi'gnates percentages related to the~ City Geo'logist's maps. Commissioner Bolger stated that, before seconding ~he 'motion, he would like to see the General Plan Area A densities that wer'e recommended. It was determined that this subject wo'uld be discussed' later in the meeting when the densities were available. Section. 3B.6(c) Discussion foilowe'd' on this section regarding Exempted Lots. Commissioner Laden commented that, although Measure A calls for the two-year retroactivity, the only laws'uit decisions that she has seen rendered have declared that portion null and void and illegal, and have directed the City to ~.~._t__.~ppn that. She' stated that she' has a concern that the Com- mission is ~'romotjn'~""'~H"~'~'$~'Ha]3.~"'f~6'nfi~ndiHg '-s'6m~'t]~in'g 'th.e ~'6'~r~'~ to be illeg'~l u~" ~'0 '~h~'~"~6'~n'~'l '~T'he' D~puty cit~ 'At~o~Hey -C0~e~t'~ed '~HYt' the 'only rulings issued thus far have been by a trial court and one judge in particular, and those rulings are on appeal; therefore, they do not con- stitute final rulings. He added that in that respect the normal rule of law is that'a developer would have to comply with a zoning ordinance in force at the time he applies for his building permit; that is an issue which the courts in the Measure A litigation never addressed. Section 3B.7(b)(2) - Commissioner Bo~ger commented that he felt the sentence should read "The City shall ~equire .... "rather than "may require ...". Discussion followed, and Staff commented that it was the City Geologist's recommendation to remain permissive based on the City's review of the preliminary report that is required to be submitted with the Site Development Plan and his own knowledge of the area and other physical d~.'ta~' that is available for the area. There wa's a consensus to leave the wording as it is', with "'J.~nless the City Geologist or City Engineer determines existing information is adequate." added. Section 3B.7(c)(2)-Commissioner Crowther commented that the Specific Plan clearly states that no home or other ~tructure shall be built on an area with an average slope that exceeds 30'%, and it looks like Alternate ~2 is the only one of those that is consistent with the wording of the Specific Plan. He added that he feels that Alternate ~1 is vague.=,' He made the motion to .adopt Alternate ~2.. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which failed, wi.th 'Commissioners Laden', Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting. Commissioner Zambetti moved to adopt Alternate ~1. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, which failed, with 'Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels very strongly that the Commissioners.need ~o come up with their individual opinions in writing to the City Council on this subject. She indicated that a third alternate she would prefer is a 160 ft. diameter circle to be considered the building envelope for determining slope and that would be considered the area. The DepUty City Attorney indicated that the ordinance going to the Council will then set forth the two alternatives as pres'ent ly worded. SectiOn 3B.7(c)(.3) Commissioner Schaefer commented that it appears that the ridgelines' that se'em the most obstructive are the ones that have sky beh'ind them when you look at them from the valley floor. She added that if they have a lot of trees behind them and a ho'me is built on a ridge- line, she has 'found that they .tend to': be less high or less bulky in appearance. The wording of this section was discussed. Commissioner Crowther stated ~hat the wo'rding should rea'd "from nearest adjacent top" Commissioner' Laden moved to include Commissioner Crowther's words and delete the alternate'.: as viewed' from the valley' floor line. Commissioner Crowther seconded the 'motion, which wa's carried, wi'th 'Commissioner Schaefer dissent- ing. Section 3B.9(a) It was determined ~hat this should read "No structure shall extend to an elevation within e,ight feet from the top of the nearest adjacent major ridge that does not have dense tree cover." There was also consensus to use 'tha't wording in the previous se'Ction discussed, SectiOn 3B.~8(c) - Consensus to delet~ "on the area" Planni.ng Commiss ion Page ~...=M~eting Minutes 3/24/82 GF-333 and GF-337 (cont.) Section 3B.8(d) - Staff noted that the City Geologist felt that the intensity of development should be the result 'of the various studies required, as opposed to being restrictive 'on Ps and Pd. Discussion followed, and Commissioner Laden moved to eliminate the sentence "Cuts and fills in excess of 3 feet shall no't 'be permitted in areas classified in the.City's geologic maps as Ps or P.d." Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which 'was carried, wi'th 'Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissent- ing. Commissioner Crowther res'tated his previous motion to adopt the recommenda- tions stated in the 'General Plan Committee submission for the General Plan. He commented that he was specifically :referring to the first policy under the Area A Action Program, ~hich states percentage credits toward the 0-10 acre slope density proportional to the percentage of the land that is in each geologic category. He indicated ~hat he would adopt Item 1 in its entirety in place of Section 3B.6(a)(i~ii). Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. Commissioner' Laden stated. that she would like to clarify that this is an action program submitted by .the representatives of Area A, and it was never' submitt'ed for a vote to the group as a whole. She added that she would not want .it represen'ted as something the group as a whole decided upon. Kathy McGoldrick, from the GPCAC, agreed with Commissioner Laden. Commissioner Zambetti noted his concern abou~ the word "credits" and stated that he was concerned that this could be looked upon in the future as allow- ing the density calculation to be hi'gher than what the Commission envisioned b~cause the 'geology would be calculated at a per'centage rate and credit rate. Commissioner Bolger stated that the 'Ar~'~.d=~%cri'p~io~'in the Gener.~l ~!an~ as far as giving credits for geologi~ hazards, and he feels that basically this is still falling within the framework of the 0-10 slope density. He added that it does not speak about transfer of credits~ it is just speaking about the specific site. Commissioner. Crowther added that essentially this would say that lands that h~ve 'very littl'e geologic hazards will be given higher credits than those 'that have high 'geologic hazards, and that would be consistent with Measure 'A. Discussion followed, and the vote was then taken on the motion. It resulted in a split vote, with Commissioners Schaefer and Laden dissenting and Com- missioner. Zambetti abstaining. Commissi'oner Zambetti commented that he did not understand exactly what it would do to the density formula. The Deputy City Attorney' stated that h~ will put a reference in the ordi- nance to this proposal, since there wa'S a split vote. He added that the Commissioners can write wh'~tever individual reports on this issue that they wish' to the 'City Council. Staff described the ridgelines on the map, and discussion followed. It was determined that it should be clarified as to lines that are intended as minor r~dges. The Deputy City Att'o~ney' indicated that the boundary line on the western side should be drawn at the City boundaries. He explained that even though Measure A includes part of County land, what is being dealt with he're' 'is the zoning map of land wi'thin the 'City boundaries. Staff. stated that they' could bring the map to a study session after the major ridges' have been' indicated and the City boundaries shown. There was a con- sensus on the map. The Deputy City Attorney commented that any Commissioner can write his own report, giving his own views in support of the ordinance or in opposition to any sections. He. indicated that the resolution simply recommends adoption. He indicated that the proposed amendment to the zoning map will be attached as Exhibit A and the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will be Exhibit B. He note'd that the ridgeline map is referenced in the ordinance as an exhibit. Discussion followed on sections of the 'ordinance where a motion should be made to indicate disagreement with the' 'currently stated section, as opposed to sending a memo to the 'Council. Commissioner Laden moved to amend Sec- tion 3B.6(c), Exempted Lots, to read: "Any lot shown as a unit on a recorded subdivision or land divisi'on, or any lot othe'rWise legally created, or any lots on approved tentative maps, are exempt from the density requirements set forth in Paragraph (a) of this Section 3B.6 provided such lot was created prior to April 25, 1980. Any lot' so exempted will not lose its exempt status if either of the following events take~' place subsequent to April 25, 1980." ~does address the issue ~lanni.ng Commission Page 6 ~,...et'ing Minutes~ 3/24/82 " GF-333 and GF-337 (cont.) Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther stated that h~ thought that the motion was incon- sistent with the measure adopted byl~' the voters and was opposed to it. He added that he thinks the Deputy City Attorney wo'rded this to be con- sistent with Measure A. The' Deputy. City Attorney clarified that the ordinance contains the same language as the Specific Plan. The vote was taken, which resulted in a split vote, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting and Commissioner Schaefer abstaining. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels th~'t th..-4'~ i~'sue"i:~'_'b"eing resolved in the courts. Commissioner Laden commented that she certainly believes that the voters have the right to change the ,zoning at any time that they wish through the proper process; however,.-she has a problem with the retroactivity. The Deputy City ..Attorney indicated that this item will also go to the City Council as a split vote. Commissioner Laden moved to approve Resolution GF-337-1 as modified. It was deter. mined that the Commission would like to see the final maps before they adopt them. It was directed that the maps will be adopted at an Ad- journed Regular Meeting on March 30th. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion to .adopt Resolution GF-337-1 'as modified. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve Resolution GF-333-1, amending Section 3A-24 of Ordinance NS-3, pe.rtaining to density and site area of the HC-RD Zoning District. Commissioner' Bolger seconded the motion. Discussion followed on the wordage that excludes the 40% slope from the density formula. Commissioner Zambetti commented that, for consistency, he feels that these hillsides should be considered with the same density formula as in the Measure A hillsides. He amended his motion as to delete the wordage to exclude the 40% slope from the density formula. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that this would basically be an adoption of Section 3B.6, the density provision in the ordinance just discussed, and that would then include the alternate proposal .or substitute for Section 3B.6(a)(iii). The vote was taken on the motion to 2approve Resolution GF-333-1. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. 7. A-810 - Parnas Corporation, Request :.for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single family re'sidence on Vintage Lane It was directed that this item be co~ntinued, at the request of the applicant, .to April 14, 1982. 8. A-814 .- Paul DeVos, Request for Desi2gn Review Approval to construct a two- story str.uCtufe '~8'-max.., at 14681 Farwell Staff described the proposal. The p:ublic hearing was opened at 10:00 p.m. Kirsten Kraft, 20021 Bella Vista, discussed the following points: (1) ease- ment leading to his property, '~ which: is for the purpose of ingress and egress and also for utilities; (2) r:emoval of an existing structure and bridge that is 'attached to it; (3) uhdergrounding of utilities, and (4) set- backs. DiscuSsion followed on these points.: Richard Stowers, the architect, dis- cussed the easement location and a retaining wall shown on the tentative map, stating that they do not propose to build that wall. He distributed drawings of the house and discussed the site and the design. Staff noted that in the issuance of any building permits Staff will be aware of the easement, and permanent facilities will not be allowed within it. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she would like a note on the map referring to the easement, for future Staff's information. Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Laden seconded the' motion, which 'was' carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A-814, per. the Staff Report, modified to include a condition stating that the applicant shall participate with the adjoin- ing neighbor to 'remove the bridge located on the westerl property line. CO'~hmi~'~S'j'c.~'-~j-~'~"~ade'n' 'se.c-o~d. ed' .the 'niot'-i'on, ..M:t:.:"'."7-:~'.:~.'.:-a.Z~.;.i:".~.J~e ne'~gl~b"or, iHaidated tha~ he'wOUl'd'w~'rk w'i'th' th~ a-~'~,t:~i~-'a,n-t,-:.,:-, - 6 - Planniy~g Commission ~- Page 7 ":_~etlng M{nutes 3/24/82 A-814' - (cont.) on the removal of the bridge. 9a. C-199 - E. Zambetti, Request for Rezoning (from R-M-3,000 to C-C), 9b. A-812 - .Design Review Approval and Site Approval to construct an 9c. SDR:1517 - office building adjacent to' Parking Assessment District No. 4 Commissioner Zambetti abstained from the'-'voting on these items. A letter from Mr. Jeff Hass in favor of this plan was noted into the record. The Deputy City Attorney discussed the position of the City Attorney regarding split zoning, stating that, while there is nothing in the ordi- nance that prohibits split zoning as a matter of policy, it is not some- thing that he favors. He added that,' as far as the General Plan is con- cerned, he finds that he has some difficulty drawing the General Plan boundary line in a manner that' shows' it dividing the property. He stated that there are also some concerns over the practice of split zoning and the difficulties it creates in terms of defining where the property lines are as opposed to the zoning lines, .and how site area and setbacks are determined. Staff described the application and the options available to the Commis- sion. The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m. The applicant gave a presentation on the application. He submitted a petition from the neighbors in favor of the proposal. He discussed the historical home which he plans to pr. eserve and move to the site. Mr. Zambetti noted that he had previously received approval for' ~ rezoning from an earlier Planning Commission; it went to the City Council, and they informed him that a use permit would be more appropriate. He explained that it was then determined that thdre was no available procedure for what the City Council had directed. Diana Parham, Secretary-Treasurer o{ Twin Oaks Homeowners Association, indicated that they had held a meeting and spoke to the point of the problem as it involved them, which is rezoning the entire lot. She explained that they felt that if one particular parcel on the street is rezoned, then future subsequent owners can do what they wish with the property, and a precedent would als0 be set. Ms. Parham also commented that they were against the rezoning because they felt it would be very easy to rezone all of Oak Street if one portion is rezoned. She suggested dedicating part of the property into Big Basin and not havi-ng-i~ be on Oak Street. Robert Aviles, the architect, discussed the project and gave the back- ground. He indicated that h.e feels it will be a benefit to the City in terms of a commercial. base and historical significance. He added that he does not see any other use which would have the minimal impact that this use would have. Commissioner Laden commented that she had been a part of the Commission that had previously approved the rezoning, and also had been involved with the 'Village Task Force. She explained that she believes that the intent from the Task Force or Commission at that time was to allow this type of use. She indicated that she feels the question is the appropri- ate mechanism to get thi's use allowed so that a precedent is not set. She added, however, that she feels that the applicant has been led to believe over the years that this application will be approved, by accepting his money and property into the parking district. Commissioner Crowther stated that he had a question regarding the depth of the site, and also concern regarding the neighboring properties if a precedent were set by this application. There was a consensus that this application should be continued to an adjourned r~gular meeting on April 6th at 7:30 p.m. 10. UP-515 Spa Petite, Request for Use Permit Approval to locate a health spa in the C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial Zoning District at 18851 Cox Avenue The proposal was described by Staffd The parking requirements were dis- cussed. - 7 - Planning Commission Page 8 ~..~r.~e~.'i'ng B~inutes 3/24/82 "' uP-515 (cont.) The public hearing was opened at. ll.:05 p.m. Kathy McGoldrick, 12860 Paseo Presa~a, expressed concerns regarding the number of people using the facilityl and the traffic. She also questioned whether it could be rented for private parties; will ther'e be alcohol allowed, and whether it wi'll be able to go co-ed. George Klukas, repres'enting Spa Petite, discussed the operation of the spa. Commissioner Bolger expressed concern regarding the impact of the parking and traffic on the surrounding neighborhood. He suggested study- ing the entire shopping center, 'including the future planned uses. The parking ratio was discussed, and Mr=. Klukas stated that he did not believe the parking would be a problem, notlng the traffic ratios used in other cities. The parking ratios for other shopping centers were discussed, and it was determined that the requirements, the types of uses, and the types of neighborhood for each individual. shopping center should be studied at a future Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. The possibility of limiting the number of people in attendance at the spa at any given hour was discussed. It was noted that it would be difficult to enforce such a condition. Commissioner Bolger commented that he still has a problem with the parking aspect and feels that allocat- ing 15 or 17 spaces will not be sufficient. Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, whichiwas carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden commented that she feels that the Commission, by agree- ing this use to be allowed as a conditional use, did give their consent to this project. She indicated that she feels this project is important to the viability of the shopping center, but pointed out that the use permit will-be under the continuous'jurisdiction of the Commission regard- ing reevaluation of the hours of operation and other problems that may come forward in the future. Commissioner Laden moved to approve UP-515, per the Staff Report, with the following added conditions: (2).No alcoholic beverages shall be served on the premises; (3) The establishment shall not be r'ented out for pri- vate parties; and (4) The establishment shall be maintained as a "Women's Only" Health Spa Facility. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Bolger dissenting. 11. UP-516 - Kermani, Navai, Shirazi, Request for Use Permit Approval to con.- struct 8 condominiums and ! re'tail structure on 42,000 sq. ft. · site in the C-V (Visitor Commercial) District at 1459.9 Big Basin Way : It was directed that this item be continued to April 14, 1982, at the app!icant's request. MISCELLANEOUS 12. Staff Request' for Zoning Ordinance Interpretation Regarding Saso Herb Gardens, corner of Farwell and Fruitvale Avenue Staff noted that there had been a complaint received relative to the Saso Gardens, prompted by parking and traffic problems during a special event. They' indicated that Mr. andsMrs. Saso have presented letters from their neighbors which would provide for off-site parking and they have committed' for providing direction of traffic to those adjoining sites during their special events. .Staff noted that there have also been letters received in support of'the continuation of this use. Discussion followed,'and Commissioner Laden moved that the Planning Commission interprets the' Saso Herb'Gardens as be'ing a permitted use under Section 3.2(b)' of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the 'motion, which 'was carried unanimously. COmmUNICATIONS Written - None - 8 - ~Addition - as well as the other shopping centers and the Village. P,t-'~-.n.,~.~'ng~i. Commission Page 9 ~Me~ting MinUtes 3/24/82 Oral Communicat ions 1. Chairman Schaefer thanked the representative of the newspa'per for attend- ing the meeting, and the 'Good Government Gr. oup for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT It was directed that the meeting be ~djoUrn~d t-o "ra'n.~j'~r~.e'd R~gUlar' Meeting on Tuesday, March 30, 1982, at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was adjour'ned at 11:45 p.m. RespeCtfully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd