Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-11-1982 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COB~IISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesd·ay, August 11, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meet·ing ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther·, King, Nellis and Siegfried Absent:· Commissioners Monia and Schaefer' Vice-Chairman King welcomed the new Commissioners Nellis and Siegfried to the Planning Commission. Minutes It was noted that on page 4, the thirdSsentence of the fifth paragraph should rea·d "removal of 1 lot", in the.minutes· of July 14, 1982. With that change, Commissioner Bolger moved·, seconded by· Commissioner King, to waive the reading of the ·minutes and approve ·as distributed. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Nellis·and Siegfried abstaining since they were not present at the meeting. · CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Mr. and Mrs. Thrift, 13857 Pike Road, Request for Site Modification Appro·val· to build a ·st·ructure ·on a.·site of over 10·% in slope Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to approve the item listed above. The motion.was carried unanimously 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Consideration of Amendment to the 1974 General Plan·of the City of Saratoga; continued from July 14, 1982 Staff reported that the Circulation Goals and Policies 'need to be con- sidered, along with the completion.of the Action Programs of the Area Plans. Staff suggested that a study session be set to consider the elements. Commissioner Crowther suggested that ·Staff review the Area Plans to ensure that they are implemented in the elements. The publ·ic· hearing was opened at 8:29 p.m. Russell Perry, representing property owners on Big Basin Way, referenced Warren Heid's let·t·er regarding Area J., specifically Action Item #2, and also noted that he had submitted a letter to the Planning Commission on this matter. Commissioner Nellis moved to close.the public hea·ring~ Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Margaret Russ·ell, representative of·Area D, indicated that she would like the statement in Action Program #10, related to annexation, remain in the General Plan, even though·no action· is taken on it immediately. Discussion followed on the following Action Programs: Ar~a D - Regarding #10, Commissioner· Nellis discussed the details involved in an annexation and indicated that he had some reservations as to whether this annex·ation could be accomplished and the"cost that would be involved. He suggested that perhaps Staff could write the City of San Jose to see 'if they would agree to it. Commissioner Crowther moved to adopt #10 of the Area D Plan, making a modification to the wording to state that the City should advise LAFCO and the City of San Jose of its desire to annex this parcel. Commis- sioner Siegfried seconded the motion. - 1 - Planning Commission .~ O Page 2 ~ Meet'ing Minutes 8/11/82 --. General Plan (cont.) Commissioner Bolger commented that'he would not vote for the motion, since he feels that more study needs to be done regarding'the impacts of'this annexation. The vote was taken on the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commis- sioners King and Bolger dissenting. CommissionerIBolger moved to approve #2, 3, 4 and 5 of Area D. Commis- sioner Crowther seconded the motion.. DiSCuSSion followed on #3 and #5. Commissioner Nellis questioned how~appropriate it is to include #5 in the Area Plan. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that.he feels that the corridor should be preserved until'plans are finaliz~d, and he feels that extending the condominium zoning into that site could very well have an impact. The vote was taken on the motion, which failed 3-2, with Commissioners King, Nellis and Siegfried dissenting. Commissioner Bolger moved to approve #2, 3 and 4. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner King dissenting. Area L - Mrs. Carol Machol appeare~ before the Commission, representing Area L. Action Plan #13 was discussed, and Commissioner Crowther then moved to approve #9 and #13. Commissioner"Nellis commented that he feels that Quito Road should be 'consider'ed for des'ignati'on as a heritage lane; however, he feels the exact type 'of planting or landscaping should.nOt specified. He added that he feels that perhaps the whole length of 'that road should not be included, but only from Pollard Road to Saratoga- Los Gatos 'Road. He also indicate'd that he would not like to see .Quito 'road widened at any point. Mrs. Machol clarified that it was the intent of the area to have all of Quito ROad designated as a heritage lane. She agreed that ~t .should not 'be widened. Discussion followed on the definition of a heritage lane. Commissioner Crowther amended his motion to adopt #9 and #13, with #9 amended to state that Quito Road shall be considered for designation as a heritage lane between Pollard Road and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, and it shall not 'be widened at any point. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which w~s carried 4-1, with Commissioner King dissenting. Commissioner King explained that he was not in favor of #13. Commissioner Bolger moved to approve #6. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which w~s carried unanimously 5-0. Mrs. Russell pointe'd out an apparent inconsistency wi'th statements that h~ve been approved for Area E as regards Area D with 'the circulation. Area J - Mr. Perry stated that he would like the Commission to consider Area J at. this time. It wa's noted. that the overlay for Area J, which will be part of the Zoning Ordinance and will implement the General Plan, will be considered by the' Planning. Commission at the meeting on August 25th. It was determined' that Action Program #18 should be added, to read that "The City will create an.overlay district ordinance to incor- porate 'and clarify the specific use.s 'allowed in the Village area." Commissioner Siegfried' moved to approve items #1~18. Commissioner King seconded the motion. Commissioner Nellis indicated that he felt that he had not h~d ample time 'to study this area and would not be voting on it at this time. Commissioner' Siegfried. indicated that he should have amended his motion to state that #2 should be amended to reflect Staff's previous comments. Commissioner Crowther commented that he felt that the wording "should be of greater' density" in paragraph 2 of' Item #2 should be eliminated and should say "should include~'. Commissioner' Siegfried clarified that it wa's his in. tent to amend #2 to reflect what Warren Heid had ~uggested in his letter, to allow mu.lti-family dwellings to be permitted uses rather than conditional uses in the C-V district, and not to delete the words "should be of gre~ter density". Commissioner King amended his second accordingly. Commissioner Bolger explained that he could not vote for the motion because of the wording regarding density, and Commissioner ~.Plann-ing Commission ~ .O Page 3 Meet'ing Minutes 8./11/82 General Plan (cont.) Crowther stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate for the Village. Commissioner.Crowther addressed #11, and suggested that "Such establi'sh- ments shall provide independent and.adequate security protection for their facilities~'be added. Commissioners Siegfried and King agreed to accept that amendment. The vote was taken on the motion, which 'resulted in a 2-2 vote, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting and Commissioner Nellis abstaining. Commissioner Bolger commented that 'he had voted against the motion because of the wording regarding density on item #2 and suggested that the wording could be changed to read "with a density no greater than other condominium projects in the Village area." Commis- sioners King and Siegfried accepted~that amendment to the motion. The vote was taken on the 'motion, which ~was carried 4-0, with Commissioner NelliS abstaining. Commissioner Crowther moved to add #19, which states "Development in the Village. shall be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods and shall mini- mize noise and other disruptive influences on surrounding areas." Dis- cussion foliowe'd on the vagueness of the word.-"compat'~b'le"":'~'~'Co~mis sioner Crowther amended his motion to state "Development i~ the Village shall minimize noises and other dis.rupti.ve influences on the surrounding areas." Commissioner Bolger' seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. It was 'determined that th'e balance Of the 'items will be discussed further at the study se's'sion on August 17, ~982 and the regular meeting of August 25,. ~982. 3. UP-520 - Campbell Christian School (El Quito School) Request for a Use Permit to locate a privatesnon-profit elementary school in an exi's'ting school facility' at 18'7'20 Bucknail Road' Staff'described the proposal. Staff Corrected Condition No. 1 to read: "Operation of the private elementar~ school shall comply with all requirements of state law. If licensing= is required, proof of such licensing shall be submitted tO the City prior to the expiration of 90 days." The public hearing was opened at 7:38 p.m. Lew Wills, Superintendent of the Campbel.1 Christian School, discussed the uses and stated that he had no problem with restriction of regular use. : Terry Griswold, E1 Quito Park Homeo~ners Association, referenced a letter from Joan Faunce, in favor of the proposal. Commissi'oner Bolger moved to close.'the public hearing. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which'was carried unanimously. Commissioner. Crowther' moved to appro.ve UP-520, per the Staff Report date~:i:Tif~:~'/'~:~ adding the' condition ".The hours of regular use shall be restricted to'the period from 8:00 a..m. to 6:00. p.m." Commissioner Bolger seconded' the motion. Discussion followe~' on ~i_~;ho'urs, and the'condition Was amended to read 7:00 a.m. The amended motion was ac:cepted and was carried unanimously 4. UP-523 - Moreland School District (BrookView School), Request for Use Permit to locate profit-making and non-profit schools in an eX'ist.in'g s'chool. fac.i'l'.ity " The'proposal. was described by Staff. The parking requirements were discussed. The.previous use permit UP-510 was also discussed. The public hearing was opened at '7:5'1 p.m. - 3 -' Planning Commission ~ .O Page 4 Meeting Minutes' 8/1.1/82 UP-523 (cont.) Warren Jacobsen, representing One .World Montessori, discussed Conditions 2 and 3 of the Staff Report regarding parking spaces and Building Site Approval. Discussion followed on the needed parking spaces for the various uses and staff. A possible alternative 'for parking spaces for staff people, i.e., oil and screening, was discussed, and it was the consensus that this temporary parking..could.be provided wit'hout requir- ing paving. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which '~as carried unanimously. The Deputy City Attorney commented..that the' code section pertaining to conditional use permits allows the Planning Commission to vary require- ments' for par.king. He explained that if the Commission makes the inter- pretation that for purposes of the use permit they will allow the appli- cant on a temporary basis to oil and screen the side area, a reasonable interpretation could be made that it would not be paving and the appli- cant would not need Building Site Approval. He suggested that a sentence be added to Condition No. 2 to read: "The Planning Commission reserves jurisdiction to review the parkings, and if circumstances so require, to direct that the parking are~ be paved and the applicant obtain Building Site Approval at that time." It w~s determined that Condition 3 would be deleted. It was also determined' that the following conditions be added: "Noise or traffic which causes severe safety or other problems in the nei.ghbor- hood shall not be permitted." "The approval of this use permit cancels' and supersedes UP-510." "There shall be an 18-month review of the use permit." ~ Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve UP-523 per the Staff Report, amended to include the above conditions. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 5. UP-524 - Raymond Jacobsen, Requests for Use Permit to construct a struc- ture (solar panels) over 6 ft. in height (12 ft. max.) in the required rear yard at 14358 Old Wood Road in the R-i-40,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal. Commissioner Nellis gave a report on his on-site visit. The public hearing was opened a~ 9:37 p.m. Mr. Jacobsen, the. applicant, gave a repres'entation on the proposal, describing the neighbor's site and visibility of the structure. Com- missioner Crowther expressed concern that there 'will be a major legal problem created between the applicant and the nei'ghb'0.r by permitting this structure to be located so close to the property line. Staff discussed the SOlar Shade 'Act. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close 'the public hearing. COmmissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve UP-524, per the Staff Report and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion. Com- miss'ioner Crowther suggested a condition wh'ich requires appropriate plantings that 'minimiz~ 'the visible impact of the structure. Commis- sioner Siegfried Nellis accepted that amendment. The motion was carried unanimously 5-0. 6a. A-831 Stev~ Scialabba, RequeSt for Design Review and Variance Approval 6b. V-589 to construct a t~o-story addition to an existing one-story structure Wh'ich exceeds the maximum allowed floor area at 12501 WoOds'i'de D'rive in the R-.i~10,000 zoning 'district The 'project was describe~ by Staff~ They sta~ed that they cannot make all of the findings for the variande and recommend denial of the variance and approval of the design review Subject to deletion of the nonconforming floor area. Commissioner Nellis gave a report on his on-site visit. - 4 - Planning Commission O Page 5 Meeting Minutes 8/11/82 -- A-831 and V-589 (cont.) The public hearing was Opened at 9:54 p.m. The applicant explained the project and referenced the letter from his neighbor regarding rental of the property. He stated that he did not intend to rent the property after the project is complete. Commissioner Crowther commented that he was particularly concerned about this application because there are no twO-story homes directly adjacent and because of the opposition of the neighbor. The applicant noted that there were other two-story homes in the area. Commissioner Siegfried' moved to close the public. hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus that the"necessary five 'findings for the variance could not be made. Commissioner Nellis moved to deny V.-589, based on the inability to make the findings. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimousl~ 5-0. Discussion followed on the design review application and the ordinance. It was-.noted to the applicant that there will'be a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission in October, at which time the Design Review 'Ordinance Will be 'discussed. It was also noted that there had been a consensus of the Commission at their last study session on the ordinance to increase the range of discretion on Floor Area Ratio to 20%. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny A-831 without prejudice. Commis- sioner Crowther seconded the motion, which 'was carried unanimously 5-0. It was pointed out to the applicant that he has the options of appealing to the City Council within 10 days, redesigning and deleting the square footage that is covered by the variance, or reserving the present plan until the ordinance is reviewed' and revised. 7a. A-832 Sloboden Galeb, Request for Variance and Design Review Approval 7b. V-590 to construct a single family dwelling wh'ich exceeds the maximum allowed floor area at 19143 Via Tesoro in the R-i-40,000 zon- ing district Staff gave a report on the proposed' project. They stated that they could not make all of the necessary findings and are recommending denial of the variance and approval of the design review subject to deletion of the nonconforming square footage. Discussion followed on the site 'plans under the previous Owner. The public hearing was 'opened at 10:12 p.m. Marty Oakley, representing Caleb Pgving, appeared to answer any questions. Ron Mancusso, 14330 Chester Avenue~ of the Emerald Hills Tesoro Home- owners Association, stated that much 'planning had gone into this develop- ment; and he felt that the 'ordinance, as far as this property is concerned, should be maintained and respected. It was the consensus that a lot .of' study had been done on this site in the past, and it should be. continued to.a study session to consider the size and also the grading, tree removal, and amount of impervious coverage. It was directed' that this matter be continued to a study session on August 17, ].982 and the regular meeting of August 2S, 1982. 8a. A=833 - Walter Muir, Request for Design Review and Variance Approval 8b. V-592 - to construct a one-story addition which exceeds the maximum allowed floor area at 14156 Short Hill Ct. in the R-i-40,000 'zOni'ng 'district' Staff pointed out that the plans show 'that there is a second floor framing plan for an attic, and this has not been calculated into the figures for floor area. They des'c~ibed the' proposal, stating that they could not make all of the findings'and.were recommending denial of the variance and approval of the 'desi'gn review subject to deletion of the nonconforming square footage. .Planning Commission O O Page 6 Meeting Minutes 8/1.1/82 ~-~ A-833 and V-592 (cont.) The public hearing was opened at 10: 20 p .m. Walter Muir, the applicant, referenced.a letter. from the neighbors in support of the project'. He described the proposal and other homes in the area. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close 'the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which 'was carried unanimously· Commissioner Crowther indicated that he believes this is a-'unique situ- ation wh'ich justifies .making the findings. He explained that there are homes in the 'neighb'orhood that. already exceed the 'Floor Area Ratio. He added that this home- is compatible 'wi'th the 'existing neighborhood; the neighbors have no problem with. it., and it meets the criteria of the ordinance. He moved to approve V-592, making the findings, based on the fact that it is a unique site related to the surroundings and particular conditions 'of the' neighborhood. Commissioner Bolger seconded the 'motion. Commissi'oner's Nellis and Siegfried stated that they had no problem with the design; however, tl~e'y could not make the necessary findings to grant the variance· Mr. Muir. explained that the back p~rt of the house and across the front is already an overhang. He explained that all they were doing, with the exception of 900 sq. ft., is bumping the wall out and utilizing the existing overhang· Discussion followed on the findings needed for variances. The vote was. then taken on the mo'tion to approve V-592, which failed 3-2, with Commissioners King, Siegfried and Nellis dissenting. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny A-833 without prejudice· C~.mm_.i_s._- sioner Nellis seconded the motion, :which was carried-. 3;~'2'~".~t'h...C.ommis. si~'.n_ers Bolger and Crowther dissenting. The' applicant was advised of the 10-day appeal period. 9. GF-339 - City of Saratoga, Amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding restaurants with outdoor dining to the .list of conditional uses allowed in all commercial districts (Section 7.3), delete contrary provi- sions of this section and.amend .Article 11 to provide a means of calculating the parking r~quired for outdoor dining per Article 18 of Ordinance NS-3 Staff described the proposed amendment, recommending approval to the Cit~ Council, pe'r the Staff Report. It was noted that the use permits. could be conditioned for specific uses. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the City is now in the process of' changing the ordinance to read. that the use permits will run with the land, rather than with the owner· The public hearing was opened at 10:33 p.m. Phi. lip Arst, 12157 Atrium Drive in the Park Saratoga condominium develop- ment', expressed his concern regarding the preservation o.f the residential environment in that area. He suggested that outdoor dining be limited to the Village area' and not be allowed in' residential areas. Bob 'Pedrick, managing' partner of Crepe Daniel, stated that he was very aware of the 'need for protection of the 'residential areas of the City. He explained their proposed operation and stated that he felt all of the fine res'taurants should be allowe'd"to have outdoor dining. He added that he would not like to be 'discrimated against because their restaurant is not in the Village. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close' the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther s.uggest'ed that a provision be included in the ordinance which 'states that outdoor dining facilities which are adjacent to residential area's shall be enclosed by walls Commissioner Bolo'er stated that he wa's troubled by allOWing outdoor dining in P-D areas, and he 'fee'is it.. would be more 'appr6priate in th'e C-C' and C-N designa- t ions. "'g'~'~'F':'e'5~)~-a'i'~'~d''', .~-H~"'i-f;· ~h'~ '. c'onc'-e'-r.n '-..~'S:" m-~n im~i'~.'ing" i'mp.~c't s-' o'n- ~ . _..._.__. .~ .=.. :..-. ................. - . --- _ ~ ....~_._ ......:.-,?.-=-:.~ _~ ,..- _.---~- ~..~,~._ _ :. . _.... -.. .~ '_'...,.-.~ ..-;.~, .. '!::~:~--~ - 6 - Pt'anning Commiss ion O Page 7 Meeting Minutes 8/1.1/82 - GF- 339 (cont.) 'residential properties, the restriction would also have to be placed on C-N districts, as well as P-D. Commissioner Nellis stated that he had no problem with the ordinance as proposed. He indicated that he 'i's satisfied that the sufficient means to control and regulate th~ 'use of any applications. that come before it, and the 'speCifics should be taken up at that time. He moved to recommend Resolution GF-339, as proposed by. Staff, to the City Council. Commissioner Siegfri. ed seconded the motion. 'Commissioner Crowther stated that 'he 'wa's concer'ned about the ordinance because he feels it is too general... He moved to amend the motion to add the condition tha't "Outdoor facilities which are 'adjacent to resi- dential areas shall be encl. osed by appropriate walls or shrubbery to minimize noise or other adverse 'impacts' on adjacent neighbors." Commissioner Nellis stated that he could not 'accept that amendment, since he does not' feel it is necessary to have i.t in ~his ordinance, and feels that aspect can be controlled when a particular application comes before the Commiss ion. Commissioner Bolger stated that he would not be .voting in favor of the ordinance, since he feels it is inappropriate to put outdoor restaurants adjacent. to residential facilities.' The vote was taken on the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. 10a. Negative Declaration - GF-340 - City of Saratoga 10b.GF-340 - City of Saratoga, Amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding.'Mini- Storage Facilities to the list of conditional uses allowed in the' C-V (ViSit'or-Commercial) District (Section 7.3(c)) The proposed amendment wa's described by Staff. Discussion followed on the storage of hazardous materials. The public hearing was opened at 11:00 p.m. John Reinhart, representing Public .Storage, Inc., addressed the use of mini-storage and the storing of hazardous materials. The operation and security system were discussed. Commissioner Crowther moved to close th~ public hearing. Commissioner Nell is seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther' moved to approve th~ Negative Declaration for GF-340. Comm~sioner Nellis seconded' the motion, which 'was carried unanimously 5-0. '. Commissioner Crowther moved to adopt Resolution GF-340, making the findings per the Staff Report date'd July 22, 1982. .Commissioner Nellis seconded the' motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS ' 11. Consideration' of .1982-85 Capital Improvement Program; continued from July 14, 1982. Staff indicated that what 'is before the Commission at. this time is the determination that this program is'consistent' with the General Plan. Commissioner Crowther expressed' concern that the program shows that all of the present streets needing repair cannot be taken care of in one year, yet the General Plan shows' even more streets being built through high risk areas. He questioned if this is consistent with the General Plan in view 'of the fact tl~at no funds are budgeted for new streets. He added that he was als0 concerned that repair of Bohlman Road was not mentioned in the program. Staff explained that the program indicates items that had the highest priority. I.t was determined that the projects that are listed in the program shou~ld...'be.'.:'con'~i:deYed~at'~.~his time, and a separate memorandum could be sent to the City Council,. indicating that the Commission feels 7 ~'lanning Commission Q i . Page 8 .Meeting Minutes 8/1.1/8.2 Capital Improvement Program (cont.) that other projects should be listed. Commissioner Siegfried moved to' find that 'the Capital Improvement Program, as proposed', is consiste'n't 'with the 'Gen'er'al Plan.l Commissioner Bolger seconded. the motion, whi'ch was carried 4-1, with' Commissioner Crowther dissenting. Commissioner Siegfried moved that t'he 'Commission recommend to the City Council that it would be"appropriate to give the repair of Bohlman Road priority and list 'it in the Capital Improvement Program, for the health,'.°, safety and welfare of present and future residents of that area. Com- missioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 12. Dr. Alan Joe,. '14296 Taos D'r'i've'," Status' o'f 'Fence Staff described the hi.stOry and status of the fence. They reported that the CC&Rs have 'n-ev'er be'e'n rec'orded, and they are recommending that the Commission delete Condition II.V. from the SDR-1164 Staff Reportswhich pertains to them. They added that they were also recommending at this time that the Commission set a design review hearing on the fence. Mr. John ~lein, 14328 Taos Drive, ~nquired about the conditions of the SDR. Staff explained' the options available to the Commission at this time. Commissioner Nellis moved to delete the condition relating to the CC&R~' from the. SDR Staff Report and set a time for a design review hearing on the fence. Commissioner King 'seconded the motion. "Dr:. '~ja~-.'j]'~'~ 2~dd~'~s~4..~'a .~.H'e .~F~'.~-~s':~'q'~n, sta(i~T~."~-Lh'~t" hez-t~d"t'He'~e~'~s sary signatur'&'s to modify the CC&RS, but had' dfsc0vered"thd~"they Xvere'never recorded. He added that at least 85% of the homeowners in that area have built more than 15% fencing. He stated that he did not believe they had gone through design review, and inquired as to why he would have to. do so.. Staff indicated that they believed that most of the homes had design review' for the homes and fences. They added that the reason for this discussion at this time is because there has been a.compla. int. The vote was taken on the motion to..delete Condition II.V. from SDR-1164 and set a hearing on the design review fo.r the fence at a future time. 'the motion was carried 3-2, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. Commissi-oner Bolger stated that he :objected .to Dr. Joe having to pay fees to go through this process_, considering the fact. that there are a number of other .H~'H~Zonf'~:~ih~:.'jf~&FGj~Z'~ha~' 2HaY.e been built in this area. Commissioner Nellis moved to recommend to the City Council that the fees be waived .for the design review. dommission'er Crowther sec'onded the motion. Commissioner King stated that he would vote against the motion, because it will encourage people to construct things without permits or without design review, rather than .go through the process. Commissioner Nellis explained that he had made ~he motion because he feels that Dr.. Joe thought he was complying with what was required. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would .vote .for it because of the large'number of homes in the adjacent neighborhood that are in a Similar situation. Commissioner Siegfried added that, because' of that fact, he did not feel it would set'a dangerous precedent. The vote was taken on the motion', which was carried 4-1, with Commis- sioner King dissenting. CO~4UN I CA'T IONS Written ; 1. Letter from J. Butler re Status of UP-9, Toyon Lodge Hotel. Staff reported that they had inspected the s~te and did not find that it was maintained in a substandard fashion, and the Health Department has concurred. Tl~e'y explained that the only proble~ found with the 'use permit was that the number of kitchens was no longer S0~ of the units; there are 18 rental units and 11 of them now have 'kitchens. They added' that Mr. Montgomery has stated .,P~anning Commission '.,'_~.. Page 9 Meeting Minutes 8/11/82 ~ UP-9 (cont.) that thatw~S the condition of the property when he purchased it in 1972. Jerry Butler, 1S01S Vickery Avenue, stated that apartments have been added on b.y M.r. Montgomery to the .lodge WithOut 'a permit. lie explained that there are now '18 apartment units,' wi'th 13 kitch6'n's. He discussed the garbage and the Sewer system', noting that the dumpster is on Vickery Avenue. Mr. Butler requested that, the use' permit be reviewed. He also indicated that the gener'al appearance is poor and the lot is not maintained. He 'submitted a letter' referencing the additions made. Mr. Jim Elliott commented' that the pool. for the lodge is not fenced and is only 50 feet from the 'roa'd. It was determined that this matter. should be discussed' further at a study session between Mr. Butler, the owner' and the neighbors. It was directed that the matter be continued 'to a Committee-of-the-Whole at · a future time. Oral '1. Staff asked for an interpretation from the Commission as to whether or .~bt at. tLc sp, a&e::~s included in the total square footage of a structure, which shall include all interior area. within the walls of the structure capable of being used', including the garage, but excluding non-visible base- ments. It was the consensus that if the space is capable of being used as living space it should be 'included; if it is too small or has no access, then it is not to be included. 2. Commissioner Bolger was appoin.ted to replace Eugene Zambetti on the Heritage Commission. 3. Vice-Chairman King thanked the: Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. AD J OU RNM E NT Commissioner Siegfried.moved to. adjourn the 'meeting. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried. unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:01 p.m. ' · Respectfully submitted, · ' ' S~cretary RSS:cd