HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-1982 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, December 8, 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~ Hlava, Monia, Nellis, Schaefer and
Siegfried
Absent: None
Minut'es
The following changes were made to the minutes of November 10, 1982: On page
3, the first sentence in the eighth paragraph should read: "Commissioner Nellis
stated that he is not pleased with the present design...". On page 3, the last
sentence in the tenth paragraph should read: "Commissioner Monia indicated that
he would prefer to see a single story home in this area .... ". Commissioner
Monia moved.to waive the reading of the minutes of November 10, 1982 and approve
as amended. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried, with
Comm~Ssioner Hlava abstaining since she was not pres'ent at the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. SDR-1495 - Garner and Sorenson, 3rd and Oak St., Request for 1-Year Extension
2. SDR-1461 - W. Sturla, Cox Avenue, Request for 1-Year Extension
3. SDR-1462 - Donald Schaffer, Cox Avenue, Request for 1-Year Extension
4. Janowtch, 14965 Sobey Road, Site Modification Approval to fill an inter-
mittent drainage swale
Commissioner. Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Nellis, to approve the items
listed on the Consent Calendar above. The motion was carried unanimously 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS ;
Sa. V-597 - Gerald Butler, Lira Drive and Montalvo Road, Request for Design
5b. A-839 - Review and Variance ApproVal to construct a two-story single
family dwe. l'ling on Lot 8, Tract 6732' near Lira Drive 'and Montalvo
Road in the 'R-I-40,.000 zoning district which exceeds the allowable
floor area by greater than 5% per Ordinance NS-3.47 and Article
17; continued from OctOber"i3', 1'98'2'
It was noted that there will be a new Design Review Ordinance effective Janu-
ary 15, 1983.
The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. No one appeared to address the
Commission, and it was directed that this matter be continued to the meeting
on January 26, 1983.
6a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1517 E. Zambetti
6b. C-199 - Eugene Zambetti, Request for Rezoning (from RM-3,000 to C-C),
6c. V-600 - Variance for Parking and Side Yard Setbacks, Tentative Building
6d. SDR-1517 - Site Approval and Design Review Approval to construct an office
6e. A-812 - building adjacent to Parking. Assessment District No. 4 at
14540 Big Basin Way
Since the applicant was not present at the beginning of the public hearing,
this matter was continued to later in the agenda as the last public hearing.
Staff gave'the history of the project and described the site. They noted that
rezoning is being requested for only 3,800 sq. ft. of the original 5,000 sq.
ft., since 1,200. sq. ft. has been acquired by the Parking District #4. It was
pointed out that the previous Planning COmmission had approved the rezoning in
concept.
- 1 -
'~Planning Commission Page 2
Meeting Minutes 12/8/82
C-199, V-600, SDR-1517, A-812 (cont.)
The map for the rezoning was discussed, .and it-was clarified that the current
map does not show the lot line following the back of lots #31 and #32 on Oak
Street. Commissioner Schaefer stated th'at she had a concern about special
privilege be'cause it shows a lot line to. tally onto itself rather than follow-
ing any other property line. It wa's not. ed that the current map was used when
the rezoning was approved in concept and does not coincide with the extension
of the property line from Third Street.
The findings for the side yard setbacks 'were discussed. Commissioner Crowther
commented that, in granting the variance, he would be inclined to give very
heavy weight to the sharp break in the slope; he feels that that is what is
unique about this site.
The correspondence received on the project was noted.
The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m.
The' applicant gave a presentation on the current proposal and discussed the
history of the project. He stated that he would be in agreement with a zoning
line adjustment. The parking district and the intensity of the proposed use
were discussed, along with the findings. Mr. Zambetti .submitted a letter from
the Saratoga Historical Foundation in support of the project and a geological
report on the site. He 'indicated that he has been in contact with Ms. Diana
Parham from the Twi'n Oaks Homeowners Association, to try to mitigate her con-
terns .
Robert Aviles, representing the applicant, described the project and the sj. te.
The possibility of having the property line follow the same pattern as the
back of lots #31 and #32 was discussed, and Commissioner Crowther asked if
there would be a problem in moving that 'line closer to the structure.
The Deputy City Attorney commented that the closer that line is drawn to the
lines of the adjacent properties, the more cons~istently the City is going to
be able to make the finding that that is in effect the Genera]. Plan boundary
line. lie indicated that he feels that all of the lines of the adjacent pro-
perty should be as close together as possible, even if it necessitates another
variance. He added, however, that in this case he is not sure that it would
be.cause, for the 'purposes of this application, Staff did not treat the rear
boundary line as the property line; they treated the site as a whole in terms
of the rear yard.
Commissioner Crowther commented that he felt it would be appropriate, because
of the uniqueness of the site and the locati'on of this building, to put a
· specific condition on the' intensity of the use. Discussion foIIowed on the
use, and it was 'determined that. a condition could be added to the variance to
state that the use of the building is to be 'only those as permitted by the
ProfessionalsAdministrative 'zOning district.
Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Monia asked the Deputy City Attorney to explain how the Commis-
sion would not be dealing in the special privilege area with this application
because of the split zoning and special findings for the variance.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that, regarding the split zoning, there are
other situations i'n the City where property has two classifications on it.
He went on to explain that hopefully with the Village Specific Plan the City
can deal with the situation in a more direct way that will. allow the multiple
uses and avoid' repetition. He commente'a that the' City Attorney's previous
memo indicated that there was nothing p~rticularly illegal about split zoning;
the City may not.have done it very often, but it's .not illegal given the proper
circumstances. He added that, as far as.the special privilege situation, there
are two concepts working here that overlap to some degree: (1) the uniqueness
of the site and (2) special privilege. He commented that one way to view it
is. that by reason of the fact that the building is a historical structure and
· the City has recently adopted an ordinance promoting preservation of historical
structures; it is agreed that it is an aD:proD~'ia~e site for the structure, and
the site is unique in terms of its topography. He stated that it is that
uniqueness' in terms of its size and shape and its physical distinction between
the residential area and the commerci. al area which also mitigates the mixed
use. He explained that because it is one of a kind, it may appear as a special
privilege, but by reason of' its uniqueness there will probably not be another
- 2 -
Planning C~mmission Page 3
Meeting Minutes 12/8/82.
C-199, V-600, SDR-1517, A-812 (cont.)
situation like it. He added that the Commission can make a finding that it is
no special privilege because no one else' has 'or is-'i~k'~'2'? ~"c"enfe'_'in Wi~l~.7"'-~'::."~-'.':
a similar type of application.
Commissioner Nellis stated' that he felt that if the Commission cannot make the
findings for the variance, then it does not make sense to go ahead with the
rezon'ing. He added that he recognizes that other Commissioners obviously' can
make the findings for the rezoning, but he cannot.
Commissi'oner Crowther moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1517.
Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0.
Commissioner Crowther moved to adopt Resolution C-199, recommending the rezoning
to the City Council. prima.rily based on the 'General Plan which shows that portion
.'.6~-.~'h~. ~'f~".~'~"'Comi~r'~'~'~l:':'~'~'~'~, and Sh'ow~n~ 'th'e line contiguous to the
adjacent properties ~31 and ~32. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion.
Staff stated that they would verify the 80 ft. dimension for rezoning. Commis-
sioner Monia commented that the Commission does not have an accurate map; there-
fore, they do not know how 'far the structure can be moved. He added that he
would vote for the motion, even though there is' not as large an overlay as he
would like.
The' vote was taken on the motion to recommend the rezoning for C-199. The motion
was carried 6-1, with Commissioner Nellis~ dissenting..
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the variance for off-street parking, making
the findings listed in the' Staff Report '~nd the additional three findings needed
for the parking variance. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that a condition be
added .that the house always be kept as a single family residence. Staff noted
that the area is designated for multi-family-.~';6'~' the site is 50 ft. wide and 85
ft. deep, thereby not' allowing anything more than a single unit on it. Commis-
sioner Hlava indicated that she would not' be amenable to adding that condition,
since there is one use there now ..b~'~' the :owner may want to change that.
Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion to approve the variance for the park-
ing, which was carried 5-2, with Commissioners Mon.ia and Schaefer dissenting.
Commissioner Schaefer explained that she was concerned about the traffic on Oak
Street and the possibility of duplexes' being placed on the site.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approve V-600 for the side yard setbacks, making
the findings 'listed in the 'Staff Report and the' additional findings regarding
spgcial privilege and strict and literal 'interpretati'on, noting the site's
u~'..~.~t~bTn.es's'., the 'sharp brea'k in slope in the middle, proximity to a commercial
area, the contour of the land, the residential property at a different level
than the commercial, and the directly adjacent parking district. The condition
was 'also added to the variance that the use of t. he building is to be only those
as permitted by the Professional-Administrative zoning district. Commissioner
Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried. 4-3, with Commissioners Nellis,
Monia and Schaefer dissenting.
The Building Site Approval SDR-1S17 and Design Review A-812 were discussed. It
was noted that approval of these applicat:ions would be subject to movement of
the structure to within the rezoned area.
Commissioner Monia commented that when th'e zoning line is moved to the north and
the building is moved toward the parking :lot, there will only be a maximum of
6 feet between the building and the parking lot. Mr. Zambetti indicated that
the building could be moved 2 feet closer., and it would then be on the zoning
line.
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve SDR-1517 .and A-812, with the provision that
the building be entirely inside the zoning area, and that the house be 1610 sq.
ft. or less on the outside dimension. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion.
CommissiOner Monia stated that he has a problem with this process, explaining
that he does not like to approve an application when there is no particular
exhibit to show exactly where everything lies. He indicated that he does not
feel that that iS good policy, and the Commission has tried to avoid this pro-
cedure in the past. He added that he felt that the applicant should submit a
map showing ex'actly the location within the boundary line and the applications
could be placed on the next agenda for approval.
- 3 -
Planning Commission Page 4
Meeting Minutes 12/8/8.2
-C-199, V-600, SDR-1517, A-812 (cont.)
After discussion there was a consensus that this matter' be 'agendized for the
Consent Calendar at the 'meeting of January 12, 1983, and the applicant was
requested to submit a new map showi'ng the structure placed 2 feet forward.
Commissioners 'H.lava and Bolger withdrew'.their motion and second.
7. A-843 - Donald Yauger, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a
si.ngle '~tory, single family dwelling in the 'R-i-40,000 zoning
district on Sobey Road ('near Sperry Lane)
The proposal was described by Staff. COmmissioner Nellis gave a report on the
on-site visit, discussing the amount of grading and the stepped foundation.
recommended.
The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m.
H. R. Harvey, 15050 Sobey Road, suggested that this matter be continued, since
he had not had an opportunity to review 'the application and consider any
problems that might need to be discussed.
Camille Skov, 14970 Sobey Road, addressed the drainage. It was noted that there
was a report from the Ci.ty Geologist, listing requirements for the site.
Commissioner Crowther suggested that this item be continued, in order to allow
the neighbors an opportunity to review the' application.
-I'~" ~S-'c-I~.rified t0 'Ch.'a'~l'e'S' ~Hman, 15040 Sobey Road, that the application is
for a one-story dwelling with dormer windows.
Emmett Carolyn, Manager of Mission Trail Builders, gave a presentation on the
pr.oj ect.
Commissioner Siegfried indicated that i~ appeared to him that this is an attempt
to put a flat land house on a lot which .may not take that kind of a home. He
referenced Condition VII-A of the original report on this site, which states
that the house foundation is to be stepped or otherwise designed to minimize
external grading. He added that he felt the intent was to make the house com-
patible with the lot, and he does not feel that the present design is. He
commented that he would like to see a pl~an showing how the stepped foundation
changes the look of the house and how it' fits., and what effect it has on the
total cut. 'Mr. Carolyn indicated that t"he basic design of the ho. use will not
change. The cut and fill needed w.~re discussed.
Mr. Harvey again addressed the Co'mmission, withdrawing his objection to 'the
design if it is a one-story home. :
Commissioner Monia moved', seconded by' Commissioner Siegfried, to close the
public hearing. The 'moti'on was carried 'unanimously.
There was 'a consensus that the Commission would like to see new plans showing
the modification, to determine what the .impact will be. The applicant was
requested to show greater detail on Proposal 2 and also to show Proposal 1.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he would like to see a contour map. He also
stated that he had concern about the 'dra~inage. Staff pointed out that Condi-
tion II-G of the Site Approval for SDR-1.367 addresses this issue. There was
a consensus tha't the approval would be subject to all soil and drainage miti-
gating measures' be'ing met' by approval of the City Geologist.
It was 'directed that this matter be cont.inued to the meeting of January 12,
1983 and be agendized on the Consent Calendar at that time.
8a. Negative Declaration.- SD-1454 - Saratoga Properties (Di Manto)
8b. 'SD-1454 Saratoga Properties (John. Di Manto), Request for Tentative Sub-
division Approval for a 5-!ot subdivision for a site at the end
of Madrone Hill Road and west 'of Peach Hill Road (formerly known
as the Niven property)
Staff described the project. They noted the exceptions needed for approval
and st'ated that if the project is approved there will also be'a need to annex
the 'County portion of the property to the City and. h~ve a General Plan change
relative to tha't property. The slope ca,lculations used were discussed.
Planning Commission Page 5
Meeting Minutes 12/8/82 "
SD- 1454 (cont.)
Chairman .Schaefer reported that there had be.en an on-site visit by the Comm.is-
si. on and nei'ghbors 'and noted some 'of the 'concer'ns express'ed. The 'letter from
the Saratoga Fire Chief was referenced, wh'i'ch approves a road 16 ft. wide with
3 turnouts. The eucalyptus trees on th~ 'sides of the road were discussed.
The Deputy City Attorney discusse'd the Rounding Down Ordinance that will be
considered by the City Council. It was clarified that until. such time as ti~at
ordinance is adopted the rules that wo'u]'d apply would be those in effect at the
time of approval of a project. He added that, regarding procedure, any approval
on the subdivision must necessarily be' conditional upon a Gen'eral Plan amend-
ment and corres'ponding zoning change being appro.ved by the 'City Council.
The public hearing was opened at 8: 26 'p .'.m.
Bill Heiss, civil ~ngineer for the .applicant, gave a presentation on the project,
discussing traffic impact,' access,, prOpOsed lands.cape easement and geology.
,"Z~'~a'~t~n""c-~i~'ed'~' ~"'~a'~"~' attached)~
The size of the proposed homes was discussed, and ~r. Heiss indicate~ that they
would-average approximately 4,000 sq. ft. and would be split level type homes
to match the contours of the ground. THe wi'dth of the road and the necessary
tree removal were discussed.
Tony Damore, 15374 Madrone Hill, stated that he
the planned development. He did cite a concern regarding the removal of the
eucalyptus trees. He discussed the access road, stating that he would not l~ke
to have people have access to a common road through that area.
Lynette Dix addressed the Commission, s~ating that her property shares a drive-
way with Dr. Damore. She commented that she would not like the road opened up
all the way tb. rough because of traffic-and noise. It was clarified to her that
no mass clearing of that area is intended.
commissioner Crowther indicated that he ~had .a concern that there is a landslide
on the Dix property that will have to be taken care of, and he would like a
letter in the file saying that it can be repaired. Mr. Heiss pointed out that
this issue is in the soils report~ and they will be constructing a wall.
Commissioner .Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. CommisSioner Monia
seconde~ the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried cornmen'ted tha~ he had previously had some concern about
the length of the roads. However, after walking the si'te, he feels that ~t is
a magnificent site and every care and consideration has bee'n given to develop-
ing a project which takes 'in all of' the 'sensi'tivity of the site. He added that
if the Commission approves 'the 5-lot sub~divisi'on, they should be very careful
to indicate 'that it is be. cause' of the uniquenes's of the site~ with all of the
rock work tha~ is there that th'e Commission wants to protec't and keep, and for
that reason they would be willing to mak. e the exception to allow the rather
long minimum access roads and exceptions to City standards.'
Commissioner Nellis extended his compliments to the applicant on a fine job, and
stated that when the Commission walked the site it was obvious that a lot of
contact had been made with the neighbors within the area to attempt to address
and satisfy their concerns. He added that he would like to see both rows of
eucalyptus trees saved, but he would not in a'ny way wan't to jeopardize the
safety of the future residents and he would defer to the decision of the Fire
Chief. He commented that he feels that the geological problems have been ade-
quately addressed.
Commissioner Crowther inquired of the Deputy City Attorney regarding the
NegatiVe Declaration. He stated that, looking at the State guidelines, it
seemed that on a site-Where 'there is a major fault line cutting through the
site and a lot of grading, that it be mandatory that an EIR be prepared. He
indicated-that he could not vote 'for the. Negative Declaration, stating that he
feels that an excel'lent job has be'e'n done on the site but is concerned that the
City would be 'open for a future lawsuit that any citizen could file and require
'that. an EIR be 'prepared'.
The Deputy. City AttOrney e~plained that .the determination of whether an EIR
is required or not ~s essentially a. judgment call to some degree. He explained
- 5
Planning Commission Page 5a
Meeting Minutes 12/8/82
SD-1454 (DiManto)
Commissioner Crowther questioned the geological safety of locating the
home at the location indicated on Lot #5, since this location was at the
base of a steep hill. He asked whether a detailed slope stability analysis
had been done, including the consideration of the effects on earthquakes
and on the adjacent Berrocal Fault Line. Mike Cleary, the geotechnical
consultant, indicated that the stability of lot #5 had been thoroughly
confirmed, including the slope stability analysis.
Planning Commission Page 6
Meeting Minutes 12/8/82
SD-1454 (cont.)
that in this instance '.the en'vironmental .~mpact is one wh'ich'it seems is bas-
ically oriented' toward geologic conditions 'and the topography of the site,
which seem to ]have b.ee'n very thOroughl'y .studied'. He added that he believes
that the 'judgment of Staff was pred'icate'd on th'e' fact' that,' wi'th the geologic
soil tests' and other"studies"that have b!een done, th'er'e 'is basically a pro-
fessional det'ermination by the 'applica'nt's 'geo'log'ist,' concurred' in by the
City's geologist, that whatever risks that may be pres'en'ted from the fault and
the soils 'conditions have been' recognized' and designed wi'th respect to those
risks in mind. After discussion' it was the consensus of the balance of the
Commission that they are 'sati'sfied that'the Negative Declaration is appropriate.
Placing restrictions on the maximum size of homes for this subdivision at this
time was considered, and it was the consensus that this should be done at the
time of design review, rather' than limiting the size of the homes in the CC&Rs.
The 'length of the minimum access roads was discussed. Commissioner Hlava stated
that it concerns her that the Commission would be making an exception and setting
a precedent; however, she does not feel that the road should go through.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he shares her concern; however, what he feels
is unique about this site is the fact that the road could go through and the
standards could be met, but th'e uniqueness of the front of that property would
be destroyed. He added that he does not'feel that the Commission would be
setting a precedent be'cause it is not the normal situation.
Commissioner Crowther commented that he would like to see a condition. that the
scenic impacts constructed on the site w~ll be strictly controlled, particularly
on lots #3 and #4. Staff pointed out that the individual sites will be before
the Commission at design review, and they will have a chance to review the
scenic impacts at that time.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SD-1454.
Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 6-1, with Commissioner
Crowther dissenting.
Mr. Heiss commented that, regarding the visual and scenic aspect for lot #3,
the applicant has committed to plant a significant additional landscape buffer
on the downhill side of that lot on both 'sides of the driveway. There was
a consensus that both the additional plantings and scenic easement should be
required, and the height will be' determined at design review.
Commissioner Siegfried moved' to conditionally approve SD-1454, subject to change
in the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan,' per the Staff Report dated December
2, 1982 and Exhibit B, withth'e 'following additional conditions: (1) planting
along the driveway for lot #3, (2) the 'scenic easement approximately 100 ft.
long and 20 ft. wide, with trees approxim'atel'y 30 ft. ]high to be determined at
time of design revieW, (3) requirements contained in the letters from the City
Geologist and the Fire Department dated Dec'ember 7, 1982, (4) satisfactory evi-
dence of access, and (5) rest'riction on r~moval of tree's' Commissioner Bolder
seconded the motion.
Discussion followed on possible bonding of trees and strengthening Of the Tree
Removal Ordinance. It was determined that this subject will be considered in
the future at a study session.
Commissioner Crowther indicated that he feels that this is a beautiful si. te and
.the applicant has done an excellent job. However, he stated that he will vote
against the project for the following reasons: (1) He believes that an EIR
should have been prepared', and (2) He is still concerned about lot #5 and doe~
'not feel it is wise to build there~ '~(3) ite '~'f. ee'l'S."th~'~e' si~Oul'.~'..'~'~.'~ b~_~ !~S.
The vote was taken to conditionally approve SD-1454. The motion was carried
6-1, with Commissioner' CrowthOr dissenting.
9a. Negative Declaration SD-1509 - Peach Hill Development (Lauer)
9b. SD-1509 - Peach Hill Development (Tom. Lauer), Request for Tentative Sub-
division Approv'al for a 6-10t su'bdivision for a site at 15840
P,each 'Hill ROad ....
· Chairman Schaefer reported that the current plan has been withdrawn and a new
Planning Commission ~ Page 7
Meeting Minutes 12/8/82
SD-IS06 (cont.)
plan for the' project will be submitted next week. She noted that the matter
will be continued to a study session on January 25, 1983 and the regular meet-
ing.of February 9, 1983. It was pointed out that the Commission and neighbors
had walked the site on Sunday, December 5th.
The public hearing was. opened at 10:10 p.m.
Lester Sachs, 19941 Sunset Drive, commen'ted that the neighbors were not par-
ticularly aware of the fact that they could participate in the site review
which took place. ile indicated that the'y would like to request that (1) once
the new.appl.ication is submitted, that there be an additional site review in
order that the people on Hume and Sunset' can actively participate in it, and
(2) when the developer presents a new pl.an., that he submits several additional
copies, one of which can be made available to them so they can physically
review an original large tentative map...He added that they would like to be
noticed of any meetings or site visits that take place.
Commissioner Crowther questioned the roa'd grades on the tentative map and the
slope calculations. Staff indicated .tha. t they would check into this issue.
Bill Molineux, 19930 Sunset Drive, stated that he and the residents on sunset
are 100% against the use of this road for the entrance into a subdivision. He
stated that he would like to know about the new p].an and whether it involved
the people on Sunset.
'Tom Lauer, the applicant, stated that when he has a definite plan he will give
all of the neighbors a map. He discussed possible alternate accesses for the
project.
It was directed that this matt6r. be continued to a study session on January 25,
1983 and the regular meeting of February 9, 1983.
DESIGN REVIE~V
10.A-844 - Gerald Butler, Tract 6732, Vickery Lane, Request for Design Review
Approval for fencing at end of access road
Staff described the proposal. Discussion followed on the material to be used.
Mr. Butler, the applicant, described the gate and fence and the existing chain
link fence in the area.
Commissioner Monia moved to approve 'A-844, per the Staff Report dated 11-29-82,
with the added condition that the 'gate' b'e painted bl.a'ck.'
Joe Montgomery, Vickery Lane, spoke 'regarding the_gate and pedestrian pathway,
which is a condition of the Tentative Map. He stated that all of the neighbors
who live on Vickery Lane are opposed to the pedest'rian pathway and the 3 ft.
opening. He 'referenced the petition whi'ch had been submitted to this effect.
Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion to approve A-844. The motion was carried
unanimous ly 6'- 0.
MISCELLANEOUS
11. Consideration of General Plan - Elements
It'was directed that this matter be continued to a regular adjourned meeting
on January 4, 1983 at 7:30 p.m.
COMMUN I CAT IONS
!Vritten
1. Letter from Mr. R. Saxe re UP-9, Toyon Lodge. Staff explained that
Mr. Saxe, attorney for Mr. Montgomery, owner of the Toyon Lodge, was requesting
that the Planning Commission act on its '.own motion to modify the use permit,
inasmuch as the cost for the applicant ~o do so would be approximately $3500.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that the matter is already before the Commis-
sion in a sense because of a complaint bei'ng made and their investigation of
that complaint. After discussion it was determined that if the use permit is
modified to change the' number of kitchens allowed it will require a public
~'t~a'ri~g a'nd.:j'th.~' ~ppli~'a~t. ~]=i'~!~]~d~-~.~.e...~reqUi-~-~'7' tS~"~s,y 't~0se c-..ost"s
7
· Pianning Commission P~ge 8
Meeting Minutes 12/8/82
· UP - 9 ( cont. )
Mr. Montgomery, the applicant, indicated that he would have no objection to
paying the fee. He stated that exhibits[ ·.~equired for the modification will
need some elevations that are very e-~p'~n~'=i.Ve. Staff noted that there is not an
accurate site development plan for th~'·i'0'dge. After discussion it was the
consensus that the Commission would not require elevations for the modification
and the applicant should file an application for modification to the use permit.
Gerald Butler addressed the Commission, stating that he had spent $3500 for the
engineering for his current application and felt that Mr. Montgomery should be
required to do the same. He commented that he would like to see engineering
plans of the lodge and added that the lodge is degrading his property.
After further discussion a consensus vote was taken to require that the appli-
cant submit a drawing showing the living structures with the kitchens included.
The motion failed 5-2, with Commissioner:s Bolger, C·rowther, Hlava, .Nellis and
Monia dissenting, stating that they did not feel it necessary to show the struc-
tures, since the issue here is only the number of kitchens. Staff commented
that if the applicant does not supply sufficient information at the time of the
public hearing, the Commission can ask for more information at that time.
Oral
1. Design Review Ordinance - Commissioner Monia expressed his concerns
regarding the new ordinance. He stated that his main concern, outside of the
· fact that he thinks the ordinance no longer has any meat to it and the fact
that he does· not understand why the City would want to have an ordinance that
doesn't have standards, has to do with the size of the structures and that the
allowable floor area is now considered the footprint. He went on to say that
the way the ordinance is now written, a 7,000 sq. ft. structure would be allowed
to be built in the R-l-10,000 district without a public hearing, providing that
the structure was under 26 ft. in height. Staff reported that there will be
a further change in the ordinance to read: "The total square footage of any
floor sh·all be measured from the exterior of the outside walls of the structure
which define the structure's footprint." Discussion followed on the fact that
there is now no upper limit in the ordinance.
Commissioner Crowther commented that, in. addition to Commissioner Monia's· con-
cerns, he has a problem with the fact that the ordinance now greatly reduces
the public hearings required and the public cannot appeal.
Commissioner Monia added that he ·feels the· ordinance totally negates any respon-
sibility of the Commission or any other body to the people of this community.
He commented· that he can't believe that the City would consider allowing houses
in the upper· limits in the '12,000-14,000. range. FIe explained that the very
thing that stimulated the Design Rev'iew Ordinance from the beginning was 8,000
and 9,000 sq. ft. house·s·, and now 'the ·City is saying that they don't care any-
more. He added that he did not feel· that the· Commission is doing their respon-
sibility as a governing body to assure some kind of consistency and regulation
for the· community. He pointed· out that the Commission had given the City Coun-
cil direction at a study session and pas.sed· the revised ordinance 6-0, and the
Council the·n- had a subcommittee· ·rewr'ite the· ordinance without inviting anyone
from the majority side of the ordinance to participate. Discussion followed
on the formation of the ·subcommittee. Commissioner Monia commented that he
felt that the process used was a travesty and he preferred not to serve his
time as a Commissioner until February 1, 1983, the original date of his resig-
nation. It was pointed out that the ordinance had come back to the Commission
for input at a study session; however, there were only three Commissioners
present at the meeting. Commissioner· Monia added that .]~e' ·felt .tt~t. i'.t was'~.'one
· ~h'~'~'~ "t~'~"Fd'~s'~U~s 'if =2'a~ '~'-s't~dF ses siOh ~']~'d another t-0:.-b.e' in~it"~.d'-.:~'o ~i'~.~"..~:,c-..~L-"'-~,"~:t~e
· !f-n~'.~H'& ~writing of it.
2. city co·u·ncil commissioner· Hlava· gave a brief ·report on the City
Council meeting held on December 1, 1982. A copy of the minutes of this meeting
is on file ·in the City Administration Office.
3. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Good Government Group for attending and
serving coffee.
ADJOURNME NT
Commissioner Siegfried moved, seconded by Commissioner Monia, to adjourn to a
regular adjourned meeting on l)ec~m'b~r. 1'4,.:'.!9'82-:at-'.?:":30 p.m. The motion was carried
unanimously and the' meeting wa:.~ · ad3'ournea .a~ 12: 37 p .m.
Planning Commission Page 9
Meeting Minutes 12/8/82
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
RSS:cd