Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 1983 -.7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, C.A TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger,'Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes The following additions were made to the minutes of January 26, 1983: On page 2, Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the extension for SDR-1496. Com- missioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. On page 2, the third paragraph under A-846, "Commissioner Hlava expressed the desire to have a curvilinear sidewalk along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road." On page 5, t.he first paragraph, "Commissioner Crowther indicated that it appeared that the proposed interpretation did not make sense." On page 5, the second par'agraph, "Commissioner Crowther indicated that there were unique safety problems associated with the 90© cul-de-sac which have not been addressed, and the Commission does not have sufficient facts on traffic safety to make a decision. He added that he could not approve the Negative Declaration without a study of the alternatives." On page 5, the fourth paragraph, "Commissioner Crowther reminded Commissioner Siegfried that the applicant had indicated that access off of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road would result in a 400 ft. street, not 500-600 ft." On page 5, Commissioner Siegfried made the motion to approve the Negative. Declaration. On page 7, the second sentence in the first paragraph should read: "Mr. Heiss clarified for her that no excavation of the nose of the creek bend will be done." On page 7, the final paragraph under A-845, "Staff indicated that NHR requires 3.9 acres for a single house on a lot with 31% slope." Commissioner Siegf.ried moved to waive the reading of the minutes of January 2'6, 1983 and approve as amended. Com- missioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner McGoldrick abstaining since she was not present at t.he meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Items 1, 2 and 3 were removed for discussion. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 4. Ken Gilbeau, 18600 Twin Creeks Road, Request for Site Modification Approval to construct a pool, spa and gazebo on a site of greater than 10% in slope 5. Tract 4956, Lot 12, Palemengi, 19332 Crisp Ave., Request for Site Modifi- cation Approval to construct a pool on a site of greater than 10% in slope Discussion followed on A-848, M. C. Johnson. It was noted that the Staff Report still reflects white lap siding with green shutters, and at the last meeting it had been determined that it would be' an earth tone shade. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-848, per t.he Staff Report amended to reflect that change. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 6-0, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining. Discussion was held on UP-516_, K~i! Nalvai, One-Year Extension. Commissioner Crowther commented that"~e'?~d"~Voted.=ag~hS't the project because it seemed to be i~oo~s~ij~'~nt. with the General Plan an.d he had felt that a General Plan change would be required; therefore, he would vote against the extension. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the one-year' extension for UP-516. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was ca.rried 5-2, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. Regarding V-567, Richard Ohren, One-Yea~ Extension, Commissioner Crowther indicated that he had voted against the' project previously because of the 43% slope and would vote against the extension on the same basis. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve the one-year ex.tension for V-567. Commissioner ttlava - 1 Pla~ning Commission _ Page 3 ~Me~ting Minutes 2/9/83 A-845 and V-602 (cont.) Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A-845, per the Staff Report dated January 18, 1983, amended to reflect Exhibits B-1 and C-1 and adding conditions that (1) the building be earth tone and use natural stone, (2) additional land- scaping to be required on the side of the deck on the other side of the creek for screening purposes, and (3) the length of the single portion of the building be indented 1 ft. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther moved to amend the motion to shorten the deck as to the size shown on page 6 of Exhibit B-l, and to lower it to the maximum extent feasible as determined by Staff without damaging the tree or causing extensive grading. Commissioner Bolger seconded the amendment. The motion on the amend- ment failed 5-2, with Commissioner's Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried dissenting. The vote was taken on the motion to approve A-845. The motion was carried 5-2, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. 7aj Negative Declaration - SD-1509 - Peach ttill Development (Lauer) 7b. SD-1509 Peach Hill Development (Tom Lauer), Request for Tentative Sub- division Approval for a 6:-lot subdivision for a site at 15840 Peach Hill Road , Chairman Schaefer noted that the map has been changed and a planned on-site visit had been rained out. She indicated that the following concerns had been expressed at the study session on this item: (1)...._o__w_nershiV of Sunset Drive, ( 2 ) number of lots, (3) "l.~'h'~'~.~"6yl'Td'~I'-"":de.'-"-~'~d~;_'_'. C'4')..:.g..e_~'clh~l~l' _.w.p'~.~=~....h'a..'.~. ~.o~t been submitted or approved by City Geologist, (5). emergency access road not desig- nated'on map, (6) retaining walls required for access from Sunset Drive, (7) 5 units on a minimum access road, (8) increase in traffic, and (9) safety of roads. The Deputy City Attorney stated that, regarding the number of lots, he has no 'problem with Staff's report that the~e are 5 lots available, rather than 6. He commented that the applicant has two' existing lots of record which are included within the proposed subdivision. Apparently the applicant has made the argument that those lots should somehow be preserved and his density would thereby. be increased because he is assured of those lots and the density should be c~lculated on what 'is left .' The 'Deputy City Attorney commented that, from his point of view, the land being subdivided' is everything within the boundaries of the proposed map. Once that' subdivision is made the existing lots are no longer there; the lot lines are being changed. If the applicant wants to pre- serve those lot lines and work within the confines of what is left he can do that or 'exclude the two existing .lots from the rest of the land he owns. How- ever, this proposed map encompasses those lots, so it is a resubdivision and the' new boundary lines will be determined by the' area of land within his pro- posed map and the zoning .classification of that land. Chairman Schaefer questioned whether if 4 lots only now were considered, irregardless of the two lots of record in the County, and at a future time those 2 lots come in, is it true that there is a court order saying that that lot line does need to be adjusted, .':'a~d'.~.would that change the situation? The Deputy City Attorney stated that he had' not seen any court order concerning adjustment of lot lines. Chairman Schaefer 'asked if it was his understanding that 4 lots could be developed now with a totally different map, and then at a later time the 2 other lots could be developed. He indicated that that was not his understanding. He stated that, given the present resubdivision that the applicant is proposing, the fact that there may be 2 lots included within that total has no significance, because those 2 lots following the recordation of this map would no longer exist. The new lots the applicant proposes 'to create will then become the manner in which that property is subdivided. He stated that he doeS' not know and cannot comment on what other options the a. pplicant may have that would work within the City's ordinances. He added that the applicant is likely to run into some rather serious circulation pro- blems by eliminating those lots, because it may impact the manner in which the roads are laid out through 'the sdbdivision. When asked if the applicant could place a road across one of those existing lots' that is not otherwise included in the subdivision except for purposes of the road crossing, the Deputy City Attorney answered that the applicant can create an easement on land that he owns, or he. could even offer a dedication of that road. He added that if the applicant can fi't a subdivision complying with all of the City's ordinances within the remaining undivided land that he owns, he could do that in theory; whether it fits in this situation would have to be determined. - 3 .- Planning Commission O O Page 2 ,~.~Meeting Minutes 2/9/83 V-567 (cont.) seconded the motion, which was carried 5-2, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6a. A-845 Don Coffey, 13217 Padero Court, Request for Design Review and 6b. V-602 Variance Approval to construct a two-story single family dwell- ing which encroaches into the required side yard setbacks (20' where 30' is required) at the northwestern terminus of Padero Court Chairman Schaefer noted the concerns cited at the study session: (1) treatment of the bank, (2) size of home, (3) compatibility of design with surrounding homes, (4) p~a~ement on the lot and type of lot, and (5) different zoning and setback'~requirements than surrounding homes. She reported that there had been consensus at the session that reducing .the size of the home to approximately 4800 sq. ft. would be more acceptable. Staff noted that new plans have been submitted and reviewed, showing a 4800 sq. ft. home, and, if approved, the approval would be. per the new exhibits :submitted and the Staff Report would be amended to reflect that. The public hearing was opened at 7:48 p~.m. Nancy Franklin, 13209 Padero~.C~.,'~'~..~p~resS~d..~n~ern .~ga'~'~n~"'~i~".~_i'z~.~'~ the home and appearance. She stated that it should be of natural stone and earth tone color. She added that she would prefer one less garage or an indentation on the long side of the home. Nancy House, 13223 Padero Court, agreed with Mrs. Franklin's concerns, particu- larly regarding the size of the total structure. Marilyn Norling, owner of the adjoining lot across the creek, expressed concern that the deck has been raised and comes. across the creek. She also noted con- cerns regarding removal of trees, the size and height of the deck, and mud slides and flooding. Mr. Coffey, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project, addressing the location of the creek and the removal of trees. The possibility of keep- ing the deck at the lower elevation and not stepping it up or stepping it further away from the house was discussed. Discussion followed on the land- scaping and materials and color for the home. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public h~aring. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Bolger commente'd that the size of the structure has been reduced; however, he still. feels that the design is not necessarily compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He 'added that it is a beautiful home but he ques- tions whether this is the appropriate site on which to build it. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he no longer has concerns about the size of the home and would be in favor of approving the application, provided that the previously discussed conditions were added. Commissioner CrowthOr indicated that he would like to add a condition that the deck be shortened as now shown on page 6 of th~ exhibi't, and that the eleva- tion be. lowered as much. as is feasible without damaging the oak tree or caus- ing any extensive grading near the creek. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V-602, making the findings in the Staff Report dated January 18, 1983, amended to reflect the new exhibit. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther commented that the shortening of the deck is a key issue as to whether he would vote for the variance. Discussion followed on this issue, and Mr. Coffey clarified that if the deck were shortened he would have to cut into the roots of the oak'tree to anchor the deck. Commissioner Crowther stated that he felt that if the deck we're shortened 15 feet there is less likelihood of damaging it. The vote was taken on the approval of the variance. The motion was carried 5-2, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. - 2 Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 2/9/83 SD-1509 (cont.) Discussion followed on setting a study session and possible site visit. There was a consensus that individual Commissioners will make an on-site inspection of Sunset Drive, and there will be.a study session on this matter on February 22, 1983. The Deputy City Attorney stated that if the applicant does not agree to the point of number of lots, perhaps the bes't procedure would be~to set up a meet- ing with Staff and him and the applicant's attorney,~ so the arguments can be reviewed. Commissioner Crowther questioned whether an aerial topo map is accurate enough on this type of terrain. He stated that he did not feel it is sufficiently accurate to ma'ke a'decision on the slope, and he would like to See an ortho- photo contour map as a basis for this subdivision. Staff was directed to review this issue. The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p'.m. Dr. Molineux, 19930' Sunset Drive, addressed the notcing procedure and the ownership of Sunset Drive. He stated that he has reason to doubt that the applicant has access through Sunset, and he feels that that issue should be determined before further discussion is. held on this matte'r. Staff commented that the applicant has .submitted additional information and the applicant's engineer will be meeting with Staff on February 1Sth. There was a consensus that this issue should be resolved before the study session. The Deputy City Attorney commented that' unless it is established to the satis- faction of the City. that there is access and ownership of Sunset Drive, and if that manner of circulation is required'for this map, the map is not going to be approved. Mr.Lauer, the applicant, stated that He and his engineer are quite satisfied · that they have access and information from the County indicates that in fact it has been dedicated. There was a consensus that the study session on Febru- ary 22, 1983 will be postponed if the City Engineer is not satisfied that Mr. Lauer has the access. Lester Sachs, 19941 Sunset, representing the neighbors on Sunset and Hume, stated that they' would like a reasonable time period to be able to review what has bee'n said and wh'at is being done regarding the access issue. It was determined that the neighbors will have the information that the applicant is presenting to Staff the next day aftermthe meeting, on February 16, 1983. Mr. Sachs also stated that the homeowners would like to be notified if there is a change in the opinion of the City Attorney as to the maximum being only 5 lots. He also requested a copy of any other contour map that may be presented on this application. Other issues that he asked be addressed were: (1) if retaining walls are going to be built, who is going to have responsibility of those walls; (2) who will maintain the existing Sunset Drive if in fact is is a dedicated road; (3) elevations, location and square footage of residences; (.4) are tennis 'courts permitted; (S) are horses permitted; (6) is annexation going to be required; and (7)'in the opinion of City Attorney whether annexa- tion can now p'roceed in view 'of.a recent court decision. Dr..'~'j'_~K~,"7 19977 Sunset, expres'sed concern regarding (1) access, (2) responsi- bi'lity"'fo~ maintaining road, (3) responsibility for retaining walls, and (4) existing slope. He added that he ~ould like to review the geology before 'the study session. Discussion followed on the availability of the geology reports. Mr. Lauer commented that he will be more than happy to supply Staff with extra copies of the geology reports to be used for review by the neighbors. Commissioner Crowther addressed the Negative DeClaration, stating that he feels strongly that an EIR ought to be. required on this project. FIe commented that there is a lot of public concern and one advantage of requiring an EIR is that the information the public is requesting wo·uld be prepared and the Commission would have bette·r· facts on which to make ·a decision. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny SD-1509 subject to a letter of extension to B~arch 9, 1983. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Pl.~nning Commiss ion Page 5 -Meeting Minutes 2/9/83 8a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1527 .- William Johnson 8b. SDR-1527 - William Johnson, Reques~ for Tentative Building Site Approval for a 2-lot subdivision at 18935 Monte Vista (near E1 Camino Grande) It was reported that the applicant has 'requested continuance on the above item. It was directed that it be continued to February 23, 1983. 9a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1533 James '& Mi'chael Foley 9b. SDR-1.533 - James & Michael Foley, Monte Vista and Sobey Road, Request for 9c. V-506 - Subdivision Approval for a 3-lot subdivision for a site with access on Monte Vista Drive (between Montewood and E1 Camino Grande) and Sobey Road in the R-i-40,000 zoning district as per Ordinance 60 and Variance Approval to allow an existing garage to continue with nonconforming side (10' where 20' is required) and rear yard (23' where 50' is required) setbacks as per Ordinance NS- 3 It was reported that the applicant has requested continuance on t'he above items. Staff indicated.that it has not been resolved if the lots have the required square 'footage. They commented that they understand that the appli- cant is in agreement with their definition of site area.".~F'~li'~y.. added that the title report seems to indicate 'that the applicant has the access being proposed. It was directed that this matter be continued to February 23, 1983. Break - 9:1S -'9:35 p.m. 10. UP-457 Wayne Brown, Request for Use Permit Approval to construct a tennis court at the southeastern corner of Quito 'and Pollard Roads in the R-I-40,000 zoning distict 'as per Ordinance NS-3 and Article 16 Staff described the .proposal. The letters received on the project were noted. The public hearing was opened at 9:40 p..m. Wayne Brown, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project, discussing the grading that has been done for the berm and the planned landscaping. He indicated that the maintenance 'will be .done by the homeowners. The proposed fence and entrance to the area Were discussed. Mr. Brown commented that this was the only feasible site for the tennis court. Commissioner Nellis questioned the need for the tennis court, pointing out that' there are other courts close. by. Mr. Brown noted that people are exercise- minded and also pointed out that they had relinquished all control over Rinconada Hills; therefore, only the residents of that area can use 'those courts. Commissioner Crowther expressed his concern with the access, stating that he felt that. people would park off of Pollard and Quito, rather than walking. He suggested a small foot bridge across the creek directly to the units. Mr. · Brown commented that it would be disruptive to the planting; it' would be a large expense, and a number of permits would have to be obtained from agencies to build it. Pat .';'_Pi.'.0:~.~..-, 14356 Evans Lane, spoke in favor of' the tennis court. She stated that the 'Commission should not be concerned about the access off of Pollard Road-since there has never been any problem with cars parking there. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus that Condition N6. 2 should be modified to read that the fence shall be constructed .of stucdo and shall be shielded by vegetation on the exterior. , Commissioner Nellis indicated that he did not see what is in this for the City of Saratoga or its residents. He .commented that the courts will be confined simply to use by residents in LOs Gatos and he is not convinced that there is a need for this tennis court. Z He stated that there had been dis- cussion during the General Plan meetings that the City wanted to preserve .the rural character of this road. He added that he also has a concern that no matter how tightly the barriers are constructed around the court there may be some danger of.'an".a'tt~'~:t'iV~)nU'i"~ai~ce - 5 - ~- oPl'anning Commission Page 6 -~Meeting Minute.s' 2/9/83 UP-457 (cont.) Commissioner Siegfried commented that he has no problem wi'th 'the tennis court; it will be maintained as open space and is a rea'sonable usage of one small part of the open space. He added that 'he feels that berming and fencing will · help the appearance. It wa's clarified that this area. had been dedicated as open space with develop- ment of the' subdivision through Los Gatos, and Los Gatos has approved the tennis court. The Deputy City Attorney noted that the use permit would .be for the tennis court only; it would not allow 'any other or additional use. Commissioner Bolger moved to approve .UP-457, per Exhibi't B and the Staff Report dated February 1, 1983, amending' Condition No. 2 to read stucco instead of wood~and adding that the fence shall be shielded by vegetation on the exterior. Conditions 8 and 9 were also' added per the Staff memo of February 9, 1983. Commissioner Siegfried second~ed the motion. Commissioner Crowther moved to amend the motion to add a condition which says that access shall be from a foot bridge. across the creek connecting to the townhouse units. The amendment failed ~ue to lack of a second. The vote was taken on the motion to approve UP-457. The motion was carried 5-2, with Commissioners' Nellis and Crowther dissenting. 11. A-852 - Thomas Whitney, 14880 Sobey. Road, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second-story additon to a one-story single family dwelling at Sobey Road near Springbrook Lane in the R-I-40,000 zoning district It was directed that this item be continued to March 23, 1983. 12. A-853 - Kenneth J. Naber, 12460 Ted Avenue, 'Request for Design tieview Approval to construct a second story addition to a one story single family dwelling at Ted Avenue near Zorka Avenue in the R-l-10,000 zoning district It was directed that thi's item be continued to February 23, 1983. 13. A-854 - Eugene and Jane Zambetti, 26680 Marion Road, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a one-story single family dwelling which exceeds the standard floor area at 20680 Marion Road (near Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road) in. the R- 1 - 12,500 zoning district It was reported that the applicant has requested a continuance. It was directed that this item be continued to February 23, 1983. MISCELLANEOUS 14. A-831 - Steven Sciallabba, 12501 Wo0dside Drive, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two'~story'addition to an existing one- s'tory dwelling (Referral from City Council) Staff discussed th~ background of the proposal, stating that under the new De- sign Review Ordinance the variance is not needed. Staff indicated that they are unable to make all of the findings o.f the new ordinance and recommend denial. The findings were discussed. A letter from a neighbor in opposition was noted into the' 'reCord. .. No One appeared to address the Commission on this matter. Commissioner Siegfried moved.to deny A-831 per the Staff Report dated January 28, 1983. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion,' which was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner Nellis commented that he m~'ght have been able to vote for this application if there W~s ~ someone at the' meeting to answer questions regarding his concerns, i.e. the glass doors or wi·ndows· in the r~e_ar of the home as they relate to the privacy impact on the rear lots and if .'~.~i~ja_'p.p~l'~'c~nt's '_n.e'eds', ~ could ha~e been accomplished by adding on to the 'firs't story only'~ .! Staf~'~tated that the applicant had been notified' of the date of the meeting. The 10-day appeal period was noted. P~anning Commission Page 7 Meeting Minutes 2/9/83 15. Tracts 5575 and 6722, Carnelian Glen, Referral from City CoUncil for Consideration of Abandonment of Equestrian/Pedestrian Easement Chairman Schaefer explained the history of this matter. She noted that correspondence had just been' received from Mr. Rodriquez and his attorney. The petitions received in favor of retention and abandonment were noted. The Deputy City Attorney explained that thi's 'is a planning matter that the Council has referred to the Commission. The Commission is not being asked to make legal det'erminations as to whether it is or is not now an equestrian and pedestrian easement. He 'stated that he believes wh'at the City Council is looking for is the 'advice from the Commission as to what they think it ought tO be,' wh.ether' it 'should be continued as pedestrian use, discontinued, abandoned, or just 'close'd without abandoning it if the' Commission feels the obligation to maintain it may be too great. He indicated that he is not in a position to respond to the letter from Mr. Rodriqu~z' attorney at this time; however, it is his understanding that no homeowners association has been created that is responsible for.maintenance of that'easement and there are apparently no CC&Rs. He added that, that being the case, the obligation to maintain would be that of the' City. It'was clarified that the issue had arisen in connection with the design review' on the 4 lots and in each case it was made clear that the easement is to be preserved and designated as an equestrian-pedestrian easement. Ralph Rodriquez, 14578 Carnelian Glen Court, stated that at the time of design review he had clarified that when he bought the lot the easement was not designated as equestrian-pedestrian but specifically was stated as equestrian. He cited the history of the easement. He commented that the 16 property owners in that area are requesti.ng that it be abandoned since they do not use it. He added that they have had a lot .of problems and if the City decides that they want to have it as a.pedestri. an easement they should maintain it. Alex Minicucci, 14539 Carnelian Glen, concurred with Mr. Rodriquez' comments. He added that some legal problems need to be addressed if it is going to be retained. Annette Woolsey, 19952 Durham'Court, spoke in favor of retaining the easement. She indicated that it is an asset to th'e neighborhood; there have no security dangers with the path, and it should be' retained to keep t. he rural nature of the area. She noted that in the new General Plan it states that open space and recreation areas along the bank of Wildcat Creek should be preserved. She commented that school children would have to use a very busy street if it were abandoned. Sally Pastre, 14230 Douglas, spoke in favor of retention of the easement and agreed with Mrs. Woolsey's comments. Gary Hansen, owner of Lot #2, stated that the issue is maintenance. He expressed the view that if there is going to be an easement it should be adjacent to the creek where there are no homes. He suggested that the ease- ment, if retained, should be retained only on an interim basis until the pro- perty to the' West is developed. When that property is brought in for develop- ment they ~o~l=~.i-d~a~e~an easement along the creek. He stated that if the City decides that it is a pedestrian easement then they have the obligation to clean and maintain it on a permanent ba!sis. He added that he does not feel that it has ~o be paved; just gravel or grade it and maintain 'it so poison oak doesn't grow. The language on the map regarding this easement was discussed, and it was deter- mined that the language was intended to allow the owners of this land to cross the easement for the purpose of'getting access to their lot. Lin Weber, 12881 River Ranch Circle, sp~ke in support of maintaining any ease- ment that has been in common usage as a. pedestrian easement. Mary'Missakian, 14170 Squirrel Hollow Lane, spoke in favor of keeping the easement. She indicated that a valuable link between Montalvo and West Valley College for foot traffic would be lost'. Commissioner Crowther'commented that in'some respect he sympathizes with the people building new homes in this area' because he feels that the easement runs very close to the houses. He added that he' thinks the basic problem is that the density of the homes being built is .too high, and it is difficult to 7 Planning Commission Page 8 ~Meeting Minutes 2/9./8.3 Tracts 5575 and 6722 (cont.) maintain trails and easements. wi'th thi's kind of density. He 'added that he feels Mr. Hansen's comments are 'very good, and in the 'future wh'en the property to the west is 'developed it might"be' possible 'to relocate the easement along the creek and solve some 'of the problem~.~.' He added that if the City abandons the easement they' would not have that option. He indicated that he would not be in favor of abandoning the easement at this time; however, he feels that the City will have 'to work wi'th :the 'res'i'dents to solve their prob'lems with this trail where 'it is and work with ~them to get adequate fencing and keep it from being disruptive. Staff noted' that it was their understanding that a letter has been written to the developers of the Spaich property, asking them to dedicate an easement to the City; .however, there has been no response. Commissioner ttlava stated that she feels that this issue goes a little bit further than this particular equestrian-pedestrian pathway, that is, the whole idea of the trails system in the City. She indicated that there are easements dedicated for different kinds of trails.throughout the City that were originally intended to be part of some sort'of a master plan. She noted that the new General Plan says that the City supports the trails system, and she does not feel that the City can go on a piecemeal basis nullifying easements and doing away with part of the trails system. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would opt to maintain it from a planning standpoint, although he sympathizes considerably with the citizens who live on Carnelian.Glen. He st'ated that he felt it should be maintained with the thought of relocating it in the future. He added that he feels if the City is going to keep it the'y have to decide'to maintain. it. Commissioner McGoldrick .stated that she would like to see more homeowner organi- zation input into this problem. She indicated that s.he sympathizes with the people in the area but agrees that the matter should not be done in a piecemeal fashion. She 'added that she could not vote for abandonment but does agree with Mr. Hansen's idea of relocation. Commissioner Nellis commented that he sympathizes with the people in the area; however, on a land use decision basis he would have to vote to maintain the trail. Commissioner Crowther moved to recommend to the' City Council that this easement not be abandoned and that the City take. action to work with the citizens of the area tha~ have requested abandonment to solve the problems that they raised. He added that the City Council should be informed that the Planning Commission, in the future when the property to the we'st comes in for development, will consider relocating the easement if feasible to solve some of the problems that have been addressed. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. It was noted that a resolution will be prepared for adoption at the next meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Oral 1. Deb Parton, of Mina-Tree Signs, Inc., agent for Wells Fargo Bank, addressed the Commission, asking for reconsideration. of the design review approval A-850,-~which was denied at the last Planning Commission meeting. She indicated that there was a misinterpretation on the 'Staff Report in regards to the proposal. She explained that in' actuality there is only one sign b'eing requested instead of two, and it is in conformance with the sign ordinance. Ms. Parton indicated that she was not aware that she should have been in attendance at the meet'ing. Commissioner Siegfried moved to .reconsider applica- tion A-850. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 6-0, with Commissioner McGoldrick abstaining since she was not present at the meeting. Ms. Parton was advised that the item will be agendized and she will be notified. 2. Discussion was held .on an informal preliminary meeting with Owen Develop- ment regarding the site on the. corner of Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue. It was determined that the 'City Council will be informed of what Commissioners will attend, and the date Will be set in the near future. 3. The League of California Cities meeting in Monterey on March 2-3-4 was discussed. ~ - 8 - .Pt=~ning Commission 9 Page 9 '~ .=..~Bllee'ting Minutes 2/9./83 ~ 4. City Council - Commissioner Nellis gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on February 2, 19~3. A copy .of the minutes o'f that meeting is' ~on file in the City Administration Office. 5. Chairman Schaefer thanked Councilmember' Fanelli'!.a~'~'.'.'~h~'..~"S.~.r'~t~'~'~"'News for attending and the 'Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT COmmissioner Bolger moved to adj'ourn the meeting. Commissioner Siegfried s'ecOnded the motion, which 'was ca'rried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at' 11: 25 p .m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary RSS:~d