Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .DATE: Wednesday, May 11, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis and Schaefer (Commissioner Bolger left meeting at 8:35 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners Crowther and Siegfried Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of April 27, 1983: On page 1, the first sentence under GPA-83-1-A should read: "Chairman Schaefer noted the previous hearings and study session on this matter, and indicated that this Hearing had been scheduled to be the final public hearing." On Page 2, the second paragraph should read: "Chairman Schaefer summarized the changes that have been made in the element, i.e., eli.minating anything suggesting that the City would waive fees; eliminating sugge:stions regarding increasing density in order to allow more affordable housing, .and eliminating anything suggesting discrimination. She added that the Commission realizes that there is a demand for senior citizen housing and they would welcome input on this. She indicated that .there was a general consensus to approve some kind of second units on some kind of lots, to be determined. She mentioned that there would have to be many guidelines, i.e., one unit owner occupied; the parking would have to be on premise, and the line of homes may not change from the front so that it would not impact a neighborhood." Commissioner McGoldrick moved to waive the reading of the minutes of April 27, 1983 and approve as amended. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR Items No. 1 and 2 on the Consent Calendar were removed for discussion. Commis- sioner Bolger moved to approve Item No. 3 on the Consent Calendar listed below. COmmisSioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 3. Krajeska, 13945 Vista Regina, Request for Site Modification Approval to construct a single story addition located in the Calabazas Geologic Study Zone Discussion followed on Item'No. 1, SDR-1537. It was noted the word "are" should be added to the second sentence on page 1 of the Staff Report. It was also determined that there should be a period after "Remove existing kitchen facilities"' in Condition VIII-B. Regarding Item 2, Blackwell Homes, Commissioner Hlava noted the discrepancy in the total acreage shown between the tentative map and the final parcel map. She stated that she understood that it is because part of the road has been removed, but she wanted the record to show the reason. The project engineer clarified that there is about ½ acreIj= of land between the two cul-de-sacs Shown on the tentative map that became part 'of the common area open space on the final map. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve Items 1 and 2 on the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 1. SDR-1537 - Cross Missakian, Bonnie Brae, 1 lot, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval 2. Blackwell Homes, Tract 6628, Parker Ranch Court and Star Ridge Court, Request for Lot Line Adjustment P~ann:-ing tommiss ion Page 2 Meeting Minutes 5/11/83 PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. SD-1512 Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval for a 5-lot subdivi- sion for a site off Herriman Avenue near River Ranch Circle in the R-1-12,500 zoning district (and Negative Declaration) Chairman Schaefer gave the history of the application, noting the various options that have been discussed regarding the access. She also noted the concerns that have been cited, i.e., noise, privacy, need for additional landscaping and consideration of the creek. Staff described the proposal, commenting that if the Commission is to approve this development they must make an exception to the policy relative to cul-de-sacs in excess of 400 feet. They added that the Commission must also make the finding that there-is no other feasible method of developing to allow for that length of a cul-de-sac. Staff reported that they recommend denial of the application, inasmuch as there is an alternate develop- ment possible using a through road connecting .Alta Vista to Herriman. The correspondence received on the project was noted, including a letter from the engineer indicating that, as a further mitigation to the traffic and noise rela- tive to the parcel on River Ranch Circle, the applicant proposes to build a sound wall rather than a chain link fence and the granting of landscape ease- ments between that wall and the properties. Chairman Schaefer stated that another consideration would be that if t'here were approval, an easement should at least be considered for a future through road or future emergency access when the remainder of the property is developed in the future. The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. Dr. Allen Coryell, Director of Administ~ativ~ Services for the High School District, discussed the financial situation of the district and gave the rea- sons why the district wants to develop this property. .: Mrs. Jean Ernst', a parent volunteer, addressed the way the district has tried to cope with the cutbacks. She stated that she feels strongly that the.dis- trict desperately needs the money that is going to be generated by the sale of this property to maintain the quality of the school'programs. Bill Heiss, project engineer', described the site and gave a presentation on the project. FIe addressed the access of the project and noted that an easement will be set aside for future access to t.he Miner property. He referenced the letter submitted addressing the proposed sound wall and the easement to be offered to adjacent owners on River Ranch Circle. LIe stated that the school district has'discussed the project with these homeowners. He urged the Commis- sion to make the finding that the 'cul.-de-sac is the logical way to develop the property, stating that it is a reasonable compromise. He added that they are setting forth the easement for the emergency access road at this time. Bert Altman, school board member, spoke in favor of the project, stating that the school district needs the funds from it. Richard Ohren, River Ranch Circle, spoke' in opposition to the project as pro- posed, commenting that there are still problems regarding privacy, noise and security.' He stated that they were being asked to give up property values which are basically not evaluated at this time for the benefit of a school district who is putting the burden of financial responsibility essentially on the five homeowners on River Ranch and also on the people on J'erries. He sug- gested that the access be off of Alta ViSta. Len Weber, 13881 River Ranch Circle, stated that he did not object to the development of the property, but feel strongly that it should be done in a manner that is consistent with the existing homes. He cited loss of privacy and concerns regarding security, noise and headlights at night as problems. He added that he feels that the proposed egress will be very dangerous because of the great deal of traffic now on Herriman. He indicated that he has seen no opposition to the access off of Alta Vista at the meetings. Marilyn Wetterholt, 14054 Alta Vista, stated that they have the same concerns as the people on River Ranch, i.e., noise, security and loss of privacy. She added that if the Miner property develops later there will be additional .traffic on Alta Vista, and she feels that the burden of the traffic should be shared. - 2 -' P_?ann~g C"ommiss ion Page 3 Meeting Minutes 5/11/83 - SD-1512 (cont.) Donald Warren, trustee of the school dis.trict, pointed out that this land is zoned residential and he feels that the district has gone overboard in trying to comply with the wishes of the landowners adjacent to the property. 'Cindy Rockwood, 20445 Williams, expreSse'd concern about additional traffic on Williams. She noted that there is a great deal of traffic now and cars park on the street from the school. She added that they were conce'rned about the safety of the children. Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Nellis expressed his concern regarding the proposed minimum access road which backs up to the rear yards of five homes on River Ranch. He com- mented that he feels that the present prpposa! is a big improvement over the previous one and alleviates much of the concern. He pointed out that only two of the homeowners that are impacted have spoken and he would n6t like to make a decision at this time. FIe indicated that he is not prepared to make an excep- tion for the cul-de-sac in excess of 400 feet at this point and would like to look more closely at a map wi'th access off of Alta Vista. He recommended that the item be continued to a study session. or public hearing in order to allow the Commission time-to again review 'the map showing that access and also to give the residents an opportunity to provide their input relative to the latest proposal. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she feels very strongly that she would not like to see a through road from Herriman through Alta Vista;'she agrees with Ms. Wetterholt that the burden should be shared. She added that she is also opposed to an access from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, since it is already dangerous around Walnut and Williams. She commented that she sympathizes with the neigh- bors of River Ranch Circle and is concerned about the cul-de-sac, but sees no other feasible way to develop this property. Commissioner Hlava stated that she also cannot make the finding that the access is feasible from Alta Vista. She added that she sympathizes with the neighbors but also feels that the school district has certainly made every possible con~ cession to try to minimize the impact on the neighbors on River Ranch. She commented that she feels that the impact on the people on Jerries will be minimal. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels this is a better plan than the others presented for'developing on the creek side, since it is further away from the homes in the back. She indicated that' she feels there have been attempts made at trying to mitigate the concerns. She added that the Commission realizes that traffic, noise and safety are very major issues and adding any kind of traffic to any street is a problem. However, the Commission has to weigh the consideration that if someone owns a piece of property and they meet the zoning, they have the right to develop that property. Staff suggested that if the Commission wishes to approve this application they may want to add conditions to the Staff Report relative to those contained in the letter from Mr. Heiss dated May 10th concerning the sound wall and the ease- ment to the adjoining property, the provision for a private road maintenance agreement to be executed prior to final map, and dedication and improvement of the secondary access, as determined by the City Engineer. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SD-1S12. Com- missioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commis- sioner Bolger dissenting. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve SD-1S12, per Exhibit "B-2" and the findings and conditions for approval listed in the Staff Report dated May S, 1983, with the additional conditions mentioned previously by Staff. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioner Bolger and Nellis dissenting. Commissioner Bolger commented that he concurs with the Staff findings for denial on this application. The 10-day appeal period was noted. (Commissioner Bolger left at 8:35 p.m. after discussion of this application.) - 3 - P'lannk-ing dommiss ion Page 4 .; Meeting Minutes 5/11/83 5. V-541 -.J. Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way (Maddalena's), Request for Variance Approval from the parking requirements described in Section 11.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for .a restaurant/retail sales in the C-C · (Community Commercial) zoning district (near 3rd Street); continued from April 13, 1983 The Deputy City Attorney indicated that he had obtaine_d Co~p.ies of the ordinance lie stated that the Commission can either vote on V-541 or"cOnt'in~e the matter and consider this ordinance independently of any action they may take. He explained the concept of the in lieu fees ordinance. He commented that if the Commission wishes to pursue the matter of the ordinance it could be scheduled for a study session, at which time options can be presented. He noted that, as far as the-variance application for Maddalena's is concerned, it would be impossible to determine what the in lieu fees would be at this time. Discussion followed on the calculation and payment of the fees. The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.·m. Doug Adams, attor. ney for the applicant, Fc~m~ted"'t'h~t~'lY~ -'is 'Ho~efu~ '.tHat o~dinance. He indicated that he would like to have a continuance from that standpoint and that a continuance would not be a hardship on the applicant. There was a consensus to c6ntinue V-541 .for six months until November 9, 1983, during which time a study session will be scheduled to discuss the possibility of writing an ordinance for in lieu fees. for parking. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that the ordinance could be adopted independently of the Village · Specific Plan. 6. A'-869 - Anita and'Duane Foster, 18314 Baylor, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second story addition to an existing single story dwelling in the R-l-10,000 zoning district Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land.Use Committee report, indicating that the applicants have a lovely back yard and she could see a great hardship with adding a single story addition, even if the setbacks allowed it. CommissiOner Hlava added that the problem with the site, as the Staff Report point. s ~ut, is. t~_e_ pri~..v.a~y aspect.* 'She 'explained that the proposed addition additional trees in their planter to screen the adjacent neighbors. It was noted that the applicant has said that t. hey would be willing to reorient the addition so that the proposed balcony would be in front of the house. The windows in the addition were discussed, and it was noted that the applicant · "--wO.uld be willing t_o use skylighting or other alternatives. Staff described the proposal, stating that they were unable to make the findings and were recommending denial. The petitions received for and against the pro- ject were noted. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Les Strahm, 18314 Baylor, stated that he was the son-in-law of Mrs. Foster and gave a presentation on the·project: He 'indicated that they are willing to do everything necessary to maintain the privacy for the neighbor behind them, such as planting trees, diffuse lights, .small windows. Harvey .SandC~·'·18301 Purdue Drive, submitted additional signatures and a letter in opposition. He also submitted pictures and expressed concern about their privacy. He commented that he was against two-stories in the tract and explained that the existing two-stories and converted garages in the area were built without notice to the neighbors before their annexation. B.ill Notz, 18276 Purdue, noted that he· 2is President of the Sunland Park Home- owners Association. He commented that their Steering Committee had voted overwhelmingly to ask the Commission to deny this request. He cited the following reasons: (1) impact on the pri·vacy of the neighbors, (2) setting a trend in the neighborho·od', (3) the size jis in·compatible with the neighborhood, · and (4) possib·il'ity of conversion into a second living unit. Virginia Notz stated that she felt it would be impossible to screen out a second story by planting additional trees.. ~In the area where you would want to put an addition they already have a spa installed and a raised deck. - 4 - ,.PSlann~ng Cornmiss ion Page 5 'Meeting Minutes 5/11/83 A- 869 (cont.)_ Lewis ~'Vest, the designer, described the'height of the proposed addition and the planned landscaping. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried Unanimously. Commissioner Nel'lis commented that the ordinance speaks .t.o. ma.king findings; that is not to Say the Commission should .n~.t"be Sen~'it:ive t'o'the 'nei'.ghl~or'S" .-:' "--w_i. St!eS-, .'[~'Ut"'th"aF.~'_i~ not addressed in the ordinance per 'se." H'e"st'ated that he feels as Planning CommisSioners there i~ an obligation to vote on what the ordinance says and fit that into the situation. ite added that there are five findings that must be made for approval; He noted that there is only one other two story in the .immediate area and only three in the entire Sunland Park tract, all of which were added onto prior to annexation. He commented that the second story is not compatible with the other homes in the tract, in terms of height or bulk. I-te added that a ground floor expansion is the typical way that the homeowners in Sunland Park have added to their living space, and it is the way he would like to see these applicants meet their additional needs. FIe indicated that any additional landscaping for screening purposes will only serve to make everyone feel that they have become wailed in and may. be detrimental 19. any solar panels that are existing.'.. "~le"ad'dad't'hat he cannot support .the' 'fwo'st6'ry'. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she did not agree regarding the findings; she feels that the Commission has made exceptions in other areas where people have proven that they want to stay in Saratoga, and it is a hardship to extend their first floor. She noted, however, that the majority of the people in Sunland are opposed to a second story; therefore, she could not support the application. Commissioner Itlava stated that she feels very torn about this because she certainly can appreciate that the applicants do need more room; these are small houses. However, the whole of Sunland is on smaller than average lots, which makes a second story addition look even bigger. She added that there are definite privacy problems, and the Commission has made compatibility findings in areas where there were a few other two-stories because it was apparent that an entire neighborhood was ready to build two-stories and they had lots big enough to accommodate them. She explained that this does not appear to be the situation here; these are small lots. She indicated that she cannot make the findings and. agree's:"'w'it'h the Staff Report regarding privacy and compatibility. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels that this is a land use decision; she likes to listen to the neighbors bu,t also likes to use her judgment. She indicated that she personally likes variety in homes so she does not feel that every home has to be the same height. :She added that wh. en determining com- patibility she sometimes looks at the f'uture direction of a neighborhood, as Commissioner Hlava mentioned. She commented that some neighborhoods are going toward two-stories; however, she does not see that here. She added that she is very concerned about privacy and she feels that if this were taken to a study session mitigating measures could be made, since the applicant has very strongly said that they. are very willing to work out a solution. She stated that i~"i't i's"'not'g'6i~g to-a' st~dy.'s'ess'ion ghe would-~iave to-Vote to den'y'j and encourage"'the applicant to either work with the neighbors, come back with a .different or smaller design, or appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Nellis moved to deny A-869, per the Staff Report dated May 3, 1'983. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. The 10-day appeal period was noted. 7. A-872 Ray Sinsley, Lot #1, Tract Z#6528, Farr Ranch Road, Request for Design Review'Approval to construct a two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district The proposal was described by Staff, and they stated that they were recommend- ing approval. The. public hearing was opened at 9:15 p.m. Jack McCarthy, the designer, gave a presentation on the project. .Commissioner Nellis moved to close the 'public hearing. Commissioner t-.Ilava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. - 5 - ~P!anr~ng Commission " Page 6 M~eting Minutes 5/11/83 A- 872 (cont.) Commissioner Nellis moved to approve A-872, per Exhibits "B" and "C" and the Staff Report dated May 8, 1983. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. 8. A-875 - Michael Layne,' Lot #1, Tract 6632, Montalvo Road (near entrance to Villa Montalvo), Request .for Design Review Approval to construct a structure over 22' in height which is less than 10' from an existing structure in the R-i-40,000 zoning district The public hearing was opened at 9:20 p.m. No one appeared to address the Com- mission. It wa's directed that thi's be continued to the meeting of May 25, 1983, at the request of the applicant. Break 9:20 - 9:35 p.m. 9a. A-878 Joseph and Patricia Bailey, 12861 Foothill Lane (near Pierce 9b. V-607 Road), Request for Variance-.and Design Review Approval to con- struct a structure '.over 22' in height which is less than 10' from an existing structure in the R-i-40,000 zoning district The proposal was described by Staff, who indicated that they were recommending approval of both applications. The letters from the neighbors in support were noted. The public hearing was opened at 9:36 p.m.. Patricia Bailey, the applicant, submitted copies of the solar plan. It was directed that this matter be continued to May 25, 1983, so that the design review 'may be noticed in the paper. 10. V-608 - Mr. and Mrs. Alberto, 20036"Charters Court, Request for Variance Approval to construct an addition which maintains a 25' rear yard setback where 35 ' is required in the R-l- 12,500 zoning district Staff explained the project and noted the letters received in opposition. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report. She Stated that she felt that it would be difficult to put an addition in the front because the bulk of thi.S= lot is toward the back and the front ~of "~he~-h'.ou~"e.'i's· lO¥~lY"."'=.~ ~h~'.~'d~'ed ~H..a~.~'~!i~F h'ou~-e' now '~crOaChes, and.'~She ~e.~--'fha~..'..'i~'t' Wo"Uld'Fbe difficult= t~"']5'~H'l-~% an addition without a variance. The public hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m. Bob Alberto, the applicant, addressed the 'project, stating that they had invited the neighbors over to see the plans. Commissioner Schaefer expressed concern that this nonconforming single story would be approved and at a later date someone may build a second-story addi- tion to it, adding to the nonconformance. She also added that she was c6nce'rned about setting .a precedent. Susan Alberto submitted a letter from a neighbor in support of the project. She commented that they have no intention of adding a second-story to the proposed one-story addition. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick stated..~hat if this were a single-story house and bed- rooms ~'r~.n~6'ded"for'~exp'~nd'ing'..fa~Yl.d..~s,..~o~ if she could see a real need, she could see a reason for approving a variance for the setback. She agreed that an addition in the front would spoil the effect of the house. She commented that she would have to deny the' variance and hope that the applicant would come back with a smaller addition so that it. would present less of a problem. Commissioner Nellis stated that He~'~..~'~..i,~'~'C~~abl'e wi.th making the findings, as listed in the Staff Report.' It was clari.fied to Robert Aviles, the designer, that the variance is needed because 'the proposed .structure does not'meet the policy that allows a non- conforming structure to extend into the setbacks 100 sq. ft. - 6 - P!.'~nn~ C6mmiss ion Page '7 .Meeting Minut'es 5/11/83 V.-608 (cont.) Commissioner Hlava moved to approve V-608, making the findings in the Staff Report dated May 3, 1983, per Exhibits "B" and "C" Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which resulted in a 2-2 vote, with Commissioners Schaefer' and McGoldrick dissenting. It was explained to the applicant that they have the choice of continuing the item to the 'next meeting when there will be a fuller Commission, or they can 'appeal to the City Council at the present :~ime. Mr. Av·ites indicated that the applicant would li-ke to continue the matt6r 'until the next meeting, May 25, 1.983. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that the·iapplicant discuss the matter with the neighbors and try'to reach agreement. She stated that her concern was the back neighbors' privacy, and therefore she would like the addition closer 'within the setbacks. '. : Commissioner Hlava apoligized to the applicants for not having a full Commission at this meeting. She explained that one Commissioner is on a three-week vaca- tion, and the other two are just not pre.~ent. MISCELLANEOUS 11. SDR-1527 William Johnson, 2-lot subdivision at 18935 Monte Vista, Request for Clarification and/or Re6onsiderati·on of Condition 11-4 Chairman. Schaefer reported that this matter had bee.n. continued in order to receive a letter from the Central Fire District regarding the width of the private access road. She indicated that the letter has been received, which states that their requirement ·is a 20 ft. width. She noted that questions of concern were trying to maintain a rural atmosphere and the safety issue, as · expressed by the Fire District. Staff gave the history of the issue. They .noted that the applicant has pro- vided a sketch showing the road; hOwe·ver, it does not provide sufficient detail to determine if there are impediments. Staff again recommended that the Com- mission maintain the requirement for the minimum access road from E1 Camino Grande to the Johnson driveway. · Dr. Johnson·, the applicant, reiterated that all of the neighbors unanimously urge. that the small country road atmosphere be maintained. He described the sketch he had made of the road and the surrounding streets. He asked about the Heritage Lane Ordinance as it may pertain to this issue. It was clarified that there had been a discussion of a creation of such .an_ord_~.nance, focused primarily at public streets, so they would not be :widened to 40 :ft'-. with curb and gutter, etc., in order to reta. in a more country and 'historic heritage type feeling. It was clarified that, while it was the intention to not improve them to the full. standards, they would be improved to some minimum width. It was noted that that ordinance never came into effect, nor was there a list of heri- tage lanes completed. Commissioner Hlava commented that the Commission is concerned about setting any kind of precedent and they don't want to completely change the rules; how- ever, they appreciate the problem of the~applicant and neighbors. She asked if there wa~ a possibility to have a condition for a Deferred Improvement Agree- ment which would require the applicant to wi·den the road at such time as eit·her E1 Camino Grande is also widened, or the applicant sells his property. Staff commented that the point is well made that some of the public streets in the area are not full width; however, they do not believe that adding to that inventory is appropriate. They strongly advised against it because they feel it would. set a'precedent. Staff stated that such 'requests have been made before and they can think of no instance where the requirements have been waived. Commissioner Hlava commented that she was not talking about waiving the require- ments; She was talking about when they might be done. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the further problem is that when the City normally'has Deferred Improvement Agreements it has been based upon a circum- st'ance which is quite likely to occur. He added that if the conditioning is that the road is widened only when E1 Camino Grande is widened, that situation may never occur. Commissioner Sch·aefer commented that she wo'uld be in favor of a road 18 ft. -. 7 - ~P~i~an~j~ng ~,ommission " "~ Page 8 M~eeting Minutes 5/11/83 SDR-1527 (cont.) wide without curb and gutters, sin'C'6'sheTdO6"~':feel it is a dangerous road. Staff clarified that there are no curbs' and gutter required. Commissioner Nellis stated that he feels that the Commission is getting very strong .a~'d.?s.o.und '~dv.~"~".e' f.~m ~'taff.' He"': adde.d.' that he is concerned about setting a precedent and he feels there is a safety issue involved. He indicated that he feels the condition should remain as stated. Commissioner Schaefer commented that the Commission must weigh the fact that there are lawsuits against the City when safety issues are not implemented. Commissioner Hlava moved to maintain Condition 11-4 as stated, requiring a 20 ft. width for the minimum access road from E1 Camino Grande to the Johnson driveway. Commissioner Nellis seconded'the motion, which was carried 3-1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting. She explained that she dissented with the hope that there coul'd be some discussion about 18 feet total, as opposed to 20 feet total. Commissioner Schaefer commented that if the item is appealed to the City Council she would say that she also would prefer a com- promise, as compared to a total of 20 feet. .'12'.' Heinz .~'(eusser, 22633 Mr. Eden Road, .Request for Site Modification Approval to 'c'o'nst'ruct a barn in the Calabazas Geologic Study Zone Cha~'rman Schaefer explained the request; The conditions of the City Geologist on this application were discussed. He.inz Reusser, the applicant, asked the Commission to either waive or reduce the conditions. He stated that he was perfectly willing to release the City of all liability'.. He explained that he is aware of the condition of the site. He described the.plans for the barn and the use of it for housing horses. He noted that the slide is dormant and has been for a long time. He described the cost of the geological study, and asked that the geological work be restrict- ed to the actual area where the barn is 'built. Chairman Schaefer stated that the concern is that the structure is intended as a horse barn, but it might become a habitable structure. She asked the Deputy City .Attorney regarding the viability of a hold harmless agreement. The Deputy City Attorney stated that there have been previous-agreements and they have run with the land, and it is his recommendation that they be recorded so subsequent owners are on notice of the agreement. He 'noted that in this situation the requirements are from the City Geologist, and he is the one that should be asked in terms of the waiver. Sta'ff pointed out that there is an ord. i~ance that speaks to any structure, so any waiver would have to go to the City Council. They commented that the ordi- nance does not distinguish between habitable and nonhabitable structures. The option of sending a recommendation to. the City Council regarding modification of the ordinance was discussed. Commissioner Hlava commented that she does not feel that she is willing to make waivers. in any situation 'on any st'ructures in the hillsi'deS .e~peCi]allv after-the'occUrrences this year Commissioner Neliis suggested that one option might be that the applicant dis- cuss the report again with the City Geolog. ist to see if he would consider perhaps minimizing or deleting some of the recommendations in terms of the study required. The Deputy City Attorney pointed out that the City Geologist can only consider the type of testing that he might want to require; he does not have the authority to change the .ordinance. Mr. Reusser pointed out that his geological study must be approved by the ' City Geologist; therefore, he may have to spend $6,000 to $8,000 and still not get approval in order to build the barn, He noted' that his neighbor, the Garrod Ranch, has built many structures in that area. He questioned why he should pay this fee and they do not~ He added that he does not understand why his specific lot is more prone to any slide potential than the surrounding area that is included in the same Pd zone. Staff commented that the City is not aware that these structures. are being built within the City by the Carrod Ranch, since the City would interpret structures the same throughout the City= He noted that the ordinance is fairly new so some of the structures could have been constructed prior to the time of its existence. He added that if the construction is continuing they will inform the property owner that all of those items require not only geologic review but building permits. 8 P~.~an~img ~'ommiss ion Page 9 M~eting Minutes 5/11/83 Reusser (cont.) Mr. Reusser asked the Commissi'on to insp'ect the 'site, since he feels they will change their mind about the situation if they do. He described the site. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that if this issue had come 'up a year ago her feelings may have been different; howe've.r', after this winter she feels bound by the ordinance and the geologist"s rep:ort. Chairman Schaefer suggested that the Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council, stating that places that are for animals perhaps could fall into something different, and that there be hold harmless clauses to run with the property. Commissioner Hlava commented that during the writing of the Specific Plan there was a grea't deal of discussion regarding the idea of structures. She noted that it had been stated quite ~strongly that people wanted no structures, habitable or nonhabitable, built wi'thout' all of the necessary approvals. The Deputy City Attorney was asked about the City's liability if the requirements are waived and a slide occurs and the ba'rn collapses. He pointed out that the Commission does not have the discretion to not consider the horse barn a struc- ture, since in the ordinance it is clearly a structure. He indicated that the course of action should be to continue this matter if the Commission wishes, pending a review of the subject by the City Council. He stated that he did not feel that the Commission has much latitude to depart from the ordinance require- ments. He added that the only area he sees at all of possible discussion is with the City Geologist wi'th respect to the degree of testing he may require, not in terms of the ordinance but in terms of the geologic approach that he is asking for to satisfy his concer.ns on a technical basis. After further discussion, Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the site modifi- cation for the barn, per the Staff Report dated May 6, 1983, with the condition amended to read "Comply with the recommendation contained in the' letter from William Cotton & Associates dated 5/6/83, or as may be modified by Mr. Cotton." Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. The 10-day appeal period was noted. Chairman Schaefer stated that she feels the best solution to it would be to ]have some kind of separate change in the ordinance for inhabitable, as compared to noninhabitable, structures. COMMUNICATIONS Oral 1. The Commission discussed the absentee 'rate of the Planning Commissioners. It was noted that 'Commissioner Siegfried is on vacation for three weeks; however, other absentee' Commissioners are not calling in to alert that they will not be present. Chairman Schaefer pointed out that the request had been. made by several absentee Commissioners to have meetings two' nights in one week°and then they do not show up for either one of the meetings. She added that this is getting ~o be ratl~er discouraging, especially when it results in a 2-2 vote, and it also results perhaps in a change in vote with a different make up' of the whole Commis- sion. She stated that she fee'is that the applicants are put in a difficult position, not knowing whether to go ahead or request a. continuance at the last minute. She commented that all of the Commission works full time and have many commitments and give up thi'ngs to come to the meetings. S~e indicated that it is discouraging to have a wo'rk session and then have to repeat the material at the regular meeting. Staff reported that the City Council has requested a six-month report on Commis- sion absences, which will be going forward to them at the end of May. They stated that it was their understanding that the Mayor will then be in contact with those Commissioners who have an excessive number of absences, to determine whether they are interested in participating on the Commission. Commissioner Hlava expressed her feel that it is very unfair to those Commis- sioners who come to all of the meetings, go to all of the Land Use Committee meetings that they are asked to participate in, and basically are carryin~g the burden of the Commission. She commented that she hopes the Council will give that some thought. She added that there are many people in the City who would like to be 'on the Planning Commission, who would be willing to put in the time. She indicated that sh~ feels that it is unfortunate that people find out after they are appointed that they cannot participate, because of business conflicts or illness; however, it is not fair to the City to say they will take on the · responsibility and not carry it out. Chairman Schaefer noted that on difficult votes the 'lack of Commissioners is noticeable. Commissioner Nellis agreed, indicating that the two' major problems are that the public suffers and the Commission suffers when Commissioners are not at meetings and everything must - 10 ~,,ann~in~g.. G'ommission Page 10 M~eting Minutes 5/11/83 ~= Oral Communicat ions (cont.) be reDeated. Commissioner McGoldrick added that the two missing Commissioners tonight .have a point of view that she' does' not always agree with,' but one which she always wants to hear because they have som'e Very valid points. Chairman Schaefer agreed, stating that their point 'of view is missed because it gives a balanced Commission. Staff was requested to send the minutes of this discussion along.with their report to the' City Council. 2. Chairman Schaefer thanked the' S'a'r'atoga 'News for attending and the Good. Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commil..s. sioner Hlava moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the 7mofibn, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Re pe.ctf~lly bmitted, Secretary RSS:cd