HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, June 22, 1983 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 F:ruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, Nellis and Siegfried
(Commissioner Crowther arrived at 7:45 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioners McGoldrick and Schaefer
Minutes
!
The following correction was made to the minutes of. June 8, 1983: On page 2,
the tenth paragraph, the word "and" should be substituted for "but" Commis-
s'ioner Siegfried moved, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, to waive the reading'.
of the minutes of June 8, 1983 and approve as amended. The motion was carried
unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items No. 4 and 6 were removed for discussion. Commissioner Nellis moved to
approve the balance listed below. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which
was carried unanimously 4-0. It was clarified that, re the' one-year extension
for SDR-1S10, the applicant will have to reapply for the variance connected
with this project, since it has lapsed.
1. A-807 Calderone, 12651 Saratoga, Request for One-Year Extension of Design
Review Approval
2.8DR-1406 Krpata, 14024 Camino Bare0, Site Modification Approval to con-
struct a pool on a site of over 10% in slope
3. SDR-1510 Oudewaal, Saratoga Avenue, Request for One-Year Extension of
Tentative Building Site Approval, 1 lot
S. Delia, Tract 3860, Lot 8, Site Modification Approval to construct a spa,
decking, cabana and carport on a site of over 10% in slope
Discussion followed on Item No. 4, Nobriga. Jerry Butler, 15015 Vickery,
expressed opposition to the proposed stable. He stated that there should have
been a public notice for the corner lot. tte noted that in the CC&Rs it states
that no livestock can be kept on these lots, and this application is noncon-
forming to the neighborhood. He added that if approved it would be inhumane
because there is no room for a corral. .Mr. Butler commented that he plans to
build a home on the property across the 'road and he feels this project would
depreciate his property. Staff commented that this item is before the Commis-
sion because of the Subdivision Ordinance and does not require public noticing.
They added that they do not believe that the CC&Rs referenced include the
Nobriga parcel and that the sketch shows that the corral and stable do meet the
required setbacks.
Commissioner Siegfried gave a Land Use dommittee Report, stating that they had
measured the setbacks and they do conform. Commissioner Nellis added that there
is some very attractive landscaping going in along the perimeter of the corral
along Vickery which will minimize the visual impact of the horses.
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve Item 'No. 4, Nobriga, Site Modification
Approval. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unani-
mously 4-0. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would agree with Mr. Butler
that it is a very small barn area and the proposed corral is the most that
could be put on this site, given all the' setbacks. He commented that at some
time the Commission should consider' at a:study session if that is an appropri-
ate use; it seems that it is not an equestrian property but there is nothing
in the ordinance that would dictate voting against it.
Discussion followed on Item No. 6, Rutherford. Staff noted that the Staff
Report was prepared prior to receipt of the final report of the City Geologist,
- 1 -
· ~Pla~ing Commiss ion Page 2
"Minutes Meeting 6/22/83
Rutherford (cont.)
and he had not indicated to 'Staff that there was going to be a recommendation.
other than for approval. They commented that the City Geologist's report
suggests that it not be approved until geotechnical investigations have been
completed. They noted that the Commission has two' options: (1) continue the
matter'until geotechnical reports have been received and approved, or (2) approve
it on the condition that these investigations be satisfactorily completed.
Commissioner Hlava clarified that this project is at the foot of Michaels Drive
as opposed to where the landslides were'this winter. There was a consensus to
approve the item and condition it.
Commissioner Nellis moved to approve Item No. 6, Ruth. erford, Site Modification
Approval, with the condition that the geotechnical investigations recommended
in the City Geologist's letter dated June 16, 1983 be satisfactorily completed.
Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. GPA-83-1-A - Consideration of Draft.Housing Element of the City of Saratoga
'and 'EnVironmental Imp'a'Ct"'
Staff reported that the corrections made at the last study session have been
submitted to the 'Commission, along with the resolution recommending approval to
the City Council. Minor corrections were noted on pages 41 and 70.
The public hearing was opened at 7:48 p.m. No one appeared to address the
Commission. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Com-
missioner Hlava se'conded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Nellis stated that he feels comfortable with the revised Housing
Element. He noted that, due to the Sunland Park survey and the annexation of
Sunland Park, the City was able to provide for the very low and low income
households as agreed to by the City Council, and he feels it is important that
the public recognizes that. He added that the Commission has tried very hard
to listen to the public's wishes and draft a Housing Element that reflects the
wishes and desires of this City, and he .feels that they have done that. He
moved to approve Resolution GPA-83-1-A, recommending the revised Housing Ele-
ment to the City Council. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was
carried 4-0, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining since he was not present at
the last study session.
8. V-609 Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road (near Sperry Lane), Request for Vari-
ance Approval to construct a masonry wall over 6 feet in height
and to construct solar panels in the required side yard in the
R-I-40,000 zoning district
Staff explained the project. They commented that they could not make the
findings regarding the variance for the fence and recommend denial; however,
they are able to make the findings for t.he solar setbacks. They stated that
they have found that, wh'ile the amount Of impervious coverag.e on the site is
not in excess,' it is at the borderline of the 100 sq. ft. th:at· is. allowed.
They added that the applicant has stated that the panels can be placed without
exceeding that 100 sq. ft. coverage. The new correspondence from neighbors
in support of the application was noted.
The public hearing was opened at 7:51 p'.~.
Randy Hess, the attorney for the applicant, addressed the fence. He commented
that Mr. Renna had been told by City inspectors to backfill his property so
that it was raised 2-3' feet, and because of that backfilling the fence is now
6 ft. on his side and a little higher on the other side. He indicated that it
had.cost $45,000-50,000 to construct the' fence and it would be an extreme hard-
ship for the applicant. to reduce it.' Mr.. Hess discussed the findings, indicat-
ing that they could be made to grant the variance.
Discussion followed on the undeveloped corner lot between the fence and Sperry
Lane. It was clarified that this was not owned by Mr. Renna; however, he has
an agreement with the 'owner who had asked him to backfill that up to 8 feet,
and the fence will be '6 ft.' high when finished. It was noted that there is no
letter on file verifying that the fence is the height to which the neighbor
agreed, but Mr. Renna indicated that he would get one. Commissioner Siegfried
inquired about the 'lights on the wall and Mr. Renna indicated that they will be
~Plan~ing Commission '~ Page 3
~eeting Minutes 6/22/83
V-609 (cont.)
wall height only. Commissioner Nellis asked about the proposed landscaping
for the wall. The applicant described the proposed plantings on his side of
the wall. Commissioner N'ellis noted that when driving down Sobey Road the
masonry wall will still be quite visible.
Rosemary Haxim, owner of the property adjacent to the applicant, spoke in
opposition to the fence. She expressed the fact that no consideration had been
'~_e.~'. of her, and by the time the pool. and driveway are completed it will be
gr6atly'."over the allowable limit. Commissioner Nellis commented that if the
wall. were lowered to 6 feet it would s~.~.'ti' b'~'~'S~ib!.e"'t6.~,Is~.".H~'X:i~n. Additional
landscaping on her side was discussed.
Additional impervious surface was discus~sed. Commissioner Hlava asked if the
curved driveway was included in the calculations, and Staff indicated that they
would review the calculations. Staff reported that the fence had been red-
tagged when it was observed and the applicant's representative was told they
would have to come in for a site modification; however, the work then proceeded
to its completion.
Eugene Francis, 15091 Sobey Road, stated that h'e felt the fence is dominating
the house because it is so large, especially on the side by Sperry Lane. He
indicated that he felt Mr. Renna should abide by the zoning laws as others do.
Mr. Renna stated that he had abided by every law and the fence is 6 ft. high.
He added that h.e was told to backfill the property and was told after the wall
was completed that there was a problem. Staff noted that the applicant had
indicated that the fence is 8 ft. on one side and it is higher than that on the
south side. They added that the applicant had chosen to 'fill the swale, after
which it was negotiated to install a storm drain line so that he could utilize
the area. Mr. Renna disagreed, stating .that it had nothing to do with the swale.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
· Discussion followed on regulations regarding the lights on the wall. Commis-
sioner Crowther commented that if the wall is not over 6 ft. in height he would
be inclined to deny any variance related to it being over 6 ft.; any part over
6 ft. would have to come down. Staff stated that the applicant has indicated
that it is 8 ft. on the north side and there has been no grading permit issued
to allow filling of 2 ft. on that side, nor on the south side.
Discussion followed on approving the solar panels separately. CommiSsioner
Nellis commented that he would like to ensure that the concerns re the visi-
bility of the fence be addressed and landscaping to some fashion done to soften
its' effect as the fence exists. He explained that he felt if the Commission
denies the variance and the applicant simply reduces the size of the fence,
there will not be any landscaping. Commissioner Bolger suggested a study ses-
sion with the applicant, since there seems to be a number of issues that need
to be resolved.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would like to allow the applicant to
come in with o.p't.~ion~'."and suggestions in terms of screening to mitigate the im-
pact. He added that the fence exists and maybe something could be worked out
with the neighbors. He moved to deny without prejudice V-609 as it relates to
the height of the fence. It was clarified that this would allow him to come
in with a new plan. Commissioner Nellis. seconded the motion.
Commissioner Hlava stated that she agrees about the fence but feels that a
study session is needed. She explained that she does not thi'nk it is reasonable
to expect the applicant to tear down the. fence and come in with a new applica-
tion for a new fence and proposed landscaping. She commented that the alterna-
tives of either lowering the fence or landscaping need to be discussed.
Staff noted that if it is denied with. or' without prejud.i. ce there will be new
fees to the applicant. Commissioner Siegfried withdrew his motion and Commis-
sioner Nellis withdrew his second. Mr. Renna indicated that he would like to
work with the Commission, since he does not feel that the wall can be shortened.
It was' directed that this application be. continued to a study session on July
5, 1983 and the regular meeting of July 13, 1983. The applicant was requested
to bring back suggestions to mitigate the effect the wall on both sides and to
submit some indication from the owner of the vacant lot that he has an agree-
3
~Planning Commission Page 4
'~'Meeting Minutes 6/22/83
\
V-609 (cont.)
ment that it is going to be filled on one side. Commissioner Hlava asked Staff
to determine what was included in the impervious coverage calculations, since
the applicant is reaching the allowabl'e 'limit.
9. A-884 - Wilson Development, Lot 13, Saratoga Heights, Tract #666S, Request
for Design Review Approval to construct a single story single family
dwelling in the NHR zoning dis'tri'ct
Staff described the proposal and recommended approval. They reported that the
applicant has requested a modification to the structure; for consistency they
are requesting that there also be a gabled roof on the center portion of the
design. Staff suggested that a condition be added to allow this with Staff
review and approval.
Commissioner Siegfried gave a Land Use Committee Report. He stated that the
property is considerably above the street level; however behind the property
it slopes up rather dramatically, which mitigates the appearance of the height.
The public hearing was opened at 8:29 p.m.
Dave Wilson, the applicant, appeared to answer questions. Commissioner Nellis
moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Crowther stated that the plans were not in his packet so he had not
had a chance to review them. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-884,
per the Staff Report, including the' condition that the proposed modification be
allowed with Staff review and approval. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion,
which was carried 4-0, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining.
10..A~..885 - vern Heath, Lot #2, Via Tesoro, Request for Design Review Approval
to construct a single story single family structure in the R-i-40,000
zoning district
Staff described the project and gave the history of the site. Commissioner
Siegfried gave a Land Use Committee Report. He noted that there is a proposal
to construct a 4~ ft. crawl space below the finished grade which adds to the
appearance of the house. He stated that the adjacent house on the-left sits
on a lot that is higher than thi's and is a rather imposing structure. He added
.that if this design were lowered much in size the adjacent house will quite
quite a bit above it in height.
The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m.
Vern Heath, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He
described the adjacent home, stating that if the proposed design were lowered
it would ruin the neighborhood.
Ron Mancusso stated that he would like to see a compromise regarding reduction
of the roof angle to reduce the bulk and a condition of landscaping and water
evacuation. He added that if the Commission approves this as is he would like
to see the landscaping ~nd the masonry wall worked out.
Mr. Heath described the proposed wall and landscaping. He added that they are
putting a drain in which is on the plan. There was a consensus that the appli-
cant could bring the landscaping and fence back for review.
Mr. Berman, the applicant, stated that h~ had discussed his plans with Mr.
Mancusso and intends to work with him. Commissioner Nellis moved to close the
public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unani-
mously.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-885, subject to the Staff Report dated
June 13, 1983 and Exhibits B and C, and adding the condition that plans be sub-
mitted for the fence and landscaping along the fence for Commission review.
After discuss'ion Commissioner Siegfried amended his motion to read that the
plans could be approved by Staff. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. It
was noted that if Staff has any problem wi. th the plans they can bring it back to
the Commission. The motion was carried Unanimously 5-0.
~ Planning Commission Page 5
"'Meeting Minutes 6/22/8 ~.
11. A-886 -. Tom Dusel, 13090 Pierce Road (near Houston Ct.), Request for Design
Review Approval to construct a second story addition to a two-story
dwelling in the R-i-40,000 'zoning"district
The proposal was explained by Staff. Commissioner Siegfried gave a Land Use
Committee Report, stating that there Were no impacts. Commissioner Hlava added
that this is a very large lot compared to the size of the home. A letter
received from the ~eighbor in support w~s noted'.
The public hearing was opened at 8:52 p..m. The applicant appeared to answer
questions. Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Hlava seconded the motion, which wa's carried unanimously.
Commis'sioner Nellis moved to approve A-886, per the Staff Report dated June 6,
1983 and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously 5-0.
DESIGN REVIEW
12. A-888 Richard Mead, 14441 Big Basin Way, Request for Design Review of
commercial building
The project was 'described '~ ~'~ .... ~'h~"' ~.l',i~ant a~'ar~d t~'~HS~=e~'~estions.
He clarified that there is no restaurant'~ it will b~ all sales.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-888, per the Staff Report dated
June 8, 1983 and Exhi'bits B and C. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 5-0.
MISCELLANEOUS
13."A-431 Safeway Stores, Argonaut ShOpping Center, Request for Modification
to Design Review to change roofing materials
Staff explained the application to modify a portion .of the roof at the shopping
center. They indicated that the roof on this structure is extremely visible.-
They'commented that there'were proposedZagreements that were made when the
shopping center Was constructed, and at that time it was the City's posture
that the roof should be brough~ into coHformity using a similar material through-
out the entire sh'opping center wi'thin a.7~ year period. They added that ther. e
was mention and discussion of an agree'm~nt to that effect; however, they have
not.'been 'able to find that the agreement was ever executed. They stated that
i.t is still Staff's position that the roofing material should be similar
throughout the length of the center and'they recommend denial of this modifi-
cati0n.
Dino Mastardi, Construction Director for Safeway Stores, gave a presentation
on the proposed modification. FIe submitted photographs of the roof and
indicated that .they have a number of problems with the roof. He discussed
the red aggregate material that they propose to use. Commissioner Hlava asked
if they had.discussed doing the whole center at one time with the owner. She
explained that the problem here is not the objection to the aggregate roof; it
· is the fact that Safeway ~i'11 have an aggregate roof and the rest of the
shopping center will still have shingle~'. Mr. Mastardi stated that in their
lease with the owner the Safet'y Store has responsibility for the roof and its
maintenance.
Commissioner Bo!ger questioned how much 'longer the remaining roof of the other.
parts of the building will continue to be in existence. Commissioner Nellis
expressed the concern that if all the ot'her merchants are responsible for their
roofs there will be a number of applications coming in and there would be a
multi-design type of roof on the shopping center.
Commissioner Crowther moved to deny A-431, per the Staff Report dated June.15,
1983. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, stating that he was also open
to other possibilities. Commissioner Siegfried suggested a study session,
stating that the applicant could bring in.l~.roofing material and other options
could be considered° CommisSioner Crowther'explained that by denying the appli-
cation he is essentially saying he would like to see it consistent with the rest
of the roof.
Commissioner Hlava pointed out t]~at all of the shingles on the roof now are
differ'ent colors and maybe the aggregate would not look that much di. fferent.
She added that sh~ 'Understands 'Safeway's'! problem but does not like the idea of
- 5 -
~ Pla~ning Commission Page 6
'Meeting Minutes 6/2
A-431 (cont.)
having this constant re~oofing.
There was a consensus to have a study session. Commissioner Crowther and
Nellis withdrew 'their motion and second. The applicant was asked to bring in
3 x 3 ft. samples of the two types of roofing to compare, and also pictures of
other stories that have the red aggregate roof now. It was directed that this
item be continued to a study session on July 5th 'and the regular meeting of
July 13, 1983.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written
1. Letter from Saratoga F'ooth'il'ls' re UP-353, Saratoga Parkside. Staff
reported that this letter was in compliance with the condition for a yearly
listing of the tenancy and rental rates~for this project.
2. Letter from David Wetterholt, M.D., requesting addition of medical
clinic as conditional use in C-V' zOning.dist'=rict. Staff explained the request
and the process. Dr. David Wetterholt described the proposed clinic. Commis-
sioner Crowther stated that he is concerned about opening up conditional uses
for medical clinics in general because 6f traffic, etc., but he thinks a limited
clinic, which thi's 'a~pears to be, would'probably not be a problem. Dr. Wetter-
holt further explained" the operation, citing the Cupertino Emergency and
Family Medical Clinic as an example.
Commissioner Hlava commented that she feels this is the wave of the future as
far as medical practice is concerned. She noted that the Cupertino clinic is
extremely successful; she is not sure about this particular location. She
stated that the Commission could add this as a conditional use'and then look
at the controls at the use permit stage~ Commissioner Siegfried stated that he
would like more input regarding traffic from similar operations and more' under-
standing of the general impact.. Commissioner Crowther commented that it would
be diffic~Ht for the applicant to provide that without looking at the specifics
of this site as an example. He added that he would have no problem adding a
limited use clinic as a conditional use.
The City Attorney stated that he has a problem with the word limited. He
commented that if there is some concern on the part of the Commission as to
what is being included and what is being intended, perhaps some additional
study is needed to develop a definition for the purpose of amending the Zoning
Ordinance.' Commissioner Siegfried suggested'that the applicant could come back,
not with a det'ailed study, but simply state what kind of emergency use as con-
trasted with an emergency clinic, for example.
Dr. Wetterholt explained that what he has in mind is very similar to a general
practitioner's office, with extended hours and a comprehensive laboratory and
small x-ray unit. He stated that it is.not to be an all purpose mini-hospital
but oriented to treat minor emergencies'.
Commissioner Hlava suggested as a definition "a walk-in medical clinic for the
treatment of minor traumatic emergencies" She stated that the Commission could
a~d that as an allowed use; the 'applicant can apply for a conditional use permit;
the Commission can examine the conditional use permit that is existing on the
shopping center, and the applicant can do research to determine what experience
they had in Cupertino and other places in terms of traffiC, etc.
There was a consensus to add this use. Dr. Wetterholt suggested add~ng'.~to=the
definition "and acute medical 'illnesses". Further discussion followed on the
definition, and it was determined to add those words with the deletion of the
word "acute".
Commissioner Hlava moved to add as a conditional use in the C-V zoning district
a Walk-in medical clinic for treatment of minor traumatic emergencies and medi-
cal illnesses. She' added that the Commission can then review whether this
particular clinic is appropriate. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion,
which was c~rried unanimously 5-0.
3. Letter from Owen Company, r'equesting addition of R & D use to
P-A zoning district. Staff explained the request..and the process. Commissioner
Nellis stated that he feels 'that the 'Office/Electronics use should be added as
a conditional use, but with the condition of no manufacturing, development or
testing of any dev'ices. Commissioner'. Siegfried stated that he felt the appli-
6
=~.?-l~n~iing Commission Page 7
Meeting Minutes 6/22/
Owen Company (cont.)
cant should come in for a full public hearing on thi·s matter. The process was
further discussed and Staff explained that if the applicant made application
for a rezoning application to change the' text of the Zoning Ordinance to allow
this as a. permitted or conditional use·, there would be· 'public hearings by the
Planning Commission and the City Cou·nci·l. Commissioner Nellis noted that there
would still be a full hea·ring at the use. per·mit stage if this use were added
now, wi·th his suggested wording which ·rules out anything other than an office.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he understood what the previous applicant
was proposing and he can easily compare that to other uses. He commented that
he did not ·feel quite as comfortable wi·th this request. Commissioner Crowther
stated that he felt this has a much larger potential impact and he thinks the
public should be ·permitted to inter·act in the discussion of it. Commissioner
Nellis commented· that he ·felt they would be offered that ·opportunity when the
application for a conditional use permit comes forward. He added that at that
time the Commission can hear the concerns and address them at that point.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that th'e applicant may simply be talking about
offices and administrative use. However, he feels they are talking about a
much more intense potential use. Commissioner Crowther added that he feels it
is important how that use is defined and he feels they should ask for a change
of the Zoning Ordinance with a public hearing. Commissioner Nellis commented
that he could not agree more about the d~efinition, and he would welcome any -"
tighter wording than what he is proposing to limit this to an office. He ·moved
to add as a conditional use in the 'P-A z'oning district Office/Electronic, where
there is no manufacturing, development or testing of any devices or storage of
any hazardous materials on the premises ..
Jim Russell, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, asked to speak on this
matter. He indicated that they have bee'n tracking the Owen project and both
his group and the E1 Quito Homeowners As=sociation have expressed opposition to
their proposal. He commented that they have been· told basically that this pro-
ject would be a research 'and development~ facility or a high tech. He added
that they were 'concerne~ about growth in the area. He commented that they had
been told that the next step would be an application and Environmental Impact
Report.
The City Attorney commented that the thing before the Commission at this time
is not the project but whether this use ~should be added as a conditional use.
He stated that the Commission is not discussing any specific project or property
at this time. He ·added that under Section 14.1 there are certain findings that
the Commission would need to make in order to add a use.
Mr. Russell indicated that he did not feel that the City has ordinances to con-
trol this t'ype of activity. He explained that at the two meetings that had
been held the applicant had indicated that they were going to produce prototype
developments. Commissioner Nellis stated that he feels wh~t he has ·proposed
would prohibit that;' that is his intent. He commented that he feels tha~ the
wording "no manufacturing., development 0r testing on the premises" would pro-
hibit any prototypes. He added that he 'is trying to limit it to office use
'.and make sure that Mr. Russell's concerns don't come about. Mr. Russell stated
that they wanted to restrict it so that there will be no high level research
and development, light industrial or manufacturing facility .on that parcel.
Commissioner ·N.ellis commented that he feels they are both saying the same thing.
Commissioner Crowther indicated that he ..~h0ught Commissioner Nellis' definition
s'ounds good but thinks the Commission is moving too fast on it, and the appli-
cant should request a change to the zoning and the whole definition of that
conditional use 'should come before the public. Commissioner Hlava agreed. She
added that she sees this as quite a different and much bigger question than
the ·previous request concerning medical. She stated that she feels there are
some questions here in terms of intensity of use. She noted that Mr. Russell
is just talking· about a particular site; Commissioner Nellis' motion makes it a
conditional use on a lot of sites in the City. She added that she is not pre-
pared, without more public input, to agree to that. She indicated that she
would like the applicant to come 'in and'ma~e application to change the Zoning
Ordinance and have a full public hearing .on the issue for the whole city.
Commissioner Nellis explained that he is not in any way trying to short-stop
publ.ic input. He wa'nts it but he is trying to address the concerns right now
and limit thi's ·conditional use' 'to that of an office and no more, rather than
~n.g. ~hrqugh public hearings relative to just the conditional use at both the
.o?lA~ning Cornmiss ion Page 8
Meeting Minutes 6/22/8!
Owen Company (cont.)
Planning Commission and City Council levels. He added that if they come in
with an application for a conditional use 'permit that indicates that it is
other than an office, he will wa'nt 'to take' a close 'look at it and have a lot of
input. Commissioner Siegfried stated' that everybody knows that' the Owen
Companies wa'nt to come 'forth 'wi'th a rather' major development, and he feels
they can come forward with 'a whole proposal at the same 'ti'me and the Commission
can consider' it all.
It was clarified by Staff to Mr. Russell that the site is currently zoned P-D
and will be changed' to P-A, per the are'a' plan guidelines in the General Plan.
The City Attorney' stated that the Owen Companies' have been informed that an
Environmental Impact Report will be 'required' on this site. He commented that
they have also bee'n informed that neither the 'present zoning, P-D,. or the P-A
zoning permit R & D, so an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would be needed.
He added that if there is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance an Environmental
Impact Report would still be needed. He clarified that the only subject tonight
is the mechanism for the consideration of an amendment to the Zonino Ordinance,
whether the Commission should do it on its own initiative or whether Owen should
apply for an amendment.
Terry Griswold, from the E1 Quito Homeowners Association, stated that she under-
stood what Commissioner Nellis is .say.i~'~ however, she feels it is going to
create more chaos and confusion. She indicated that she would prefer that Owen
apply for a rezoning and that there be a public hearing.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he was beginning to think that perhaps
~'t~.'~0F~'~'~"'%'~'.-ch~an'~"~o make .it' very restrictive, and if that didn't meet
the needs of the applicant he would still have to come in with a request for
rezoning. Discussion followed on the motion. Commissioner Nellis amended his
motion to state "Add as a conditional u'se in the P-A zoning district Office/
.Electronic, consisting of office use only, where there is no manufacturing
development or testing of any devices or storage of any hazardous materials
on the premises. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. The motion was
carried 3-2, with Commissioners Siegfried and Hlava dissenting.
Commissi'oner Hlava indicated that she was opposed for the reasons earlier
stated, .and she is also opposed be'cause one o~ the main concerns that she has
about this particular project is the intensity of the use. She explained that
with 140,000 sq. ft., if there is one o~ two users the intensity of the use
is much less than if you h~ve 'six or eight. She commented that this use has
been added with no consideration of how. many users there are in this space.
Commissioner Nellis disagreed,. stating that the Commission has not approved
one square foot 'of anything. Commissioner Bolger noted that an EIR also has
to be approved for thi's particular site. Commissioner Siegfried stated that
the problem is conceptual; h~ does. not know what Office/Electronics means and
is not sure what kind of a use the 'Commission has really added to the code.
The City Attorney clarified that the intent is to make it a conditional use,
and he will prepare 'a written resolution which incorporates the findings, to
be approved on the Consent Calendar for the ne~t meeting.
4. 'Letter from Montalvo Center for Arts. For information to indicate
that they are going to have events unde~ the same control they have been utiliz-
ing in the' past.
Oral
1. City Council Report. Commissioner Hlava gave a brief report on the
City Council meeting held on ,.~j~n~". 15, 1983. A copy of the minutes of this
meeting is on file in the City Administration Office.
2. V~..~CH~a~m~.n Bolger thanked the Good Government Group and the
Saratoga News for attending the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Crowther moved, seconded by Commissioner Nellis, to adjourn the
meeting. The motion was carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at
10:05 p.m.
Secretary
RSS: cd