Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-29-1983 Planning Commission Minutes~.- CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISS'[ON MINU'~ES DATE: Wednesday, June 29 1983 - 7:30' p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruit'vale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Special Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call_ Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, McGold. rick, Nellis, Sch. aefer and Siegfried Absent: None : PUBI, IC HEARINGS 1. C-202 - Consideration Of .Amendment !to the Zoning Map to Conform to the · General Plan : Chairman Schaefer reported. that these have been divided into four categories. She explained that the items in Category 2 will not be addressed tonight because it has been determined that a change in the General Plan might be more appropriate. She commented that if there is one item that someone feels very strongly should not be a General Plan amendment and should be a rezoning, the Comm:i. ssion will take input on that Lonigh. t. She stated that the items in that category are 'Items ~'9, It10, ~13, It14, ti].5, ~t16, ~17, ~22, .~24, ~t..38, ~33, t~'34, t/35 and ~/40. She explained that the balance are divided into groups. It was .noted that ~'25 is listed as a separate hearing on the agenda tonight. She noted the correspondence that has been received on .the 'various items. · The public hearing was opened and discussion held as follows: Group/;'1 Rezonings ~1.-8, ~11' and Staff described the recommended rezonings under this group. Commissioner Crowther expressed a major concern that there are a tremendous number of changes and asked where the .overall impact had been evaluated. Staff noted that these particular impacts were evaluated in terms of traffic and popula- tion growth in the General Plan fIR. Chairman Schaefer added that each of these items were reviewed at the study session by the Commission two weeks ago and input was taken.. It was clarified that Items ~t9 and ~10 had been deter- mined to be more appropriately reviewed as General Plan amendments. Lou. Carpiac addressed the Cmnmission, inZdicati. ng that he represents Desert Petroleum, who owns the Gasco Service St'ation on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknail, Item ~'2. He expressed. their opposition to the change in the General Plan designation on'th. is property, stating that their objections are necessitated because o'E legal considerat:ions. He added that the reason th.~y are concerned with the change in the zoning is that there is some ambi-' quity and Vagueness in the City ordinance dealing with the elimination olF n. onconforming uses and structures. He explained the history of the site and the operation. Mr. Carpiac.indicated that he has discussed with Mr. Paul. Smith and Staff a mechanism under which they could request a. conditional use permit after they become nonconforming in a res.idential area., even though they were a permitted use when they went into place and 'were made a conditional use in 1964. He explained that their concern i.s th. at conditions might be attached to the use permit which would make it impos:sible to operate or place such con- ditions dea. lin. g wi. th length of time that they can continue to operate the service station. He asked the (~ommission to consider and perha.ps make a recommendation to the City Council. that 2there is a. valid purpose served by the station and it can be left either PD mixed use in the General Plan or some designation that would allow them to con'tinue doing business. The City Attorney stated that he would be happy to review the situation with Mr. Carpiac, since he had not been initi'ally involved. He commented that, in .view of th.e substantial investment in the property, he certainly would not make an interpretation of tl~e provi'~iGns: in the Zoning Ordinance concerning nonconforming uses as requiring immediate removal; it does take economic ~-; ':'P'l:anh. ing CommisSion Page 2 i..' Meeting Minutes 6/29/83 Group # 1 (cont.) investment and the degree to wh. ich there a. re ph. ys:i. cal improvements into account. lie indicated that if the Commission d. etermines that it is desirable as a planning matter to have a service station on th. is particular si. te, they can always make that recommend. ation to the City Council. However, that recom- mendation would ha. ve to be for an amendment to the General Plan because there was discussion at length at the time this site was considered during the General Plan review and the decision was made to designate it residential. He added 'that bringing the .zoning into .conformity would render the present use a n. onconforming use and th.e owner would have to take some affirmative action by way of an application for a Use permit. Discussion followed on an amoritization period. Mr. Carpiac noted that the Zoning Ordinance speaks of zth. e number of years to cease the use from the date i.t was constructed., not from the date it becomes nonconforming. Commissi. oner Crowther stated that he is all in favor of getting rid of service stations but he feels that'there has to be some logical and reasonable basis for do:ing so. There was a.consensus that the gas station be allowed to stay on this site. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels th. ere is a. logical way for changing the zoning in the sense that there has been strong expression from the ne:igl~borhood and in view of the surrounding property, and the Commis- sion feels that this is a parcel that should be residential. Flowever, he stated that he agreed with the owner's counsel that he sees no reason, since they are there and a.s 2:long as they don't change the use, that there should be any specific period in which they have to get out. Commiss:i. oner Nellis agreed but stated that, if it is legal 'and would not create any legal. jeopardy to the City, he would. hope that a time limit co,ld be con. si.d. ered. Commissioner Hlava suggested that some guidelines should be set up for revi- sion to the ordinance, 'with input .[rom the owner's-counsel, before the con- di. tional use permit procedure is started. Th.e City Attorney clarified that the Commission can take a look at th.e pr. ovisions in the Zoning Ordinance and con. sider ch. anging the sections dealing w'i'th .nonconforming use. He added that they can eith. er eliminate the time or consider a time but change the da. te [rom which that time l>egins to run. FIe added that th.e State law requires that the zoning be brought into conformity with the General. Plan within a reasonable time. With 'respect to this particular si. te, an i_ssue has been. b'rought to the Commission 's a. ttention and they may want to make some change in the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate 'the financial circumstances of the applicant, as well as the desires of the neighbors. If some additional time is needed to do that, he ha.s no problem justifying a delay in creating the conformity. Terry Griswold, President of E1 Qu:i_to Homeow'n. ers Association, indica. ted that the residents had previously asked that th. is site be zoned. residential. because they feared that the Teresi property would be zoned conm~erc.i. al and that the whole parcel had to be rezOned one and the same. She stated that they have no objection to the gas-stati'on itself'. She added. that 'when they come for- ward for a conditional use permit. the residents at that time would like to ask for some further condi~:i. ons as 'to the time and possibl'y some clean-up work. It' was clarified that the 'gas station is not un.d. era conditional. use permit at this time. Louise Cooper, Legislative Chairman of the Saratoga Area Senior.' Coordinating Council, stated that they have spent' some time studying. the parce].s being consid. ered as to how the proposals are. in conjunction with the housin. g goal. Sh.e .i. ndicated that t]~e housin. g goal most applicable to this particular situa- t.i_on is senior citizen housing. She commented that th.e action oF. the City Council on Item #3 does provide that oppo'rtunity and they endorse the posi- tion th. at has been taken on It8 and #10 . She en. couraged the Commission to consider ~5 (Challenger) as RM-3,000 also. A resident on Sousa Lane asked to speak on ~1() in Category 2. He stated that lne would like to keep it residential. Staff .described this site and in. dica. ted that this :item was to be heard on July 27th as a General Plan Amend- ment. Items #2, ~'5, ~8 and #1.2 were removed for discussion. Commissj. oner lllava moved to :r.eC'omme'na-"'app:~ov'di: o'f7 i'tems '~ 1, ~ 3, #24-. r'~6, ~ 7 ,. and '~(.il.,. wi'th.:.S..~af.('recommendations ~.n th.e Staff Report dat~'d":lune"21, pages 3 and 4, making the' findings on page [~. Commissi. oner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. - 2 - '~'~ia~Hing Commission " Page 3 Meeting Minutes 6/29/83 Group #1 (cont.) On Item #2 there was a consensus to get further input from Staff before vot- ing. Discussion followed on Item #5. Commissioner Hlava stated that she was un- comfortable with making Cha'llenger Pre=SchOol retail commercial. She indicated ,:j~hat she did not feel that the' previous zoning of R-l-10,000 was appropriate and she would be willing to make it RM-3,000, but there wou~ have to be a General Plan change. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she would like to see this site P-A. Commissioner Nellis comment.ed~that there are_a~..re~:dy. office buildings on one side and across the street.~th'~ Ab"~amS p~~'~"'~'~ b~ing" ..... '-: considered to be rezoned PLA, and residential W0u~d'be ~'llowed' i~'a P-A zoHe. There was a consensus to change it to P-A. It was determined that this item will go into Category 2 at the' July 27th meeting, with the recommendation that it become P-A. Regarding Item #8, Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels that 5,000 sq. ft. would be more appropriate than 3,00'0, because she feels that buildings in the future will probably be for people of all ages and 3,000 is a very small area. Discussion followed.and there was 'a consensus to chan. g.e this to 5,00'0. Commissioner Hlava moved, seconded by Commissioner Nellis, to recommend that this site be rezoned from fi"~6 RM:"5,000, instead of RM-3,000. The motion was carried unanimously 7-0. Discussion followed on #12..: Staff clar'ified that.'the',adja'den't'pr6pe'r~{:es'on three sides are R-l-15,000 and the' on the 'fourth s~de it is z6'ned ~-1~'~0',000. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve #12, per' the' Staff Report. Commissioner Nellis seconded the"motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Group #2-- Rezonings #18 th"ro'u'gh"#'.2jl,"#23,"#2'5'-27 Staff reported that Item #2~5 will be postponed until later in the evening since it also deals with a General Plan amendment. Staff explained the balance of the proposed rez'onings in thi's group. Ann Fitzsimmons.-state'd that .she owns two properties on Big Basin Way and one is Item #23. She indicated' that she would like to keep this zoned C-V and is opposed to Multi-Family Residential zoning. She commented that she would like to develop both pieces commer'cially. Discussion followed on the zoning and uses. Ms. Fitzsimmons added that 'if #23 were 'rezonad it would be splitting her property and she considers them as one. Don Eagleston, President of the Village Association, discussed the uses in the area. He indicated that he. wa's concerned with the advancement of the Village and he feels that the future of the Village would be in jeopardy if this were rezoned condominiums for that small lot at the end of the area. He indicated that there would be a problem building down' below because of the slope of the road. He asked that this site be allowed to develop commercially so there would be a foot traffic flow fromithe Village down along that area. George Magnett, 14651 Big Basin Way, stated that he owns the property next to the Fitzsimmons property and inquired about what was being recommended in that area. The recommended rezoning wa's explained to Mr. Magnett. FIe commented that he feels that building=could be done on the lower section of that parcel and he would prefer it to remain C-V. Louise Cooper commented that their committee"was plea'sed w.ith the idea that #23 might well be considered for what could be alternate housing for senior citizens. She expressed' opposition to #'26 (Federated Church) being changed to R-l-10,000. Mr. Eagleston pointed out that he did not wa'nt people to think that keeping #23 C-V would restrict senior citizen housing, because with a use permit there could still be senior citizen housing or condominiums on that site. Cliff Beck addressed Item #21 and requested that it be withdrawn from the process tonight. He stated.that he had 'received no notification of Staff's concerns and r'ecommendation:and he would like time to review that. He indicated that this rezoning is not consistent wi'th Resolution 1031, which the City Council approved on his property. Staff explained that the Council changed the designation on this site to Slope 'Conservation, which normally would have entailed a rezoning from R-t-40,000'to I..ICRD; hOwe'ver, thi's was never followed up. In the 1983 General Plan review 'the' Council confirmed this and Staff has - 3 - ~Pla~ming Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 6/29/83 Group #2 (cont.) now recommended HCRD zoning, which is consistent with the Hillside Conserva-·- tion designation on the General Plan. They explained that they had mailed a notice to Mr. Beck; however, apparently the address on the APN listing is incorrect and it was re~rn~.~... Staff indicat.ed that Mr. Beck had been informed of this hearing. '.'-.~St'a Ff f.u'rth6r eXpla. i~e~'~'th~.=re~'~'ded~'~oH.i. ng..' Mr. Beck pointed out that in 1974 this site was designated as a Park. It was noted that the City decided that it was inappropriate for this to be a park and did request that about one acre be set'aside for a parking lot for Hakone and the rest was designated Slope Conservation, which is the same as Hillside Con- servation in today's General Plan. Mr. Beck described the property, stating that it was relatively flat. He indicated that he feels that the proposed action is much too hard and severe and he would like to contest it further. It was determined that this item be continued to July 27, 1983, to allow Mr. Beck to review the material. Greg Fox, owner of #20, suggested that.the Planning Commission be a little more lenient in planning in terms of land use and not be so restrictive. He stated that he feels they should consider the benefit that would be gained out of a reasonable development as far as improvements are concerned. The Bohlman area was discussed, and Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels the magnitude of the problem in the Bohlman Road area is beyond anything that could be done by raising the density. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to recommend approval of Items #18, #19, #20 and #27,·per the Staff Report dated June 21, 1983, pages 4, 5 and 6, making the findings on page 8. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Discussion followed on #23. Commissioner Crowther commented that this could go either way with the wording of the General Plan. He stated that it would seem that there should be a Village Plan worked out before the Commission makes a final decision on this item. Commissioner Siegfried agreed. He stated that he really does not see this site as a commercial site and was inclined to go along with the RM-4,000, but both uses are possible and he does not think it is inconsistent with what is there thus far. He added that he would be inclined· to leave it as is until the Village Plan 'is considered. Commissioner McGoldrick ·agreed, adding that she would not like to see this property split into different zonings. Commissioner Hlava stated that during the General Plan process it appeared from the residents of the downtown area that there was a great desire to delineate an end to the commercial area downtown, and there was a great desire to have a condominium buffer zone between the residential area and the actual Commercial uses. That was the reason the General Plan was changed and that is the reason ~his recommendation was made. Now it seems that that is not totally being considered, or those people are not here testifying now, so the Commis- sion is only looking at one side of it. She suggested that the recommended rezoning be done and at the time the· Village Plan is considered the Commis- sion can review ·the situation again. In the meantime the General Plan and zoning will be consistent and it will be consistent with what was said during the General Pla~ ~eview. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he is not sure that the General Plan is inconsistent,·since guideline 16 leaves all kinds of options. There was a consensus to leave th'e' zoning as is and consider it with the Village Plan. Staff explained that, since the·General Plan designation is multi-family residential, it does not allow any commercial use~ They asked, to avoid con- fusion if an application comes in, to resolve the consistency as soon as possi- ble. Chairman Schaefer commented thatZa timeframe is needed on this matter. Commissioner Siegfried suggested, if that is the case, that it be further considered on July 27, 1983 to change the Genera]. Plan to C-V, but that it be addressed in the Plan for the Village as to what uses the Planning Commission feels are consistent. It was directed·that this be continued to July 27th, at which time it may be considered as a General Plan amendment or the rezoning will be reconsidered. Commissioner Siegfried recommended approval of #26, per the Staff Report. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Group #3 - Items· #'29'-3'2',' 36-3·9 Staff explained the rezonings. #38 was removed for discussion. 4 =Piamning Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes 6/29/83 Group #3 (cont.) Commissioner Siegfried moved to recommend approval of items #29-32,'~3~"~.37, and 39, per the Staff Report, making the findings. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Discussion followed on #38. Staff clarified that it had been stated that exist- ing residential sites designated in th~ General Plan should not be expanded or increased or no new zoning added; however, it was in conjunction with this action by the City Council. Commissioner Crowther stated that if the shopping center were extended all the way to Cox, he feels it would be a very bad situa- tion from the traffic standpoint and also would create an eyesore on that corner of Cox and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. He added that he feels that P-A would be a much better designation. He moved to .recommend that #38 be changed from .R-l-10,000 to P-A and request that the General Plan be changed to be con- sistent with that zoning. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Commissi0ner'Nellis commented that he Would like the benefit of the Council's thinking when they agreed to move this to PD mixed use before the Commission changes it. Commissioners Crowther and McGoldrick withdrew their motion and second, and it was directed that this item be continued to July 27, 1983. Staff was requested to supply input from the City Council on this item'as to how they arrived at their decision of commercial. 2. GPA-83-1-C - 14498 Oak Place, Consider Amending the General Plan Desig- nation of the subject property from Residential-Medium Den- sity Single Family (M-10) to R~tail Commercial Chairman Schaefer exp'lained the background of the site. She cited available options and noted letters and comments received on this matter. The' City Attorney clarified that under the present Zoning Ordinance for the commercial classification, restaurants are now a permitted use. The City Council, by way of a separate vote, made a recommendation for the Planning Commission to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to require that'any restaurant use in a commercial zone be..designated as a conditional use and Would require a use permit. He pointed out that'before the issue of the Napkin Ring ever arose there was consideration by Staff of making this change; it was a topic under discussion and it.was something that was fully intended to be recommended to the Planning Commission and the City C~uncil. He added that if it is the Commission's decision that the General Plan be amended to change the designation from residential to commercial, and then if the Commis- sion further decides that the Napkin Ring would then be a permitted_u~,...~r~w- in.g distinction between caterin~ as opposed to restaurant,-a~"'!~.~r'fher step · w~ di ~ h'ave "'t 0 ~I~'~.~L ~'~.~':~7 '. th ~' :'~'~.m~i ~ ~ i 6'fi d'~ s i r e s' ~:0. p rob ib'i t"?~ e ~t'a~t~ 'a ~ .'~ .' a' ." Zp~f~i'~!~s'~',"'~8"'~'~'6'c6'~L'!~l~SUgh':'an' ~Hdme~'~6 £~e Z~Hing"'o'~din~nce to' p fa'ce all resturants as conditional uses if"fhey are in commercial zones. Commissioner Crowther stated that h~ is not so concerned about the Napkin Ring re~aining but would be concerned if the commercial use 'was intensified on the site. He asked if there is some way to zone it C-C and have it restricted to the present intensity of use. The City Attorney stated that, in 'connection with the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, res'taurant ~ould'have to be defined if it is going to be classified as a conditional use. Depending on how the Napkin Ring wishes to operate,'they might very well fall within the classifi- cation of restaurant. They would then have to apply for a use permit if the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is made, and that would be the vehicle through which the use could be regulated, i.e. the intensity of use, parking requirements, etc. Discussion followed on options and process. The City Attorney explained that the Napkin Ring's business license, at the vote of the City Council, was restored conditioned upon amendment of the General Plan. It was.noted that consideration of this amendment is scheduled to be on the July 27th agenda. The City Attorney indicated that the Planning Commission has the prerogative to define a catered use' as catering or the"sa'le of sandwiches for consumption off the premises' and define 'that as a permitted use"in a commercial zone, and then make a distincti'on between that tXpe 'of operation and a restaurant where there are tables, etc. '~.'qo.mm~ssi6ner'.Ne'l'lis'suggested con'si:der'ing th'e' option of lea'ving it residential R-l-10~00~"t~'be"d'ohS~s~'ent""wi'~h 'the 'General Plan and the applicant could still - 5 - ;."~Fla~ning Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes 6/29/83 GPA-83-1-C (cont.) continue to operate with a conditional use permit process. He indicated that his concern-is. that if this site is commercial then there will be no control over it. The public hearing was opened at 10:15 p.m. Betty Maas, 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, addressed the hazardous traffic. She indicated that she opposes commercial and would like to see it P-A. She noted that on the petition submitted in favor of the Napkin Ring 90% of the signatures live 1-4 miles away. Norm Matteoni, Attorney represen. ting the Napkin Ring, asked for clarification as to what was being considered tonight. Staff commented that both options were being considered, either rezoning or a General Plan amendment. Mr. Matteoni indicated that his clients are not i.nterested in any other zoning other than commercial. He gave the background of the zoning and operation on the site. He added that they view the .Napkin Ring as a legal commercial use and finding out after the fact of appropriate permits from the City that the General Plan is not consistent with that zone. He indicated that his clients are also willing to stipulate,'because they are not interested in any delay of the appropriate designation, that they will not seek nor have any tenant seek a restaurant use on the property until the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance can be addressed if the Commission desires to make restaurants a conditional use permit use. Commissioner Hlava asked if there is a'way to proceed with this matter and not'unduly hold it up if the applicant will voluntarily say they will not pursue a restaurant use. The City Attorney explained that they could prepare an agreement to be executed by the lan~ owner, binding upon their successors and"'.assigns, which would be a contractual arrangement between them and the City. Tom Greenlead, 20315 Orchard Road, spoke in favor of commercial zoning. He commented that this site has always been a commercial use and there has been no problem'with traffic. He added that it is bringing revenue to the City. A resident of Oak Place expressed concerns regarding'traffic, the hazardous access and parking. The parking requirements were discussed. He also expressed concern about the off-sale liquor license. The City Attorney explained that the license was issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and is under their jurisdiction. Linda Protiva, Oak Place, stated that she would prefer to see this stay resi- dential, but feels that a compromise could be that it be zoned commercial with a conditional use permit required. She cited traffic and parking as major problems. She indicated that these problems already exist from the Federated Church and a second operation on this site would make the situation very difficult. Dr. Hugh Larchbo, 14475 Oak Place, expressed concern regarding access and traffic. He urged the Commission to make an effort to maintain a quality residential area within the vicinity o'f the Village. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The. City Attorney explained that the application for a business license des- cribed the nature 'of the business as catering and it was issued for such. The definition of catering was discussed, along with options and process. Commissioner Nellis asked if the City .could get an agreement with the appli- cant to agree to come in for a conditional use permit for any use on that site. Mr. Matteoni commented that he would have problems with contractually agreeing to a uSe.permit procedure if the City does not have an ordinance to cover it. He added that he feels that the City has parking requirements and site approval conditions that are in the ordinance that any other use would have to comply with, as well as the existing use. He indicated that they would abide by those and would agree to await the decision of the restaurant use if that is going to be a use permi.t procedure, and not entertain any such additional use such as that. Commissioner Crowther commented that, 'although the City has a way of con- trolling the res't'aurant, the're are other potential uses for the site which - 6 - ~..'Planning Commission Page 7 Meeting Minutes 6/29/83 GPA-83-1-C (cont.) could .create severe problems. He added'that he feels the only way that the City can really get control is to rezone it to R~i-10,000 and have the Napkin~ Ring continue under a conditional use permit. 'Further discussion was held on the use for the balance' of the 750 sq. ft. .remaining in the building. Mr. Matt~On'.~ stated that he would have to confer with his clients to see if they would be willing to hold the space in abeyance while the ordinance was being amended.' The parking requirements were 'further 'discussed. 'Commissioner Hlava commented that this'is a site that should clearly be com- mercial. She indicated that it seems to be'very poor planning to try to force some artificial General Plan designation on it, regardless of-what the Napkin Ring is doing. She agreed that there are some traffic problems and parking limitations on the site. She added that if the applicant is willing to say that until the procedures for re'staurants are defined they will not have a restaurant on that site, then the parking regulations should be sufficient to control the i~tensity of use there so they could perhaps rent out the other part of their business. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels that if there are deaths at that corner due to the intensity of commercial use, in a long term planning sense the City should try to, over ~he next 30 years, revert it back to residential.. He added that he does not think it is clear, in view of the hazard at that corner, that it should be commercial. · EM~".DeBenedetti, owner of the property~ explained the size of the building and discussed the parking spaces existing and the possibility of creating more parking spaces around the back of the building. He indicated that they did not intend to use the property as a restaurant.. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he thinks this is a commercial site and he does not see that the Commission can realistically think that it can be resi- dential. He commented that there is some commercial use that he would not like to see there; on the other hand catering is not included in the P-A zoning. He moved to recommend that 'it be commercial, with the City entering into a contract with the applicant so that the issue of a restaurant there will be put in a moratorium until the City has som~ ability to c.ontrol via a conditional use permit. Commissioner.Hlava seconded the motion. Chairman Schaefer commented that she thinks this area should be P-A with a use permit for the Napkin Ring to remain', since s]~e thinks it is an asset. She indicated that she may vote against the motion because she does feel there are some commercial uses that might not be appropriate there. The vote was t'aken.and the mot~6n failed 4-3, with Commissioners Nellis, Crowther, Bolger and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Nellis stated that he. would be agreeable to a change of the General Plan to commercial, provided that there is some mechanism that the 'City can execute to control wh'atever use goes in on that site through a con-. ditional use permit process. Chairman Schaefer commented that she would be in agreement with that but she does no~ .think~..~.~or~'~"~'~"~'~a~'~7.'.to do that. Staff noted that if it were changed to P-A the ordinance W~uld have to be amended to allow catering. Commissioner Crowther stated that he thinks it is c. lear that the applicant is going to have a conditional use permit whether it is commercial or residential, · '~"~he does not see why having it designated residential is a hazard to him, ~'~ovided that the City is willing to go along with the long term conditional use permit that regulates what goes on.the site. ~Commissioner Schaefer stated that having it residential is ~ne way o~f con- trolling it; however, it does not seem to make too uc se se to have ~t resi- m h n dential when you look at the piece of property. She added that she ~feels that P-A iS a compromise. There was a consensus to recommend an amendeme~t to the' General Plan designation to P-A. The City Attorney explained that there is nothing in the P-A right now that would authorize this kind of a use and that portion of the Zoning Ordinance would have to be amended. He stated that two amendments would be needed: (1) amendment of the General Plan class. ification from Residential to P-A and (2) amendment of the Zoning Ordinance=t~'~allow catering. Staff ~oted that 7 ~ '-~"!' Pli~ning Commission Page 8 ~-' Meeting Minutes 6/29/83 --_ ~,- it will also be noticed for rezon_ing to P-A. The City Att. O_rne..y.. a.d._de.d...tl!at there ~Srob'Myly5 Wi.l~."be'-n0 ,reason .for' 'tb'~d' :~0H~ract b'edaus~ rest. aurant. us'.e is not a permitted or conditional use in that district. Therefore, the use would necessarily depend upon amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and they would simply be continuing to operate under the restoration of the business license by the City Council while this' process is being worked out. CommisSioner Nellis moved to recommend changing the General Plan designation on this site to P-A. Commissioner' Bolger seconded the motion, which. was carried 6-1.," with. Commissioner. Hlava dissenting. She pointed out that what the Commission is allowing is permitted uses without a conditional use permit, and some of those uses generate more traffic, require much more parking, and have more impact than the5 kind of use for which you could require conditional use permits under the commercial designation. It was clarified that this item will- be renot~ced on July 271h, and at that time it is the intention of the Commission to change the zoning and the General Plan to P-A, and. the Napkin'.Rii~g.'ivo._Ul'd.7be allowed to remain there indefinitely. The 10-day appeal period was noted. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bolger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried' unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 1S p .m. Respectfully submitted, Robert S. Shook Secretary RSS:cd