Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 28, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes The following addition was made to the minutes of September 14, 1983: On page 4, under A-904, "Commissioner Siegfried commented that this was the second home that Mr. Franklin had proposed with a S-car garage for his own use." Commis- sioner Siegfried moved to waive the reading of the minutes of September 14, 1983 and approve as amended. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. A-904 - Carl Franklin, Request for Design Review'Approval to' construct a two-story, single family residence on Farr Ranch Road, Lot #3 of Tract No. 63'28; continued from. September 14, 1983 Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the item on the Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried S-0, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining because'of pending litigation. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2a. SDR-1S4S Warren Sturla, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval and 2b. V-61S - Design Review Approval for four (4) office condominiums and 2c. A-900 - Variance Approval for compact parking and a reduced side setback at the southwest corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga Creek Drive in a P-A' zoning district; continued from August 24, 1983 It was directed that this matter be continued to October 12, 1983, at the applicant's request. 3. UP-S39 - Sachi and Tatsuko'Adachi (Dr. David Wetterholt), Request for Use Permit Approval for a walk-in clinic to treat minor emer- gencies and medical illnesses at 12222 and 12224 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, in a C-V zoning district; continued from August 24, 1983 The previous concerns connected with this application were summarized. Chair- man Schaefer noted that these have been miti. gated, with the exception of the hours of operation. Staff described :~]i~i.c~""'7iH'~'~h'~.~'~'~ties, stating that there had been no problem"7'C~eated by those facilities regarding ambulances and hours of operation. It was noted that the use permit could be reviewed at any specific time. Kathryn Wilkinson, President of the Park Saratoga Homeowners Association, suggested that the hours of operation be 8:30-9:00 p.m. ~o it would be closed by 10:00 p.m. to reduce traffic. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close' the' public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the' motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus that the hours of operation should be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., so the clinic would be closed by 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve UP-539, changing the hours of .operation to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and adding a condition that the matter be brought up at a study session in twelve months to see if there are any problems. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was .carried unanimously 6-0. Planning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 9/2.8/ 4. GF-344 City of Saratoga, Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to allow second units to occupy certain single family lots by obtain- ing a use permit It was noted that there have been study sessions on this matter by the Commission. Staff explained that the State has adopted a law which would allow second units on single family or multi-family residential lots con- sistent with certain provisions. They discussed the three available options and the proposed ordinance. They added that the City Attorney has indi- cated that the definition should be modified and that the following should be added to it in Section 2: "unless. occupied by the record owner of the lot." Staff stated that they have investigated the impact of the second unit ordinance and estimate that about 200 lots would meet the criteria. They commented that it was their opinion that the ordinance could be made more effective with the minor modification of allowing second units on minimum lot sizes of 40,000 sq. ft. with slopes less than 10%, rather than 45,000 sq. ft. They estimated that ~his would bring the total number of lots available for second units to 500-600. Commissioner Siegfried asked if there had been any new developments regard- ing the law concerning restriction to senior citizens and the handicapped. The City Attorney indicated that he did not know of any new development and reiterated what he had previously informed the Commission, that there are some cities who have in fact adopted second unit ordinances which restrict the units to senior citizens. However, the issue has not been before the courts and there is an opinion among many City attorneys that definitions by age could be viewed as discriminatory with respect to the rest of the population and could be subject to a legal challenge. He added that when the legislation was under review there was a draft to specifically limit its application to senior citizen housing and that language was deleted by the legislature. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Peggy Corr, Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, read their letter into the record, stating that they feel the ordinance is unnecessarily restrictive and will be of little help in meeting the needs of the seniors in this community. She stated that 'they feel the restrictiveness will lead to the continued creation and use of illegal second units. She suggested that the only restriction be that it have a single common wall with the original family structure as long as.it complies with all other zoning and lot size limitations. Richard Drake addressed the ordinance and regulation of second units. He suggested that the ordinance permit second units in any residential zone with the provision that they conform to all zoning regulations for single family dwelling units and have one or more common wall with existing units. He stated that he does not feel the City should try to limit the use inside the house. Discussion followed on traffic impacts of second units. Mr. Drake commented that he feels there would be few lots that would have the ability to handle the second unit, provided that it meets all the zoning requirements. Bill Murphy, Los Gatos-Saratoga Board of Realtors, spoke to the restrictive- 'ness of the ordinance. He stated that he feels the traffic problems can be'controlled with the permit process. Criteria for a second unit was discussed. Mr. Murphy commented that he feels the owner should live on the property. Bill Notz, 18276 Purdue Drive, expressed concern about traffic, noise, privacy and appearance. He commented that it should be limited to R-1- 40,000 sq. ft. lots and should require an additional enclosed parking space. He added that the owner must live in one of the units so there is some control. Louise Cooper, Saratoga Senior Council, commented that 640 sq. ft. is too small to be effective. She urged the Commission to work on a good practical Second Unit Ordinance. Peggy Corr commented that she did not see an impact of traffic from second units, since most homes already have teenagers with cars.~ A resident of Paseo'.Cerro stated that there is a need in their neighborhood for second units, more so than for people who have large size lots. Planning Commission Page 3 ~Meeting Minutes 9/28/83 'GF-344 (cont.) Kay Long, Hume Drive, stated that she has renters living next door in a granny situation which has been undesir'able. She noted concerns and commented that she feels it is inconsistent with 'some of the goals of the Planning Com- mission regarding the integrity of Saratoga to have renters indiscriminately throughout the City. Discussion followed on whether to close the public hearing or continue the matter to a study session. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she was ready to make a motion on the ordinance. Commissioner Crowther stated that he felt if there is any major modification: of the ordinance being considered similar to that requested by the public~ tonight, this should be Continued.and the public should be renoticed as to what is b~-ing considered. He added that if it is.'going to be much broader an EIR would be required to evaluate the impacts of this on the City. Commissioner Nellis stated that he shares a lot of the thoughts the public has regarding impacts. He commented that the Commission needs to consider the input and discuss it at a study session. Commissioner Hlava commented that she feels one of the important things that was brought out is that second units do exist all over the City. She stated that, recognizing that State law. is forcing some action on this, there are really only two compelling reasons to look at a Second Unit Ordinance: (1) to control the existing second units. She' commented that she would vote against the proposed draft ordinance tonight, almost entirely for the reason that it does not deal sufficiently with controlling the second units that exist today, and (2) to deal with the fact that there are senior housing needs that are unmet. She indicated that she does not feel the ordinance sufficiently addresses that. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he could vote tonight but has no problem if the Commission wants to continue it .to a study session. He indicated that his concern is that he does not see at this stage any way that an ordinance can be drafted that opens all of Saratoga or large portions of it to second units. He added that he is prepared to look at it over and over again and make it available in other zoning districts once the impacts are known. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would like to see some changes; specifi- cally, to expand the statement of findings to cover some of the issues that have been brought out, i.e., noise, fire hazards, and he would also like to see the 640 sq. ft. limit deleted. He ~added that he would be strongly in favor of trying to institute something to help seniors share housing in Sara- toga and reduce their housing costs. Flowever, he does not believe that it is essential that when they are sharing housing they must have separate kitchens. There was a consensus to continue the matter to a study session on October 4, 1983 and the regular meeting on October 12, 1983. 5. C-204 - The Professional Village of 'Saratoga/Owen Companies, Saratoga and Cox Avenues, Amendment of the text of the Zoning Ordinance by adding Office/Electronics to the list of conditional uses allowed in the P-A (Professional and Administrative) District Staff summarized the proposed amendment.of the text of the Zoning Ordinance and noted that they.had reviewed it in terms of its impact on all P-A district locations, rather than any particular site. They reported that the concerns that have been expressed are hazardous and.toxic materials should not be used with any of the uses permitted in the P-A district, manufacturing, prototype development and the testing of devices.' St~ff indicated that required con- ditions would be attached to any sort of use in the P-A district that would be associated with Research and Development Offices. They noted that the · wording of the ordinance allows only general administrative offices, which would allow 'only minor prototype assembly and testing, and any manufacturing would be specifically prohibited, as well as the use of any hazardous or toxic materials. Staff commented that they had not place~ any condition regarding traffic because it was felt that t'raffic impacts of a specific use would be dealt with during the use permit stage. Discussion followed on traffic impacts, and Staff noted that traffic would also be addressed in'the EIR. Commissioner Crowther asked if it would be practical to a'dd a condition "In facilities with more than 25 employees, staggered work hours and other appropriate means shall be imple- mented to mitigate and prevent excessive traffic peaks caused by transportation 3 - Pla~nning CornmisS ion Page 4 · Meeting Minutes 9/28/83 · C-204 (cont.) to and from the facility." The City Attorney stated that he might have some concern regarding regulating work hours by ordinance. He stated that the Commission couid put in some language to the extent that it is determined that the proposed use does not overburden the system. He commented that there doesn't ·seem to be anything that wOuld·distinguish a R&D facility from general office use in terms of traffic, depending on the number of people who were there. He added that he does· not have a problem with addressing traffic as part of the performance standards, as long as it is phrased in a manner that can be considered as part of the use permit without necessarily regulating the manner in which they conduct their business. The City Attorney also recommended minor·changes in th·e definition and conditions of the ordinance. The public hearing was opened at 8:49 p.m. Steve Douglas, Owen Companies, addressed the proposed percentage limitation on the prototype assembly and testing. He discussed the companies visited on the field trip and proposed a limitation of 15-20%. The traffic impact and parking were discussed. Terry Griswold, President of Quito Homeowners Association, stated that the field trip had been very educational and she could in all honesty say that she is no longer afraid of the type of use. She commented that, regarding the intensity of the use and the traffic situation, they would like to propose the following: (1) reduction of the twO-story buildings to single story, which would decrease the number of employees and traffic; (2) speed bumps along Cox, Paseo Presado and Paseo Lado; (3) signs on Bucknail, Paseo Presada, Paseo Lado and Devon, prohibiting the use of these streets to trucks; (4) proposed driveway on McFarland eliminated, and (5) knowledge in advance regarding the monitoring. She added that they would .like the ordinance amended re the intensity and have a concern regarding the ordinance being amended in the future so there is more risk if the ownership changes. Jim Russell, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners ·Association, spoke'.against the proposed amendment. He stated that he was in disagreement with the words that this is an all inclusive spec, stating that it is very general and loose. He· suggested eliminating the authorization for Research and Development, any reference to a percentage, manufacturing and prototype. Dave .Royce, engineer in ·the computer business, stated that he commutes more than 30 miles a day to work and as a resident he has concerns. He stated that it is very difficult to tell the difference between development and manu- facturing. He commented that, consider.ing the risks regarding prototypes, there needs to be some kind of language in the ordinance to describe how to police it. He added that 147,000 sq. ft. represents big business and he does not want this'.i~=..~.~'~at~'~'~'-'~'!j7 Ray Simpson, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, concurred wi·th Mr. Royce regarding telling the difference between manufacturing and prototypes. He commented that they would need solvents to clean parts for assembly and they are not controllable. He added that this area should remain P-A office facilities, and he does not want assembly and Research and Development in Saratoga. Commissioner Nellis described the field trip and the companies visited and asked where the line is drawn between a prototype type of work and manufactur- ing. Mr. Simps·on indicated that it was impossible to tell. He added that he would not be opposed to calling the place R&D if it were software R&D. Commissioner Crowther discussed the private sewage disposal systems in the · ordinance, and stated that he does not think ·they should be permitted. Howard Jameson, manufacturing electronics, stated that prototypes or manu- facturing can't be done without solvents. He commented that the project status pushes it into manufacturing quickly. He noted that most manufacturing areas in Cupertino are isolated from the homeowners and this area is not. He com- mented that the traffic will be bad at that location. Ray Larsen, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, concurred with Mr. Royce and Mr. Simpson. He commented that the real issue is that the reason people live in Saratoga is for quality of life. ~le added that he does not want to live in an industrial community and is against the amendment completely. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, stated that she work's -for a testing facility. 4 Plahning Commission Page .=Meeting Minutes 9/2.8/83 C-204 (cont.) She pointed out that there would be a number of deliveries, and traffic from public relations and tours, and she feels this has not be'en addressed re the traffic. She agreed with the fact that it is difficult to determine what is prototype and manufacturing. Steve Douglas, Owen Companies, discussed the proposed use, stating that from the outside of the building it 'is not detectable as anything other than an office building. He commented that they would be happy to have any semi- conductor company precluded from occupying space in. the building if there is a concern about the solvents.' He noted that a lot of companies in the area use chemicals.and solven~ts. He suggest'ed precluding uses where the Commis- sion has a concern regarding manufacturing or production activities for any continuous product assembly. Commissioner Nellis questioned having both Condition 1 and 2, s'ince-th~y are mutually exclusive of each other. Mr. Douglas stated that the burden would be on them and the tenant, to show that there are no hazardous or toxic materials. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would be inclined to vote on this matter now. He indicated that he feels that the Commission is dealing with a single site in the City that has no such kind of development or the 'size of build- ings that are being discussed, and he feels the Commission ought to concen- trate on that. He commented that there will be significant traffic impacts and he would be inclined to vote on it and vote no. He added that if the applicant proposes buildings that are large within the P-A type zoning, then they can be dealt with at that time, but he sees no reason to extend the uses. He commented that he does not doubt that the Owen Companies is very well mean- ing, but once the buildings are built and the ordinance is passed the way it is, 'if there is difficulty in the future in renting 150,000 sq. ft. of buildings the use will change to facilitiate that. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she cannot make the findings, specifically No. 1 which states that the proposed changes in the text of the ordinance are required to achieve the objectives. of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. She ~dd~d that the Homeowners Association gave a list of many uses for that property and R&D was far down on the list. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels the ordinance as currently proposed is full of holes and he could not vote for it. Commissioner Hlava stated that this is one 'time 'when she truly thinks this is not in the character of Saratoga, and is 'essentially an industrial use. She added that she cannot see extending this zoning distri'ct throughout the entire City. CommissiOner Schaefer stated that changing the' use wi'th'some modification to this ordinance would be something she could be in favor of, but when she attaches it to a 150,000 sq. ft. place with the kind of parking found in electronic plants, she finds it hard to'even compromise down from the 150,000 sq. ft. She commented that she finds it difficult to be in favor of changing it unless someone came in with small buildings and said these are for businesses of 20 to 30 people who will be doing some software develop- ment. COmmissioner Nellis stated that his concerns relatedto what could become of this project were it built ~th a 10% floor area and it could expand at a later date. He added that there is now the question of the storage of the materials ands. the use of the materials that might take place on the premises. He .~'~h~7~that he is not in favor of this, but feels that it should be recog- nized that the zoning there now is P-A'and he thinks that what the applicant has proposed here is essentially an office use. It should be kept in mind that, even though this use does not go forward within the City, i't also has to be recognized that the .applicant can come forward with a large office project and the Commission is going to have to deal with the con'cerns that have.been expressed relative to the site and the traffic at that time. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny C-204. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Planning Commission Page 6 =Meeting Minutes 9/2.8/83 6. A-906 Phillip Shiota, 14270 Old Wood Road, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a third floor addition to an existing two-story residence in an R-I-40,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal. Commissioner'Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that the front of the house is situated so that this addition will only be approximately 8 ft. higher than the current roof line of the house, which puts it level wi'th the 'roaZd. She added that there are several trees on the back of the lot which'will screen that section of the addition from the neighb'Or behind it. The public hearing was opened at 10:05 p.m. Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner moved to approve A-906, per the Staff Report dated September 20, 1983 and Exhibits "B", "C", "D" and "E" removing the + before the 30 ft on , the front page of the Staff Report. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 7. A-907 - Mr. and Mrs. Winvick,' 19174 Panorama Drive, RequeSt for Design Review"Approval to expand the' second story of an existing two- s'tory' res'idence in 'an R-.1.-40,000 zoning 'dist'r.ict Staff described' the proposal. The'y' commented that it has bee'n' determined that the addition exceed's the 50% expansion and therefore would require Building Site Approval. They' noted that thi's had be'e'n discussed during the break with the archi'tect and applicant, and there may be some input as to whether this has been mitigated so the application can be processed with~.J~a~.i~g~.~.~.o go through the site approval. They explained that the issue is .the atti.C s.p'ace; if it were converted to useable living space, then the addition w~ul~ excess of the 50% expansion. Discussion followed on the attic space. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site and the addition. The public hearing was opened at 10:10 p..m. Oscar Sohns, architect, gave a presentation on the proposal. He stated that they wished to stay under the 50% expansion, and it was their intention that the attic space only be used for occasi. onal storage. He indicated that they would accept'any kind of wording from the Commission to forego any future use of that space as living space. Commissioner Hlava stated that she would not be amenable to taking out the dormer window because it would not be i.n keeping with the rest of the house, but she suggested that a condition be placed that no permanent stairway be in the second floor addition. Staff suggested that if the Commission wishes to approve the attic space as livable space, they could still do so and add a condition that would prohibit the applicant from converting that space to living space within a five-year time span after final building approval for the addition. After the five years that space could be converted and the a. pplicant would not need to go through Building Site Approval for the over 50% expansion. Commissioner Crowther inquired about consistency in handling this type of application. He stated that it seems the City should either change the ordi- nances or live by them, and he can not see any basis for making an exception. Staff noted that the Subdivision Ordinance does not count accessory structures as square footage and the Design Review Ordinance does. The calculations were discussed. After further discussion there was a consensus that 77 sq. ft. could be eliminated from the addition, thus bringing it under 50% expansion. Mr. Sohns indicated that this would be easy to do. "-" .... It was clarified to the applicant that .the 10-day appeal period cannot be waived. It was noted that there is also a 15-day appeal period during which time the City Council can appeal. H6wever, the City Council has instructed the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the ordinance, eliminating that provision. The City Attorney suggested that the applicant could ask that the City Council indicate by consensus that they have no desire to appeal, in order to receive a building permit at an earlier date. - 6 Pt~nning Commission Page 7 .Meeting Minutes 9/2.8/83 A-907 (cont.) Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve 'A-907, per Exhibi'ts "B" and "C" and the Staff Report dated Sep'tember 15, 1983, amended to delete Condition No. 1 and substituting for it the condition that all attic space will be considered non-useable space and will be accessed by a folding stairway, and adding a condition that the applicant will reduce the total size of the addition by 77 sq. ft., with approval of those plans' by Staff before. final building per- mits are issued. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Commissioner Hlava then amended her motion to include Condition No. 1, since she had erroneously deleted it, thinking it included removal of the dormer. Commis- sioner McGoldrick accepted the amendment. The motion was carried unanimously 6-0. 8a. A-908 - Mr. and Mrs. Allen, 19822 Merribrook Drive, Request for 8b. SDR-1550 Building Site Approval for a greater than 50% expansion and Design Review Approval to expand the second story of an existing two-story residence The proposal was described by Staff. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that there were no problems with the application. The public hearing was opened at 10:31 p.m. Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner CrowthOr moved to approve SDR-1550 and A-908, per the Staff report dated September 22, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C". Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimouslye6-0. 9. A-909 - Mr. and Mrs. Jameson, 18628 Paseo Lado, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second story addition to an existing single story residence The application'was explained by Staff. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report. She commented that Staff had recommended extending the wall in order to ensure more privacy to' neighbors from the deck area; however, they felt' that it would be better to plant some kind of big trees there rather than extend the wall. The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the p.ublic hearing.. Commissioner. Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther' moved to approve ~-909 per the Staff Report dated September 19, 1983 and Exhibits "B", "C" and "D". Commissioner Nellis commented that there is already some la'ndscaping along the property line by the deck and perhaps the planting of one large tree there would finalize the privacy of the adjacent neighbor, rather than extending the wall. Com- miss'ioner Crowther amended his motion to revise Condition 1 to state that the applicant shall plant appropriate landscaping adjacent to the second story addition, so as to obscure the view of the adjoining property from the deck, subject to approval by Staff. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 10. A-911 - Fred Schumacher, 14561 Westcott Drive, Request for Design Review Approval to expand the second story of an existing two-story residence in an R-I-20,000 zoning district The project. was explained by .Staff. Th'ey noted that the applicant had started the addition' without approval or building permits to do so. They stated that there is an existing carport on site which is in violation of the setbacks and there is no record of permits for that structure either. Therefore, there is a need to obtain a variance and building permits for that structure or remove the carport from the site. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee Report, describing the site and project. She stated that they had discussed the options with the applicant and had suggested th'at perhaps since the neighbor has a driveway easement on his property the're might be a lot line adjustment. The possibility of having the applicant put 'up some kind of bond against the variance approval or - 7 - planning Commiss ion Page 8 Meeting Minutes 9/28/83 A-911 (cont.) settlement of the carport situation. The publ'.ic hearing was opened at 10:.44 p.m. The appli'cant.eXpla.ined that he 'thought'he had a large sized lot and did not understand the requiremen~F;'ther~fore, he went ahead with 'the project. He stated that he Wanted t'O correct whatever problems that exist, and his first preference is to straighten out the 'lot line. He 'agreed to a condition regarding the bond, to enable him to build before 'the rains. The City Attorney suggested the condition "~lle"a~icant shall submit .~"'~a'~h bond or a letter of credit in an amount equal to the estimated cost to remove the carport.in the event a variance is not obtained or is not required by reason of lot line adjustments, and the carport is not removed within a reasonable period of time." Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner' Siegfried moved to approve'A-911 per 'the Staff Report dated September 21, 19.83 and Exhibits "B", "C" and "D", with Condition 2 amended to indicate 'that the applicant post a bond judged appropriate to take care of the costs of demolition of the carport and associated administrative City costs should he not be able to obtain a variance or property line adjust- men. t within' six months, or the carport shall be removed. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 11. UP-543.- Ms. Chambre (Crocker Bank), 14417 Big Basin Way, Request for Use Permit Approval for a banking facility in a C-C zoning district Commissioner Hlava abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter because of possible conflict of interest. Staff described the proposal, recommending denial. Discussion followed on consistency with the Zoning Ordinance. The City Attorney stated that Staff is also relying on the 'General Plan policy and the action program for the Village regarding their inability to make the findings. He indicated that these state that uses should be encouraged which would generate sales tax to produce revenue for the City. The conditions regarding landscaping and joining the Parking Assessment District were noted as pluses for the City. The public hea'ring was opened at 11:00 p.m. William Dunn, Michael Smith, and Mike Little, of Crocker Bank, gave a pre- sentation on the proposed use, discussing the analysis of customer base and the location. Doug Adams, attorney for the property owner, discussed the conditions of the Staff Report, noting that there is no evidence that his client would support Condition 3 regarding joining the Parking District. Chairman Schaefer noted that,.if approved, she would like the bank to con- tribute something to the City. Mr. Dunn commented that their business is run by the branches and perhaps the manager has the right to commit to do that. Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried.unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that the General Plan Committee wanted this to be retail and she feels the City should be consistent. Commissioner Nellis sta~ed that he agrees with the Staff Report. He added that t]~e'City~ does not see many opportunities to have retail coming..jn downtown, and he would like to see a retail use which would ~'e~'eraf~ revenue-."""" The findings of the Staff Report were discussed. Commissioner 'Siegfried moved to apprave UP-543, per the conditions in the Staff Report, making the 7fi'~'~'~'~'~'tl~ "t~:~6',~"~' cdH.~'~'~'~'~C~;"~h:~"~'-"'~l~"historical use of the site has "B'~'fi'~'iifi~ff~ia"["'*i'h'~t~tU~'i'Sn~";"'aH~ '-i't--~,.-s,a'&'m~' -.to be the most reasonable use of the site.' It will generate some revenue to the City and generate traffic coming into the Village. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with 'Commissi'oners Nellis and McGoldrick dissenting and Commissi'oner Hlava abstaining. - 8 - Pi~nning Commission Page 9 M~eting Minutes 9/28/83 UP-543 (cont.) Chairman Schaefer questioned having an automatic teller on site, and Commis.- sioner 'Siegfried agreed. Mr. Dunn stated that a teller' would in-crease foot traffic. It was note'd that there will be design review on this matter. Commissioner Crowther stated that he voted for the use 'permit because of Condition No. 3, requiring parti'cipation .in the creation of the Parking Assessment District. It was clarified. that approval of the use permit is subject to that condition. MISCELLANEOUS 12. Tracts 6526 and 6528, Blackwell Homes, Inc., Parker Ranch, Modification to Si'te Development Pla'n to allow pools on six (6) additional lots Commissioner Cr0wther abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter because of pending litigation. Staff described the proposal. Commissioner 'Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, agreeing that the rest of the lots except No. 75 have substantial sites for pools. Russell Crowther, Norada Court, stated that the Site Development Plan for this project was tied to the 'tentative map. He commented that there was a public'hearing, the EIR was based on'the site development plan that was approved, and ~Her'ewa's a lot of concern about scenic impacts from things like tennis courts and swimming pools, since it is a hillside site. He indicated that-he strongly believes that this should'not come up under Mis- cellaneous as it has, but should be put up for a rehearing if there is going to be any modification to the Site' Development Plan. Commissioner Hlava commente'd that they had looked at where.the possible swimm- ing pool sites were so there would not'be any visual impact, and for the most part there were no visibility problems'on any of the lots. The City Attorney stated' that this is just a consent for amendment to the CC&Rs at this time. Staff noted that any site development plan would go -through design rev'iew,.which would be a public hearing. Mr. Crowther ques- tioned whether the tentative map would be modified by changing the site development plan. The City Attorney indicated that there would be a public hearing in connection with a development proposal. He added that the fact that the restriction is being removed doesn't necessarily mean.that the City is bound at that point to approve the proposal when it comes in. He' noted that the engineer has indicated that Lot 'No. 43 should be added to the list of restrictions. : Bill Heiss, engineer, stated that he understands that the pools are not being approved and must go through the design review process.' He'discussed the original delineation of pools and the 'criteria used. He noted that the · City Geologist has looked at the lots on which approval iS being requested but has stated that he..wants to review the specific site plans. The City Attorney stated that the amendment to the C~_R_s_.wou~d not o~ly..be for the 'removal of the restriction, but also the 'fmpositi~f"'~!'~e~t~'~"~on with respect to Lot 43. He added the Condition '~pp'Y~'Can"t'~:~'~"p~'~ "the proposed amendment to the CC&Rs and furnish a draft of the same to the City 'Attorney for approval as to form at leas't ten 'days prior to the City Council meeting at which the consent to the amendment is being requested. Mr. Crowther commented that he feels m6difying the CC&Rs before the'Site Development Plan and the tentative map is putting the cart before the horse, since the site development requires that by CC&Rs what is in the site develop- ment plan be regulated. He added that he feels that the danger in doing that is a'purchaser of a home site sees the CC&Rs, saying he can build a pool, and the site development plan says he can't. Mr. Heiss stated that the applicant indicates to all buyers that whatever is proposed has to go through desi'gn review. It was determined that the words "may be approved" be added to the Staff Report. 'Commissioner Hlava moved to recommend modification of the CC&Rs~for potential placement of pools, per the Staff Report dated September 22, 1983, adding the restriction on Lot 43 and the' condition as stated by the City Attorney relative to the proposed amendment. Commissioner' McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 5-0, wi'th Commissioner Crowther abstaining. - 9 Pl.anning Commission Page 10 ~eeting Minutes 9/2.8/8.3 COMMUN I CAT IONS Written 1. Letter from Alan Nonnenberg, dated September 15, 1983, regarding poolside cabana permit. After discuss'ion it was the consensus of the Commis- sion that Mr. Nonnenberg must go through the. 'use' 'permit process before the issuance of a building permit. Oral 1. Chairman Schaefer thanked the' Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and. serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hlava moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 55 p .m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd