Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 12, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of May 22, 1985: On page 5, inthe last sentence of second paragraph, "desirable" should be changed to "undesirable"; the ninth paragraph should read "owner of Rhett's seafood restaurant", and a·paragraph should be inserted to read: "Chairman Peterson then asked Mr. Troyan if he wished to respond to the persons speaking in opposition to the application, and he declined to do so." Quotation marks should enclose Commissioner Burger's comments at the end of page 5 and the first paragraph of page 6. On page 6, the third paragraph should read: "The City Attorney stated that if there is no appeal, the Planning Commission decision would be effective in ten days. If there is an appeal and the decision is affirmed, it would be effective at that time. If there is an appeal the dancing could continue until the decision by the City Council.~' On page 9, a sentence should be added to the eighth paragraph, to re~d: "He indicated that they would be one-story in the rear or south side and will slope to two stories in the front." On page 11, the word "the" should be deleted from the first sentence in the last paragraph under V-699. Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the ·.reading of the minutes of May 22, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Presentations Chairman Peterson presented a Resolution to Kathy McGoldrick, commending her for her service and dedication to the City as a Planning Commissioner, and presented a gavel to Commissioner Siegfried for his service as Chairman of the Planning ~ission during the last year. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 2. A-1080 - Allyn Becker, RequeSt for Design Review Approval to con- struct a new two-story, single family residence on a hillside lot at 12264 Farr Ranch Road, in the NHR zoning district; continued from May 22, 1985 5. A-1098 - Daniel Scolari, Request for Modifications to a previous Design Review Approval to partially enclose certain balconies for a hotel under construction in the C-C dis- trict located at the northernmost terminus of Third St. 6. SDR-1511 -Clarence Neale, Request for a one-year extension for a Tentative Building Site Approval for a 2-lot subdivi- sion in the R-M-4,000 zoning district at 14230 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road 7a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1598 - Nancy Cole 7b. SDR-1598 -Nancy Cole, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for a two (2) lot subdivision at 14401 Quito Road, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district 'Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes Meeting 6/ 85 Items #1, A-1078, Ali Mozaffari, #3, A-1095, Nino Gallo, #4, A-1097 and SDR-1600, James and Roxanne Axline, and #8, UP-581, William and Mary Benson, were removed for discussion. The public hearing was opened at 7:43 p.m. on the balance. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the balance of the items of the Public Hearings Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Discussion followed on Item #1, A-1078, Ali Mozaffari. Commissioner B. Harris stated that she would be abstaining on this matter. The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-1078, Ali Mozaffari. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 5-0. Discussion followed on Item #3, A-1095, Nino Gallo. Commissioner B. Harris stated that she would be abstaining on this matter. The public hearing was opened at 7:46 p.m. The correspondence received on this matter was noted. Maurice ~amargo, the applicant, addressed the conditions of the Staff Report, specifically conditions 1, 3 and 4. He indicated that they feel that they could reduce the height to 28-1/2 ft. and still work with the design. Commissioner Schaefer asked Staff if there were empty spaces on the second floor that are convertible that were not measured into the calculations. Staff indicated that there are areas that are open, looking down onto the first level. Mr. Camargo indicated that they had taken the trees into consideration when designing the home. He discussed the distances from the various trees on the plan. He also addressed the square footage of the home and the method of measurement of the open space, indicating that they would have to design the whole structure to meet the requirement of 4800 sq. ft. if the open space is included in the calculations. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he does not believe the concern here is the conversion of the open space into living space, but the fact that it gives the appearance of bulk from the exterior. Chairman Peterson noted that the footprint of the house is only 3000 sq. ft. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site and the adjacent homes. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels that the design of this home does not take advantage of as many architectural features as the adjacent home; therefore, she feels that this large home will not be minimized by architecture. Nino Gallo, the builder, addressed the requirement for 8 ft. distance between the trees and the structure, indicating that it was new to him. He also discussed the calculations for the square footage and the other homes in the subdivision. He stated that he feels each home has to be treated individually. Mr. Gallo discussed the open space and design, noting that the other homes in the subdivision do have high ceilings, but the ceilings were not as high as in this home. Charles Aring, Mendelsohn Lane, expressed his support for the last three or four homes that Mr. Gallo has built, stating that they are very attractive. He noted that this is the first series of houses on Mendelsohn and asked the Commission to take that into consideration. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the calculations of square footage and a possible compromise in the maximum allowed and the height of the home. Staff stated that they would have some difficulty in interpreting the Commission's wishes relative to measuring the square footage. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels Staff should be given a number to determine the percentage. in the areas that are double counted for other homes. She noted that this home does not have many architectural features to break up the appearance. Commissioner - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 6/12/85 A-1095 J. Harris agreed that she would like to see more relief given to the bulky appearance from outside and suggested a study session, in order to allow the applicant to address the commission's concerns. There was a consensus that the Commission needs a better feel for where some of the square footage is and how it could be relieved by some minor architectural relief. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on June 18, 1985 and the regular meeting of June 26, 1985. Discussion followed on Item #4, A-1097 and SDR-1600, James and Roxanne Axline. The public hearing was opened at 8:12 p.m. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels that this home in that neighborhood 7.2 ft. from' the side property line is inappropriate because the houses on that street are very small. She added that the home is above the amount of allowable square footage because it has two auxiliary buildings already on the property. Staff submitted information received from the applicant relative to the location of two- story residences in the area. Commissioner J. Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lot and the setbacks. Glen Bolich, architect, gave a presentation on the project, describing the other homes in the area and the site. In answer to Commissioner J. Harris' inquiry, he described the work shop area. He addressed the square footage, indicating that they could reduce the structure by 148 sq. ft. Mr. Bolin, 20151 Thelma, referenced the petition he and the neighbors have submitted in opposition to a two-story. He stated that they would welcome improvement on the site but feel there is room for expansion on the site without having a two-story building. He noted the two trees on site which would be impacted. David Garrett, 13555 Saratoga Vista, expressed opposition to a two-story because of invasion of his privacy. He added that Mr. Axline's home is already 4 or 5 ft. higher than his home. Joyce Laland, 20184 Thelma Avenue, agreed with Messrs. Bolin and Garrett. Bill Masline, 20095 Thelma Avenue, stated that he would like to see some improvement made in that area and asked that the Commission work with the applicants to build a satisfactory home on this site. Mr. Bolich stated that the applicant is flexible and would like to satisfy the neighbors and suggested a study session on the application. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on June 18, 1985 and the regular meeting of June 26, 1985. Commissioner J. Harris asked for clarification of the fact that the applicant's home is already 4 or 5 ft. higher than that of Mr. Garrett. Discussion followed on Item #8, UP-581, William and Mary Benson. The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. Mr. Benson, the applicant, referenced his previous application for a pool house and the current proposal. He submitted a sketch addressing Staff's concerns in the Staff Report. He explained that they have eliminated an enclosure for the pool house and do not exceed the 6200 sq. ft. - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 6/12/85 UP-581 Commissioner Siegfried commented that he feels the roof line is going to be very visible and will have quite an impact on the Marinos. Mr. Benson discussed the proposed landscaping and stated that he did not feel that the Marinos would see the pool house when their landscaping and that of Camargo Layne go in. He addressed the design of the pool house, indicating that it was compatible with the rest of their home. Mr. Benson noted the petition that was signed by the neighbors in support of the project. Commissioner Sschaefer commented that the intent of the Accessory Structure Ordinance is garden type of structures that have a feeling of decoration to the landscaping, rather than a building kind of concept. Commissioner Siegfried agreed. Mr. Benson stated that they have tried very hard to develop a structure that the City could be proud of and the neighborhood would endorse. He noted that the opposition by the Commission of the previous structure had only been that it would set a precedent if he was permitted to have more than 6200 sq. ft. of building on the site. Commissioner Peterson agreed with Mr. Benson that the design had not been discussed previously. He commented that he feels that landscaping will mitigate seeing the structure. Mr. Benson indicated that he was also concerned about a precedent that a single person in a neighborhood who might be able to see the structure could direct the decision for the whole neighborhood. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not think that is the point at all. He commented that in the original discussion about the size of this house, he thinks the Commission was ver~ specific in saying that the square footage could be 6175, but they did not want to see other things, as time goes along, that will increase the perception. He commented that he thinks the structure is a perception of another 400 sq. ft. of building. Mr. Benson commented that they had tried to comply with the spirit of the ordinance, discussions with Staff, and the discussion with the Commission. He noted that the.neighbors have all signed a petition in support of it. Commissioner J. Harris noted that the Accessory Structure Ordinance being considered this evening calls for a maximum height of 10 ft. for gazebos, and asked him if that height would be satisfactory. Mr. Benson stated that he would have to check the figures to see what that would do to the consistency of the structure with the height of the home. Don Call, the former President of.the Montalvo Homeowners Association, stated that they had not previously commented on the square footage, because they felt that it was very clear that anything over 6200 sq. ft. would eliminate the proposal. He discussed the size of the homes in relationship to the size of the lots in the neighborhood. He indicated that the proposed project is not compatible with the neighborhood, and more building should not be allowed on the lot. Chairman Peterson commented that he feels that the.Planning Commission appreciates the Homeowners' concern relative to the 6200 sq. ft. maximum, because they denied Mr. Benson's application for a home exceeding that square footage. James Marino, 20553 Montalvo Lane, submitted a petition, reaffirming the position of the neighborhood in asking that the Commission stand by their vote on May 8, 1985 by denying any additional square footage where 6200 sq. ft. is the allowable maximum. Bill McDonnell, 15201 Montalvo Road, stated that he had signed that petition, not in opposition to 6200 sq. ft. as a specific number, but rather the perception that that represents in terms of the house that is there, which is very pretty and very large. He added that to expand that, whether a wall is open or not, increases that massiveness - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 6/12/85 UP-581 perception. He noted that there were nine more homes to be built in the immediate area in the future, therefore, the size of this home is a concern. Clare Marino, 20553 Montalvo Road, stated that she is sorry this process brings about neighbor against neighbor, but she would like to enter into the minutes that Mr. Benson threatened her this evening, stating that she better get her house in order because he is out for war. She commented that she is not fighting with Mr. Benson but is trying only to have the ordinances as they stand enforced to everyone in the same way. She added that all the homeowners wanted from the 6200 sq. ft. cap was to leave some visual open space. She asked the Commission to renew her faith in a system of building permits and ordinances that used to protect the precious quality of life that is so unique to Saratoga. Winifred Miller, 20560 Montalvo Lane, echoed what the neighbors have said, that she would like the Commission to protect the neighborhood. Ma.ry Ann McDonald, 15201 Montalvo Road, spoke to the impact that the roofs have on the neighborhood. She agreed with the neighbors that they would like to keep it green and woodsy. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger commented that it was her recollection of the discussion on May 8, 1985, when the Commission voted for denial, that at that time she heard the neighbors saying over and over again that they did not want structures on that site to go over 6200 sq. ft. She explained that at the time she voted for denial she made it clear that she thought the cabana was attractive as the proposal was submitted, and the only reason she voted to deny was that somewhere along the way the neighbors had received an assurance that structures in the neighborhood, including accessory structures, would not go over 6200 sq. ft. She stated that what she sees here this evening is a proposal, with conditions in the Staff Report, that will not go over 6200 sq. ft.; she still thinks the cabana is attractive, and she could vote in favor of it with a reduction of the roof line to 10 ft. Commissioner B. Harris agreed. Commissioner Siegfried reiterated that he is not opposed to some cabana or shade or garden structure. He noted, as Commissioner Schaefer had stated, that the whole concept of accessory structures was that they were viewed as open garden kinds of structures. He stated that his problem with this application is that, whether we remove the walls or not, given this particular roof design, it has a perception of a building that does increase the impact on the neighborhood. Therefore, he added, he would vote against this particular design. Staff clarified to Commissioner J. Harris that the wall that surrounds the property is now 6 ft. in height. Commissioner J. Harris noted that even if a 10 ft. gazebo were allowed it would extend 4 ft. above that wall. She stated that she feels that everybody should have the privilege of having some kind of gazebo in the back, but she has to agree with Commissioner Siegfried that this is going to look like another building. She added that she cannot even go along with the 10 ft. height, because there is so much building on that lot, that the wall completely encompassing the back yard just increases the perception of building. She stated that to have the proposed roof accentuates that. She commented that she thinks if it was some sort of a structure that had plants on the top, an arbor, she could approve it. However, she could not approve this design. Commissioner J. Harris moved to deny UP-581, William and MarZ ~nson, per Exhibit "B". Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which resulted in a split vote 3-3, with Commissioners Peterson, B. Harris and Burger dissenting. It was noted that the split vote is deemed a denial, and the appeal period was noted. PlanningCommission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 6/12/85 Break - 9:15 - 9:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9a. GPA 85-2 -Joseph Kennedy and Karen Mayers, Consider Amending the 9b. C-219 - General Plan and Zoning Designations of the northern- 9c. LLA #7 - most 1,525 acres of a 5,485 acre site from Residential- Hillside Conservation Single Family/HC-RD (maximum density of .5 DU/Acre) to Residential-Very Low Density Single Family/R-i-40,000 (maximum density of 1.09 DU/ Acre) at 15480 Peach Hill Road, and Grant Approval for Lot Line Adjustment; continued from May 22, 1985 (to be continued to June 26, 1985 The City Attorney gave the history of the application, stating that at the last study session there had been consensus to recommend that the parcel to be acquired by Mr. Carey would be rezoned R-1-40,000, on two conditions: 1) There would be an agreement executed by Mr. Carey whereby he relinquishes any development rights which would otherwise allow him to subdvide the consolidated property into more than 2 lots, and 2) With respect to the parcel being acquired from Mr. Kennedy, an open space easement would be placed upon that property, restricting its use to garden type accessory structures. He added that unfortunately there was miscommunication, in that Mr. Carey thought the Commission needed completed agreements by this evening, whereas he was under the impression that the Commission could go ahead with the rezoning and General Plan changes, and then having the agreement be a condition of those approvals. He commented that Mr. Carey's attorney had drafted a letter form of agreement; however, the attorney was told that that would not be satisfactory, since we need a document to be recorded and a matter of public record, so that the relinquishment of development rights and the restriction on the use of the Kennedy parcel would be binding upon subsequent owners. Moreover, Mr. Carey would be required to file a parcel map showing the consoldidation of the two parcels and the open space easement would be delineated on that map; in addition to that there would also be an open space easement agreement. The City Attorney added that Mr. Carey's attorney indicated that the documents would be submitted and they have been executed by Mr. Carey, more or less as an indication of his good faith intentions to proceed. However, because of the mixup in communications it was indicated on the agenda that the Commission would be continuing the matter. He commented that he thinks a continuance is appropriate for the further reason that it may be of assistance to the Planning Commission to have some form of preliminary landscape plan submitted as a form of guidance in framing the open space easement. He explained that normally when there is an open space easement agreement the City restricts any form of improvement whatsoever, including landscaping, whereas that is not the intention of the Commission in this case. He asked for the Commission's thoughts on the types of things that should be put in the open space easement agreement, relative to what the Commission feels is allowable within the Kennedy portion of the property. The public hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m. Dottie Bilner, realtor respresenting the buyer and the seller, described the agreements, discussing the proposed landscaping. The City Attorney indicatedthat he had some problem with the language in the agreements, which can be worked out. Discussion followed on types of garden structures which would be allowed in the open space easement. Ms. Bilner noted that Mr. Carey intends to incorporate that area into his' backyard, and Mr. Carey would be submitting a landscaping plan. It was directed that this matter be continued to July 10, 1985, and the applicant was asked to submit a conceptual landscaping plan for that meeting. - 6 - Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 6/12/85 20. C-220 - City of Saratoga, Consider Amending the text of the Sign Ordinance regarding': 1) The types and sizes of signs needing Design Review or Sign Permits; 2) Increasing the aggregate sign area permitted in commercial dis- tricts; 3) Adding Definitions; 4) Adding criteria for Sign Review; 5) New regulations for freestanding signs; and 6) Other amendments clarifying or creating more flexibility in the ordinance per Ordinance NS-3; con- tinued from May 22, 1985 The City Attorney commented that no changes have been made to this ordinance since the draft submitted at the study sessions. He discussed the main changes that have been made to the ordinance. He stated that the ordinance does not reflect the recommendations'of the Village Task Force Committee with respect to signs in the Village, and an appropriate time to consider them would be at the review of the Village Plan at their forthcoming study session. The public hearing was opened at 10:00 p.m. Steve Douglas, of the Owen Companies, asked if there is some other vehicle besides a variance that would cover signage for a large project such as theirs. The City Attorney suggested that a provision could be added to paragraph 10.9, subparagraph (d), to read that the Planning Commission shall have 'authority tO modify the standards herein through a use permit process, thereby leaving the rest of the entire article to a variance if there is a modification. Discussion followed on the section addressing real estate signs, relative to the statement that the sign shall not exceed 4 ft. in height. There was a consensus to change the statement to read "maximum 8 ft. high measured from the top of the curb of s~ree~'~. It was noted that there would be a stipulation on any sign permit for this project that when the berms are established, the sign is to be put at grade. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which.was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to adopt Resolution No. C-220-1, amended to reflect the changes discussed this evening. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. She commented that she agrees with the changes made tonight; however, there are other changes to the ordinance with which she does not agree. 21. C-221 - City of Saratoga, Consider Amending the text of the Nonconforming Uses.and Structures Ordinance regarding: 1) The continuation, maintenance, expansion and replace- ment of existing nonconforming uses and structures; 2) Elimination of nonconforming uses and structures after lapse of time; 3) Nonconforming sites; and 4) Other amendments to clarify the ordinance per Ordinance NS-3; continued from May 22, 1985 The City Attorney noted that one change had been made since the last study session, in Section 15.3, changing "structures" to "dwellings", and adding in the Agricultural District. He noted that there had been clarification of language in the section dealing with nonconforming sites and a slight rewording of combining paragraphs A and B. He discussed the amendments made to the ordinance. The public hearing was opened at 10:16 p.m. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on Section 15.3 relative to second units, and it was determined that it should be reworded to make it clearer. Commissioner Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 6/12/85 C-221 Burger moved to adopt Resolution C-221-1, with the rewording in Section 15.3. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 12. GF-344 - City of Saratoga, Consider Amending the text of the Second Unit Ordinance to allow greater flexibility in the standards for legalizing existing second units in terms of lot slope, Building Code compliance, Zoning Ordinance compliance (setbacks, height, etc.), parking requirements, sanitary sewer hook-up, occupancy, and other ordinance requirements per Ordinance NS-3 (to be continued to June 26, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to June 26, 1985. 13a. E-1-85 - J. Lohr Properties, Inc., Consider a Draft Environ- 13b. SD-1584 - mental Impact Report and request for Tentative Approval for a 28-1ot subdivision on 10.2 acres in the R-1-12,500 zoning district at the northwestern corner of Via Escuela Drive and Glen Brae Drive This matter was heard out of sequence after the break. Staff explained the proposal, stating that the item before the Commission this evening is the Draft Environmental Impact Report. They commented that the EIR consultant, Bruce Campbell from .ESA, was present to answer questions. The correspondence received on the project was noted. The public hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. Staff indicated that public testimony should be taken tonight on the Draft EIR and close the public hearing on it if there are sufficient comments; leave the public hearing open on the subdivision, and then vote on the final comments on the EIR at the next meeting. They noted that the City Geologist had indicated concern with the precise location of the Monte Vista fault relative to this site. They commented that correspondence has been received from Terrasearch, indicating that they could not find any trace of that fault, and Staff is awaiting confirmation from the City Geologist's office on those comments. Chuck Rudiger, 13060 La Vista Drive, expressed concern relative to the existing pedestrian walkway. He stated that they would like to have that walkway closed down if the development is approved. He also stated that he opposed a two-story building behind his property. Staff commented that, with the elimination of the school site, the walkway is no longer necessary, and it would be appropriate for the adjoining property owners to request the City Council to hold hearings on the abandonment of that walkway. Mr. Rudiger was asked to discuss with Staff the procedure for the initiation of that abandonment. Jerry Lohr, the developer, addressed the drainage in the subdivision, indicating that he has met with the concerned neighbors and his civil engineer. The resident at 19585 Via Escuela~ asked the Commission to limit the new homes around the existing neighbors to one-story, in order to preserve some sense of privacy. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was directed that the matter be continued to June 26, 1985, at which time the Final EIR will be before the Commission, and the public hearing will be opened at that time on the subdivision. Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 6/12/85 14. C-222 - City of Saratoga, Consider Amending Certain Zoning Regulations of the City of Saratoga pertaining to uses, site coverage, accessory structures, distance between structures and setbacks in the R-l, HC-RD and NHR zoning districts There was a consensus that this matter should be continued to a study session, to allow the Commission to determine the definition of an accessory structure. It was directed that it be continued to a study session on June 18, 1985 nd the regular meeting of June 26, 1985. 15. C-223 - City of Saratoga, Consider Amending Certain Zoning Regulations of the City of Saratoga to lengthen the effective period of Design Review, Use Permit and Variance Approvals and lengthen the period allowed for the extensionsof these applications per Ordi- nance NS-3 The City Attorney stated that the only change that had been made since the study session was to eliminate the reference to second unit use permits. The public hearing was opened at 10:26 p.m. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which.was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris moved to adopt Resolution C-223-1. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which.was carried unanimously 6-0. MISCELLANEOUS ~ 16. A-1038 - Mrs. Bobbie Canha, 12784 Paseo Presada, Request for V-672 - Relief of Condition#5 of Design Review Approval Staff explained the request, stating that it had not been noticed that the required offset was not shown on the plans, and the project has now been redtagged by the inspector. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that it appeared that the second story had been set back 18" from the eave, rather than from the first story~ James Canha, the applicant, described the cantilever. Commissioner Burger added that the building has progressed to an extent where it would probably represent a hardship to tear down what has been done and redo it. Commissioner Schaefer commented that something needs to be done to provide architectural relief. Commissioner Harris agreed. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that something be done to the roof line, and possibly shutters added. There was a consensus to continue the item, in order to allow all the Commissioners to visit the site. It was directed that the matter be continued to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on June 18, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. The applicant was requested to submit suggestions at that time to help mitigate the situation. 17. SDR-1462 -Mr. and Mrs. Schaffer, Cox Avenue, Building Site Approval, 2 lots, Request for Deferred Improvement Agreement for Condition E-4 The request was explained by Staff, stating that they recommend that the applicant enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement for the work, should there ever be an occasion that the balance of the street would be undergrounded. Mr. Schaffer, the applicant, agreed to the Deferred - 9 - Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 6/12/85 SDR-1462 Agreement. Commissioner Siegfried moved to have the applicant enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement for Condition E-4. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 18. V-609 - Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road, Review of Lighting Plan Staff gave the history of the application, indicating that Mr. Renna had been asked to submit plans for any lighting on his wall. They stated that the submission provides for lights on top of the wall which would exceed the 6 ft. height. They added that they were recommending that the Commission not approve the plan. They noted that a letter has been submitted, asking that if the Commission is of a mind to deny this plan, that the matter be continued until the applicant's attorney can be present. It was directed that this matter be continued to June 26, 1985. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Video Renter, 12175C Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Regarding Request for Business License. Discussion followed on the request. Commissioner Schaefer expressed concern about regulation of rental of adult movies. Discussion followed, and the City Attorney commented that this were added as a permitted use, a general ordinance could be initiated that would require separation of the adult films and prohibit window advertising. There was a consensus that this should be added as a permitted use, as long as it could be regulated. Commissioner Burger moved to add video rentals as a permitted use in the C-V zoning district. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining. Staff was requested to bring a resolution back to the next meeting. Oral by Commission and Staff '1. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Burger moved to adjourn to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on June 18, 1985. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectful~ su~ ~~~k RSS:cd 10--