HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-23-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: August 23, 1989 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Roll Call: Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tucker, Kolstad, Tappan
present at 7:30 P.M.; Commissioner Moran absent.
Pledge of Allegiance:
Approval of Minutes: Minutes of August 9, 1989
Commissioner Burger noted that on Page 6, Commissioner Tappan echoed her comment. In SD-
88-008, Page 11, her comment amended to read, "Commissioner Burger reviewed the various pro-
posals presented and agreed this was a less than perfect situation with a less than perfect solution."
Commissioner Harris asked that in DR-89-047, UP-89-007, her comment be amended to add
"...however, her personal experience was that special events were scheduled at different times than
member events."
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 1989, AS
AMENDED. Passed 6-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
REPORT ON POSTING OF AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the
agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on August 4, 1989.
Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planning Director Eroslie presented a revised Resolution
for Item 6, SM-89-006, which contained an added Condition.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. DR-89-046 Naghavi, 20233 Seagull Way, request for design review approval to de-
molish an existing single story residence and construct a 3,197 sq. ft. two-
story residence in the R-l-10,000 zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Continued to September 13, 1989.
2. DR-89-095 Hur, 20052 Sunset Avenue, request for design review and building site ap-
SD-89-019 proval to construct a two-story, 6,182 sq. ft. single family home in the HC-
RD zone district per Chapter 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to
September 13, 1989.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2
AUGUST 23, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
3. DR-89-042 Lohr, 14883 Gypsy Hill Road, request for design review approval to con-
struct a two story, 5,575 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000
zone district per Chapter 1.5 of the City Code.
4. DR-89,062 Butler, 20440 Montalvo Heights, request. for design review approval to
construct a two story, 5,993 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-i-
40,000 district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
5. DR-89-052 Craik, 14929 Bohlman Road, request for design review approval to allow a
6,390 sq. ft., two story dwelling in the HC-RD zone district per Chapter 15
of the City Code.
6. SM-89-006 Lempert, 13921 Damon Lane, request for site modification approval to con-
struct a swimming pool on a site where a single family dwelling exists in the
NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
7. DR-89-013 Velinsky, 15839 Hidden Hill Road, Planning Commission approval of a
Resolution for design review approval to construct a new 5,073 sq. ft. two-
story single family home in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15
of the City Code. Public Hearing closed on August 9, 1989.
8. DR-89-032 ' Lohr, 14671 Sobey Oaks Court, request for design review approval to con-
struct a two-story, 6,180 +/- sq. ft. residence in the R-i-40,000 zone dis- -
trict per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
A member of the audience requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 4.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3, 6, 7, AND 8.
Passed 6-0.
4. DR-89-062 Butler, 20440 Montalvo Heights, request for design review approval to
construct a two story,. 5,993 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-I-
40,000 district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 23, 1989.
The Public Hearing ~vas opened at 7:40 P.M.
Ms. Judy Magneson, Adjacent property owner, stated that her U-shaped home would look down
on the structure; she objected to the proposed second story element and asked that this house be one
story. Privacy impacts would result to her home due to the fact that hers was so far above the pro-
posed house. When her home was built, no windows were allowed on the side facing the adjacent
property; she asked that the same consideration now be given to her.
Chairperson Siegfried noted the increased footprint if the house were limited to a one story elevation.
Ms. Magneson stated she understood, but a one-story house could be screened with landscaping;
furthermore, she asked that no windows be allowed on those elevations facing her home.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
AUGUST 23, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Chairperson Siegfried responded that he did not understand the speaker's comments regarding
privacy impacts to her home, given the fact that hers was significantly above the proposed house.
Mr. Butler, Applicant, estimated the speaker's home to be about 70 ft. above the subject property;
regardless of what was built, the adjacent property owners would be able to see over the new
structure and would not have their view impacted. The Magneson's were a sufficient distance that
they would not be able to see into the windows of the new structure; they had not been allowed to
install windows on the south elevation because of the minimum setback from Montalvo Rd.
Commissioner Tappan felt that the Magneson's should have an opportunity to view the plans.
Commissioner Tucker was amenable Ms. Magneson's request for a site visit to her property.
Chairperson Siegfried noted the very substantial difference in elevation between the two properties;
he did not understand Ms. Magneson's concerns.
TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:54 P.M. Passed 6-0.'
Consensus reached that the Applicant and Ms. Magneson be given an opportunity to review the
plans; Item to be returned later in the Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9. SD-88-008 Rogers & Brooks, Gypsy Hill/Crisp Ave., request for approval of a 34-1ot
subdivision varying in area from 0.92 acres to 1.89 acres in the R-1-
40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. The
property is located at the Odd Fellows property southerly to the senior care
facility, between Gypsy Hill subdivision and Crisp Ave. A Final Envi-
ronmental Impact Report was prepared for this project. The Public
Hearing was closed on August 9, 1989.
Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum, dated August 18, 1989.
The City Attorney did not feel it necessary to reopen the Public Hearing given the extensive testi-
mony already taken on this Application; the Continuance was to allow Staff to address the technical
issues that had arisen.
A review of the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) showed that it clearly provided for
access through the Odd Fellows property as one of the alternatives, despite arguments that the
project had been changed and new alternatives were being considered. If anything traffic impacts
were mitigated by changing the configuration from a through street to a cul-de-sac.' In his opinion,
there was consideration of an access through the Odd Fellows property from the beginning,
additional detail was provided to elaborate on that alternative and circulation of the Environmental
Impact Report was done; a further recirculation of the EIR was not required.
In response to Commissioner Harris' question regarding the Applicant's statement that all the
streets in Phase III should be constructed to a private street standard, the City Attorney responded
that the question of public vs. private streets could be addressed by the Commission; the City
would seek an offer of dedication on all streets. It was accepted that any extension of Crisp Ave.
or Gypsy Hill Rd. would be a public street since the existing street was public.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
AUGUST 23, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued'
The City Attorney continued his comments, stating that it was less clear whether the City would
accept a dedication from the Odd Fellows, due to concerns about street maintenance, control of
traffic and the limited number of lots that would access this alternative.
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE PC-89-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAN-
NING COMMISSION CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SAN
MARCOS HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY BY CRISP AVE., AND
GYPSY HILL RD. Passed 6-0.
In considering the following Motion, Commissioner Burger stated that she had always spoken in
favor of the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative, but never envisioned seventeen lots off of Crisp Ave.
'TUCKER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE A TWO CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH
SEVENTEEN (17)LOTS FROM CRISP AVE. AND SEVENTEEN (17) LOTS ACCESSING
OFF OF GYPSY HILL RD. Failed 2-4, Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger, Harris,
and Tappan dissenting.
Per request of the Commission, Mr. Bob Swanson estimated that there were seven to eight lots
currently taking access from Crisp Ave.
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE A TWO CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH
ELEVEN (11)LOTS FROM CRISP AVE. AND TWENTY-THREE (23) LOTS ACCESSING
OFF GYPSY HILL RD. Failed 3-3, Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Harris and Tappan
dissenting.
Commissioner Kolstad commented that he was willing to vote in favor of the Three Cul-de-Sac
Alternative per the Applicant's request, although he did not see that this was the best alternative.
Commissioner Harris stated that although she was a proponent of the Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative,
she was not favorable to the configuration suggested in the following Motion; she favored Mr.
Lohr's proposal submitted at the August 9th Meeting, which eliminated the need for the road to
cross the riparian corridor. She asked that the configuration for a Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative be
left open for discussion.
Chairperson Siegfried agreed that he also favored the Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative with a limit of
seven lots accessing off of Crisp Ave.; he was firm on the limitation of seven lots off of Crisp Ave.
TAPPAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE A THREE CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVE
WITH A LIMIT OF SEVEN (7) LOTS FROM CRISP AVE., NINE (9) LOTS FROM THE ODD
FELLOWS PROPERTY, AND EIGHTEEN (18) LOTS OFF GYPSY HILL RD. Failed 3-3,
Commissioners Burger, Harris and Tucker dissenting.
HARRISFFAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE A THREE CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH
THE CONFIGURATION BEING DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE. Passed 4-2, Com-
missioners Burger and Tucker dissenting.
Commissioner Tappan stated he was very firm about a limit of seven lots access off of Crisp Ave.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
AUGUST 23, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
HARRIS/TAPPAN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO LIMIT THE ACCESS OFF CRISP
AVE. TO SEVEN (7) LOTS. Passed 4-2, Commissioners Burger and Tucker dissenting.
Per invitation of the Planning Director, the Commission provided direction to Staff.
Public Hearing to be held September 13, 1989,.with a Study Session being held September 5th.
10. DR-89-041 Dividend Development, 13150 Saratoga Ave., request for consideration of a
SD-89-006 final development plan, vesting tentative subdivision map to create a mixed-
use housing project consisting of 75 townhomes and a senior housing facil-
ity. The senior housing facility would consist of 23 patio homes, 185 con-
dominium units, a 32 bed personal care facility and a 45 bed skilled nursing
facility. This site is zoned multiple use planned development district. An
Environmental Impact Report has been certified for this project. The Public
Hearing was closed on August 9, 1989.
The City Attorney stated that there was some concern regarding the monetary set-aside; after a
certain period of time, if there was no construction on Phase II, there would be a forfeiture in favor
of the City. He suggested a Condition be added to state that "If construction of Phase II was not
commenced within five (5) years, or such extension as granted by the Planning Commission, or
extension caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the Applicant, in such an
event the money would be distributed to the City and deposited in the General Fund.
Planning Director Emslie noted that a Revised Resolution DR-89-041 was presented for consider-
ation, incorporating amendments suggested by Commissioner Kolstad, as follows:
General Conditions~ E, add to 'end of paragraph, "Furthermore~ it is expressly stipulated that no
use other than some form of senior housing shall be proposed for the south side of the property
.for a period of 60 months if the applicant relinquishes 60% or more of his interest in the south
side project."
Planning Department
A., add to end of paragraph, "Both the landscape screen and the perimeter walls for the entire
project including Phases I and II (except areas required for the construction of Route 85) shall
be installed prior to the occupancy of Phase I."
N., add Condition to read, "The applicant shall utilize a style of architecture including colors~
building materials and details consistent with Phase I when preparing possible alternative plans
for Phase II."
The Public Hearing was reopened at 8:25 P.M.
Mr. Dick Oliver, Dividend Development, responding to Commissioner Tucker's inquiry,
confirmed that he had spoken with the Consultants and reported on the status of the Market Study.
Mr. Andy Beverett, Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, stated that the Strategic Commit-
tee continued to support the project; the Amended Conditions did not affect this endorsement.
Col. E. T. Barco, Camino Barco, Saratoga, stated that approval of the project as presented ~vould
be a mistake.
Mr. Bud Card, 20116 Chateau Dr., Saratoga, reviewed the wait periods and membership fees for
facilities available in the area; he concluded that a need for continuing care units existed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
AUGUST 23, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:39 EM. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Tucker agreed there was a waiting list for continuing care facilities; however, such
did not always reflect the number of individuals ready to move into such a facility. She reiterated
her concerns regarding the lack of the market study; the Applicant had adequate. time to present
some form of summary.
The Commission was left with the following scenarios; the best case scenario would be that the
City got the continuing care facility that senior citizens wanted. She did not feel this would be the
outcome and was not encouraged by the lack of an administrator despite efforts over the past two
years. A second scenario was that a senior project would be located on-site; this alternative also
hinged on the market study which would indicate whether the site was appropriate for senior care
and the type of care provided. A worst case scenario would be to be left with a vacant site for up
to three years; a modification would no longer be in order, but a retrofitring of the site. The
Applicant asked the City to take a gamble; the risk should be borne by the developer, not the City.
Commissioner Harris was very favorable to the proposed project and had enjoyed working with
Dividend Development; however, with the remaining questions and the doubts raised within the
senior community itself regarding the project's feasibility, approval of this Application would be a
grant of special privilege. She opposed the granting of special privilege to any applicant and
agreed that the Applicant was asking the City to bear the risk involved.
Commissioner Kolstad thought that the worse case scenario would be to have condominiums des-
ignated for seniors; the salability of such units was a function of the market place. Consideration
of a project with townhouses on one side and with townhouses/condominiums for seniors on the
other was an acceptable alternative.
Commissioner Tappan agreed with Commissioner Kolstad; he took exception to comments made
regarding the market study; the study was not within the Applicant's control and he did not ascribe
any ulterior motive to the lack of completion of it.
Commissioner Burger stated she had not prepared any comment; her previous comments on this
Application were noted.
Chairperson Siegfried stated he would be voting in favor of this Application; he noted the efforts to
develop the Ordinance. While he had very substantial concerns about the ultimate development of
this project, he was swayed by the fact that the townhouses by the very nature of things would
proceed completion of the senior project The Amended Conditions would ensure the architectural.
compatibility of the project as a whole..
TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE SD-89-006 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 4-2, Commissioners Harris, Tucker dissenting.
TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-006 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION
WITH THE AMENDED CONDITIONS. Passed 4-2, Commissioners Harris, Tucker dissenting.
The Commissioner returned to Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 4.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
AUGUST 23, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
4. DR-89-062 Butler, 20440 Montalvo Heights, request for design review approval to
construct a two story, 5,993 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-1-
40,000 district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Mr. Greg Barton, Architect, stated he had conferred with the Applicant; they were willing to elimi-
nate some windows facing the south, namely, the two windows in the Dressing Room/Water
Closet and one window in Bedroom No. 2.
Ms. Magneson added that the Applicant had also offered to rotate the'house slightly.
Commissioner Harris asked that a Condition be added requiring landscaping on the south side.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Mr. Barton responded that while they had agreed to rotate the house, upon reflection such would
throw off the alignment of the house with the street and change the presentation of the structure;
however, french doors could be installed the family room if this would help.
Commissioner Burger was not in favor of rotating the house; elimination of the three windows and
the addition of landscaping would be sufficient to address the adjacent property owner's concerns.
Commissioner Tappan felt that the Applicant and his architect were being extremely reasonable
while the adjacent property owner was not; he noted the very significant elevation of the neighbor's
home above this site. The elimination of three windows would result in a large expanse of blank
wall; he was not in favor 'of rotating the house even a few degrees.
Commissioner Kolstad agree with the above comments; however, if the Applicant was willing to
make these changes, it was his prerogative.
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-062 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION
WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THREE WINDOWS INDICATED AND THE ADDITION OF
LANDSCAPING ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Tappan
dissenting.
Break 8:59 - 9:10 P.M.
Chairperson Siegfried absent, Vice Chairperson Tucker presiding.
11. AR-89-019 Sawyer, 15430 Bohlman Road, appeal of an administrative review appli-
cation that would allow the construction of an amateur radio antenna, in the
HC-RD zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from
August 9, 1989.
Planner Graft reviewed the Memorandum Re: Construction of an amateur radio antenna.
The Public Hearing was reopened.
Mr. Sawyer, A:pplicant, stated that the location proposed for the antenna by Staff was in his view,
the most exposed site, both to the valley floor and to the adjacent property owners; in addition,
there was an existing traffic hazard at this curve of Bohlman Rd..
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
AUGUST 23, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Alan Grebene, 15479 Belmap Dr., Saratoga, stated that there was no way to prevent visual
impacts from a 65 ft. tower; he presented a packet with photographs entitled, "Grebene/Thomas
Exhibit A, August 23, 1989, Subject: AR-89-019".
Mr. Phil Sims, Attorney for Mr. Grebene and Mr. Thomas, reviewed several court cases which
demonstrated that cities could regulate satellite and radio antennas; he discussed the City's recent
Ordinance enacted on this topic.
Mr. Michael Thomas stated that the subject property looked like a command center; the four exist-
ing antennas created a grid-like appearance. The 'photographs presented earlier clearly showed the
visual impacts; he contended that granting the Applicant's request would alevalue his property.
Planning Director Eroslie reviewed Staffs original recommendation not to approve the Applicant's
request. Staff had since considered two alternative locations for the radio antenna, both of which
would require a variance; testimony given as well as Staffs observation was that the alternative
locations had the same visual impact as the original location proposed.
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:27 P.M. Passed 5-
0-1, Chairperson Siegfried being absent.
Commissioner Burger noted the difficulty of this issue and her attempts to balance the needs of the
Applicant and the adjacent property owners; she had concluded that Staff Recommendation to deny
this request was the appropriate solution. While she understood the FCC's position, it was her
understanding that Mr. Sawyer's access to the airwaves had not been denied and that he had
adequate access. She could not approve a variance, since the alternative locations for the antenna
would make a bad situation worse; all the proposals reviewed were very intrusive.
Commissioners Harris and Tappan concurred.
Commissioner Kolstad felt this request was a question of efficiency; the Applicant was trying to
super tune his radio reception; he had reservations whether the FCC stated that a 100% efficiency
was required despite the influence of one's location. He agreed with Mr. Sims' evaluation and felt
the Applicant had reasonable reception considering his contacts with' countries as far away as
Russia; the proposed antenna would affect the value of adjacent property owners.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY AR-89-01.9. Passed 5-0-1, Chairperson Siegfried absent.
12. DR-89-060 Hornung, 18651 Perego Way, request for design review and variance ap-
V-89-017 proval to construct a 1,026 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an exist-
~ng one story home for a total of 3,358 sq. ft. The Variance is to exceed
the maximum allowed floor area by 158 sq. ft. in the R-l-10,000 zone
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 23, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:40 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9
AUGUST 23, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Jeff Hornung, Applicant presented a series of view graphs titled "Situation, Proposed Design,
and Variance" and discussed the Application to remodel his home. He noted their attempts to
minimize the impact of the proposed addition and felt this was a sensitive design.
Mr. Rick Morreitz, 18660 Harleigh 'Dr., Saratoga, noted that his rear yard abutted the Applicant's
side yard; if the proposed second story addition were approved, he would sell his home. A series
of photographs were presented. He added that the subject property was a non-conforming lot; the
interference to light, open space and view from the proposed addition would be unreasonable. He
contended that the property would be devalued and his privacy lost if this request were granted.
Mr. Howard Unger, 18670 Harleigh Dr., Saratoga, commented that a lattice fence constructed
" around the Applicant's hot tub was unsightly when viewed from his yard; his attempts to encour-
age the landscaping to grow sufficiently to cover it had met with marginal success. The Appli-
cants would have a clear view of his yard from the proposed second story addition.
Mr. Allen Riggle, Aspesi Ct., Saratoga, felt that with the proposed addition, there would be too
much house for the lot; his view would be reduced to a two-story stucco wall.
Ms. Kathleen Morreitz, 18660 Harleigh Dr., Saratoga, felt that smoke from the Applicant's
chimney would infiltrate their home; in addition, privacy impacts would result.
Ms. Riggle, 18640 Aspesi Ct., Saratoga, opposed the second story addition and favored an ex-
pansion of the existing first floor.
Mr. Hornung responded that there was only a limited rear yard that could be used for an extension
of the existing one-story home; the loss of a rear yard area would severely impact them. In
addition, the existing landscaping would prevent privacy impacts to some of the neighbors.
KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:10 P.M. Passed 5-
0-1, Chairperson Siegfried absent.
Commissioner Harris stated that a review of the plans and the lot configuration showed that this
was not the right structure for this site. This was a non-conforming lot and yet the proposed
addition extended the entire width of the home; such would add bulk and appear very unattractive.
The neighbors had good reason for their concerns.
Commissioner Burger agreed; a second story addition would be devastating to the residents of
18660 Harleigh Dr.; both the second story element as well as the size an any addition would have
to be reconsidered. A one-story, smaller expansion was in order.
Commissioner Tappan agreed with Commissioners Harris and Burger; he noted that Staff recom-
mended the Application be Continued to aliow the Applicant to submit a project redesign.
Commissioner Kolstad agreed the proposed addition was too close to the Harlcigh Dr. residence;
he suggested an alternative design which would create less privacy intrusion for these neighbors.
The proposed design was consistent with the existing home and the neighborhood; however, this
was a neighborhood in which only two homes had second story elements. The Commission would
need to consider these transition neighborhoods as a separate issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10
AUGUST 23, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Kolstad continued his comments stating that with respect to this Application, at a
minimum, the second story element would have to be reduced in size so as to not require a
Variance and the design would have to eliminate some privacy impacts; he wished to see a con-
sideration of an expansion of the existing first floor. He would accept a Motion for Continuance.
Commissioner Burger questioned whether the changes requested by the Commission could be ac-
commodated in a Study Session and Continued Public Hearing; it appeared that they were asking
for a project redesign. Planning Director Emslie agreed and suggested the following Motions.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR-89-060. Passed 5-0-1,
· Chairperson Siegfried absent.
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO DENY V-89-017. Passed 5-0-1, Chairperson Siegfried absent.
13. AZO-89-003 City of Saratoga Vehicle Repair Ordinance - An ordinance of the City of
Saratoga amending Section 9-50-010 of the City Code concerning repair of
vehicles on residential property.
The City Attorney presented a Report entitled "Article 9-50, Repair of Vehicles".
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:22 P.M.
Col. E.T. Barco, Camino Barco, was favorable to the proposed Ordinance but asked that enforce-
ment include swift and sure penalties; he suggested the Item be Continued for further review.
Ms. Barbara Campbell, 13579 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, related incidents of continuous stor-
age and automotive repair at an adjacent home; she cited the noise, fumes and unsightly appearance
of this site and asked that the proposal be revised to prohibit such activity in residential areas.
The City Attorney responded with amending wording that might addless the nuisance cited.
Commissioner Burger noted that there must be a way to effectively address the concerns raised.
Mr. Campbell confirmed that the nuisance experienced by them was severe.
The Public Hearing remained open.
HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO-89-003 TO SEPTEMBER 13, 1989.
Passed 5-0-1, Chairperson Siegfried absent.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects.
COMMISSION ITEMS:
The August 16, '1989, Meeting of the City Council was cancelled.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11
AUGUST 23, 1989
COMMUNICATIONS:
Written:
1. Heritage Preservation Commission, Minutes of July 7,1989, - Noted and filed.
2. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Mongraw re: noise problems in the Village.
Commissioner Burger stated she was very disturbed by this report of continuing noise problems;
there had to be a more expedient way of addressing this situation, rather than waiting until
consideration of the Noise Ordinance in January of 1990.
Commissioner Kolstad suggested that consideration be given to a revocation of the Use Permit;
Commissioner Tappan agreed.
Consensus reached that the Trattoria Florentine Restaurant be notified that action was being
initiated to review the Use Permit in order to determine whether additional Conditions or a
revocation of such was appropriate; letter of response to be sent to the Mongraws to contain
information on the steps being taken by the City to address this situation.
3. Committee-of-the-Whole Report - ,1989, - Noted and filed.
Oral by Commission: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
Carol A~ Pr~bst-Caughey/~f