Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CITY' OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '~ DATE: Wednesday, October 8, 1980 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers', 13777 Fruitvale:Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE:'~ Regular Meeting '~:ROUT.INE.ORG~NIZATION '- .Pre~ent: Commissioners King, Laden, Marshall, Schaefer, Willjams and Zambetti '~Absent.: Commissioner Siegfried · ° Minutes ' The fQllowing changes-were made to the minutes of.September 24,.1980: The " · first sentenc~ on page 4 under SDR-1473 should read: "Commissioner Marshall explained that what has happened on Marion Road in the last four years (w~.th · the exc.eption of the Renn Oil lot) have all been associated with existing ". · -parcels." :The first sentence in-the third paragraph on that page should read: ". "It was commented that there are..piles of dirt along the fences on Marion,· and it was·explained that_Mr. wilson .has to pave his portion of Marion and take away.the spoilS.'!' In the ·eight :paragraph on that.page,. the'first sentence should 'read: "Brad Renn, 2062·5 Marion, stated that they would like to know the plans for'the s'treet, since they have· to widen in front'of their lots." With those'changes, Commissioner'Marshall moV'ed,.seconded by'Commissioner Zambetti, to·waive th'e reading of-the'minutes of September 24, 1980 and approve as dis- tributed'. The motion'was Carried, with Commissioner Laden abstaining since she .was not present at the~meeti.ng. PUBLIC· HEARINGS " ia.-. Negative Dec'laration.-.UP-467 Desert Petroleum UP-467 = Desert Pe'tr01eum,'ReqUe~t 'for a Use Permit to allow extensive A-738 remodeling·and·reconstruction of an existing legal non-Conform- ing gasoline 'se.r'v~ce station in.the "C-N" (Neighb'orhood-'Commer- cial) Distr.ic..t., at 12600 Saratoga Avenue; Continued from·September · 24, 1·9·80.·· DeSign Review ApproVal is also requested. Staff reported that .the .Commission had reviewed this 'application at its .Committee-'of-the-Whole meeting on September 2, 1980,. and at that time Staff ~:- expressed a concern about the General Plan. designation of the site being PD and exactly what the' intent of that designation was for this particular site. The Commission at. that time indicated that the·intent of.PD in this particular area'was to.alloW mixed uses, in which case the service station would be a'compatible use with. that Ge'neral Plan d4signation. They explained that the reason the. gasoline service station is a non-conforming use is not because it i~ not permitted· in the 'C-N dAstrict,-but because it has 'St:all.described the current proposal. THey commented that the applicants "wi.i'l-Be extensively landscaping the site and are putting up a 6 ft. masonry· · .wall .where the.existing guardrail is. It was noted. that there is a letter· · -from'the appli'Cant, indicating that there will be approximately 200 addi- tional cars generated by this pr0posal.~, Staff al, So' stated that the. Pub.lie Works Department is concerned that th'e location of'the d'riv'ew~y nearest··· the intersection Of Buck~a!l and'SaratOga Avenue could Cause some congestion .-.. problemS, and th. ejy..'.alre re'Cpmmend~ng that 't'he:.d'rivewa~ be deleted and'that the : driveway furtheres't away 'on Bucknail .be'ma'de'an entrance and exit dr. iVeway. · ' .They'indicated that this is a condition of 'the S~aff Report and the drawing. will be revised t~. refl'ect this. The public hearing was opened at 7:S0 p.m. Pl~hni]n~, commission Page 2 · Minutes 10/8/80· .. UP-467 and 'A'-738 (Cont.~'.) .. .. Rick Norman, representing the applicant, clarified that his letter should · ' read·120,000 gallons of gasoline per-month instead of per day. FIe stated 'that they have ·revi'ewed the Staff Report and the applicant has a problem · '-wit'h conditions-3 and. 9, concerning the h'ours of operation.-and 'the dr.iveway .' .situation. He stated that the station ha~ been operating for 15-20 years ~·..·and fh·ey·are trying to improve it and feel.there should be a compromise .. ·· · ·..· on ~he hoUrs'of'-Operation. He indicated that they are now open 6:00 a.m. to-midnight, and they would like a compromise from the 8:00 p.m. closing. time in the condition to 10:00 p.m.' Regarding the driveway, he stated 'that at the·Committee-of-the-Whole they were led to.believe that the Public · · Works concern-was that.' they wanted. that first driveway to be a minimum o'f' .5'0 ft. from the inters·ection, Which was a normal City ~equirement. Mr. .,·. Norman i·ndicated that in the.revised plan that first driveway has been"' · · r.el·ocated td·reflect·.that 50 ft. distance, and· now they understand that · ... the Pub'iic Works Department feels that one common driveway would better -···F ··sat-isfy the needs of' th·e intersection. Mr. Norman commented that, in review- .:.:'-" '.ing. the'records of the station, ther.e haS.never been any major traffic 'p~ob'lems g'ener·a·ted··at that corner'-due. to the station. He noted that they wer~ propos-ing to clo.se the eX·it driveway to make-the intersection ~afer. He stated tha·t to allow only one driveway on Bucknail would.be too 'much of a hardship. on the applicant and it ·would make the maneuvering process · ins'ide the station sO cumbersome· that they ~0uld lose customers. He stated ttiat it is the a.pp!icant's feeling t. hat they would not move.'ahead with the .".project unless some compromise could be made'on the driveway situation· Commissioner Marshall questioned the numer··of cars gOing·intO the station. ~M~ff]~·~'[j~.·No·rmBn pointed out that only the daily gallonage is recorded, and the number..o.f. gallons' per'.sale is only an est'imate. Discussion fol.lowed·on the .driveWay situation. Public Works Staff Stated t'hat.-it was felt tt~at,'..with this relativ'ely.-.few number'of cars, the 'further away-from:the int-ersec'ti0n'of.Saratoga' the' drivewaX is, the better. · - .. .... _.~ : ....... ... .. ... ......... ..~ ..... ~ ~ . Commi'ss'i.oner Schaefe~..st'a~ed tfiat 'she had a strong .feeling against .expand- ~· ing ·the' storage,. and she' indicated that she wo'uld like them ·to keep the .present amo.unt of gas p~mpage. Mr. Norman stated that the company could not go forward with the moderniza- .· tion in'that case bec·auS'e they could' not justify the expenditures, and more-storage would reduce the number of delivery'trucks.' The operation of the station was discussed and also the' lighting program. It.was deter- mined that a sentence should be added to Condition 7 to read: "The lighting shall be reviewed after'installation for .its.adequacy and effect upon. the neig·hbo~hood." It wa·s also determined that a condition should'·be added-to read: "A pUbli.c telephone shall be' installed on the wall of· the restroom." COmmissioner·Marshall·mOved to clo'se the public hearing. Commissioner ., ·Zambetti·'·seconded 'the motion,'which was.carried unanimously· Th.'e hours.of operat.ion we.re" discussed. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she.·felt'8:00 p.m.. was ·late ·for the station to be open. CommissiOner Zambet·ti· also indicated that he felt that the Station should not be open any later than 8:00 p.m.- The possibility of a .free.-standing sign being requested in the future was discussed... Commissioner Marshall commented that. he had read proposed legislati5n', ~W~.~]~~'~'.~Z~.~c[tF;'~':tZ'('~ould be required for stations. to have a clearly visible posted free-st·anding sign so that the p·rice'o·f'the'gaso- · "' line could readily·be ascer'ta·ined. The City Attor'ney was requested. to get further in'form·atioh from the State regarding that· point, to be used by the Commission whe·n considering this matter at a future date. Commissioner Marshall'stated that he personally fe.e.ls that the advantages for'remodeling the station outweigh the disadvantages that have been heard He stated that he would be willing to change the tio'ur~=d:f"'~'e.~ati. on - 2 - P~a~i~g Co'mmission Page 3, Minutes. 10/8/80 UP-467 and A-738 (cont.) tO 10:0'0 p.m. 'as a trial pe~i0d,'but if'there are compl'aints they .would be cut back to 8:00 p.m ..... Hg_:~ed that with this project.the station , will b~e cleaned 'up; ~i'~7°~_~d open- space and a tremendous amount' of landscaping. Commissioner. King c. omme'nted. that the' configuration 'of the station as "'..= designed 'almost forces ~h-e .traffic flow .shown on the .proposed map. He added that. he felt'the proj'ect has value'to the'-City.and to the'local neighbo'rhood.. Commissioner Williams stated that the added st0.rage would Cut.deliveries down, and he is happy to see a st'ation that is~interest~ed in. Ser'ving. people at odd and late. hours. · · It'was'determined th~'t'.the hours should remain from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. It was.also determined that Condition 8 shall read: "No sign is approved w~th this application. A variance must .be g~anted-prior-to erection of any'free-standing sign.i' Public'Works St'aff commente'd that .t'heir recommendat-ion for th'e.d~iveway si'tu~tion would'be moving back the dr~iveway closest to Sa-r'atoga.'Avenue. I.t was determined that Public Works Staff and the applicant should meet "to.jdis~uss the driveway., and Conditi'on 9 should'be revised to read: "A .... revised. site development.plan s'hall be submitted showing d.riveway access '~.. onto BUcknall Road. Said plan .shall.be re~i'ewed and-approved by. the .~... Planning Department. and.'Public Works Department-prior to receiving Tenta-' ti. ve Building Site Approval." COmmisSioner Zambetti moved to approv'e 't]ie Negativ~ Declaration for "' UP-467~ 'Commissioner King Seconded the motion, which'..was. carried, with Commiss!~oner Schaefer dissenting.. ~'... CommissiOner Zambetti'.~0Ved~'to approve UP-467 pe~ the Staff R~port 'dated .October 2',.1980, as amended. Commissioner Marshe'll seconded the motion.,. "'.=l'.~which was carried wi~h Commissioner Schaefer dissenting, stat.ing that she .~'~=~ .... .felt all~.the.~cond.itions..are' good, bht she felt it C.ould be done with less .... ~. "'~.volume o'~ gasoline. . "Commissione'r Zambetti. m'~ved..to approve A-738 for'~h.e design review of the p.roject, per the Staff' Report dated October. l, 1980. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion,.whi'ch 'was carried .with Commissioner Schaefer dis- "' ~....sentin. g. 2~-' ~-727~ Clayton Thomas ReqUest for DesigH Review ~ppr0Val for a two- '. story,-siHgle-family dwel.ling' that will b~ over 22' in height ~ on a lot with an average slope less than '10%, at 13.958. ChesterY~.~'~"Z .., Avenue; ~ontinued from September 24, 1980 '~ S.ta~f ex'plaine~ the hist0~y of this application'. 'They stated that the .'....applicant.has modified t.~ conform to the new Urgenc~ Ordinance and".the'.. house. is"now 29.'5' average and meets the criteria of the new ordinance.' .-."..jlt was noted th'at no tennis court i's approved witb-this application, since the. Rec'reation Court Ordinance is'still being considered. Commissione.r~ · ' ..=-'Marshall commented that he felt that the applicant should be.told that, ~' even though the tennis court is not approved at this time,.they see no .. --' .pr0b. l. em with-it as the 'ordinance no~ stands, since the Commission has .- e.n. cpuraged people to plan OUt their lots so the totality of the plan can .... · 'be seen. ".'~"' Carl'Bumpass., th~ arch-itect, stated that the pool and ~enni-s court are ~.. very important to the Ibuy~r~ 'The .p0ss'.ibiii~y O~' mOving. th'e house ba'ck ·on the lot was discussed, and he 's"ta'ted that tO do that would. greatly '.'.j''..jeopardize the overall design of the site .and 'wOuld interfere with a ·tree that now exists. Mr... Bumpass described the'current proposal. TM Commissioner King expressed his concern that the Commission may be 'creat- - 3 - pl~'n~i.ng--~Commission Page 4 Mi'nutes 10/8/80" A-727 (cont.) ing an architectur.al monstrosi. ty to meet a number. Mr. Bumpass commented that-they had cut 2½ ft. off. the roof, but that this particular style of. architecturge had flat portions'.of'the roof on it before and it requires t. hat it', be a flat roof. He added that he did not feel they'have compro- mis. ed the .de'sign characteristics,,O. fj~th'e house to.meet the height limita- tions. It was clarified t~ th'e applicant b-y the City Attorney that t.he Emergency Ordinance di'd not elimi'n°~te.the 30 ft'. height limitatioh; it simply .imposed a des'.ign .r. eview process for' any.r.esidence over a certain height. 'Commiss.ion'e~-Schaefe.r s~.a.~ed ~hat.s|~e feI~ the house .is ext'~emely attrac- tive'and. S.h'e feels the".plan wa's well ~hoUght out. Commi'~sioner 'Zambetti "moVed t'o close the public hearing. CommisSioner Marsh'all seconded the mot~'on, which was carried unanimously. Commi~sioner"Schaefer mo~eLd to approve A-727',oper the October 2, 1980 Staff Report. Commissioner. Zambetti'seConded t. he motion, which' was carried unanimously...Staff was ~.equested to'agen~ize the'matte~ 'of the amount of i'mpervious co'verage~ail·owed on.a site for a'.Study. sess.ion on November 4, .19.80. Negativ~ Declaration - U~P-468 -' Richar~ Raynes UP--'468"- RiChard Raynes~ ReqUest for a.U~e P'ermit to allow the construc= .tion of a recreational court on a'··-lot with an average slope greater-ti~an'10% on the east. si~e~.of.sobey Road about'700 ft..r · " south o'f Spring Brook Lane.; continued"'from September. 24,.1980 Sta'ff reported that a't the..las~ meeting the Commission had requested 'an e. Xhibit s.howiSg where the house would be located." ~hey also.stated 'that InSpection Services had. indicated some concerns about the grading.; however, this is the·'mos~ logicall location for a ~tenn'i's ~olurt. Discussion followed .'.0n'a Condition regarding the"lig. hti.ng and'opaque fencing. It was determined t~h-a.t Co~dit'~on 5 be'.~added to rea'd: "NO ligh.ting and/or opaque fencing T]~e"-pub. li'c hearing ·was 'opened at 9:00 p m ,....=·'~'ionce'no one appe~red,'Commiss'ioner'Marshall'moved to close' ti~e p.ubii~ ..h'earing. Commissioner Zambett~ seconded the~.motion, r~.which was'carried unanimously. Com'mission'er~·Zambet'ti moved to approve UP7468, mak;ing. t'He fi'ndings.,.per 'Exhibit.s."B", "C" and "D'~ an.d'the'amended Staff.Report, but allowing only a 6 f-t. fence versus 'the'.10 ft. 'fence mentioned in the report.' Commis- sioner King seconded' the 'motion. D'i.scus. s. ion fO'lloWed·on the height of the fence.. The.~publi'C h'earing was' reopened to allow Robert. Aviles',·the designer, to clarify the d,ifference .'between the"pad elevation. and the street. .After discussion it wa's the consensus'.'of the COmmissiOn to·allow the fence to .be'10 ft. above [he.~ad, as stated in the staff"Report, and emphasize.the 1.andscaping. -It was. determined that tH~ .last se'ntenc'e of Conditi'on. 3.-should read: "Landscaping shall be insta.lled-pri'or to fiHal inspection/occUpancy and s'hall us·e'materi= als that will completely screen the tennis court from the street and adjoining 'properties w. ithin two (2) years from planting." Commi'ssione'r Zambet.~i amended his .motion to allow a 10 ft. fence. ..Commis- sioner Ki·ng sec·'onded the amended ~btion. The vote was taken,..and the motion was carried Unanimously. Flannin. g Commission .-I "~ ~ Page 5 Minu.tes 10/8/80 4a. Negative DeclaratiO·n UP-469 -'Montalvo Asso.c.iation· 4b. UP-469 - Montalvo Association, 15400 Montalvo Road,·Request for a-Use Permit to allow the expansion 0f an existing nonconformi·ng institutional use by· the addition of 2,000· sq. ft. to an existing gallery building (which could· be used for classrooms). · The .granting Of this use permit will bring the institutional ..~ " use into conformance 'wi'th the Zoning Ordinance of the C'ity.of Saratoga .... Staff described the proposal·. ·They stated that this use permit:will · ·' '· bring the ~se 'into conformance with City ordinances.- The parking for special events·was discussed, along with 'a sign program.' It was suggested that a condition' be"added to cover such a program for special events, to eliminate the need .for the·Association. to contact the Planning Department ..' for each request.. ""' The phblic. heari.~g was 'opened at 9:15 p~m. Mr~ Mel. Wright, First Vice Pre~i·dent of the Montalv.o Board.of TruStees, introduded Warren·Heid, Chairman of the Building and Grounds.Commit-tee. · .· Mr·. Heid gave a presentation on the application and explained the program· of Montalvo. The conditions of the Staff' RepOrt were disc.,ssed, and it .. .was determined that·-a condition·be added to incorporate the Fire Depart- · . ment condit'ions, to read: "Applicant shall comply with· the conditions of the.S~ratoga Fire District, as stated i'n its lett.er dated September 15, · ·1980." A'sign'program for special eVen'ts was' also discussed, and it was determined that 'a Condition should be. added; to read: "A sign program for special events'will .be developed by the Board·of·Directors of the : ~ ·MontalVo AssociatiOn and the Planning Department.·` Said.p'rogram shall · cover size and placement of signs." Commissioner Schaefe~ commented that she·.felt that it is excit·ing to see .people·in the community working for.a project that offers creativity. DiscussiOn followed on·the possibility of a walkway to Montalvo·other than 'the Montalvo, Road entrance,.from Piedmont ·to the'ranger ·station. Mr. He{d suggested that·the Commission,··Board of Directors,'and the Parks z. and'Recreati-0n Commission'could·discuss th~ pros·and cons of this. It was noted that. the .Commission had alreadY·~ev·iewed the t'entative " ,~es.ign plans and clarified tO Mr. Heid. that'~hey di.d approve them in conce'~t.. .. .. " · -. Commissioner King moved to close the public heari.ng. Commissioner Zambetti·'seconded the· motion, which was carried unanimous'ly. C0mmissionbr Zambet'ti moved' to approve the Negative' Declaration fo'r · UP-469. Commissi6ner King seconded the motion, which ·was·.carried unani- · ~Ous'ly.. Commissioner Zambetti. moved to approve UP2469-, per the amended Staff Report dated October·2, '1980 and Exhibits "B",·"C".and"D", · ·making the findings; and also to approve the design review for the p.rOject in concept, su·bj·ec·~ to submittal of'final plans. Commissioner' King se·conded·.the.motion~.which was carried unanimously. '- "5a. ··Negative DeClar'a'tion -'UP-470'r Saratoga. United Presbyterian Church ..~b U'P'~470TM Saratoga. United Vresbyt.briT~n.Church,-.Re~uest for 'Use'Permit' SDR-!476 -and.TentatiVe Building S~te."Approval'-to allow an Over 50%' A-.734.- expansion f.6 the exis.ting'.church faciiiti~'s, at 20455 Herriman AVenue. 'Design Review Approval is also requested by applicant. "S'~af.f gave a descrip{ion=of'the project. A t~'ailer that is.currently ..on the property, which was supposed to exist only until new structures · were added., was 'disc.uS~ed.' " -= The public hearing was opened' at 10:00 p.m. · .Planning CommisSion- " ~Page 6 ..-~",Minutes 10/8/80 """"'~::' .UP-'4'70' SDR.-1476 and A-~734 (cont) 'J'im Moreian., the arch'itect=, described the proposal, stating that they 'had tried to match the existing a~Chitecture, both in materials and · s~yle.'.··H~ stated that the parking is adequate, and there i's additional .~ ~"·..iand where p.arking could be if needed in the future.-.Mr. Moreland added · " t.hat'they we.re agreeable. to removi.ng the~trailer. It was determined that. a condition.should be added to read.: "The.'existing trailer s'hall· be 'removed -. pri.or'·to issuance of Certificate-of Occupancy CommissiOner'Marshall.moved to approve the"NegatiVe .Declara~i~n~for. UP-'470..·Comm'issio. ner Zambetti· seconded the. motion,. which was carried unani~ou'sly. . - "~' ~=CommiS.S~oner Marshall moved 'to approve. UP-470, per the amended Staff · -~ '· ·~.Re'port date=dZOctober'2.,~.19·80, making.the .findings. Commissioner Zambetti :,~·..-'~.s~conde~ ·the m~tion., which was carried .unanimously.. '..'.·... C'ommiss. i~ner Mar~hall-.~0ved to approv-e· SDR-1476 for. T.entative Building '.Si-te'Approval, per the Staff R~port dated O~tober 2, 1980. Commissioner ~·."'."' Zambetti·.seconded the mo. tion, wh~ch.-'was carried' unanimously~ · ·' Commi'ss~oner Z~mbett~ moved to ~p~rOve Design. Review application. A-734, .=:'~ ~pe'~ the Staff Repo.rt.dat'ed-October 2, 1980. Commissioner King s~conded · the moti. on, which was c.arri~d unanimously'. " DESIGN.jREV.~EW -.-. .. 6='.' A-.732':.- 'Ronald-.Haas~.Camino 'Barco', Single-Family Residence, Finn.1 Design ~ .. Review ApprOv'al; COntinued from September 24, 1980- I""~": Sta. ff'stated that th~s matter 'Had been. continued from the last meeting '.'. ~to-allow .the Ar'chitect-ural.Review Com'mit~ee to review the plans. ~arren' '.. ~ 'He~d~ .one'~of the members o'f the Committee, has reviewed this plan, and it .- was'his feeling that One of.~he original.deSigns met'the intent.of the " .. neighborhood., as 'well' as-conformed to"t.he'site,~ more-appropriately than .... this, one= .It. was. noted that the de.sig. n.abOUt'which Mr. Heid was speaking = was-the. design denied b~ the'City Council'.on appeal by Colonel' Barco. '-"'Z Sta:ff'-cOmmen.ted that the City Council had felt that the house was not in .: ~eep~ng. with.the neighborhood, an'd'the height.and'bulk-of the structure was .~nconsist'~nt wi~h'the .design intent of the CityF. · j"' -':Ronaid .Haas'., the:appl. iCant, commented that this current proposal was one. -. '.that had been reVieWed.at a Committee-of-the-Whole. He stated that his -."'-'cl~.entS, the Waxmarts, have approved this' design. He also added'that it -.. wi'll b~ screened by a number of trees and would not have'a detrimental · . VisUal .impact'...- .' .. ""'-'-' Mr~ Held stated that the. Committee had. not.b~een'able to agree On a date · .'. to~ review this plan. He commented'that, as a committee,. they.had felt ~he -.. other. pl.an.and elevations'met ~he' ordinance at the time and they preferred "' ~t 'from'an a.rchiteCtura~.point of view Mr Heid stated that the applicant is try.ing'~o meet..the clients'-and C'ouncil'."s requirements. It was the consensus that another meeting of the 'ArchiteCtural Review Committee'should ...:.~ be held, .to include the applicant and C.olonel._Bar. do. It.waS noted that there. are a number of probl'ems','i.e.,. 1). it is a difficult site, 2).the : -. neighbors h'a~e'Some very definite opinions,-3~~ the~.CounCil has. opi.nions · .. .regarding mass.and height, ~) the Waxman's pos'ition~, and '5) the neighbor- .- ... hood.-feud'ov~r the Henry driveWay.~ .It was. pointed out that the'Commission has relied upon the Arch-i~.ecturaI RevieW. C~m~ittee fo:r'their ~rofeSsional. j'udgment, and Mr. Hei'd Stated that ~e would schedule a m~eting. :' ' 'CommissiOner. Kin'g' expressed his concern ~h'at 'the commission may be creating "..j'~ arch~'tect~Ural. monstro-sities i'n order t.o."s'atisfy.what may b'e an.arbitrary '·""-.. flatland num'be~.. He commented' t~at this site 'is.a particularly sensitive. .... one,:aesthe~ically as'well as politically. · Planning Commission ""' page. 7 Minutes 10/8/80. "" A-73'2. (cont.) " A'letter dated October 7, 1980, from tHe."iaw Offices of Hutchinson 'and Stewart, Was noted into the record. The City Attorney indicated' that...he would like Mr. Haas to contact his office and' provide the- ~a.ppropriate information in order to clarify the fact that this particular parcel has appropriate access which is not dependent upon. t'his .easement dispute between the neighbors. " I.t was directed that this item be continued to .October 22, '1980, and .th'e .appliCant and representati. ve of the Camino Barco area. will meet wi~h · . .the. Architect'ural Review Committee before that.meeti.ng. .MX SCELLAN' O.US".. ' ' ,l 7.-'., EP-'13 - Dean and Dor'othy Doniel'son, 1397!'.Quito Oaks Way, Request fo'r' an Encroachment Permit. for. fence ", 'Staff .reported that the' app!icant.'is 'reque's~tin~ lth.e issuance of an encroachmen-t permit to:allow a '3 ft. high fence,.recently constructed,' t'o ~' encroach '7 ft. into.the Quito Road right-of-way... They explained that the -.~ '.-'primary purpose of.the. fence' i'~ to p.~.eve~n.t...trespassing on the .narrow..Strip of'the applicant's' lot".adjacent to Quito Oaks-Way. However, they add. ed~ · ..' .the adjacent property owne~, Mr. Bu'rns., objects to the encroachment .. s'ince it deprives his ren't&rs safe,' access to' walk:.al'ong Quito R'oad. 'It Was noted 'that the'C:ity has tradit'i'ona]:ly ..restricted new structures ~ .. within -the rights-of-way. The fence only blocks access to the righ~-of- ~. way--for 'the..Burns'property and not the 'public in-genera]_, sinc~ "there i.s a 'fence' on. the Burns property that already constricts public. access. If .the Burns 'fence were. removed,. then the applicant's fence would be blocking 'public access..to the 'rigHt-of-way. 'Co'mmi~sioner Wil]iams' abstaine'd' from the disCussiOn 'and.Voting on this '.m~.t. ter. 'Discussion fol. l'owe.d on the-fenCe on the Burns property. 'Co.mmis- sxone~'Marshall commented that he had. not 'seen any passage. for access -t.here even" if. the Donielson fence' were remove'd.- He stated 'that a fence. could be erected upon the Burns' side which could look' better than what -i.s-there at' present,. an'd the" applicant could take'. theirs down back to the 'edge . of encroachment. "' .-. .. Lynn. Belanger, representing the applicant, s~ated that the situation :' "that existed. until recently.was' that there always was 'a 'fence. in that locati.'on, a' high wire fence ,..covered with. vines, .w. ith 'a gate that was .. nev'~r used.'. The present owners purchased 'and decided to open the gate, · .:and '.that began to cause some traffic flow over what the Donielsons con- 'Sider to be their property.. They felt that, since the .fence had been established, they would continue it on their side. of the property line. and..did so-, and the'n.had.'some problem regarding the Site di.stance and · .." installed' the 3 ft. portion-instead of a 6. ft. port%on a.s p'reviously plann. ed': They thought they' were totally complying, .but then discovered the:y were in the right-of-w'ay. Ms. Belanger pointed out that,. since the BurnS'are..a pre-existing use whith was not required to ded'ic.ate .'to the .:..-." City, she ass'umes" ~he.y. own property to the curb or beyond it, so that there :. is no public access'there as' such. She presented pictures 'showing the -' fence. ' ""'-' COmmissioner Marshall-commented that there are other planning soluti0ns · "-...that could b'e' used.; i.e., plants can be used in .an encroached area. · "."" ":'Wiiii.am Bu. rn'~, owner 6f the house next'door, stated' that he takes issue :' " wirh the fact that there is no.access; it 'is'primarily because the last .'-'. 7 ft of the...~F~.Ii*~.~.~r~..~..?~&~d~]~.s...:.-e~s~i~.g~...~F~.~.-.H.&...~td~.~d~`.~hat the onl. y purpose' Of the applicant's fence ~s to keep the occupants of his property ... "'frOm.crossing that-p'iece of property which is act'ually a 'parking strip. He stated that the 7 ft. where the encroachment iS is an area which can be used .for safe a. cces~ onto Quito Oaks Way, and with the fence there is no right of accesS; Mr. Burns stared that if the Commission denies this ..- 7 P.lannin~ Commission " Page"8 Minutes 10/8.'/80 % EP-!3 (cont.) I. pe.~mit.hel. will probably put up a fence with a gate in it, since they d0 .... want-some access at that point through tha't area. =...'.'.-: CornmiSs'loner Marshall comment'ed that '.there' .be. asp'halt or p.av~ng -'. po'ur~'d for a walk 7 ft. wide across the.City property, and that.would .... - eliminat~.t'he problem of the fence. and the problem. the Donielsons may -.-.-.: pe'r.c.eive..~n trying to'maintain land-o~e-r which other .people.~are'~a.lking. "He st. ated that maybe a transaction could .be worked out between the applicant, -. the Burns and the City to .resolve the .i.ssue · :'.'.' Ms.. Belanger pointed o-ut-that there!is a'larg. e:Oak '~ree on the corner. "' She st~ated that if ~hi~ .fence were 3 or 4 inches ove'r'toward the'Burns 'j"' hous.e i't'Would not. be an.encroachment; it would do~exactly what. it does ""j'=":' now, ~nd the-f~ct that it"is on the.Donie!son.-propert~..iine-which.has .been · = dedi'cated~partially to.the Cit~..is a.mere ~technicality only.' She commented '= " tha~ this .is.a si'tuati0n'that existed .for ye~.rs, not 'only exactly aS it is, .-~but'worse than it i.s, i'n ~erms of aesthetics, site distance, etc. ... MS. ~e~anger commented that her clients .ar.e'reasonablepe'ople;'h'owever, if · .-.'they.have a right.to put a fence f-rom the co~ne~ where their. property ends.' " .t'o'tHe.'.'.r'ight-of-wa~-as~.~t exists onjQui't0' ~aks Way, then-she feels that'is ,.as much expense as th'ey. can bear. 'She'added that if ~he Ci. ty wants to =s~lve' the.problem'of what lies on'the oth~ side ~f that fence',. it should .'~ -..~.=go.a'head and do so.-.. ~:'."..~t was poi~nted out that 'if.the Doniels'on fence were Sh.ifted'i.t will...be On°their property. Commissioner. Marshall sugg.ested denial of EP'-13 .... j~.3:i'..~.~without..pre.~udice, in Order. that a solution can. be work.ed out. """~."~z'.Le0nar~ Berello,. l~o04~Quito Road., stated that no one walks in front.'of .!!-'~. ':tjhe-Burns property .because of.'the physical cOnditi'on of.the property in' '-... "'frOnt of'his ho~e-. He state~ t.hat',' for the.safety' of p.'edeStrians.dire~tl.y acro.~ the'.street, there is a·..pathway which the people' use in the"area. -~.~'Mr...'Bere'll.o.-ad'ded that he wo. uld'definitely. no~.want.to see the City put-'a. ~'.... 's.~d'ewalk from Qui~'o Oaks:Wa.y'to the.rtermination of the publi-c. property,..to' · ..Mr..B'urns"property~ .He"added that'it' would-be some 1.0.ft. and'would not be · :."" ~ainta~ned inF'~'he ~anner the Donielso'ns.=now maintain it.. Mr. Berello :.. stat~ed'that if. the fence w~re shifted it w~uld create an'i. slan~d that would' .... beco~e"an eyesore. He concluded that he would like to see the .fence stay ..'. as .it'...is. · .' .- " .M~. BurnS"'Commented .tli~t he did not' think moving the white board fence .: .on.his.property and.'l'etting ~h'at path~a~ of 2 ft'. run across the property would'not remove the safety'hazard, especially to children'. He indicated-..' .-'. '~hat'h'e felt 'Ultimately.there 'haS'to.be some',~type of-solution which is :... going'.t'o inci. ude'posSibly a widening of the.street .there. He Stated'that ..he:"would~like to know the C'ity's plans~'.and would..like to work with the City. Commissioner Ma=rs'hall stated"that he'would like to reqUeSt th'at'the City take action to'se~.what it'can do"to alleviate what'loOks .like a rather unsafe situation immediatel.y' in .front o'f'the Burns property... Public Works .'-'. ':S. taff.was.asked to'look into the possibilities of the City working with ~r."Burns'and.the ~djac.ent property owners. ~,' .Mr'. D~n.ie!son., 'the-applicant, sta.ted that the children from Quito.Oaks .Wa~~' thaf go to 'Marshall.Lane' School nOwj. cro.ss i~ front of Mr. Burns' property .. ~: '.:= every day to c.ross at.~he c'rosswalk .that.is opposite his drive~vay. 'CommisS'ioner M~rShall' moved that. EP'-.13 b'e denied without prej'udice, with' : t-he rec'ommendaFion that t'he'.parties work with the City to'~'~.l. an alternate solution' and.one which. eli'mi.nates the safety hazard i'n front of the Burns. = property.. CommiSsioner ~ing seconded. the motion. -. .... · ~.. ~ 'Chairman Laden stated' that.'she .ag'~ees that encroachments are inappropri.ate and-she does,not want to set. a precedent, and that'Would be the only reason - 8 - "Minutes 10/8/80 .: ' EP- r3 '(cont ~ ) sh.e":'WOuld vote for the motion. She commented that she thinks the fence"- and the Donielso. ns' continued care of the property is better thanwhat '= exiSts:on the adjacent property,' and she feels something needs..to be done ' with th-eT'.entire safety problem along. that road. She suggested that :.'-. p~obably remov'~l.of the Burns' whi:te fence is the most appropr'iate .me'thod '. -to take'at..'this. time. ' ....:i "" .- " . , .-. 7--.. ...,.. ... ,.. : .. .... .P'u~liC Works Staff commented that there are no funds at present to purchase .: right'-'6f-way; however, there are some TDA funds :to Pu~-'in'a'pathway. if ', .." ..there iS access for it....'They. noted tha-t 'if..the c~ncerned'partie's"could .' ,.', .agree, some pedestal'an facilities could be put on Quito Road. : ""Th.b.~ote wa~'taken on the motion'to deny .EP-1B without.'prej. udi:ce, i'n order: .,-' to allow Some solution of ~he situation.' The mot'ion .was'carried unani- - · mous iY- '.. '- · :,."8"~'-'Tra~t-..6665', ParnaS C0rp6ration, Tentative Subdivision ApprOval;. Request .for. One-Year E~t'ension ... .:. . . ? - . .. ",:.'. it was"'moved'.by Commissioner Marshall,'seconded'.by Commissioner'Zambetti, : t.o'approve ~he..one-year extension 'for the Tentative Subdivision Approval "..'for Tr.a~t:"6665, Parnas."Corporation,,subje~.~ 't.o~pos. sibl~ c0nd~ionin-g of ~' '."the Staf~Report by' the.Land DeVelopment,~Te~Hn~"~l~'~"6~'~':Cd'm~'i't'~.:~.'~'~ -"-..' .~.~7~:~" Ba~-carrie'd ,unanimously. ' '~. ................ .....: ......j""" ' ""7 ...... ""' .... ,~'..,.. '..'...~.':'Z . ~ -.. .. ., . . , ' .. · . "' . '9'. GF-31.4(a) -' Referral'from City Council'regarding Amendment tO-the ""'.."' Recreational Court Ordinance -' .. Staff"expiained tha~' this'had bee~ referred back to the P~'anning Commission ,. -.by the City.Co'uncil.'. They stated that' t. here are three sets of criteria · in ~he ordinance. to'be evaluated bE the Commi'~sion. Discussion foliowed -' -oH'these"criteria,.and'i~. was'determined that they'.s'hould read: -'. :.".'.*'.'."..:. 1~ .That any tennis court. shall be designed to' minimize the impact, ,.. .... ,'.f ...'upon natur. al vegetation and"tOpogra.phical features in order to .'.. ... maintain the rural.Character of-Saratoga.. '.- """"' .2:. '.That. any tennis court shall be des%gned tO'minimize the impact :- .. upon the rural' atmosphere and. visual quailties of tlie site'by ,.'-. " 'preServing the Open-space qualities' of hillsides creeks public '.."'.'- paths trails,'and rights-of-way'- ..'..'CommiSsioner King moved to recommend the proposed o'rdinance., as amended, ..'."~ to the City Council. Commissioner M~rShall seconded'the motion, wh'~ch was, · -.: .-'-carried. unanimouslX. . ..COmmUNiCAtiONS ' '. 'W'ri~ten _.I.. None ,, ,:--.-"'i:":'~Commfssioner' Zambetti moved to 'cancel".the'regular Pl.anning Commission .:..~ .... .~. meet'ing.on December .24, 1980.. Commi-ssioner Williams seconded the "?".. -" ...motiOn,. Whic'h was carried unanimously. .." · .-...'~.'F2.. ....Adverti~.ementS.in the' newsp.aper by realtor'S Staff was requested to " s~nd-a letter..to the Boa'rd of Realtors regarding advertising in the. · ..~ Z...' .... · ....'..:~'newspaper,.stating.:.tha~ the Commission would like them to comp. ly "' '.:' with the-Zoning Ord'inance..in these advertisements. It was particularly '::"...':.' .....·.noted that. some of_the.advertisements imply that tennis courts, gues.t '- cottages' with complete.facilitfes, etc:, could .be-built or were included wit-hin.'a piece of 'property. .. . .L :. ... - 9 - Planning Commission .~ Page 10. 'Minutes 10/8/80 '."'Oral (con.t.) 3. Chairman Laden thanked Councilwoman Clevenger for attending the meeting, and Mrs.. Armstrong of the Good Government Group for attend- ing and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENt- '- " ,' COmmissioner King moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambet~i, to adjourn the meeting. The moti'6n'was carried unanimously, 'and the meeting ~vas adjourned at 1.2:06 a.m. Respectfully submitted, " SeCretary 'RSR': cd