Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CI. TY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, October 20, 1981 -. 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chamber's, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Adjourned Mee'ting Since 'there was not a quorum of the Planning Commission present for the public hearing on UP-.510,.Moreland Schodl Distr]:ct, the hearing was not opened. A study session was held on the matter, and it was determined that it would be discussed further at a study session on November 3, 1981. It was directed that this item be ren'oticed for a public hearing at the.regular meeting of the 'Commission on November 17, 1981. THE REGULAR MEETING WAS OPENED AT 8:32 p.m..'. _.... _. ......... ROUTINE ORGANIZATION : Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners Crowther and King MISCELLANEOUS EP=18 - Gregg Williams, 13153 Keyin Street, Request for Encroachment Permit for fence; continued from Oc'tober 14, 1981 Staff described the proposal. They stated that they were recommending denial considering past Commission and Council actions prohibiting a similar instance on Scully Avenue. Staff indicated that.they did not feel there are any parti- cular adverse traffic impacts other than the unlikely case of a vehicle being driven peculiarly and running into the fence. They explained that there is some concern that the City might incur some liability in allowing encroachment that might create an obstacle.' Gregg Williams, the applicant, described the fence. He explained that he had received instructions .from the Planning'Department on the measurement and determination of the property line and had the fence built, not realizing that a.permit was necessary. He submitted pictures of a tree in that location, which showed that the tree is healthy and the fence has not affected its growth. Mr.."~Williams commented that the fence contributes to the landscaping of the neighborhood, and he submitted a.letter from the neighbors in favor of the fence. He added that he has receipts showing that the fence was pro- fessionally constructed and meets code.. Mr. Williams stated that he feels that the fence does not have an impact on the pedestri. an and bicycle safety. He added that he feels 'this fence 'differs from the previous fence, in that it is not on a corner~ and is of a material which does not obstruct the view. He stated that there was a financial hardship, in'that there was money involved in con- structing it, and it beautifies and upgrades 'the neighb'orhood. Larry Hartman, 13167 Kevin, stated that he had written a letter' in opposition and stated hiS' concern regarding bicycle and pedestrian safety and the fact that the tree' 'is damaging the 'fence and it will no longer be aesthetic. It was noted that if the shrubbery we're removed it would open.~u~ th~ "~alking .... pathway. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she felt the fence is an asset aesthetically to the neighb'orhood. She commented that she has been against having fences in the right--of-way because of safety factors and also because of setting a precedent. Discussion followed on the City's liabiiity if the permit is granted and there is an accident. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he would recommend that the applicant enter into an indemnity agreem.'d'n't with the City as a precau- tionary measure. He added' that he had greater concern with the previous permit which was denied, since it was on a corner and created a much greater hazard. He commented that he felt hitting a tree would bring a car to a more abrupt halt than hitting the 'fence. Commissioner' Monia stated that he felt the fence is very attractive. He pointed out that there are trees in the right-of-way that are as great a safet~ hazard - 1 - Planning Commission Page 2 ~'~Meeting Minutes 10/20/81 EP--18 (cont.) as the fence. Commissioner Monia moved to approve EP-·18, with the proviso that the applicant is willing to enter into an indemnity agreement with ·the City, taking all responsibility should there be an accident on this property. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. : Commissioner Bolger stated that he ·feels that there is a good deal of difference between EP~·16, which was denied by the Commission and upheld by the Council, and this application, primarily because Of the fact' that EP-16 was located on a much more heavily traveled street and Was at a corner. He added that he felt this fence was an enhancement to the neighborhood. The Deputy City Attorney commented that,'as part of.the findings, it should be included that the applicant ~'~a'°'~'~d' th'~F h~e' ~'ns"~rff~d' th.e 'f~n~."~.~.~e.d'~upon .~:S.~,~.Fi~6H~--....lf~.~h-~.-~,pl~-fi~i~.:~.~yj~.~.h~'. ...... ..~..~. ............ . .............. ......... ., ,. ~.,~ , ....................... Commissioner Monia stated that the fence: appears to be professionally done. He added that petitions received by the Commission do have some impact, and quoted a letter from one of the neighbors in favor of'the fence. The vote was taken on the motion to. approve..EP-18. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. The 10-day appeal period was noted. The applicant was requested to call the Deputy City Attorney's office regarding the indemnity agreement. SDR-1344 - G. Kendall, Sobey Road, Modification to Site Development Plan; c0nt'inUed from October'14, 19~1 Staff gave the background of the·project·and described the current request. Bill Heiss, the engineer, clarified that:they woi~ld like Condition II-E to read "Improve access road from Sobey Road to turnaround on Lot 5 to Chester Avenue .... ". Mr. Heiss described the existing road and the turnaround. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the request to revise Condition II-E, per the ·Staff Report dated October 7,·1981, as amended. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Blackwell' H~mes, Tract 6526, Lot No. 19,:Modification to Site Development Plan and CC&Rs for pool·; c·onti·nued from October 14, 198'1 Staff explained that if the CC&Rs are amended, the City Council is the body -empowered to make the amendment. They ihdicated that the action for the Commis- sion at this time is to recommend or deny that amendment to the Council. They reported that this site was specifically. exempted when Parker Ranch was approved, from .jKa-~n~'.~ pool, and since that time an available pool site has been located on the 'si'te. Staff noted that they were'recommending that the Commission for- ward a recommendation to the ·Council to amend the CC&Rs and allow the pool. Bill Heiss·, the engineer, described the site. Commissioner Zambetti moved to recommend to the ·Council that the ·CC&Rs for·Tract 6526 be amended and the modification to the 'Site Development Plan be approved, to allow a pool on Lot 19. ·Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion. CommissiOner Bolger commented that he would be voting against the motion, since he is'concerned that there will be more ~equests for modification to the CC&Rs. The vote ·was taken on the motion. It was carried, with Commissioner Bolger dissenting. Dr. John Zavoshy, 14081 Pike Road, Modification to Site·Development Plan for fence·; cont'in'ued from October"14, 198·1· This item was continued to the ·meeting of November 17, 1981 at the request of the applicant. - 2 - p,lanning Commission Page 3 · Mee'~ing Minutes 10/2.0/81' Civil and Construction Consultants (Kir'keby), Appeal of DisapproVal of Grading Permit (Lands of Skoulas); continued from October 14, 1981 Staff described the circumstances under which the grading permit was denied. They stated that they we're recommending denial of the appeal. Marvin Kirkeby, the engineer, explained that it was the applicant's intent to give himself some 'usable yard in the lower half of the lot. He indicated that it was the 'applicant's intent to have a garden area only, not a tennis court or pool.at tha't location. Discuss.i'on followed on the Swale, and Mr. Kirkeby commented' that they have 'include:d a pipe 'system in the fill where the swale is now; ther'e wi'll not 'be any damage to the !adj.a'ce~"t'p~pp.er'ty, Commissioner Zambetti moved to 'deny the 'appeal as not being in conformance with the General Plan. Commissioner' Monia se:conded the 'motion. Chairman Laden commented that she felt tZhat the Grading Inspector has reviewed this, and there h. ave been other cases in this area where there have been problems. She 'stated that, as long as t. he applicant is only using that area for gardening, probably terrace gardening is sufficient. She commented that she would prefer"not to change the natural topography any more than necessary. Commissioner Monia commented that he agrees and will vote for the motion, since he lives' in the general area' and at the end of one of those creeks. He explained that they have a problem at the bottom end of the creek with a tremendous run-.off because of the building and grading that has taken place. The vote was taken to deny the 'appeal, ~The motion was carried unanimously. ADJOURndENT Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ro'be'.rt~? S~" ShOok Secretary RSS:cd