Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-1977 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA 'PLANNING CCM~ISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 26, 1977 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CAlL Present: Commissioners Callon, Laden, ~rshall, Williams and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners Belanger and Lustig B. ~ffNU~S Con~nissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Connissioner Laden, that the reading of the minutes of September 28, 1977 and October 12, 1977 be waived and be approved as distributed. The motion was carried unanimously. II. CONSENT CALSNDAR A. Composition of Consent Calendar B. Items of Consent Calendar Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Con~nissioner ~rshall, that the following applications on the consent calendar be approved by the Planning Conmission: t. Final Building. Site Approval a. SDR-1317 - Charles H. Hinton, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Building. 'Site 'Approval' - ' 2 'Lots ' ' ' b. SDR-1294 - John Kennelly, Via Regina, Final Building Site · Approval - 1 Lot 2. Final Design Review Approval a. A-593 - Frances B. Anderson, 14555 Big Basin Way, Sidewalk Awning ........... The motion was carried unanimously. III. 'IY3qTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-1333 - Dividend Industries, Carnelian Glen-and Horseshoe Drive, Tenta- tive Subdivision ApproV.a.1..- Staff stated that all necessary comnents from appropriate agencies have not been received, and reconmended that this subject be continued. It was directed by Vice Chairman Zambetti that this item be continued to the November 9, 1977 meeting. IV. MISCELLANEOUS A. A-535 - Frank Andrews Oqendell Whirfield), Carniel Avenue and Saratoga- . S.unpyvale Road, Reconsideration of 'Landscapi.ng and 'Fencing Staff explained that this matter had been reviewed at the Conmittee-of-the Whole Meeting on October 25, 1977, at whieh':~t_he-:appliCaH~7~ad been pres~n~ It was pointed out that Mr. ~nitfield constructed the present fence within his property line, and is asking the Comnission's consideration for an amendment to the Design Review Approval, to provide an alternate plan which retains the fence he has built, plus landscaping and an alternative utilization of the corner. Staff stated that Mr. Whitfield is suggesting a landscaping area and bernking for the corner in place of a 3 ft. high fence on the original plan. It was noted that the Staff had prepared a report reconmending revisions as -1- Planning Comnission Meeting Minutes- Oct. 26, 1977 (cont.) follows: 1) Modification of the existing fence to provide recesses for trees, requiring that any change necessary to join this fence and abutting fence to the south be the responsibility of the property owner; 2) The 3 ft. fence along the corner be eliminated aD~t be replaced with a low berm with planrings, with a maximum overall height of 3 ft.; 3) A 2 ft. inclining berm at a slope not greater than 2:1 be placed against the modified 6 ft. fence on the eastern side of the property. ~r. Wendell Whirfield stated that he assumed that his fence, as built, was legal. He went on to explain that he had checked with Mr. Scribner of CalTrans in San Jose. Mr. Scribner referred him to ~r. Yamahato of CalTrans in San Fran- cisco, who informed him that their permit did not include fencing; just the landscaping and walkx~ay. Staff stated that the Public Works Department had informed them that the land- scaping plans, including the fencing, had been approved. The Secretary was asked to clarify this point ~th CalTrans. The applicant went on to comment that there was no 2 ft. incline from the edge of the wallsray to the bottom of the fence, but that he had placed t~vo loads of :-='-'--~i~'-:dirt tO~'.pr6vide'i_fo~-.the berm. ~tr. ~itfield also stated that if the Commission required him to go 2 ft. above his lot level there ~uld be a 4 ft. berm. He explained that the edge of the street level and the edge of the lot was shown incorrectly on his plans, and, furthermore, was not even. Mr. ~itfield further expressed concern over the impact of the tree roots upon a vegetable garden to be placed on the opposite side of the fence. It was noted by Commissioner ~rshall that the approved plans show a 2 ft. change in grade elevation at the fence line, and the applicant has not complied with this change. Commissioner Laden commented that the Planning Commission, per the Committee-of- the-Whole Meeting, was allowing the existing fence to remain 6 ft. from the street level because of the difference in property height, with an inclining 2 ft. herre, and were replacing the 3 ft. fence with a berm of landscaping on the corner. It was further stated by Conmissioner Laden that the applicant is only being requested to go back to the original plan of making the fence with recesses for the trees, so that the straight board fences do not exist along the highway. Conmissioners Zambetti and t~'illiams indicated their agreement with this statement. Commissioner Callon also agreed, and suggested that additional shrubbery on the ~lan would be acceptable. Mr. Whitfield stated that he did wish additional shrubbery, and it was noted that this condition Should-~be'.r. added to' .~He .St-aff~ Report. Commissioner Laden moved, seconded by Comnissioner Callon, that Staff Report dated October 20, 1977 on A-535 be adopted, with allowance for additional plant- ings. The motion was carried unanimously. B. PM-77-4 - Kenneth Cermak, Aloha Ave. at Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Parcel ~p - Lot Line. Adjustment Staff explained that this is a minor amendment to the Cermak property, for a transfer of land approximately 677 sq. ft., which will not affect the overall square footage minimum of either the existing structure and its facilities on Parcel A or the new building site on Parcel B. Staff stated that this transfer will give additional area to Parcel A to accommodate anticipated improvements on the site, and that they were reconmending approval of the parcel maF~-a~d allowing the applicant to file an amended map. Commissioner Marshall comnented that this proposal is contrary to that which the Planning Conmission has used in the past as criteria in setting parcel lines. Mr. Ron Shoemake spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the original lot line was where the 10 ft. jog is now on the parcel map. It was explained by Mr. Shoemake that because o'fz--the property that was condenmed by the City, the applicant had to give more property to the new parcel and was told that it would not affect his net footage; however, it did. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Oct. 26, 1977 (cont.) It was noted by Commissioner ~rshall that the land Mr. Shoemake was dis- cussing was allocated to the public pathway on the upper edge of the stone-- wall, next to the Cermak property. Commissioner Marshall stated that this allocation occurred prior to the creation of Parcel B. It was further explained by Commissioner Marshall that Dr. Cermak had-attempted' to 'nmiximize the yield of his property, and a compromise was worked out at that time in terms of legal lots. Commissioner Marshall stated that it was his opinion that any change in parcel line should have occurred at that time. Mr. Shoemake stated that the tentative map shm~Ted 20,000 sq. ft. on Parcel A, and when the engineer staked it out the boundaries did not match what the existing map showed. Discussion followed concerning the possibility of making the lot line a straight line, instead of having a jog in the parcel line. Mr. Shoemake was advised to discuss this alternative ~dth Dr. Cermak. The Planning Commission also requested that a sketch be provided by Dr. Cermak of the swimming pool and existing structures where they abut that property line. It was directed by Vice Chairman Zambetti that this item be continued to a future meeting after the applicant had been contacted. V. CC~JNI CAT IONS A. WRITFEN 1. Staff reported that there had been public hearings held on the proposed Environmental Impact Statement for the West Valley Trans- portation Corridor beB~een Stevens Creek Blvd. in Cupertino and Route 101 in South San Jose on October 25 and 26, 1977. He further stated that there will be additional hearings, and Staff will be providing a sunmary for the City Council and will send copies to the Planning Commission for their information. 2. It was noted by Staff that an amendment to the Recreational Court Ordinance should be added to cover the hillside lots where the slope exceeds 10%. The motion was made by Commissioner ~rshall, seconded by Commissioner Callon, to amend the draft of Ordinance NS-3.38, adding the words, "or on hillside lots where the average slope of the site exceeds 10%" under Section 2(h) and Section 3(g). The motion was carried unanimously. ORAL 1. City Council Report - Commissioner Willjams gave a report of the City coun~ir Meeting held October 19, 1977. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City Administration Office. 2. Vice Chairman thanked the Good Government Group for being in attendance and serving coffee. He also thanked Ms. Pat Gross from the Merchants Association for attending the meeting. VI. ADJOUP~MEN'r Commissioner ~rshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting ~s adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Marry Van Duyn ~ Secretary MVD:cd