Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, June 16, 1981 - 5:30=p.m. PLACE: Crisp Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale A~enue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION , Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer Absent: Commissioner'....'Zambetti ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. A-711 - Valley Title (Blackwell Homes) Parker.Ranch, Design Review for 2 Residences, Lots 13 and 14o There were some questions regarding the Santa Clara Valley Water District easements..andn.if those actually were counted into the total square footage. Staff assured the Planning Commission that the lots all conformed to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and in fact, were approved in 1978 with the Tentative Map. There were some questions from Commissioner Crowther with r~gards to the area and'~i~th.~ and he again expressed some concerns about there being a moratorium in the Measure "A" area2. Staff explained that Parker Ranch · ' was exempt under the court agreement which had been signed by the City Council. There was some discussion regardin!g the..possibility of changing the siding to create some diversity within the subdivision. It was suggested by the .Commission that prior to Dringing in any more'Design Review Applications zfor Parker Ranch that the' architect sit down with the Planning Commission and explain his philosophy for developing the'whole subdivision as it relates to design and diversity in that area. After further discussion with regards to the design and the height, Commissioner King moved to approve A-711,~.Lots 13 and 14 with Commissioner Schaefer seconding the motion. The motion was approved 3. tZ=l..with Commissioners Bolger and Monia voting no and Commissioner Crowther abstaining. B. A-771 - Blackwell Homes, Design Review Approval for Lot 7, Parker Ranch There was an explanation of the report given by the Ehairman and again Commissioner Monia expressed some concerns about the lack of diversity in the subdivision. It appeared to him that this was a similar design to the ones already existing and the two that were just approved. Commissioner King inoved to approve A-771 with Commissioner Monia second- ing the motion and the motion was'approved 4-1-1 with Commissioner Bolger voting no. and Commissioner Crowther abstaining. C. GF-328 Consideration of a Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance as it relates to Design Review The discussion was opened with an.explanation by Staff of some of the changes made by the City Attorney.in review o'f the draft ordinance. The majority of the changes were gramatical with the exception of Page 2, Item (-g) Floor Area Ratio. There was some discussion with regards to the actual definition of the Ordinance and it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that.'Lthe..term.!'~tOtal. square footage" shall include all interior area within the walls of the structure capable of bein.g used including the garage. They stated that ,they wanted to 6nsure that the volume was the primary thing they were con. cerned with therefore, they were looking at area that coUld..be used. There was some discussion' with regards to the basements which was an exposed and'.the attorney and · Cit~ of Saratoga Plannin. ..... ommission 6/16/81 Minutes Page 2 the Commission felt that there was enough latitude that the Commission could use discression in defining usable area. The next item of discussion was the term ..impervious cover=j. The Planning Commission then discussed Item (j), Pag~ 2 "Impervious Cover"~the Commi.ssion had some discussion .with regards to decks and it was then decided that they were talking about soild surface decks and impervious patios. The next item of discussion was Item (e) "Method of Measuring Height" There was concern that if measuring in the current manner if some one were to cut into the side of a hill you could end up with a house much higher than 30 feet. rrherefore, the method of measuring the height of a structure was changed. to read, to the highest point of the roof as measured by a vertical line from the natural grade or f~om the finished grade shall be 30' or whichever is greater. Under Section 4, Subparagraph(a), the ..entire section was changed to read "the proposed height and location of a structure shall concern location of adjoin- ing structures in order to minimize unreasonable interference of views Of privacy while considering the topographical constraints imposed by the site." Under Section 6, Subparagraph (d). was eliminated as it was explained that this item is covered by rearanging ti. tles under Section 6,"Subparagraph (a). The next major point of discussion dealt with requirements for public hearings. The Commission agreed that the slope of~the site is not as important as the height of the structure. Therefore, unSer Section'7, Subparagraph (b) the last line is eliminated ~hat relates to: slope of less than 10%. However, there was a section (d) added that stated that any .conversion or infill situation or any multi-story structure shall have a public hearing. The feeling here was that there could be significant impact on the n~ig]~orhood'~ith a new two-story especially with an infill situation. Staff explained that conversion permits already required a public hearing before the Planning Director. There was some discussion with regards to Section 12 "Exceptions" and the Commission agreed to eliminate the provision which required previously approved Design Review Applications having a time limit on it.. However, they had not agreed on a specific period of time that a new Design Review would be current. This item will be discussed at the next. Committee-of-the-Whole. Chairman Laden requested that there be a meeting. next Monday since there was a time limit on when this item 'i's..to be~heard and approved by the City Council. It was agreed that the Planning Commission would meet at 5:30 p.m. in the :'C~"'=~g%=:~j~.g~] ~J~'6ting'go0m.~!.a::stUdy .-jses'Sf0~ to disc.~'~".specificall]? 'section 13" dealing with the lapse of Design Review, Section 6, which deals with the standards for developing of residential.structures. Commissioner Bolger moved for. adjournment and was seconded by Commissioner Schaefer and the meeting adjourned at 7 41 p.m. RSR/clh