Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COM~ISSION ~4INUTES DATE: Tuesday, May 15, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Meeting Room, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned' Regular ~ee'ting ROUTINE ORGANI'ZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Harris, Hlava, ~cGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Schaefer arrived at 7:50 p.m.) Absent: None Abstaining: Commissioner Crowther PUB'LI'C HEARINGS 1. A--958 -. Robert Dewey, Vista Arroyo Court (Parcel E, Tract 6528, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 2-story single family 're's'i'de'nc'e in t'h'e' NHR 'zo'ning district; continued from ~.~ay 9, 1984 It was noted that Commissioner Crowther was abstaining from the'discussion and voting on the .'pr0~0sed"-proj'eCt.. S~taff.expl'a'ined th.e~.~applica'tion_and-' recommended approval. They commented that this development aoes not fall with- in the ridgeline requirements of the NHR zoning district because of the stipu- lated settlement. The public hearing was opened at 7:34 p.m. Eurt Anderson, representing the applicant, and Bill Heiss, 'representing Black~vell Homes, presented photographs from various locations around the Parker Ranch area. They indicated the building was 21 feet above the ridge, but essentially the 'house was on the west side of the ridge. They pointed out the area from which the house would be visible from the Arroyo de Arguello area'. Russell Crowther, Norada Court,.questioned whether this project meets the General Plan and Specific Plan relative to ridgelines. He also questioned the vegetation on the plan. Mr. Anderson commented that the proposed land- scaping would soften' the impact. The City Attorney responded to ~r. Crowther t.hat the 'intent of the settlement was that the homes be reviewed under the HCRD standards and that the NHR ridge requirements had not been adopted. Bill Heiss stated that this lot was one of the combined lots within Parker Ranch and, according to the settlement, the developer of this lot could use either' one of the 'two approved building sites or obtain a modification for an alternate 'site. He explained that either of the two approved sites would have the structure projecting above the ridgeline, and that the proposed' site is 2 feet lower than the higher of the two previously approved building sites. ~4r. Heiss then went on to state that the tentative map for Parker Ranch had been deVelop'ed under the HCRD standards and that the rest of the ridgeline had been left vacant in open space, thus making this a fair proposal. Commissioner ~cGoldrick suggested that with the shift of this alternate site, it would not increase the visual impact. Staff commen~ed that, viewing the site from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at Seagull, there was an existing home on t'he hillside beyond Prospect Road which already gives the impression of a home on this'site. Commissioner Schaefer questioned whether the rock facia as shown on the plans was real stone or man-made stone, as she was concerned about the appearance o'f man-made stone. The.applicant indicated that he was investing a great deal of money in this project, and that he would be ensuring a quality look in the stone work. Pl.d~ning Commission Page 2 ~Me~ting Minutes -~ 5/15/84 Mr. Crowther stated that he felt that this was just the type of project that had led to the Initiative. He expressed his concern with this type of approval which has more than an 8 ft. elevation difference with the ridgeline. He asked why the standards are put into the zone if they are not going to be followed. He stated. that he strongly believes that the agreement is invalid since it violates what Saratoga wants. He added that this project should not take place; it is a disaster. Discusion followed on the proposed landscaping and the lowering of the bedroom Wing in an effort to reduce the amount of grading. The applicant's representa- tive explained that there would not be a saving ~n grading, but that in fact the grading would be increased by the lowering of the wing; however, overall you would see less home. Mr. Crowther indicated that he would prefer more grading r~th.er t~ian-havi.ng 'the'wing lowered. Mr. Dewey stated that he would prefer to see the house left as is. The size of the home was discussed. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-958, per the Staff Report dated May 3, 1984, with the condition t'hat the bedroom area be lowered 4 feet. Staff reminded the Commission of the 3 ft. maximum height of the retaining wall. The applicant indicated that there was not enough information on this matter at this tmme. Commissioner Schaefer amended her motion to modify Condition 2 to read: "or as approved by Staff''. Commissioner McGoldrick asked that the motion be amended to modify Condition No. 1 to read that the landscape plan shall indicate indigenous trees along the ridgeline. Commissioner Schaefer accepted the amendment. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Commissioner Harris indicated that she would vote against this proposal, since she could. not make Finding 3 for excessive bulk. She stated that she realizes that it does not come under the Specific Plan but, having sat through the General Plan and Specific Plan hearings and listening to the citizens, she feels that this fact would not compel the Commission to approve the application. The vote was taken to approve A-958. The motion was carried 5-1, with Commis- sioner Harris dissenting and Commissioner Crowther abstaining. .ADJOURNMENT I't was mov'ed and seconded to adjourn the'meeting,. 'The' moti'on was carried· unanimousIX', and the'meet'ing was' adjourned at 8~14 p,m,' ResPeCtfu~' Se'cr'etary' RSS~cd