Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-1987 Planning Commission Minutes7 CITY OF SARATOGA PL~NNIN~ COM~ZSSION ~ZNUTES DATE: Tuesday, June Z, 1987 - ?:DO p.m. PLACE: ComMunity Center Arts · Crafts RooM, 19655 Allendale Awe. TYPE: Committee-of-the-Whole I. ITEMS Of DISCUSSION A. AZO-8?-O03 (see ~inutes o~ Planning CoMnission, regular adjourned neering) = B. Review of draft Safety Element Staff opened the discussion on the draft Safety Element of the General Plan at 9:05 p.n. Coples of pages 36 through 40 were distributed to ~eRbers of the Committee to replace the duplicate copies of pages 31 through 35, Staff explained that a prellninary draft of the Element ~as reuiewed by a Technical Reuie~ CoMmittee and the State Department of Mining and Geology, Their suggested changes were incorporated into the current draft, The Con~ission reviewed pages 1 through ~$, containing Chapter (Introduction), Chapter II <Hazard Identification>, Chapter <Impact Identification), and the Analysis of Existing Policies and Programs section of Chapter IU (Goals, Pollcles and Implementation ProDFans). General quesiions regarding the technical information ~ere answered by the staff. No changes ~ere recommended by the Commission. City Attorney, Hal Toppel, advised deletion of the reference to the Northwestern Hillsides Residential Water Distribution System on pages 12 and 2D, since it is no~ apparent that funding for the project will not be available. Mr. Toppel also ~entioned that the City recently received a copU of the Floodplain Managenent Model Ordinance from the State, and the City will be:developing a sinilar ordinance wlthin the next fe~ months, Reference should be Made to this ordinance in the Ele~ent's text'under Flood Controls and Land Development Revie~ on page 1G, The Commission agreed that the section of Chapter IV entitled Issue Identification and Proposed Goals, Policies and I~plementation PrograMs will. be reviewed during the next Committee-of-the-Whole ~eeting on June 1G, cow6-2 C~TY GF SRRRTOSR PLRHHIHS CO~MZSSIOH MZNUTES BATE: Tuesday, June Z, 1987 - ?:GO p.~. PLACE: CoRdunity Center, 19GSS Aliendale Avenue, Saratoga, C8 TYPE: Co~mittee-of-the-Uhole/Rdjourned Regular Meeting on RZ0-87- 003, Revision of Oeslgn Reulew Regulations The meeting was called to order at ?:OS Commissioners Harris, Burger, Tucker, Clay and Siegfried were present. Staff members present: Planning Director Hsia, City Attorney Toppal, Associate Planner Young. Five ~e~bers of the public were present. R~O"-8?-GO~ - Revision of ~e~i~n Re~e~ Re~ulat~on~ City Rttorney Toppal briefly discussed the summary ~emo he prepared. The Commission decided to go through the ite~s that still needed discussion and resolution. Commission Harris had a question on uhether or not areas underneath deck and balcony projections were counted into the floor area. Mr. Toppal clarified that only areas that were "usable" or capable of being converted to living space were counted. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he didn't ~ant the definition to penalize people for using second story decks and balconies to prouide uisual and architectural interest. ITEM D: Heiqht limit Commissioner Siegfried said he still supports the 26' height particularly in flat and infill areas, but does not want to have to make variance findings for houses above 26 feet. He suggested special findings or standards that must be ~et in order to go above 26', i.e. that only a small percentage of the roofline be at the 30' limit. Commissioner Clay said there were too many variations in building 5ires in Saratoga to impose a strict height limit. Commissioner Burger concurred with Commissioner Siegfried on the difficulty making variance findings. Planning Director Hsia reminded the Conmission that the average height of approved residences in the past year was 28 ft., and suggested the Commission ma~ want: to consider a 28 ft. rather than Commissioner Harris noted that experience had shown thai 30' was too high and added to the bulk. Commissioner Clay said thai many components add to the bulk o~ a house, not just height. Commissioner Tucker supported the. ZG' limit, noting thai variations in height could be used up to that liBit. Planner Young noted that CoMmissioner Guch had called her with her comments, thai she supported the 2G' height 1imit. ITEM E: Floor area City Attorney Toppal briefly summarized the issues. Commissioner Siegfried expressed support for keeping the 6ZOO sq. ft. floor area standard for R-1-4O,OOO, NHR and HCRD districts, but could not support the use of the variance procedure to exceed the limit. He suggested special findings be d~ueloped so that applicants would know under what circumstances floor area could be increased or decreased. Planner Young expressed staff's concern in trying to interpret the CoRmission's policies on floor area to the public. There was consensus among the'Commission that the floor area standard for 40,000 sq. ft. lots should re~ain at 6200 sq. ft., and 'that special, detailed findings or criteria should be developed for exceeding the 1imii. ITEM F: Slope penalty Cit~ Rttorne~ Toppal and Planner Young discussed the original intent of the slope penalty, i.e. that it would reduce the new floor area standards proposed for larger lots. They concurred that if the Commission decided to delete floor area standards for lots larger than one acre, and decide each application case-bU-case based on special findings, there was no need for the slope penalty after all. Commissioner Harris expressed concern at deleting the slope penaXty altogether, because the Commission still needs a way to convey to the public that house size can be reduced if the slope is significant. Co~nissioner Siegfried suggested putting the intent of the slope penaltU idea into words instead of numbers. Z ITEM G: Setbacks Con~issloner Harris noted her support o~ increased setbacks at the 18' height, especially for additions to existing structures. Her concern was for single-story hones adding height but no~ necessarily going to a second There was consensus that Connissioner Harris' concern was on infill situations and could be addressed in the design nanual, and that the increased setback should occur at ~he second story level, and that it should be a s~andard, not a guideline. ITEM K: Findinqs Commissioner Harris asked thai staff provide additional language elaborate on and clarify ~he finding relating to perception bulk. ITEM L: Replacenent of des~royedistructures CoB~lssioner Harris read a letter she received fron an insurance company regarding ~his i~ee. There was consensus ~hat no additional changes were necessary. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.~. Bill Heiss discussed ~he "'floor area credit for open space" issue, and showed naps of two subdivisions to illustrate his point. He distributed a chart showing how the credi~ could be calculated. He reiterated ~ha~ ~he slope penalty idea was a disincentive for provision o~ connon open space. Commissioner Siegfried and Mr. Heiss concurred ~hat his concerns were hoot if the slope penalty idea was deleted. Richard Uyle distributed a letter from Jerry Lohr, who could not a~end ~he needing. The le~er opposed ~he 30' heigh~ 11nit, asked ~hat the increased setbacks be a. guideline ra~her ~han a standard and be required only at the second story, suggested in~ill be ~reated differently ~ro~ new subdivisions, and offered participate in developing ~he design nanual. Kurt Rnderson, architect, expressed concern about the CoMmission taking a reactionary stance. He suggested developing the design manual first, then develop guidelines and standards after reuieuing the ramifications of each proposal. He supports the use of an increased setback at the second story, regardless of the height of the house, and suggested that the slope penalty be applied only to the "buildable" area of the lot uithin the setbacks. He offered to help on the design Manual. Vandal1Roscoe. architect, suggested that architects, staff, and the CoMMission work together on developing design standards. He emphasized that it was an education process of City officials letting the public know what kind of houses were acceptable. CoMmissionEr Burger expressed her pleasure at finally receiving positive input on this issue from architects and developers. Kart Rnderson also suggested that an aerial photograph be an application requirement, to better assess the relationship of the new structure to the neighborhood. Mr. Uyle stated this would be more appropriate for individual hillside lots rather than subdivisions in the flat areas. There was consensus among the CoMmission that the slope penalty issue be addressed in words rather than numbers, and that it be backed up in the design manual. .There was also consensus that the increased setbacks shouXd occur at the second story level. The CoMMission directed the City Rttorney to prepare a revised ordinance incorporating areas of consensus and leaving open still to be resolved. Proposed ordinance uill next be heard at a reguXar Meeting, M/S Burger/Siegfried to continue the public hearing to the July 1987 regular Meeting. Passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 9:05 Respectfully SubMitted.