HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-1987 Planning Commission MinutesDa~e= TuesdaV, Rugust 18, 1987 - ?:00 p.~.
PZace= Co~munitV Center Rrts and:Crafts Room, 19G55 Rllendale
Rue.
T~pe= Committee-of-the-Uhole
~TEMS OF DISCUSSIOH
R. DR-87-051 - Oap= 20822.Beauchamps Ln., review of 6,058
sq. ft., two-storV siggle family home in the HHR zone
(Con't from 8/12/87, 9/9/87).
Mr. DaV, applicant, presented revised plans showing a 1
ft. reduction in the height of the proposed home to
27.5 ft. He explained'that less than
roof area is above 26 ft. in height, and that the 27.5
ft. height represented;only 3X of the total roof area.
Mr. Day described various ways that the total floor
area of the home could be reduced.
The Committee agreed that a significant reduction in
floor area and height was needed to mitigate the ho~e's
bulky appearance.
B. DR-8?-O4G - Heater, 14Z93 Springer Ave., review of home
in the R-I-lO,OOO zone proposed to be two stories,
2,499 sq. ft. in area (con't
Mr. Heater, applicant, presented revised plans which
showed a 1-storV, 18 ft. high home with flat roof areas
of approximateIV 9 ft. high. In addition, the total
floor area of the home had been reduced to
approximately 2,400 sq.
Mr. Deignan, 14291 Springer Rue., reviewed the revised
plans and commented that his concern was that the
proposed home not block his uiew of the mountains.
The Committee agreed ~hat the reuised plan5 adequateIV
addressed their concerns regarding bulk, height, and
uiew and priuacy i~pactS. In addition, the Committee
suggested that the applicant use opaque windows where
necessary, ~o ensure privacV impacts are mitigated.
C. D~-87-0~3 - Uach~er, 20~72 Glasgo~ Dr,, review of
detached accessory s~ruc~ure (cur~ist s~udio) in rear
yard, proposed ~o be a tuo-s~orV structure 19.5 f~. in
height and 1,180 sq. ft. in area (gon'~ from
fir. ~ach~er, applicant, presented reuised plans showing
a decrease in height fro~ 19.5 ft. ~o 11 ft., and a
reduction in the ~otaZ f~oor area from 1,160
520 sq. f~. In addition, the app~icant's reuised plans
shoued tha~ the setbacks of ~he accessory s~ruc~ure had
been increased as follows:
rear yard - G
righ~ side yard - 10
Mr, Harog revieued ~he revised p].ans and
~ha~ his concerns regarding the structures visual.
impac~ had been addressed.
The Co~i~.~ee agreed: ~hat ~he reuised
addressed ~heir concerns and complemented ~he applican~
on the plans.
D. ffiscelI~ne~us
1. Sharp repor~ (Saratoga Housing Rssistance and
Rehabilitation Program)
The Planning Director handed out ~he Sharp report
to ~he Committee and answered questions.
Paul Masson Maintain Winery information
The Planning Director handed out ~he information
sheet on ~he Paul Masson ~ain~ain winery proper~V
and inforned ~he Connittee that a field ~rip
si~e had been schedul~ed for Saturday, September
12~h, at 11 a.m. Comnissioners wanting ~o a~end
should RSUP ~o Diana Carnekie.