Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-1988 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, February 16, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Committee-of-the-Whole Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Burger, Clay, Guch, Siegfried, Tucker Absent: Commissioners Harris, Kolstad Staff: Hsia, Caldwell The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. DR-87-157 - Chang, 12412 Crayside Lane Planner Caldwell reviewed the issues of concern to the Commission at their February 10, 1988 meeting. Mr. Shih, architect, presented revised plans showing the pitch of the roof lowered to 6:12 which lowered the height of the home to 27'6" from 28'6". The revised pitch also reduced the floor area calculation from 5,251 sq. ft. to 5,014 sq. ft., including 286 sq. ft. double counted area and 42 sq. ft. of porch. The "loft" was also removed from the original plans. The Committee generally'agreed that the revised plans met their concerns. Revised plans were due Friday, February 26th for the March 23rd meeting of the Commission. B. DR-87-147 - Kao, 12279 Crayside Lane Planner Caldwell listed~ the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission on February 10, 1988. Mr. Shih, architect, reviewed his revised plans and described the amendment made, including reduction of the size of one bedroom and the height of the family room, and elimination of 1 bedroom. The size has been reduced to 4,918 sq. ft. The height has been reduced to 27 ft. and the roofline broken up to give some relief to the elevations. The foundation does not parallel the split pad of the lot, but the roofline was changed. The Committee concurred that the changes were acceptable. Revised plans should be submitted by Friday, February 26th for the March 23rd meeting. 1 Committee-of-the-Whole Minutes 2/16/88 C. SD-87-020 - Olsen, 15231 ]Quito Road Planner Caldwell reviewed the requests made by the Commission on 2/10/88, including setback of proposed homes from adjacent properties, landscaping to buffer the homes, size of future homes and the possibilities of a 2-lot subdivision rather than three. Planner Adar presented a configuration of a 2-lot subdivision and pointed out that with 2 lots, the setbacks for the adobe home would conform to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Olsen, applicant, 'stated that two lots would make it economically infeasible to save the adobe home. Mr. Zambetti, representing the applicant, discussed the pad locations and stated that the applicant would install 4 ft. wide mature landscaping along the flag area of parcel B. The neighbors wanted a deeded, dedicated greenbelt around the property to protect the existing homeowners. They also wanted no fencing and assurance that the designation as a heritage resource would not permit retail uses. The Committee generally agreed that they could support the subdivision as long as the adobe home was protected and an open space easement generally 30' wide and landscaped for screening purposes was installed around the property. The Committee also needed to restrict the height and sizes of homes on parcels B and C.. Mr. Olsen requested an additional study session prior to the March 23, 1988, regular. meeting. The Committee agreed and suggested that Mr. Olsen refine his map based upon the input and meet with the neighbors prior to the next Committee-of- the-Whole meeting in early March. II. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 2 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION/STAFF RETREAT MINUTES February 5, 1988 - 3:30-5:30 Present: Commissioners Harris, Burger, Kolstad, Tucker, Clay Staff: Hsia, Toppel, Young, Caldwell, Welge, Adar, Calkins .... . A. Introduction/Review of Handbook Chairperson Harris welcomed the Commissioners and Staff. Hsia gave a brief introduction and explained the topic of the first session. Adar briefly discussed the format and content Of the Desiqn Review Handbook. The session was ad3ourned at 5:30 p.m. February 6, 1988 - 8:35 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. Present: Commissioners Harris, Burger, Kolstad, Tucker, Clay Staff: Hsia, Toppel, Young, Caldwell, Welge, Adar, Calkins A. Discussion o__f Design Review Handbook Chairperson Harris called the session to order at 8:35 a.m. It was decided that the most effective way to discuss each Commissioners comments on the Handbook was to go through it page by page. Page 1 - delete the last sentence of the third paragraph - insert a statement regarding the relationship between the Policies and Techniques discussed in the Handbook and the City's Design Review process Page 2 - delete the work "excessive" in 'Policy # 1 - add the following "technique" under Policy # 1 "Use architectural features to break-up elevations" - under Policy # 1, Technique # 1, insert the word "topography" in place of "ground" - delete "Table of Contents" page, and show page numbers on page #2 Page 3 -delete the word "excessively" i~ the second sentence - in the second sentence insert "as" between "way" and "to" - delete the word "EXCESSIVE" at ~he bottom of the page Page 4 - use different symbols to represent fill areas - rewrite the second "Don't" Page 6 - delete the phrase "a few" in the 1st "Do" - rewrite and clarify the 2rid "Do" - add a 3rd "Don't" - "~ely on landscaping to reduce bulk" - remove rectangular window in "No" sketch '~, Page ? - don't label the heights i.e., 26 - delete the 3rd "Don't" - illustrate the exposed underfloor areas in the sketches Page 8 - under the "No" sketch, place the large home in the middle of two smaller homes, and make all the homes appear to be on same size (width) lots Page 10 - delete the 3rd "Don't" and insert: "Avoid extreme contrasts in. color between the structure and the natural terrain" as the new . 3rd "Don't" Page 11 - delete the cylinder shape in "Yes" sketch - in the "No" sketch, place the home in front of the hill Page 12 - show compact plants against the buildings and retaining walls - show a retaining wall in "Yes" sketch, and illustrate how it can be screened from view - add a Tree Appendix modeled after the City of San Jose's Page 15 & 16 - separate the three different fences in the third sketch - delete the word "natural" in the second sentence - rewrite the 3rd sentence as follows: "The use of chain link fences is prohibited in the hillsides and discouraged in the flat areas - include a Fence Regulation Appendix and reference it on page 15 or 16 - Amend sentence #7 to read "set sound walls back from property line... - Show the natural contour in sketch # 9 - delete the last sketch on Page # 16 Page 17 - amend the sketches to show more detail on how structural features can change the line of sight - identify hillside and flat lot situations - delete the 2nd "Don't" Page 19 - amend the 3rd "Do" to read "setback second story portions of structures" Page 20 - remove balcony from sketches and focus on landscaping solutions - use better graphics to identify trees, shrubs, and bushes Page - use standard noise symbol Page 22 - add color to depict light sources - add a 4th "Do" as follows: "Minimize the number of outdoor - delete 2nd "Don't" and add "Avoid light, bright and reflective sources" Page 24 .- amend technique # 1 statement to read "Locate and design structure to minimize interference with view" - show contour in intervals on sketches to illustrate uphill and downhill situations Page 25 - add a 3rd "Do" as follows: "Increase distances between structures". - identify existing and proposed structures on sketches Page 26 - delete this page Page - add a sketch under "Yes" that shows a home with a hip roof Page 28 - amend the last sentence to read "The techniques should be considered in the initial design stage, and must meet State .' EnerqV guidelines Page 29 - hand write Technique statements - amend the 2nd technique to read: "Orient structure for optimum utilization of sun" Page S3 - barbecue setback in rear yard is "6' from any property line" Miscellaneous - change DO and Don't to DO's and Don'ts - the illustrations should be consistent for both the "Yes" and "No" situations. - repeat the "Policy Statement" on each technique page. - provide a symbol legend on each page, if necessary - use colors to highlight critical areas of the sketches - the sketches of homes should be the type and style that the City encourages B. Options For Formal-Review and Adoption of Design Review Handbook Young discussed the options for'formal review and adoption of the Handbook. The consensus of the 'Commission was that the review and adoption process would include' one or more study sessions with design professionals and other interested individuals. It was agreed that the purpose of these study sessions would be used to get input on the Handbooks overall presentation of the adopted design review policies and techniques. C. Circulation Element Discussion of the circulation element update began with a short' review of State planning law requirements. A circulation element must cover major transportation routes and facilities and must be consistent with the land use element. It should deal with the circulation of people, ideas, and utilities as well as vehicles. Inclusion of bike and truck routes and scenic highways is optional. The timeline for the development and adoption of the circulation element was discussed. The target date for adoption is June, 1989. Commissioner Burger gave a history of circulation issues in Saratoga. The main area of concern in the past has been the northwest hillsides. Various road connections have been considered in order to improve traffic circulation, but all have met with public opposition. Proposed connections included: 1. Canyon View to Tollgate - here a lot was created to prevent a 2 lane through road - only an e.mergency access is now feasible; 2. Chrysler/Hillmore, Comer, Wardell, Old Oak to Parker Ranch; and 3. Pike Road to Saratoga Hills Road The Southwest - Northeast "Swine!' Road was t.he compromise that was finally negotiated. Another property discussed was the Kosich property on Saratoga Avenue and Radoyka. If/when this property is developed, it would make sense to create a through connection on a circle street, but some opposition maybe expected from'local residents. All present agreed that an expansion of truck routes unadvisable/unnecessary. ' .... ..- "' The issue of designating Tollgate and other roads as "collectors" was discussed. Staff was advised to be very careful to clearly define "collector" for the public, since citizens tend to over- react to the term. Highway 85 was discussed briefly. The new element should incorporate the freeway design agreement negotiated by the City Council. Also, ·what will happen to the old highway 85 (Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road)? If it comes under the City's 3urisdiction, what changes if any, will be necessary? This should also be considered. Public transit, van pools, and bus routes were briefly discussed. Support for transit expansion ;maybe questionable. The idea of using smaller buses was mentioned, since ridership in Saratoga is low. The Commissioners agreed that the best procedure for public participation in the development/adoption of the element is the tried and true study sessions/public hearings procedure that has been used for the recent Safety and Noise Element updates. After a brief discussion of locations for next year's retreat, the session was ad3ourned.