Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-1988 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: April 19, 1988 - 8:05 P.M. PLACE: Senior Center, 13655 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Tucker; Commissioner Kolstad absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS; 12. SD-87-019 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for tentative subdivision approval for a 12 lot subdivision of a 2.7 acre parcel to accommodate 10 townhomes and a common area lot, and a 1.29 acre retail parcel in the C-N zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, April 13, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:08 P.M. The City Attorney reviewed the Application and the history of this property. The Planning Director and Planner Calkins provided further information on the Application. Mr. Norm Hulberg, Saratoga Partners, commented as follows: - Reviewed the history of the property and presented a project overview - Noted the difficulty of separating the three Applications - Design proposed was quite consistent with the City's original request in the sale contract - Reviewed site access alternatives and noted that both portions were impacted by the Creek - Landscaping Plan had been upgraded from that originally seen by the Commission Types of retail tenants sought were discussed/projections made on townhouse owners Asked that the Tentative Map not be approved prior to approval of the following Items Consensus reached by the Commission that all three Applications would be heard concurrently. 13. DR-87-123 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for design review approval of plans to construct a 4,716 sq. ft. and a 10,275 sq. ft. retail building on a 1.29 acre parcel in the C-N zoning diswict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. In addi.'tion, design review approval of the proposed sign program is also requested. 14. UP- 87 - 147 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga-S unnyvale Rd., request for use permit DR-87-124 an.d d.esign review approvals of plans to construct ten (10) townhouse umts ~n a C-N (neighborhood commercial) zone district. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project~ Planning Director Hsia presented the Reports to the Planning Commission for Items 13 and 14, Mr. Hulberg, Saratoga Partners, presented photographs and commented as follows: - Noted the constraints of both portions of the parcel, namely, narrowness of land available - Cited efforts to keep the proposed heights as low as possible while maintaining a roof line - Had discussed the project with neighbors; noted their concerns regarding privacy and view - Noted attempts to design a project that would be a good neighbor to existing home owners by maintaining required setbacks and limiting height - However, the units were two-story; it was impossible to place one-story units on-site - Balconies on units 1-4 had been eliminated, per Staffs suggestion; he asked for further consideration of this situation by the Commission - Balconies were off the master bedroom--not the sort of place where social, party activities would occur; yet such would be an amenity to the units - Gaps in the existing trees on the property line would be addressed in a landscaping plan - Unit 5 side bedroom window (east side) was at a 5 ft. 2 in. height per Staff request; he noted density of trees, distance from adjacent property and asked for review of this issue PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 APRIL 19, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING Continued Mr. Kanti Khokhani, 20391 Wolcott Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Some neighbors present at the April 13th Meeting could not attend this hearing - Noted concern that proposed project would block their views - Excessive bulk--all townhouse units were two-story in height - Noted the resulting privacy impacts from the proposed design Ms. Khokhani contimed that such was the case. Ms. Dee Fulgam, 20502 Wardell Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Primarily concerned about existing traffic on Saratoga-Sunnyvale, Wardell/Cox intersection - Barton-Aschman Traffic Study did not consider the possibility of no interchange in Saratoga for Route 85; such would considerably impact Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. - Cited the bicycle/automobile accidents on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd./Cox Ave. interchange - Retail/commercial Building #2 appeared large and was only a limited distance from comer - Noted safety hazards due to proposed placement of the retail/commercial building - Cited considerable traffic impacts from previous improvements on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. - Questioned what would happen if access to the adjacent southerly property were closed off - Asked that safety, hours of operation and uses be considered; opposed alcohol uses on site The City Attorney suggesting recording a mutual access/parking easement of the Applicant's property with the southerly property. Ms. Antoinette Romeo, 12848 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Commented on the difficulty of getting out of the driveways on Pierce Rd. - Suggested design alternatives to relieve traffic hazards, i.e., right turn lane onto Cox Ave.; visibility impariments noted Mr. Jerry Kocir, 12815 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited existing traffic impacts and noted that such would worsen - Heard complaints 'that houses had become devalued after approval of this development - Cited street and culvert measurements .and noted the need for bicycle/pedestrian lanes - Asked that safety factors to be taken into consideration - Existing utility pole would have to be moved back from the comer - Asked if a stacking lane on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd./Pierce Rd. would be installed - Noted an apparent lack of air vents in the basement and lack of bridging every 10 ft. - Noted the parking easement on the Santa Clara Water District easement o Questioned the lack of pedestrian access from residential to commercial portion of the site Mr. Mark Kocir, 12795 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited existing traffic problems - Questioned uses, hours of operation of the retail/commercial portion of the site - Concurred that the comer building was too close to Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Cox intersection Mr. Khokhani suggested consideration of reversing the townhouses and the swimming pool. Mr. Bill Hershman, Saratoga Parmers, addressed the above issues as follows: - Conf'nTned that a 10 ft. dedication, street widening and improvements would be done Bridge across the culvert would be widened Reviewed the retail/commercial building setbacks and the relocation of the utility pole Sharpness of the turn at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd./Cox Ave. would be eased A pedestrian bridge was being designed and would be installed per Conditions of Approval Cat Trans discussed closure of the left hand tum lane at Argonaut Shopping Center with the Applicants; however, after an independent study they concluded that such was not needed Cat Trans did not disapprove of the proposed driveway access; Applicants were caught between City and Cat Trans requirements to show approval from both parties Water Diswict had approved the easement shown on exhibits presented The District was favorable to having the easement paved and used for parking Commissioner Siegfried asked that the building relative to the street be staked for the Commission to see. Mr. Jerry Kocir presented information received from Cal Trans regarding a driveway on-site. Ms. Fulgam asked that a certain tree be protected when the utility pole was relocated. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page APRIL 19, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing remained open. Commissioner Siegfried asked that suitable exhibits be prepared showing road improvements and both developments to enable the Commission to visualize the overall impact of the project. He noted that he had substantial problems with the comer retail/commercial building and the proposed size and impact of the townhouses; Chairwoman Guch concurred. Mr. Hulberg commented as follows: Location of the comer building was primarily determined by site constraints and regulations Concurred with Commissioner Siegfried that this comer was heavily travelled and impacts on visibility were extremely important; Applicants also wished to address any safety hazards Townhouses would be designed to standards; Applicants wished to work with neighbors BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-87-019,123, 124 AND UP-87-017 TO MAY 25, 1988, WITH A STUDY SESSION HELD ON MAY 17, 1988. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Burger commented as follows: Major concern was proposed access off of S.aratoga-Sunnyvale Rd; she was not favorable to another access at this site and cited provisions made for access from the adjacent property Retail Building #2: wished to see exact measurements of distance from the property lines Plans showed the comer building too close to the property lines and too high Both setbacks and height of Building #2 would have to be reviewed; furthermore, it may be necessary to reduce the amount of retail space Uses would have to be conditioned; particularly restaurant use and serving of alcohol Commissioner Harris commented as follows: Concurred with Commissioner Burger's comments Suggested consideration of reversing the two retail buildings to address concerns raised Suggested townhouses 3, 4 be reversed to eliminate a "walled" impact neighbors would see Changing the configuration of the pool to break up the lengthy facade of townhouses Cited concerns regarding massiveness of the proposed project to the south Setback of Unit 5 appeared close; asked that plans show the project to the south as it related to the shared property line - Noted concern that the project as a whole would compound impacts - Noted concern regarding the stacking of cars at Cox Ave. to Pierce Rd. traffic light as proposed Commissioner Siegfried commented as follows:. - Added a request that exhib~i~ prepared by the Applicants show access/entrances to the project both on Cox Ave. and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. - Noted concern of impacts of townhouse buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4 for neighbors to the rear - Suggested alternative configurations for these townhouse units be used Commissioner Tucker concurred with the above and added her concerns regarding site access. Chairwoman Guch commented as follows: - Would not approve townhouses at a 25 ft. height, especially since this was a corner location - Noted the impacts resulting from the height, bulk proposed and severity of rear design; adjacent residents in one-story homes would be impacted by such a project - Suggested reconfiguration of the units - However, the comer unit seemed acceptable and landscaping would screen the unit - Suggested relocation of the pool which would provide visual space for rear neighbors - Had more concerns of the proposed townhouse development than the commercial site - With respect to the retail/commercial building on the comer, there was heavy traffic and there was no way to mitigate the impact of the building as proposed - Landscaping ofthis building was limited due to lines of sight for traffic, pedestrians ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:50 P.M.