The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-17-1988 Planning Commission Minutes(2) "..Wri.t~A' Communications ~2 CITY· OF SARATOGA. PIANNING~' COMMISSION REPORT' DATE: Tuesday, May 17, 1988"-- 7':30. PLACE: Community Center Arts ~ Crafts' Room·, 19655 All'endale Ave. TYPE: Committee-of-the-Whole .... Roll Call -. Present:· Commissioners Guch,. Burger, Tucker, Kolstad, Harris= . ........ .. Absent: Commissi6ner'Siegfried' Staff: · Planners :Caldwell,;. Catkins I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. Discussion of Legislative Decisions City Attorney Toppel' distributed. a chart entitled "Standards of Review" and explained the difference between' a ,'legislative action''i and an'-"administrative action." He stated that the primary difference between the two actions is that an item under Iegislative action does not. require the Planning' Commission to make. formal "findings."' Instead the Planning Commission:is asked to determine whether or.not a "project" is' rational, reasonable, and logical public policy. On the other hand, the. CitX Attorney explained that under an administrative action', thePlanning Commission must make findings and their decision must be supported by the findings. ..' B. AZO-88-002 The ·City Attorney explained the.' proposed revisions to City Code -Sections 14-35.010 and 15-80.030(k). He stated that the proposed revisions· would. repeal existing provisions in the City·Code which allow modifications of zoning standards to be gr~nted as part. of a. subdivision or building site approval, 'and a use permit'. The revisions·would require the Planning Commission make the. variance findings to support the requested modifications. under City Code Sections 14·- 35.010 and 15-80.030(k)... The consensus of the Commission was that this' item needed further study and analysis. Several Commissioners felt that the Code was working well now and that this amendment may lead to more confusion. on the. behalf of Saratoga property owners. This item was continued to the 6/14/88 study session. C., D., and E, -. DR-87-019,.DR-87--123, DR-87-124, UP-87-147, - Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga-Sunnyvale -. (Continued from 4/13/88). Planner Caldwell reviewed the issues of'concern expressed by i 000262 Committee-of-the-Whole Minutes 5/ 7/88 the Commission: third access onto Saratoga-Synnyvale Road, height and location of the corner retail building, , configuration and height of the townhomes and location of the swimming pool. Townhomes Norm Hulberg, applicant, presented his revised plans and introduced the new architect for the townhomes, Colin Vessell, and the landscape architect', Mike Dillon. The townhomes were relocated, exterior materials revised from stucco to horizontal wood and the roof changed from a gable to hip. The southern unit was 12 ft. instead of 11 ft. from the east property line. The total square footage was the same and guest parking ·remained at 6 spaces. The balcony on the second story, 5 ft. 6 in. width, places the balcony· approximately 7 ft. from the property line. The fence along the east will remain. The neighbors commented that-they wanted heavy vegetation along the eastern property line to give them privacy and soften the impact of the townhouses. Comments from the Committee included: 1. Balconies along the rear elevations towards the eastern property line should be eliminated. 2. More guest parking.should be provided. 3. Project was too dense. 4. Unit at the south should be reudced in height or eliminated. 5. Hours of the pool·and spa should be restricted in the CC&R's. 6. Lighting plan should be prepared and submitted to the Commission for approval. 7. Landscaping along the eastern property line should address the privacy of the neighbors and provide a screen between properties. Mr. Hulberg stated that he cannot reduce the height. He" cannot build less than '10 units without renegotiating the price with Council. Retail Buildinqs Gary Black, traffic engineer, described the line of sight 2 000263 distance to the south; he did not considerany earthen mound or landscaping along the proposed building #2 at the corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road in his analysis; he saw no Committee-of-the-Whole Minutes 5/17/88 problem with the proposed location of building #2. The developers described the reduction in the height of the building from 20 ft. to 18 ft. and the redesign of the northwest. corner of the building to increase the site distance down Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The PG&E pole would be relocated behind the curb, signals at Blauer, Pierce, and Cox would be syncronized. The Committee discussed their various concerns: Building #2 is too close to the streets at 18 ft. in height, and should be redesigned or relocated to allow landscaping and berms around the building. Aesthetically, the corner should be developed consistent with the residential character of the area. The Committee was equally divided on the appropriateness of a third driveway cut on Saratoga-' Sunnyvale Road. F. DR-88-031 ~ Beant 21642! Pierce Ct. The Committee could not interpret the open space easements as abutting the property, since a road separated the site from the easement and the topography across the road falls away from the site. Applicant would have to apply for a variance to construct a home which exceedeed the allowable square footage. No credit could be given for the open space easement. II. ADJOURNMENT 000264