Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-1988 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT DATE: Tuesday, September 6, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Committee-of-the-Whole Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Guch, Burger, Harris, Tappan, Tucker, Siegfried Absent: Commissioner Kolstad I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. V-88-025, A-1088.1 - Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Review of proposal to allow 10,374 sq. ft. of structures where 5,220 sq. ft. is allowed and variance to allow construction to extend into the required yard (cont'd. from public hearing on 8/24/88). The applicant, Jerry Kocir, introduced his son, Marc Kocir. Revised plans were passed around along with revised floor area figures as calculated by the applicant. Mr. Kocir showed how the total floor area could be brought down to 7,355 sq. ft. (just below the 7,419 sq. ft. originally approved), not including the pool cover. He proposed to cover the pool with a partially open beam structure rather than a completely solid roof in hopes that this would not be considered as floor area. However, it was the concensus of the Commissioners and staff members present that this would still qualify as a covered structure which must be included in the floor area figures, as it was in the original approval. Planner Welge gave a brief history of the project including dates of Planning Commission approval and building permit issuance. It was her understanding based on conversations with the City Attorney that the original aprpoval could still be considered to be valid even though permits had expired. This was to be.reconfirmed with the City Attorney. The concensus of the Commissioners present was that the amount of square footage originally approved (7,419 sq. ft.) was quite generous and they would not be able to make the findings to approve any additional floor area. The applicant was encouraged to consider revised plans which would reduce the pool cover area. It was also suggested that alternatives involving the therapy building be considered - perhaps putting the pool partially inside the building. Overall, the combination of structures on the lot should not exceed the amount originally approved (7,419 sq. ft.). With regard to the exterior side yard setback variance, Mr. Kocir claimed that this would no longer be necessary since, 1 Committee-of-the-Whole Report September 6, 1988 1) the addition in that area was to be reduced in size, and 2) the setback was incorrectly measured. Staff will verify this upon receipt of revised plans. B. DR-88-047, Chang, 12749 Star Ridge Ct. - Confirmation of minor modification to site plan. Planner Welge presented the revised site plan which differed slightly from the one approved by the Planning Commission on 8/10/88 in that the house had been rotated slightly (1 to 3 ft.) toward the southeast. The configuration of the walkway to the front door had also been changed. The Commissioners agreed that these changes were not significant and that no adverse impacts were =anticipated as a result of the revisions. No formal modification was required. C. Discussion of notification procedure changes per letter from Gremer dated 8/10/88. Various options were discussed which would address the issue raised by Gremer's letter, i.e. that when a project application is continued, neighbors are often not aware of the hearing date and that revised plans are to be submitted and are available for review. The Commissioners and staff agreed that the best solution would be for staff to send notices to the immediateiy adjacent neighbors informing them when an application had been continued. D. DiscusSion of parking for shopping center per letter G-H Development dated 8/30/88. Developer of new shopping center on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road requests confirmation from Planning Commission that a limitation on seating for a prospective tenant (donut shop) is appropriate with regard to City's parking requirements. Commissioners agree that no additional limitations other than those currently contained within applicable City Codes are necessary. Developer and tenants to whom he rents space are bound by current parking requirements and the 1 parking space per 250 sq. ft. of floor area ratio approved for the shopping center. This ratio does not allow for restaurants although they are permitted uses in the zone. Staff is directed to prepare written response. E. Discussion of atriums and courtyards in relation to definition of gross floor area, Section 15-06.280. A recent design review application raised the question of what should be considered as an interior court, which by definition would be included in the calculation of gross floor area. After some discussion, the Commissioners clarified the matter by indicating that an interior court 2 Committee-of-the-Whole Report 9/6/88 would usually be one which is bounded on more than three sides by the exterior walls of one or more buildings and makes the structure appear more massive. An exterior court would be bounded by walls on only 3 or 3-1/2 sides and would make the structure appear less massive by providing more architectural relief. .The City Attorney should prepare written definitions that would reflect the intent of the Commissioners on this question. F. Discussion of acceptable criteria for revised plans. The Commissioners present agreed that the same standards applied to plans when they are initially submitted should 'also apply to subsequently revised plans. For example, they should be redrawn to scale rather than photocopies. Staff should continue to accept only those plans that meet the established minimum requirements for submittal. G. Discussion of fence ordinance, Article 15-29. Wildlife Protection - This issue was not addressed when the fence ordinance was revised in March, 1987. The concensus of the Commissioners present was that this should be one of the findings required to allow enclosure of an area exceeding 4,000 sq. ft. in the hillside zoning districts. It was also decided that'rather than allowing the Planning Director to grant this type of exception from the code, it would be more appropriate to require that a variance from the Planning Commission be obtained. In addition to the 5 regular variance findings, additional findings regarding affect of fencing on wildlife, should also be made. The City Attorney will be instructed to make these changes in the current code. Chainlink vs. wire mesh - The Commissioners discussed the possibility of changing the existing code Section 15- 29,020(d) which prohibits chainlink fencing in hillside districts, to allow some types of wire mesh fencing which are unobtrusive. Staff was directed to look into the matter further to determine how the section might be re-written to clearly define which types of wire fencing would be allowed. II. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted Kathryn Caldwell 3