Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-05-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA COMMITTEE -OF-THE -WHOLE REPORT Date: Tuesday, September 5, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Place: Community Center Arts and Crafts Room, 19665 Allendale Av. Type: Committee-of-the-Whole I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. DR-89-022, JEPSON - 21090 CHIQUITA WAY The Planning Director and Associate Planner reviewed the minor modification to the approved plans for the residential addition. The applicants propose to extend an approved retaining wall to allow a greater driveway turnaround. Staff indicated that the modification would improve the drainage pattern and would blend with the natural vegetation. The Committee reviewed the modified retaining wall and expressed no concerns. The Committee concurred with staff's recommendation that the change was minor and could be approved administratively. B. DR-87-121, CHEN - 14760 MASSON COURT The Planning Director and Associate Planner reviewed the minor modification to extend the approved driveway into a circular driveway. Due to the fact that the change would not increase grading significantly or required any additional tree removal, the Planning Commission found the request to be minor which can be considered as an administrative modification. C. SAN MARCOS HEIGHT SUBDIVISION The Planning Director reviewed the previous Planning Commission meeting where a majority of the Commission voted to allow no more than seven lots from Crisp and a maximum of three cul-de- sacs. The Planning Commission was undecided with respect to the number of lots accessed by the Odd Fellows cul-de-sac and the Gypsy Hill cul-de-sac which was the purpose of this study session. The applicants spoke and indicated that the alternative with nine lots from Oddfellows and 18 from Gypsy Hill was the only alternative they would consider. The applicants then explained the grading, retaining walls and maximum slopes required to access more than nine lots from the Odd Fellows cul-de-sac. The audience and Planning Commission expressed concerns and questions regarding the exact location of Odd Fellows access, the status of the two cul-de-sac alternative voted on at the 8/23/89 meeting, and the Odd Fellows site features which constrain access alternatives. The Committee-of-Whole discussed the grading and slope concerns related to the an extension of the Odd Fellows access road which was a concern to several Committee members. The Committee indicated that the Commission should be ready to take action on the proposal at the 9/13/89 meeting. The Committee- of-the-Whole requested that the Planning staff review the procedures to benefit the public's understaning of the process. D.INTERPRETATION OF ENCLOSED SPACES FOR CALCULATING FLOOR AREA The Planning Director discussed the concerns raised regarding the Planning Commission interpretation of enclosed floor area which is any area enclosed on three sides and covered by a roof. Virginia Fanelli presented a series of photographs depicting examples of architecture features such as porches and courtyards which would be enclosed and counted as floor area. The Committee-of-the-Whole concluded that the present interpretation prevented architectural details which benefit the exterior aesthetics. The Committee-of-the-Whole concluded that these areas should continue to count as floor area but a finding should be considered to enable the Planning Commission to make exceptions when it may benefit the architecture. E. DR-88-095, SD-88-019, HUR - 20052 SUNSET AVENUE The Planning Director explained the revisions proposed by the applicant as well as the bridge and concern raised by neighbors regarding the proposed plans. The Planning Commission did express overall concern regarding the proposed building and its location on the site. It was concluded that several factors should be incorporated into revised plans: 1. The house should be reduced in perceived mass and bulk. 2. The house should be located on a lower portion of the site to reduce the visual impact of the structure on the neighboring residences. 3. Alternative designs and styles should be explored to reduce the perception of bulk. 4. The applicants should consider both the bridge from Sunset Drive and the easement as access points appropriate for this development. The ultimate selection of an appropriate access will depend on the final design and location of the home. II. ADJOURNMENT 2 O0 176