Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT DATE: Tuesday, October 3, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Committee-of-the-Whole I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. Velinsky - DR-89-013, 15839 Hidden Hill Road - Review of plans referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council. The Planning Director discussed the recent council direction to the Planning Commission for consideration when reviewing revised plans. The Council directed that the structure be located above the 660 ft. elevation, that the structure be one story; and that drainage be directed to Hidden Hill Road rather than into the ravine. The Planning Director then reviewed revised plans and indicated that there were two areas where there was a discrepancy with the recommendation. A portion of the building footprint extended over the 660 ft. elevation; and the garage under the living area produced a two story structure. The drainage details were not submitted to show the flow of the storm water to Hidden Hill Road. The applicant's architect Curt Anderson presented revised plans and gave his impression of Council direction. Although the City Council felt that a variance could be considered, the applicants desire was to produce a plan that conformed with all setbacks. Further, the architect felt that the Council's 660 ft. elevation condition was a guideline and not a requirement. Dr. Richard Sogg, an adjoining neighbor iterated his concern related to the geology seismic safety and impact on the environment and wildlife. Wanda Alexander, an adjoining neighbor also requested that the City require a smaller house that complied with Council for direction for building location and height. Concern was raised regarding the precedent that would be set because the area is a transition to the Santa Cruz mountains. Lastly, concerns were raised regarding slope stability. Bill Robeson, an adjoining neighbor also requested the Planning Commission consider the compatibility requirement of the City Code because he opined that the proposal was much' larger in appearance than other adjacent structures. Mr. Robeson also expressed concern that the perception of bulk is greatly increased because of the number of balconies 1 and overhangs not included in the square footage calculations. The Planning Commission discussed individually their thoughts concerning the revised plans. Commissioner Tappan felt that the two story issue had been resolved because the side facing the ravine was less than two stories in appearance. The encroachment into the ravine was an acceptable compromise. Commissioner Kolstad felt that further revisions to the plans would be unnecessary and that the plans were acceptable to him. Commission Moran stated that the revised plans met with the spirit of the Council's direction and represented a design that was largely one story. She also stated that the Council should consider the future recreational structures on the site. Commissioner Burger agreed with Commission Tappan and stressed that the plans should also not impact the neighbor to the north Mr. Hwang. Commissioner Harris felt that the revised plan did not conform with the Council direction but felt that there were extenuating circumstances which the Council should consider. The Director concluded by reviewing the process indicating that the Planning Commission would review a draft report responding to the Council's request at the October 25, 1989 public hearing. The Planning Commission's final report would be presented to the City Council on November 1, 1989 when a decision on the project will be made. B. Thakur - DR-88-070, 21537 Saratoga Heights. Review of grading and site plans revised at the request of the City Geologist. The Planning Director explained that modification to the approved plans resulted from the Geologist's review. Primarily, the home was proposed to move 5 ft. closer to the street still being approximately 60 feet from the front property line. The Planning Director also reminded the Commission of the extensive geologic history of the project. The applicant's architect, Curt Anderson reviewed the geology and stabilization measures incorporated into the plans. He indicated that there will be revisions to the front elevation which will reduce the appearance of the structure from the street. The revised elevation will also be presented to the Planning Commission for review and approval. The architect was only checking with the Planning Commission if the minor modification to the footprint would be acceptable. The Committee concurred with the applicant and the City Geologist recommendations and approved the concept but requested that building elevations be submitted for the Committee's review. 2 C. Cashin et al - DR-89-055, 12025 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Review of alternate signage and lighting plans for the renovation of the retail center. The architect representing the applicant presented photographs of signs acceptable to the Planning Department. The Committee questioned the applicant on the amount and intensity of exterior lighting in the parking lot and for the sign illumination. The architect did not provide detailed lighting plans but indicated that no change tO the parking lot lighting is proposed. The applicant also presented the proposed building signs which were to be individual white plastic letters internally illuminated. The Committee felt that the concrete monument sign similar to the signs at the Owen office complex would be acceptable. Also, the individual channel letters would be acceptable if low levels of lighting were used. The Committee also indicated that the lighting, both existing and proposed to illuminate the monument sign will also be a part of the sign plan review. D. Robby - DR-88-004, 13536 Cocciardi Court. Review of plans to attach a proposed second unit to the main structure. The applicants reviewed the difficulty they had in attaching the second unit to the main residence and requested reconsideration of the original proposal. Several Committee members felt that the it was important to attached the unit to the residence to avoid setting a precedent and to reduce the building intensity of the lot. Other Committee members felt that a more substantial attachment such as a breezeway roof would address the code definition of attachment. It was suggested that the applicants present a site plan which incorporated the second unit into the main residence to the Planning Commission for discussion at the October 11, 1989 public hearing where a decision will be made. E. Dividend Development Corporation - Senior Care Facility Market Study. The applicant's presentation of a market study analyzing the economic feasibility of the senior care facility recently approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant presented Maria Dwight who prepared the market study. The Committee asked and Ms. Dwight responded to a series of specific questions on the survey. Ms. Dwight 3 presented the finding that the market is strong for senior housing in the area but the developer needs to consider some modifications. There needs to be more units priced to the middle income category, eliminate the assisted care facility, consider adding a third story to consolidate services and consider integrating the townhomes into the program. The Committee felt that the report was thorough and raised a number of good issues. However, the Committee did express concern regarding the increased density or a third story. The Committee felt that the developer would need to consider the market analysis and prepare revised plans based on its conclusions. The Committee continued this item to its November 14, 1989 study session. F. James - DR-88-044, 14781 Vickery Avenue. Revisions to site grading and proposal for an 8 ft. sound wall. The applicant requested a revised grading and drainage plan to lower the yard area adjacent to Saratoga/Los Gatos Road to maximize the benefit from a proposed 8 ft. sound wall. The Committee discussed its concerns and concluded that the drainage has been approved by the City Engineer, the sound wall would be landscaped and the grading would not adversely impact adjoining properties. Therefore the Committee authorized staff to issue the sound wall permit including a transition to a 3 ft. front yard wall, minor grading and drainage modifications. The Committee was concerned about the 8 ft. wall connecting the sound wall to the residence. Although the Committee was concerned that a wall facing Vickery may prompt similar requests for larger walls in the neighborhood, it was concluded that connecting wall may qualify as a sound wall within the code requirements and could be approved by the Planning Director. Staff will recheck this code section to verify that this fence will qualify as a sound wall. G. Chapin - DR-88-041, 14622 Chester. Revision to an approved design review application to allow a circular driveway. After reviewing the request, the Committee concluded that the proposed driveway would result in an over-built front yard and create traffic concerns because of the multiple driveways in the immediate area. The Committee did not authorize staff to approve this request. 4 II. ADJOURNMENT The Co~ittee-of-the-Whole meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted 5