HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-30-1990 Planning Commission Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES
DATE: January 30, 1990
PLACE: Community Center, Arts .& Crafts Room, 19665 Allendale Ave.
TYPE: Committee-of-the Whole Meeting
1. Parking Limitations in Village Districts
The Planning Director summarized the parking limitations within
various parking districts. The item was last discussed with the
Planning Commission at a September study session. He also re-
ported that staff is in a position with the hiring of the City
Engineer and completion of post earthquake recovery to recommend
work proceed with the study.
Otto Crawford presented his findings in conducting the surveys.
He spoke with all merchants in the Parking District #3 to find
out their specific employee parking needs which he summarized for
the Planning Commission.
Larry Tyler discussed the "poaching" problem between districts
which compounded the lack of available parking in the districts.
Gene Zambetti discussed his needs for employee parking for his
business located in District #4. He felt that each time re-
stricted space should be compensated with an additional space.
He suggested trying to reach an agreement with the School Dis-
trict to secure additional parking. He also mentioned that the
method of collecting the garbage diminished available parking.
He also felt that the problem is a lack of parking in the Vil-
lage.
Ann Marie Burger felt that.this project should be handled as
quickly as possible.
Gillian Moran felt that the Statement of the review committee's
mission was important in focusing on the essential issues.
2. DR-89-106 z Guilardi, 15410 Pepper Lane
The Planning Director summarized the direction of the Commission
when this item was initially discussed at a public hearing.
Warren Heid, architect for the applicant, presented a schematic
model that illustrated the proposed addition. He then summarized
how the applicants have addressed each of the Planning Commis-
c sion's ~: adequate enclosed par g for the 2nd unit,
~ privacy issues'of adjoining neighbors, and"the porte cochere.
The applicant responded to Planning Commission questions and
presented alternative window placement for the north elevation.
M/M Sweet presented their concerns regarding invasion of privacy
into their rear yard entertainment areas and suggested land
scaping to help mitigate view' impact.
The applicant presented his perspective of the addition and his
concern for maintaining the neighborhood compatibility.
Ann Marie Burger felt the lot was large and had generous set-
backs. Regarding the privcy impact across the street, she felt
that substantial heavy landscaping was necessary to address this
concern. Regarding the porte cochere, she felt that home would
be better without this feature, but this was an opinion based on
personal preference.
Gillian Moran felt that the porte cochere was overpowering for
this particular neighborhood.. She agreed with all other comments
by Commissioner Burger.
Jan Harris felt that some porch extension is appropriate includ-
ing the port cochere as designed. She felt that the south eleva-
tion needs good screening to mitigate the bulk of this view.
Karen Tucker remained concerned regarding the porte cochere.
3. DR-89-026 - Yam, 22010 Quarry. Rd.
The architect presented his r!evised plans which included reducing
the 2nd floor by 700 sq. ft. and adding this to the 1st floor
which increased the offset between the two levels.
The Planning Commission reiterated its concern regarding mass and
bulk. There was consensus that the changes will be an improve-
ment. However, the color should be darker earthtone. Commis-
sioner Moran noted that the windows of the revised elevations are
preferred to the original submittal.
4. DR-89-100 - 20550 Komina Ave.
The Associate Planner reviewed the concerns expressed by the
Commission at the public hearing which were integration of the
second story into the first, shading and solar access, and priva-
cy of adjoining neighbors.
The architect representing the applicant reviewed the changes to
the plan which included a reduction in overall height and the
addition of a hip roof rather than the gable for the second story
addition.
The Planning Commission expressed its concern regarding the
incongruous of the roof presented by the
architect. ~ ~ x
The architect also presented a one-story alternative and ex-
pressed his concerns that many mature trees would be lost if it
were implemented.
The neighbor to the rear requested additional landscaping to
promote privacy..
John Kolstad stated that he=does not feel comfortable with the
two-story designs. The one-story alternative is preferable but
should include additional trees to compensate for the loss of
mature trees.
Ann Marie Burger felt that the revisions are good but the roof
line in the front still bothers her even though this solves the
shadow concerns.
Gillian Moran also felt the reduction of height was a benefit of
the revised plans. She also felt that building the maximum size
may not be appropriate for this site.
The Associate Planner reminded the Commission of the dedication
issue which puts the building area over the maximum limit which
will require a variance if the dedication goes forward. Karen
Tucker stated that she would.have a hard time granting the vari-
ance. Ann Marie felt that variance findings could be made based
on the need for a dedication. Jan Harris stated that she would
have difficulty in granting the variance if dedication is neces-
sary. Karen Tucker discussed her concern about a two-story
appearance.
ADJOURNMENT 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Stephen Emslie
3