HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-1987 Planning Commission Minutes CZTY OF SARRTOSR PLANNZNG COMMZSSZON
MZNUTES
DATE: Tuesday, May 19, 1987 - 7:00 p.~.
PLACE: Community Center Arts ~ Crafts Room, 19555 Allendale Ave.
TYPE: GoMmittee-of-the-~hole
I. ITEMS Of DISCUSSION
R. Denton - 21170 Heber Way, review and discussion of
proposed color for single.family home.
Mr. Denton, applicant, presented three color samples as an
alternative to the "Plymouth Grey"! that he proposed to use on the
home. The trim would be a darker shade of grey wi~h a touch of
blue and the garage door would probably be the same as the trim,
although he was undecided. Mr. Denton suggested that the
Commission generally allow a variety of colors in homes,
including lighter colors on the hillsides. The Committee agreed
that the color "fieldstone" or "Borer grey" by Glidden would be
acceptableo
B, DR-B?-031 - Dalton, 20558 Beauchamps Dr., revieu of new
q,gG? sq. ft. two-story:residence (cont. from 5/13/87
Planning Commission)
Mr. Dalton, applicant, presented overlays showing a modified roof
from ?:12 to G:12 and 5:12 to lower the helght from 29 to
and 26-1/2 ft. respectively. He :preferred the appearance of the
6:12, feeling the 5:12 was too bulky. He also showed the
addition of two windows on the 1:eft side to add architectural
relief ~o the elevationo Mr. Oal'ton explained that the sideyard
setbacks ~ere unchanged from the Planning Commission Meeting
since the living area on the left side hag a 29' setback; the
garage is the only portion of ~he home at the 15' MinimUM setback
on the lef~ sided He explored reiDcaring the garage to the rear
but found there was little space .left on the lot when the garage
was relocated. Mr. Oakley, architect, stated that lot ~]~ to
east, would be a single story home so that the Commission needn't
worry about the cumulative height: of homes up the hillside.
The Committee agreed that G:12 was an acceptable roof pitch
address the height, setbacks were not problemeric and; a
landscape plan should be prepared to screen the front and
mitigate the perception of bulk along the left side elevation by
planting clusters of trees against the home.
Planning Go~ission
Gon~it~ee-o~-~he-~hole - ~nu~es 5/19/87
C. OR-8?-OZg, SM-87-003 - Rosenberg,
review o~ new G,IGS sq. .ft. two-story residence (cont.
from S/1S/87 Planning Commission)
Mr. & Mrs. Rosenberg explained that the rear elevation had been
· modified by recessing a portion of the wall G" back of the roof
to address the perception o~ bulk. The height o~ the home was
not reduced because it would affect the deslgn of the home. The
architect added that a reduction in height would increase the
perception o~ bulk.
The Committee felt that tall landscaping at the rear of the ho~e
inside the retaining ~all could screen the home and that the
color should be darker than the sample o{ the "~auve" submitted
with the application. The heigh~ o~ the home should be lowered
one (1) ~oot either b~ grading G" and lowering the roo~l. ine by G""
or cutting one <l) ~oot ~ron the site and retaining the current
design.
O. RZO-8?-O0~ (see mlnutes o~ Plannlng Commission, regular
adjourned meeting)
II. RDJOURNMENT
Minutes
Saratoga Planning Commission
TIME: Tuesday, May 19, 1987
PLACE: Community Center, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga
TYPE: Committee of the Whole/Adjourned Public Hearing on AZ0-87-
003, Revision of Design Review Regulations
The meeting was called to order at 8:15 p.m.
Commissioners Harris, Guch, Burger, Clay, Siegfried, Callans and
Tucker were present. Councilman. Don Peterson was present.
Staff members present: Planning Director Hsia, City Attorney
Toppel, Associate Planner Young..
There were approximately 10 members of public present.
AZO-87-OO3 - Revision of Design Review Reg~.lations
Planner Young distributed a memorandum to the Commission that
outlined issues brought up at the May 13, 1987 meeting still
needing discussion and resolution. The Commission decided to go
through each item first, with questions to staff, then open the
public hearing.
Item #1: A!lo~ab!e Floor Area
The Commission discussed the .fact that the proposal had the
greatest impact in reducing floor areas in the R-l-10,000, 12,500
and 15,000 districts. Commissioner Burger noted her support of
the proposed reductions because of the cumulative impact of
remodels and expansions in existing built-up neighborhoods.
Chair Harris had questions about the location and type of
applications (new house or remodel) in the R-1-12,500 district
analyzed in the Staff Analysis, to get a better understanding of
the impact of the proposed reductions. There was consensus among
the Commission that the proposed reductions were acceptable.
The Commission discussed the possibility of an upper limit on
floor areas for the NHR/HCRD districts. Commissioner Siegfried
expressed his concern that it appeared that the City was suddenly
encouraging much larger homes, and that instead of requiring
variances for houses over the .limit on large, hillside lots,
there should be a separate set of special findings. The City
attorney noted that the slope penalty was the main factor that
would reduce house sizes in hillside lots. There was consensus
that the proposed allowable floor area of 8,400 sq. ft. for 2
acre lots should be reduced and that special findings should be
developed.
1
Item ~2; slop.eP~na!ty
The City Attorney clarified that using the av~r~g~ site slope
would reduce the allowable floor area to a much greater extent
than using the ~ site slope. This issue was discussed in
light of Bill Heiss' concern about the impact of the slope
penalty existing hillside subdivisions with permanently
designated common open space areas. Commissioner Siegfried noted
that the slope penalty would beia disincentive for developers to
create common open space areas and would instead encourage
developers to keep the open space easements as part of individual
lots. There was discussion on allotting extra floor area to
parcels abutting open space areas; there was consensus not to
develop a specific formula, but to devleop a guideline or finding
to be used under those special circumstances for which individual
lots are not now given credit.
Item #3:. S~tb~ck~
There was consensus that the setback increase should be applied
at the 22' height level rather than 18' and that it should be a
,
standard for both new residences and existing residences that add
second stories.
Item #4: Additional Guidelines
There was consensus that the paragraph (15-45.050(a)) regarding
the use of architectural and design elements to reduce bulk and
mass be a standard rather than a. guideline.
Item #5: Pro~essing
The City Attorney clarified that all applications submitted to
and deemed complete by the Planning Department prior to the
effective date of the ordinance would be processed under the
existing rather than new regulations. There was discussion on
how applications were to be "deemed complete".
Commissioner Burger expressed concern about allowing staff review
of all one-story residences, especially the loss of public input.
Commissioner Guch concurred. Commissioner Siegfried suggested
the regulations not be changed in that regard at this time, but
that the Commission consider it again in six months. There was
consensus that the regulations remain as is (that Planning
Commission review one-story houses over 22' in height) and that
there not be a height limit for one-story structures.
The public hearing was opened at. 8:52 p.m.
Kurt Anderson, Andarch Associates, had techn!cal questions on the
timing and treatment of applications and when they would be
deemed complete. He also suggested that the bulk problem could
not be addressed by numbers, but by design guidelines,
particularly to address second-story setbacks and setbacks for
the downhill elevation of houses. He expressed concern that a
decrease in height would limit the creative use of interior
space. He noted that the City of Campbell used an outside
architect to help in design review decisions, and asked that the
Commission consider deleting the requirement for irrigation plans
in the design review application.; it was more appropriate at the
building permit stage.
Bill Heiss reiterated his concern about the impact on
subdivisions with common permanent open space areas. He stated
that restricting house size is. not the answer, but developing
design guidelines is Commissioner Guch stated that if there were
no floor area guidelines, people would push house sizes to the
limit; Commissioner Siegfried agreed.
Wendell Roscoe, architect, felt that there are other ways to
control bulk besides numbers and that the 26' height limit would
restrict design. He said people spend a lot of money on a lot
and feel they have the right to build a big dream house.
Commissioner Siegfried said the Commission did not want to
dictate style, but need to address neighborhood. issues.
Kurt Anderson suggested that a task force of architects and
designers be set up to provide professional input on the design
manual.
Bill Day, developer, noted that there were two separate issues to
be addressed, hillside vs. infill development. He also said that
the color of a residence has a big impact and that the Commission
should address that in design guidelines.
Jerry Lohr, developer, supported. the idea of designers helping on
the manual. He showed the Commission examples of house styles
that .might result from the imposition of additional side yard
setbacks, indicating that the styles might not be appropriate for
Saratoga. He could not support the setback increase at the 18'
height level. He also did not favor the 26' height limit,
stating that a 30' height was necessary to support a 6,000 sq.
ft. house. He agreed that infill and new subdivisions needed to
be addressed differently.
Marty Oakley, architect, noted that everyone perceives bulk in'a
different way and showed examples of two different house designs.
He said that the 30' height is necessary to create the type of
house that people are asking for, and the 30' height only has
significant impacts when a large percentage of the rooflines is
at that level.
M/S Guch/Callans to continue t'he public hearing to the June 2
Committee of the Whole meeting. Passed unanimously. The
Commission asked staff'to prepare another summary of issues for
that meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted