Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-1994 Planning Commission minutes. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 1994 - 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Moran. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Moran, Commissioners Asfour, Caldwell, Jacobs, Kaplan, Murakami and Wolfe Absent: None City Attorney Riback was not present (He was excused from this meeting due to an emergency meeting in another city). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 1994. Commissioner Asfour had the following corrections: Page 5, 4th paragraph, the following should be added to the end of the paragraph: "He also noted that the neighbor's house to the rear of the property was within 5 feet of the fence." Page 1 1, 2nd paragraph, last sentence should read as follows: "He also pointed out that the proposed home would be a lower (in height) two-story design, and would provide a variety of lines and would break the visual impact of the two story home to the left". Chairperson Moran had the following corrections: Page 3, last paragraph should read:"Chairperson Moran stated that the size of the increase would add about 80 additional square feet to the maximum square footage of the structures that may be built on the lot". ~ • ,~ Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 1994 Page 2 Page 6, 6th paragraph, should be corrected to read: "COMMISSIONER ASFOUR/WOLFE MOVED APPROVAL OF V-93-028 (BOTH THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND THE ROOF HEIGHT.VARIANCES)". Commissioner Asfour assisted with this correction. WOLFE/ASFOUR MOVED APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 12, 1994, MINUTES AS CORRECTED (ABOVE). PASSED 7-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There was no one wishing to speak. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 21, 1994. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET There were no technical corrections. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. V-93-028 - Vick; 14137 Squirrel Hollow Ln., request for Variance approval to allow a 269 sq. ft. one-story addition off the back of an existing 2,748 sq. ft. one-story home to encroach 2 ft. and 4 ft. into required rear and side yard setbacks, respectively. The subject property is 15,300 sq. ft in area and is located in an R- 1-12,500 zoning district (cont. from 1 /12/94 to adopt Resolution of approval. The Public Hearing for this item has been closed). -------------------------------------------------------------- ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE V-93-028 (APPROVAL OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE RESOLUTION -THE ACTUAL VARIANCE WAS APPROVED ON JANUARY 12, 1994). THE MOTION PASSED 7-0. ~ • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 1994 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 2. DR-93-045 - Westbrook; 20611 Lomita Ave., request for Design Review approval to construct a 572 sq. ft. main level and a 540 sq. ft. lower level addition to an existing 2,077 sq. ft. single-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 9,281 sq. ft. and is in an R-1-10,000 zone district (cont. to 2/9/94 at the request of the applicant; application expires 6/2/941. --------------------------------------=-------------------- CALDWELL/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONTINUANCE OF DR-93-045. THE MOTION PASSED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR-93-021 - Kwei; 21448 Tollgate Rd., request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,346 sq. ft. two-story residence pursuant to Chapter 1 5 of the City Code. The subject property is a vacant 4.8 acre hillside lot located in the McBain and Gibbs subdivision and within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. The existing building pad is situated on a City identified Minor Ridgeline. -------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report dated January 26, 1994, and submitted a color/materials board. AT 7:40 P.M., CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Glen Calhoon, 1585 The Alemeda, San Jose, project designer, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that with regard to the topography of the lot the proposed location was the only feasible location to place the home. He discussed such issues as preservation of the existing trees and explained the efforts to lower the building pad and pull the house away from the scenic view shed. He also discussed the proposed building materials, architectural features and exterior colors. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/KAPLAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45. PASSED 7-0. • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 1994 Page 4 Commissioner Jacobs stated that he had not had a chance to visit the site and asked for input, from those Commissioners who visited the site, with regard to the visibility of the proposed house from various areas particularly Congress Springs and Big Basin Way. Commissioner Asfour explained that he had visited the site, and that the proposed home would be most visible from Vintage Lane. He explained that the proposed location for the house was the only place a house could be sited on the parcel. He stated that he felt that the design worked well with the topography of the site. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with Commissioner Asfour. She acknowledged that the house would be visible from across the valley (toward the Paul Masson Winery site), but that there was no other place on the site where the house could be built. _ Commissioner Asfour stated that the fact that the applicant tried to maintain a one level house helped to minimize the impact. He stated that had the proposal been for atwo-story design he probably would have been unable to support the application. Chairperson Moran stated that the massing of the two-story portion of the proposed house into the dip of the site helped reduce the appearance of bulk from the visible angles of the house. She also stated that she felt the house would be visible from various locations and that the exterior colors of the house were important. Commissioner Murakami stated that he was curious to see the fire damage to the trees in that area and agreed with the recommendation made by the arborist. He also explained that he was satisfied with the design of the house. Commissioner Wolfe stated that having heard the observations of his colleges he (WOLFE)/KAPLAN MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-93-021 PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT. PASSED 7-0. 4. DR-93-039 - Rogers & Brook, Inc.;. 14977 Gypsy Hill Rd., Lot #27, request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,688 sq. ft. two-story residence within the San Marcos Heights subdivision per Chapter 15 of the city Code. The parcel is 40,857 sq. ft. and is located within the R-1-40,000 zone district. • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 1994 Page 5 Planner Walgren presented. the Report dated January 26, 1994. He explained that the landscape plan called for 15-gallon size trees, but that staff recommended that at least 50% of the proposed plantings be 24-inch box. He stated that this was the standard recommendation for this subdivision. AT 7:52 P.M. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicants, Rogers & Brooks, and the new property owners, spoke in favor of the application. She discussed such issues as design/architectural features, building materials and colors, and the minimal amount of grading required for the project. She explained that at the time of the subdivision, the allowable square footage for future structures on the lot was specified. She stated that the proposed house was 400 feet under the floor area restriction specified during the tentative map process. She reported that it wasn't until after the house was designed and the application filed, that City staff informed the applicants of the 1.5% floor area reduction rule that applied to this project. She urged the Planning Commission to grant an exception to the 1.5% reduction rule to eliminate the need to re-design the house to reduce its floor area by 170-square feet -the amount exceeding the allowable square footage. Ms. Fanelli also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the project and the proposed colors. Chairperson Moran inquired about Ms. Fanelli's comment regarding specification of the allowable floor area during the tentative map process. Ms. Fanelli explained that during the subdivision process, it was determined that the lots ran into the adjacent private open space. The City and the subdividers then agreed that rather than having all the open space as private, 10 acres of the property was given to the City in. fee title as public open space. She continued to explain that in order to do this, the lots were made smaller, but the City agreed that since the lots were larger to begin with and the fee title was given to the City, the City would base the square footage on the original lot sizes. She noted that this agreement was recorded so future generations would be aware of the agreement. She concluded that the allowable square footage for the lots was based on the original size of the lots. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:57 P.M. PASSED 7-0. ~~~ ~ • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 1994 Page 6 Commissioner Asfour inquired if staff was aware of the agreement to which Ms. Fanelli referred. Planner Walgren stated that staff was aware of the agreement. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the confusion regarding the applicability of Section 15-70.020 was the result of something to do with the easement. Planner Walgren explained the agreement established the base allowable floor area. He further explained that the 1 .5% floor area reduction applied to the base allowable floor area specified in the agreement, just as it would apply to a vacant piece of parcel that had no allowable floor area cap based on its size. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was anything the City did which contributed to the confusion regarding the 1.5% reduction rule. Planner Walgren explained that this was the first application (in this subdivision) submitted since the 1 .5% reduction rule went into effect. He explained that the reduction rule had been in effect for over a year and the applicants should have been made aware of the applicable regulations. Director Curtis stated that he did not feel staff contributed, in anyway, to the confusion or misunderstanding of the 1 .5% reduction rule. Commissioner Kaplan asked about the difference between the allowable floor area and the proposed floor area. Planner V1lalgren stated that if the Planning Commission could make the findings to grant the exception to the 1 .5% rule, the allowable floor area would be 6,270 square feet. With out the exception, Planner Walgren explained, the maximum allowable floor area would be 5,517 square feet. He clarified that the proposal was 170 square feet over what would be allowed without the exception to the 1.5% reduction rule. There was discussion among staff and the Commissioners for the purpose of clarifying the proposed floor area and the allowable floor area with and without the granting of an exception. Commissioner Kaplan requested that future staff reports which deal with the 1.5% reduction rule include all applicable (floor area) numbers. y • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 1994 Page 7 Staff indicated that this could be done for future staff reports. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was concerned with the number of exterior colors proposed. The other Commissioners indicated that they did not share Commission Kaplan's concerns regarding the number of exterior colors proposed. ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE DR-93-039 WITH A CORRECTION TO CONDITION 7 THAT REQUIRES AT LEAST 50% OF THE PROPOSED PLANTINGS TO BE 24- INCH BOX. COMMISSIONER JACOBS SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Jacobs stated that even though he was prepared to support the request, 2 things troubled him. He stated that the claim by the applicant that they were unaware of the applicable 1 .5% floor area reduction rule disturbed him because he felt that because the designer worked in the City he/she should be aware of the applicable codes. Secondly, he explained, he was troubled by his personal feeling that the 1 .5% floor area reduction rule was actually backwards. He explained that he felt that in a neighborhood that is predominantly 2-story the last thing that one wanted to do was to encourage larger houses which, in his opinion, was essentially what Section 15-70.020 did. He stated that he felt that this section encouraged the "wall effect". He suggested that the provision be revisited some time in the future and noted that the Code provision allowed anyone from the subject subdivision to request the same thing -shorter setbacks and bigger houses. Chairperson Moran stated that she did not feel that the setbacks and height/1.5% reduction rules were tied together. She stated that with this application Code Section 15-70.020 indicated that a variance from the setback requirements was not required if the subject building pad was graded per an approved Tentative Map. She pointed out that the setback issue and the 1 .5% floor area reduction issue were two separate, unrelated issues. Commission Jacobs acknowledged Chairperson Moran's point, but maintained his opinion that the 1 .5% reduction rule was backwards. Chairperson Moran stated that she could support the application. She explained that she felt that the spirit of the 1.5% reduction rule was to protect existing neighborhoods. She pointed out that this neighborhood was planned to be filled with predominantly 2-story, large, estate-type homes and that it was not the type of neighborhood for which the 1.5% rule was designed. •~ • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 1994 Page 8 Commissioner Jacobs stated that he was in favor of the application, but pondered the long-term results of the 1 .5% rule. He posed a hypothetical neighborhood consisting of 20 two-story homes and the possibility of the owner of a proposed 21st home applying for the exception to the 1.5% reduction rule. He explained that he pos1~d this situation for the Commission to consider for policy sake and noted that this issue could become a problem in the future. Chairperson Moran suggested the issue be further discussed during the Commission Item section of the meeting. Commissioner Jacobs indicated that he would rather discuss the issue be at a future worksession. Commissioner Caldwell stated that with regard to Commissioner Jacobs' hypothetical neighborhood, she felt it would be helpful for the Commission to look very carefully at the Design Review findings. She noted that there were design review findings which would allow the Commission to find certain designs inappropriate because of such .issues as bulk and etc. She stated that she did not think the Commission should presume that exceptions to the 1 .5% floor area reduction rule should automatically be granted. She stated that she felt that whether or not the applicants' knew about the 1 .5% rule was irrelevant and did not effect her position on the issue. She stated that could not believe that the applicants were unaware of the change in the ordinance (incorporation of the 1.5% rule) and recalled Rogers & Brooks and Ms. Fanelli's presence at at least one of the meetings held for the purpose of considering the subject rule. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she would vote in favor of the application even though the neighborhood currently is not predominantly two-story. She noted the fact that the subdivision was clearly mapped out as to which lots would have two-story homes and which would have one-story homes. She agreed that a majority of the lots were marked for two-story development. She commented that people are held to the letter of the law and the claim of ignorance of the law was not an excuse. Commissioner Jacobs expressed his concern of future applicants using the excuse that they were unaware of the applicable regulations. He stated that it troubled him that people who should know the regulations are claiming that they do not or did not know the regulations. Commissioner Caldwell stated that it had been her experience, as an applicant and as an observer, that staff is rather thorough. She announced that it was hard for her to believe that staff was not making applicants aware of the applicable codes and etc. ~! • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 1994 Page 9 THE VOTE WAS TAKEN AND PASSED 7-0. Ms. Fanelli clarified that the confusion with regard to the 1.5% rule related to the easement and the agreement between the City and the subdivider. She noted that the applicants were aware of tl-fa rule; but that this application was the first to be submitted since enactment of the regulation and they (the applicants) were unsure as to how the rule applied to the particular situation. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission of the February 1, 1994, public hearing/worksession to discuss the conceptual plan for the Paul Masson site. He noted that Commissioner Asfour indicated h_e would be absent for this meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS 1 . Review of Revised Material Board DR-90-035 - Yamauchi; 21439 Continental Circle Planner Walgren briefly explained the modifications requested (exterior colors/materials) and submitted the approved materials/color board and the proposed materials/color board. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he was troubled by the blue trim. He stated that he felt that colors presented during the design review process have some influence on the Commission's decision. He explained that the design of the house was unknown to him and, therefore, it was difficult for him to visualize the proposed colors on the house. He stated that it would be helpful if, in the future, an elevation plan of the subject house was available for the Commissioners to see. He further explained that without the elevation plan there was no frame work on to which to apply the proposed colors. The Commission agreed that an elevation of the house would be helpful. Commissioner Murakami indicated that he, also, was concerned with the proposed blue trim. ,~ • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 1994 Page 10 Chairperson Moran stated that she was o.k. with the colors and explained that the proposed color (gray) for the body of the house was darker than the original approved color. Commissioner Caldwell concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Jacobs and stated that she preferred the original approved colors with the exception of the new (proposed) roof. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was willing to go along with the new (proposed) colors if they were the colors the homeowner desired. Alan Yamauchi, applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Yamauchi explained that the new color selection was based on his preference. He explained that some of the sandy earth-fone colors used on homes caused the homes to be very visible. He explained that his house was hidden behind a knoll and not visible from the valley floor. He stated that the hills served as a backdrop to his house and that the natural colors of the hills were blue and dark gray. He stated that the proposed (new) colors would blend better with the hills opposed to the originally approved colors. Commissioner Asfour stated that he was not familiar with the site, but based on the colors alone, he preferred the original colors. Chairperson Moran suggested holding the item over to allow the Commission a chance to visit the site. The Commissioners indicated that they did not want to delay the applicant during construction. Commissioner Murakami stated that in light of the applicant's testimony he was willing to go along with the applicants' request and approve the new colors. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with the comment made by the applicant that some of the earth-tone colors did not blend well with the natural surroundings. He stated that earth-tones do not always work and that he would accept the proposed (new) colors. There was brief discussion regarding this issue. It was the consensus of the Commission to accept the new colors. :~ n 1 • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 26, 1994 Page 11 COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 1 /5/94 & 1 /1 1 /94 2. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. David Roznar re: Grace Methodist Church Community Development Director provided an update on this issue. Director Curtis recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to work with the church for the purpose of erecting a chain to be stretched across the rear parking lot after 10:00 p.m. to help minimize noise and activity in the parking lot. , Community Development Director Curtis answered questions from the Commission. Following a short discussion, the Commission directed staff to work with the church (as outlined above). 3. Planning Commission Notices for 2/9/94 Planner Walgren distributed the meeting materials for the February 1st meeting. There was brief discussion regarding the time and length of the meeting. Director Curtis announced that with the Commission's permission he would be video taping some of the meeting with regard to the Paul Masson Conceptual Plan for documentation purposes. The Commission indicated that they had no problem with Director Curtis doing so. Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT At 8:45 p.m., Chairperson Moran adjourned the meeting. Andrea M. Chelemengos Minutes Clerk