Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-1999 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Martlage, Murakami, Page, Patrick, and Chairman Pierce Absent: Commissioners Bernald and Kaplan Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - February 10, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Patrick/Martlage, the Commission approved the February 10, 1999 minutes as submitted. The motion carried 3-0-2 with Commissioners Murakami and Page abstaining and Commissioners Bernald and Kaplan absent. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 19, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. He apologized for starting the meeting a little late this evening and explained that the Commission did come from an adjourned meeting off site, resulting in a group of individuals arriving a few minutes late. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-98-009 (389-28-007 - SAGHEZCHI, 13762 Serra Oaks Court; Request for Design Review approval to convert an existing 462 sq. ft. garage to living area and add a new garage and a 453 sq. ft. second story to an existing 2,990 sq. ft. residence. The property is 14,450 sq. ft. in an R-1- 12,500 zoning district (CONTINUED TO 3/10/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. DR-98-038 (503-14-028) - ZHANG/LI, 13612 Vaquero Court; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,574 sq. ft. two story residence and a 1,020 sq. ft. accessory structure and construct a new 5,568 sq. ft. two-story residence. The site is 34,465 sq. ft. and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 3/10/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. V-98-022 (517-14-038) - THUSH, 15395 KITTRIDGE ROAD; Request for Variance approval PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 2 - of retaining walls exceeding 5 ft. in height. Retaining walls have already been constructed to a maximum height of 7 ft. The site is 44,431 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 3/10/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1-3 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS BERNALD AND KAPLAN ABSENT. 4. DR-99-008 (510-02-018) - WALT, 15247 HUME DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 612 sq. ft. addition to an existing 5,506 sq. ft. residence. The proposal includes demolition of a portion of the existing residence and guest house. The Design Review is required because the addition will put the square footage over 6,000 sq. ft. at 6,118 sq. ft. The property is 43,500 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He felt that the compatibility findings can be made to recommend approval of the project. He addressed the material's board and noted that a relatively light colored materials board was submitted that normally would be of concern if the project was located on a visible hillside location. However, in this case, staff finds the colors and materials to be compatible with the architecture proposed and should suit the neighborhood well. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Bob and Debra Walt, applicants, stated that they would agree to answer any questions which the Commission may have. Chris Spaulding, project architect, noted a minor change to staff's presentation. He said that it is proposed to use stucco material. He said that he made a conscience decision to try to maintain a status quo in terms of the building (i.e., the two story section is to remain the same with the manipulation of the one story portion of the home). He said that the roof is to be changed from composition shingle to tile roofing material. Commissioner Patrick noted that three fire places are proposed with no indication as to whether they are to be wood or gas burning. Mr. Spaulding clarified that one new fire place would be wood burning while the other two would be gas burning. He said that the two existing fire places would be converted to gas and that the one new fireplace proposed in the family room is to be wood burning. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Patrick said that she liked the design and felt that the colors were appropriate for the design. Therefore, she could support the request. Commissioner Page stated that he also liked the design and felt that it would fit in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Martlage concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioners Patrick and Page. She stated that she appreciated the fact that the property owners modified what currently exits, respecting the old structure. Commissioner Murakami stated that he also liked the design and that he was surprised to see that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 3 - existing structure was close in size to that of the proposed remodel. He stated that he had no objections to the proposal. Chairman Pierce stated that he had no objections to what is being proposed. He said that in looking at the color board, there may be a littler concern. However, the Commission drove by another house similar in color and that it was noted that it was appropriate for the design. Therefore, he could support the application. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-99-008. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS BERNALD AND KAPLAN ABSENT. 5. DR-98-059 (386-05-022) - DOLL, 19145 Brookview Drive; Request for Design Review approval to add a 767 sq. ft. second story addition and a 105 sq. ft. first floor addition to an existing 2,117 sq. ft. single story residence. The maximum height of the finished structure will be 22 feet. The site is 9,375 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that staff discussed the fact that the project was going from a wood exterior to a stucco exterior with the applicant, noting that this subdivision was homogeneous in its architectural style. He said that most of the homes in the subdivision are wood sided buildings with wood shake roofing. The applicant agreed to change the roofing material from a composition shingle to a wood shake. However, the applicant is requesting that the project be approved with the stucco exterior finish. He said that this may be an issue that the Commission may wish to discuss further to ensure that the new addition looks as though it was built as part of the original subdivision. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. Keith Royster, project architect, informed the Commission that one reason that he did not want to retain the wood siding was to maintain a simple, clean look for the house. Commissioner Patrick said that one chimney appears to be unnecessary in terms of functional purposes. Mr. Royster explained that two fireplaces are located on the first floor, an existing fireplace in the living room and the other fireplace is to be used for a barbecue that has a flue, noting that it is not a fireplace but more of a barbecue pit. Commissioner Patrick noted that the balcony appears to be facing the neighbor's back yard. She asked if there was a way to restrict the view similar to the way the other side's view is restricted by the use of lattice work? Mr. Royster responded that the balcony is located a distance away from the rear property line as well the opposite property line. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:51 P.M. Commissioner Patrick asked if barbecue fireplaces are treated similar or different to fireplaces? Director Walgren responded that barbecue fireplaces are not treated differently than a regular fireplace and are considered a fireplace. It was his belief many architects may not be familiar with the ordinance that limits new home construction in Saratoga to a single wood burning fireplace. Commissioner Murakami said that he liked the overall design and felt that it was well balanced. He felt that architect did a good job in placing the addition central to the home. Regarding the balcony concern, he PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 4 - stated his support of staff's observation. If the neighbors have no problems with the location of the balcony, he stated that he would not object to its proposed location. Regarding the issue of the use of wood siding versus stucco, he said that the Commission noticed that the neighborhood was a very monogamous neighborhood as far as all homes having wood siding except one home. He said that he would be willing to go along with the recommendation of the majority of the Commission on this issue as it is not an absolute situation that he would require. He felt that both floors of the home may look better with the use of wood siding. Commissioner Martlage felt that this was a good design for the neighborhood. However, she stated that the use of stucco bothered her for one simple reason. The reason being is that the existing bedroom wing with the horizontal windows are more accentuated with the use of stucco and would give the home a remodeled appearance instead of making it a better looking home. She recommended the use of wood siding instead of stucco. Commissioner Page agreed that the use of wood siding would be a better improvement if used at least on the bottom floor and that it would minimize the expanse of stucco on the bottom floor. He further stated that he liked the design as it does not give the design the feel of an add on. Commissioner Patrick agreed that wood siding should be used on both floors. If stucco is used only on the second floor, it would give an "added on" appearance. She stated that she has problems with the smoke stack appearing on the chimneys as it gives the architecture an industrial feel on a rural appearing neighborhood. She said that these two issues would need to be changed before she could approve the project. Chairman Pierce stated his support of the use of wood siding. He stated that he did not want to give the design an "added on" appearance with just requiring the use of wood siding on the first floor. He recommended that staff work with applicant to determine the appropriate use of wood siding, whether it is just on the first floor or both floors. Mr. Royster acknowledged that the home has two existing wood burning fireplaces. Director Walgren noted that the majority of the two story homes in the neighborhood that use wood siding do so on both floors. He indicated that the top of the chimneys use a prefabricated metal cap. Chairman Pierce stated that based on staff's comments, he would support the use of wood siding on both floors. He indicated that he could support the chimney tops. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-059 WITH THE INCLUSION OF A MODIFICATION TO STIPULATE THAT WOOD SIDING IT TO BE ADDED PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONERS BERNALD AND KAPLAN ABSENT. 6. DR-98-066 (389-16-003) - SALAH, 13033 Montrose Street; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,212 sq. ft. two-story residence with a 1,959 sq. ft. basement and a detached 427 sq. ft. garage. The maximum height of the main building will be 24 feet. The site is 14,330 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 5 - Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that when the application was originally submitted, it included a request to allow a detached garage structure in the back of the property to exceed the accessory height limit of 12 feet. Staff expressed concern with the proposed height of the building as it is tall for a building of this size and that it would introduce a third architectural roof pitch to the overall design. The applicant agreed to lower the height to 12 feet, resulting in a 4 and 12 roof pitch that matches the main residence. He informed the Commission that staff discussed with the applicant the suggestion of maintaining an even 4 and 12 roof pitch on all gabled and dormer windows to achieve a certain symmetry and roof design. However, the applicant felt that this type of design provides a design feature to the front elevation. Staff finds that the building is otherwise compatible with the adjoining homes and the overall neighborhood. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Ted Salah, applicant, stated that the project was approved six months ago without the exception for square footage. Because of the configuration of the lot (narrow in front and flares out), it was difficult to remove 350 square feet without changing the design of the home. Commissioner Murakami asked Mr. Salah if he was the applicant for the last project reviewed by the Commission? Mr. Salah acknowledged that he was the applicant for the prior design review approval, noting that this is the third design review submitted since the home burnt down. He said that reducing the home by 350 square feet necessitated the redesign of the home. He informed the Commission that the difference in the applications was a detached garage versus an attached garage. He said that the roof pitch design was used to minimize the height of the home at 24 feet. Commissioner Patrick noted that the home is large (5,600 square feet). Chairman Pierce asked if there was a reason to have a 39-foot distance between the home and the garage? Mr. Salah informed the Commission that he tried to move the garage toward the rear to minimize its impact on the street. Chairman Pierce felt that siting the garage 39 feet away from the home results in the creation of additional pavement. He asked staff if city codes allow the garage to be located closer to the home? Director Walgren responded that the garage could be moved closer to the home (i.e., centering the garage in the rear yard versus the corner of the lot). Director Walgren informed the Commission that the majority of detached garages seen require a use permit to locate the garage to the rear corner. He said that the garage is setback 25 feet from the rear property line is a much greater distance than what is normally seen in this type of detached garage design. He noted that this is a deep lot. He agreed that the garage could be moved closer to the home. It was his belief that the garage is sited such to allow the use of the rear yard area versus having the detached building central in the rear yard. Chairman Pierce did not believe that moving the garage 10 feet toward the home would cause a problem. Director Walgren said that if the concern is that of the amount of paved surface, the driveway apron width could be reduced and that the use of a center pervious strip could be incorporated to reduce the amount paved surface. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 6 - Chairman Pierce expressed concern that a long driveway approach is proposed. He stated that he would support having staff review measures that would reduce the amount of paving in the driveway. Regarding the roof, he felt that the roof was visually acceptable from the front. Mr. Salah stated that he did not believe that individuals would notice the pitch of the roof from the front of the home. He said that he did not know the side effect of the roof pitch nor its visual impact. Regarding the recommendation of moving the garage forward, he stated that he would not oppose moving it closer to the home. However, he did not want to have the garage sitting in the middle of the backyard and giving the appearance of an awkward structure. If the garage was to be located closer to the fence line, he would agree to move it up 15 feet. However, moving the garage closer to the fence line would necessitate the approval of a variance. He stated that he would agree to reduce the driveway width as long as both cars can utilize the driveway. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:11 P.M. Commissioner Martlage felt that the garage could be moved forward without compromising the design. She did not believe that it would be necessary to encroach into the side yard setback to do so and that a variance was not necessary. She felt that gable roof lines would be visible based on the location of the home. She agreed that it would not be seen from the street front but that it would be visible from the sides. She expressed concern that the design gives the home a squashed/flattened appearance to accommodate additional floor area. She recommended that more definition/refinement be considered as she felt that the design was close to being acceptable. Commissioner Page felt that the location of the garage can be worked out with staff. He felt that the roof line would be visible from the side versus the front view. He stated that he could support the design if the roof design was changed so that it does not give a flattened appearance. Commissioner Patrick agreed that this is a large enough home so that the design details would be obvious. She recommended that the applicant be directed to redesign the roof and that the redesign return to the Commission for its review. Commissioner Murakami stated that he generally liked the design. He felt that the applicant may be trying to increase the ceiling space with the use of a vaulted ceiling. He said that the profile of the home does not bother him as the applicant attempted to lower the height of the home. He understood the constraints of the long, narrow lot. Regarding the driveway, he stated that he was not opposed to shortening it and having the applicant work this issue out with staff. He stated that he could approve the design as presented. Chairman Pierce concurred with Commissioner Murakami's comments and felt that the staff could work out the driveway issue. He found the roof line to be acceptable. Director Walgren stated that extending the front roof line to an even pitch to bring the height of the home to a 26-foot height limit would require the reduction in floor area by approximately 96 square feet. This modification would result in a continuous roof line, eliminating the gable break in the roofline. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would support a change in the roof line as recommended by staff as she felt that the roofline was awkward, even if it results in the reduction of floor area by 96 square feet. She stated that she would agree to allow staff to work with the applicant regarding the concern about the garage, moving it forward to reduce the amount of paved surface. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 7 - COMMISSIONERS PAGE/MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-066 WITH THE ADDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT WORK WITH STAFF ON THE POSITION OF THE GARAGE AND THE REDUCTION OF 96 SQUARE FOOTAGE TO ANGLE THE ROOF SIMILAR TO THE REST OF THE ROOF DESIGN. THE MOTION CARRIED 5- 0 WITH COMMISSIONERS BERNALD AND KAPLAN ABSENT. DIRECTOR ITEMS Redwood Middle School Initial Study Director Walgren informed the Commission that the Redwood Middle School Initial Study was included in its packet this past week and that the City Council will also have the opportunity to review it. He stated that attached to the document is the cover letter that city staff wrote to the school district requesting an extension of time to review the document as the city did not have time to conduct its review. He informed the Commission that the school district approved the extension of time last night. The Planning Commission has until Monday, March 15 to forward any comments/concerns regarding the initial study to him. He would make sure that the Commission's comments/concerns are incorporated into a single, city response letter as was done with the Saratoga Elementary School. He said that the Commission can address the initial study as a Commissioner and/or as individuals. Chairman Pierce said that this is a planning issue for the City of Saratoga and yet, the city has a say about the school as the school district can do what it wants to. Director Walgren informed the Commission that public schools can exempt themselves from local development review regulations but that they are not exempt from state environmental laws. He stated that the CEQA process is an open process that the school district needs to be comply with and that this is what the city is responding to. Commissioner Patrick stated that it is troubling that the city uses its time to review the initial study and forward its comments and concerns only to be disregarded. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the city submitted a response to the initial study for the Saratoga Elementary School. The school district will be required to respond to impacts that could not be mitigated based on staff's analysis of what has taken place and information that was not included in the initial study that should have been included to come to the conclusions that the environmental consultants came to. He informed the Commission that at its March 9 meeting, the school district will respond to comments and decide whether the initial study is adequate or whether they need to proceed with an EIR for the project. Chairman Pierce felt that the Commission may need until the next meeting to have the opportunity to review and comment on the initial study. Commissioners Patrick and Murakami indicated that traffic is a major concern. Commissioner Patrick stated that she had the opportunity to review the initial study. She said that she was amazed by the fact that Saratoga schools generate approximately 90% more traffic to schools than the ITE rate norm. She felt that schools need to take into account that they are adding 50% more students and that additional students would make an incredible difference in traffic flow. She also indicated that she has PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 8 - been concerned for some time about the parking that is occurring under the oak trees in front of the school. She asked if there are plans to keep people away from the oak trees? Director Walgren stated that staff would reschedule the initial study for the Commission's March 10, 1999 to allow it the opportunity to comment. COMMISSION ITEMS No items were reported. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes dated January 26, February 3 and February 8, 1999 - Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1999 - Response to Saratoga Elementary School Initial Study - Memo to City Council Outlining Commission Reappointments. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the Council agreed to extend the policy that is currently applied to City Council Members to Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT TO STUDY SESSION There being no further business, Chairman Pierce adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Wednesday, March 10, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk