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