Loading...
PC Min - 01/26/2010CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 2010, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Gibbons and the following proceedings were had, to wit: JANUARY 26, 2010 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Elizabeth Gibbons Michael Rocha Theresa Alster Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Bob Roseberry Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner: Commissioner: Community Development Director: Planning Manager: Associate Planner: Assistant Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Jeffrey Cristina Mark Ebner Kirk Heinrichs Paul Kermoyan Steve Prosser Daniel Fama William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Chair Gibbons, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010, were approved as submitted. (5-0-2; Commissioners Cristina and Ebner were absent) COMMUNICATIONS 1. Desk Item for Agenda Item No. 1. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 26, 2010 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN2009-87 Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of Mr. Antoine Andary Andary, A. of a Director's Action to deny an Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2009-87) to allow a one and two-story addition to an existing single story 1,759 square foot residence on property owned by Mr. Antoine Andary located at 1636 Adrien Drive in an R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final. Project Planner: Steve Prosser, Associate Planner Mr. Steve Prosser, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the appellant is appealing a decision of the Community Development Director to deny an Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit to allow a first and second story addition to an existing single-family residence. • Advised that the subject property is located on the south side of Adrien Drive, between Ebbetts Drive and Gwen Drive. The site is zoned R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) and is surrounded by single-family residences to the north, south, east and west. • Said that the project includes a first and second story addition as well as a complete remodel to the exterior of the home. • Stated that the proposed design was reviewed against the provisions of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan (STANP). While the proposal meets the development standard requirements, it does not meet the provisions of Section K of the STANP, which represents Site and Architectural Review standards. These standards seek to preserve the distinct character of the plan area to ensure architectural compatibility with the surrounding area. Design features called for under Section K of the STANP include the use of simple rectangular forms, simple roof lines, and wood and stucco exteriors. • Said that many homes in the area have been modified but the underlying character of homes is still observed. • Stated that this proposed design incorporates complex shapes, roof lines and window fenestration. Additionally, it utilizes stucco with brick and goining accents Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 26, 2010 Page 3 that are not commonly found in this neighborhood and do not match the original home. This represents a lack of compatibility with the surrounding residences. • Informed that this design review required Director approval. Attachment 1 lists the required findings, which include findings of consistency with the General Plan; that the proposal would aide in the harmonious development of the immediate area; and that the proposal is consistent with the principals of the design guidelines. Those findings cannot be made in the affirmative as the scale and mass are not similar or compatible with the immediate area. • Added that the standard is for use of simple exterior materials. • Said that staff does recommend that this project be deemed to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Concluded that staff also recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution upholding the Director's decision to deny this Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit. Chair Gibbons asked for verification that this item did not go to SARC. Planner Steve Prosser replied correct. Commissioner Alster asked if the projects depicted on the elevations provided this evening with a desk item memo were developed before or after the adoption of the STANP. Planner Steve Prosser replied before adoption of the STANP. Chair Gibbons clarified that the STANP was originally adopted in the early 90's and revised in approximately 2001. Planner Steve Prosser said yes. Chair Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Antoine Andary, Appellant and Property Owner: • Said that he is here with his son, John, who will assist him in operating the AV equipment for his slide presentation. • Said that his presentation will cover three areas: portions of the Code under question; examples of why they are in compliance; and interpretations that have been made that are out of context. Chair Gibbons asked Mr. Antoine Andary to limit his presentation to 10 minutes. Mr. Antoine Andary: • Distributed a revised letter, which he said clarifies his references to Code by paragraph instead of by page. He also distributed a paper copy of his PowerPoint slides. • Explained that his building coverage and floor area ratios meet standards. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 26, 2010 Page 4 • Added that the heart of the issue is architectural review and the intent of architectural review. It offers criteria used to provide guidance to applicants and to provide consistency in review of both new development and additions. It offers some leeway and prerogative and is not intended to prescribe a specific design. • Said that the first thing he is contesting is the compatibility issue - in that the architectural features of his home can be found in the STANP project area. The features called for in the STANP: simple rectangular-shaped forms; no round floors or walls; gable or hip roof lines. • Said that they utilize both hip and gable roof lines. They utilize shallow window fenestration. They use comp shingles. They use wood and stucco on the exterior with the addition of some red brick accents. • Asked that the home design be given some latitude. Don't do a brick count. • Listed the features "not commonly found" that include: complex shapes, complex roof lines, tall two-story entries (theirs is a 1.5-story entry), non-complex window fenestration (they have one rounded window), and non-modern design (theirs is a very traditional design). • Said that their use of one round window helps to preserve the integrity of their design and keeps it attractive. • Described the terms of mass and scale. The building scale is defined as a structure in relation to the structures next to it. Asked that his home not be compare to the single-story next to it but rather be compared to other two-story homes. • Reminded that with a proposed 26-foot height, their design falls within the maximum 28-foot maximum height allowed in the STANP. • Said another provision of the STANP is that the design minimizes the use of design features that accentuate the size of the home. He said that there are no two-story vertical design features, no turrets, no two-story entry (again their entry is 1.5- story). • Pointed out that the STANP recommends a 1.5-story entry and that is what they are proposing. • Stated that they have given the Planning staff everything the STANP plan asks for. There is nothing in the STANP regulations that require them to go with atwo-story. • Said that they have created no privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors as there are no open large windows overlooking neighbors. There is no use of a deep balcony that overlooks a neighbor's property. • Said that the STANP requires exterior materials to match the existing home unless the entire exterior is being replaced. He clarified that none of the existing fascia would be retained. • Said that they have avoided simply tacking on a second story. • Said that the STANP states that roof lines of the addition should be consistent unless steeper slope is needed for 1.5 story design. That's what they have here. • Said that the STANP requires a design that enhances the rural character of the plan area. This design offers proportionality. It was found to be attractive by reviewers and all neighbors within 200 feet of their property line. • Reiterated that the STANP calls for consistency with design review but does not intend to prescribe a particular style or design. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 26, 2010 Page 5 • Opined that the Planning staff is liberally interpreting the provisions of the STANP. • Assured that their proposal substantially meets the provisions of the STANP. • Showed numerous slides depicting homes nearby that have incorporated many of the features that are deemed non-desirable within the STANP. These prohibited features that have been allowed to be constructed include: tacked on second stories, balconies overlooking neighbors, large windows facing onto neighboring properties, unbroken two-story features, complex roof of multi-pitches, two-story shear walls, modern architecture located next door to 1960's architecture, trapezoidal designs and shapes. • Pointed out that they do not have any of those features that were allowed to be constructed despite the STANP. • Said that the STANP allows a steeper roof pitch. He pointed to several homes constructed within the last several years with steeper roof pitches. • Reiterated that 1.5-story homes are not prohibited in the area. • Pointed out that there are several houses with arched windows and use of brick accents. Provided photo examples of homes using three materials like they propose -brick, wood and stucco. • Said that their 1.5-story design helps mask the second story. It faces away from neighbors. There are no windows or balcony overlooking neighbors. • Reported that he had obtained signatures of neighbors within 300 feet in support of his design and had provided plans to all of them for review. • Asked that the STANP be enforced consistently. • Said his family of six is currently living in a home that is the size of a small apartment. Chair Gibbons told Mr. Antoine Andary that she is very impressed with his most thorough presentation. Commissioner Alster asked Mr. Antoine Andary who is referring to when he speaks of "reviewer." Mr. Antoine Andary said he is referring to the Planning department. Commissioner Alster asked when his design was reviewed and by whom. Mr. Antoine Andary said that planners Steve Prosser and Paul Kermoyan reviewed the design. Chair Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Roseberry: • Stated his appreciation for the level of diligence the appellant used in presenting an exhaustive case for his project. However, some of what was provided was out of context. Some architecture reflects isolated projects. Others were constructed before the STANP was put in place. • Explained that part of the impetus of the adoption of the STANP was to reign in some of the bad architecture. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 26, 2010 Page 6 • Added that one of the homes shown by Mr. Andary was a "poster child" of what not to do. • Pointed to a minor inconsistency (on plan page A-4-0) between the rear elevation on the south and the front elevation on the north. • Said that this is a very pitched roof. It might help if there was a cut down the middle of the building itself so it would be easier to see if this pitch is necessary or if it might be possible to lower it. • Said that just because there is some bad architecture existing in the neighborhood doesn't prove this case. • Stated that having SARC review this project would have been helpful. SARC gives guidance along the plan review way. • Agreed that this owner is entitled to add onto his home and make it larger to better serve his family. • Said that the issues boil down to a couple of items: the roof line and the entry. • Explained that he doesn't live too far away and drives through the neighborhood often. • Opined that this house will look different from the rest in the neighborhood. • Said that he felt there were some things that could be done to tone the design down just a notch. Commissioner Reynolds: • Thanked Mr. Andary for his presentation, of which he was extremely impressed. • Said that he noticed a home in Campbell yesterday with a similar design. He studied it carefully and didn't find it to stand out significantly from the ranch house next door to it. It was very beautiful. • Added that he is impressed with the number of neighbors supporting Mr. Andary's request. There is no opposition. • Pointed that these guidelines are more than 10 years old. • Said he is leaning toward supporting this appeal as he feels the requirements of the STANP have been met with this proposal. Chair Gibbons: • Said that Commissioner Roseberry is correct in saying that there is a lot of history in this neighborhood. • Agreed that lots of the photos shown by Mr. Andary represent homes that pre-date the adoption of the STANP. Other examples represent PD (Planned Development) projects. PD projects create additional overlay of more contemporary design. There is a challenge there. • Stated that staff worked hard with this applicant to meet the intent of the STANP guidelines. • Said that the plan looks at the totality of the neighborhood and calls for the maintenance of a horizontal line of one-story buildings. • Added that the fact this project never received SARC review is a lost opportunity for feedback from the Planning Commission that might have been helpful. • Said that the design is good. The question before this Commission is how it fits into this neighborhood and meets the STANP guidelines. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 26, 2010 Page 7 • Said that she sees a challenge as far as fitting into the neighborhood on two points - there is no horizontal ranch-like roof line and the entry way at 1.5-stories that appears visually to be two-stories. • Said that the project has lots going for it. • Suggested forwarding this item to SARC to allow the appellant to come more in line with the STANP guidelines incorporating more horizontal elements and dropping the height of the front entry. With those amendments, she said she would be more comfortable approving this request. Commissioner Alster: • Said that she agreed with Commissioner Roseberry and Chair Gibbons. • Added that she can understand the appellant's confusion. • Said that interpreting the character of this neighborhood can be difficult given the hodge-podge of styles. However, many of those homes do pre-date the adoption of the STANP. • Stated that the STANP seeks to provide guidance to help to retain the character of the area. • Said that she too would like to see this appellant proceed with their home addition. • Stated that she felt the architect could make simple changes to make the project work. Commissioner Roseberry: • Said that he has a procedural question for staff as he is tending toward taking another look at this project. • Stated that there are some things in the design that he really likes. There is no privacy issue as a result of the second floor. • Said he wants to make sure that the roof line is necessary or see if it can be lowered. • Pointed out that if this property was located under any other zoning designation in the STANP area, it would have had to have come before the Planning Commission. Chair Gibbons: • Suggested a continuance to allow this project to undergo SARC review. It could then be brought back to the Planning Commission with refinements to the design. • Said it would be nice to find a way to massage the design. Director Kirk Heinrichs said that it would be possible to have the applicant redesign per the comments this evening, take the redesigned plan to SARC for review and then bring it back to the Commission for final consideration. Chair Gibbons suggested that the design could be simpler with emphasis on three points -roof slope, entry height and addition of more horizontality. She suggested a section cut through of the building whereby the space created by the roof can be defended. These issues can be reviewed by SARC. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 26, 2010 Page 8 Director Kirk Heinrichs suggested that the appellant respond to the questions and provide revised plans to SARC. Chair Gibbons suggested that she re-open the public hearing and ask the appellant to come back. Chair Gibbons re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Antoine Andary: • Reported that he had provided the section. • Added that if he would have to start fresh that would kill this project. • Said that the proposed roof pitch is a modest 8 for 12. • Said he begs that the Commission work with him. Chair Gibbons asked Mr. Antoine Andary if he would like the Commission to take a vote on the design presented this evening. Mr. Antoine Andary said it appears there are three votes against his design at this time. He added that he is amiable to work on issues raised but there are limitations. He reiterated that if he had to come up with a traditional two-story design, he would have to start fresh. Chair Gibbons: • Assured Mr. Antoine Andary that this Commission has no specific preference for a two-story design over a 1.5-story design as proposed. • Reminded that if this were a different lot size (and zoning designation) this project would have been vetted differently although it did undergo the appropriate review path for the size of this project. • Said that it is to Mr. Andary's advantage to take more of a look at his design, take it to SARC for review and recommendation and bring it back to the Planning Commission for final consideration. This would represent awin-win. Mr. Antoine Andary: • Said that he is willing to work to bring this project to fruition. • Added that it seems the City is sold on a ranch-style home. The only way to accomplish that is to put on a second story. • Reiterated that in order to do that (second story) he would have to start fresh. Chair Gibbons reiterated that requiring asecond-story design is not the intent of this Commission. Commissioner Reynolds said he supports this continuance as it is the best thing for this appellant and gives the City an opportunity to work further with him. Chair Gibbons asked if four weeks is sufficient time to accomplish all that needs to be done. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 26, 2010 Page 9 Director Kirk Heinrichs suggested the first meeting in March (March 9, 2010). Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan advised that staff tried to work with Mr. Andary. He added that the changes recommended this evening by the Commission would go a long way toward resolving the design problems. Chair Gibbons said that there is no question that staff made an effort. She said that SARC can offer additional assistance and this added review will give this appellant every opportunity possible to achieve an approval for his project. Commissioner Rocha said that he cannot support this project as it is now. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Alster, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO ITS MEETING OF MARCH 9, 2010, consideration of an appeal of a Director's Action to deny an Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2009-87) to allow a one and two-story addition to an existing single story 1,759 square foot residence on property owned by Mr. Antoine Andary located at 1636 Adrien Drive to allow the applicant the opportunity to revise his design based on the comments made during this public hearing and take his modified plans to SARC for review and recommendation. (5-0- 2; Commissioners Cristina and Ebner were absent) Chair Gibbons thanked Mr. Antoine Andary for his dynamic presentation and said she looked forward to seeing and considering a revised project in March. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Kirk Heinrichs presented the Director's Report as follows: • Reported that staff had planned to conduct a study session on February 9t". That study session has been rescheduled to February 23rd. Therefore, there is neither a regular meeting nor a study session scheduled for February Stn • Advised that as a result of new budget information, the plans for a temporary planner have been changed. The position will not be filled at this time. Chair Gibbons asked if the number of applications have held steady. Director Kirk Heinrichs said that they are down. He reported that Council, at its meeting on Monday, January 25th, approved the remodel of the Orchard City Banquet Hall. Chair Gibbons provided Director Kirk Heinrichs with information from her professional organization on the subject of Green Building. She said that a new California Green Building Standard Code is not mandatory now but will become mandatory in 2011. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 26, 2010 Page 10 Director Kirk Heinrichs said that consideration of Green Building Standards are on the Department's work plan but the issue is on the back burner until it can be seen what the State comes up with. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. immediately to a Study Session and subsequently to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 23, 2010 (the meeting of February 9, 2010, has been cancelled). SUBMITTED BY: orinne .Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ~~ h Gibbons, Chair ~ - ----- ATTEST: Kir einrich ,Secretary