PC 01/08/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Coinmissioner Lutz is in agreement with the use of stucco and approves the expanded color palette because the final house color will still be approved by staff. Commissioner Lutz suggested two modifications: have an equitable definition for a sliding/terraced house (similar to that for the Oak Tree Farms), with an ultimate house height of no more than 40 feet; he would also abide by the Building Department's judgment of adding an additional 30 inches to the house height to accommodate a pier and beam foundation. The requested increase from 4,500 to 6,500 square feet is a 44 percent increase. This violates the intent of the Overlay District; further, he does not feel the City Council would approve this modification. He, therefore, will not support the size increase. As an aside, Commissioner Lutz commented that if the architects are having difficulty siting a 4,500 square foot house, how do they hope to be able to site a 6,500 square foot house? In discussion, Commissioner Wright noted that the Commission seems to be not in favor of the increase in square footage. Further, the color palette as presented is acceptable to him. He also feels the 30 foot height sliding scale along the slope is a workable solution. An architect should be able to work within this restriction no matter what type of foundation is needed. He would also agree to the 40 foot restriction suggested by Commissioner Lutz. Chair Barker feels the Commission should allow some flexibility to the house height without stating a certain height. If it is set at a maximum of 40 feet, she feels everyone will start at 40 feet and ask for additional height. She would like to keep the guidelines as approved in 1991, adding that the Commission will allow staff some flexibility if the overall effect is not a huge, massive house design. Commissioners Cooper and Wright commented that the applicants' intent to use a sliding scale is acceptable, but there must be some overall height limit to the house design. They feel a 40 foot maximum is more than adequate. Chair Barker does not want to apply a specific number and would rather leave it to the discretion of staff. Mr. Iserson advised that it is very difficult to know where the limits are when things are left open and too flexible. It is hard for staffto determine what the Commission would approve. Mr. Iserson stated that it is valuable to have some type of numerical expression of what the limit should be. Commissioner Cooper commented that the landscaping will obscure the view of the hillside more so than will the houses. Commissioner Wright also noted that these houses will not be visible to the entire valley, as are the homes in Golden Eagle, but the lower bulk of the houses will be visible to Foothill Road and that is why he wants to keep the house at 4,500 square feet. He also feels the sliding scale with a 40 foot maximum height cap will allow the architect to design acceptable homes. Chair Barker asked if the height could be reduced to 38 or 39 feet. PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED Mr. Taeb requested the height be measured from finished floor to roof ridge; he agrees to a 40 foot overall maximum height. Further, he advised that custom home builders do not want to build a 4,500 square foot house and asked for some compromise in the increase in square footage so the lots are more attractive to buyers and builders. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 January 8, 1997