Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 10, 2004 - . MINUTES .' Anadia City Planning ConunissioD Tuesday, August 10,2004 7:00 p.m. in the Anadia City Council Cbambers PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION 6:00 P.M, ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COlllDl1ssioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Baderian ABSENT: Commissioner Lucas MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to excuse COiT'uTtissioner Lucas from tonight's meeting, The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting, Commissioner Lucas arrived toward the end of the deliberation, TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBUC HEARING ITEMS - 5 minute time limit per person 1. STUDY SESSION Discussion regarding Architectural Design Review for Single-family residential projects Ms, Butler explained that this was brought to the Planning Commission at City Council's request who has .looked at architectural design review on several occasions, They asked staff to put together design guidelines for discussion purposes, Staff is requesting input from the Planning Commission on the architectural design review guidelines, The City Council is concerned with the impact of the newer homes on the older residential neighborhoods- the transition from the old to the new, She showed several pictures and illustrated that point and what has taken place over the years. The pictures included items such as the entry height and its mass and the affect of the'14' height limitationon'entries as well as the angles from the front property line, She noted that there have been several changes in the code that have addressed building mass and scale. Mr, Nicholson said that the new, angle requirement has pushed the second floor back from the property line, which, makes for a subtle transition, Ms, Butler said that they are looking for homes that do not have a straight facades and instead have building articulation. The guidelines have been modeled after what other cities have done, These guidelines are intended to apply to new dwellings, any exterior alterations and will be used to better communicate with homeowners, builders and developers and show them what the City is looking for in terms of standards, The guidelines will address material as well as mass and scale of buildings, In essence, this will just be another tool for staff. They find that many new homes do not have . . 1 ' .atflljtectural integrity, They are not of one particular style. These guidelines will address the architectural integrity of the building, The design reviews process has been extremely helpful with the multiple-family projects, In the guidelines they attempted to address design, mass and scale and the architecture of the building and how it relates to the existing neighborhood, These guidelines unlike zoning regulations are less quantitative and provide for more flexibility when reviewing the plans, This will be,a starting point and will give homeowners, architects and developers parameters. The proposal will be similar to the City's other design review process and be done administratively by staff and staff's decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission and then to City COlincil. It is anticipated that there will be approximately 300 applications a year, excluding applications within the existing Homeowners Associations. If City Council decides to proceed, staff will prepare a text amendment ,requiring public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. It is anticipated these guidelines will also be very helpful for the Homeowners Associations, Mr, Penman said that these guidelines will not be in conflict with the existing Homeowners Association resolution but will supplement them. Chairman Baderian asked what would be the downside of architectural design review. Ms, Butler replied that there would be a need for a additional staff person, It would take longer for plans to be approved and there would be a fee involved, The negative side of architectural design review is the time and money involved, There is some element of subjectivity that goes into reviewing designs, as far as what is appropriate and what is not, Ms, Butler indicated that the various cities surveyed do things differently" Some review everything, including window change outs while others do not review minor changes. She remarked that the Planning Commission's comments will be forwarded to City Council. Mr, Penman added that some citi~ have design committees that review the projects, He did not think that every aspect should be subject to design review such as window change outs. Mr, Nicholson said that an example of incompatibility is when someone wants to use marble on the entire fa~e of a home, and right now staff can only express concern, With these guidelines in place, staff could require and right now staff can only express concern, In the Homeowners Association areas, the Homeowners Association can look at the impact on the neighborhood but that cannot be done in south Arcadia, Ms, Butler.indicated that the design guidelines will di scuss texture and forms, Currently, they can make suggestions but cannot enforce it. She felt one important issue is the compatibility of the materials used with the neighborhood. Mr, Penman said that while they would like to provide options and alternatives, they would like to be flexible. Commissioner Olson commented that he did not like architectural design review because it is very subjective. When the Homeowners Associations were originally established, all the homes were constructed about the same time, however, there are many different homes now, some old and some new, He did not like prohibiting'items, However, he liked the idea of conveying to the applicants of what looks good and makes sense and will add value to the neighborhood, Currently, there is no Arcadia City Planning CommisSion 2 8110/4 . . . .co~idefation of how something wiIl affect the neighborhood, He preferred to keep the review at. staff level. The Planning Commission suggested deleting item no. 4 under "Purpose" in the staff report, Commissioner Olson did not want anyone to maximize lot coverage. In response to comments by Commissioner Hsu, Ms, Butler stated that the most difficult part of architectural design review is that it is subjective, Mr, Nicholson added that it is a matter of considering the variables. And, Mr, Penman remarked that they do not want to penalize the new developer because of what may have existed in the neighborhood for along time; such as a 50-year old bungalow. He went on to say that they would like to address mass and scale through this process, Ms, Butler remarked that certain materials do not go well with certain styles of a home, They will be able to emphasize that point if these guidelines are adopted. The final report will incorporate photos and provide examples. She'went on to say that she has seen a significant change and improvementsince the reduction of the entry height, Mr, Penman indicated that sometimes a developer will add a feature above the entry which makes it seem more massive and with these guidelines in place they will be able to ask for an explanation. With regard to integrity of architectural details, Mr, Penman indicated that sometimes economics plays a part He remarked that they will not prohibit the use of composition roofing in these areas, With regard to fences and walls, Commissioner Olson,remarked that thisisa bigger issue, Commissioner Wen inquired about utilizing bushes and hedges as fencing and Ms, Butler replied that the visibility standards come into play when'the hedges obstruct view, Ms, Butler asked what the Planning Commission's position was on the architectural design review and should everything be reviewed or minor issues such as window change outs did not need review, Mr. Penman suggested approving minor items at the counter, Commissioner Olson liked what was being proposed, He suggested that their comments be incorporated into a final report and be brought back for the Planning Commission to review at their September 14th meeting so that they can make a final recommendation to City Council. Chairman Baderian suggested that staff make a 'threshold' recommendation at that meeting, Motion It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Lucas to review the final architectural design review report at their September 14th meeting at which time a recommendation will be made to City Council. Arcadia City Planning ComnUss;ou 3 8/10/4