Loading...
DRC 10-07-2010 Design Review Committee October 7, 2010 Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777 -3308 APROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON October 7, 2010 ROLL CALL Committee Members present: Winnie Lee, Chairperson Marty Miller, Commissioner Committee Members absent None Staff present: Colin Jung Staff absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 18, 2010 Minutes of the March 18, 2010 Design Review Committee meeting were approved WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application No.(s): ASA- 2010 -04, TR- 2010. -40 Applicant: Brent Downing (Legionaries of Christ) Location: 22840 Mercedes Rd Architectural and Site approval for a new retaining wall and landscaping at an existing religious retreat; Retrocative Tree Removal Permit to approve the removal of three protected trees Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed. Staff member Jung explained that the application is being heard by the Design Review Committee because the BQ Ordinance requires that any changes to landscaping needs Committee approval. The project site is on a very steep lot except for the previously developed 2 Design Review Committee October 7, 2010 area where the retreat building stand. The lot was originally developed while the property was part of Santa Clara County by the prior property owners. The current owner (Legionaries in Christ) submitted proposed landscaping changes because the existing wooden retaining walls are failing. The applicant began work prior to approval. The un- permitted work includes significant grading, the removal of at least three Coast Live Oak trees and widening of the driveway from 16' to 20 -30'. A concrete retaining wall is currently under construction. The Public Works Department has approved emergency shoring work to prevent a potential slide during the upcoming rainy season. The work is proposed in 3 phases: Phase 1A (retroactive) includes grading and a retaining wall along Mercedes Road ranging in height from 9' to 19'. Phase 1B includes the replacement of the retaining walls between the retreat buildings. Phase 2 involves a 120'retaining wall along Mercedes Road approximately 20' in height. Phase 2 is on hold awaiting additional funding. The Tree Ordinance requires that at least 6 trees be replanted to replace the Coast Live Oaks or payment of an in -lieu fee. The applicant has not submitted a replacement plan at this time. Staff recommends approval of the projects with the following conditions: The wall that is currently under construction (Phase 1A) shall have added to it planting boxes from 4' to 5' high and deep and in front of the bottom portions of the wall and the concrete shall be textured or sculptured to reduce the "severe" appearance. The Phase 1B wall shall be tiered and sectioned with landscaping features between the tiers and sections and will be no more than 9' in height. A tree replacement plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the City's consulting arborist to ensure good placement and health of the replacement trees. The applicant, Brent Downing, addressed the Committee to explain their project focus. They need to replace the existing wooden retaining walls that are failing and widen the driveway to become compliant with Fire Department requirements. He presented a photo- survey of the project site illustrating the very limited visibility of the retaining walls by the surrounding properties. The existing driveway is 15'6" at its narrowest point. They would like to widen the road to 20' and increase the parking area on site to facilitate ADA parking. The applicants will sculpt/ texture the retaining walls and add planting at top to 'soften' the look of the walls. A 4 -5' planning box would encroach onto the driveway reducing its width to its narrowest point or require a deeper cut into the hillside if the wall is pushed back. He proposes to plant overhanging plants at the top. Deeper hillside cuts would require a structurally more substantial and expensive wall. The site is fully covered with mature trees so new tree growth is a concern due to the lack of sunlight reaching ground level, but there are a few places on the site where new trees could be planted. Commissioner Miller asked about the trees that were removed. The Applicant stated that the trees were in good health at the time of removal, but continued health was in question because of their proximity to the hillside from soil erosion. They removed 3 trees and a stump. Chair Lee asked what activity occurs on the site, how much parking is needed and how they came up with the number of spaces. The Property Manger, Brother Joseph, stated that there are 2 buildings on site. One is used as a residence to house priests from the diocese and the other is used as a 16- bed retreat center on the weekends. They have an occupancy permit for 25. Currently they have 8 persons in residence. The on -site parking is a.n issue because of the turn- around, but the number of spaces is adequate. The driveway is a concern because of the narrowness. If two cars needed to pass, the road isn't wide enough or if emergency vehicles needed to get in, the turn at the top of the site is a problem. They are planning on placing the ADA parking (van accessible) at the end of the driveway so the space there needs to be 30'. Adding a structure there will reduce the turning radius for handicap space. 3 Design Review Committee October 7, 2010 Staff member Jung stated that the Fire Department has reviewed the proposed driveway. They have chosen not to render comments until the entire site is ready for major improvements. The site is not fire accessible and just widening the driveway isn't going to solve the fire accessibility issues. Staff Member Jung also suggested that: to avoid a bottle neck at the mouth of the driveway, perhaps installing planters along a portion of the driveway rather than all of it would work. The General Plan Hillside Ordinance requires retaining walls to be contoured with the land, be stepped and / or have plantings to reduce the visual mass of the structures. The applicant is reluctant to stop the retaining wall as that would cause greater cuts into the hillside. These cuts would endanger more trees, be much more costly and cause the walls to be higher. The stepping would create a wall with 4' on top of a 16' wall. The overall affect would be the same as looking at a 20' wall. They do plan to add landscaping enhancements and sculpting to soften the visual impact. They are also concerned that the deer in the area would be eating from the planter boxes. They would like to have 32' at the end of the driveway. They are doing just the one wall right now. The other phases will be done at a later date. Staff member Jung asked that the Committee provide design guidance for the future work. The retaining wall currently under construction is being done to address a public safety potential landslide concern. The Committee will need to decide what other enhancements should be done to mitigate the mass of the wall. Dave Russell spoke in favor of installing the retaining wall and driveway improvements happening in Phase 1A. Phase 1B concerned him a little, but the greatest concern he has is that the person who owns the un- improved lot will not built if the retaining walls for Phase 1B create an eyesore on his property. His visual impact is minimal, but if the lot remains empty the property values in the neighborhood will continue to suffer. (There was much discussion about where Mr. Russell's house is in relation to the different Phases of the proposed project) He is hopeful that the applicant will work with the neighbors to come up with a workable compromise for the benefit of everyone. Chair Lee asked why a residential property needs handicapped parking. Staff member Jung stated that the zoning designation doesn't require handicapped parking and that he wasn't familiar with the building codes. The Applicant stated that they have done some minor interior remodel work and the current building code requires that with ADA bathroom upgrades, handicapped parking is required in addition to other parking area enhancements. Chair Lee asked why Phase 1B needs to be completed as soon as possible. Staff member Jung said that according to the Public Works department, it is an urgent situation. The existing retaining wall in that area has failed. She asked if waiting to build created a safety concern for the building on site. The Applicant said that they plan on building the new wall in the Spring, so as to not disturb the hillside during the rainy season with construction. Both Chair Lee and Commissioner Miller expressed concerns about the turn around radius for the fire department. They were concerned that in the event of an emergency the fire trucks wouldn't be able to get up to render aid. The Applicant said that the diocese has no plans to further develop the site. The fire department has already been to the site lots of times when as the previously owner used the lower building as a convalescent center. The fire trucks back down the hill. Commissioner Miller said that since the applicant will be the only group seeing the retaining wall and that since the step affect will cause great hillside cuts and the applicant is willing to work with the neighbors, he is comfortable approving Phase 1A as is and having the application come back to the Committee for approvals of Phase 1B and Phase 2. He also asked if the replanting of replacement trees was really necessary since the lot is already heavily forested. He 4 Design Review Committee October 7, 2010 feels that a one to one ratio should be sufficient.. Chair Lee disagreed. The Ordinance states the requirements and other developments have been made to plant the proper replacement trees or pay the fee. The discussion continued and it was decided that an arborist report is necessary to help determine the best solution and method to replant. The re- planting could be done during Phase 1B. An arborist report would be supplied with the design plans for Phase 1B. The resolution to ASA- 2010 -04 was modified to delete items 3 -6 (to be heard at a later date). A condition will be added to have native vegetation planted with PhaselA. When Phase 1B is brought back for design review, it will be confirmed that the prior planted vegetation is still viable. An arborist report will be submitted to provide direction regarding the best re- planting solutions. Application TR- 2010 -40 has been continued indefinitely. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to approve ASA- 2010 -04 and TR- 2010 -40 was continued SECOND: Chairperson Lee ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none VOTE: 2 -0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Respectfully submitted: &t.%) ,Al2/0/4A Beth Ebben Administrative Clerk g:planning/DRC Committee/Minutes100710