Loading...
DRC 07-17-08Design Review Committee July 17, 2008 Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON July 17, 2008 ROLL CALL Coinmittee Members present: Cominittee Members absent: Staff present: Staff absent: Lisa Giefer, Chairperson Jessica Rose, Commissioner none Elizabeth Pettis Leslie Gross Gary Chao None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 3, 2008 Minutes of the July 3, 2008 Design Review Coinmittee meeting were approved WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: 2. ASA-2008-04, Brian Replinger, Homestead £~t Wolfe Rd (Villa Serra Apts) Reqicest postponement to ty~e August 7, 2008 meeting zvas approved ORAL COMMUNICATION: A resident, Jennifer Griffin, stated her concern regarding the upcoming proposed changes to the R1 Ordinance. She and her neighbors feel that the look of their neighborhood is in danger if changes are made to this Ordinance. CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: Application No.(s): ASA-2008-03 Applicant: Mike Ducote Location: 20800 Homestead Rd (Villa Serra Apts) Architeciural and Site approval of a landscape tree improvement plans and final details of the Green Building measures according to the conditions of approval as directed by the City Council at their meeting of July 3, 2007 Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed. 2 Design Review Committee July 17, 2008 This application is being heard by the Committee to finalize the landscaping and Green Building aspects of their approved development project as conditioned by the City Council. Staff inember Pettis went over the applicant's proposed tree plantings, streetscape plan and "green building" solutions. Staff supports the application and approves of the tree options and the "green building' measures the applicant has suggested. Commissioner Rose asked for clarification on the solar requirement. It was explained that the Planning Commission added the condition to the development approval to install a system that had a 10-year cost payback. Chairperson Giefer asked about planting native specie trees. The applicant stated that he is willing to plant whatever plant type will work best for the Planning, Public Works and their site. Corrunissioner Rose asked about the alternatives to a solar system. The applicant explained that their consultant had done a study and determined that a photovoltaic system would not be fiscally reasonable (with a cost buy back of 18 years), so they are proposing to install a recycled metal roof, will be using recycled and low emission paints, high efficiency water heaters, Energy Star appliances and low flow plumbing fixtures. Chairperson Giefer asked about the siudy methodology. The applicant said he was not familiar with all the other system options and the particulars of the study. He would be willing to get more information, but hat the study showed the company would not qualify for the Federal tax credits nor would leasing their meters and having the leasing company pass the cost savings back due to the specific meter types they were required to have by PG & E. The company is in favor of solar systems and has installed them at some of their other properties. They would like to be able to install a system at Villa Serra if feasible. Chairperson Giefer offered suggestions for tree planting. Since they are being asked to plant native trees in the park area, she would like to see more native specie trees planted around the perimeter to provide continuity. Commissioner Rose was disappointed by the lack of a solar system. She would like the applicant to obtain additional information in order to find a way that will make the installation of such a system work for the project. She motioned to approve the project with Staff's recommendations and the additional conditions to plant a Madrone tree instead of a Magnolia, a California Buckeye instead of a London Plane and to have a review of the solar options back to the Committee at the first meeting of October for final approval on that aspect of the project (in time to incorporate a new photovoltaic system into the building plans if deemed feasible). MOTION: Commissioner Rose moved to approve ASA-2008-03 with the above mentioned conditions SECOND: Chairperson Giefer ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none VOTE: 2-0 3. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: EXC-2008-13 Breanna Chamberlin 21124 Greenleaf Drive Residential Design Exception for a portion of a 910 square foot single story addition to encroach into the required front yard setback Design Reviezu Committee decision final unless appealed. 3 Design Review Committee July 17, 2008 Staff inember Pettis explained that the applicant is requesting the exception due to the triangular shape of the lot. A portion of the proposed addition would encroach into the front yard setback. The setback is currently 13 feet. The addition would reduce a portion of the setback to 11 feet. The overall FAR of the site would be 36%, which is well under the allowed 45% FAR. Staff supports the application. Commissioner Rose asked for clarification on what the proposed setbacks would be for the addition. Staff inember Pettis stated that is would be 11-12 feet from the property line. The applicant clarified that the property line is setback from the curb already by 13 feet. He further added that all of the neighboring homes are much larger than what he is proposing. He brought several pictures to demonstrate this visually for the Committee members. He also had statements from four of his neighbors in support of the project. Chairperson Giefer asked if a sidewalk dedication would be required with this new construction. Staff inember Pettis said she hadri t checked with Public Works on that requirement. Staff inember Chao said that the Public Works department will require a sidewalk and a new driveway entrance. It does not need to be added to the Design Review Committee resolution, as this is a public works requirement, they will ensure that this condition is met or mitigated. Com.nussioner Rose agreed that the lot was a challenging one and could understand why that applicant needed more floor space. MOTION: Cominissioner Rose moved to approve EXC-2008-13 SECOND: Chairperson Giefer ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none VOTE: 2-0 4. Application No.(s): DIR-2008-13 Applicant: Jay Swartz (Luo residence) Location: 11535 Murano Court Director's referral to the Design Review Coinmittee for approval of a 200 square foot sunroom addition to the south side of an existing single family residence Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed. Staff inember Gross explained that the applicant is proposing to enclose a 200' sunroom. The sunroom will be 10' from the rear property line. In 2003, the City Council approved a development application for 55 homes to be built. During the development application process, the developer modified three lots' setbacks (increased) to 20' feet to accommodate privacy concerns from the existing surrounding neighbors. The enclosure will be constructed to be of the same building materials as the house. The homeowners association has reviewed the application. The Director has referred the application to the Committee due to the volume of concerns expressed about the project by the neighbors. There is a large Oak tree on the site, which will be preserved. Neighbors are concerned about the 10' setback exception. Staff supports the application since there is sufficient privacy screening in place as well as tall fencing. Cominissioner Rose asked for clarification about how sunrooms are classified and confirmed that the three lots had 20' setbacks as part of the original development approval. Chairperson Giefer wanted to know if there had been any other Director approvals in Planned Development areas. Staff inember Gross stated that sunroom addition were classified just like any other addition and that the original approval called for these three lots to have 20' setbacks to mitigate privacy concerns for the existing neighbors. Other sunrooms have been approved in Planned Developments, however, the difference is that in the other areas additions can be done 4 Design Review Committee July 17, 2008 at any of the lots. They do not have the 20' setback constraint. The sunroom installation company, Four Seasons Sunrooms, explained that the sunroom addition will have a solid roof, tinted windows and offer soundproofing. The highest wall height is 8'4", so neighbors will not be able to see into the sunroom since the property line fence is 8' high. Three neighbors spoke against the addition claiming negative privacy impacts, the houses are already too close together and that if the development was approved with 20' setbacks, then the City has an obligation to uphold the 20' requirement. Another resident shared this sentiment. The property owner, Mr. Luo, addressed the comments made by his neighbors. He felt that privacy was not an issue with the addition. He has a tall fence and his living area is already smaller than other homes on Murano Court. Chairperson Giefer said she would not support approval of the application. The intent of the 20' setback should be honored to protect the privacy of the surrounding neighbors. The development agreement called for 20' setbacks and the City should uphold that requirement. Commissioner Rose agreed with Chairperson Giefer. She felt that this addition would not have an impact on neighboring privacy, but that the original development was approved with 20' setbacks on these lots. For this reason, she also did not support approval of the application. MOTION: Commissioner Rose moved to deny DIR-2008-13 SECOND: Chairperson Giefer ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none VOTE: 2-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Respectfully submitted: ~~~~.T/{d, it.!/~10l.V~- ~ Beth Ebben Administrative Clerk g:planning/DRC Committee/Minutes071308