DRC 02-16-00CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON FEBRUARY 16, 2000
ROLL CALL
Committee'Members present:
Committee Members absent:
Staff present:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Steve Piaseeki, Director of Community Development
David Doyle, Planning Commission Chairperson
Larry Cannon, Architect
none
Pete~ Oilli, Planner I
December 1, 1999 approved as amended
December 15, 1999 approved
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
None
None
None
2-RDRC-00
F.M. Wang
7920 Festival Drive
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
OLD BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARING:
2. Application No. (s):
Applicant:
Location:
1-RDRC-00, Maximo
and Beatrice Perez
Exception to the second story wall height requirement to remodel an existing single
family residence that includes a new second story addition.
- Residential Design Review Committee decisionfinal unless appealed
2
Staffpresentation: Peter Gilli, Planner I, gave an overview of the project stating that the
applicant is applying for an exception to the second story wall height requirement to
remodel an existing single family residence that includes a new second story addition.
The total FAR for this house will be 35%, which does not require design review.
However, the proposal is not consistent with the R-1 Ordinance in that 50% of the total
perimeter length of second story walls in this case do have wall heights greater than 6
feet. The ordinance requires that 50% shall not have wall heights greater than 6 feet
exposed. In this case the proposed project has a perimeter of approximately 105 feet,
61% of which has exposed wall heights of over 6 feet. This application is for an
exception to section 19.28.60D 5a. The inconsistency could have been mitigated by
adding an addition to the rear of the existing garage on the first floor which would have
caused the second story wall height for that section to be reduced and would have brought
it in compliance with the 50% wall height requirement. However, that would have put
the FAR over 35% and the owner did not desire to do that.
Therefore the owner and the architect proceeded with filing for the exception. The
proposal is the smallest second story in the immediate area. It is also the lowest FAR for
a two-story home in the neighborhood. The second story is set to the rear of the home,
which minimizes the visual impact from the street. Some of the existing development has
the second story closer to the street and has much more massive field.
The owners have gone to their neighbors and gotten a sign off not only for privacy
protection but also for approval of the design from all of their neighbors except for one.
That neighbor is located in the rear. That particular property is well screened with
existing trees and shrubs. Staff feels that with the addition of one tree the privacy of the
rear yard will be protected.
The architect has mentioned that that particular property owner Would be satisfied with an
g-foot fence along the rear property line and the owners of the property and the neighbors
have agreed to do that. This is permitted by the ordinance. A building permit and a sign
off by affected owners are required.
The meeting was opened up for discussion.
The applicant mentioned the agreement of the neighbors to build the addition.
Steve Piasecki pointed out that the issue is not so much about the neighbors agreement,
but more about the issue of so called "Monster Houses" where greater proportions might
achieve something on the inside, but may counteract things on the outside.
He was concerned that the second story addition over the garage with a 9 feet height
would look like an oversized hat and that it needed to be, put into proportion.
Mr. Li-Sheng Fu, Architect and Applicant mentioned that he did the study to lower the
height by 1 foot but that it still would not meet the 50%.
Steve Piasecki stated that we are really concerned about exceeding 6 feet, but that it
would be preferable to have 61% at 8 feet verses 6 feet, rather than 61% at 9 feet verses 6
feet.
3
Chairman Doyle pointed out that there are guidelines and the primary concern is to get rid
of the box and to bring it back into proportion. A 9 feet configuration is very far removed
from those guidelines. Dropping the height 1 foot to 8 feet would minimize the exception
to the ordinance.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
VOTE:
Steve Piasecki moved for approval of application 2-RDRC-00 based on
8 feet floor to plate height on the second floor and proportional reduction
in size of the second story window element on the front elevation.
Chairman Doyle, and Larry Cannon.
None
None
Passed 3-0
g:planning/RDRC Committee/Minutes21600