Loading...
DRC 09-03-03Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Design Review Committee September 3, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 ROLL CALL Committee Members present: Committee Members absent: Staff present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Gilbert Wong, Commissioner None Peter Gilli, Senior Planner July 16, 2003 and August 6, 2003 Design Review Committee minutes were postponed to the next meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application: Applicant: Location: R-2003-08 Byron Navid/Navico 10950 Stevens Canyon Road, Lot 3 2 Design Review Committee September 3, 2003 Residential Design Review of a 4,416 square foot, two-story residence and an exception to exceed the 35% ration of second story to first story floor area. Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed Staff Presentation: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, briefly described the project and explained that unlike Lots 1 & 2, the house on Lot 3 should not result in visual and privacy impacts on Miramonte Road. The main issue for Lot 3 is the findings that are necessary for approving a special permit. Most of the findings were easily made with the exception of finding number one, which was questionable. However, there was past precedent for approving a second story to exceed 35% of the first story so long as the second story area was not more than 35% of what could have been built on the first floor if the floor area was maximized. The past precedents were only in cases of additions, not new construction, but overall the exception being requested was to have 81 square feet more on the second floor than is allowed by the ordinance. The overall floor area ratio is 32% on Lot 3, so the project does not need a special permit. To avoid an exception, the applicant could have added 318 square feet to the ground floor and then the total floor area would still be under 35% and would not have needed Design Committee approval and the second story would have been 35% of the first floor. For those reasons and because the applicant will be using high quality materials, staff believes that that will help address mass and bulk, staff recommends approval of the exception. Gilbert Wong, Commissioner, confirmed the total floor area ratio (FAR) to be 32% and the second floor to first floor ratio to be 38%. Mr. Gilli stated that second floor to first floor ratio was 37.5%. Mr. Wong also confirmed that the only reason Lot 3 was being brought before the Committee was due to the exception. Mr. Gilli concurred. Mr. Wong stated that based on the July 7 City Council meeting they were still in the process of figuring out where the guidelines come within the ordinance and he was curious about Finding One. Mr. Gilli stated that Finding One is in the ordinance and exceptions have nothing to do with the Design Guidelines. He went on to clarify that Finding One refers to the chapter, which is the R1 ordinance. Applying the rules as they were written gives inconsistent of what was intended. Although there is past precedent, this is the first all new construction. Mr. Wong asked what the difference was between this project and the Mann Drive project. Mr. Gilli stated that Mann Drive did not need an exception; it was a special permit, which has completely different findings. Taghi Saadati, Chairperson, asked if the applicant were to add additional square footage on the first floor, everything would comply. Mr. Gilli answered yes. Mr. Saadati asked about four other homes being built on the lower lot next door and where the height of the homes compared to this project. Mr. Gilli explained that due to the grade, the applicant's home would be slightly taller than those on Ricardo. The Ricardo homes have a floor area ratio of 35% or less, so they don't require a special permit for 3 Design Review Committee September 3, 2003 floor area. Mr. Saadati asked about additional privacy trees for the Ricardo homes. Mr. Gilli stated that all the four new homes on Ricardo are two-story and be required to have privacy planting. Ms. Glush, Designer, stated that she has talked to the neighbors and is available for questions. Byron Navid, applicant, stated that he could resolve the situation by adding about 112 square feet, but felt it would be more desirable as proposed rather than making the first floor bigger and bringing it closer to the setback. Hill Barklay, Ricardo Road, stated that he was concerned about privacy and what is going up there. He had not been notified of the meetings. The Commission located his home on the site plan. Mr. Gilli stated that most of the trees shown on the plan set are new. The applicant is required to plant trees off of a certain list in front of all second story windows that faces the neighbor's property and/or yard. Mr. Barklay asked if the current trees and bushes were going to be removed. Glush stated that they were all going to remain. Mr. Gilli stated that if there were bushes that Mr. Barklay liked and did not feel that a tree was necessary in that particular location, Mr. Barlday and the applicant can work out an agreement. Mr. Saadati asked if the neighbors had been notified. Mr. Gilli stated that a 300-foot mailing had been completed. Mr. Wong asked when the privacy trees would be planted if the project was approved. Mr. Gilli explained that the trees didn't need to be planted until the applicant asks for a final building inspection. Mr. Wong asked if the Committee could request a condition asking that the trees be planted at the start of construction. Mr. Gilli stated that could be done, however, the problem with that is all the grading would have to be done and to make sure that the trees are irrigated. Landscapers and arborists have said that trees at a construction site don't do as well. Bagher Navid, Navico, stated that he is ready to plant as soon as possible. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Commissioner Wong moved to approve R-2003-08. Chairperson Saadati. None None 2-0 Application: R-2003-09 Applicant: Byron Navid/Navico 4 Design Review Committee September 3, 2003 Location: 10950 Stevens Canyon Road, Lot 1 Residential Design Review of a special permit to allow a 4,037 square foot, two- story residence and exceptions to exceed the 35% ratio of second story to first story floor area and for second-story wall offsets. Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed Continued from the August 6, 2003 meeting. Staff Presentation: Mr. Gilli stated that the applicant has an updated plan showing the adjusted setback that shows the rear setback on the second story went from 25 to 30 feet. There is more space bet-ween the front setback line and the house that has caused a need for a side setback exception. Mr. explained that one thing that the Committee needs to be aware of is that the findings and the process are not based on whether or not a neighbor supports the project. Staff believes that overall the modifications to the site plan and the encroachment into the side setback is acceptable. At the previous hearing, the second story was about 40 square feet more than what would be allowed if the first floor were maximized. Now, the second story is 8 square feet more than what would be allowed if the first floor were maximized. Staff believes that that is close enough and the applicant should adjust it to not create a new precedent. The applicant will still need an exception, but they wouldn't be asking for more that 35% more if the first floor were to be maximized. Staff supports the second-story wall offsets because it is consistent with the design. The reduced street side setback is not significant because it is a garage. Staff recommends approval with the condition that the second story be reduced 8 square feet. Mr. Wong asked if Finding Four has been met with the privacy trees. Mr. Gilli stated that the privacy trees will eventually screen most of the mass, but with the slope, this will take longer than what is standard. Mr. Wong asked if the applicant made the total FAR under 35%, would the privacy issue still exist. Mr. Gilli answered yes and staff would have to review it against the main design guidelines for compatibility. Mr. Saadati asked if Steven Canyon Road would be widened in the future. Mr. Gilli stated that there are preliminary concepts of putting in a Class 1 bike lane. There is also a possibility that the road could be slightly widened if it is viewed that it is needed and hoping that an asphalt sidewalk is installed. The Public Works Department does not have any plans for these improvements, so the applicant will be installing a meandering asphalt sidewalk along the frontage. Staff believes that all the potential long-range improvements can be accommodated even with the setback exception. Mr. Saadati asked about the setbacks for Lot 1. Mr. Gilli stated that in 2000, an interpretation was approved by the Planning Commission to determine where the front and rear setback lines were located for each site. The Committee looked at the civil Design Review Committee September 3, 2003 drawing to see where the retaining wall was located. The Public Works Department will looking at the drainage and also determining whether the existing wall will need to be replaced at the time of building permit submittal. Mr. Wong asked if the driveway could meander to avoid removing one of the trees. Mr. Gilli explained that the driveway could not meander any more and still remain functional. Glush, Designer, explained that the driveway needs to have the length due to the slope and shape of the property. Regarding the second floor, it is necessary to have the extra space for family. Glush stated that she has talked to the neighbors and they will support the project if they move the setback 5 feet and the Civil Engineer stated that that would be possible. The location of the privacy trees used to be on the property line and they have been moved about five feet away to give more height. Mr. Saadati asked how close the trees would be to the retaining wall. Glush explained that the trees could be behind the retaining wall, but would know more information at the time of building permit stage. Mr. Wong asked if the applicant would prefer to either keep the 8 square feet or to reduce it. Glush state that 8 square feet is not that much and could be reduced to move the project forward Orrin Mahoney, 10940 Miramonte Road, stated briefly that the 35% ratio is slightly restrictive. Mr. Mahoney stated that moving the setback 5 feet really makes a difference with the building and the privacy trees. Ahmed Hassand, 10920 Miramonte Road, stated that some of the foliage between his property and Lot 1 are not all trees, some of them are well grown shrubs. He asked if those shrubs could be prevented from being removed in the future. Mr. Gilli stated no, but if he would prefer them to stay, he and the applicant can work out an agreement. Mr. Saadati asked if the applicant could put up a fence along the side easement line. Mr. Gilli answered yes and that it would have to be five feet off the property line and could be six feet tall. Mr. Wong stated that he was pleased that the applicant worked with the neighbors to address some of the concerns. He also approves moving the setback five feet. He suggested planting the privacy trees as soon as possible. Mr. Wong also supported the 24 feet. Mr. Saadati also supported the project and agreed with Mr. Wong. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Commissioner Wong moved to approve R-2003-09. Chairperson Saadati, with the request to encourage the applicant to consider planting shrubs and work with the neighbors. None None 2-0 6 Design Review Committee September 3, 2003 Application: Applicant: Location: R-2003-10 Byron Navid/Navico 10950 Stevens Canyon Road, Lot 2 Residential Design Review of a new two-story, 4,390 square foot residence and an exception to exceed the 35% ratio of second story to first story floor area. Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed Staff Presentation: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, stated that issues with Lot 2 are very similar to the those of Lot 1. This property will be directly visible from Miramonte Road. Instead of pushing the house forward, the applicant shifted an area on the second floor, resulting in a change in the rear setback from 25 feet to over 30 feet away. This change will address the existing residents. Staff's main concern was that the applicant tries to make the two-story wall planes not appear to stark by adding a trellis. Glush suggested false roofing. Staff is recommending that it be done at staff level and the Committee accept the concept of the project. Mr. Wong asked how many bedrooms would be on the second floor. Glush answered 3 bedrooms. Mr. Gilli explained that if the Committee would like to see the architecture, then the item would need to be continued to the next meeting. If the Committee believes that the architecture could be addressed at staff level, the Committee could give Staff direction. Glush explained that a neighbor suggested moving the rear setback 5 feet. Since that has been moved more than 5 feet, Glush had expected to have a conditional approval rather than continue the project. Orrin Mahoney, 10940 Miramonte Road, stated this particular project turned out to have a really nice solution. They had talked about moving the house forward but that would involve moving a tree that the Mahoney's would like to see say. Moving the second floor accomplished the same thing. Mr. Mahoney supports approving a conditional approval so the applicant could move forward with the grading. He is also comfortable with the architectural details. Mr. Wong asked if the Committee approved a conditional approval, could the architectural plans be brought before the Committee so the applicant could get started on the grading. Mr. Gilli explained that the applicant could apply for a grading permit without having a building plan. He also stated that if the Committee were to approve a conditional approval, staff would like direction from the Committee. Mr. Wong asked 7 Design Review Committee September 3, 2003 if staff's main concern was too many straight walls. Mr. Gilli stated that that was one concern that would need an exception unless the applicant provided an offset. Mr. Wong stated that he would like to approve the conditional approval. He was very pleased that the applicant worked with the neighborhood, especially with the privacy protection measures. Mr. Wong had no problem approving the exception addressed at staff level. The most important item that Mr. Wong discussed was the importance of keeping the neighbors informed about all three lots. Mr. Saadati thanked the applicant for working with the neighbors and making the changes to make the home less visible. He also is comfortable about having a conditional approval. Mr. Gilli stated that the Committee would not have the opportunity to appeal the conditional approval because the Director of Community Development would be enforcing the condition that was made by the Committee. Mr. Saadati asked if Larry Cannon, Architectural Consultant, would review the plans. Mr. Gilli explained that he would have the applicant come up with a design that staff and the director was comfortable with. In the resolution it states that the approval for a 42% floor area ratio. Mr. Gilli would like to amend it to give the applicant some leeway to address the offsets up to 43%, total FAR. Mr. Wong asked if the conditional approval was approved, would it be brought back before the Committee. Mr. Gilli answered no. Mr. Wong asked if it could be brought back before the Committee under old business to see all of the plans. Mr. Gilli answered yes. Mr. Saadati asked to see more shrubs on the property. Mr. Gilli suggested a similar condition as to the one for Lot 1. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Commissioner Wong moved to approve R-2003-10 as a conditional approval and with the request to encourage the applicant to consider planting shrubs and work with the neighbors. Chairperson Saadati. None None 2-0 8 Respectfully submitted: Kiersa B/itt Administrative Clerk g.Talannin gfD R C Committee,/Minutes090303 Design Review Committee September 3, 2003