Loading...
DRC 04-20-06 Design Review Committee April 20, 2006 Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON April 20, 2006 ROLL CALL Committee Members present: Usa Giefer, Chairperson Cary Chien, Commissioner Committee Members absent: Taghi Saadati, Commissioner Staff present: Piu Ghosh Staff absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 6, 2006 Minutes of the April 6, 2006 Design Review Committee were approved by Chairperson Giefer at the meeting. Commissioner Saadati approved the minutes via email. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSjREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: A resident, Jennifer Griffin, expressed concern about the fines issued or the replacement/protection requirements when a mature tree is damaged by construction work or carelessness. She was concerned about uniformity in the way these cases were handled by the City. She was asked to come to the Planning Commission meeting to express her concerns where a review of the tree ordinance was being discussed. CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application: Applicant: Location: R-2006-13, RM-2006-11 Chia-ching Un (Ng & Min residence) 21820 Lomita Ave. 2 Design Review Committee April 20, 2006 Residential Design Review for an exception to the side yard setbacks for a total of 10 feet instead of the required 15 feet and for a reduction in garage size for a 761 square foot first-story addition Minor Residential Permit for a rear yard setback of 10 feet for a single story addition to an existing residence Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed. Staff member Ghosh explained that the applicant was asking for setback exceptions due to the narrowness of their lot. Their lot is only 50' 2" wide where as the current lot standard is 60' wide lots. The application also asks for an exception for the garage. The garage is 8" short in one direction. The applicants want to maintain the existing house foundation as cost savings in the overall project. This would reduce the 2 required parking spaces by only 4" in width less than is required in the parking ordinance. Commissioner Chien asked why the garage couldn't be made smaller. He was shown that the garage foundation is included in the house foundation, which the applicant was trying to save. Commissioner Chien also asked about trees on the lot. There are no trees that will be removed as part of the construction. Commissioner Giefer asked for clarification on the width of the house, what the current side setbacks are and what the setbacks are at the neighboring houses. Commissioner Giefer asked why the remodel is calling for the garage to be placed in the front of the lot whereas several of the surrounding lots have garages towards the rear of the lot. Staff member Ghosh explained that a 2-car garage would require a 10-foot driveway and side landscaping which due to the narrowness of the lot was not feasible and would mean a lot of paving. Commissioner Chien asked about the rear yard setback exception. Staff explained that the portion of the house for which the rear yard exception is being asked for is the portion that is closer to the garage towards the rear of the subject property, therefore, there are far fewer privacy impacts than if the rear yard exception was asked for the portion of the house that was closer to the main house at the rear. The applicant stated that they had worked very hard with Staff to make the design of the house conform as much as possible, however, they were hoping to change the depth of the garage to 19 feet (instead of the 20 feet shown on the plans) in order to keep the existing roofline for the remodel. Commissioner Giefer asked the applicant if they had considered having a one-car garage. Staff member Ghosh stated that reducing the garage to a one-car garage would probably require a parking variance. Staff usually does not support parking variances, it would require additional fees and the application would need referred to the Planning Commission. Staff member Ghosh said she would check on the actual procedure and get back to the applicant if they decided they wanted to pursue that course. A resident expressed concern about the proposed set back reductions and that the garage face and driveway would take up too much of the elevation and yard space so there would be no lawn area. Commissioner Giefer asked for additional clarification regarding the allowed percentage of impervious space, the house behind the proposed development and wanted to clarify the recent development at the proper next door. Commissioner Chien stated that he appreciates the effort put into the design considering the challenge of the lot width and he is in agreement with the 8" allowance in the garage and the rear set back. Commissioner Giefer stated her concerns with the 3 Design Review Committee April 20, 2006 aesthetics of the design. Specifically, the garage in the front whereas in the neighbors have their garages in the back. She also was not in favor of the rear yard setback, but would support the exception in this case. The discussion continued to explain to the applicant which direction to take the application in now that they were requesting an additional foot in the design, which were not represented in the plans. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Commissioner Chien moved to approve application RM-2006-11 Chairperson Giefer Commissioner Saadati None 2-0 Commissioner Chien moved to continue application R-2006-13 Chairperson Giefer Commissioner Saadati None 2-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Respectfully submitted: ~0~J Beth Ebben Administrative Clerk g:planning/DRC CommitteejMinutes042006 .