DRC 09-18-08Design Review Committee
September 18, 2008
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE HELD ON September 18, 2008
ROLL CALL
Committee Members present: Lisa Giefer, Chairperson
Jessica Rose, Commissioner
Committee Members absent: none
Staff present:
Staff absent:
Elizabeth Pettis
Aki Honda-Snelling
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
September 4, 2008
Minutes of the September 4, 2008 Design Review Committee meeting were approved
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence from Yung Chen, expressing; concern regarding the proposed fence
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Application No.(s): DIR-2008-27
Applicant: Neal Yung
Location: 10292 Terry Way
Director's Referral of a Minor Modifi~:ation to allow minor landscape and fence
improvements to an existing apartmerit building
Design Revzew Committee decision final unless appealed.
2 Design Review Committee
September 18, 2008
Staff member Pettis explained that at the sate, there are 8 condominium units facing
each other, four on each side with a shared courtyard in the middle. The Applicant is
proposing to install a 3' high fence (4" aw~iy from the property line on his side), an
entry gate and do landscaping improvements. This will effectively separate his four
units from the adjacent facing units. Staff has received concerns from the neighbor
regarding how the fence will reduce the size of the courtyard for their tenants, potential
safety hazards for the children playing in the courtyard and that other condominium
units in the area with the same configuration do not have a fence so this fence would
not be compatible with the neighborhood. Sttaff supports the proposed application and
hopes that the Applicant and the neighbor c2in work a compromise regarding the use of
the courtyard space. Chairperson Giefer asked why the application was being heard by
the Design Review Committee to approve. Staff member Pettis explained that the R3
Zoning Ordinance requires any landscaping changes be approved by the Design
Review Committee.
The Applicant addressed the Committee to explain his landscaping plan. He was
working with his neighbor to improve all of the landscaping on the site. His initial plan
was fora 6' fence, but agreed to lower it to a 3' fence. Then negotiations fell through. He
wants to make a nice area for his tenants, brut feels that there needs to be a separation
since there are no assurances that the other side would be improved. Commissioner
Rose asked the Applicant how his tenants felt about the proposed landscaping. He
stated that they did not object. Chairperson Giefer asked about the number of children
on site and if the sprinkler system would be improved and what kinds of trees was the
applicant proposing to plant on site. The applicant stated that the landscaper would
advise him on appropriate native, water-wis,e trees and he would be installing a timed
sprinkler system. The adjacent Property Owner spoke to the Committee explaining that
she did not object to landscaping but felt i:hat the fence would be hazardous to the
children that play in the grassy area between the property lines. Two tenants spoke
against the fence as well. They thought the fence would ruin the aesthetics and the
"neighborly" feeling of the area. Commissioner Rose asked the neighboring property
owner if she was willing to re-landscape the' entire area with the applicant. She stated
that she didri t want the fence, but was only willing to re-do the grass at this time.
Commissioner Rose encouraged the property owners to work together to improve the
entire site. It is the right of the Applicant t~o improve his property and to protect his
landscaping investment from encroaching weeds. She did suggest a softer fence line,
perhaps a picket style instead of the solid redwood with a couple of openings to the
other property side to encourage the "neighborly" feelings. Chairperson Giefer agreed
that the fence in the middle is hard since the children from all the units play on the
grass, but since the property owners cannot agree to a shared landscaping plan, the
Applicant has the right to develop his property as proposed to the Committee. She did
like Commissioner Rose's idea of a picket fence with openings. She would like the
Applicant to plant native species and use recycled materials for the fence construction.
Commissioner Rose move to approve the application with the additional conditions
that the landscaping pants must be native or water-wise. The fence shall be constructed
in a picket style with at least one opening to the adjacent property and is encouraged to
be constructed from recycled materials.
Design Review Committee
September 18, 2008
MOTION: Commissioner Rose moved to approve DIR-2008-27 with the above
mentioned conditions
SECOND: Chairperson Giefer noted that if the Applicant and the neighboring Property
Owner could agree on a landsca~~ing plan for the entire site within 30 days,
then the picket style fence in the middle of the grassy area could be omitted
without further Committee approval.
ABSENT: none
ABSTAIN: none
VOTE: 2-O
OLD BUSINESS:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
None
Respectfully submitted:
Beth Ebben
Administrative Clerk
g:planning/DRC Committee/Minutes091808