Loading...
DRC 05-02-01Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON MAY 2, 2001 ROLLCALL Committee Members present: Chuck Corr Chairperson Angela Chen Commissioner Committee Members absent: None Staff present: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Peter Gilli, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. March 28, 2001 Minutes of the March 28, 2001 Design Review Committee meeting approved. April 11, 2001 Minutes of the April 11, 2001 Design Review Committee meeting approved. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter from Sharon Heinz, 7648 Newcastle Drive, regarding 06-R-01 Letter from Walter and Ursula Ratseh, 1447 Aster Lane, regarding 06-R-01. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None PUBLIC HEARING: Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 10-ASA-01 W D Partners 10385 S. De Anza Blvd., (McClellan Square) Design Review Committee May 16, 2001 Architectural and site review for exterior modifications to an existing restaurant site. (formally Boston Market) Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed Staff Presentation: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, briefly discussed the project. Mr. Gilli stated that the applicant has addressed the comments from Larry Cannon, Architectural Consultant. There are some issues regarding the lighting and signage. Staff has conditioned the resolution that the applicant receives the approval of the Conununity Development Director prior to the issuance of building permit. Staff recommends approval with the conditions as noted. Chairperson Corr had a question regarding the color of the building from the drawing provided. Mr. Gilli commented that the building would remain the existing color, although the drawing appears to be a darker color. Steve Hale, W D Partners, is looking forward to being a part of Cupertino and bringing more activity to the existing shopping center. Commissioner Chen moved to approve 10-ASA-01 based on the model resolution and conditions stated in the ordinance. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTA1N: VOTE: Commissioner Chen moved for approval Chairperson Corr none none Passed 2 - 0 Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 05-R-01 Ronald G. Puckett 10565 Gascoigne Drive Exception to build a new, single story 2,458 square foot residence with two 5 foot instead of the required 10 feet and 5 feet sideyard setbacks. Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, explained to the Committee that there was a problem with the noticing for the residential projects on the agenda. Regarding this project, staffhas heard from the immediate next-door neighbors and they have given their endorsement. The neighbors directly behind the property were not notified. However, since this is a proposal for a single story residence, staff is comfortable about moving ahead with this item. After a brief discussion, the committee agrees to move forward on this application and taking a case-by-case outlook on the remaining items, whether to move forward or to continue the items. Design Review Committee May 16, 2001 Staff Presentation: Mr. Gilli described the current setback ordinance in relation to this project. This property is about 6,139 square feet in area and the width along the front is 58 feet. In 1999, an R-1 ordinance change allowed properties with a lot frontage less than 60 feet and a lot area less than 6,000 square feet to have two 5 foot setbacks instead of the required 5 and 10 foot setbacks. This was partially to address the annexation of Rancho Rinconada area because of the smaller lots. This property is over 6,000 square feet, but preliminary reports from the county made it appear that this property was less than 6,000 square feet and the applicant proceeded. After a survey was done, the result was over 6,000. The applicant is requesting an exception so that they can continue with the project without having to redesign the house. Staff s position on this exception request is that they don't consider the request to meet the findings required to make an exception. Mr. Gilli further explained the findings found in the staff report. Staff recommends denial of the exception request due to the lack of findings and the precedent that this project could set. Commissioner Chen asked for clarification on the setback ordinance to read less than 6,000 square feet and less than 60 feet frontage. Ms. Chen also asked about the major redesign versus a minor one. Mr. Gilli stated that with a minor redesign, the applicant would still not meet all the findings. Carol Puckett, applicant, stated that she had received nine letters from neighbors in support of their project. She proceeded to read from a prepared statement explaining her family's involvement in the community. Last January 2000, Ms. Puckett called the City of Cupertino to find out the requirements for remodeling or rebuilding their home. It was at this time she was given the numbers of 5 and 5-foot setbacks and that her property was 5,936 square feet. The title company confirmed the information she had received. She was unaware that the information from the county was an estimate and could be inaccurate. After a soil sample in August, they submitted their floor plans to Ciddy Wordell in December with minor modifications to the foundation. They didn't hear of any problems with the sideyard setbacks until their architect called 2 months later for a follow-up call. Ms. Puckett stated that to remove 5 feet from one side of the house would cost thousands of dollars. Due to the requirement of the two-car garage, the 5 feet would need to be taken from the kitchen, dining room and living room. To recover the space they would lose 235 square feet of the backyard. She believes the new house would fit in well with the existing homes well with no direct impact on the neighbors. Commissioner Chen asked the applicant at what point did they find out that the square footage for the lot was different than what the title company provided for them. Ron Puckett, applicant, responded that it wasn't until after the survey did they find the discrepancy in square footage. Mr. Puckett briefly explained how they got to this position. Mr. Hartman, Architect, spoke on behalf of the Puckett's and the proposed project. He explained that he cannot remove 5 feet out of the house and have it be a minor redesign. It would remove too much square footage and he would rather go for the variance. He Design Review Committee May 16, 2001 4 feels that starting a precedent is not always a bad thing, especially when the project is off by only 2%. Sandy Potts, friend of the Puckett family, strongly supports the application. James Phippins, 10573 Gascoigne Drive, had kind words for the Puckett family and also supports the project. Dia Joyce, 10541 Gascoigne Drive, believes that the citizens of the Rancho Rinconada area worked hard on the annexation. The Puckett's plans are exactly what Rancho Rinconada needs and should be approved. Lisa Warren, 10279 Judy Avenue, spoke in support of the application. Julie Joyce, 10541 Gascoigne Drive, states that this design is a welcome one, not like the giant homes all around. Robert Davis, bystander, questioned the lot size error and wondered if it was because the title report dimensions were wrong. Mr. Gilli responded that the county assessor picks two property lines and multiplies it, assuming that it is a perfect rectangle. For comer lots or lots with curves, the areas are very much off. This leads staff to preface all information to say that the numbers are not official until it has been surveyed. Chairperson Corr summed up the project noting that the design of the house was acceptable; it was just a technicality that was in question. Ms. Chen questioned staff about when a soils report is required. Mr. Gilli briefly explained what kinds of projects require them. Ms. Chen asked if the city modifies the county records upon receipt of the soils reports. Mr. Gilli stated that there is no square footage information on the soils report. Ms. Wordell stated that irregular lots are not accurately recorded in metroscan because they don't go through the trouble of measuring an irregular area. So a tract map or survey is the accurate source for square footage. Commissioner Chen and Chairperson Corr discussed the exception findings. Commissioner Chen moved to approve 05-R-01 as amended in the resolution. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAiN: VOTE: Commissioner Chen moved for approval Chairperson Corr none none Passed 2 - 0 4. Application No. (s): 06-R-01 Design Review Committee May 16, 2001 5 Applicant: Location: Gary Albright 7645 Waterford Drive Design review for a new 3,370 square foot two-story residence. Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed Staff Presentation: Ms. Wordell explained that on this application the 300 foot list did not come out accurately. Only a few immediate neighbors received the hearing notice. Ms. Wordell suggested re-noticing this application, giving the neighbors a chance to give to attend. Mr. Gilli briefly described the application. The project meets the requirements and conforms to the Design Guidelines. The only issue as noted in the staff report is that a tree be required in the front. As this is an ordinance requirement, it will not added as a condition. Larry Cannon, Architectural Consultant, had a chance to review the plans and feels that the design is compatible with the neighborhood. Design issues had been raised with the garage and the west elevation. The garage issues came about primarily because it is a dominating element on the front elevation. The applicant has worked with his architect to reduce the mass of the garage door. On the west elevation, there were concerns with the many vertical elements near the street. The applicant amended the plan to have the roof of the porch wrap around the side to provide a visual break. Staff recommends approval. Dan Greene, 7630 Waterford Drive, was concerned that a homeowner, now in a resting home, wouldn't receive proper notice and that maybe her son should be notified. Her mailing address was noted. Mr. Greene stated that he would like to have the tree placed at the comer as shown on the plans. However, the location of the tree will directly obscure their neighbor's view of the far hills and would like to see the tree be moved back a little into the plane of the house. Regarding the story poles, he feels that they were installed incorrectly and didn't accurately show the height of the house. His main concern for this project is the size of the home. He feels that the applicant built the biggest house possible for this lot and is excessive. The last point Mr. Greene would like to make is that setback line is exceeded in a number of places and suspects that it is the roof overhang. Mr. Corr agreed. Larry Kahle, Architect, stated that the trees shown on the plans are the existing trees. There is a note to add a tree, but that hasn't gone forward yet. The story poles have a tolerance of about 2 inches and feels that they are very accurate. Although after a few weeks the wind has had an effect. Regarding the size of the house, the project meets all the guidelines for the city's ordinances. Sharon Heinz, 7648 Newcastle Drive, feels that she will lose all privacy in her backyard and that her property will lose value. There are windows facing her house and since there are other windows in the rooms on the second story, the windows facing her house could be removed. Another possibility is to add louvers over the windows facing her house. She would also like to see the height of the back fence remain. Ms. Heinz feels that the Design Review Committee May 16, 2001 6 plants that are noted in the drawings are monotonous and need to be a least 12 feet high. Her suggestion for immediate privacy is to plant larger plants, not to exceed 15-16 feet, because then they will block the sunlight. Another concern is that the pool equipment is right by the fence, directly across from her bedroom. It is now enclosed and insulated, and if there any new equipment, she would like to be assured that it will also be enclosed and insulated. Gary Albright, applicant, stated that he would like to relocate the shed when the new house is built. He will be working with the builders to find a more optimal location for the shed. Mr. Con' was concerned about the privacy issues regarding the windows on the rear elevation. Mr. Gilli explained that privacy protection is not intended to screen all windows immediately, but over 3 years. Mr. Albright stated that the guest bedroom would be used intermittently. The existing fence will be replaced to a more updated version. Commissioner Chen moved to continue 06-R-01 to the May 16, 2001 meeting. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Commissioner Chen moved for continuance Chairperson Corr none none Passed 2 - 0 Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 07-R-01 Keith Kolker 10631 Toggle Place Design review for a new, two-story 4,147 square foot single-family residence with a floor area ratio of 44% and a second story deck exception. Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed Staff Presentation: Mr. Gilli explained that this project also had a noticing error. However, all the adjacent neighbors were notified and staff is comfortable moving forward on this application. Mr. Gilli continued with a brief project description. Larry Cannon, Architectural Consultant, reviewed the application and felt that the design was compatible with the neighborhood. There were concerns with the front elevation, but the applicant has already addressed those concerns completely. Staff agrees with the design, although there are concerns with the single story wall heights, and feel that they would appear massive. In the past, staff has requested a reduction in the exterior wall height, reducing the floor to ceiling height by a foot. The primary concern is along the 5-foot setback side. The applicant has indicated that it is impossible for structural reasons to reduce the ceiling in just that area. Staff has conditioned the approval to reduce the exterior wall height, and the applicant has indicated that he will discuss this issue with the Design Review Committee May 16, 2001 7 affected neighbor. The second story deck is on the rear elevation and requires the entire rear yard to be screened with trees. Reducing the size of the deck would not decrease the amount of privacy protection needed. Staff is recommending approval with the one condition on the exterior wall heights. Keith Kolker, applicant, stated that he has met with the neighbor to his right and is not against lowering the height to 9 feet. Commissioner Chen moved to approve 07-R-01. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Commissioner Chen moved for approval Chairperson Corr none none Passed 2 - 0 g:planning/DRC Committee/Minutes050201 Design Review Committee May 16, 2001