Loading...
DRC 08-06-03Design Review Committee August 6, 2003 Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON AUGUST 6, 2003 ROLL CALL Committee Members present: Committee Members absent: Staff present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 16, 2003 Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Gilbert Wong, Commissioner None Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Colin Jung, Senior Planner Minutes of the July 16, 2003 Design Review Committee were postponed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter received from Frank and Fran Lee, 10935 Miramonte Road, stating concerns regarding R-2003-09. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application: Applicant: Location: R-2003-09 Byron Navid/Navico 10950 Stevens Canyon Road, Lot I Design Review Committee August 6, 2003 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 Staff Presentation: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, briefly described the project and explained that it conforms to the R1 ordinance and Design Guidelines. The applicant has taken steps to reduce the height of the building and to include above average materials. Any new building in this area will be massive when viewed from Miramonte Road. The grade difference is significant. A cedar tree will need to be removed and that will be brought before the Planning Commission at a later date. The conditions of approval states that any approval action is contingent upon the approval of the tree removal permit. The first exception requested is to exceed the 35% ratio of second story to first story floor area. The applicant is proposing 38%. In the past, the Committee has approved projects that had a second story greater than 35% of the proposed first story, but not more than 35% above what could be on the first story with the maximum FAR. Regarding the second exception for second-story wall offsets, the wall offsets face Stevens Canyon Road and the interior of the lot. There are no impacts on neighboring properties and staff recommends approval of the exception. In any case, there is the potential of setting a precedent. Staff would like the Committee to make specific findings in support or opposition of the project that will allow the potential precedent to not be abused in the future. The exception to exceed the second story is to the first story is more complicated. The Committee needs to determine whether the exception significantly increases visual impacts. Any two-story home will have a significant visual impact due to the slope. One of the findings is to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. It is arguable whether Miramonte is part of the neighborhood due to the significant drop and that the homes front on Miramonte. If it is determined that Miramonte is part of the neighborhood, the findings for exception strengthen. The houses on Miramonte are very large, with second-stories exceeding 35%, often up to 60%. These homes would not be allowed to be built under the current rules. Gilbert Wong, Commissioner, stated that on the memo, Orrin Mahoney's address was incorrect. Mr. Wong was concerned about the visual impacts regarding the finding; "The proposed additions will not result in significant adverse visual impacts as viewed from adjoining properties". There is a privacy planting, but because it takes 3-5 years to grow and it's on a plateau, it would be very difficult to meet that finding. Mr. Gilli stated that if the privacy trees were planted as showed on the plans, then it is expected that the screening will take an estimated 7-12 years because of the difference in the slope. From the memo, Mr. Wong asked about the slope percentage. Mr. Gilli stated that staff did not have figures on the slope, but there is a grading plan in the applicant's Design Review Committee August 6, 2003 plan set. The flat section is the rear yard. Mr. Wong asked whether the property could be legally divided into 3 lots. Mr. Gilli explained that the property has been divided into 3 lots for a long time and that he did he did not know why the house was still there and on the property line. Mr. Wong asked why lots 1, 2 and 3 were being presented separately and not all 3 at one hearing. Mr. Gilli stated that the applicant thought it would be prudent to present one project at a time because the first application may affect the other two. The other reason was lot 1 has been ready and the other 2 will be ready shortly after. Mr. Wong noticed on the elevation that it didn't really show a daylight plane. Mr. Gilli explained that the elevation was taken at an odd angle and the daylight planes have all been checked. Mr. Wong asked what the setback was from Stevens Canyon Road. Mr. Gilli stated that the setback of the garage from the property line is 12 feet from an interpretation done a few years back that calls the front of the property the face that actually faces building 3. Taghi Saadati, Chairperson, asked about the location of the trees and how close to the house could the trees be to provide the maximum privacy protection for the adjacent home. Mr. Gilli explained that the closer the trees are to the house, the higher in elevation they will be. The Committee can make a recommendation to move the trees closer. Mr. Saadati asked what the square footage would be if the home were a single- story home. Mr. Gilli explained that the square footage would be the same. However, footprint would be larger and because of the shape of the lot, the rear setback could be decreased to 10 feet and would have been closer to the neighboring houses. In the past, the single-story roofs carried most of the mass of a second-story. Mr. Saadati asked if there was a possibility of grading the side to take some of the soil away. Ms. Glush, Designer, stated that they have worked on the project for several years. Ms. Glush also stated that the lot is very odd shaped and a single story home would not work with the floor plan and would be closer the neighbors. She feels that style of the home blends well with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Saadati asked about the location of the privacy trees and how close they could be to the house. Mr. Wong also asked about a second row of privacy trees. Ms. Glush explained that that area was the backyard. Mr. Wong asked if were still possible to build a single-story and go 10 feet closer to Miramonte. Mr. Gilli explained that it was possible and that the applicant can do that with the two-story and decrease the first-story rear setback. Mr. Wong asked if building 2 had sufficient privacy planting. Mr. Gilli stated that building 2 conforms to the ordinance as well as building 1, whether it is effective is another question. Mr. Wong asked if the properties were in a residential hillside zone and how far the residential hillside zoning was. Mr. Gilli stated that the properties were R1 and that residential hillside zoning was across Stevens Canyon Road. Orrin Mahoney, 10940 Miramonte Road, stated for the record that a minor lot line adjustment occurred in 1999. He is concerned about the side setback from Stevens Canyon Road. Mr. Mahoney stated that he was not opposed to the development of the 4 Design Review Committee August 6, 2003 land. However, in the two years of developing the properties, no one had notified the neighbors. He agreed that the current homes on Mirarnonte Road are large, but when those homes were built the rules were different and any new development should conform to the new rules. Mr. Mahoney's main concerns are with the size and position of the home. He believes that a one-story home would be less visually impacting. He was less concerned with the extra 32 feet of the second story. The second story would be visually impacting and privacy planting would not necessarily solve the problem. A solution could be sliding the houses forward and forget the easement on Stevens Canyon Road. Mr. Saadati asked if the homes were moved towards Stevens Canyon Road, it would have to be a significant move in order to reduce visual impact. Mr. Gilli replied yes and that the applicant has designed the homes to meet the setback based on where the property lines are located. There will be a Public Works requirement to have improvements on Stevens Canyon Road. In this case, it will be more of a rural, meandering sort of sidewalk that goes around the existing trees. To move the house forward would require an exception to the side setback and Mr. Gilli felt that it would not be a significant change. Mr. Gilli also stated that on the sidelines, a one story would have the same impact as a second story. A one story home would not have to have privacy protection nor would it require a hearing. Mr. Gilli suggested if the Committee looked favorably on the project as a whole, the Committee could look at how to take the impact and lessen it. However, the heights could not be adjusted. Mr. Wong asked what sort of outreach was done toward the neighborhood. Ms. Glush stated that she believes the applicant's son was working on that. Bagher Navid, owner, stated that his son, Byron Navid, has been working on the projects. Mr. Navid stated he had talked to a few of the neighbors at the time of purchasing the lots. He wanted to make sure there would be no problems before he purchased the lots. He stated that Glush was the best designer and has been working very hard on these plans. Mr. Navid would be very happy to work the neighbors and is open to suggestions. Parvis Nambor, Miramonte Road, stated that the setback requirements are very important and could be easily resolved by getting rid of the easement. Another issue is a large, running stream that is in the corner where the retaining wall is located. The retaining wall needs to be very strong and getting rid of the easement will also allow the room for that. Mr. Nambor was not concerned about the exception for the second floor. Frank and Fran Lee are neighbors that were unable to attend the meeting and also share the same concerns. Ahmed Hassand, 10920 Miramonte Road, had no objections about the placement of the house or the second story. His main concern was the privacy. If the current trees along Design Review Committee August 6, 2003 the fence that borders the properties along Miramonte Road were not cut, the visual impacts could be minimized. Mr. Saadati reminded Mr. Hassand that the tree removal application would be brought before the Planning Commission. Nancy Estelle, Prudential Realty, was representing the sellers at 10950 Miramonte Road. The house has been on the market for a very long time because potential buyers are concerned about was would to be built on the properties. Ms. Estelle stated that within the last 6 weeks since the elevations have gone up, she has had calls but no one was even willing to look at the property on Miramonte. From a seller's stand point, moving the house towards the street would lessen the visual impact. The fact that it was also a two story was a great concern. Mrs. Mahoney, 10940 Miramonte Road, was mostly concerned about a tunnel effect with a huge straight up wall. She believes that even with the privacy trees, it was not appealing. There would be less sunlight and would not be able to see past the large building. Mrs. Mahoney would prefer a one-story home closer to Steven Canyon Road. Ms. Glush stated that sunlight that Mrs. Mahoney's property is receiving now would not be affected, it would remain the same. Also, Ms. Glush agreed with Mr. Gilli in that two years ago the setbacks have already been established during the public hearings. Mr. Mahoney stated that if the side setback could be reduced, every foot would help. Mr. Saadati asked Mr. Gilli about the public hearing two years ago establishing the setbacks. Mr. Gilli stated that there was an interpretation made on setbacks to determine where the front and rear setbacks of lot 2 were located. Lots 1 and 3 had frontage. In the review, Planning Commission and staff agreed that it would be best to have a 20-foot rear setback for lot 2 next to the rear setbacks on Miramonte Road and not a 5-foot setback. Mr. Wong asked about when the lot line adjustment took place. Mr. Gilli stated that he thought it was in 1999, however, the Public Works Department handles those requests. Mr. Wong also requested more information about the easements and whether there is an easement to expand the road. Mr. Gilli stated that it depends on the property that was being looked at by Canyon Heights. If a large use were brought to that property, street improvements would have to be made. Even if the house were moved, the privacy concern would be lessened, but would not be solved for lot 2. Mr. Gilli added that the windows along building one are both in the bathroom and the applicant could explore whether an ingress window would be needed. If they don't, the windows could be made inoperable with obscured glass. One of the windows is above a spa and if that were the case, the need for some of the trees would be eliminated. Mr. Gilli recommends the trees in any case to help block some of the mass. 6 Design Review Committee August 6, 2003 Mr. Wong stated that he was not concerned about the two exceptions and he agrees with staff that it does not impact the neighborhood and is consistent with the style. Mr. Wong understands the time spent working on the project and talking to the community. His biggest concern was the visual impacts as viewed from adjoining properties. He does feel that the privacy planting may not be adequate and would like to postpone the item and have the applicant come up with another idea for privacy planting and work with the neighbors. Even if the home were moved towards Stevens Canyon Road, there would still be concerns. Mr. Wong would prefer a one-story home, however he could go either way and recommends that the applicant work with the current neighborhood. Mr. Saadati agreed with Mr. Wong regarding the exceptions. He suggested starting the privacy planting early, prior to the construction of the house. However, he would be willing to look at other options. To change an easement, the Planning Commission would have to review the project and could be appealed to the City Council. The land is very difficult to develop. Mr. Saadati would also like to continue the item and have the applicant work with the neighbors to resolve the issues. Mr. Navid would like to have some guidelines on what needs to be done and have the item continued. Mr. Wong gave the applicant some guidelines. He asked the applicant to look into a neighborhood meeting or talk to neighbors individually and to include all the buildings. Mr. Gilli asked Mr. Navid about how much time he would need for the continuance. Mr. Navid asked for 4 weeks. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Commissioner Wong moved to continue R-2003-09 for one month. Chairperson Saadati. None None 2-0 Application: Applicant: Location: R-2003-11 Bob Hoxsie 10545 Mira Vista Drive Design Review for an exception to allow a three-foot setback for an existing garage proposed to be attached to an existing house. Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed Staff Presentation: Colin Jung, Senior Planner, briefly described the project. In reviewing the project, the structure could not be built in the front of the residence because of a potential future dedication of right of way that would narrow the front property to 20 feet that is needed for the front setback. It also could not be placed on 7 Design Review Committee August 6, 2003 the south side of the residence because that is where the driveway is located. On the north side of the residence, where it could go, is a 52' diameter specimen size Coastal Redwood, which the applicants would like to protect. Staff recognizes the unique circumstances and recommends approval and also notes a 20-foot easement on the side of the garage where there is a 3-foot setback. The easement is for the flag lot to the rear of the property and also note that there are few visibility impacts and privacy impacts due to the addition and the closeness of the setback itself. Staff is also requiring that the tree be considered a heritage tree and record an appropriate covenant on the property. In addition, staff recommends that the RI ordinance provision that allows a one-time extension of a building line not apply to the garage due to the 3-foot setback. Staff recommends approval of the exception. Mr. Saadati asked how long the driveway has been next to the driveway. Bob Hoxsie, applicant, replied about 10 years. Mr. Saadati asked how old the garage was and why it has a 3-foot setback. Mr. Jung stated that the garage is allowed a 3-foot setback if it is not too tall because it is an accessory structure. Mr. Hoxsie, stated that he has talked to his neighbors and he had signatures of their support. He wasn't clear on what was needed for a covenant. Mr. Jung explained that the tree would be protected and future homeowners would need approval to remove it. A recorded document would be created. Mr. Hoxsie had no problem with the covenant. Mr. Hoxsie stated that he would be building a shed to attach to the garage for storage. Mr. Jung stated that it would need a 10-foot side setback. Mr. Wong asked for more clarification regarding the extension of existing building lines. Mr. Jung explained the history of the ordinance and how it relates to Mr. Hoxsie's property. Mr. Wong stated that he supports the project. Mr. Saadati also supports the project and has no objections. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Commissioner Wong moved to approve R-2003-11. Chairperson Saadati. None None 2-0 Respectfully submitted: Kiersa Witt Administrative Clerk g:plannin g/D R C Committee~Minutes080603