2003-0085: Application for a Design Review on a 6,130 square foot site to allow a second-story addition to a single-family home resulting in a 58% FAR (Floor Area Ratio) where 45% FAR is allowed without Planning Commission Review. The property is located at 874 Spinosa Drive in an R-0 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 201-33-039) 

Diana O'Dell, Project Planner, presented the staff report. Staff provided a summary of the proposed project highlighting the use, site layout, privacy, architecture, parking and circulation. Staff was able to make the required findings and recommended approval of the Design Review.

Comm. Satterlee expressed her concerns about the roof not being simple. Staff responded that the hip roof simplifies the design since the neighborhood has similar hip-type forms.

Comm. Satterlee commented that the large window appears to be looking directly to the next door neighbor and has concerns about its size. Staff responded that there was no specific discussion with the applicant about reducing the size of the window. Ms. Ryan added that the window is set back an additional 10 feet from the rest of the proposed addition.

Rob Roberts, applicant, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present the project. He stated the larger window would be clerestory to minimize privacy impacts. He also addressed the roofline and that his goal is to make it look like the rest of the neighborhood.

Comm. Satterlee pointed out her concerns with the roof design. Mr. Roberts responded that his wife wants to have a cathedral ceiling, which drives the roof design.

Comm. Moylan commented that during his site visit, the unifying element of the neighborhood is the balcony. Mr. Roberts responded that his design is intended to have similar balcony as the rest of the neighborhood. He added that he has no problem with a condition to ensure similarity of the balcony feature with the rest of the neighborhood.

Comm. Swegles asked how much work is required to the front entrance if the overhang is changed. Mr. Roberts responded that it would be that the adobe stone that in order to achieve a modern look would be raised back.

Marcella Thiemann, resident, expressed her concerns about sunlight and privacy impacts. She noted that there is a grade differential of about 5.5 feet between her property and the applicant's. She also expressed concerns about the solar access study conducted, which was only calculated from the west side and did not include the east side of the property. She presented from photographs to demonstrate her concerns about privacy and shadowing affecting her backyard and landscaping.

Comm. Swegles asked Ms. Thiemann if the photographs were taken from a second floor and how high is the building. Ms. Thiemann responded that the photographs were taken from a 20 feet high second story house.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff to clarify the solar access study conducted. Staff responded that the solar access was calculated on the amount of shadow effect on the rooftop. Staff added that the design meets the solar access requirement.

Comm. Satterlee commented that the project is another reason that a solar access study should be conducted addressing the impact to the backyard, and not only the roof.

Comm. Chu asked Ms. Thiemann what is her property's orientation as it relates to the subject site. Ms. Thiemann responded the back of her property is parallel to the subject site.

Comm. Moylan asked the speaker if there are two neighboring properties that abut her backyard. Ms. Thernan responded yes. However, because her lot is a pie shaped, the neighbors' homes do not cast shadow to her backyard. Comm. Moylan added that the solar access study indicated that the project meets the solar access requirement.

Vice Chair Babcock commented that the depth of the backyard on both the applicant and the speaker's home appears to be 20 feet. Staff responded that 20 feet is an approximate measurement. Ms. Thiemann confirmed that her property is 20 feet deep.

Sandra O’Brien, resident, commented that she has no shadow issue and concurred that there is greater shadow impact on Ms. Thiemann's property. She expressed her concerns for privacy with a photograph taken from her large bathroom window, showing that there is no screening to protect her privacy.

Daniel Kuo, resident, complimented staff for the notification and was pleased that he received the public hearing notice. He expressed his concerns about the privacy impact on his property. He was pleased that the applicant was considerate to design small windows but noted the following concerns: 1) the big window design would have privacy impact on his backyard looking at the swimming pool; 2) the proposed design is too large. He felt that it is a gigantic increase and 3), the design would block his view.

Comm. Satterlee asked Mr. Kuo if he has a two-story house. Mr. Kuo responded yes.

Comm. Moylan asked Mr. Kuo which view is being blocked since majority of the neighborhood has two story homes and that his property as he understood from his site visit is being rented. Mr. Kuo responded that he is currently renting his property but plans on moving back upon retirement. He added that he has a vested interest on what happens to his neighborhood.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Kuo if he has any lighting issue. Mr. Kuo responded that privacy is his major concern.

Comm. Chu asked Mr. Kuo to explain the impacts to his property. Mr. Kuo responded that he would miss the early morning sunlight but added that his major concern is with privacy most particularly to the swimming pool.

Ms. Ryan commented on the view concerns expressed by Mr. Ho. She stated that there is a small corner of the property to the north that would be visible and that the proposed design does not appear to have windows that would afford a clear view to the yard. She also clarified the kinds and locations of the windows.

Grace Kuo, resident, stated that she is mostly concerned with the privacy impact and the distance to her property. She noted that there appears to be a window to window placement even if the large window is set back 10 feet. She added that with regard to the swimming pool, she does not know at what angle the applicant could look into her backyard.

Vice Chair Babcock asked Ms. Kuo if she can see into the next door's backyard. Ms. Kuo said yes.

Rob Roberts, applicant, acknowledged the privacy issues expressed by his neighbors. He noted that the large window would be clerestory and that it would have no view to the next door neighbors and that he does not intend to look in his neighbors' backyard. He addressed the shadow impact to Ms. Thiemann's property and suggested that the next door neighbor cast more shadows than his proposed design. He also suggested that he could place the window higher to prevent vies to the backyard since he does not have any foliage to serve as a screen. He further added that his house is lower. He concluded that his house is the only house that is not two story in the neighborhood.

Comm. Moylan asked confirmation of the applicant that he is willing to mitigate the direct view to neighbors by placing the window higher. Mr. Roberts responded yes.

Comm. Chu commented that he would like to make sure that the window placement meets the building requirements. Ms. Ryan added that the condition could be worded to state that the window size and location meets the building code requirements.

Comm. Moylan commented that in order for the existing house to be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood is to make it a two-story house. He acknowledged the privacy concerns expressed by the neighbors but concluded that it is less compelling since the house is the only house that is not two-story and impacts have been mitigated. He complimented the applicant for doing a good job in meeting the design guidelines. He supported staff recommendation.

Comm. Swegles commented that during his site visit he concurred with staff that the design meets and blends in with the rest of the neighborhood. He was happy to hear the input from the neighbors and hoped that the conditions of approval are acceptable in addressing the privacy issues.

Comm. Chu supported the motion and commented that if additional foliage is necessary to address the privacy impact, it would exacerbate the shadow issue. He felt that the window placement and size condition is sufficient to address the privacy impacts.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff that there are no color boards presented and wanted to know if staff would review the materials to ensure that they match the existing structure. Staff responded that during building permit issuance and as standard practice, staff makes sure that the plans and materials match.

Return to Agenda, Reports & Minutes