Loading...
PC 05-10-2011 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. May 10, 2011 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 2011 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca., by Vice Chair Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Clinton Brownley Commissioner: Don Sun Commissioners absent: Chairperson: Winnie Lee Staff present: City Planner: Gary Chao Vice Chair Miller presided as Acting Chair in Chair Winnie Lee's absence. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 26, 2011 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 4 -0 -0 (Com. Lee absent) to approve the April 26, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: 2. U- 2011 -05, ASA- 2011 -06, Use Permit for four, two -story single family dwellings EXC- 2011 -06, TM- 2011 -01 on 0.30 acres; Architectural and Site approval for four, Chris Weaver for Habitat two -story single family dwellings; Parking Exception to For Humanity allow a parking ratio of 2 stalls per dwelling, in lieu of the Location: Cleo Avenue required 2.8 stalls (garage and open) per dwelling, for a Small lot :Family residential project; Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 0.30 acres into four lots and a common area lot for a single family residential development. Postponement requested to June 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council meeting date: July 19, 2011 Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Cand carried 4 -0 -0, Com. Lee absent, to postpone Application U- 2011 -05, ASA- 2011 -06, EXC- 2011 -06, and TM- 2011 -01 to the June 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 May 10, 2011 1. R- 2011 -03 Appeal of an approval of a Residential Design Review for Daryl Harris (Sengupta a new, 3,683 sq. ft. two -story single family residence. & Herrera residence) Postponement requested to the June 28, 2011 meeting. 21150 Grenola Drive Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Applicant is requesting that the item not be postponed. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Said that the appellant was present to address the commission on the item. Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Com. Brophy, and carried 4 -0 -0, Com. Lee absent, to deny the request for postponement of Application R- 2011 -03 and to agendize it for discussion. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. R- 2011 -03 Appeal of an approval of a Residential Design Review for Daryl Harris (Sengupta a new, 3,683 sq. ft. two -story single family residence. & Herrera residence) Postponement requested to the June 28, 2011 meeting. 21150 Grenola Drive Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for the consideration of the appeal of the Community Development Director's March 14, 2011 approval of a Residential Design Review for a new 3,683 sq. ft. two -story single family residence located on Grenola Drive. The proposed home is at 38% FAR, where 45% is allowed, and the project meets all aspects of the R1 ordinance. • He reviewed the three main reasons for the appeal of the approval by Homa and Mehrdad Mojgani, including their concern that there was no 3D image on the image board; their concern that the landscaping plan was not sufficient and did not appropriately address privacy planting especially along the west elevation; and their concern about the proposed composition roof shingles and shingle siding not being consistent with the neighborhood (stucco and tile roofing materials were preferred). Staff responses to appellant's objections /statements: • The required color perspective was provided by the applicant and was posted on the noticing board; there are no provisions in the R1 ordinance requiring the 3D drawing. In terms of privacy protection, along both sides of the side elevation, all windows shown on plans are denoted to have a sill height of at least 5 feet or taller; so consistent with the R1 ordinance, any second story window that has a sill height of 5 feet or taller does not need to provide privacy protection; therefore the privacy protection requirements have been adequately addressed. • Regarding the style and proposed material of the building, staff disagrees with the appellant in that they feel that the proposed design is good and will be complementary to the neighborhood. At times, staff talks about how stucco and tile roofing may be rather harsh and it is difficult to mask some of the mass; staff actually prefers the shingle roof and the natural materials as those are more compatible with the pre - existing ranch style neighborhood. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Director's decision by approving the application in accordance with the model resolution. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 May 10, 2011 Homa Mojgani, Appellant: • Said they requested a postponement on the appeal but were not granted one. She said they did not receive a notice regarding the new construction and they resided only two homes away; and only found out after story poles were erected. • Relative to the roofing materials, she disagreed with staff's response that the composition roof shingles and shingle siding were consistent with the surrounding neighborhood since most of the neighborhoods were being renovated with tile roofs and stucco finishes. She emphasized that composition roof shingles were no longer being used and they presented a safety factor primarily with the risk of fires. • She discussed the various inconsistencies in rules that they encountered over the years while building their home; and denial of their proposed west side balcony because of residents' comments; and commented that it cost them an additional $140,000 in delays and changes. She asked that the Commission review their appeal and make the right decision for the sake of the neighborhood and the city of Cupertino. Gary Chao responded to comments from appellant: • Relative to the continuance request, he clarified that staff did not inform the appellant that her continuance would have been denied. She was informed to be present in the event the Commission wanted to discuss the application, • In terms of notification of process, the project was notified per the city ordinance, neighbors within 300 feet of the property were notified (list of addresses available). Specific to the Mojgani case, their property address listed on the County Assessor's database was a Palm Avenue address and the notice was sent to the Palm Avenue address. Staff does not have the discretion to notify any other way other than whatever the owner chooses to be notified under this address under the county's database; consequently this notice went to their Palm Avenue address which they own. • With respect to the color perspective, said he could show what was presented on the notice board; perhaps there was a misunderstanding in terms of semantics of what is required. A color rendering perspective does carry some form of dimension; it is not a flat color rendering. 'He said that was what was presented, it can be called 3D, although it is not quite 3D. Clarified that a full 3D rendering is not required; the intent is to show some depth to it and some shadow lines so that the neighbors can look at it and get a sense of what is proposed. He said he felt the image shown satisfies that intent and does a good job in illustrating that. • Relative to consistency with other homes in the neighborhood, he said the Rl ordinance does not require all homes to look exactly alike; the intent is to provide a variety of interesting architecture as long as the mass and scale are generally within context. There is the responsibility to make sure that new homes also respect older homes in the neighborhood and are not meant to just match the newer homes in the area. • There are no fire safety issues with shingle roofs; there are fire ratings that would have to be approved by the state and that meet building and fire code. He said he was certain it was the case with the roofing material proposed by the applicant. • Said he did not feel it was appropriate to discuss the Mojgani's previous application along with the present application being discussed. The Mojgani's application was approved and the home is being built; there were some controversies and concerns from the adjacent neighbors at the time about their proposed balcony, but it is immaterial in terms of what is presented before the Commission for consideration. Daryl Harris, Architect: • Said everything was explained satisfactorily and the history and letter form of staff responses to the appeal were clear. He said he supported denial of the appeal, and felt the basis of the appeal was not about the house, but the unfortunate process that the Mojganis went through when building their home. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 May 10, 2011 Vice Chair Miller opened the public hearing. There was no one present to speak, the hearing was closed. Com. Brownley: • Said he felt it was important to review all the points that were brought up and he appreciated staffs response to the 3D image being in compliance with the R1 ordinance. The landscaping plan as proposed meets the requirements of the ordinance; the roof and shingles being a certain style fits within the ordinance and is appropriate. Relative to noticing, staff followed the appropriate noticing process and met all requirements for noticing people within the area. • With all points met, he said he supported moving forward with the project. Com. Sun: • Said he concurred with most of the comments of the Commissioners, but was concerned about Mrs. Mojgani's comments about inconsistencies with rules applied to all Cupertino homeowners /residents; and to ensure that all rules are consistent with all applications. Com. Brophy: • Agreed with Coms. Brownley and Sun, and supported the appeal denial. Vice Chair Miller: • Agreed with Commissioners and supported denial of the appeal. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Brownley, and unanimously carried 4 -0 -0, Com. Lee absent, to deny the appeal. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Cupertino Planning Commission 5 May 10, 2011 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: Meeting scheduled for May 11, 2011. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Meeting postponed. Economic Development Committee Meeting: Meeting scheduled for next week. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Gary Chao announced that the Planning Commission would be utilizing Agenda Manager for the Planning Commission packets; with the goal to going paperless for agenda packets. City Council has been testing Agenda Manager. • Provided an update on the Green Building Ordinance. Said the City Council tabled their decision and gave a one year grace period for staff to post the draft to receive more community input. Staff has not been directed to further change what was presented to the City Council. Unless Council decides in May 2012 that they wish to send it back to the Planning Commission for further review, it will not come back to the Commission but will go directly to City Council. Staff will report back to them to see if there is any additional input and they will have to decide at that time what to do with it. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled fo `i v1. 24, 2011, at 6:45 p. . Respectfully Submitted: Elizabet O is, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: June 14, 2011