PC 01-07-08CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. JANUARY 7, 2008 MONDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of January 7, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson
Lisa Giefer.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Staff present: City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
David Kaneda
Jessica Rose
Ciddy Wordell
Gary Chao
Eileen Murray
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
1. U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04,
TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09
(EA-2007-03)
Metropolitan Planning Group
1601 DeAnza Boulevard.
Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval for a
new six-unit single family residential development.
Tentative Map for a new six-unit single family
residential development. Tree Removal of up to
41 trees. Postponed from Planning Commission
meeting of November 27, 2007. Postponed to the
January 22, 2008 meeting. Tentative City Council
Date: February 19, 2008
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Miller, to postpone Item 1 to the
January 22, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0)
2. U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval
(EA-2007-08) Brian Replinger to construct two, one-story retail buildings
(Cupertino Village) totaling 24,455 square feet and a one level
Homestead & Wolfe Rd. parking deck. Continued from the November 13,
2007 meeting. Withdrawn from calendar.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 January 7, 20082
Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Vice Chair Miller, to remove Item 2 from the
calendar. (Vote: 4-0-0)
4. INT-2007-01 Interpretation that a proposed car washing facility is consistent
Greg Malley with the Planned Development, Recreation/Entertainment Zoning
20900 Homestead District. Postponed to the January 22, 2008 Planning
Road Commission meeting. Planning Commission decision final
unless appealed.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Miller, to postpone INT-2007-01
to the January 22, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0)
5. M-2007-03, ASA-2007-18 Modification to a Use Permit to construct a new 5,000
Union Church of Cupertino square foot building. Architectural Site Approval for
20900 Stevens Creek Blvd. anew 5,000 square foot building. Postponed to the
January 22, 2008 meeting. Planning Commission
Decision final unless appealed.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Miller, to postpone Item 5 to the
January 22, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0)
Com. Kaneda recused himself from discussion of the application as the property is located several
doors away from his home.
3. R-2007-01, RM-2007-29 City Council referral to the Planning Commission
Tuan Cao (Ferng Residence) regarding modifications to Residential Design Review
21410 Vai Avenue for a new, two story residence with a 35% floor area
ratio and Minor Residential Permit to construct front
and rear second story decks. Planning Commission
decision final unless appealed.
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for the City Council referral to the Planning Commission regarding
modifications to Residential Design Review for a new two story residence with a 35% floor
area ratio and Minor Residential Permit to construct front and rear second story decks, as
outlined in the staff report.
• He pointed out an error in the agenda item description. The minor residential permit was for a
deck in the back facing the rear elevation, which is no longer the case as it has been deleted
and the applicant will not return with that request.
• Two groups appealed the Planning Commission's decision. One group of neighbors argued
against the proposed building in size, front yard setback, building height, materials and the
need for enhancing the privacy mitigation measures. The second party of appellants represents
the property owner and the actual applicant of the project. They requested that the City
Council consider the front yard setback remain as proposed at 25 feet, and also the entry and
living room height remain as proposed.
• The Council directed the floor area ratio of the house to not exceed 35% of the lot size. The
Council in its deliberation did not discuss the architectural design, but directed the applicant to
conform to the R1 ordinance. The design will come back to the Planning Commission for
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 7, 20083
final approval. The neighborhood group verbally agreed to not further challenge this project
provided the applicant carries out the Council's direction.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
• Said they also still retain the right to, but at that time they agreed those were the parameters.
Gary Chao:
• Said the applicant decided to keep the front setback at 25 feet instead of the original condition
of 30 feet. The rear yard set back increases to 57 feet with the reduction of the square footage;
the first floor remained the same. The biggest change on the second floor is the deletion of the
second story balcony, and the floor plan has been adjusted to accommodate the deletion of the
balcony. With the revised plans, the applicant is proposing a new 1,000 square foot basement
to offset the loss of living space above grade. The applicant is requesting to replace the turret
originally taken out, and to keep the original entry and living room plate height. There is a
condition in the model resolution that requires the applicant to work with staff and the
neighbors in the back to decide where, and the number in size of the trees in the rear of the
property.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission add another condition that a covenant be
recorded with the land to lock in the 35% FAR directed by the Council, so it is disclosed to
any future property owner.
Gary Chao answered Commissioners' questions regarding the application:
• If they add to the ground floor, and it then exceeds the 35%, it would not have to go through a
discretionary review process; it would be a normal review with building permits. The intent
with the condition is to honor what the City Council has directed which is to limit the main
house to 35%.
• When the application went to City Council on appeal, the turret was eliminated from the plans.
The applicant did not change the height of the entry feature or the living room plate. The
setback was not changed from the 25 feet.
Chia-Lun Ferng, Applicant:
• Stated that in November 2007 the City Council recommended reducing the size of the house,
and redesign the house to conform to the R1 ordinance. The neighbors agreed that if the size
of the house was reduced, they would be no longer be opposed to the application.
• The owners have the right to build the house to 45% FAR. The owner accepted the City
Council's decision after the neighbors said they had no further objections. The size of the
house was reduced to 35% FAR, and the redesigned house follows the Rl ordinance, with no
exception. The applicant has gone to great expense to build his home to fit in the
neighborhood, and the Planning Commission has already spent one year on the application.
The applicant requests that the application be approved.
Mrs. Ferng:
• Stated that the turret was not located in the front of the house, but in the center and is less than
28 feet following the safety rules; and no one can climb up to look outside. On Vai Avenue
almost 15% of the houses have the setback at 16-26 feet from front yard setback. She said she
felt their rights have been violated and they sacrificed the biggest issue of house size. They
have spent over $200,000 to build the basement to fulfill their needs. She said she would like
to keep the design of the house as proposed.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 January 7, 20084
Chair Giefer:
• Clarified that the R1 ordinance states it is up to a maximum of 45% FAR provided it meets the
neighborhood characteristics and other design guidelines.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Matangi Rajamani, resident:
• Thanked the Ferngs for respecting their privacy by removing the balcony and changed the
windows. Her only concern is that they plant the pitisporum in the back in lieu of the pine
trees.
Gary Chao:
• Said Condition No. 2 states the applicant shall work with staff to revise the privacy protection
trees along the rear property line.
Subush G:
• Stated the same concern as Matangi Rajamani.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Complimented the homeowners for reducing the size of the home, and the neighbors their
cooperation in working out an acceptable resolution with the applicant.
• She said she felt it was a good plan to put in a basement because it is not included in the FAR.
Tuan Cao, Architect:
• Said they reduced the entry height to 12' 6" while the city allows 14 feet, and they also
reduced the size of the house, which required them to reduce the proportions of the house.
Gary Chao:
• In response to Com. Rose's request for clarification of the plans that went to City Council
relating to the turret, he indicated that the plans went to Council without a turret.
• Said the driveway curb cut was a two car curb cut.
• The applicant can follow a checklist for green building; it does not have to be certified as it is
still voluntary.
Com. Rose:
Said the applicant has done a good job in making changes and working with the neighbors; the
main issue making the house compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Expressed concern that she felt the turret does not fit in with the ranch style of the homes; and
suggested that if the application is approved, they recommend that the turret be eliminated. It
would still allow the square footage to the house but change the impact of the look of the
house from the street.
• Said she would support the house with the elimination of the turret.
Vice Chair Miller:
• Said he supports the application; and considering what the applicant has yielded, he would be
inclined to leave the turret in the design.
Cupertino Planning Commission
January 7, 20085
Chair Giefer:
• Said that in the City Council's comments on the application, three of four sitting council
members discussed the neighborhood compatibility and massing of the home. The applicant
loses about 400 square feet of living space if the basement is included in the total calculation.
The reason the Commission suggested removal of the turret was to eliminate some of the
massing and the illusion of a three story home.
• Said she did not support the house in the past because it was too large. It went to Council and
they reached the same decision. She said she would support the house with the elimination of
the turret.
Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve R-2007-O1, and
RM-2007-29 with the condition that the turret feature be removed and require
that a covenant be recorded on the property that would memorialize a 35% FAR
for any additional square footage added to the property. (Vote: 3-0-0; Com.
Kaneda absent).
Com. Kaneda returned to the dais for the remainder of the meeting.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting.
Housing Commission: No meeting.
Mayors Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No report
Economic Development Committee: No meeting
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the January 22, 2008 regular Planning
Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m.
//, s ,~ s
Respectfully Submitted: C'°~' ~ ,,,~,~,
Elizabeth s, Recording Secretary
Approved as presented: January 22, 2008