101-Staff Report.pdf
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: May 10, 2011
Application: R-2011-03
Applicant: Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta, 21150 Grenola Drive
Appellant: Homa and Mehrdad Mojgani, 21180 Grenola Drive
Property Location: 21150 Grenola Drive
Application Summary:
Consider an Appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to approve the
Residential Design Review for a new 3,683 square foot, two-story single-family residence
located at 21150 Grenola Drive.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions:
1.Uphold the appeal;
2.Uphold the appeal with modifications; or
3.Deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Department’s decision.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend upholding the Director’s decision
as per the attached model resolution (Attachment 1).
PROJECT DATA
Zoning Designation: R1-10
Lot Area: 9,705 Square Feet (.22 Acres)
Floor Area Ratio: 38% (45% allowed)
Setbacks: All setbacks are consistent with the R1 Ordinance
BACKGROUND:
On March 14, 2011, the Community Development Director approved a new 3,683 square foot,
Two-Story Single-Family Residence located at 21150 Grenola Drive. (See Attachment 2 for the
approval letter)
On March 28, 2011, the Director's decision was appealed by Homa and Mehrdad
Mojgani, the property owners to the west of the project site (See Attachment 3 for the
detail appeal petition).
R-2011-03 May 10, 2011
21150 Grenola Drive, Cupertino Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Basis of the Appeal
The appellants are appealing the decision of the Director of Community Development
Department based on the reasons listed below. Each appeal issue is followed by staff
discussion in italics.
1.The notice board did not include a three dimensional image.
Staff Response:
a.A three dimensional image is not required by the R1 Ordinance.
b.The image on the project notice board meets the requirements set forth for a ‘colored perspective’
rendering (See Attachment 4).
c.Typical colored perspectives will show the structure at a slight angle with roofline shadows and
background/surround environment f or context.
2.A complete landscape plan was not available for review for this project and privacy
planting is not provided for the west elevation.
Staff Response:
a.The staggered window sill heights, along a stairway on the second story of the west elevation,
comply with the privacy planting requirement as listed in 19.28.070(A). Consequently no
additional privacy plantings are required along the sides of the house.
b.A conceptual landscaping plan has been provided showing that the relevant cone of visions for
privacy screening have been appropriately delineated.
c.All windows facing the sides have sill heights of 5 feet or taller (measured from the floor) -
consequently no privacy planting required.
d.A condition requires the detailed landscape plan be submitted prior to issuance of building
permits.
3.The proposed home is not compatible with other new homes in the area. Specifically,
the composition roof shingles and shingle siding are not consistent with the
neighborhood. Stucco and tiled roof are preferred.
Staff Response:
The proposed home is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Most of the homes in
the project neighborhood were originally designed as ranch-style architecture, with wood
exterior siding and shingle roofing material. Consequently, staff disagrees with the appellants
in that the proposed building roofing/siding materials are compatible with the predominant
neighboring homes and complements the architectural style of the project.
4.The City did not conduct proper notice for the project
Staff Response:
In accordance with the City Ordinance, on February 24, 2011, formal notices of the project
were mailed to neighbors within a 300 feet radius of the project site. All of the mailing
addresses were retrieved by the City from the County Assessor’s database. Notices for the
appeal hearing were mailed out on April 20, 2011.
R-2011-03 May 10, 2011
21150 Grenola Drive, Cupertino Page 3
Continuance Request
Subsequent to the mailing of the public notices, the appellants have requested a postponement
of the appeal hearing to the June 28, 2011 Planning Commission meeting (See Attachment 5).
The applicant is requesting that the item not be postponed (See Attachment 6).
Prepared by: Aparna Ankola, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Approved by:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1: Model Resolution
2: Community Development Department Approval Letter
3: Appeal submitted by Ms. Homa and Mr. Mehrdad Mojgani
4: Project Color Perspective
5: Appellant Continuance Request
6: Applicant’s Response
7: Plan Set
G:\\Planning\\PDREPORT\\Appeals\\R-2011-03_appeal.doc