101-draft minutes 5-10-2011.pdf
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT 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 May 10, 2011
2
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 May 10, 2011
3
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 R1 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
Cupertino Planning Commission May 10, 2011
4
when building their home.
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
staff’s 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 May 10, 2011
5
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 for May 24, 2011, at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: ____________________________
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary