Loading...
07-137, Feng residence appeal City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item N o. ~ Agenda Date: November 20, 2007 Application: R-2007-0l, RM-2007-29 Applicant: Chia-Lun Ferng Property Location: 21410 Vai Avenue APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Residential Design Review for a new two-story 6,677 square foot residence and a Minor Residential Permit to construct front and rear second story decks on the new residence, Planning Commission Resolution No. 6488: A) The appellants are numerous neighbors appealing the following issues: front yard setback, building material, building height, building size, and privacy mitigation measures (appellants are requesting a continuance to the next Council meeting - see attached email request). B) The appellants are the applicants and residents, Chia-Lun & Hsiao-Chen Ferng, appealing the following issues: front yard setback and entry/living room plate height RECOMMENDATION The City Council has the following options: 1. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny both appeals; or 2. Uphold appeal A and deny appeal B; or 3. Uphold appeal B and deny appeal A; or 4. Uphold both appeals with modifications. BACKGROUND Generally two-story permits are approved by the Community Development Director. However, the project was forwarded to Planning Commission due to the number of concerns received during the public review period. On August 28, 2007, the Planning Commission considered this project and directed the applicant to revise the plans in R-2007-01, RM-2007-29 Page 2 November 20, 2007 order to reduce the visual impacts of the proposed house and be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood. On October 9, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised plans and approved the project with conditions. Both the neighbors (Appellants A) and the applicant (Appellants B) are appealing the Commission's decision (see Exhibit A & B) for different reasons. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff reports for a detailed project background and issues. DISCUSSION Planning Commission In response to the neighborhood input, the Planning Commission focused on measures that will help reduce the visual mass and height of the proposed house, de-emphasize architectural elements that are different from the predominate neighborhood and enhance the privacy protection to the adjoining neighbors. The Planning Commission approved the project (2-1-1 vote; Wong/Miller voted yes - Giefer voted no - Kaneda abstained) with the following key conditions: .:. Delete the second floor rear facing balcony. .:. The entry canopy and adjacent living room plate shall be lowered by I-foot. .:. The front yard setback shall be pushed back an additional five feet so that the minimum setback is 30 feet (measured from the property line to the entry canopy feature). .:. The rear yard privacy protection plan shall be revised to reflect the request of the neighbor to the rear. It should be noted that prior to the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission approval, numerous other changes have already been made to the project by the applicant in response to the Commission's prior directions. Please refer to the attached October 9, 2007 and August 28, 2007 Planning Commission staff reports for the detailed report (Exhibit C) Two of the Planning Commissioners recognized that the house is significantly larger than the rest of the neighborhood. However, the same Commissioners also acknowledged that the project is located in a neighborhood with relatively larger lots, therefore the potential for larger homes exist for everyone with similar lot sizes. The majority of the Commission felt that with the changes made in conjunction with the added conditions, the visual impacts from the project will be minimized to a reasonable level. Commissioner Giefer could not support the project because of concerns on neighborhood compatibility. Appeal from the Neighbors (Appellant A) 14 neighbors signed a petition to appeal the Planning Commission decision to approve the project. A summary of the appellant's concerns are as follows: R-2007-0l, RM-2007-29 Page 3 November 20, 2007 .:. The Vai/Columbus neighborhood has a distinct rural feel. .:. The look and feel of the neighbor is under assault with the approval of the project. .:. The project does not fully comply with the spirit of the Rl Ordinance. .:. A proposed house is too large. .:. The proposed house is out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. .:. The project will decimate the sense of privacy, light and air that currently exist. .:. The proposed house is not appropriate for the neighborhood. .:. The project does not preserve nor does it enhance the area suitable for detached dwellings. The appellants also recommended several specific changes to the front setback, house size, roof material, siding material, height, privacy planting timing and appropriate window sizes of the proposed house (see Exhibit A) to address their concerns. The Council should evaluate these suggestions and decide if additional changes should be made to the proposed house. The appellants also submitted additional letters with signatures from the neighborhood (see Exhibit A) An email was received from Linda Gohl, representing the concerned neighbors requesting a continuance of this item to the Council's next meeting. The reason is that some of the neighbors will not be able to make it to the November 20, 2007 Council hearing. Appeal from the Property Owners (Appellants B) The property owners are also appealing the Planning Commission's decision. A summary of the specific items that the property owners are requesting further consideration are as follows: 1. Front yard setback. 2. Entry canopy and living room plate height. Appellants B would like to request that the proposed front yard setback be maintained at 25 feet (measured from the front property line to the front entry feature) as oppose to 30 feet required by the Planning Commission to retain their size of their rear yard. Also, the appellants would like to maintain the proposed entry canopy and living room plate height for aesthetic and interior functional reasons. The appellants believe that they have worked with the City and Planning Commission and have already made significant changes to the project beyond the requirements of the R1 Ordinance. CONCLUSION The Council should evaluate and weight each of the appellant's concerns and suggestions and decide if additional changes should be made to the project. Staff supports the Plam1.ing Commission's decision. R-2007-01, RM-2007-29 Page 4 November 20, 2007 Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner Approved by: ~p City Manager ---..... Steve Piasec i Director, Community Development ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Conditions of Approval with the approved plans Request for Continuance, Linda Gohl, October 25, 2007 Exhibit A: Appellant's (neighbors) appeal and associated documents Exhibit B: Appellant's (applicant) appeal and associated documents Exhibit C: Planning Commission Staff Report October 9, 2007 (Planning Commission Staff Report August 28, 2007 as an attachment) 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Communzty Development Department CITY OF CUPEIUINO October 15, 2007 Chia-Lun Ferng 21410 Vai Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION LETTER - R-2007-0l, RM-2007 -29 This letter confirms the decision of the Planning Commission, given at the meeting of October 9, 2007, approving a Director's Referral of a Residential Design Review for a new two story 6,677 square foot single family residence and a minor residential permit to construct front and rear second story decks on the new residence, according to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6488. Please be aware that if this permit is not used within a two-year period, it shall expire on October 9, 2009. Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days from the date of this letter. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing, which will be scheduled before the City Council. Sincerely, (7~ ~/C1Ar Gary Chao Senior Planner Enclosure: Resolution No. 6488 Cc: Tuan Cao, 1515 Tenaka Place, Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Printed on Recycled Paper R-2007-0l, RM-2007-29 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6488 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A DIRECTOR'S REFERRAL OF A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO STORY 6,677 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT FRONT AND REAR SECOND STORY DECKS ON THE NEW RESIDENCE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: R-2007-01, RM-2007-29 Chia-Lun Ferng 21410 Vai Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, and applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title; 2. The granting of the special permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; 3. The proposed home is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood; 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and That the sub conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application R-2007-01, RM- 2007-29 set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of, October 9, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. 6488 Page 2 R-2007-01, RM-2007-29 October 9, 2007 SECTION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBIT Approval is based on the plan set titled "Ferng Residence, 21410 Via Avenue, Cupertino Ca 95014" dated September 21, 2007, consisting of 11 pages, except as amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. PRIVACY PROTECTION The project is required to submit a final privacy protection planting plan consistent with the R1 privacy protection ordinance. The required privacy screening trees or shrubs shall be recorded on the property as a covenant to be preserved and maintained. Said covenant shall be recorded prior to issuance of final building occupancy. The applicant shall work with staff to revise the privacy protection trees along the rear property line to use either Arbutus Marina Trees or Pittosporum Tenuifolium (tree version). Revised landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 3. REAR SECOND STORY BALCONY The plans shall be revised to delete the second story rear facing balcony. 4. FRONT YARD TREE Any trees required by the Planning Commission shall be recorded on the property as a covenant to be pr~served and maIntained. The ash tree located at the north east corner of the front yard shall be evaluated by a professional arborist. If the arborist determines that the tree is in decline health or dead, then it shall be replaced by a similar tree minimum 24 inch box. 5. PRESERVATION OF THE OAK TREE The Oak trees erroneously noted on the plans as a 12" Ash tree shall be preserved. A professional arborist shall provide recommendations on specific protection measures that will be required to be carried out prior to the approval of the demolition permit. 5. ENTRY CANOPY & LIVING ROOM PLATE The Planning Commission approved applicant's option A. I addition, the entry canopy and the living room plate shall be reduced by 1 foot. The applicant shall work with the Planning Department to further simplify the design of the entry feature. Revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 5. APPROVAL EXPIRATION Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Two Story Permit approval (by October 9, 2008), said approval shall become null and void w1.less a longer time period was specifically Resolution No. 6488 Page 3 R-2007-01,RM-2007-29 October 9, 2007 prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Two-Story Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant an one-year extension, without a public notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to the Two-Story Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. 6. FRONT YARD SETBACK The proposed house shall be pushed back an additional five feet so that the minimum setback measured from the front property line to the entry canopy is 30'-0". 7. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of October 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Wong, Miller COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer COMMISSIONERS: Kaneda COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s / Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s /Lisa Giefer Lisa Giefer, Chairperson Planning Commission