Loading...
PC 04-10-07 CITY OFCUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. APRIL 10,2007 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 2007, 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: Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Cary Chien David Kaneda Marty Miller Gilbert Wong Staff present: City Planner: Associate Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Ciddy Wordell Gary Chao Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the March 13,2007 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone approval of the March 13, 2007 minutes to the April 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) Minutes of the March 27, 2007 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Chien, to approve the March 27, 2007 minutes of the Planning Commission meeting as presented. (Vote: 5-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, noted receipt of items relating to agenda items, and a letter regarding the RI/RHS application which was forwarded to City Council. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV ALS FROM CALENDAR: 3. TM-2007-04 Rick Bleszynski 10185, 10215, 10227 Empire Ave. Tentative Map to subdivide two parcels into three parcels ranging from 6,650 to 7,047 square feet. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request postponement to the April 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 April 10, 2007 Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone Application TM-2007-04 to the April 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) 1. EXC-2007-02 Jennifer Jodoin (DeCarli residence) 11640 Regnart Canyon Hillside Exception to construct a 689 square foot second story addition to an existing residence for a total of 6,870 square feet, which exceeds the 6,500 square feet allowed, and an exception to build on a prominent ridgeline. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request postponement to the April 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Chien, to postpone EXC-2007-02 to the April 24,2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Virginia Tamblyn, Vicksburg Drive: . Said she resided behind the Marketplace. She said that an ordinance was violated; the Planning Department issued a permit to a restaurant that violated the Planning Commission Resolution 3055 which was implemented in 1987 and reaffirmed in 2000 by a Planning Department staff member. The resolution states "The existing restaurant and specialty food services involving on site food preparation which are located adjacent to the gated portion of the rear corridor may remain. However, new food services involving on-site food preparation shall not be permitted in this area." The intent of this condition is not only to prevent the increase in the number of above described food establishments adjoining the rear corridor but also upon termination of occupancy to preclude replacement of existing establishment with food services which require a new use permit." Unfortunately a new use permit is not required. . She reported that she came upon a restaurant that was being installed and was told it did not have a use permit and the neighbors did not have to be notified. She said she felt the system is being manipulated in order to locate whatever is desired within the center without noticing the residents which is a clear disadvantage to the residents who are impacted by the traffic, odor, and activity. She said that the residents were not notified of the new restaurant because she was told it was not required. When there is a change it should not negate the resolution 3055; residents deserve to be notified. . She said that the question arose that the restaurant is not adjacent to the alleyway, and said she did not agree, as the definition of adjacent is near, and near is defined as relatively close by or not far. She pointed out that the restaurant is located close to the back fence of the residence; the distance from the fence of the residence to the back wall of the center is 66 feet, and there is no parking within the gated area. The parking stalls start where the gated area ends; the area behind La Patisserie is two loading docks and a space for trash containers which includes a small work area and an alleyway. She said it was unfair to put in a restaurant that the nearby residents who have worked so hard to have the resolution in place, have not had any input on. Gary Chao: . Referred to the site plan and illustrated the location of the Japanese restaurant. He stated that the City Council implemented a condition on the shopping center, stating that "there shall be no new restaurants located immediately adjacent to the service drive on the back strip of the shopping center." That was intended for the tenant spaces that are immediate, abutting the service drive in the back. When the restaurant came in it was obvious it was not immediate to the service drive. He said that no conditions were violated based on staffs finding and the Cupertino Planning Commission 3 April 10, 2007 restaurant has obtained a tenant improvement permit to proceed and business license to occupy the space. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that staff would meet with Ms. Tamblyn or others from the neighborhood if there was a need to. 2. R-2006-62 Ray Chen (Un Residence) 7453 Stanford Place Residential Design Review for a new, two-story 2,693 square foot residence. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Postponed from the March 27,2007 Planning Commission meeting. Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: . He reviewed the application for residential design review for a new two-story 2,693 square foot residence, as outlined in the staff report. Reported that neighbors are concerned with neighborhood compatibility, specifically the mass and the scale of the project, as well as the architectural style of the proposed house. Some neighbors have expressed concerns about privacy impacts and landscaping maintenance. . Section 19.28.060 of the R1 Ordinance addresses design guidelines with regards to the neighborhood compatibility. One of the main purposes of the R1 ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in terms of scale and mass within the neighborhood. The R1 has a set of development standards. The City has not in the past required property owners to match the average square footage or floor area of the neighborhood. If it is designed in a reasonable fashion that the applicant used materials and architectural styles, color of materials consistent with the neighborhood that it is found to be acceptable. Since the neighborhood meeting on March 23, the applicant has made some revisions to the project. . He referred to the front elevations and reviewed the proposed changes. The applicant removed the arches to be more consistent with the neighborhood; the garage door window has been squared off; a stone veneer siding along the base of the front elevation wrapping around the corner is proposed; the entry canopy has been dropped by six inches; more design oriented grid patterns on top of the windows to introduce elements consistent with the neighborhood have been introduced. The applicant is proposing a beige earth tone color and has elected to stay away from the mission style red clay tile roofing; opting with a flat slate roofing system in gray charcoal color as shown in the example. In response to some of the neighbors' concerns with the bay window on the second floor, the applicant has squared off the bay window and is limiting the windows to the front and not having windows along the sides of the square bay window. In addition the bathroom window on the second floor is now a non-transparent window. The applicant has elected to continue a roof skirt around the first floor to break up the mass of the second story wall. . Some additional options that the Planning Commission can make regarding enhancing the texture and also the style of the home is tp consider requiring the applicant to provide smooth stucco finish. The architect has offered that there is an option to increase the window trims from 3 inches to 4.5 inches. Staff feels it is appropriate as it enhances the look of the house and gives it more definition around the windows and gives it a more shadowed effect. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project with the revised plans as proposed by the applicant and with the recornmended changes by staff. Vice Chair Chien: . Asked staff to address the side of the house that is not set inwards on the second story. He said he understood that second stories have to be set back from the first story, and asked how it applies. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 April 10, 2007 Gary Chao: . Said it was generally true; the ordinance requires on the second floor a minimum of ten foot side yard setback. In terms of articulation we would like to have if possible on all four sides to have some sort of breakage at least a couple of feet. The way the ordinance addresses that is by requiring no more than 50% of the perimeter second floor wall be not over 6 feet exposed. The project actually meets that rule. By nature of limiting that to 50% that means some of the walls can be flushed and one of the side walls is one of those walls. Visually that wall is broken up further by the skirt the applicant is proposing along that side, and it meets the ordinance. The applicant does have the ability to have certain part of the wall straight up and flushed. Vice Chair Chien: . Asked if the second story portion on the east side is set 5 feet in from the first story skirt. Gary Chao: . The right side elevation is flushed, it goes straight up; the ordinance allows that. He said the applicant can be asked to explore the option of either bumping the ground floor wall out to give it a more structural relief or to consider further recessing that wall back. Initially that wall was at five feet on the ground floor, the second floor went straight up and that was inconsistent with the ordinance so the applicant changed it to ten feet. Vice Chair Chien: . Clarified that it is set an additional five feet in. He said it appeared from the set plan and what was in the binder that it was flush. (Staff responded that it was flush.) Ciddy Wordell: . The confusion was because initially the first floor was set back five feet and the second floor was also set back 5 feet which was incorrect. The applicant moved the entire thing back 10 feet to make it meet the ordinance resulting in it being straight up. Chair Giefer: . Clarified that it was 10 feet from the property line. We are confusing the second story setback with the setback from the property line; and using setback interchangeably referring to both items in the discussion. Gary Chao: . Said it was not an ordinance requirement that the second floor has to be recessed from the ground floor. He said the applicant's architect would address if there is any way additional offsets can be made. . Said that the second floor setback is required, and a way to view the right elevation is that the ground floor setback is more than what is required as they only have to set it back 5 feet; for the second floor the code requires a minimum of 10 feet. The applicant decided to shift the house to the left to meet the entire second floor and ground requirement. The ground floor is required to have 15 feet combined, a minimum of 5 feet; what is shown is that they have 5 feet on the left side on the ground floor, and 10 feet on the right side which meets the ground floor setback requirements. On the second floor the requirement is 25 feet combined; they have 15 feet on the left side and 10 feet on the right side. The ordinance does not require a recess from the ground floor; it just says that 50% of that has to be in. They meet that requirement. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 April 10, 2007 Ciddy Wordell: · Said she viewed it as an expedient; in the past many things have been appealed and rather than have to go through multiple steps it seems more efficient that it comes directly to the Planning Commission. Chair Giefer: · For clarification, regarding the second story because of the combined side yard set backs in this particular case they elected to push the right side of the home to the 10 foot side yard setback. What would the implications be if it was more centered on the home? Gary Chao: . Said it would be appropriate for the architect to respond to Chair Giefer's question. . He said staff s preference would be to have all four sides have some recess which was suggested to the applicant. The applicant looked at the option and felt it would mix up too much of his floor plan. He would rather pick up the house and move it further to the left and give the neighbor more distance and then visually address that blank wall with a skirt. Ray Chen, project engineer and architect: · Said that relative to setbacks, they have incorporated all the impacts to the neighbors when doing the design. . Said that originally it was a 10 foot setback on the right side; by doing a 10 foot setback and the second story on the right side, the adjacent neighbor has 10 feet setback on that side, which totals 20 foot building separation. . He said on the left side there was a 15 foot setback on the second story, which is the staircase plus the neighbor's 5 foot setback, which gives another 20 feet on the left side of building separation. He noted that the house sits in the middle of the lot. . He said the property owner paid fair market price to buy the lot which under the city ordinance allows a second story, and they feel it is fair to allow them to build the second story. Chair Giefer: . Asked the applicant if he considered centering the second story over the first story of the home? Ray Chen: . Responded no, that they attempted to do that but it increased the structure of the home. As a structural engineer he said he would like to have at least one wall sitting on one side and by doing so, minimize the impact giving more setbacks to the neighbor, which would minimize the impact. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Charles Robidart, Tiptoe Lane: . Said his property was the adjoining property to the northern boundary of the subject property, sharing approximately a 32 foot length offence in common which represents about 60% of the lot width of the proposal. . Said he was opposed to the staff recommendation and he and some of his neighbors felt the project was inappropriate for the location. . He said he did not want to discuss whether the quantifiable resolutions or regulations are at issue; but specifically that Chapter 19.28 Single Family Residential R1 zones contains a number of qualitative requirements for compatibility and for a house in the neighborhood and Cupertino Planning Commission 6 April 10, 2007 they felt that those qualitative measures have not been met. He said their findings were that 19.28.010 Part B and Part C were not being conformed to; 19.28.040 ifit is called into play, is not being conformed to; and 19.28.060 Part C is not being conformed to. They are specific areas they feel the qualitative measures of this project are not in conformance with the City of Cupertino's own codes on R1 zoning. . We believe that the assessments of those qualitative errors lie in five major aspects that have not been properly taken into account. In considering the proposed dwelling with respect to the adjacent properties, we believe there has not been enough emphasis given to that portion of the north side, the Lowell Hurst Development. Specifically this is zoned with an "i" for single family residence structures only. As such, any two story structure on the north side of Stanford Place immediately puts itself at odds with the neighborhood, which has already been regulated to single story at least on one side; and yet to put a two story house immediately produces a conflict between the one and two story structures. · Secondly, there are no existing large square footage homes either single story or two story on Stanford Place; the actual pictures shown of two story houses are not on Stanford Place, they are on other streets. Depending on how you want to define neighborhood, there is no support for compatibility for a structure of this size or design within the neighborhood. We would like to point out that we don't feel that the easement problem with PG&E, the phone company, and the cable company has been properly addressed. . They have had some discussions where the applicant has agreed to plant the trees at 12 feet away from the fence so that in the future the trees will not interfere with the lines, and PG&E won't have to come and lop off the tops of them, which would defeat the purpose of the privacy. It is calculated that the trees need to be 14 to 16 feet tall, with 15 foot canopies, with four of them on the property. She said it was a huge problem for the property to have that many trees of that size in order to provide the privacy that the regulations call for. Your own regulations call for the maintenance of privacy of the neighbors and that can only be achieved by my calculations with very large trees on the property and a number of them. . He said in the Code there are many references to compatibility with the neighborhood. He said his response would be somewhat dated since he did not see the modified plans. He attended a meeting two weeks ago where they spoke with Mr. Chen and raised their concerns; Mr. Chen went away and made modifications which they saw only 15 minutes prior to this meeting. He said they had no way of knowing what the new plan looks like, but from what they have seen and been told by Mr. Chen, he boasted of the fact that this project was the third implementation of the identical floor plan and design that had already been approved twice by Cupertino. He said as a neighbor he was concerned, and questioned whether they had some kind of richness of neighborhoods, or some kind of diversity where it is not necessary that because it got approved in one neighborhood it must be rubber stamped into a second neighborhood. He asked if it was possible that the neighborhoods differ and therefore what is compatible with one is not compatible with another. He said they don't see the fact that this plan has been adopted twice within the city of Cupertino sets any kind of positive precedent; they feel it sets a negative precedent, that it is simply being rubber stamped because it has been done before. . He said in his opinion the notification process was flawed. The item was supposed to have taken place on a previous agenda for this Commission; it was not done because the city of Cupertino discovered it in mailing out notices to the wrong addresses. He said they were not properly notified, and the meeting had to be put back and she had not seen the new plans except for 15 minutes prior to the start of the meeting. . Relative to the issues oflandscape privacy, to mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and bulk of new two story homes and additions, tree or shrub planting is required, which is a quote from the Code. He said that the privacy planting has inherent conflicts with it based on the easements from the utility and based upon the size of the necessary trees, but the privacy issue Cupertino Planning Commission 7 April 10, 2007 must be addressed and maintained. He asked that the Commission and the applicant go on public record tonight to explain what is going to be able to be done and what can be done to protect the privacy and compatibility and the integrity of the neighborhoods. . Said his neighbor requested a set of plans on behalf of both of them. Dan Borrego, Tiptoe Lane: . Said he shared about 40% of the applicant's rear fence line. . Relative to landscape requirements, he recommended not only that the trees be put in, but that they be a particular size to maintain privacy that is there. He said it was unfair for the residents to give up their privacy for the next three or four years for some small trees to grow to sufficient size. . Said they extrapolated the height of this house, where the windows are located, and the distance to their own houses and Mr. Robidart did calculations and found that the trees would need to be between 12 and 16 feet tall when they are planted in order to provide that privacy. The RI doesn't mention that the trees need to be 12 and 16 feet tall, and he did not want to wait five or six years to go in his back yard without people staring at him out of their windows. This house seems to have been approved without giving any consideration to the zoning of the property next to it. He said it appears to happen all over Cupertino, but after the first one happened it should have raised some red flags and put that on the checklist of items to be concerned with before approving these types of projects. . Asked the Commission to request that the applicant work with the neighbors to chose mutually agreeable trees or shrubs of the appropriate size and type, and then also ask that they consider putting a covenant on the deed of the home so that the rear elevation cannot be changed and the next owner cannot take out the frosted window out and put a clear one in, or put in a bay window. If there is a covenant, the Planning Department has some leverage to deny such an application or request in the future; whereas if it is not done, they have to go through the whole process agam. Vice Chair Chien: . Asked Mr. Borrego if he attended the meetings with the architect, and if he was aware of the changes that they were going to make as a result of this meeting. Mr. Borrego: . Responded that there was one meeting. He said the architect would request the changes and that he would get back to them and he assumed they would be talking to him prior to this, so that none of this would likely be on the agenda tonight. He said he was aware of the 11 changes stated at the beginning of the meeting; but wanted to ensure it was done appropriately. He said he was not satisfied with the size of the tree that is going to be planted. Com. Wong: . Summarized that Mr. Borrego's concern was notification; that the process is already prescriptive in the ordinance and he felt he was not properly notified. It would have also been helpful to have seen a landscaping plan or privacy protection plan ahead of the public hearing instead of at the eleventh hour. . You are aware that this is zoned RI and you want some kind of consideration that if there was a two story home on the boundary of the one story overlay, that there would be some kind of consideration. Mr. Borrego: . Said if he had seen a landscaping plan and discussed it prior to coming here, that would not have been something he would have stated. He would have already told the architect that an 8 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 April 10, 2007 foot tall tree is not appropriate; and that a RI-6i should not end next to an RI where it shares a property line; maybe across the street, but it should not end anywhere in the city where it shares a property line. Ciddy Wordell: . Explained the two story limitation and what the "i" means in a zoning district. The "i" overlay zone requires a use permit in an R1 zoning district if somebody wants to seek to have a second story. There are a few areas in Cupertino, and there have only been a few people apply for a second story through the use permit process. It means that somebody possibly could have a second story in an "i" district; now that there is a public review process for all second stories, there is not a huge difference between the "i" and the regular Rl; both of them now have some form of public review; it is just that the "i" is probably a higher hurdle to jump over. The public review is there for both. . Said the privacy planting is required to be on a covenant which is recorded on the title and it is possible that if there is something else that the Planning Commission wants to have highlighted to any future property owner, that could be called out as well. Bernard Kalvelagt, Tiptoe Lane: . He said he thought it was a travesty, and that as a compassionate neighbor, he would feel infringed upon if somebody built a two story house overlooking his yard. . He said that it stated the project was consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and applicable specific plan, but it was obvious when walking down the street that it was inconsistent with the neighborhood. . He urged the Planning Commission to use their best judgment regarding the application. Elena Herrera, Granola Drive: . She said she felt with the ordinance as written, the Planning Commission had the ability to rule on this case simply and clearly. The proposed house is not compatible with the neighborhood; the "i" overlay withstanding or not; a major change is being made to the street if we start going down a two story road and this neighborhood doesn't have the same situation I had where so many of them are going to be rebuilt in the near future. Cupertino feels very much that their neighborhoods are strong, that their community is strong and I urge you to respect the community's voice in front of you tonight. . Landscaping as mitigation; there was a case in recent months where the landscaping covenant was not recorded properly and some very old growth trees were cut down next door to her home because it was not recorded properly. . With regard to noticing errors, she urged the Planning Commission to take seriously the mistakes that have occurred in the past and correct them. . Said it should be recognized that it is the existing families in the communities that have made the schools what they are today. Respect these communities; they are the children in these families that are setting the high scores in the schools that are making the properties so desirable. She said the Planning Commission has the ability to say no or yes when it is appropriate she urged them to do so. Richard Whittington, Stanford Place: . Expressed concern with the front appearance of the house, stating it had too much bulk. He said he had no comment on the architecture, but was concerned about the portico area in the front which is garish and stands out. . Opposed to the application. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 April 10, 2007 Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said she felt the building ordinance has come a long way in making sure that two story homes that are delivered to the community are much more compatible in size than they were when they were built under the County rules. In this situation, Stanford Place is an extremely beautiful neighborhood; it is virgin territory for two story homes, ranch styles homes completely up and down the street. . She anticipated that the neighborhood in thirty or forty years would still be predominantly ranch style homes; remodeled in a ranch style as a traditional type of architecture in Cupertino. She said it was helpful that city staff was able to work with the architect to try to modify the two story home; I do think that in this situation since this is the first two story on this street or many homes, that if one does construct a two story, it should be wood sided, ranch style, slate roof is more appropriate, and ensure that there are lower eaves. . She expressed disappointment that the right side of the home had no second story setbacks; it appears that staff has worked diligently to try to make sure that there was some sort of articulation. . Said she has been following the last three years of RI ordinance and innumerable meetings with the Board of Supervisors in the County; and she understood that there has to be a second story setback on all four sides, regardless of how far the home is from each side. If it isn't, we need to look at that, because you don't want 27 feet of stucco going straight up in the air, whether you are 5 or 10 feet from the side. Also, if you plant trees in the back yard even 12 feet from the back PG&E easement, PG&E will cut their tops off and we need to make sure that is taken into account. If we have a second story overlay we need to make sure property values are not being reduced. Larry Line, Stanford Place: . Said that there were no other homes in the neighborhood with a 7 foot long portico in front. The portico on the proposed home is about 8 feet from the street and makes a large home look monstrous, and I would like something to do to take that away. There used to be a big tree in the front yard that was cut down recently. Relative to the Municipal Code, he said that he notified Gary Chao in January that the information that is required under Chapter 19.28 Section I, the notification process did not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. . He said staff did not notify him about the meetings with architects although he lived directly across the street; the first time he heard about the changes was today at 5 p.m. He said he was not satisfied with the way the city government was handling it. . He said the entire process is defective if it is approved without following each part of the Municipal Code. . He commented that behind his house was a two story house that is intrusive on his personal privacy. He said with the new plan there was not enough room to plant a tree in the front yard. . Opposed to the application. Gary Chao: . Relative to the entry feature, it is more than 20 feet setback from the property line; he was not certain where the 8 foot setback figure came from as reported by Mr. Lyon. . The circular columns have been squared off; there are four columns, the front columns are about 4-1/2 feet protruding beyond the face of the house and the two rear columns are actually part of the building. It is about 4-1/2 to 5 feet of protrusion from the house, but is set back more than 20 feet. Chair Giefer: . As part of our notification process, when one builds a second story home, we notify the neighbors on either side, the rear neighbors, do we notify the neighbor across the street? Do Cupertino Planning Commission 10 April 10, 2007 we mail plans to a specific subset of that. When you received the new plans, is the city under obligation to mail those out to those neighbors to re-notify them of what really is being proposed before the public hearing. Gary Chao: . Said that every neighbor within 300 feet of the project are notified; all the neighbors get a set of plans. Generally speaking, if there is enough time, staff would re-notify the neighbors; however, in this case there was not enough time to do so. Com. Kaneda: . Said that the privacy requirements state that the trees have to grow to a certain height within a certain amount of time. He asked if the proposed trees meet those requirements. Gary Chao: . The ordinance has a preapproved list of shrubs or trees; it does also require a minimum, if the applicant chooses trees in this case, the minimum planting size is 24 inch box and minimum planting height is 8 feet at the time of planting. Shrubs are 15 gallon and 6 feet at the time of planting. . Said it met the requirements; the applicant is proposing 24 inch box minimum trees and they would have to adhere to the minimum planting height of 8 feet unless something taller is specified. . Said you could require a larger tree to be planted; it cost more but would offer more immediate privacy relief; however, we have been told by our arborist that based on the size, 24 inch box, 8 feet; it is a good balance between allowing the trees to be able to adapt to the soil when they are young enough to do so. We have been told by our arborist that it will grow faster as opposed to planting a huge tree that may not be accustomed to the area or the environment. Com. Miller: . There are two dimensions we are working with; one is the overall height and the other is the depth of the structure to begin with, and I am still not sure why it needs to be that depth, and one of the disadvantages is it creates a lot of shadow on the front door. Ciddy Wordell: . The code for the "i" overlay, means that if you want to do a second story, you must seek a use permit from the Planning Commission. Com. Wong: . If somebody wanted to do a second story, they could do it, but it has to go through a use permit and has more scrutiny, and that be pertained through that ordinance. . He clarified that the pertinent application is an RI-6, which means that even though there is 90% one story, eventually the neighborhood could go two stories, which is prescriptive by the ordinance. . Relative to notification, is it only the first round that the first 300 feet get notified? If there are any changes does that push the public hearing later so that the neighborhood does have a chance to take a look at the new plans and there won't be as much misunderstanding as we are hearing tonight? He said he recalled one of the reasons for the 2005 revisions was to improve notification and if for some reason there were last minute changes, that there had to be some mechanism to prevent last minute changes and then present it at the dais and take a chance. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 April 10, 2007 Ciddy Wordell: . The procedure tonight is different from what we have done with the previous R1s. This is the first referral of the Director to the Planning Commission directly of an R1 approval since there was a lot of neighborhood interest; there is no code requirement that the neighbors had to get a copy of the revised plans, and as Gary Chao explained, there was a very tight turnaround. It would have been helpful if there had been more time and if they had been notified that the plans were on the web site or they could come and pick them up; and that procedure will be followed in the future. . Said the findings for a use permit are specific; granting a second story is discretionary in an R 1-6i, it is not automatic. In the R1-i you are able to have a second story. Com. Miller: . Said there were some issues raised at the public hearing; one was that once there is a border between an Rl area and an Rl-i area, he pointed out that the neighbors have a voice in the decision to go to an Rl area. He asked staff to confirm if a certain percentage of the neighborhood signed a petition that they want it, would it be granted? Ciddy Wordell: . There isn't a hard and fast rule on that; we have not had anyone inquire about it in the last 8 to 10 years. The last time we used it, we used an ad hoc percentage that we wanted to see two- thirds support and they did not have it, so the last attempt there was not an "i". Com. Miller: . He pointed out that any neighborhood can do that by collecting a petition from the neighbors and if at least two-thirds of the neighborhood wants to limit the houses to one story, it in effect becomes an R1-i neighborhood with an overlay on it. One neighborhood chose to do that and this neighborhood which application is being considered, did not choose to do that. In this neighborhood they do have the right to have two story homes. . He said it was always an issue between what is fair for the neighbors and what is fair for the property owner; and it becomes an issue of property rights and at some point in time a neighbor will want to sell his property or redevelop his property, and houses over a period of 40 or 50 years tend to become outdated in terms of functionality. It has to be balanced, what is fair for the neighbors, and the biggest issue with the neighbors is privacy; and what fair is for the individual homeowner in terms of he purchased the property and what are his rights under the ordinances to develop it and expand it. . From the standpoint if two stories should be allowed or not, the code does allow it as long at it meets the requirements of privacy and we want to make sure that happens. I don't see that as an issue under debate. . The issue of compatibility of the neighborhood is important, and it is subjective. A number of people have pointed out that the main issue is the portico in front, and it is very prominent. The architect or homeowner could consider reducing the prominence of that portico which may be more acceptable to the neighborhood. It is reasonable for staff to consider that and work with the architect to reduce the prominence of the portico and make it more compatible and acceptable with the neighborhood. . Said he struggled with the issue of notification because staff said the next time everyone would get notified, however this time they didn't get notified. He said that even though he was inclined to accept the application, if the neighbors haven't had a chance to look at the changes and raise their concerns, it is reasonable to continue the application to allow them to do that and bring it back and perhaps over that period oftime, people will feel more comfortable. . He noted that on the prospective, the portico was shown with white columns which stand out and make it more prominent. He recommended that the columns blend in with the rest of the Cupertino Planning Commission 12 April 10, 2007 front structure. He said aside from that, he was inclined to favor allowing the homeowner to go ahead and do his two story addition and allow him to make reasonable use of his property, given the reasonable restrictions. · Noted that the homeowner complied with the letters of the ordinance and has gone along with staffs suggestions in terms of making this house more compatible with the neighborhood. Com. Wong: · Said the concern is mainly communication which is clearly not good communication between the applicant and the neighbors. · He said he visited the site and viewed the picture in front of the property. He commented that if he lived in the neighborhood, he would be concerned especially looking at the four white columns. . He said that if the information provided to the Planning Commission on Thursday would have been given to the neighbors earlier, they would have had a chance to see the elevation and see how it was changed so that it looks better, and also would be better informed. He said they may not agree if it is compatible or not; it is in the mind of the viewer. · The ordinance is prescriptive; he said he understood the concern that being in an RI-6i, that you want a consideration that you are abutting an R1 neighborhood which is allowed to have two story homes. · Some people don't like to use the word "transitional" but it is prescriptive for them that in this particular zoning, they are allowed to build a two story home, and how can this Commission look and mitigate it so that it can blend into the neighborhood. . He said the elevations presented were fine. · Regarding the landscaping for privacy protection, there will be 24 inch boxes, that will be in the covenant; they will be 8 feet tall; it will take 3 to 5 years, but that is part of the prescriptive ordinance; it cannot be changed tonight. · Said he agreed that the portico should be reduced; the height should be lowered as it is not compatible with the neighborhood. . Said he was aware that it was difficult to see a two story home going into the neighborhood, especially as it was the first one on the north side of Stanford Place. He said if there was better communication, the process would have been better. Vice Chair Chien: . Expressed concern about the notification process, stating that the neighbors should have a chance to look at the most recent plans. Said he supported the process to give everyone a chance to see what is in writing, what has been drawn and a chance to respond. . Said he did not support many of the arguments presented about why the house is incompatible. He said he did not agree that a house should be designed by the neighbors, but should be designed by the architect, with the neighbors having input. He said not many people would want their house designed by their neighbors; it is a self-interest issue, a property right matter and if you were going to build a house, you would want your architect and yourself to have input, and not by a unanimous vote of your neighbors. . The applicant has gone to great lengths to make changes based on a meeting set up between the neighbors and the applicant. If the neighbors are given more time to look at the new set of plans, he said he expe\,:ted that if the neighbors have concerns, they also bring back alternatives of what they would like. Many things are subjective, and when it is asserted to the Planning Commission on the night of the hearing that something is not compatible, and there are no facts to support that, it is difficult for the Planning Commission to make that finding. . Said he did not have a problem with the house, but was willing to support an additional two weeks for the neighbors to look at the plans. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 April 10, 2007 Com. Kaneda: . Agreed with Vice Chair Chien with the concerns about how the information on the revised set of plans went out and that the neighbors were not noticed. . Agreed with the remaining commissioners that it was inappropriate to stop a two story building in this area. Although next to an R6i zone, this house is not in that zone, and you cannot just keep pushing the borders of the zone out. There are privacy issues, but the code covers that and the architect came up with a plan that meets the requirements. He said he was satisfied with that. . Expressed concern about the style of the portico, but said he felt it could be worked out with the neighbors. . Said he agreed that continuing the application for two weeks would allow the architect to work with the neighbors to address their concerns. Chair Giefer: . Said she had an issue with both the height and the size of the portico as well as the color being one that stands out. She said she agreed that it needs to be reduced. . Expressed concern that there is no second story offset on the right side of the home. The mechanical engineer that spoke representing the client talked about how the home is centered between the two adjacent homes but the second story is not centered on the home which it is on. She said she was concerned regarding the design because it appears lopsided and the neighbor on the right hand side is going to get a lot of reflectivity from that long wall. She said she would like to see more articulation or a second story setback. . Said that she did not recommend planting Madrones in the yard for landscape privacy as it was a slow growing tree. . Said she agreed that in an RI zoning district, they could not prohibit the owners from building a second story home. It is difficult for the neighborhood to accept the change and by rights the landowner does have that opportunity, and the city tries to protect the privacy through different mechanisms that run with the land and are recorded with the deed. . Relative to notification, it is unfortunate the neighbors were not given an opportunity to study the plans the Planning Commission received, even though they are available on the internet. For those people who don't attend the city meetings all the time, it is new information. It is unfair to the current neighbors who have come here tonight that they haven't had the opportunity to study the plans and have the owner of the homes architect or project manager explain the changes made. . Said she supported continuance of the item to give more time for the neighbors to study the plans, and have another neighborhood meeting with the property owner's representative to talk about the changes. She said that when the item returns to the Planning Commission if specific needs are still not met, they should be brought back to the Commission. She pointed out that the property owner has rights as well and the role of the Planning Commission is to help work out those issues as well as bring the neighborhood together because changes happen. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Chien, second by Com. Miller, to continue Application R-2006-62 to the April 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Cupertino Planning Commission 14 April 10, 2007 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: The Environmental Review Committee: · Chair Giefer reported that the last meeting was cancelled; the next meeting is scheduled for April II, 2007. Housine Commission: . No meeting held. Mavor's Monthlv Meetine With Commissioners: . Com. Wong reported that the next meeting is April 11, 2007. Economic Development Committee: . No meeting held yet. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: . No additional report from staff. · Chair Giefer said that as a result of the last City Council meeting, they are redirecting the Hillside Rl back to the Planning Commission for further study. Ciddy Wordell reported that the date had not been set. · Com. Miller provided an update on the progress of the North Vallco Master Plan. He reported on meetings held with the residents and the steering committee where discussion included use of the site. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the April 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: ~ Approved as presented: April 24, 2007