Loading...
PC 11-27-07CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. NOVEMBER 27, 2007 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Planning Commission meeting of November 27, 2007, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Lisa Giefer. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: Marty Miller Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Jessica Rose Commissioners absent: Vice Chairperson: Gilbert Wong Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki Senior Planner: Gary Chao Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the November 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting: David Kaneda: Relative to the Cupertino Village hearing item: Asked that his comments about the percentage of retail space to the percentage of parking space; 22% retail, 13% parking be included in the minutes. Chair Giefer: • Page 19 -Chair Giefer: second line: said she commented with regard to including those adjacent neighborhoods as part of the parking study. Following first comma, modify to be specific on what she wanted added to the parking study. • 4`" bullet: Reference to electric gate, correct term is "knox box': MOTION: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Miller, to approve the November 13, 2007 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent) POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: 2. U-2005-14 Use Permit to erect a 32 foot tall monopole with three Dayna Aguirre (T-Mobile) antennas and an equipment shelter for wireless phone 20041 Bollinger Rd. service. Postponed to the December 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 November 27, 2007 3. U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09, (EA-2007-03) Metropolitan Planning Group 1601 So. DeAnza Blvd. 4. U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10, (EA-2007-08) Brian Replinger (Cupertino Village) Homestead Rd. and Wolfe Road. 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. Request postponement to the January 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council Date: February S, 2008. Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to construct two, one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and a one level parking deck. Continued to the January 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: February 5, 2008 Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to postpone Application U-2005-14 to the December 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent) Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to postpone Items 3 and 4, to the January 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Com. Kaneda read a communication from Kimco Realty inviting the public to attend a neighborhood meeting to review the updated redevelopment plan of Cupertino Village Shopping Center, on Thursday, December 13, 2007, 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Cupertino City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Conference Room 100. RSVP attendance to S. Sarber at (425) 373-3508 or S. Sarber at Kimcorealty.com CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. R-2007-32 Appeal of a Director's Residential Design Review Li-Shen Fu approval fora 1,176 square foot first and second 10238 Cold Harbor Ave. story addition to an existing 2,169 sq. ft. residence. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the appeal of a residential design review approval fora 1,176 square foot first and second story addition to an existing 2,169 foot residence, as outlined in the staff report. • The project was approved by the Community Development Department on October 11, 2007; a neighbor Steve Herhusky is appealing the decision to the Planning Commission. • The appellant contends that the original subdivision in 1976 had a stipulation that houses along the east side of Cold Harbor were to be single story only. He argues that the City Council at the time reserved the right to limit the height of any future developments on the 15 lots. He also contends that the proposed house is inconsistent with the predominant single story pattern of the neighborhood. • Said that in light of the sentiments of some of the neighbors, the applicant did some voluntary revisions to the project. There were some rear neighbors expressing concerns about privacy Cupertino Planning Commission 3 November 27, 2007 issues from the original bowed out or angled bay window on the second floor of the rear elevation. The applicant has squared off the bay windows; there will not be any windows on the side of the projected bay, only the flat window along the rear elevation. Also in response to some of the privacy considerations, the applicant has elected to use opaque glass in the second floor master bath. • Also to further help blend the second story into the neighborhood and to be consistent with the style of the neighborhood, the applicant has elected to use hardy plank or wood exterior siding material. They also enhanced their privacy protection planting plan to be consistent with the R1 ordinance. • In 1976 the City Council did approve the subdivision and there were discussions about concerns raised by the neighbors or residents at the time about some two-story and having single story only. It was recorded in the meeting minutes but the Council never acted on the comments in terms of having a formal condition of approval or require the properties to change their zoning. • Illustrated various photos of two-story homes in the area, and also examples of two-story homes in other cities which are not consistent with the design in the area, but for comparison purposes. • Staff recommends approval of the application; the Planning Commission has the option of upholding the Director's decision and deny the appeal; or uphold the appeal or uphold the appeal with modifications. Com. Rose: • Asked staff what process was followed for researching the prior City Council's reference to the new development which Cold Harbor is part of. Gary Chao: • Staff searched the archives/microfilms and looked up the meeting minutes which were included in the staff packet and are part of the appellant's packet. Also looked into the prior Commission's conditions to ascertain whether there are conditions if they relate to limiting this area to single story only. None were found. Staff also looked into the title report of the property and there is no mention of any two-story limitations that is reported as a covenant on these properties in this area. • Said there were no height restrictions in the area; the area is governed by CC&Rs originally recorded, but the covenants have very specific setback requirements. DRC processed these but that covenant expired in July 2007 and was not extended. In that document, there was no mention of any height restriction or not having any two-story homes. Com. Rose: • Asked if the public did want to pursue having asingle-story neighborhood, what would that process be like today and what would it have been like back then? Gary Chao: • It would have been the same process; neighbors would be encouraged to get together. There is a process where the neighborhood could request for rezoning consideration where the city would entertain special zoning designation to, in this case, maybe for asingle-story only overlay and other ancillary design measures that the neighbors want to have the city consider. • That is probably the best way of doing that; there is assurance that it is locked in and disclosed to new property owners indefinitely until something else changes. There is a process application that folks would have to apply and pay a fee to go through to get that done. Steve Piasecki: Cupertino Planning Commission 4 November 27, 2007 • Said that it was a rezoning application from the R1 district that they are in an R1-i, the `i' referring to the one-story limitation. It creates somewhat of an extraordinary process if you wish to build more than one story, a use permit process. As staff said, we have approved design guidelines in some of our neighborhoods, the Fairgrove neighborhood which is an Eichler neighborhood in particular, and even in the case of the Eichler neighborhood, two stories are permitted that they have to adhere to fairly strict design rules to build there, and the city is open to doing that in specific neighborhoods and usually it comes about because there is an application for something people don't like. The City Council would expect that there would be a super majority of folks who would endorse that concept because it is fairly limiting; if everybody has to live within a one story limitation. Com. Miller: • Referring to the visual where you showed the neighborhood in red, how do you define the neighborhood if the neighbors wanted to go ahead and impose aone-story overlay among themselves. How would they or the city or everyone together decide what the definition of that neighborhood was? Steve Piasecki: • There is no magic formula; it isn't one house; it is probably more than that and we would turn to the neighbors and use a rule of reasonableness in terms of getting a visual continuity for a one story limitation. • Said it was not defined whether there is a minimum number of houses that would be included in the neighborhood. He said one house would be unreasonable; but you would have to use the rule of reasonableness; in theory if there was a collection of four very large houses in an area where they are distinctive unto themselves, and they wanted to limit themselves, then you could possibly make it to the finding that they add a distinctiveness to that area. This is not that type of case; these are smaller lots. • Defined the neighborhood as mixture of some second story, two-story elements, creating an instant legal non-conformity. • Said a super majority was needed, the common term of two-thirds, or 67%. It is not in the ordinance, but a rule of thumb. Steve Herhusky, appellant: • Said that he did not object to two-story homes in general, but wished they had bigger lots and bigger setbacks. • He said that when he purchased the home in 1993 the realtor told him they would never build up behind his home because it was appealed when they first attempted to get it passed. He expressed concern that if they allow this one house, soon every remodel will be second-story and he would have a window looking into his bedroom window, hence he would have no privacy. • He urged the Planning Commission to revert back to what was intended in 1967 and keep the neighborhood the same. • He reiterated his concern was not so much for two-story homes in general, but he objected to a two-story home on that particular lot. He said most lots are less than 8,000 square feet, although the applicant's home does have a good setback. Com. Miller: • There is a privacy plan; but the other point the Director made, was that the homeowners as a neighborhood could come in and define this more closely so that if in this case there really is an objection because of the distance from the property lines, but there are other cases you are concerned about; you as a neighborhood can decide if you can get a super majority that two- Cupertino Planning Commission November 27, 2007 story houses have to be a certain distance from the property line, the second story has to be a certain distance from the property line, and that is what would protect you. The more appropriate thing to do rather than making a stand on a house that seems to be suitable, would be to address the houses in the neighborhood that are not suitable.. Steve Herhusky: • Said that he already had to pay fees to file an appeal for an application that should have been looked at more closely before stamping approval; and the fees for changing the zoning in the neighborhood are in the $10,000 range. Steve Piasecki: Said the cost of going through a zoning process was more expensive than just an appeal process; however if 20 neighbors contributed $500 each, it would cover the $10,000 fee which would be worthwhile in the long run. Steve Herhusky: • Pointed out that getting a neighbor to agree to one thing, but getting a neighbor to contribute money was entirely something different. He said it appeared that in 1967 the intent was to try to limit the height. They did formally state lots 19 through 34 had the right to restrict the height in the future. Com. Miller: Pointed out that if they generally restrict to no two-story homes, keep in mind that some houses work out well for remodeling on the first floor and some don't; which is why the option of going up is of value, because you may not be able from a functionality and layout design standpoint, be able to expand on the first floor. It might work out that it is easier on the second floor, so if there is a requirement that every home be one-story in that neighborhood, that means someone who wants to remodel may be in a position that they either have to move or tear the whole house down and rebuild from scratch, which would be a lot more expensive than building an addition. By limiting the whole neighborhood to one-story, you would actually be lowering the property values of everyone in that neighborhood, far more than the $500 per homeowner amount it would take for the zoning process. Steve Herhusky: • Said he agreed; and that his personal take for a happy medium would be to have some change in the ordinance that forces a second story further back or similar. He said he was not aware that was an option during the appeal process. Even then, it is changing the ordinance, doing something specific for that neighborhood that says these houses have to be set back further, and it didn't seem an option open. Steve Piasecki: Said that staff showed some photos of homes that clearly would be incompatible with the smaller single story designs in the neighborhood, and the ordinances have been designed to do what is suggested, force the second-story components to go into a wedding cake format where it is tiered; which is the reason for the greater setbacks from both the sides and the front. The applicant has gone even further to set back the rear even further than the ordinances require. It is built into our ordinances, but on top of that we build in "you have to protect the privacy ..." He said he understood the concern, and commented out that he resided in a home in San Jose for 17 years which had 20 foot setbacks from the rear property line; his neighbor to the rear had a 20 foot setback and they planted their backyards in that limited 20 foot setback and could not see each other. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 November 27, 2007 Shen Chen Sun, Property Owner: • Said he and his family resided in the home since 1999 and planned to continue residing there after the remodel. Issues include: Should the lots be limited to one story homes and privacy concerns. He reviewed a PowerPoint presentation which included material already discussed by prior speakers. He referred to Steve Herhusky's comment that they could not build second stories, and clarified that there were limits set on 15 lots on Cold Harbor, not on Richwood. Richwood is actually still within regular R1 zoning and second stories are still a possibility. The goal of the Commission approval was to protect the privacy of the homes on Richwood. • He said that he did not agree that his neighborhood was predominantly single-story homes although there are 35 contiguous single-story houses on Cold Harbor and Richwood. He said he did not consider his backyard neighbors as his neighbors as much as the front door neighbors, since he would walk out front and talk to the residents in the front, but not necessarily the same in the backyard. • He said that he was making changes, trying to mitigate privacy concerns and he felt he was doing his part to protect the neighbors' privacy. Staff acknowledged his efforts also. Said that some neighbors objecting to his two-story addition signed a petition against the project. He said he also went to other neighbors and many approved of the project. Copies of the petition are included in the staff packet. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Alan Robell, Cupertino resident: • Supports the application. • Addressed the definition of neighborhood. Said in 1967 the developer wanted to go ahead and build a mix of one-story and two-story homes and in response to the neighborhood concerns, moved forward to go to a single story house there, basically under threat of there being more process and slowing down the subdivision process for that development. The concern when the subdivision was built, was about the interface between Richwood Drive and Cold Harbor; and if the neighborhood is defined in those terms, the single story approach for that group of homes has been in place for more than 30 years. It came to a compromise there with City Council at that point in time and that has been maintained, and on the Richwood side that has been something a number of people have been aware of and have treated it as a status quo there. • Depending on how you define the neighborhood and what has been in place, the City Council didn't go through at that time and modify the zoning per se, but it is clear that the intent there for the developer was to say, if you are going to think about doing two stories, we are going to have to go through some more process because we have a neighborhood that is not happy with that and in fact, the developer went ahead and conceded to that. • Said he was concerned about changing that precedent for the future after 30 years. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 November 27, 2007 Virginia Tamblyn, Bixby Drive (speaking on behalf of Sylvia Surovik, resident on Cold Harbor Avenue): • Presented a letter from Ms. Surovik, stating that she was concerned about the addition of a second story house across the street from her home. She objected to the two-story house because she felt it would block her view of the hills and the 4`" of July fireworks; it was the only two-story .home on the street and would look strange; and if the second-story was permitted, there may be other homeowners wanting to add a second story onto their homes. • She wrote that using the monster house on Cold Harbor as an example was a poor choice since it was the first one there. Tom Pyke, Cold Harbor Avenue: • Clarified that the homeowner was talking about interacting with the neighbors. He said he was friendly with the neighbors across the street, but he didn't socialize much with neighbors in his backyard. He said it was important in this case to consider that neighbors as defined by those that are contiguous with you; this block that we have are those that will affect your privacy. • Said he felt it was important for the Planning Commission to consider that the home is the first two-story building on the 33 home block in 4 years and is a precedent. • He said Mr. Herhusky stated it aptly that it is a concern for all of them that this is just the start of numerous two-story construction that will be going on after this. It is opening the floodgates. • He questioned what the characteristics of this neighborhood were that new construction should be reasonably compatible with; the neighbors have a concern how they can be assured that there are limits. Steve Piasecki: • The best way to get whatever assurance you might find would be by looking at our zoning ordinance; the R1 zoning ordinance is fairly long and provides all the setback rules and wall plane heights and requirements for privacy screening, which are already built into the ordinance. That is the law and is what people have to comply with. Beyond that, we talked earlier how you would meet as a neighbor and come together and you define it for us; we are not going to tell you what you feel is highly valuable; what we look for is reasonable level of compatibility in terms of floor to plate heights, the alignment of eaves, and the overall height of buildings. By `reasonable' we don't mean typically just because it is a two-story, that is automatically incompatible; that is not something we would use in our vocabulary. • The prior speaker referenced a large home that was built and it seems there was some change on the zoning relating to that. Gary Chao: • Said that the home referred to was built prior to the 2005 R1 ordinance; likely before 2003, and there have been many iterations and amendments to the R1 ordinance since that large Spanish style house, one being you can see the difference; but the one being proposed tonight, you see a lot of the new rules being implemented such as second floors, offsets, setbacks, and the wedding cake design so you don't have that big box, with a huge two-story entry anymore. All those are eliminated by virtue of the prescribed rules in the R1 ordinance. You do see the progressions and improvements of the R1 ordinance. Under the current ordinance, that home could not be built. Scott Fitinghoff, Cupertino resident: • Said he supported city staff's decision; and he felt the owner should be allowed to build the second story addition and complete the remodel to his house as shown on the plans. • Said that with respect to those who oppose the project for various reasons based on information presented, he felt the owner had listened to the community, and proposed the Cupertino Planning Commission 8 November 27, 2007 project within the current zoning, He said someone who follows the rules should not be limited. • The .second story additions are allowed based on the allowed setbacks, the project is within the 28 foot height limit; the project does not exceed the FAR of 45%; the owner is proposing a modest update to a California ranch style home without huge massing or elaborate entry ways in my opinion. The setbacks are satisfactory and he has addressed privacy concerns. • Urged the Planning Commission to agree with the staff and allow the project to move forward. Eugene West, Cupertino resident: • Opposes the project. • Para. D3 of document 19.28.100 of the zoning regulations states that the proposed project is harmonious in scale and design of the general neighborhood. Since this would be the only second-story home on Cold Harbor Avenue, it is obviously a subjective decision and one open to question by the owners of homes on Cold Harbor and Richwood Drive. • Said that privacy is a precious asset, and backyard privacy would be lost to at least one home behind the second-story addition, and possibly as many as three homes. It also states that the adverse visual impacts on adjoining homes have been reasonably mitigated; and I have seen three iterations that try to mitigate the people in that second story addition from looking all over the neighborhood, which is not good. • There is a plan to plant a row of trees across the back of the place but it is against the fence and the trees will take some time to grow where they could possibly screen the neighbors behind them. There could be a problem of the roots growing into the yard behind the second story addition. It appears that the mitigation is in essence but not in fact. • Said they were original owners and opposed the second story. He said it was selfish for them to put it in; he did not care what the zoning regulations are, and he did not recall being contacted with an explanation of the zoning regulations before they were put through. Li-Sheng Fu, project architect: • In favor of project. • Referred to site plan, and noted that the backyard had a swim pool; the owner wanted to keep the swim pool and decided to add a second story. • Based on the plan of the second floor, you can have a very simple roof which is inexpensive to build which has a main gable roof and another side to have another gable which will accommodate the entire floor plan on the second floor; but we didn't do that. Although the hip for the roof will cost more, we decided to go with the hip roof and try to put more features to make the second floor more interesting. • Said he was aware they need to put the privacy trees in the landscape in order to provide privacy for the neighbors. • The building will have a wood siding finish, to match the ranch style neighborhood; the color will be earthtone and the roof will be rustic colors, with concrete flat the to match the ranch style. Stanley Lee, Scofield Drive: • Said he was considering building atwo-story house. Relative to the complaints from the neighbors that the building is inconsistent with the neighborhood, he questioned who decides whether it is consistent or not. • Said his assumption was that the contractor who drew this should go to the Planning Department and try to get the expert of the department to provide some ideas before they draw up the plans. He said he understood the Planning Department and Planning Commission and felt that any member is well qualified to decide what is considered consistent with the neighborhood. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 November 27, 2007 • Since the neighbors complain about the privacy, he asked if the owner is willing to put some type of opaque glass that allows the light to go in, but not able to look too far. Gary Chao: • Said that consistency is a virtue of the neighborhood; staff would look at their neighborhood to see what is out there and hopefully work with the property owner to design that to blend into the neighborhood. Staff is always available at the Planning Department counter, or one can visit the Planning Department and staff could review some of the goals and provide ideas and feedback on doing the preliminary conceptual process to help the property owner move in the right direction with their plans. Steve Piasecki: • Said it was debatable what people consider to be consistent in the neighborhood, and the ordinance addressed a reasonable level of consistency. • What we ask you to do is look at your neighborhood in terms of the height and bulk of the first floor and any second story areas; is it predominantly ranch? At the same time you want to be careful, we are not trying to stamp out an identical replica of the houses that are in the neighborhood; there needs to be some reasonable level of flexibility to build the kind of home that meets your own needs and homes change over times. We want to allow some flexibility so that neighborhoods can go through transitions and evolve, and build in new styles, and it is a healthy process. What we also suggest is that you talk to your neighbors, show them what you are doing and tell them what your intentions are. • Privacy is dealt with in the ordinance. It is very prescriptive, but it takes time for bushes and shrubs and trees to grow and provide the kinds of protection that people seek. He suggested that people start planting today so that when they get to the building stage, there is a fairly healthy growth of either shrubs or trees to provide privacy. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said that San Jose does not have second-story setback requirements and some very large homes border Cupertino. It has been reiterated at the meeting how important having full second-story setbacks on a second-story home is necessary today as always. • Said she was pleased to see wood siding on a new two-story home that is in a ranch style area; this would have helped the Vye Avenue issues. Said she was also pleased that the roofing materials appear to be similar to a shingle type or shingle composite. She said it was very important that any two-story home in Cupertino maintain full second story setbacks on all four sides; it helps with the privacy. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Chair Giefer: • Referred to the applicant's presentation, and asked the City attorney when the Council makes the statement "The city reserves the right to do something" is that just a common statement or is there meaning in that statement. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: • It doesn't have any legal implication; if they reserve the right to allow a certain height; they already have that right, that goes without saying; and the fact that they reserved the right to do anything; if they already have the right, it has no legal implication. What would have had an implication is if there was a condition on the neighborhood or a covenant between the neighbors or some similar thing, that would have a legal implication. As far as them reserving the right really didn't have any effect on any right they did not already have. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 November 27, 2007 Com. Miller: ^ Addressed some comments made with respect to the developer, what the developer did and what the Council did. Said it was clear that the developer made a decision to go one story and probably because he was looking at an extended time to get his approval, and to move forward with his development, he decided to go with one story. The critical issue is that neither the developer nor the City Council made any attempt to restrict the homeowners who purchased the properties from adding on. For example, he could have insisted that it be written into the title report or he could have put it in the CC&Rs, that we heard were part of the neighborhood, or the Council could have asked for that requirement as well; but no one did. Essentially while the developer restricted himself, he did not intend, nor did the Council intend to restrict subsequent development; otherwise they would have done it explicitly. • There are properties all over town in similar situations where the current reading of the R1 ordinance does allow two stories to be built, but with the appropriate privacy measures in place. • Said he was sensitive to the comments that Mr. Pyke made; that backyard neighbors are where the most privacy concerns exist, because the frontyard is not perceived as being private, but privacy is wanted in the backyard. The R1 ordinance goes to great lengths to ensure that privacy; this R1 ordinance, the current one went through a major change in 1999 where these kinds of issues were more commonplace and were prevalent both at that point in time. They called them monster homes and before the 1999 version of the ordinance went into effect, was probably as was said when the giant home on the other side of the street, the Mediterranean style home with vertical walls for two stories, was built. The intent of that ordinance was to eliminate that issue. This ordinance we have today was further tightened in 2003/04 when some of the folks who were on this Commission went through it again and added more privacy restrictions to it to help ensure that these kinds of issues did not arise. What we are looking at today, I thought I heard from at least the appellant, who at one point was saying that he didn't really have a strong objection to what was being built in this particular case, but he was more concerned about what might happen in the future, and from my personal standpoint, I am not sure there is a fairness issue here in taking that position that we are not going to allow this one even though it might be acceptable because we are concerned about others that might happen. • Said he felt a better approach is that if there are enough people here who are interested in further limiting the neighborhood and making sure another application doesn't come through and slip through the cracks, that it does impinge upon somebody's privacy; that you start out it doesn't cost anything to do a petition and talk to the neighbors in whatever neighborhood you define, whether it is Cold Harbor and Richwood and see if you can get a majority of the people who agree that something additional should be done. Then if you do agree, then of course you have to decide if you want to pay the fees and as staff pointed out, if you divide the fees among 30 homes, it will be a few hundred dollars, but it's not that much, particularly if you are concerned about your privacy; it might be well worth it to do that. It is a better solution than the one that is being discussed, of rejecting a house that seems to be acceptable to most people, but just on a matter of principle. I am not sure that principle holds when you extend it to the entire city; and that is what we have to evaluate. • The architect reported the lengths that the applicant went to, to make sure that privacy was addressed and also that compatibility was addressed in terms of the roof styles, using hips vs. gables and other things that were done. The applicant has shown reasonable amount of caring and concern that he is within the boundaries of what he felt he could do, trying to be compatible with the neighborhood. • Said he supported the application for second-story addition and would deny the appeal. Com. Kaneda: • Said he agreed with Com. Miller's comments. There is an issue of privacy occurring repeatedly with two-story homes. There are very few places in Cupertino where you can build a two-story home and not see into the neighbors' yards; my sense is that this neighborhood is Cupertino Planning Commission 11 November 27, 2007 not significantly different than other neighborhoods who have the same sets of issues. If the privacy issue is that serious, then my sense is to make a rule that says nobody can build two- story homes, which I doubt would fly. • Said that some of the statements that it is just a start that will open the floodgates, indicates to him that perhaps there are other neighbors who also think that two-story homes in this neighborhood are acceptable; otherwise there wouldn't be that feeling. • It may indicate that the neighbors will accept two- story and would consider doing two-story themselves. If there really is a feeling to keep the neighborhood one-story, the answer may be to go ahead and work on changing the zoning. • Said he was uncomfortable with denying an application for two-stories that complies with all the city's requirements because the neighbors object to it. • The last issue is a privacy issue. Again I understand the issues and the ordinances that we have in place are to put in privacy screening and obscure the glass. This comes up repeatedly, and it is not certain that the rules in place are the best rules, but those are the rules we have and I feel uncomfortable making special exceptions to those rules because specific neighbors want privacy beyond what our ordinances provide. • Said he supported the application to deny the appeal. Com. Rose: • Said she recently visited the neighborhood and noticed that there were not a lot of second-story homes on that side of the street. She said she felt they did not have jurisdiction to make a decision as to whether there shouldn't be any second-story homes. She said the proposed two- story house was very attractive. Said she resided in a neighborhood that has a lot of transition going on, and she felt it was fortunate for the neighbors in this project that the applicant is proposing a house that they would be willing to make so many changes already with regard to the outside of the house. Consideration of the plank type siding will significantly help in reducing the impact of the second story and of the house looking different to what is already existing. Also their willingness to alter the back window is extremely helpful. The applicant has made a lot of effort to make it as attractive and to fit in with what is there and that should be appreciated. When considering situations such as this, there are many cosmetic things that can be done that would really be helpful and the applicant has done many of them already. She suggested planting a tree in front of the house. If there is still a concern about privacy, perhaps Italian Cypresses in the back could be planted, larger than 5 gallon size. Overall the reality is that people are looking for bigger houses and if there are neighbors who are willing to make changes to their design so that privacy and the impact of the house is considered, it is already a perfect situation. • Said she would approve the house addition. Chair Giefer: • Said that she agreed with prior comments, and agreed with Com. Rose's comment about the Italian Cypress in the backyard, as afive-gallon Cypress would not even be as tall as the fence. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 November 27, 2007 Gary Chao: • Said it should be 15 gallon size per the ordinance, and the applicant is already aware of it; 15 gallons for shrubs, 24 for trees. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to uphold the Director of Community Development's decision and deny the appeal on Application R-2007-32. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent) Steve Piasecki: • Stated that the decision is final, unless appealed within 14 days to the City Clerk; and appealed onto the City Council. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 5. a) Election of Vice Chair Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Rose, to nominate Com. Miller as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Wong absent; Com. Miller abstain)) b) Design Review Committee representative and alternate. (Meets 1S` and 3~d Thursdays at 5:30 p.m.) Com. Kaneda agreed to serve on the DRC until the end of 2007. The representation on the Committee will be revisited in January 2008. 6. Discussion regarding the cancellation of the December 25, 2007 Planning Commission meeting (no documentation). Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Rose, to cancel the December 25, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent) REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: The Environmental Review Committee: Chair Giefer reported that one of the postponed items from this meeting was continued to a later date. Housing Commission: No report. Manors Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No report. Economic Development Committee: No meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Steve Piasecki reported: • The City Council actions taken at the last meeting, included the Council's position on the Vye Avenue home, studying a lower maximum FAR than our ordinances otherwise permit. The Planning Commission can discuss this, it has been suggested that it should lead to revisiting of the R1 ordinance. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 November 27, 2007 • The Council was looking at adoption of green building programs; included in that was possibly looking at or having the expectation that when people go beyond a modest home, we would expect that they would meet certain green building designs. Com. Miller: • Said he had suggested they relook at the ordinance because he felt it was a significant change from the way staff had treated applicants in the past. In the past if you presented a good design, were close to the maximum FAR; and in this case the City Council set a new precedent, and my concern was that, when applicants came in they look at the history, talk to staff and have an expectation and go ahead and spend considerable sums based on that expectation; the precedent changes that considerably. In fairness to applicants and also to neighbors and to avoid the type of conflict existing, consideration should be given to changing the ordinance to be more consistent with the Council's last decision. Steve Piasecki: • Relative to the 35% FAR, he said that presently it is for this specific project only, but as Com. Miller pointed out, applicants will be advised when they are in a similar situation that it is similar to case law in the legal profession. • What Com. Miller is suggesting is that the best 'way to memorialize that is by codifying it in our ordinances and again, I brought up the green building issue because that is another thing that would need to be codified in the ordinances should we proceed that way. It is a good idea, with caution that it would take about a year and a half. • He said that the Commission can suggest changes in the ordinance by recommending to the Council when they do their work program, that they seriously consider this as just one of the areas to focus on and devote the necessary city resources to make that happen. • Another wrinkle within our ordinances is that people build up to the maximum FAR, e.g. a 5 by 8 shed puts them over the allowable FAR. He suggested working on that to give people some flexibility to have a small outdoor building. • The last item to address in the housing element in the near future, and one of the techniques that some of our adjoining communities have used to help meet the housing goals set for us, are to basically allow the second units and encourage second units. You may want to use your FAR to encourage second units and they become affordable units, because the community is having a difficult time with just about any other form of housing. That might be one of our last trump cards to try to help meet our state mandates. • Said there are many reasons why Com. Miller suggestions are good ideas; but it is projected that you will be a year into that. Com. Miller: • He commented that it took a year last time; however, they reviewed the entire ordinance and in this particular case they are going to try and limit the review to some specific areas, therefore it should take considerably less time. • Said he was still concerned that some issues need to be addressed because the link or relationship between the value of a piece of property and the amount of square feet that you can build, the correlation is so high and having an ordinance that is less prescriptive leads to people overpaying for property, and then fights with neighbors. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. Com. Kaneda: • Asked staff to explain the steps of the process. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 November 27, 2007 Steve Piasecki: • The Planning Commission would adopt a minute action to the City Council asking that they consider an amendment of the R1 ordinance in conjunction with their work program for the upcoming fiscal year; it gets adjusted earlier if they can get the resources to do it or drop other work program items to do it if they deem it to have a higher priority. • You would then also try to define the scope of it. The Planning Commission needs to define their intent as a Planning Commission for what should be looked at. The Council would then get the minute action and they would have a discussion, probably a staff report, and may take it up in conjunction with their work program and may decide to take it out of order. Once into the ordinance amendment, a citywide mailer would go out to every household saying that there will be a series of meetings to discuss specifically whatever the scope is, and subsequent to those community meetings, public hearings. • He suggested that the Planning Commission consider it, and it can be agendized for the next meeting; and also consider whether or not to adopt a minute action. Chair Giefer: • Relative to the green building report, she asked why staff did not make the initial recommendation that city buildings should be LEED silver. Steve Piasecki: • Said the city did not have any city buildings in the pipeline for the foreseeable future because they were looking at a temporary program and did not feel it was necessary. • Relative to a structure at the Garys Creek Trail, Blackberry Farm, he said that he was uncertain whether the building was a LEED silver, but it would have some silver panels on it. He said because there was already a budgeted amount, they were keeping with a program already in place instead of changing the whole direction. • He said that the Commission could have a minute action since they know they have to go with LEED silver on that building as well. Com. Kaneda: • Asked what the procedure was for the permanent policy being developed. Is that something the Commission does, or is it something that staff does, an outside consultant, or something the City Council does. How does that happen. Steve Piasecki: • It is part of the work program that we will develop; a permanent type of ordinance, with the expectations for new buildings as they come into the community. Typically we would do a broader notice, notice stakeholders, similar to an ordinance amendment because if applicants come in for building permits, now we expect them to have a green component to it; they need to build that coming in. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the December 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. ;~~ ~ SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth A. E is Recording Secretary Approved as presented: December 11, 2007