Loading...
PC 01-13-03CITY OF CUPERTiNO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 13, 2003 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Saadati, Wong, Chairperson Corr Staffpresent: Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the November 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting: Com. Saadati requested the following changes: Page 5, second last paragraph: delete "regulatory agencies would take care of the cleanup" Page 8, 4th paragraph: Terry Green's title to read "senior architect" Com. Wong requested the following changes: Page 16, second paragraph, line 3, "60 feet" should read "6,000 square feet" Page 16, second paragraph, line 4: "signs" should read "designs" Page 16, second paragraph, line 6: "and serving on the DRC, look" should read "not having served on the DRC, let's look" Com. Auerbach requested the following changes: Page 6, second paragraph, delete: "He said to ask the applicant to build 35 feet from the street would not provide much of a streetscape plan at that point, it would be the same things as before." Page 9, 4th paragraph, line 1: after "ear" add "ofa property;" Page 15, first paragraph, 8th line from the bottom of the paragraph: delete sentence wording after "at that time". MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve the minutes of the November 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as amended Com. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 Minutes of the December 9, 2002 Planning Commission meeting Com. Saadati suggested the following changes: Page 3, last paragraph, line 3: "drive" should read "driveway". Com. Wong requested the following changes: Change the first sentence of the paragraph to read: "Com. Wong reiterated his concern about the number of employees per shift, and said that with his experience as a former sales manager, he felt that 5 employees at one staffing level may not be Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 13, 2003 sufficient, and there would be more than 5 per shift including front desk, housekeeping, engineering, and general manager." MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of the December 9, 2002 Planning Commission minutes as amended. Com. Wong Passed 5 -0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Corr noted receipt of three letters regarding the de Oro Club, from Urich Maradian, Roger Storm and arborist John McClenahan; and letters from Malka Nagel and Dick Fang on the R1 ordinance. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: U-2002-08, EA-2002-18 Barry Watkins 20755 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use Permit to demolish a service station and construct a 10,800 square foot commercial building and adjacent site improvements (Bottegas Shopping Center) Continued from Planning Commission meeting of November 25, 2002 Request removal from calendar Application No.: Applicant: Location: M-2002-09; EA-2002-08 Matt Pietras/Sim Architects Mercedes Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 342-22-044) Modifications to a hillside exception (EXC-2001-07) to construct a 3,008 square foot residence on a vacant lot on slopes greater than 30% Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Postponed from meeting of December 9, 2002 Request removal from calendar Application No.: Applicant: Location: U-2002-11; EA-2002-23 Freiheit & Ho Architects, Inc. 10745 No. DeAnza Boulevard Use permit to demolish a vacant restaurant (Santa Barbara Grill) and construct a 120 room hotel (Extended Stay America) Continued from Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 2002 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 2003 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of the removal from calendar of Application Nos.U~2002-08, EA-2002-18, M-2002-09; EA-2002-08 and postponement of Application No. U-2002-11, EA-2002-23 to the January 27, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Chen Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 13, 2003 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. David Budd, Creekline Drive, asked for clarification of the word "predominant". He said that one of the guidelines is that an approved home must fit the predominant architecture of the neighborhood. He said that a watchtower was recently constructed behind his home with Planning Commission approval. He said they have done everything possible to prevent the two story home, which is very close to the lot line, from being built. He said the rule about predominant architecture obviously was not applied, since the dozen nearest homes are all single story ranch style homes, and he was baffled how the zero lot line stucco "Taco Bell monstrosity" was approved when it doesn't appear to fit any reasonable definition of predominant architecture. Chair Corr said it relates to the R1 zoning and will be discussed with the item. CONSENT CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: DIR-2002-41 Bob Lombardo (BJ's Restaurant) 10690 No. DeAnza Boulevard Director's Minor Modification with referral to the Planning Commission to approve removal of and replacement for redwood trees and minor modifications related to trash enclosures. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve the consent calendar Com. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2002-03 Cupertino de Oro Club 10441 Homestead Road Tree removal permit to remove five specimen-sized trees: two Torrey Pines, two Coast Live Oaks and one Coulter Pine at the Cupertino de Oro Club Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, referred to the site map and illustrated the location of the trees proposed for removal and explained the justification for removal of the trees as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed staff's recommendations relative to which trees to remove as outlined in the Tree Removal Information Matrix. Staff also recommends that the de Oro Club prepare a replanting/landscaping plan within three months for DRC approval. Com. Saadati questioned if the trees were planted before the site was paved. Com. Auerbach asked what the city's practice is relative to where trees are uplifting asphalt and damaging driveways. Mr. Jung said that typically when there is uplifting of sidewalks, the Public Works Department usually replaced the sidewalk; cutting the roots that are uplifting the sidewalk and removing them and then repouring the sidewalk itself; but only after the sidewalk gets uplifted. He said he was not aware of the standards they used regarding what constitutes a liability or a tripping hazard. Relative to driveways, he said in most cases people likely have trimmed the roots and repoured the improvement. On occasion, the Planning Commission has approved tree removals for trees that have affected improvements before but they were typically done for houses Planning Commission Minutes '~ January 13, 2003 and foundations for houses; but he said that he was not certain if they had done any tree removals because they were uplifting other improvements such as irrigation line or private sidewalks. He questioned why the asphalt repair would not be done coinciding with a tree planting plan for the project. Mr. Jung said that it was suggested to the applicant that they look at tree planting and they said they were working with a landscape architect to select possible replacement trees. He said Ms. Cooper expressed the desire to plant some less root-invasive trees in the front and also some additional tree planting in the rear; primarily larger size box trees, likely native trees, but have not finalized anything yet; hence they have no information to present at this point. Responding to Com. Auerbach's question about their frontage qualifying for the city planting street trees, Mr. Jung said that the Torrey Pines were in the public right of way, but they are not city street trees. It is possible the city may want to plant some trees there that would be city street trees, but it is usually associated with a development application and they are not doing any improvements to the building itself now, and to remove and replace the asphalt itself, doesn't require city approval. Ms. Patricia Cooper, de Oro Club, expressed appreciation to Mr. Jung for his cooperation in the process. In response to Com. Saadati's question if the trees were planted before the pavement going in, Ms. Cooper said that research indicated the two Torrey Pine trees were planted approximately 42 years ago. When the building was moved to its present location, a relative of a member planted the two Torrey Pine trees; the two California Live Oaks, 3 and 4, were volunteers; the Fan Palms were not planted. She said they appreciated the trees and were concerned about the safety of them for the public and the members of the de Oro Club. She asked that the Planning Commission consider Plan 2a; and stated her reasons: (1) The Torrey Pine tree is 42 years old and has not yet reached its full growth. (2) The sidewalk was installed in 1992 and runs the complete front of the building to Chevron. Ten feet on either side of trees No. 1 and 2 the new sidewalk has lifted up as much as two inches, caused by the tree roots. Trees 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been placed in an 88 by 25 foot piece of land that should have held one tree that size. (3) During the last 2 years there have been at least four repairs to the sidewalk; one was grinding and they poured concrete on it three times, the last time in July of last year, and the root again raised the concrete which creates a safety hazard. (4) The tree roots have broken up the concrete driveway entrance as well and the tree roots will have to be severely pruned in that area before they can put more concrete down and have it replaced. She discussed the potential asphalt work, the insect problems and the street trees. In response to Com. Auerbach question about the status of the landscape plan, Ms. Cooper said that since the Mexican Fan Palms were volunteers and they came up among other shrubs and growth, replacing those trees was not being considered, unless asked to. She said there was so much shrubbery and trees there that there is not enough room to replace the Fan trees. She said they were working with a landscape designer, but did not want to move forward until they had a decision relative to setting up a landscape design in front. Com. Auerbach questioned if they had permission to remove all four large trees in the front of the property, and said that although there was significant landscaped areas on the perimeter, the main property appears to be just the building sitting in the middle of asphalt. Ms. Cooper concurred and stated that is why they had put down 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Jung noted that there was a sewer put between 2 and 4, with deep trenching done in 2000 with a backhoe from PG&E. Com. Auerbach said they had discussed managing storm water runoff onsite now rather than putting in the storm drains and considering more permeable surfaces rather than impermeable, such as concrete and asphalt. He asked Ms. Cooper if they had considered that. Ms. Cooper said they had not considered it, since the rest of the asphalt was in good shape except for the root damage. She said there was good drainage on the property and said there were two California Live Oak trees in the middle of the parking lot with an 8 by 8 foot area with deep water well watering every month; and they were Planning Commiss{on M~nutes ~ January 13, 2003 improving because they were in a tenable situation having just 8 feet for their roots. She said there was also a 100 year old one on the eastern side and one behind the building, and they were working with a University of California Live Oak root specialist. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Poon Fung, 20375 Via Volante, said he was surprised that the large trees were being removed, leaving just the building and asphalt. He said the palm trees do not mix with the environment and he was concerned with the few pine trees in the front, since the area would look empty if they are removed and they will take a long time to grow. He urged that greenery be kept in the area. Ms. Elizabeth Riley, resident, said she was willing to contribute to a fund to save the trees, or to purchase binoculars to view the squirrels and parrots. She offered her support to save the Torrey Pines, which she said were beautiful and help clean the air. In response to Chair Corr's question about the timeline for doing the asphalt, Ms. Cooper said the trees would be removed first, and the asphalt would be the next step. She said there were small volcanoes in the driveway, and patching could be done soon, but they would have to wait until the warmer weather in May to do the sealant. She said it was their goal to take care of the heritage building and have the grounds return to their original beauty. Mr. Jung said that relative to concrete repair, it is in the public right of way and Public Works would likely replace what is shown there. He said he would check with Public Works to see if it was on their work program and see what their policies were. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. Com. Auerbach said that it was another instance where trees are planted without sufficient area for their future growth; and people request removal of the large trees because they are destroying man made property and there is a safety hazard associated with falling limbs and such. He said the real issue is time and time again there is insufficient area allowed for the trees to mature; and the value of mature trees is very high in terms of shade, which can reduce air conditioning bills, and also has the ability of the trees to turn carbon dioxide and its carbon into oxygen. He said it is a pattern, where the community is removing its large trees and replacing them with small more decorative trees and using terminology like less invasive trees, more ornamental trees and yet losing some of the benefits that accrue to large trees. Com. Auerbach said the de Oro Club is to be commended for having other landscaped grounds, but they have the unfortunate task of asking to remove trees that are very visible to the public. He said it was an inappropriate use of language stating that the roots are invasive, as if man's activity of putting in a driveway and a sidewalk, and digging down to the roots wasn't invasive from the tree's point of view. The tree is a living thing and concrete and asphalt are man made materials that can be moved around. He said it would be ideal in his point of view if the de Oro Club was coming to the Planning Commission to say that they were going to move the driveway, get rid of the asphalt, and were determined to preserve the trees. He said the de Oro Club has made commitments verbally tonight to replace these with large trees, large boxes, but there is no specific plan, and the ordinance does call for a plan; stating "shall be produced" not "may be produced" within 3 months. Com. Auerbach said from his vantage point, he would recommend not approving the removal of the four front trees at this time, until there is a landscape plan. Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 13, 2003 Com. Chert said trees take a long time to grow; and also have all the advantages once grown. She said she concurred with Com. Auerbach, and she supported his suggestion to reconsider the plan after the landscape plan is made. Com. Chen said she strongly recommended the applicants reconsider removal of trees that may not need to be removed. Com. Saadati said he concurred with Coms. Auerbach and Chen relative to keeping the trees if possible, but if they are diseased, to have them removed. He suggested that an arborist submit a recommendation on the condition of trees and how long they would remain there; and also a plan showing the replacement trees. Com. Wong concurred with fellow commissioners; and thanked Ms. Cooper for her presence and expressing her concerns. He acknowledged their concern for safety and said it was understandable for the club, but he felt without seeing a landscape plan for removal of one of the big trees, it was difficult to make a decision now. Chair Corr said he felt they did no~ have 'the horse before the cart' in that the plan is not in place, and they could not view the entire picture; hence he concurred with the other commissioners. He said he supported removing the Coulter Pine; and although opposed to taking out trees, would support the palms, but felt they should support taking them out. He reiterated that they should see the plan and know what is going on, rather than decimate the site and then argue over what the plan might be. Mr. Jung asked for direction to the applicant relative to the type of replacement trees that the Planning Commission was interested in; not necessarily type of species, but general criteria; since the applicant suggested a crape myrtle tree and it is actually a small tree. It would not compare in size upon maturity to any of the four trees there now. Chair Corr said his bias was to look at the list of trees for street trees and he would like to see a plan for how those might be spaced across the entire front of that property. Com. Auerbach concurred, stating that some of the City Council members have mentioned they like the ash trees in front of Vallco, they are huge trees and the concept is to have something grow to a tall street tree. Com. Wong said he would leave it to the club to decide and also work with staff. Com. Saadati recommended obtaining a recommendation from an arborist as to what type of tree would do best; he said he did not visualize some small trees there, and that it should be a mix of small and large trees to add some value to the area. Com. Chen said either way was fine; she liked Chair Corr's suggestion, but without a plan she could not visualize it, and would leave it to the applicant. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application TR-2002-03 with options 2b and 3a Com. Wong Passed 5-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2002-10; EA-2002-25 Ron Dick (Yeh residence) 11837 Upland Way Planning Commission Minutes ? January 13, 2003 Hillside exception to build a 4,538 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline and on slopes greater than 30%, to grade more than 2,500 cubic yards and to construct second story decks. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a hillside exception to construct a 4,538 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline and on slopes greater than 30% and to exceed 2,500 cubic feet yards in grading quantity. A second story deck exception also is required. A hillside exception was previously granted for the property owner in November 2000; however a building permit was not issued prior to the expiration date and the ordinance does not provide for an extension; therefore the property owner is filing for a new hillside exception for the same proposal. The new application includes an onsite water tank and a retaining wall to handle erosion problems with the driveway. Staff recommends approval of the application; Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, explained that the application was to reinstate the approval of the hillside exception with minor changes. She reviewed the site plan, elevations, architectural design, visual impacts, landscaping plan, and geology/grading, as outlined in the staffreport. Mr. Ron Dick, architect, said he was available to answer questions. Mr. David Budd, 7827 Creekline Dive, said he enjoyed using the Fremont Older open space reserve, and he thought it was already approved. He asked that consideration be given to what will be lost, and noted that some neighboring communities in the Bay Area have put hillside ordinances in place to stop such development. He said it was nice that the Yeh family had a tremendous view from their deck, but the view down below is the same as the view from the valley looking up. He said he would rather see open space and trees rather than another stucco mini mansion being built in Cupertino. He said it seemed that staff would allow another huge monstrosity, and they would eventually be forced like Fremont to have a ballot measure to stop that type of construction and destroying what is left of the open space and hillsides in Cupertino. Mr. Dick clarified that it is private property, not public open space. Ms. Wordell said that, for those who had not read the staff report, they may not realize that when looking at the story poles from the valley, there is very little of the house that can be seen; it is mostly roof; so staff and the applicant have tried to reduce those impacts. She said the DRC asked the applicant to send a second letter to the adjacent property owners to keep the neighbors informed. Chair Corr closed the public comment portion. Com. Chen complimented staff on the excellent work in evaluating the look of the property from every public street, and said that given the fact that this is the second time the property has come before the Planning Commission, she supported the project. Com. Saadati said he would have been concerned if there were no trees or anything to camouflage the house, but since the house is lower, and there are enough trees, he supported the project. He said he felt much of the green on the hillside was preserved. Com. Wong concurred with the other commissioners; noting that staff worked hard with the applicant to make sure that it was well designed. He said he supported the application. Com. Auerbach concurred that staff did an excellent job looking at the site from all angles. He said he concurred with the speakers about not being sure what is being done with the Planning Commission Minutes ~ January 13, 2003 hillside. This application has a lot of history and he said he did not intend to vote against it, but questioned what they were doing, and just what did hillside protection mean? Com. Auerbach said he visited the property which has not had significant rainfalls lately, and said there are tremendous erosion problems on properties that have already been approved, supposedly with engineering backing and evaluations, and there is s0il running everywhere, with quite significant slides. He said a smaller project would have a lot less impact and this particular location at the end of the driveway is shielded and falls into a small valley, so it is less impact. He said that he did not have as much objection to this particular one, but wondered what they were doing in aggregate and whether even though each individual property looks fine, the total effect down the road of having all these properties developed is not going to be objectionable. Chair Corr said he was part of the original application which has been ongoing for two years. He said that Mr. Dick was correct that it was private property, yet the city has hillside policies to try and mitigate some of the issues. He said there are going to be houses up there and the applicant has worked hard to do the best possible job. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to approve Application EXC-2002- l 0, EA-2002-25 Com. Wong Passed 5-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location Z-2002-03, DZ-2002-20 City of Cupertino, Linwood Acres Randy Lane and Lan-y Way between Lucille Avenue and Mercitt Drive Extension of an interim ordinance rezoning approximately 19 acres, consisting of 68 single family residences from A1-43 Agricultural-Residential Zone and R1~7.5 Single Family Residence Zone to P(A 1) Planned Development with Agricultural-Residential intent Tentative City Council date: January 21, 2003 Staff presentation: Mr. Gilli explained that the application was for an extension of the interim ordinance which expires on January 31, 2003; the extension being the last allowed by state law. The applicant is requesting the maximum extension of one year; however, the intent is to have the new ordinance enacted by mid-summer, and the additional time will be used as a safety net. He said that of the group of 15 residents, only one resident is expressing concern over the extension, since he felt it may lead to slower progress at the meetings. Mr. Gilli said that staff will be meeting with the neighborhood group to see if they want to change the date. Com. Wong asked for a progress report on the meetings. Mr. Gilli reported that the meetings have been held every Wednesday since last September except for holidays. Discussion includes regulations that the neighbors are interested in; currently they are discussing second story and heights. He said that as sensitive issues arise, there is more disagreement, which was not unexpected by staff. He said it was their goal to have one or two recommendations and the neighborhood as a whole, and the Planning Commission and City Council will decide. Com. Wong asked if the neighbors would be open to a three or six month extension, rather than a year. If someone in the neighborhood wants to do a remodel, what will happen to that person? Mr. Gilli said that an application has gone forward to the DRC for a single story addition to a single story Planning Commission Minutes 0 January 13, 2003 house; the only requirement is that it go through DRC and it meet the stricter of the two ordinances. In the case of the addition, it had no issues; the neighborhood group saw it and had no concerns. There can still be remodels and additions, but there will now be a process. The new ordinance agreed upon may or may not have that process. Mr. Gilli said that a large portion of the extension will be consumed with the public process, with the notice for the next neighborhood meeting, having the meeting, having the notice for Planning Commission, and having to go to Planning Commission. Staff is assuming it will take two Planning Commission meetings and one Council meeting, which will be approximately three months. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that on an interim ordinance, it is very specific about the time and the extensions. The initial ordinance is 45 days, the first extension is 10 months and 15 days; the second extension is one year. The law does not call for any other alternative extensions; only the two extensions allowed for the interim ordinance. She said that a six month extension was not an option, and suggested the one year extension period which can be completed before the year ends. Mr. Gilli said that the A1 setbacks are more restrichve than RI; the R1 has additional rules on second story; if anyone is proposing a single story addition, it will actually not be impacted that much. If anyone is interested in doing that, they should probably speak with members of the group, since it may actually become easier in the future if they hold off. Com. Wong said that presently they are making the neighborhood into a planned development, and questioned making it to a R1 neighborhood rather than planned development. Mr. Gilli said that the notation of the planned development is what the interim ordinance is; it is not what the long term one is; staff is not certain at this point which it will be. It is anticipated that there will be some things in the A1 that the neighborhood wants to retain and some things in the R1 that they want to add; it is not known what it will be called. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public comment; no one was present who wished to speak. Com. Saadati said he supported extending the interim ordinance. Com. Wong said that he supported the extension, and said he appreciated Mr. Gilli's responses. He said he was hopeful that the neighbors would work out their differences and he looked forward to hearing the report. Com. Auerbach said that it was laudable that staff has been proactive in addressing the neighborhood, and work is being planned at a neighborhood level which is a model to serve the city well in the future. He said he was supportive of the extension. Com. Chen said that she supported extension of the interim ordinance. Chair Corr said that he also supported the application. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Chen moved to approve Application Z-2002-03; EA2002-20 Com. Auerbach Passed 5 -0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted that the application would be forwarded to the City Council on January 21, 2003. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: MCA-2002-03, EA-2002-15 City of Cupertino Citywide Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 13, 2003 Amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to single-family residential development in the R1 zoning district. Tentative City Council date: February 3, 2003 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of November 25, 2002 Staff presentation: Mr. Gilli reviewed the background of the application and summarized the proposed ordinance amendments discussed at the November 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, as outlined in the staff report. At the meeting, the Planning Commission provided direction to staff on the topics. Mr. Gilli illustrated the responses to the items, noting the items the Planning Commission had no objection to; items the Planning Commission were not interested in; and unresolved issues. Mr. Gilli illustrated examples of houses with various floor plans, eave lines, and building materials. Mr. Gilli said that the primary purpose of the amendment enacted in 1999 was to reduce the mass and bulk of two story developments, and also to create a process to involve the neighborhood regarding two story development and to improve compatibility of new construction in existing neighborhoods. He said that staff feels that the first two mentioned have been a success; the mass and bulk has been reduced, and there is now a process wherein the neighborhood can comment on designs and affect changes. The compatibility of new construction with existing neighborhoods has been successful only in that the mass and bulk has been reduced; the styles of new construction have not always matched the existing neighborhoods. He said that the 1999 ordinance did a good job in reducing bulk and mass, but the level of quality of design is, and continues to be, dependent on the applicant and their architect. Mr. Gilli said that staff's proposed change is to lower the wall heights by 2 feet, lower the maximum height and the entry height accordingly; but of the three, staff considers wall heights at the setback line to be most critical. He said that the 1999 ordinance was effective in reducing mass and bulk, and said that the R1 ordinance allows single story heights that have significant impacts on neighborhoods, which conflicts with the guidelines, and staff is recommending that be changed. Mr. Gilli said that the second portion of the discussion addresses the Planning Commission's concern of the current process. He reviewed the process that staff is proposing for approving conforming applications and design approvals (flexibility from regulations) as outlined on page 8- 2 and 8-3 of the staff report. Staff recommends that the exception process be rewritten and not call it exceptions because of the negative connotation and call it design approvals, which is currently what asking for a FAR over 35% is. Staff will encourage applicants to pursue variation if it results in positive effects. There will be architectural consultant review, story poles and the posted notice will remain, the standard 300 foot notice, a Design Review Committee hearing where the focus will be on whether the flexibility that is requested results in superior design or improved compatibility with the neighborhood. Appeals would go to the Planning Commission. In order to create this process, staff recommends creating maximum thresholds for flexibility. Mr. Gilli said that relative to reduction of the parking requirements discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting on the R1 ordinance, specifically to reduce the onsite parking requirement in the RI 5 zone from 4 onsite parking spaces to 2, Com. Wong had suggested a middle ground of 3. The rationale being that many of the existing homes have a one car carport and have gotten by; and perhaps requiring a two car garage with the driveway apron is excessive. Another concern is that because of the non-conforming ordinance, if there is a carport and the owner wants to enclose it, they would have to create a two car garage because a one car garage is non-conforming. Staff is Planning Commission Minutes 11 January 13, 2003 requesting direction from the Planning Commission; and recommends that if the Planning Commission does not want to consider this in their recommendation to the City Council, that a survey be done of the effect on the neighborhood since it is isolated to the Rancho Rincunada neighborhood. Staff's concern is if existing conditions are already a problem in some areas of Rancho Rinconada, legalizing it may not be in the interest of some of the residents. On the other hand, it could be something that the residents embrace. Another aspect that the Planning Commission may want to consider is separating the parking issue for the remainder of the discussion. Although no action is expected at this meeting, staff's recommendation is to make the ordinance changes as proposed, modify the processes as proposed with the staff approval of conforming development and the DRC would review projects requesting flexibility. Mr. Gilli said that design guidelines need to be strengthened, and identify what kinds design elements are appropriate for the neighborhoods. When necessary, the architectural consultant review of the project needs to be expanded; when it is not necessary, staff bypasses it. If it is a case of a minor addition or if it is a home that clearly is consistent with the neighborhood, staff bypasses it to save time and money for the applicant. Staff needs feedback on both the parking regulations and commission stance on improving the design of single family residential projects. Staff's recommendation for this meeting is to discuss the proposed amendments and to provide direction to staff. Com. Wong referred to Page 8-20 of the staffmport, relative to the deletion of minimum lot size in an R-1 zone, and asked what the rationale for deletion was; and would it mean that the Rls would be under 6,000 square feet? He said that the R1 is one of the things that makes Cupertino special and there are a lot of large lots in Cupertino. Mr. Gilli said that no, certain lots have a minimum lot size, but there is an overall minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. When Rancho Rinconada was annexed, it added about 1,000 lots under 6,000 square feet, and it no longer serves a purpose there. In the RI-10 zone, the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet, and lots cannot be subdivided to create lots less than that. Relative to Com. Wong's question regarding three car garages, Mr. Gilli said that staff is proposing to add it to the guidelines, that when possible, three car garages should be avoided when the garage dominates the entire street elevation. There are wider lots where it may not have a significant impact on the appearance of the entire front elevation. He concurred with Com. Wong that it could be at the discretion of the Planning Commission to make a change. Com. Wong referred to Page 4 of the guidelines about using lighter materials on second story such as wood or stucco and avoid using heavy looking building materials, such as stone or brick. He asked if the use of stone and brick materials was discouraged. Mr. Gilli said that it is currently in the guidelines. He illustrated an example of two story houses, one with brick from the ground floor all the way up, and the other with brick on the base of the first story. The rationale is not to have the heavy materials on the second floor exterior since it adds visible mass to it. In most instances, it is proposed only for the base and not the second story, because of the additional cost of the materials. Com. Wong referred to the use of alternative footing for designs, and asked if staff felt it would add additional cost, because of the desire to lower the height and do a different type of footing. He said in his opinion, and since he was also a developer, it would add to the cost. Mr. Gilli said that it would lower the height of the exterior, but would also add to the cost. Com. Wong said that since the consultant does not come to the neighborhood or go to the job scene, was there any way they could work around it. He also questioned if they could do it in-house since the applicant already spends a lot of money going through the process, and he understood the frustration of not having the consultant on the site. Mr. Gilli responded that they currently work around it and give Planning Comm{sslon Minutes 1~ January 13, 2003 the consultant as many photos as possible; but they could invite the consultant to the site but it would increase the costs to the applicant since the applicant has to pay for the cost of the architectural consultant. He also stated that they do not have a professional architect on staff. Ms. Wordell clarified that the architect sees the storyboard that the DRC gets, showing the house in context, and although he does not visit the neighborhood, does have a sense of the neighborhood. Mr. Piasecki said that whether the architect was on staff, in house or an outside consultant, it would still cost money to go to the site and spend time advising on that level of detail. He said that staff has expertise in reviewing the issues, and noted they were not insisting necessarily on high level design, but on compatibility which is what the guidelines call for. Relative to height, Com. Wong asked if they kept the height at the current level and not reduce it, could they mitigate the factors by landscaping with higher trees and hedges on the sides similar to two stories. Mr. Gilli said that with only five feet at the side of the house, you could not plant a tree with a canopy, and only plant Italian Cypress that grows straight up. He said if they chose to go that route, the design guidelines would need to be amended which calls for the cave lines to be compatible. Mr. Piasecki said it was possible, but would cost more money to landscape and also more money to monitor, when years later there is a different property owner and they don't like the size of the trees that were planted, they cut them down. Staff would have to enforce the code. Com. Auerbach thanked Mr. Gilli for the excellent presentation, particularly the pm- and post- photographs. He recommended that they be part of the presentation as it moves forward. He said the general approach of having more flexibility is a good one; but said he was concerned that people will come with completed plans asking for flexibility which makes it difficult to go back and say 'scrap the design, you can't have the flexibility; we know you were counting on the flexibility.' It then becomes a matter of taking something away rather than giving something, since a lot of detail work has to be done before there is an idea of what flexibility is being requested. Mr. Gilli said that one approach which would be a significant departure from the present practice, is not to require the completely detailed plans at design review level, but have them be more schematic. If that were done, it could be that the DRC approves a preliminary design; the design could return to the committee as a consent item. The other option would be to have a paragraph in the ordinance that the Director of Planning reviews all of the final designs to make sure it conforms to the preliminary. He said of the two options, he would suggest coming back to the DRC once they know that it was agreeable with the committee to have that flexibility, then you see the detailed plans and they can move on. Com. Auerbach said he agreed that the guidelines needed upgrading. He asked for staff's interpretation of upgrade and improve. Mr. Gilli said it should be more descriptive about certain elements, such as it is a neighborhood that has front porches and not entry elements; then the guidelines should encourage having a porch element; vice versa if it is a neighborhood that has entry elements that are more narrow than a porch element would be, then that should be encouraged. There are other issues with wall heights, roof pitches, the simplicity of the roof design, the garages, which need to be incorporated into the guidelines to provide the committee, staff and the applicant with some idea of what flexibility means, since it is vague at this point. He said if it is to be pursued, they need to work hard on the guidelines. Com. Auerbach said there was mention of conflict between the guidelines and the ordinance, and he felt that the guidelines suffer because they don't have the weight or appearance of a substantial document. He asked if there were thoughts about upgrading its look and feel. Mr. Gilli said its look and feel needs to be upgraded, as more of the post 1999 developments are built photos should Planning Commission Minutes 13 January 13, 2003 be included in the documents instead of loose diagrams, and if they are attached to the ordinance, there presentation needs to be improved for the handouts at the front counter. He said the public needs to be aware that the main findings of approval is that the project conforms to the guidelines. The other step is making sure the ordinance does not allow something by right that conflicts with the guidelines, such as heights. Taller heights should be allowed when appropriate, but when you allow taller heights and you have situations where it is not appropriate, it is very difficult to work in the other direction. Mr. Gilli said that all of the heights, second story setbacks, offsets, articulations on the second story should be available as a flexible item. The overall proposed philosophy is that the ordinance needs to be restrictive enough so that when somebody proposes a project that perhaps the committee or neighborhood would not be happy with, it should not allow that without some kind of review process. Height of the single story wall plane is also an issue; height of the overall house is an issue, but much less because normally that is in the middle of the house, its roof, and it is not as close as the side wall heights. He said said staff recommends if there are any concerns about a neighbor calling in about any project, the applicant should talk to that person and try to work it out, since most of the time applicants would rather do that than proceed to a hearing. Com. Auerbach noted for the record that he was strongly in favor of reducing the requirement for the number of garage spaces and parldng requirement. He said he did not expect many people to take advantage of it, but felt they should make it available to people who have the tenacity to actually build a home with one garage. Com. Chen said many of her questions were covered by fellow commissioners, but she wanted to return to the discussion about compatibility. She said compatibility with neighborhood is such a vague term and questioned if it was the height or the design that would help to achieve the goal of improved compatibility. Mr. Gilli said it was height; there can be a house that most people may not think is attractive, but it not be so tall that it towers over its neighbors. Mr. Gilli said staff was aware and confirms that most of the changes that applicants can make to keep the same amount of height on the inside while reducing the height on the outside will cost more money. Com. Chen said she perceived a problem with letting the older design lead the newer design and discourage home owners to come forward with their redevelopment plan. She said she did not know how to resolve the issue, but felt the height reduction would discourage many residents. Mr. Gilli said it was also felt that when the 1999 ordinance was passed, it would have a discouraging effect; and on single family development it had an impact; whereas before the 1999 ordinance amendment was effective, most of the house remodels and additions and new houses were two story. Restricting the heights is something that is going to be sensitive to builders; many people are proposing single story houses with basements because there are not any regulations. Ms. Wordell said that the flipside of that is the choice to go design review rather than to have to get an exception, then they might not be as discouraged, they would hopefully understand that it is just a review process and not a punishment. Mr. Piasecki said the overall goal is compatibility in the neighborhood, and if it is the overriding goal, then in any case you would not want to have homes that will project themselves up higher than the neighboring properties; you want to encourage them to come in with a lower profile, a lower format. They have to do it at the edges to lower the wall height on the side property line, Planning Commission Minutes 14 January 13, 2003 which does not negate having higher ceilings on the first floor. Many houses are designed by building designers who are not architects and they use standard plans out of a book, and they should be sensitive to what is around them. Staffand the city do not exercise a lot of oversight on architectural details; some communities do; it is a difficult process and gets into the lengthy and costly process with the applicants. Staff is simply saying to get the massing down so at least it is reasonably compatible. Com. Saadati said most of his questions were covered. Referring to the illustration of the one story house, relative massing, he said if the wall height is reduced, there is nothing to prevent the home owner to put the one to one pitch on the roof. Mr. Gilli said they still need to fit in the building envelope. Com. Saadati said the wall could be lowered and increase the slope and still have the same massing. He questioned the city's guidelines in comparison to other cities. Mr. Gilli said that when the guidelines were formulated in 1999, there was a review of the other cities and the architect that was contracted to do it did some of the work in the other cities; however, since that time there has not been any further comparisons. Com. Saadati said there are streets that on one side is a different city than ours and they we have no control of it. Mr. Piasecki said there were relatively few, and was not a big issue. Com. Saadati said that some other cities go through preliminary elevation review before going further with full development. Mr. Gilli commented that it is done at the city's staff level already. Chair Corr asked for clarification of the term "adjacent" and what area it covered. Mr. Gilli said that the concept was if it is a staff level approval, notification to adjacent neighbors is done, which means the property immediately next to it; but then to include a copy of the plans which is not currently done and is difficult to do since once it increases to 300 feet, the number of notices increases. The concept is for the staff level review to do the adjacent mail notice, keep the story poles so that other neighbors down the street can see something is going on, and add the posted notice that has a date by which to provide comments and a contact person. Currently story poles are required, but the posted notice was suggested by a community member to keep the residents informed. In that case, the 300 foot notice saying that the committee is going to review this project, and to contact a certain person on the city staff. There will still be story poles and the posted notice on the property. If it is a single story house, there will be no story poles, because the story poles are only to show the area of the second floor. Chair Corr questioned if there was an additional cost ifa project goes to the DRC and the applicant decides to appeal it and it goes to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gilli said that the cost for an appeal is $140; if the appellant wins at the next level, the fee is returned. He noted that the fees increase with the cost of living each year. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Mike Nagel, 10180 Camino Vista Drive, said he recently experienced the straggle of getting a building permit for his home. He said it reminded him of a statement from British historian, Lord Ackton, who said "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". He illustrated examples of why he took such a position. He said he was appalled by a statement made at the November 25, 2002 meeting by a Planning Commissioner who stated "people are not trying to build nice houses." He questioned if the commissioner polled the people of Cupertino which lead him to state that the people in Cupertino did not build nice houses, and what made him an expert on what a nice house was. He said he suspected none of the explanations are correct; and had to Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 13, 2003 go back to the statement made by Lord Ackton. He said that at the same meeting Mr. Gilli responded to a Planning Commissioner's question that the goal of the Planning Department was to limit large homes. He questioned when Mr. Gilli had been entrusted with the policy in the City of Cupertino to limit large homes. He said another interesting element is that 90% of the new homes built and permits provided are to the Asian community and asked if it was possible that the trend of limiting large homes revealed some racial bias. He said another example on November 25th, a commissioner stated "Height is not a problem; taller houses are more graceful." While in that same meeting, Mr. Gilli stated "height is more important than design." He also questioned Mr. Gilli's authority to decide the height of the houses in Cupertino contrary to the stated policy of the commissioners. He concluded by saying the time has come for the Planning Commission to reassert their duties in a responsible way and urged consideration of the following actions: (1) the role of the Planning Department must be clearly stated and communicated to the Planning Department; (2) the Planning Department must catty out the policy of the Planning Commission; the PlanNing Commission needs to review the Planning Department on a regular basis; there needs to be an auditable trail; and (3) the use of power must seize. The residents of Cupertino cannot be continuously harassed by the Planning Department when they go through the process of getting a permit. It is not the issue of the $140 fee; but the issue of somebody going for a permit, every month it costs about $5,000 in order to service the mortgage, and said in summary what was heard from the Planning Department sounds nice, but he challenged to find an auditable trail to what extent the information from the Planning Department is correct, since he felt a significant percentage of what was heard today is a strong deviation from the truth. Mr. David Budd, 7827 Creekline Drive, said he took the opposite view of the previous speaker. He said there were a number of discrepancies and problems with the planning procedures with the effect that some horrible invasions of privacy have taken place. He said although they all pick on the Big Bertha home, it was probably the least intrusive of any of the examples given. He said one of the examples shown was if there were two large homes with one in the middle being smaller; the typical case is the opposite of that; there are two small ranch homes and some one wants to build what looks like a drive through Taco Bell in between them. The issues not sufficiently covered by the guidelines today are privacy; when one of the two story or one story homes is built next to a smaller home, why require ten foot high trees since it is going to be a generation before those provide any screening; ratio of land to home size; and what happens if it is an irregular shaped lot? No critical thinking was applied to that; it was merely a number, so some sort of review of that has to be addressed so that these kinds of things don't happen; and what defines usable land? Does a 10 foot by 20 foot or 30 foot extension constitute buildable land and should that go into the square footage? - that can be decided. The number one issue to be considered is the issue of compatibility, more specific definition is needed. What defines architectural style and give an example of something that doesn't. He said he was shocked that the architectural consultant rarely visits the site. He extended an invitation for anyone to visit his back yard and look at the two story home being built in a neighborhood of one story homes and ask if it is compatible with his neighborhood. Mr. Piasecki asked that speakers not personalize the issue, but focus on the pros and cons of the issues. He clarified that the planners in the Planning Department do not seek to be involved in this process; and noted that they are building on what was not a very extensive process about four years ago, and are trying to refine those principles. There was direction provided then, it was a very extensive process and staff is attempting to make it work better than it currently does, and it is not a matter of personalities. Planning Commission Minutes 16 January 13, 2003 Mrs. Malka Nagel, 10180 Camino Vista Drive, said they built a new home recently and felt she was subjected to the whims of the planning staff in 2000-2001. She said her comments covered the R1 changes she heard at the November 25th Planning Commission meeting and also some of this meeting's. She said she was opposed to reducing the wall height to 10 feet, reducing entry level heights to 12 feet, and reducing the overall height of the building from 28 to 26 feet. She suggested that the Planning Commission re-examine the 35% second story role as it makes for very impractical designs and causes imbalance. She said that the Planning Commission should be involved with Public Works requirements; issues of sidewalks are just as important as compatibility of the height; the ground level is also important. The Planning Commission needs to look at the exorbitant sums that applicants have to pay for bonds. She said in her case, the city took $30,000 in bonds and still has much of her money, for a curb that cost $4,000. She said she was also opposed to waiting for a hard copy from the County that includes the planned covenants on title, which could take as long as four months. When the deed is recorded, the home is the purchasers, and the city should follow the same requirements. She said that she found Mr. Gilli's November 25th presentation interesting when discussing the homes that came up to design review, that he said "all were asked to lower their wall planes". She said it meant that all the applicants read the ordinance in one way and were instructed by staff again based by staff interpretation. The argument used by staff for these proposed changes is always the same; we need to be sensitive to the neighborhood or we need compatibility. She said she had trouble with both thosewords, and what they really mean. Do people have to build a home to standards of 50 years ago? She said that compatibility does not mean regressing to 50 year old standards; we should be forward looking, not regressive looking. And does sensitivity to the neighborhood only mean height; 7 homes are older and 7 homes are newer, why does staff always encourage lower building heights. Something is not right here. In newer developments such as Oak Valley, that community is anything but compatible if using the guidelines presented today. Mrs. Nagel commented that the only new neighborhoods illustrated at the meeting with attractive design were Orion Lane and Creekline; both of those developments have about 50% of the house underground. She said that many potential buyers don't like homes with basements and the developers had a difficult time selling them. Mr. Dick Fang, 868 So. Blaney Avenue, said he was a custom home designer in the area for more than 14 years. He referred to illustrations and discussed the ceiling heights and second floor setbacks. He said that people prefer 9 foot high ceilings in their homes. Relative to the second floor setbacks, he said that structural engineers should be consulted; he said the 12 foot envelope barely meets the requirements. He said that floor ratio- second floor to first floor 75% is not fair to the 6,000 square foot lot because they cannot build; they can only build 550 square feet on the second floor which only allows two rooms, and since most families have two children, only one child would live with the parents upstairs and the other child live downstairs which is not appealing to most people. Mr. Fang said that currently property owners building a house are required to build their own sidewalk, and he felt strongly that the city should build the sidewalk. He responded to questions about the porch height and the exterior design of the homes in the Cupertino area. Mr. Cary Chien, 10583 Felton Way, said that his family went through the R1 application process and found it to be a difficult process. He said he felt it was constant straggle between personal expectations and neighborhood compatibility; and he felt they had gone too far with the term "neighborhood compatibility" and as a result stifled creativity. He said the applicant does his best to submit a plan to get it approved as soon as possible. Once that is submitted, staff returns with Planning Commission Minutes 17 January 13, 2003 what he termed comment overload, which confuses and stresses the applicant, resulting in an inferior design, since the focus is no longer on design, but changes. Neighborhood compatibility is not about pulling plate heights or cave heights across the entire neighborhood; good house design is not about lowering wall heights. Perhaps consideration should be given to getting the neighbors tell what neighborhood compatibility means. Let the architects tell us what a good house design means, and like other cities, let the daylight plane work. Let the staff and commission be an objective arbitrator of conflicts that arise out of those situations. We need to think hard about how we can make this easier for everyone including the applicants. He said he was opposed to more restrictions; and asked the Planning Commission to visit two new homes on Kirwin, these two houses follow the book closely; but with all due respect to anyone involved, they are ugly homes. He said his family stopped their application because they were not sure where the city was going with the R1 process, and want to wait to see what happens; looking forward we need to set the ordinance with some sort of vision. He said his home was being tom down because it was 50 years old and the new one will have to last as long, if not longer. Mr. Jan Stoeckenius, 22386 Cupertino Road, said the experience he had several years ago going through the R1 process was a good experience and he complimented staffon how smoothly it went then. He said he had three additional comments to add to those he made at the November 25th Planning Commission meeting. Relative to the overall height of the building, he said he felt lowering the height restriction from 28 feet to 26 feet was unnecessary as staff has noted it seldom comes up in current structures and there is no reason to remove that flexibility as it does not cause any problem. He said he felt the 35% second floor to first floor area ratio was restrictive in terms of what can be done and pushes houses out toward their setback lines, and works against the compact house. Mr. Stoeckenius said his last concern related to the parking ordinance. He suggested that in the R1-5 there be an allotment for tandem garages with no exceptions to satisfy the covered parking requirement. He said in driving through the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, there were many cars parked on the street, the garages being used for storage. He asked that they not cut down on the valuable storage space, rather than have the one car covered requirement, have two cars with a tandem parking space, with no exception. He said he was one property owner with 6,500 square feet, and did not feel it was worthy of a restriction to prevent something that is not happening. Ms. Donna Prosser, said that she was in favor of reducing the wall heights to 10 feet. She said her home was in one of the illustrations, and the impact of the large house looking into her back yard was a big impact; part of the reason is that house was allowed to raise their pad, so their 2 feet started above that. She said while some people are concerned with the roofline, she was concerned with people peering into her back yard and invading her privacy. She said she purchased her home before those homes were built and she felt she had rights and should have input on how her neighborhood is built. She said they had talks throughout the building of the house, and unfortunately it did meet all the current requirements and they now have a monstrosity next door to them. She said she did not care about the architectural design of the house, but cared about its impact to her leisure time and herself. She complimented Mr. Gilli on the fine job he has done with working with the task force at Linwood Acres. She said prior to coming into the process, and before the subject house was built, she would not have voted for design review, since personal preferences are personal preferences, but she felt that people should not have the ability to put their own preferences above their neighbors who also paid a high price for their property. She urged staff and the Planning Commission not to forget the current residents. Planning Commission Minutes 1~ January 13, 2003 Ms. Jennifer Ediyanto, 7027 Creekline Drive, said she purchased her home with the basement because of its architectural design. She said she was strongly in favor of the new proposed homes. She said as Com. Wong mentioned, to have a consultant drive to each site might cost more to the applicants. She said there is a home being built next to her backyard door; the house is double the height of the fence; it is 24 feet high and her house is 10 feet high. The home looks at not only her back yard but every single room in her home. She said the cost the applicant has to assume for the consultant to visit the site is very important; but she and her husband paid $1 million for their home and they feel it is worth nothing since they have no privacy. Ms. Ediyanto said that she did not believe that anyone drove through the neighborhood before giving approval for the neighbor's home. She noted that a row of huge pine trees would have to be planted in order to block the view from the two story home into her well designed one story home with a basement. She said that she and her six neighbors purchased their one story homes with basements and were opposed to the two story stucco homes. Mr. Chuck Eaneff, Larry Way, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for serving the community and taking the time to work on what are often complex and passionate issues. He asked that the Planning Commission not underestimate the impact of the first floor wall heights on neighbors and neighborhoods; 12 foot wall heights at the setback can result in negative impacts on neighbors. He said 10 feet is adequate to achieve reasonable interior ceiling heights without negatively impacting the neighbors and the neighborhood. He said it is common sense that the greater mass close to the property line has a perception of looming over properties; it can be perceived as both threatening and intrusive and some of that has been voiced tonight. He said it is not conducive to the establishment in support of neighborhood in the true sense where they watch out for support and encourage each other in support of the greater community of Cupertino. He urged that the Planning Commissioners listen to staff, as their recommendations are based on their professional training, years of experience, input from the community, and are not based on individual or special interests. The perception of mass relates directly to distance and when you put big wall heights close to the property lines, that has negative impacts. He said he felt the recommendation was fair, reasonable and appropriate and thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their time in considering the matter. Chair Corr closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Com. Auerbach thanked the audience for participating in the meeting. He said that so often citizens come out to oppose something that is happening right now based on the rules, or laws as they presently exist. He said it was refreshing to see people come out in advance of rule making to give their public input and not just complain after the fact. He said in response to Mrs. Nagel's letter, wherein she stated she felt the current changes to the R1 ordinance were staff driven, he said from the discussion this evening, which was one of many on the topic, it is evident that the Planning Commission is intimately involved in the process and her perception is incorrect. It is the Planning Commission's role as a public body to oversee the activities of the Planning Department and to scrutinize what they have to say. One of the reasons the discussions may appear to be drawn out and that the Planning Commissioners ask a certain set of questions is that they may have had dialogue with staff beforehand; but because of state rules on communication amongst each other, they need to discuss things they have discussed with staff again here so that their colleagues are privy to what they have to say. It leads to quite a long process that ensures that all their conversations are above board and everyone can hear exactly what is discussed with staff and each other. Com. Auerbach said he took exception to the characterization that they did not have input on the issue. He said height is not a problem, height is the best solution for controlling the Planning Commission Minutes 19 January 13, 2003 problem. He said he was in favor of putting more focus on design issues as other communities have directly tackled design issues, requiring citizens who want to build in that community to pick window styles and roof treatments from a book approved by the city. Com. Auerbach said he would like to see homes have less impact on the lot, and favored getting rid of the 35% second story requirement to allow people to put more mass on the second floor, but bring the building in; perhaps in order to achieve the ten foot high interior ceiling, the walls of the house have to come in closer, more has to go on the second floor, resulting in a house that sits back more on the lot and doesn't intrude into the privacy concerns of neighbors and yet gives interior volumes that people are looking for. Although individual citizens might not care about the house design next to them, the city does care about the streetscape, and as a community all have a stake in making sure the residential streetscapes are attractive and have good design elements. It is not Planning Commission Minutes 20 January 13, 2003 a simple matter of individual property rights; the front of houses is what is presented to the community and how the community appears is important. He reiterated that he agreed with Mr. Fang in terms of the city taking care of the sidewalks, particularly when there are gaps; and regarding the General Plan update, he said he proposed that there be a policy about the city filling in the gaps and where there are no sidewalks, simply reserve the funds, not build the sidewalk at this point, and then defer it to a later date when more sidewalks can go in that neighborhood. He said the design guidelines should go out earlier, and suggested that as part of the ordinance, should it be enacted, should contain specific provisions for revamping the guidelines including the production of high quality material to send out in advance to architects and designers and made available to the public. He said he suggested in the past that it be entitled "So You Want to Build a Home in Cupertino" and that it include all fees involved as well as well as stormwater management and a comprehensive guide of things to consider. Com. Auerbaeh said he supported the flexibility range concept, and felt it was important that his fellow commissioners come down strongly yay or nay on the issue since they were asking staff to do an enormous amount of work if that is the direction they decide to go. He said that he was concerned about getting better designs also. Com. Chen thanked Mr. Gilli for the excellent presentation, which helped to understand the issue better. She said relative to the sidewalk she agreed with Com. Auerbach and Mr. Fang that sidewalks being used by public should be paid by the city, not adding the financial burden to the homeowner. She said she concurred with Mr. Gilli and staff that design guidelines need to be developed. Relative to privacy issues, she said that even a one story home might need to be reviewed or neighbors need to be notified in order to have some understanding of what is happening in their neighborhood. She said she felt it could fit into the neighborhood compatibility issue also; soliciting neighborhood input is just as important as city staff input and Planning Commission decisions. She asked staff to research the cost in terms of money for the city. Regarding the 6,500 square feet restriction being removed, she said she did not see any problem removing it especially knowing that it impacts only about a half dozen properties within city boundary. However, her original intent was not to encourage monster homes or homes to build out to the 45%. She clarified that her original intent was to let people build their dream home in Cupertino without impacting the view from public. She questioned if it would be worth checking out a sliding scale guideline, perhaps increase the setback from the street to allow a larger home instead of adding a fixed number of restricted square footage to any new design. She said she appreciated and supported the creative resolution regarding the new process that staff proposed to remove the 35% restriction of two story homes, addressing her concerns. Com. Chen said she agreed with Com. Auerbach on flexibility; it is a great idea and it needs to be encouraged and included in the ordinance. Relative to the issue of height, she said she was hesitant to support the height reduction, for the same reason of encouraging the good design and allow flexibility for a good design, and the example that was used again and again, it sounds like it is an exceptional case. She said it appeared that what makes the one story home so high is because of certain other issues also involved in the design work. Again it comes back to the privacy issue; one story homes should be made known to the neighborhood as well; hopefully it will prevent a repeat of the cases from happening in the future. Com. Saadati said that it is difficult to have a design that satisfies everyone. He said stucco is more durable material, with less maintenance; however, it can be done with some articulation, and attractive color, and some homes have utilized that articulation around windows. He commented that some of the homes built under the county ordinance are monster homes. Relative to the other issues, he said he was in favor of relaxing the 35% and hopefully would result in larger setbacks and would allow the homeowners to build a higherceilings. He said having the neighbors involved Planning Commission Minutes 21 January 13, 2003 is a main issue to focus on. Relative to height, he said he felt it was not a major issue, as long as the design is done with proper articulation, color, material (the height might not be as critical as one may think). The privacy issue has come up in the design review many times when people are building new homes; the privacy concern is something that has been brought up and a lot of design has been changed to address privacy. The windows have moved, frosted windows, trees planted and some of it in response to the neighbors concerns. We may need to look into the privacy for one story homes as long as the neighbors are involved and are aware of what goes on and that could be addressed easily. He said he was in favor of the flexibility, anything to expedite resolution. Relative to the sidewalk issue that came up once before, he said he was uncertain if there were too many areas in Cupertino which did not have sidewalks, but there are areas that the homeowners built the sidewalk and some where there will not be any sidewalk for many years to come. There is no continuity, perhaps it is better to have the city build the sidewalks at a later date. Mr. Piasecki said that relative to the state budget, the city's budget will be hit hard and it will be difficult to find money to do sidewalks. Com. Saadati said he was in favor the 6,500 square feet, although it does not prevent someone from building larger than that, and he said he doubted that there would be too many homes above that square footage. He said the design has to be done as such that it is the building is not massive. We reviewed a proposed house to be built in the hillside and the building was hidden and not obvious, so one could build larger homes, maybe with higher setback and plenty of planting around the house to cut down the visibility of the house. Com. Wong thanked staff for the excellent presentation and the audience for its participation. He said he agreed with Com. Auerbach about the sidewalk. He said the privacy issue needs to be addressed and he understood the concerns, especially if there is a one story higher. Com. Wong said he was inclined not to put a maximum on the 6,500 square feet, and would like to stay open on the issue. He said he was thrilled about the new process, and pleased that they were removing the 35%, but wanted a maximum of 45% if it is first or second story housing. Regarding the flexibility, he said he was pleased with the staff report and agreed 100%. Relative to the height, he said he supported not lowering the height, since he felt that the current height gives more flexibility to the designer and the applicant. Com. Wong said he did not support lowering the daylight plane to 2 feet as it does not give flexibility. Lastly in regards to 3 car garages, he asked that staff rethink the issue and be open to a three car garage. Chair Corr said it goes back to when they heard about the monster homes and the terrible things that were happening; the giants that were appearing next door. The staff and Planning Commission reacted and developed some plans and new regulations and the new ordinances, and it was important at that time that they went more by formula and by some of these ratios than anything else because that was definable. People could understand what was meant because the other side of that would be opinion. He said he was pleased that they had grown to the point where they can begin to go back to that and look at it and say it is time to adjust it and change it. He said it takes a long time when changes are made to see the final result; people are still building houses today that were approved under the old guidelines. There was consensus that the application be continued to the February 10, 2003 Planning Commission meeting for further discussion. OLD BUSINESS: None Planning Commission Minutes L2, January 13, 2003 NEW BUSINESS: 9. Discussion of Election and Committee Assignments. There was a discussion regarding the reassignment of representatives to the various committees. Com. Wong expressed the desire to serve as representative to the Design Review Committee and Chair Corr expressed the desire to serve on the Housing Committee. There was consensus that the committee assignments be finalized at the next meeting following the election of the Chair and Vice Chair for the upcoming year. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Auerbach announced that he would be resigning from the Planning Commission and moving out of state. He expressed his appreciation to his colleagues and the City Council for the opportunity to serve on the Planning Commission and to staff for their excellent work and comraderie. The Planning Commissioners and staff each expressed their appreciation for Com. Auerbach's contributions to the Planning Commission and the city, and wished him future success. Environmental Review Committee: No report Housing Committee: No report Mayor's Tea Schedule: A schedule will be forthcoming. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: A written report was submitted and no further report was given by Mr. Piasecki. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on January 27, 2003. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as amended: February 10, 2003