Loading...
PC 02-10-03CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 77%3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 10, 2003 Election of Chair and Vice Chair MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Saadati nominated Com. Chen for the position of Chair Com. Wong Com. Chen Passed 3-0-1 MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Wong nominated Com. Saadati for the position of Vice Chair Com. Chen Com. Saadati Passed 3-0-1 Environmental Review Committee representative - Recommendation to City Council The Chair of the Planning Commission serves as the representative to the ERC. Com. Chen explained that she had a conflict with the Wednesday meeting dates. MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Chen nominated Com. Corr to continue to serve as the representative to the ERC. Com. Wong Com. Corr Passed 3-0-1 Housing Commission representative: Com. Chen said she would continue to serve on the Housing Commission until a new Planning Commissioner is appointed. MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Saadati nominated Com. Chen as the representative to the Housing Commission Com. Wong Com. Chen Passed 3-0-1 Design Review Committee representative: Com. Saadati will serve as the representative to the DRC as thc Vice Chair of thc Planning Commission serves in that capacity. MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Chen nominated Com. Wong to serve as the second representative to the DRC Com. Saadati Com. Wong Passed 3-0-1 Planning Commission Minutes :! February 10, 2003 Com. Chert volunteered to continue as the alternate on the DRC. Chair Chen resumed chairing the meeting. Chair Chen expressed her appreciation to Com. Corr for his leadership on the DRC and successful term as Chair of the Planning Commission. She also congratulated Coms. Saadati and Corr on their reappointments. Commissioners present: Corr, Saadati, Wong, Chairperson Chen Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Peter Gilli, Senior Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 13, 2003 regular Planning Commission meeting Com. Saadati recommended the following: Page 14, second paragraph, first line: "they have no" should read "we have no" Page 20, first paragraph, second line, second sentence should read: "The privacy issue has come up in the design review many times when people are building new homes;" Toward the end of the paragraph, 4th line from bottom of paragraph: delete: "it is not massive" and replace with "the building is not massive". 4th line from the bottom: delete: "We noted that they reviewed a house built in the hills, hidden and not obvious" and replace with "We reviewed a proposed house to be built in the hillside and the building was hidden and not obvious," 3rd line from the bottom: delete "such that maybe higher setbacks" and replace with "maybe with higher setback" Last two lines of paragraph: Remove last sentence "There are ways ..... an exception." Com. Corr recommended the following: Page 6: Change: "Chair Corr said that he felt that they did not have the horse before the cart." to: ... "they did have the horse before the cart." MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve the January 13, 2003 Planning Commission minutes as amended SECOND: Com. Wong SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 10, 2003 VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Chen noted receipt of a letter regarding the 2003 Governor's Historic Preservation Award program. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: GPA-2002-05, SPA-2002-03, EA-2002-01 City of Cupertino Citywide Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and any other elements affected by the Crossroads Area Streetscape Plan Amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to incorporate the Crossroads Area Streetscape Plan Tentative City Council date: March 3, 2003 Staff presentation: Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed the purpose of the Crossroads Plan and the background of the project. The vision of the Crossroads Plan is to be a vibrant, high quality, pedestrian scaled shopping district, and all the design guidelines as well as the requirements derived from that vision. She reviewed the recommended changes to the General Plan height limitations and the Heart of the City Plan requirements for streetscape, setbacks, heights and building forms as outlined in the staff report. Ms. Shrivastava noted that the plan does not change land uses or increase development intensity from what the current General Plan allows; it defers to the General Plan and is a plan that shapes buildings in order to make it more attractive and to promote walkability; it does not dictate development or land uses. Ms. Shrivastava said that two major comments from the City Council and Planning Commission at the study session were that they would like to see a traffic study to evaluate the first phase of the streetscape plan that asks for onstreet parking and a parking bike lane, and that the process should include more public participation. She reviewed and responded to public comments from the neighborhood meetings held. Ms. Shrivastava said that the next steps include receiving comments from the Planning Commission, as well as the public and take direction from the Planning Commission. A City Council public hearing is scheduled for March 3, 2003. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the negative declaration, the General Plan amendment and the amendment to the Heart of the City Plan in accordance with the model resolution. Relative to the 20 foot sidewalk which will be implemented on a market driven basis, Com. Wong questioned if the 20 foot sidewalk could be put in first, since a comment was made at a recent community meeting that there were no funds for it. Mr. Piasecki said that ideally they would prefer to put in the public improvements first and then backfill with developments. He said it was an opportunity they should look at through grants or other funding sources over time, to fast track the sidewalk improvements. Com. Wong referred to the photos of the Restoration Hardware Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 10, 2003 building that was 32 feet, with a flat roof. Currently the plan says 36 feet. He questioned if they could do something similar. Ms. Shrivastava said that it could be done. Com. Wong said that currently the plan states that there is a housing element which was fromthe 1993 General Plan; but for ten years no developer has come forward with a housing element. He said with the economy being market driven, he was surprised that they are suggesting no development. Mr. Piasecki said that the city allows the mixed use concept all the way along the Heart of the City, so the opportunity has been there for all the area, and a few people have taken advantage of that up at Tantau and Stevens Creek, and in other locations. It has not been the case in the Crossroads although there have been some inquiries. Now that the market is looking at doing mixed use and people are realizing that it is a very viable concept, he said it would likely happen in the future; not rapidly, but slowly being accepted by the marketplace. Com. Corr referred to the possible new buildings showing current open spaces, and where new buildings could be built. He said as Mr. Piasecki pointed out, parking would be an issue since building more buildings would take away from the parking. He referred to the parking garages in Walnut Creek where the ground floor is retail, and parking garages upstairs. He noted that there were ways of accomplishing it and have more development along the street than shown. Ms. Shrivastava said that it would require entire sites to completely redevelop in order to do that. In response to Com. Saadati's question about parking, Ms. Shrivastava said that if they did not meet the parking requirements according to the ordinance, the city would not allow building, and changes would have to be made to the plans. Com. Saadati asked, based on the proposed height increase of 45 to 55, how to ensure articulation in height variation. Ms. Shrivastava said that the Crossroads plan goes imo great detail about faqade articulation, the type of design, kinds of elements, and detail desired in the buildings. She said that they would be put through the architectural review process to have design review of all the buildings; a lot of it will depend on what comes in as a proposal; staff will work with the applicant and the Planning Commission and City Council will be weighing in on the look of the buildings, hence there will be a number of checks and balances built into the system in order to ensure the buildings meet the goals of the streetscape. Com. Saadati questioned the possibility of having verbiage in the resolution limiting the portions that would be higher elevation, so that the buildings are not 100 to 200 feet long. Ms. Shrivastava said they had a set of findings for an exception process; the buildings will only be able to go up to the 55 foot height with an exception. There is an additional condition for the Crossroads plan that it meets the goals and vision for the Crossroads plan; therefore before a building can go up to that height, it has to meet all those exceptions; it is only the minimum required that it is either onlya pitched roof or an architectural feature. She said that it could be added to the resolution. Relative to Com. Saadati's concern about the sidewalk transition with the 20 foot sidewalk, Ms. Shrivastava cited the Bottegas project as an example where they implemented the 20 foot sidewalk concept and transitioned it into the existing sidewalk; a small plaza was built into the comer and used as a transition; with the help of the architect and the help of design review, it can be done seamlessly. Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 10, :2003 Chair Chen asked for clarification on the 20 foot setback. Mr. Piasecki referred to the example of Santa Barbara which is 20 feet, noting that along State Street in Santa Barbara there are interesting things next to the curb - sculptures and trees and planters of different shapes; not boring and consistent, but with variety and interest along the edge. He encouraged the variety shown in the Santa Barbara example, with encroachments and pedestrian arcades behind the walkway. He said a good example is the Bottegas project where they provided a courtyard with a fountain feature, yet maintained the 20 foot sidewalk. It would be reviewed on a site-by-site basis since everything can't be predesigned. Ms. Shrivastava said that the requirement states that a certain portion of the building needs to meet the 20 foot setback and if there are elements such as the public plaza or outdoor seating, it can be moved back further. There is the ability to be flexible. Chair Chen questioned the process for voicing opposition to the plan. Ms. Shrivastava said that there have been about three meetings where a number of residents have indicated opposition to some areas of the plan, such as height, narrow sidewalks, and stated opposition to growth and traffic. She said at the end of some meetings, some people were still resistant to change and growth, but it is seen as change from the existing buildings they see out there, and not many people are aware of the Heart of the City Plan. Chair Chen opened the public hearing. Mr. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Avenue, said at the neighborhood meeting organized by Dennis Whitaker, the residents brought up an important point, asking if the General Plan controls heights in the city, and the response was that the General Plan does not control heights in the city. In his e-mail he listed on the map distributed with the General Plan, nine special planning centers and noted that this one was the tenth. He said each one has its own booklet of design features and restrictions and that indicates that there is not one General Plan, but a General Plan and many annexes that most people who think in terms of the General Plan are not going to see unless they know about them and can obtain them. Mr. Levy said he was opposed to the discussion as being a separate entity. He said that although he felt they asked for a General Plan amendment and those sections which are affected by the General Plan, they should put it into the General Plan since there are allowances to make General Plan amendments. He said he provided a copy of comments on Section 4 which were sent out for review as part of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission. He pointed out errors in the plan, and concluded by stating that when building the roofs, to make certain there are good gutters. Mr. Homer Tong, said that he found it non-compelling to compare the development on Stevens Creek with other situations such as Monterey Road. He said he owned property in that area and with a pedestrian friendly situation, four lanes are too many, two lanes is ideal. He said it was wishful thinking saying Stevens Creek should be six lanes, and yet say that it is going to be pedestrian friendly. He noted for the record that the residents felt that it was a good concept, but in the wrong place; the examples were attractive but don't fit into six lanes of traffic. Mr. Tong suggested keeping the height at 45 feet and considering 55 feet only as an exception. Mr. Ned Britt, Peppertree Lane, reviewed some comments from the community meeting. He said at one of the meetings there was unanimous opposition to the height, and it was not a case of not liking it at 55 feet, but one of not liking the tall buildings along the street. He said the pink buildings in the presentation did not exist now and it appeared that them would be dramatic Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 10, 2003 changes, not just adding something close to what is in the General Plan. The residents don't want that and were unanimous in that message and that did not come across in the report, nor has there been any response to lower that. In the pictures seen, not one of those pictures showed an example of a 55 foot high building. He said that when he spoke before, he suggested to get people's input, put up a net fagade to indicate what they were attempting to do and there would be a room full of people talking about that. People want something that enhances a village atmosphere, perhaps boutiques along the street, with caution of how it can be done along a six lane highway. Another idea from the community meetings was not to do this along Stevens Creek, but rather try and make the central area of focus one of the adjacent streets bordering onto Stevens Creek or joining onto it. Fliers were passed out to a number of people to get their input and he said he was surprised at the negative response he heard from people he met. He said some felt the city government lacked credibility; most of the people, except one, voiced a common theme that they spend most of their efforts trying to defend against the actions of the City Council and the city government to degrade their community. He said the hulking behemoth of the Verona apartments was built without people understanding what it was going to be; it may have been publicized but it was not understood and not liked. He said to pay attention to people who live and own property in the area, what they would like their city to be, not a developer's vision for their own profits. Ms. Rusty Britt, said that although the Crossroads project is not going to be built all at once, it would impact the housing and traffic in their area. The plan suggests 35 units per acre, with approximately 20 acres in that area being considered, which is about 70 units to be built, meaning a loss of much of the present parking. She said staff said they would probably not encourage large retailers to build along the street there; but the plan calls for either shared or structured parking and she felt only large retailers could afford to have underground parking. The plan also calls for reducing the number of lanes on Stevens Creek on both sides, to allow offstreet parking and also reducing the size or width of the lanes on Stevens Creek from 12 feet to 10 feet; the plan calls for 20 foot sidewalks from the curb to the building line, with a variety of benches, bus shelters, bike racks, newspaper racks, tables, trash containers, tables and chairs, etc. which would not be conducive fbr people siting around or walking along the street. She said the General Plan probably needs to be changed if it is going to allow such things to happen. At the last neighborhood meeting, the heart of Cupertino was discussed, and they did not feel it would happen with buildings. The remark was made that they were the heart of Cupertino, so keep the charm, the small town feeling and develop the Oaks and Vallco. Ms. Jody Hansen, CEO of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, said that the Chamber Board has not taken a position on the Crossroads streetscape plan. She said they have followed the process and Ms. Shrivastava made a presentation at a recent legislative action council meeting to provide the update on the plan. Resulting from the meeting, although not a board position, the legislative action council appreciated the city's decision not to maintain the six lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard through the Crossroads area, particularly because it benefits the existing retailers and they need the traffic there. The plan was discussed and the general consensus was the legislative action council liked the direction of the plan and was interested in seeing where it progressed. Mr. Dennis Whitaker, thanked staff for attending the recent community meeting. He said Mr. Piasecki had mentioned they were not trying to create a wall of buildings along Stevens Creek, but from Starbucks facing east, it appeared that DeAnza Boulevard was a wall of buildings with no break. He said they did not want the Crossroads to turn out that way. The Crossroads plan vision is to enhance the retail area; if so, why is there a need to go to 55 feet, two to three stories? He said they did not want to keep adding more office spaces because that would force the amount of Planning Commission Minutes ? February 10, 2003 housing to job ratio, and if they keep adding that office buildings, things will revert back to where they started. He urged saving the Crossroads as strictly a retail area. Mr. Whitaker said he did not want to see it become a mixed use area; it is now a treasured one of three well known shopping centers and he would like to keep it that way. He recommended that the General Plan take the mixed use out from 1993 and go into the General Plan of this year and keep it strictly a retail area. He questioned why add more pressure when the City Council says that the most important people in the city are the citizens, yet it is planning for future citizens and not giving the current citizens their break or due. He asked that the City Council through the Planning Commission bring back the architectural and design committee that keeps the neighborhood people involved as they presently are not involved. To make walkability enjoyable, he suggested a mix of concrete and the open space in the area around them. Mr. Whitaker said he was fearful of the 55 foot height and the 20 foot setbacks particularly along Stevens Creek Boulevard where there would be tables for people to sit, and the transit buses going by and spewing dust into the area where the people are seated at the tables. He thanked the Planning Commission for their attention to the concerns expressed. Ms. Joann Tong, said that the neighborhood meetings had excellent turnout with people concemed about the city. She said they were in support of moderate change, but did not want heights of up to 55 feet, or to hear that the 20 foot wide sidewalk with 6 lanes, parallel parking, bike lanes would be an attractive place and fun to walk. She noted the examples shown of Santa Barbara and Walnut Creek were two lane roads, which is dangerous. She reported that no one present at the Quinlan Center meetings voted for high density, high rise because they want to see the mountains and enjoy the area they live in. Cupertino needs to be a special place to raise a family; they did not come to Cupertino to be in a high density, high rise area. Chair Chen closed the public hearing. Com. Wong thanked staff for hearing the comments in September at the start with the joint session with the City Council and the Planning Commission. At the suggestion of many City Council members and Planning Commissioners, the process was slowed down; and they were successful in including the residents with two community meetings and a residential driven meeting; postcards were mailed, surveys conducted for community input. He said as a result, the main issues are height and setbacks. Regarding height, Com. Wong said that he did not support going to 55 feet; originally it was 36, then to 45; and he said he felt that whenever it exceeds 3 stories, it is a sensitive issue in Cupertino, and going higher would bring out the residents to the council chambers. Regarding the setbacks, staff is doing that from the input of community congress; many people in Cupertino wanted a community gathering place, and the Crossroads was chosen since it is an ideal location for the heart of town. Com. Wong said that although he liked the vision, he did not envision it in this particular location, but at another location. He expressed reservation about the setbacks; noting that he liked the concept of sidewalk cafes, the landscaping of the sidewalks, but with a six lane road with buses and cars, it is not an ideal location. He said he felt it was a hodgepodge, with a mis match of architecture. He said he could envision the plan in 20 to 30 years, and there is no guarantee that it will have consistency. He referred to other communities such as Broadway Plaza in Walnut Creek, downtown Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Los Altos, where there is a two story downtown, no residential on top and very walkable area. He questioned how to apply walkability to Cupertino. He reiterated that he liked vision, but not at this particular location. Planning Commission Minutes g February 10, 2003 Com. Corr said they had been working for a long time to find a place for a downtown in Cupertino, and Com. Wong was correct that it will never be like downtown Los Gatos or downtown Los Altos. There was talk about narrowing the street and opinions voiced on not doing that, as the traffic needs to go on through. He said without a plan, nothing will change. He said he was not pleased with the notion of driving down Stevens Creek Boulevard and seeing the big open parking lots and the gaping asphalt with the big boxes behind. He said he felt that by putting together the plan calling for 20 foot sidewalks, with landscaping and encouraging retail up front, it will make a difference. He said he was not opposed to doing that. Com. Con' said that he did not see the Oaks as a place that will happen because it is totally private and will not likely change; and if they could do something at Vallco it would be outstanding. He said he was not opposed to using the green concept, but use the current heights in terms of the 36 and the 45 with the exception. He said the 55 feet would have to be an exception only and would have to meet those criteria. Relative to the comment about use of the side street instead, he said there was nothing to preclude the side street being the one with the faster growth, but having the plan for the area permits that to happen. There are a number of places not in Cupertino where there are wide boulevards that become walkable; you don't cross over them, you walk on one side or you walk on the other but they are still pleasant places to be. Com. Corr said he supported the notion of the streetscape plan; and applauded removing the name of the downtown village which was not suitable and does not match with what is being proposed. He said he also supported using the existing heights. Chair Chen clarified that the existing height is the 36 foot slope up to the 45 feet, and questioned whether they were supporting the height reduction in the back. Com. Con' responded affirmatively, stating that since it has the lower back toward the neighborhoods, it has been well pointed out except for Target and Mervyns which are already there. Mr. Piasecki said if they decided to leave the maximum height by exception of 45, staff strongly recommended the 30 foot height, two story in the back. It was done with the PJ Mulligans site because it was the right thing to do, and recommended it if going with the 45. Com. Wong said he would support the height of 45 feet, with a drop to 30 feet in the back. Com. Saadati said that a plan for the future was necessary; but driving down Stevens Creek he felt there was no plan 50 years ago. Behind Target there is a big wall facing residential; under the new plan that wall would be lower and further back that softens the effect or somehow would make it more residential looking facing the apartments multi story buildings. He said he did not foresee a solid wall in 20 to 30 years along Stevens Creek as there are driveways and streets, and various developers are going to come up with different height buildings, two story and some three story. He said he supported the plan since the area would be attractive in 50 years from now; people will walk to where they shop, if the street is nicer, the sidewalk is more pleasant withtrees, it softens the effect and if there is a caf~ and fountain, people will tend to leave their cars and spend time in the area. He said if the area is successful, there would be many cars parked there. He said he supported the 20 foot setback, and concurred with the other commissioners to keep the current heights and any variation would be an exception. Com. Saadati said he would like a lot of variation to articulate the facades through the streets, and felt certain that the trees would have a big effect on how high the buildings will look. He said he would also like to see some housing element in the future development. Chair Chen said she had concerns about the heights and did not support the heights. Relative to setbacks, they can be set back more or move the building back as development progresses. Based Planning Commission Minutes O February 10, 2003 on the present vision, she said she felt it was a good plan and it could be carried out in the next 20 years. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application EA-2002-01 Com. Wong Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve SPA-2002-03; relative to the 20 foot sidewalks, landscaping, the retail and the height; it is appropriate as put together in terms of Nos. 1, 2 and 3; prefer the height to stay at 36 with 45 feet by exception Com. Saadati Passed 4-0-0 Chair Chen said to include also reducing the residential area to 30 feet. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application GPA-2002-05 Com. Saadati Com. Wong Passed 3-1-0 Com. Wong said that he did not envision the 20 foot setback. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: MCA-2002-03, EA-2002-15 City of Cupertino Citywide Amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to single-family residential development to the R1 zoning district Continued from Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 2003 Tentative City Council date: March 3, 2003 Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, outlined the reasons for the 1999 R1 amendment, primarily pressure from the community to do something about large out-of-scale development in established neighborhoods and privacy intrusion. The amendment came about as a result of hours of meetings, study sessions and public hearing involving members of the community, members of the building industry and architects, Planning Commissioners, City Council members and staff over a two year period. In the end, the City Council adopted the R1 amendment with the goal of achieving the principles on the screen, issues of compatibility, privacy, allowing for the continued development of new homes and additions and providing neighbors with input into the process. It was known at the time, discussed in public meetings and study sessions that the R1 amendment in 1999 would cause smaller second stories, limit the number of bedrooms in second stories, and encourage more single story development resulting in more lot coverage; and it would disappoint people who wanted to build a larger second story. A lot of these issues are being raised in these past meetings and tonight these were all known at the time that the City Council made their decision. It was also known that new development would still have some impacts on neighbors and at the time it was a compromise asto the fights of the individual property owners who want to build and the fights of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes 10 February I0, 2003 Mr. Gilli reviewed the guidelines, including the guiding principles and General Plan policy that these guidelines and the R1 ordinance are to adhere to, to ensure that the scale and density of new residential development and remodeling is reasonably compatible. He said it was important that new construction try to incorporate scale, form and materials found in the neighborhood in order to reduce the effects of the new homes on the neighborhood. All of this is discussed in the guidelines. The design guidelines encourage this compatibility through review of the site design, review of building forms which include the roof, walls, eaves and roof heights, use of different materials, style of faqade are all incorporated. In order to get DRC approval there is a finding that requires that the project have a general consistency with these guidelines. Mr. Gilli noted that the R1 ordinance has been amended twice since 1999; all amendments were consistent with General Plan policies and the guideline objectives, so staff felt it was suitable to do that without the level of outreach done on the 1999 amendment. Staff feels that if a proposal is made to increase mass and bulk or otherwise be in the opposite direction as the guidelines and policies :hat have already been established that there should be early buy-in by the City Council and a process that has a high level of public outreach. Mr. Gilli referred to Page2-105 of the staff report, which outlined the ordinance changes. He illustrated an amended version. He said staff heard as direction from the Planning Commission that the current processes are not as efficient as they could be, and that the last year projects at DRC have not had a lot of discussion. At the last meeting, when discussing height of single story development, there was concern that the taller heights could add impacts and that there may be reason to have a limited amount of review but that doing an overall reduction in heights is not preferred. Staff proposed Section 19.28.060c design guidelines, that addresses the review of two story development. Staff is recommending approval of MCA-2002-03 based on the model resolution to be amended on Page 2-53 of the staff report. Com. Saadati referred to Page 2-42, 2-43 and 2-45, and a letter with photos showing the view of a two story home from a bedroom; and questioned why the privacy issues were not addressed. Mr. Gilli said that the project is not completed and the privacy planting is done at the end of the project. There is planting required but not proposed to be planted until construction is done. He said the project did not require design review as it was a small lot and based on the setbacks and a drainage easement, they had an FAR under 35% and their second story when you applied the 35% of the ground floor was under 600 square feet which automatically allows it to be up to 600 square feet. This was allowed by right. There was a review of a parking exception to turn a two car garage into a tandem garage. Com. Saadati referred to Page 2-75, Item 1 - non operable windows are not required to provide privacy protection plan and suggested that the wording be changed from "are" to "may" for more flexibility. Mr. Gilli said it was in the original model ordinance attached with the earlier staff report; 2-14 has the same language but it is in the proposed model ordinance. Com. Corr referred to Page 2-17 of the new resolution, Item B2 relating tothe noticing provisions, and expressed concern about the language and the failure to provide notice. Mr. Gilli said that it was drawn out of other sections of the ordinance addressing noticing, and if a good faith effort is made, and if the people fail to receive it or if the addresses are wrong, that does not prevent the city from being able to take an action. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, said that it is standard language throughout the ordinance that alleviates the city from the responsibility if by chance someone does not receive Planning Commission Minutes 11 February 10, 2003 notice or is overlooked in the mailing; it is not that the city would not make an effort to give notice. Mr. Gilli responded to questions from Com. Corr relative to Sections 2-19, 2-22, and 2-23, noting that most of the verbiage in question was standard language. Section 2-34 was related to parking on someone else's parking; Mr. Gilli said the finding was drawn from No. 3 in the area that it struck out, and it was moved. He said he did not know how an exception for a tandem garage would result in people parking on other's property, but it was a finding that existed and was not changed. Com. Wong requested a summary of the steps of design review. Mr. Gilli explained that if an applicant proposes a project with an FAR over 35%, it goes to the DRC or a public hearing. If anybody proposes an exception to the regulation, it also goes to DRC. What would happen in this case is there will be a required application for any two story house or addition. It will notgo to a public hearing; it will have community input which is described in 19.120; this puts it in the ordinance so it is clear to people. In going back to 19.28.120, an application will be received; there will be requirement for a public notice in the front yard; a story pole will still be required. In the case of a conforming application they will apply to the Director, staff will mail out a notice to the adjacent owners and the notice will include all things on page 2-17, under bl and they will have a date by which to provide comments. Those comments will be taken as if its public testimony; the Director will make a decision based on the findings at the bottom of 2-17 whether to approve or deny the application. Whatever the action, any person can appeal it. The rationale for this is most of the projects that the DRC has seen in the past 12 to 18 months that are conforming, have very little controversy and this would shorten the review time by a couple of weeks and still provide an opportunity for neighbors to have input. It is proposed to notice the adjacent neighbors, but what is proposed for those people who get the notice, is to have a copy of the plan in the notice so they will know what it is. Mr. Gilli said that the fee for an appeal is $140 which is refundable if the appeal is won. Com. Wong questioned 2-38 regarding alternative footings and said his understanding was staff feels that the alternative footings is more appropriate in regards to keeping it close to grade as possible. Mr. Gilli said that it is an available option, and staff believes it should be included in the guidelines; it is not required but it is a way to get more interior area without increasing the height of the building. Com. Wong said his concern was if they did not want to use alternative footing, there would be no flexibility in building their homes. Mr. Gilli said if they chose to use the alternative footing, they could still ask for flexibility in that they still want wall heights higher than what the ordinance allows. What the footings allow is an extra 6 inches to a foot of interior area without increasing the exterior. If somebody wanted a 14 foot ceiling, and had neighbors that had very tall walls, they could ask for a design approval of 15 foot wall height on the outside, but on the inside because of the use this footing, instead of having 13 feet or 13-1/2 feet, they would get 14; it an option. The important part of this rule is to try to keep the first floor elevation as close to existing grade as possible. Com. Wong asked if staff would work with the applicant if he decided not to use the altemative footing and it raised the height, or would they have to appeal? Mr. Gilli said if it was in a neighborhood of taller walls, then it would be compatible; if it was in a neighborhood of shorter walls, then perhaps it would not; it would depend on each case. Planning Commission Minutes 12 February 10, 2003 Com. Wong referred to the second bullet for new two story homes or two story additions; use one story elements at the edge to transition to neighboring single story and the next item was deleted; what is the difference from those two? Mr. Gilli said that it is a wording change; the way it was worded in new home developments, use one story element at edges of development abutting existing one story homes to soften the transition, therefore change the wording for new two story homes or two story additions, use one story elements, because if a single story home, you have a one story element automatically, therefore staff will attempt to make it clear. Com. Wong referred to Page 2-41 of the staff report, referring to the garage, stating that three car garages should be avoided. Mr. Gilli said that a three car garage in certain circumstances does dominate the front elevation; it is not a requirement, three car garages are allowed. It gives direction that if the city could chose, the preference would be not to have a three car wide garage, but a tandem garage. That can be reworded but it is clearly a "should". Com. Wong suggested that it be clarified because it is ambiguous. Mr. Gilli noted that the following item addresses tandem parking space. He said that reference to "three car garages should be avoided" would be deleted. Com. Saadati referred to the overview of the ordinance under parking, where it is stated that the tandem parking allows without parking exception and Planning Commission approval. On page 2- 97 that is referred to DRC. Mr. Gilli said it was the original language and how it ended up evolving through discussion with the commission was that there would be an exception but it would be at the DRC instead of the Planning Commission Chair Chen opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Leslie Bumell, said that relative to the 35%, it was discussed over and over again, and at the time many people from the Rancho area came to the meetings and wanted to be part of Cupertino. He said to see why the changes were changed, drive down Rainbow Avenue between Bubb and Stelling, on the right side there is a house that is the epitome of why these were done. He said his position is one of privacy and has been discussed before. He questioned how many years it would be before the trees would reach the height where they provided screening. He illustrated photos of three homes built on Bubb Road three years ago, there small windows on the side and glass blocks were used for screening purposes. He said he felt it should be the standard for every home in Cupertino to give the same privacy protection as the 200 Eichler homes. Mr. Gilli noted that the trees take about 3 years growth for the 30% screening from second story windows. Mr. Larry Mathiekies, recalled that in 1999, he was one of thousands of residents who supported changes to the R1 zoning ordinance. He described the events and the issues surrounding them. The late 1990s were a period of great change in the older neighborhoods of Cupertino; land values increased and builders felt compelled to build bigger homes to justify the skyrocketing land values taking place then. Homeowners also wanted to increase their living space. For approximately one year from 1998 to 1999 the Planning Commission struggled, trying to figure out a way to amend the R1 ordinance in such a way that it preserved the homeowners right to build, yet assured the neighbors right to privacy in keeping assemblance of neighborhood compatibility. For one year the Planning Commission could not reach consensus on what to do; finally the City Council took up the issue in early 1999; the Council had already been studying this issue and knew that a majority of citizens wanted something done to control the size of some of the homes. Planning Oomm;sslon Minutes 19 l~ebmary 10, 2003 Councilmember John Statton came up with the idea that a 45% FAR for a single story home would preserve the homeowners right to maximize the floor space, but a 35% FAR for a two story home would help minimize impact on privacy. The DRC was established at that time to evaluate homes that did not conform to these guidelines and to assure design compatibility. The vast majority of homeowners in Cupertino are pleased with the amendments that took place in 1999. Mr. Mathiekies said it was his impression that the current Planning Commission was considering plans to significantly relax the amendments established in 1999; and said if that is the intent it would open a can of worms. He said the headlines would read: "Cupertino Planning Commission approves monster homes to be built again in Cupertino" which no one wants. However, if it occurs, a long and protracted battle will occupy the Commission's agenda as it did in 1999. He urged that caution be exercised as consideration is given to the amendments; make it clear to would-be developers and new home builders that support is given to the existing ordinance so that it sends a clear message. Streamline the approval process and make it easier for projects to be approved within a reasonable timeline. He urged working together, but not changing the guidelines significantly after only four years. It will only lead down an all too familiar path. He concluded that in considering comments tonight on the Crossroads Streetscape plan, one of the major issues heard has been the commercial buildings height and massiveness. He said they were the same issues that are relevant to the residential R1 ordinance, and complimented staff on the excellent job in keeping a balance between neighborhood compatibility. He urged the Planning Commission to listen carefully to staff's advice and listen to the majority of residents of Cupertino because it was they who made their voices heard back in 1999. Mr. David Budd, asked that they keep the variances and exceptions for the parking, because without them, they would not have any legal claim against the builder who sold them their home. The parking exception is the only thing they have to go on. He said he was moved by the comment that in the so-called tough restrictions that have been done in the last four years, Mr. Gilli said that there hasn't been one referral on a two story development. He said his attorney was a 10 year member of the Los Altos Planning Commission and was stunned that the guidelines in Cupertino were as permissive as they are and this is what they were made more restricted to. Mr. Budd suggested other guidelines. He said he would like the height guideline to remain because it clearly is an impact as everybody who has spoken thus far has said. Additionally, he said he felt it is a good compromise by Mr. Gilli that any two story development if it is adjacent to one or more one stories, should require a public hearing, give the residents a chance to get their comments on record before the vote. When a so-called flag or non-compact lot exists such as this one does, had the extension of that easement been to the street and been used as a driveway, that building would not have been permitted. He said that the trees being required to grow for three years precludes any privacy for those three years. He urged the Planning Commission to keep in mind the suggestions he mailed in, and said that he respected people's right to build, but if they are purchasing a 50 year old home in Cupertino, they see what they are getting. He said to build the monster homes in Fremont or Gilroy instead of destroying the Cupertino established neighborhoods with monster homes. He said his quibble was not with how the monster homes look, but with their privacy invasion. He reiterated that people should consider the rights and privacy of their neighbors before building. Mr. Jan Stoeckinius, said he sent a written communication, conceming the specific issue of the 35% ratio between the first floor and the second floor and the technique of controlling second floor height, fie said they were concerned that it is not a good technique; and understood that it was discussed in 1999. He said what has evolved from that is that they not only have big two story Planning Commission Minutes la February 10, 2003 homes, but big one story homes as massive as the two stories. He suggested that a minute order as suggested in the staff report be prepared requesting Council to allow study of that again. Mr. Frank Lee, said that the Planning Department and the Planning Commission are the leaders of the community that lead into the future, not only in the next couple of months or years, but into the long term future; and the community would like to respect all the council members and planning staff; give them some space, some flexibility to make good decisions for the city. Whenever a building is being built, there are always noises from both sides of the property line; some people want to have compatibility with a 50 year old house that was built according to 50 year old standards, but the other side of the property line there are people that want to build everything with the most modem bells and whistles they can afford. He said he would like the Planning Commission and the Planning Department to focus their vision and their capability to field out others noise and the plan for the community in the long term future. He said many times people talk about tile roofs, clay roofs, and stucco walls; they are not nice, they are cheap, and are not compatible with the community. A lot of people think that contractors want to build houses with that kind of material to save money or the home builder wants to save money on the maintenance. He said he had a recommendation from the Santa Clara Fire Department that says to build or re- roof a home with fire resistant roof coverings and to build or remodel with fire resistant materials, such as brick or stucco. Mr. Lee commented on the city of Mountain View's building ordinance which allows for density and FAR bonus to encourage people to build houses with minimized impacts. He recommended that staff look at it and come up with a common ground to please everyone. Relative to building height; he questioned why the city had to applymore restrictions to its building requirements. Mr. Dick Fang, asked if the FAR under 35% went to DRC. He suggested keeping it since many of his clients try to avoid those processes; 45% go to DRC and then build a story pole. He said 35% was small and he did not feel the house mass would be big. If the people chose 35%, it should go without DRC for approval. Relative to heights, on Page 2-12 it addresses the envelope, and he spoke of the issues at a previous meeting. He said he would like to see an envelope like a 12 foot high wall on the setback line, and what would happen if people chose a setback of 15 feet. He said neighbors should discuss compatibility. Mr. Cary Chien, 10583 Felton Way, said that it is a myth that the 1999 revisions are relaxed and have no effect. They have had a big effect on residents who wished to build resulting in a very difficult and frustrating process. He said the presentation on the ordinance today has not clarified what the ordinances are going to do to the applicant. One thing that is clear is the planners will have more say in the plan that is submitted. He cited a typical situation wherein an applicant will apply, they will say that this fits the ordinance, planners will say that it does not fit the ordinance; they will debate, with the planners having the last word. He said he felt the guidelines continue to conflict with the ordinance; together they need to work on how to reconcile those two documents. Referring to Page 2-8 of the staff report, on section C1, the ordinance continues to ask that the design guidelines be fitting to the project in order for the project to be approved; which means that it is a staff decision. He said there has been talk about revising the guidelines but they have not been revised, and until they are revised the ordinance cannot be approved. Ms. Malka Nigel, said she understood from what she read that every new home built would have to go through design guidelines or design review unless staff decides that it shouldn't go to design review. She said if that was the case, she was opposed to it. She read comments contained in a letter in the staff report, noting that she felt some of the comments did not relate to design Planning Commission Minutes 13 February 10, 2003 guidelines, but were merely arbitrary. She said many times the staff's suggestions completely change the proposed design of the home with no regard of the impact on the homeowner; staff has suggested use of one or two doors; using wood siding, wood trim, wood sills and wood facia to conform to the original neighborhood pattern. She said Mr. Lee reported that many new home owners do not like wood siding, and prefer stucco finish. Reference to the ceiling height minimum, the ordinance indicates that ceiling heights can go up to 12 feet, whereas the planner requires 9 feet, to match the neighbors. She reiterated that she was opposed to requiring every new home owner go through design review. Ms. Fran Lee, said that in the past few years the commercial buildings were getting larger and taller and blocking all the mountain views; and the residents were forced to compromise whether they liked it or not. The residents' projects are smaller and smaller and lower and lower and many people are delighted that they can build basements. She said she did not understand why the city was advanced in high tech and commercial, yet backwards with residential. She questioned what the city goal was. She said she used to live in a small house, on one side was a small side and other side was a two story big house and she did not experience any privacy. Her new house has more privacy because it has more insulation and is 10 feet away; she said neighbors should get to know each other; and respect the older home resident and communicate. Chair Chen closed the public hearing. Chair Chen asked Mr. Gilli to explain Mr. Bemell's point about privacy applied to specific areas but not the whole city. She said that concerns about privacy were being heard over and over again. Other requests for explanation related to the FAR 35% that has to go to DRC Mr. Fang brought up. She said she felt it was a misunderstanding and assumed it was referring to a two story home; the 35% total FAR restriction being dropped so that review will be done by a director but not the DRC anymore. She also asked for comment on the height issue Mr. Fang discussed, not the height but the plan if the setback is moved and the building is set back more. She asked for clarification on the conflict between the ordinance and design guidelines referred to by Cary Chien. Com. Corr asked for clarification on Jan Stoeckenius' comment about the minute order and the idea of getting direction from the Council before addressing that issue. Com. Saadati asked staff to elaborate on what power is given to staff as mentioned by speakers. Mr. Gilli addressed the Eichler privacy rules. Second story bedrooms will always have to have a window that is escapable that is openable and has a low sill height, which leaves the only option under the Eichler rules to have exterior louvers on the window. He said it was considered appropriate in the Eichler area since they have many windows on the ground floor. It is something that could be considered on the rear of houses; as it tums out with the present regulations, for the most part, if there is a second story that is only 35% of the first story, the result is not a lot of large side facing windows; they all end up facing the front or the back. To a certain extent, many of the side privacy impacts have been addressed with that regulation. There is the option of exploring having exterior louvers on the rear elevation; it should not be necessary on the front, but at this point it was considered as something appropriate for Eichlers and not necessarily the rest of the city. If someone wanted to propose having exterior louvers they could have the privacy planting waived; it is something people can chose to do, it is not something staff proposes that it be required throughout the city, but something to address. Many applicants do propose two story homes with floor areas under 35% in order to avoid a public hearing. The concept that is being recommended is based partially on input received from the Planning Commission that if it is below that threshold you could still have impact, and them shouldbe some level of review. It is Planning Commission Minutes {g February 1 O, :2003 conceivable that existing regulations by not having design review of any sort for two story homes under 35% is an incentive that people have gone for that instead of asking for more area. The staff level approval that is being talked about would make it a little harder process-wise for those particular applicants. The question that has to be answered by the Planning Commission is whether or not the benefits of the extra review outweigh the drawbacks of impacting those applicants. As stated earlier, the guidelines were based on a handful of principles and General Plan policies and the ordinance has a list of maximums and minimums and if you go through a discretionary process you may or may not receive approval of the maximum height or the minimum setback; that is part of the design review process. Whether or not you could get more wall height if you have a greater setback will depend on case-by-case basis of compatibility. One application in early 2000 was able to provide an cave on the front that appeared that it was compatible but they still were able to work in a higher ceiling. They had a higher plate height along the side property line so we would have to look at that, but there are issues addressed in the staff report that could be considered, such as the taller fence. Communication with a neighbor is always a benefit and that is going to continue to be an issue that is difficult to address because we have the guidelines and then we have the ordinance and the guidelines are based on General Plan policies so staff is not comfortable with just amending the guidelines so that it allows everything in the ordinance, because perhaps what is in the ordinance isn't entirely consistent with the goals and policies of the General context. Relative to the additional discretion that staff will be allowed, the Director of Community Development will act on all two story homes. The goal was to shorten the process so that there would not be items going to a public hearing and then not having any discussion. Any action by the director or staff can be appealed, and as was mentioned earlier, if there is basis for appeal and it is won, the fee is refunded. With discussion on encouraging more flexibility, the philosophy undertaken in review will be different. Prior to the concept of being more encouraging, the way the exception findings and language was written, there needs to be a substantial reason for asking for anything that is not consistent with the ordinance. More flexibility will be encouraged, and those will go to a public hearing instead of being reviewed at staff level. Staffwill have discretion with this proposal; applicants will spend less time in the process; it will save unnecessary hearings; and it will possibly result in a perception that staff has power. All decisions can be appealed. Relative to the minute order, staff brought that up in response to the Commission's desire to explore having a second story floor area that is greater than 35% of the ground floor; which Mr. Gilli said was in his opinion one of the most effective regulations that came out of the 1999 ordinance amendment. To recommend a change to increase that area, would seem to go against the intent of the guidelines which was to reduce mass and bulk. For that mason staff is recommending if changes such as that are proposed, that the Planning Commission issue a minute order to the City Council describing the change or the issue that the Commission wants to look at and the reasons that support the action of looking at that role. Chair Chen clarified that if all two story buildings are going to be reviewed by the Director of Planning, the appeal goes to City Council, not DRC. Mr. Gilli said that it should be changed; if looking at most appeal processes, the intention is that it go to a lower body. Referring to Page 2- 18 (F) "Interested party may appeal the action of the Director subject to Chapter 19.136, except the appeal will be heard by either the Planning Commission as a whole or the DRC." Mr. Piasecki added that if it is viewed as a continuum between having no review authority to having complete review authority, every house has to go through some kind of a public hearing process. What is being attempted is to find a middle ground that respects the almost two years of Planning Commlsslon Minutes I~ February 10, 2003 effort that went into the establishment of the original guidelines; that reconciles many of the criticisms on both sides of the arrangement where it is unclear or it doesn't achieve the objectives and find the least painful path for applicants. Com. Wong asked Chair Chen if it was her intent to have staffreview all two stories. Chair Chen said her intent was to encourage good design and not have all the two story buildings succeed at 35% come to the DRC to simplify the process. She said based on her experience on the DRC, most two story homes that come to DRC are between the 35% and 45% and were approved based on good design and based on the privacy issue addressed. She said it was her intent to streamline the process and encourage good design, and supported the Director reviewing all the two story designs. Com. Corr thanked staff for the excellent work and said he was pleased to see the issue of compatibility addressed since compatibility does not mean sameness, but covers a group of things. He said the main thing being improved was the community notice and the method for notifying people not in the noticed circle. He questioned what type of sign would be put in front of the house with contact names and information about the project. Mr. Gilli said that it would be a large board. Com. Corr said he supported the item. Com. Saadati said he concurred with Com. Corr and supported the flexibility and reducing the time that applicants spend to develop their homes. There is always the appeal option if the applicant is not satisfied. He said one area relative to privacy is to put more emphasis on house design to include as much privacy as possible, as three years for trees to grow was too long for privacy. He said that he supported the recommended action. Com. Wong said the speakers had good points and he understood they were trying to discourage monster homes. He said his goal was to make the process more user friendly because of the frustrations voiced from people going through the process that the guidelines and the ordinance do not gel. He said he liked the idea of the sign letting people know about a project when they drive by. He said he did not support the current design review as it gives too much discretion to staff and it may frustrate the process. One of the reasons they decided on 35% or the two story was to avoid going through the red tape; and having all two stories going through staff may frustrate the process even more. He said he was considering remodeling his house, but has no intention of building a second story. He said that if someone wants to build a second story, they should do it, and it should be made friendly, and compatible with the neighborhood. He said they should talk to the neighbors to get buy-in from them, and if you can get neighbors to buy into what you want to build, then you can convince staff. Regarding appealing the process with the Director, he suggested lowering the fee so that it is not a hindrance to the applicant. He reiterated that he did not like the new design review process; make it more user friendly because of the frustration voiced. Com. Corr agreed with the concern that the people should work together and talk to their neighbors. The problem exists when people decide to do their own thing and push the envelope and they don't want to talk to their neighbor and they don't want to work together with anybody on it. Things have to be put together to help deal with that extreme, not the normal everyday people that will come in and try to do their best. Com. Wong said he understood the concern that there may be some residents who have an older home and may be adamant and not want to compromise. The ordinance would have to be followed and the commissioners set the policies, but do not interfere with the day to day operations of staff; hence the only way to affect policy is for the Planning Commission to set the policy. Planning Commission Minutes 1~t February 10, 2003 Chair Chen said that she did not feel the commissioners encouraged monster homes as perceived by some of the speakers. She said they and staff are, after four years of experience, trying to fine tune the RI ordinance to make it more user friendly, make it more efficient and also to address both sides of the concerns as staff stated earlier. She said she felt the R1 ordinance is well done and she would support the ordinance with the one minor change that two story appeals go to DRC, not Planning Commission, and all the amendments discussed and changes should be in effect. Mr. Gilli reviewed the amendments, 2-14 changing "are" to "may"; 2-18, which addresses the issue with the appeal to the DRC; 2-41 the second bullet will be deleted and the next bullet, will read "the use of a tandem parking space is encouraged." Chair Chen referred to the privacy issue and concurred with Com. Saadati that if the trees take three years to grow, was there a way to enforce a privacy plan that could be in place sooner than three years so that the neighbors don't have to suffer lack of privacy for three years. Mr. Gilli said that the most effective way would be to require the planting of larger trees that provide screening at the time they are planted. The drawback reported by the arborist is that when larger specimens are planted, they grow slower and the larger specimens cost more. He said a possible option could he to require external louvers on the second story windows until the trees are sufficient height to provide screening. Mr. Piasecki noted that the responsibility for privacy is as much the owner at it is the neighbors; therefore one may have to supplement plantings. There is not one solution; everyone is responsible to contribute to an acceptable environment. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application EA-2002-15 Com. Saadati Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application MCA-2002-03 with the list of amendments discussed Com. Saadati Com. Wong Passed 3-1-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Com. Corr reported that there has not been a recent ERC meeting held. Housing Committee: Chair Chen said that there was no report. Mayor's Breakfast: Chair Chen reported on the December meeting. The schedule for the Mayor's Tea has not yet been distributed. Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 10, 2003 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMU1NITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piaseeki reported that the first of two study sessions on the General Plan with the City Council would be held on Tuesday, February 11th, and reviewed the issues to be discussed. The second study session will be held March 4th. Mr. Piasecki reminded everyone of the upcoming Planners Institute in San Diego and reported on the demolition of the old library. Mr. Piasecki reported that Peter Gilli was promoted to Senior Planner. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the newspaper articles in the staff report. OTHER: Com. Con' congratulated Chair Chen on being elected chair and thanked the commissioners and staff for the support he received while serving as Chairperson the prior year.