Loading...
PC 05-10-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Ton.e Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY I 0, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Con', Harris, Kwok, Stevens Commissioners absent: Doyle Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordelt, City Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner I1; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Mark Srebnik, Consultant; Charles Kilian, City Attorney Vice Chair Harris chaired the meeting in Chairperson Doyle's absence. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 26, 1999 regular Planning Commission meeting: The minutes were amended as follows: Page 2, Item 2, first line of paragraph: After "remove" add the words "and replace" Page 2, second last line: "house" should read "hose" MOT[ON: Com. Stevens moved to approve the minutes of April 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting as amended SECOND: Com. Con. ABSENT: Comi Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 WllITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris reported that a video was sent fbr preview by the Bay Area Water Transit Initiative, and noted she would view the video and pass it on to the other commissioaers for viewing. Chair Harris also noted a letter from Alice Ho relative to Item 2; information on the May 22 Planning Commissioners' workshop in Oakland; and information regarding the VTA Goals and Accomplishments 98/99 workshop. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR 3. Application No.(s): 2-GPA-98, 28-EA-98, Fence Ordinance Amendment Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Consideration of amendment to General Plan policies 2-33 and 6-17 regarding discouraging electronic security gates. Consideration of amendment to Chapter 16.28 regarding prohibition of security gates in non-single t'an~ily residential parcels. ContinuedJ~om Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes 2 May I (L 1990 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to postpone Application 2-GPA-98, 28-EA-98 to the June 28, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL Application No.: Applicant: Location: 4-ASA-99 Erh-Kong & Ding-Wei Chieh 10333 Degas Court Architectural and Site approval to allow the construction of a 974 square foot second story addition to an existing one-story duplex. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for approval of a 974 square I'oot addition to an existing duplex, which has already been partially constructed, as the city inadvertently issned a building permit without having undergone architectural and site approval review. The building permit has been suspended until the Planning Commission makes a decision on the application. Staff has met with the applicant and two property owners located to the west of the Chieh's parcel which will be negatively affected by the second story addition; however, the applicant and the other property owners have been unable to reach a satisfactory agreement. The applicant plans to incorporate the privacy protection elements from the Rtl ordinance, and also prepared two optional plans to show ways to prevent the neighbors fi'om being able to look onto each other's property, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application provided the applicant incorporates privacy control mechanisms from both Option A and Option B into the project. A decision will be considered final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Chair Harris noted that the application will be approached based on the assumption that construction has not started. However, staff does not recommend that the Planning Commission take the position that a two story b~uilding can be rejected, unless the applicant fails to comply with ordinance requirements and cannot demonstrate feasible mitigation measures. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, concurred that the application should be considered as if it were a new application in the sense that there would be no building on the property. He said he felt it was an architectural and site review, which allows second stories in this zone subject to the guidelines with respect to privacy and mass intrusion that may be found. It does not provide for a carte blanche denial o1' the second story, which is covered under the single family residential; therefore what is presented is a determination of whether the staff recommendations are adequate to protect the privacy and are otherwise reasonable. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, said that it was a unique situation that warranted additional review. Referring to a conceptual map of the neighborhood, he illustrated the location ol~ two other two story duplexes and the location of the applicant's property showing the relationship to the adjoining properties. He said that the General Plan, general duplex ordinance and precedent and findings for approval of an architectural site approval needed to be considered in reaching a decision on thc application. Mr. Cowan reviewed the background of the item, the R2 zoning regulations, compliance with R2 development standards, and compliance with R1 design and privacy standards, as summarized in the Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 10, 1999 staff report. He explained that the applicant proposes to use the planting of trees and the use of obscured windows for privacy mitigation as well as architectural changes. Mr. Cowan answered Commissioners' questions regarding the application. Mr. Erh-Kong Chieh, applicant, said that he has lived in the duplex for more than 10 years, with his parents living in unit B. He said the addition to the duplex was needed to accommodate his mother~in-law residing with him for part of the year. Mr. Chieh said that the city indicated that the duplex was located in an R2 zone which permits a second story addition, and noted that some two story duplexes already existed in the neighborhood. He said that when they began the plans for the addition last May, they were misinformed by city staffthat a public hearing was not necessary for the R2 zone. He noted that the plans did not include demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a massive building, but only adding enough living space to accommodate their needs for family use. He reported that the application was filed in December 1998, and received the building permit in February 1999, but because of inclement weather, they did not begin the addition until March 1999. Mr. Chieh said that it was not until later that he was informed of the necessity for a public hearing, and that it was not properly included in the approval process. In April, the city arranged for a meeting with the city officials, the architect, the Kolevs and the Adelmans who would be impacted by the addition, and the applicant. He said that he has been working with the architect to come up with options to address the privacy issues. Mr. crier said that he felt his proposal adequately addressed the privacy issues, and he understood that the permit allowed the addition to be legally built. He said that he has spent approximately $70,000 for the construction akeady, which does not include costs involved in work stoppage orders. He said that he visited several neighbors and they did not have additional privacy issues to be addressed based on the proposal. Mr. Chieh answered questions regarding the proposed mitigation measures, and the possibility of switching the location of the second story bedrooms and bathroom for less window exposure to the west. He said it was not cost effective to switch the bathroom location, and there were design issues involved in switching the bedrooms. In further discussion, it was noted that if the bedrooms and bathroom locations were switched, further architectural mitigation and use of screening trees would not be necessary, except one window. He said that if a violation exists with the setbacks, he would address it and comply with the regulations. Mr. David Pemg, architect, explained the potential problems with switching the location of the bedrooms and bathroom, because of code requirements for window size. He also discussed the setback issue. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Ema Jackman, 14515 Oak St., Saratoga, owner of the duplex located at 10305 El Pmdo Way, said that although the property was located within the 300 foot radius, she had not received notification of the proposed two story addition. She said that it was a tall addition, close to the property, with a high ridge roof. She said that trees and opaque glass would not alter the fact that all that can be seen from the back of the Adelman's and Kolev's property is wall space. She referred to the parcel map and illustrated the location of the other properties with two story additions, noting that they were built with the original tract, and were located on a comer, not impacting other's views. She said that the Adeiman's view of Mt. Hamilton is now replaced with the view of the second story addition and a palm tree. Ms. Jackman said that she was informed that the application did not meet the required setbacks; and said that aside from ruining three adjacent properties, if it proceeds, the city will not be justified in denying other requests for second story additions and will rain the compatibility of the neighborhood. She said she felt that the second story addition must be removed and the building returned to a one story building. She concluded that if the city did not do this, she would join several other neighbors in a lawsuit against the city. Mr. Owen Byrd, an attomey representing the Adelmans, said the Adelmans were opposed to the proposal and urged denial of the application. He pointed out two procedural defects which he said should convince the Planning Commission to take no action. First, Section 19.134.040a of the zoning code requires that the Director of Community Development agandize a Planning Commission hearing on an architectural site Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 10, 1999 review application only upon receipt of a complete application. In this case, the hearing was agendized before the apphcation was complete. He smd that on April 30, staff confn'med that the application was not complete, and because it was not complete until last week, the hearing on it should have been agendized for tonight, May lffh. He said there appeared to be a msh to process the project, which denied the Adelmans the orderly process required by the code, intended to give time to fully review and respond to the application. The second procedural issue is a lack of CEQA review. The staff report contains no mention of whether CEQA requires an analysis of this project's environmental impacts; and if required, it is not in the staff report. If the project has a CEQA exemption, no explanation of that exemption is contained in the staff report, and until staff presents an environmental determination under CEQA, fmal action cannot be taken. He said that if the Planning Commission proceeds at this meeting, in spite of the completeness and CEQA issues, the Adeimans request that the application be denied because the findings cannot be made to support the project as currently designed. Mr. Byrd said that the Planning Commission should not approve this or any other project unless the findings required by the zoning code can be made, and said in this case the fmdings could not be made, specifically the privacy impacts on neighbors and loss of direct sunlight and indirect natural light for its neighbors, which for the Adeimans would rain their solar heating system for their pool. The project will also impose artificial light impacts at night and will subject neighbors to unbuffered noise emanating from the second story. He said that a recent real estate appraisal on the Adelman's property determined that up to 10% of the total property value could be lost. The project is not consistent with the General Plan and zoning code in four other specific ways. The project proposes an abrupt change ih building scale, and would result in an abrupt transition in height and bulk between the existing residences surrounding the project and the new project itself. Its location on a flag lot makes the finding more difficult to make because the project must relate to so many other structures, while a regular interior lot with normal street frontage would have fewer structures with which to blend. In addition, the location and height of the walls do not harmonize with the adjacent development; the monolithic wall facing the Adeimans will dominate the view to the east from the. ir property to the exclusion of all else. The wall of the proposed 7 bedroom, 5 bathroom duplex does not harmonize with the adjacent development; they overpower it. Lighting is not shielded from spilling over into adjoining properties as required by code; in fact, artificial light spilling from the second story will intrude on all surrounding residences. The new project in an existing residential neighborhood, is not designed to protect residences from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects as required by code. Its design imposes alt these impacts on all nearby resident. Mr. Byrd said that since the f'mdings cannot be made, the project should not be approved. Mr. Byrd, addressed issues raised earlier in the meeting. He referred to the other two story duplexes, and said that because they existed, a two story duplex is appropriate. He pointed out that the original developer of the tract said that originally eight two story duplexes were proposed, but the city denied all of them because they wanted to protect the privacy of the adjoining neighbors. The city eventually approved 2 two story duplexes on comer lots since second stories on comer lots present fewer privacy impacts than on interior lots. The third on a comer lot was later built out with a second story addition over the detached garage, and not over the living unit adjacent to its neighbor. In contrast, the proposed project has a second story on a flag lot where the privacy impacts are maximized, not minimized. Relative to rear yard setbacks, the staff report confreres the Adelman's belief that the existing structure does not comply with the required setbacks, and while the staff report claims that the encroachment is 8 inches, the Adelman's believe it is 2 feet. Though the encroachment can be cured by creating an indent in the building, the fact that it exists, graphically points out how intrusive the second story will be. Setbacks provide minimum distances, not maximum, and this project's impacts are maximized by building the project out to the literal edge of the setback. Relative to the staff proposed mitigations, there is a site obstructing false balcony and a landscaping screening to be combined to reduce privacy impacts. The Adeimans object to this approach for three reasons. Firstly, the combination of the approaches will not mitigate all the impacts of the project, therefore it doesn't meet their objective. Secondly, the false balcony will make an imposing structure, even more unattractive by having an out-of-scale feature hang off the large rear wall and into the setback. It would merely look like the afterthought that it is. Thirdly, the landscape screening is proposed to be cited in the 5 foot PG&E easement that runs across the back of the Chieh's lot. State taw requires utility companies Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 10, 1999 to regularly prune trees growing near power lines. In short, the proposed trees would require so much pmning that they could not provide the screening they are intended to provide. Mr. Byrd said that the permit was issued and the Chiehs began construction without the required site review. He said at this point, pointing the blame for the mistake was less important than preventing an even greater mistake. He said that while the Adelmans believe it would be a mistake to approve this proposed design, the city may fear that it might bear liability to the Chiehs if the approval is not granted; and the Addmans have been told that the city attomey fears that the Chiehs will sue the city if the city does not approve the application. He said this fear should have no bearing on the fmdings required to make when approving or denying the project. In fact, the city runs the risk of lawsuit by any applicant or an opponent in any land use controversy. Mr. Byrd continued, stating that the Adelmans ask that the project be denied based on the f'mdings even with the proposed mitigations and said not to address any perceived harm to the Chiehs caused by the issuance of the building permit prior to this review. If found that they are unable to vote to deny the application because it would be unfair to the Chiehs given the partial construction to date, he said they felt the Planning Commission/city has the responsibility to acknowledge their error, and what matters is what will be built, not what has inadvertently been built thus far, and for the Adelmans the only silver lining in the unauthorized consa'uctinn that has occurred to date is that the partial framing of the second story outlines better than any architecural elevation could, just how imposing the structure will be. Mr. Byrd illustrated four overheads that showed different views from different areas of the Adeiman's home before and after construction of the two story addition. He also provided a petition signed by over 100 people opposing the Chieh's project. He concluded by stating that the Adelmans were requesting that the Planning Commissioners ask themselves, would they want to live with the impacts of the project or would they want the city officials to apply the £mdings and deny the project to protect you from those impacts? In response to Chair Harris' questions, Mr. Cowan noted that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA. He explained that there was no timeline for an architectural site approval application, but they normally liked to have items three weeks before. He said there were instances where there were projects submitting emergency projects, signs, for example, just three days before the matter is heard. There is no set rule when the application has to be completed. Mr. Kilian added that it was apparent that the neighbors had adequate time to prepare; they presented a clear presentation, they had an attorney represent them; they had ample opportunity so that any problem with the filing that would cause them to be rushed to judgment, is not applicable as they had ample time to respond. Com. Kwok asked if there was any legal prohibition against putting up a second level building, assuming that the applicant meets the setbacks and height requirements. Mr. Kilian responded no, as indicated in the beginning, it is solely architectural and site review; there is no real basis to deny under a blanket prohibition against second stories; what the law requires is to review any second story applications with the idea of reasonably mitigating any privacy and massing of the building; therefore unless it is not mitigatuble at all, the Planning Commission would be hard pressed to deny the application outfight. He added that it was more appropriate to ask if the staff's recommendations or the applicant's recommendations for mitigating these problems are sufficient or not; and what other mitigations can be utilized to make the problem less onerous on the neighbors because of the application. He said that it would be difficult to justify out of hand denying the two stories; noting that if it were the case, it would be an R2i zoning district. Ms. Cheryl Besemer, 10333 Degas Ct., asked that Mr. Byrd's comments be fully considered, and noted that she signed the petition. She said one of the design factors of the units was the privacy factor as the living area is in the back of the units. She said the bulk of the proposed unit is intrusive on the surrounding units; and the obscure glass was a consideration but did not alleviate the mass. She said she did not feel the setbacks were 24.8 feet back from her fence. Ms. Basemer commented that the applicant's unit was huge and took away the privacy from her tenants, and as a result, in the future might have a negative effect on renting the units because of the lack of privacy. She said that she felt that if the project had been reviewed at the appropriate time, it would have been denied. She said that there are certain lots and properties throughout the city that are appropriate for two story buildings, even if they are in a one story development Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 1 O, 1999 and other properties that are not. Ms. Besemer noted that it has been said many times that this the worse case scenario with the flag lot affecting many households. Mr. Emil Kolev, 10344 E1 Prado Way, also represented his wife, Mm. Anita Kolev, illustrated the location of his property, master bedroom and pool, and said he was seriously affected by the two story duplex. He noted what he felt were errors in the staff report relative to work stoppages, and items related to notice of the public hearing. He said that the General Plan contained specific guidelines about land use controls, codes and enforcement, building code violations, visual considerations, retaining the natural settings and views as much as possible, scale of residential development, visual impacts, etc. which were not considered. He said that only a portion of the purpose of the architectural site review process was included in the staff report, and it was the means to achieve the purpose; the purpose being to protect and stabilize property values, maintain the character and integrity of the neighborhood, prevent adverse affects associated with new construction; and only the means were there. Mr. Kolev said that the proposed application was for three families, and the purpose of the duplex is to house two families. He said that it did not comply with the R2 standards relative to rear setbacks, and there is already a violation of the original illegal plan. He referred to overheads which illustrated some discrepancies from the plans and the information in the staff report. He recommended denial of the application and to look for solutions that comply with the Cupertino General Plan, including denial of the second story addition, if not physical solutions can be achieved. He also suggested that mistakes be corrected in the staff report, and initiate investigation of current building process to eliminate all code violations. He said that when he pumhased his unit recently, Mr. Adelman came with plans illustrating what would be in his back yard, which he was not aware of. He said if the building permit was issued properly, all records would be updated and he would have received notifications and be aware of what was going on across from his back yard, which did not happen. He said his family was deprived of the knowledge of the disclosures; there was no SAR to express his input, the city allowed a prejudicial situation to develop and he paid an unjustified amount for his house, which amounted to about a 10% loss in money on his property. Ms. Lorrie Reid, 22841b Medina Lane, said she lived adjacent to a second story duplex, which she felt should not have been built. She said that prior to living on Medina Lane, she had lived in a duplex on Lockwood Drive adjacent to a duplex with a second story, that experienced work stoppage and engendered animosity with the neighbors. She said often the property owner does not follow through on the recommendations for privacy protection after approval has been granted. She pointed out that the property on Lockwood has been for sale 5 or 6 unsuccessful times and does not fit in the neighborhood. She conclu.ded that her experience with second story duplexes was regrettable. Ms. Dianah Mart, 22773b Voss Ave., said that she was contacted by the Chiehs and discussed privacy issues. She said that she was affected by only 2 windows which would be obscured and they also discussed the planting of tall shrubs for privacy mitigation. She said she felt reassured that her privacy would be maintained. Ms. Marr said that she was not aware of the petition which was circulated, and said that it indicated her neighbor had signed the petition, when in fact he said that he had not, nor had she. She said that she felt the shrub planting was also adequate mitigation. Mr. Richard Tsui, 1117 Valley Quail Circle, San Jose, spoke on behalf of Mr. Chieh, his brother-in-law, and expressed his admiration for his taking the responsibility of having the four elderly parents live with him. He said he hoped that the public heating would result in a win-win situation on the issue, which would allow the family to live together. Mr. Paul Lu, said that he was Mr. Chieh's friend, and he felt that some of the people signed the petition because they thought the addition was illegally constructed. He said he felt the petition was misrepresented. He pointed out that the Chiehs followed all the regulations put forth by the city and did not knowingly constxuct the second story addition illegally. Planning Commission Minutes ? May 10, 1999 Ms. Arlene Lu, 428 Pact Dr., Los Altos, said she was Mr. Chieh's sister, and noted that there would be no exa'a traffic because of the additional people living in the home, as the in-laws did not drive. She said that privacy issues were a mutual concern and would not be neglected. Ms. Lu said that there would not be extra noise added from the elderly couple since they had been living in the home since Mr. Chieh purchased the home. She also expressed her admiration for her brother's decision to have the elderly in-laws reside with him. Chair Harris clarified that when an addition, particularly second story, is approved, it is not approved just for the family that owns the property at the time, because that addition will remain for at least 50 years; therefore the particular present circumstances are not considered, as some people build the property to live in and some build to sell, and circumstances change over time. She pointed out that was the reason for considering issues such as traffic and noise at the time of approval of such a proposal. Ms. Nancy Adelman, said that relative to the petition signatures, she did receive a signature from the person on parcel 36. Ms. Joan DelSecco, 10333 Degas Ct., said that she lived in the area 16 years, and moved there because of its serenity and harmony. She said that the second story unit on the comer was built lower than hers; therefore there was no privacy impact to her yard; and the unit on the corner with the above-garage addition did not have windows. She said she was not aware of any problems relative to the other two story duplex. Ms. DelSecco said that she felt badly for what happened and said that the city made a horrendous mistake in not following the R2 code, which as a result put everybody in a bad light. She said she was very upset over what had occurred; and said the petition did not mention any illegalities. Relative to the lxaffic impact, she concurred that the unit might eventually be sold, and there would be a large amount of people living in the duplex which would add to the traffic. She said that she was not aware of the impending addition until she returned from vacation and saw the massive structure, and noted that the city had not notified the residents. She said that the project has had a negative impact on the neighborhood, which had been a congenial neighborhood. Ms. DelSecco said that the permit probably would not have been granted if the proper process was followed by the city, since the neighbors would have objected strenuously to the proposal. She expressed her disappointment with the city for the error, and said that she felt threatened for the future of her home and the neighborhood, as more units would likely be sold, and questioned whether more two story additions would be approved. She said that the harmony of the neighborhood has been destroyed and she felt the second story addition should be taken down. Chair Harris reiterated that the Planning Commission would address the issue as if there were no addition constructed on the premises; and would look at the application having been brought forward and alt of the input heard would be considered as if there was no existing addition. She said they would not be prejudiced by the fact that the addition had been started. C~hair Harris noted receipt of a petition form containing 11 signatures of Degas Ct., Medina Lane, Lockwood Dr., Voss Ave., and El Prado Way residents, stating they had no problem with the Chieh's proposal and no concerns regarding privacy issues. Mr. Chieh thanked the participants for their input. Relative to the petition, he said that those neighbors he spoke to were concerned whether he had the proper permit for the addition, and whether he was addressing the privacy issue. He said that because the petitioners heard only one side of the story, they may not be represented here. He said that for the R2 zone, there were no privacy standards, and they basically abstracted fi.om the RI requirements. He said he felt his proposal not only met, but exceeded the R1 requirements for the privacy issues. He said that if people felt there should only be one story duplexes in the area, then perhaps the zoning should be modified for the future. However, it is presently an R2 zone, and he felt he was eligible to apply for a second story. He said when he purchased the home 10 years ago, he saw there were other two story duplexes in the neighborhood, and felt that they would be able to expand to accommodate their needs because it was zoned R2. In conclusion, Mr. Chieh said that he met all the city Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 10, 1999 requirements, and considered all the mitigation they could provide to resolve the issues of the neighbors to the/best of their ability. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris summarized the issues: (1) Approve as presented with two mitigations measures, the screened deck outside the bedroom and opaque windows, and tree plantings? (2) Deny a second story at this location? (3) Do the architectural review in light of the RI standards just developed, since it is similar to an K1, which would require looking at it in terms of 65/35% and 4 foot offsets and other mitigations contained in the R1 plan? (4) Specific elements, (shift bedroom, move over garage, move over other unit); (5) Planting close to subject property; (6) Move encroachments; and (7) FAR. Referring to the architectural site review document, Com. Stevens questioned whether the Planning Commission had to make the finding that the proposed project maintains the character and integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Kilian explained that there are a number of purposes, and not all the purposes are necessarily met by any particular application. He said that neighborhood character is a concern in this case, and if determined that it was totally inconsistent with the neighborhood, it may be reason to fred the more specific findings contained in the finding provision of the chapter on Pages 2-I0 and 2-11 of the staff report. Mr. Kilian reiterated that the findings are what is legally required; the purposes are why the findings exist and what supports the fmdings. If it is found to be totally inconsistent with the neighborhood either as it exists or is reasonable to become, then the Planning Commission would have the authority to deny the request based upon one of the fmdings. He said that the General Plan specifics are contained on 2-23 and 2-24 and the privacy strategy under Policy 2-19 protects residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects from more intense developments with adequate buffering, setbacks, landscapings, walls, activities, limitations, etc. If the mitigations do not meet the reasonable expectations of privacy to the neighbors, the permit could be denied. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine what is reasonable in that regard. Com. Stevens said that he was concerned with the project, visited the property, and was not supportive of what was presented because he felt the moving of the bedrooms would be a much better solution. He said that R2 states that a second story can be built, and there are no FAR requirements, and he said he could not look at things other than setbacks. He said he could not deny the second story as a blanket rule; however, he felt that a precedent has been set in three different areas, one on Vista, and two located in this neighborhood in that ~ey are all on comer lots which means that the privacy issue is mitigated on two sides of the second story addition automatically. He said the subject project is a flag lot with up to 7 properties backing onto it, and if he denied the project, it would be because it is a flag lot. Com. Stevens said he would like to apply R1 standards; however, the FAR of a duplex is governed by 40% of the lot size, and it does not give it as a floor area ratio, it gives it as a footprint. If you add to it, and this is something the city should be looking at, that means you couldhave a FAR of 80% because it can be doubled if there is no other requirement. Com. Stevens recommended the maneuver of the bedroom and bathroom for a better privacy solution; use of deck, opaque windows, planting close to the structure and away from the wires to alleviate the wire clearance problem. He said it would also assist the neighbors in not blocking the sun from their solar heaters if the planting was done closer to the house. He said if there is a legal R2 encroachment, it should be corrected. Relative to the stairwell, he said he would support the R2 standard, and move the 4 inches. Relative to the FAR, with a minor modification, he supported the 50% ratio of the house portion on the top of whatever the existing structure is, rather than 100% which is in concert with allowing and 40% coverage on the main floor. Com. Kwok said he had been to the property and talked with the neighbors and concurred with Com. Stevens. He said that he felt he could not support the denial of a second story, with the existing precedent of three two story duplexes in the neighborhood. Relative to shifting the bedrooms, he said he concurred with Com. Stevens as he felt it would be a qompromise with the applicant to mitigate the privacy concerns. Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 10, 1999 He said that moving the addition to the existing building would just shift the problem to someone else and he did not support that. He said that the plantings, deck and opaque windows were efforts made by the applicant to protect the neighbors' privacy and he supported that. Com. Kwok said he would approve the overall project as presented with the false deck, opaque windows and the planting on the property line. Relative to the RI standards, he said he felt it met the height requirements; the front and rear setbacks would be addressed at encroachment time. He said the applicants have already agreed that if it is in violation of the setback requirements, they would rectify the problems to comply with the requirements, and he supported moving the encroachments to meet the setback requirements. Relative to the FAR, he said he supported Com. Stevens recommendation of the 50% of the lower level. He said he was supportive of planting close to the property because of the wires; the 4 inch encroachment, but not the stairwell. Com. Kwok said he was supportive of the application as designed with the bedroom facing west, and the mitigations proposed by staff and the size proposed by applicant. Com. Corr said that given the R2 zoning in the area, he felt the second story was a fait accompli, and in terms of presentation he felt he could not approve it as presented even though a noble effort was made to try to resolve a nasty issue. He said he felt it was appropriate to apply the RI standards and agreed that in looking at specific elements, shifting the bedroom made sense, moving it around changes the whole attitude of what happens on the west side of the house; moving it over the garag~ doesn't make sense; the planting closer to the property both on the west and south was appropriate. Relative to the encroachments, he said he still was unclear, and felt something occurred in the past regarding the jog in the fence, and it was imperative to del'me where the property line is, and if the setback has been encroached upon, it needs to be moved back and removed. He said the FAR at 65/35% was appropriate. Chair Harris said that she could not approve it as presented even with staffmitigations. She said she felt she could not deny the second story totally, since they went to a great deal of trouble to write the R1 standards, and although not necessarily applying them here, they could be used as a guide in the architectural review. She said she would like to see all the project reviewed in light of the standards with the offsets and the FAR and the 65/35% which is 50% on the side where that part of the duplex is looked at as a house, double the size on the ground and half above. Relative to the encroachments, she said she concurred with Com. Corr, to first determine if there is an encroachment, otherwise people could move their fence out and claim ownership of the property. She said she felt if they looked at the R1, then the stairwell encroachment would require moving; and if there is an encroachment, shifting the bedroom would be appropriate because everybody wins and the people that are close to that property don't have their privacy infringed upon. Com. Harris said that she preferred putting the addition over the garage; however, there is no support for that because it moves it up on the lot and away from everyone else. She said that she was not in favor of putting it over.the second unit, because it shifts the impacts. Relative to the FAR, she said she concurred with the other Commissioners; and planting close to the subject was appropriate. Chair Harris explained to the applicant that the application would not be approved as presented and explained the process that would follow. Mr. Chieh requested clarification if the bedroom was shifted, would it meet the requirements or would they still need to meet other requirements? Chair Harris clarified that four of the Planning Commissioners suggested that staff look at the project in light of the recently approved R1 standards to see how it meets it. Staff indicated in most cases it does meet it; however, not in the size which is too large, and would require scaling back for certain, and perhaps one or two other elements staffwould determine. Kelative to the 50% FAR he asked if it included the garage. Chair Harris said that the suggestion was to take a part of the property that is the ground floor of the side of the duplex where the second story is, and the second floor can be 50% of that. She said they were not suggesting that the garage be included as part of the calculation. Kelative to the issue of the Vista Drive duplex being approved, Chair Harris clarified that the purpose of an architectural review is to allow the community to come forward to submit input, and Mr. Chieh's circumstances differed since it was a flag lot that directly affected several other properties. She said no one contested the issue at the Vista Drive hearing, because as many property owners were not impacted. Com. Kwok suggested to Mr. Chieh that he work. with the architect and the neighborhood as well. Chair Harris Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 1 O, 1999 pointed out that in the majority of cases, the applicant working with the staff and community usually worked out beneficially and might be advisable for Mr. Chieh to do. Chair Harris explained that there was a circumstance in the R1 that allows for accessory units, for families to have a unit for thek parents, relative or housekeeper on site; and when addressing those, they do not look at the accessory unit even if it is attached as if it is the house; the house is reviewed as the R1 and then the accessory unit counts in the FAR. She pointed out that the suggestion was different, in that the unit that is the house be looked at as a house with the ground floor being 100%, and the second floor being 50%. She said that they were welcome to present a different proposal and reason for it, for approval. Mr. Perng (architect) asked what the 50% was based on. Com. Stevens said that he suggested 50% of the unit to prevent somebody saying it meant both units and then take the total that was available and use it; which would prevent the person owning the other unit from using a portion; therefore it is limited to where the unit is being built, over the applicant's unit. He clarified that whatever unit size the applicant's unit is, 50% of that size could be built. If using the FAR on the RI, the garage would be included, allowing a bigger unit to be built, which would allow for consistency or half the garage, which may be the better way to proceed. Chair Harris asked that the applicant make a decision following the break. Chair Harris declared a recess from 9:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. Mr. Chieh said he would prefer a continuance of a month. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 4-ASA-99 to the June 14, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Con' Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Items 4 and 5 were considered together because the location and issues are the same, although a separate vote will be taken. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 2-EXC-99 Tony Wong 11346 S. Stelling Road Fence exception to locate a 7-foot high fence on a portion of the side (south) property line. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Application No.: Applicant: Location: 3-EXC-99 Rupinder Sekhon 7667 Echo Hill Court Fence exception to locate a 7-foot high fence on the south property line. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the applications for fence exceptions on two lots both located on Echo Hill Court, noting that an approval of the request would change the status of the fences from temporary to permanent and not require the owners to relocate the fences farther back into their properties. Staff recommends that the fences remain where they are along the 48 foot stxip of the Echo Hill cul de sac because pushing them back would not impact safety, and the fence exceptions be approved. A decision if reached will be considered final and not forwarded to the City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Planning Commission Minutes I 1 May 10, 1999 Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to a street map which showed the orientation of the lots and location offences, and reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the staff report. Both applicants are requesting the fence exception as they feel that they would be adversely affected if they were required to move back the fence, as well as necessitate removal of some of their patio area. Staffrecommends approval as they feel both would be adversely affected, and feel that the appearance is acceptable with landscape strip on the property. Com. Corr clarified that the condition placed on the subject parcels was that the temporary fence would be there and then ultimately have to be moved back. Ms. Wordell said that neither applicant was the original owner of the property and they stated that they were not aware of the fence exception when they purchased their homes. Chair Harris said that when the two parcels were subdivided in 1985 there was a condition that in the future the court would be put in and at that time they would have to make the 8 foot dedication. She said when she was on the Planning Commission, it did not seem fair to take the 8 feet from the two parcels and nothing from the right side, and it was decided to take 4 feet from them and 4 feet from the other side. Mr. Rupinder Sekhon, applicant, explained that his house faced Stelling Road and illustrated on the drawing where the yard was located including patio, wood deck and sprinkler systems. He said that during construction of the homes, the fencing was destroyed and they paid 50% of the cost of a new fence and the contractor contributed 50%. Mr. Sekhon said they installed the landscaping at their own expense to beautify the neighborhood. He noted that the neighbors have remarked how beautiful the landscaping is, and expressed their willingness to contribute to its upkeep. He said that it would impact both families negatively if they were required to move the fence back. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wish to speak. Chair Harris requested that the language of Condition No. 2 be changed to read "shall be maintained by the property owner." Com. Stevens expressed objection to the 7 foot height of the fence, and said he would prefer a height of 6 feet. He said he felt there was a caveat that in the future they may lose things anyway, and it did not serve any purpose to change the height at this time. He said that he supported the application. Com. Kwok said that he did not support the project, since the condition was set before they put in any permanent features, such as the mowing slx/p, which they could have sought an exception for. He questioned whether in the future they would request a permanent fence exception, and said that he did not support the application. Com. Corr said that he had a similar concern, in that at the time conditions were placed, and because they put in permanent features, it should be allowed to remain. He said that although in the future, they may be faced with taking it out, the fence and landscaping looked beautiful; and while he was concemed about the issue, he supported the application, since they may have to take it out in the future. Chair Harris said that she supported the fence exception, as she felt it was unfair that the property owners purchased the property not knowing about the fence exception and did not become aware of it until they were noticed about the public hearing for the 5 new homes. She said that it was also a benefit to the city to have the landscape strip taken care of by the homeowners. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 2-EXC-99 as recommended by staff, including the amendment stating that the landscape strip will be maintained by the property owner. Com. Corr Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Passed .3-1-0 Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 10, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Appln. 3-EXC-99 as recommended by staff, including the amendment stating the landscape strip will be maintained by the property owner. Com. Corr Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Passed 3 - 1-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: I 1-Z-97, 8-EA-98 Amendment to Ri-Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Public hearing to consider an amendmem to the Single family Residential ordiance regarding building mass, setbacks and height. Discussion of design guidelines, selection of representative to Residential Design Review Committee. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1999 Tentative City Council hearing date: May 17, 1999 Chair Harris summarized the five staff recommendations: Recommendation No. 1: Recommend that the City Council appoint the Planning Commission recommended member and alternate member to the Residential Design Review Committtee. Chair Harris reported that Com. Doyle was interested in serving as the representative and she was interested in serving as the alternate. Com. Stevens said he felt they were both qualified to serve; however, such an arrangement would not allow for a transition beyond without the ability of having the support person, as both their terms on the Planning Commission would end at the same time. Com. Harris stated that if she served as Chair for the next year, she would hand the Design Review Committee alternate position over during the second year to another person. Recommendation No. 3: To initiate a public hearing to amend the Single Family Residential ordinance to address blank garage and building walls facing the public right-of-way. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens recommended that a public hearing be initiated to amend the Single Family Residential ordinance to address blank garage walls and building walls facing the public right-of-way Com. Corr Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Recommendation No, 4: To initiate a modification to the Single Family Residential ordinance to require the planting of trees in the front yards of new two story homes and additions. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to initiate a modification to the Single Family Residential ordinance to require the planting of trees in the front yards of new two story homes and additions. Com. Corr Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 3 - 1-0 Recommendation No. 5: To initiate a modification to the Tree ordinance to protect native trees. Planning Commission Minutes 13 May 10, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to initiate a modification to the Tree ordinance to protect additional native trees, which will be presented to the Planning Commission Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Recommendation 2: Review the Design Guidelines and recommend approval to the City Council. Mr. Mark Srebnik, consulting architect, said that it was clear from the last meeting that the end product desired was a streamlined document that would assist in reviewing the plans that come in, and almost act more as a checklist approach rather than a lengthy elaborate type document. He noted that the graphic illustrations in the document would be reworked following approval of the concept of the design guidelines. Referring to Page 9 of the guidelines, Chair Harris suggested changes to the descriptions for the tandem three-car garage and the single door three-car garages. Referring to Page 5 of the guidelines, she asked that the drawing illustrating the height of entry features be modified to more truly reflect the concept. Com. Corr said that he was pleased with the format and language of the guidelines and pointed out that it was user friendly. Com. Kwok said that he was pleased also with the first draf~ of the guidelines. In response to Mr. Cowan's concern about grade changes, it was suggested that an additional bullet be added to cover building on a sloped grade. Com. Stevens suggested that reference be made in the introduction that specific detailed designs may be found in either the General Plan, R1, R2, etc. He also noted that care should be taken not to contradict illustrations in different areas of the guidelines, e.g.; illustrations of three-car garages in one section, and those same garages listed as ',don't" examples in another section of the guidelines. Chair Harris referred to the meeting times of the committee and said that she felt they should follow the ordinance guidelines relative to selecting a meeting time and date for the committee meeting, which states that the committee members would decide on the meeting time. She said that the application package should include a checklist showing how the applicant followed the guidelines for the application; and the Planning Commission should see the checklist as well as the checklist used in the meeting by the architect and Planning Commission representative to be certain it is in line. She also said that the story pole policy should~e delineated. Com. Stevens asked that the complexity of the story pole be deffmed. Chair Harris said that the tlmelines should be reviewed, including how much time in advance of the review meeting will the applicant submit the package; and how much time will the architect have the package to review it. She said the package should include the technical details and the policies that are written. Com. Con' said that reference to the policies on Page 1 were appropriate; and suggested references be included to the R1 ordinance itself, and related ordinances; and where a specific item in the Plan is mentioned in the ordinance or the General Plan, that reference should be included also. Chair Harris requested that on Page 7 of the guidelines, the phrase "should be used" be changed to read "could be used." Com. Corr suggested that pictures of the trees be included with the form shown on Page 6-19 of the staff report. There was consensus that the list should be updated to include the common names for the trees, the street that the tree can be seen on, and pictures of the trees. Planning Commission Minutes 14 May 10, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to continue Applications 8-EA-98, 1 I-Z-98 and 36-EA-98 to the May 24, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 11-EA-99 Capital Improvement Program City of Cupertino Citywide Finding of conformance with the General Plan Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell noted that the particulars of each project would not be detailed. In response to Chair Harris' question, Mr. Cowan said that the existing senior center would be demolished and replaced with a bigger building. Ms. Lynaugh said that the Center funds were allocated last year. Chair Harris questioned whether flooding mitigation would be included. Mr. Cowan said that to bring the city up from a 3 to 5 year storm system to a 25 or 50 year system would be extremely costly to replace the storm systems throughout the city. Mr. Cowan suggested a minute order to the City Council to suggest they look at the concept of increasing the capacity of the storm system. Com. Corr asked that the the McClellan Road/Stelllg to DeAnza project be included on the minute order to the City Council. Chair Harris referred to Page 7-14 of the staff report and asked for clarification of the term "neighborhood traffic calling measures." Ms. Lynaugh said the term included items such as speed bumps for neighborhoods, and said that if the request met certain guidelines, the city could provide them. She explained that "local share of grants" are grants that the traffic engineer has access to for different types of projects, such as bike lanes installations, safety enhancements, and operational improvements. She noted, however, that in some instances, the city has to put in matching funds because they are not always 100% funded with the grants. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved that the Capital Improvement Program, fiscal year 1999-2000 to 2003- 2004 is in conformity with the General Plan Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 There was a discussion regarding sending a minute order to the City Council to review raising the city standard of three years to five on flood standards. Com. Corr said that he did not fully understand the concept. Chair Harris suggested that a member of the Public Works staff meet with the Planning Commissioners at a future meeting to discuss the flood standard throughout the city. It was suggested that the meeting be scheduled in approximately one month. Chair Harris said that it might be mentioned to the particular commission that the McClellan Road-Stelling to DeAnza litem isted in the summary of programs, was one of their issues and it appears again in the five year plan on program. She suggested that they comment to City Council on the item. Planning Commission Minutes 15 May I (L 1999 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Con' reported that the next meeting of the Housing Committee would be held on May 13 at 3:30 p.m. Com. Stevens said he was unable to attend the meeting; Com. Kwok said he would attend the meeting. Com. Stevens reported on his attendance at the recent Environmental Review Committee meeting, lie noted that a meeting was scheduled for May 12~h. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan reported that the Planning Commission's Workshop was scheduled for May 22, 1999 in Oakland. He noted that Ciddy Wordell would be a speaker at the workshop. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to the regular meeting at 6:45 p.m. on May 24, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as amended: May 24, 1999