Loading...
PC 03-01-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MARCH 1,2004 CONFERENCE ROOM C MONDAY The Regular Adjourned Planning Commission meeting of March I, 2004 was called to order at 6:50 p.m. in Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Angela Chen Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Staff present: City Planner Ciddy Wordell APPROY AL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 City of Cupertino Citywide Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 and related Chapters affecting single-family residential development in the Rl Zoning District Tentative City Council date: not scheduled Continuedfrom Planning Commission meeting of February 23,2004 Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 1, 2004 Chair Saadati: Explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the RI survey, which includes some modifications that were recently incorporated. Asked for comments Com. Wong: Asked for clarification on Question 15 of the survey regarding Design Review, saying that the instructions to "check all that apply" could camel each other out if someone checked the "There should be no design review for anything" box and any of the other boxes Asked for an explanation of how these instructions came about Com. Miller: Said "check all that apply" should be deleted No further discussion was held on this point and the commissioners agreed to delete "check all that apply" from the instructions on question 15. Com. Wong: Regarding question 19: Since the 1999 ordinance already states that new construction should be designed to have architectural forms, roof pitches, roof height and wall heights that are consistent with neighboring homes, he would change the statement say "Generally, I believe that new construction should be designed to transition to architectural forms..." Asked for clarification of staffs thinking when they drafted question 19 Com. Miller: Explained that the original question said "Everybody should be compatible with their neighbor." . Said he objected to the term "compatibility" Tried to use definition of compatibility in the guidelines, which went along the lines that people need to be compatible with respect to architectural form, roof pitches, roof heights and eave heights---which for some reason got changed to wall heights Original intent was to do away with the word "compatibility" because it means different things to different people, and to go with the actual words in the guidelines Wanted to know why "eave" heights got changed to "wall" heights Com. Giefer: Stated that the survey ITom the last meeting also showed "wall" heights rather than "eave" heights, but the word "consistent" was used instead of "compatible" Com. Miller: Asked Com. Wong if he is suggesting that in neighborhoods where there is a major amount of redevelopment occurring, there should be more latitude for transitional neighborhoods Com. Wong: Agreed that this is what he intended . Asked Com. Miller if he thought question number 19 should be replaced with the question regarding transitional neighborhoods Planning Commission Minutes j March 1,2004 Com. Giefer: Said she had written Com. Wong's statement as: Generally, I believe that new construction should be designed to be in transition and have architectural forms, roof pitches, roof heights and eave heights that are consistent with homes in the neighborhood. Com. Wong: Need to strike the word "consistent", or it would delete the word "transition". Talking about neighborhoods in Garden Gate and Rancho Rinconada and Monta Vista, they are in transition ITom the older 1950-1960 homes to more modern homes. Ms. Wordell: Stated that Com. Wong is only speaking about neighborhoods that are in transition and focus should be on that. Felt the proposed wording would be hard to follow If commissioners want to find out how people feel about neighborhoods in transition, they should first agree to address transitioning neighborhoods and then decide on the wording to accomplish that goal The question on the survey is general and covers everybody Com. Wong: Wanted to know if it would be possible to add one more question asking if the community is open to having neighborhoods that are already in transition to continue doing things the way they are doing them now Current ordinance says the new development must be "compatible"---he wants to get the heartbeat of what the community wants Com. Miller: Said he had sense of what Com. Wong intends to convey Remembered Mr. Hung's application, which had a wall height issue. Mr. Hung got signatures ITom neighbors supporting his application Commissioners had the feeling that neighbors were supporting the application because they would eventually be doing the same thing to their houses That was neighborhood where people wanted to move in different directions Said the question should be asked that specifically addresses that issue to find out how many neighborhoods are similar Commissioners agreed to add question 21: Generally, I believe that construction in neighborhoods that are in transition from an older to a newer style should not necessarily be consistent with the older style. Com. Woug: Regarding question 20, the Design Guidelines are meant for 2-story homes over 35% FAR. The two check boxes for all new single-story homes and all additions goes beyond the City Council's directives Those two boxes are inappropriate and should be removed Design Review Guidelines would need to be revised if commissioners want to address single-story homes and additions Planning Commission Minutes 4 March I, 2004 Com. Giefer: Recollected that when the question was drafted, they wanted a "barometer" of what current opinion is: Should w.e leave the Design Guidelines as they are or should we expand them? Chair Saadati: Some single-story homes may be taller and have features that neighbors may object to Com. Chen: One of goals is to solve some of inconsistencies between Design Guidelines and RI Ordinance The purpose of the question could have been to see if people want to be more far- reaching than the present Guidelines, in which case the question is appropriate Com. Wong: Said he could see both sides of the issue, but is reluctant to go beyond what the Design Guidelines were meant to be---which is to address 2-5tory homes The commissioners agreed to remove the instruction "check all that apply" and to move (currently required) from under the check box for "All two-story homes or additions" to under the check box for "Only projects that require Design Review should have to meet guidelines." They also agreed to remove "All additions" as a check box. Com. Giefer: Formatting issue: page 2, the box does not line up well in the "Between 601 sq. ft. and 750 sq. ft." selection Question 14: There should only be one text box under the heading of Design Review Process. The box should not be broken up into two parts The text describing story poles should be above question 16, rather than question 14 On page 4, the heading Design Guidelines should be in bold font Com. Wong: Requested that a final copy of the survey be e-mailed to the commissioners before it is printed for the public The time line for the survey should be 15 days for the "Cupertino Scene" and on the website Once the survey is formatted it will be mailed to 2,000 applicants, and counting 15 days ITom the mailing date, there will be two sets of data-first ITom the applicants in surrounding neighborhoods at the end of March, and then another set of data at the end of April ITom the "Cupertino Scene" and the website Regarding timeline for the public hearings: Commissioners have gotten e-mails and letters ITom the previous survey that was sent out in January, and the Commission asked for feedback regarding other city ordinances. Also, Lisa and Marty brought up other technical changes Does not want to lose momentum and wants to keep having public hearings on the RI ordinance, divided into the six categories in the letter that Peter wrote Chair Saadati: Depending on the time, at least one of the categories can be discussed at each meeting Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 1,2004 Ms. Wordell: This item needs to be continued to whichever meeting date the commissioners want to re-hear it , rather than re-noticing it Com. Miller: Depending on how extensive the agenda is with other items, individual categories can be discussed Need to review data ITom other cities Should review recommendations made by Planning Commission last year at this time Ms. Wordell: Suggested that item be continued for three weeks to the next regular Planning Commission meeting (the second meeting in March) The length of time allowed for discussion would depend on the number of other items on the agenda Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Giefer to approve the revised survey and to mail the survey to selected residents prior to publication for the public. Vote: (5-0) Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 2004. Yote: (5-0) ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the Study Session at 3:00 p.m. on March 2, 2004. Respectfully submitted: