Loading...
PC 01-26-04 CITY OFCUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2004 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY The Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Angela Chen, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Angela Chen Taghi Saadati Marty Miller Gilbert Wong Lisa Giefer Staff present: Community Development Director City Planner Senior Planner Assistant Planner Assistant City Attorney Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli Gary Chao Eileen Murray Election of Chairperson: Com. Wong nominated Com. Saadati to serve as Chairperson; second by Com. Miller. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Saadati abstain.) Chairperson Saadati chaired the remainder of the meeting. He welcomed the new Planning Commissioner Lisa Giefer. Election of Vice Chairperson: Com. Miller nominated Com. Wong to serve as Vice Chairperson; second by Com. Chen. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Wong abstain) Honsing Commission: Vice Chair Wong nominated Com. Giefer to serve as Housing Commission representative; second by Com. Miller. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Giefer abstain). Design Review Committee Representative and Alternate: Com. Chen nominated Com. Miller to serve as alternate of the DRC: second by Com. Giefer. Vice Chair Wong serves as the representative and will serve as the Chair of the DRC. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Miller abstain). Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 26, 2004 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 12,2004 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Wong to approve the January 12,2004 minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Giefer abstain) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None The agenda was moved to Item 2, since it was a continued item and because of the anticipated length of discussion for Item I. OLD BUSINESS: 2. M-2002-06 YMCA One year review of modification of a use permit to locate a children's playground at front of the property and extend the Hours of operation. Location: 20803 Alves Drive. Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Application is continued from December 8, 2003; Planning Commission directed the applicant to meet with neighbors to work out concerns. · Four meetings have been held with staff, YMCA and neighbors to address concerns. · Staff feels all issues have been addressed. · Mr. Chao summarized key issues: ~ Noise impacts from pool equipment on YMCA site; currently the pool building is operating within the city's noise ordinance standards. ~ YMCA has installed sound wall on top of pool building to mitigate some noise impacts; has agreed to install additional noise abatement devices to further reduce noise generated by pool equipment. ~ Light glare from pool building. Blinds have been installed to block any possible glare from indoor pool lights; exterior wall light has also been removed and adjusted lights to minimize glare. ~ Noise impacts from outdoor activities at rear of pool building; YMCA has agreed to reduce scheduled outdoor activity hours to 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday; 10 a.m. to I p.m. or I p.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. Attempt will be made to not scheduled outdoor activities on Sunday. ~ YMCA is not going to schedule any activities in rear lawn area behind the pool building at the neighbors' request. ~ YMCA will attempt to inform neighbors of any special events or activities outside of those hours. ~ YMCA will install shrubs along rear property line to further provide a physical barrier from the YMCA's activities to the neighbors to the rear area. ~ YMCA has installed security cameras to monitor outdoor activities. It will allow the YMCA to manage and confirm complaints or problems and enable them to address them appropriately in the future. ~ Loud music late at night: The YMCA has communicated with its janitorial staff to curtail the music at night. Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 26, 2004 ~ Existing traffic volume on Alves Drive: It has been determined that the YMCA's application to construct the children's playground and modify its hours of operation will not generate additional traffic trips; the existing traffic concerns on Alves Drive should be a separate issue from their application being considered this evening. ~ YMCA volunteers conducted a traffic survey over a period of four mornings, and the report confirms that the traffic level on Alves Drive is comparable to those on other residential streets in the city. ~ The neighbors would like Alves Drive to be completely closed off to prevent vehicles from accessing Alves Drive from Stelling Road. The closure of a street should only be considered if it is determined that the closure is part of the city's General Plan or if it will alleviate major traffic impacts in the city. Based on previous traffic reports on that street and YMCA's traffic survey, the traffic volume on Alves Drive in comparison to other residential streets is not excessive to warrant closure. The Public Works staff will continue to work and meet with the neighbors living on Alves Drive to explore options to further improve the traffic circulation in that area. · Staff recommends approval of the application in accordance with the model resolution. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, noted that the sign directing traffic to use Alves off Stelling, has been removed at the suggestion of a neighbor. Mr. Chao: · Noted that the original hours of operation were 7 a.m. to II p.m., and the approved hours were 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekends. Mr. Paul Hansen, 2141 Prospect Rd., representing YMCA: · Have fully adopted the Planning Commission recommendations to take a proactive approach with the neighborhood and be in the spirit of resolving issues to the neighbors' satisfaction. · Felt that although some of the changes were costly, without neighborhood support of what has been done, they would not be successful. · Reviewed the NW YMCA Progress Report, including the measures taken to address neighbors' concerns relative to traffic, noise, impact of outdoor activities, impact of lighting on premises, and notification to neighbors of activities. · Reviewed the good neighbor policy adopted and timeline of next steps planned. · Noted that the janitorial schedule had not changed, from 10:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. on weekends, with the main focus the janitors on the pool area as quickly as possible and as short duration as possible to address concerns. Vice Chair Wong: · Expressed concern about possibly making the hours earlier; however, Mr. Hansen said the YMCA was a big facility. Mr. Piasecki: · Noted it would be appropriate regarding maintenance activities, if the Planning Commission included wording in Condition 3 that maintenance activities are permitted outside of the above operating hours, so that people don't debate that later on. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input. Don Huntley, 20685 Alves Drive: · Supports the application. · Are family members of the YMCA. Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 26, 2004 · Expressed gratitude for all benefits ofthe YMCA; particularly the playground and nursery that his preschool child uses. Nicholas Skordilis, 10225 Beardon Drive: · Owner of the building next to the YMCA, 8 unit apartment building · Bought the property in 1989 because of the quiet, peaceful configuration of the property; remained that way for 13 years until YMCA expanded the indoor swim pool. · Since then the tenants have suffered from the constant noise of the HV AC system; having difficulty sleeping, needed earplugs; during the daytime have difficulty watching TV; affects nerves. · YMCA has taken steps to alleviate noise, including relocation of two fans as Mr. Hudson presented, and building a wall, but more is needed. · After last public hearing, noticed a change in attitude of YMCA; had meetings with neighbors, addressed problems and they seem willing to work with us, want to thank both the YMCA and the city planning for contributing to the meetings. · Expressed concern about the HV AC system, which although they presented a graph that the noise of the HV AC system is the same as the ambient, said he had a report that the HV AC system is 5 db above the ambient. The HV AC is about 55 and the ambient is about 50. · Said the YMCA presented him with a consultant report stating that it would have a 10 db reduction on the output of the HV AC system with a building of a silencer. However, in the report it states that the 10 db will be on the output only and the same report states that 50% of the noise generated is from the input and the other 50% is from the output, which means that if we only address the output, then the input which is according to the report, as high as the output, then the noise will be dominated from the input noise levels. Although doubtful the overall will be 10 db, what I would like to see is first the built ofthe output silencer to see if the noise levels can be reduced down to the ambient noise, and if not, then I would like a commitment from the YMCA that they would be willing to look at input silencer in case the output silencer does not reduce the noise levels to the ambient noise. · Said that if YMCA builds the output silencer, he is willing to look at the input silencer, in case the output silencer does not work alone; and was willing to support the project and any reasonable future projects they may have. Larry Dean, 22159 Ray Lane, current Board Chair of Board of Managers, NW YMCA: · Representing the 18 member board who are community volunteer members to reiterate the YMCA's support of the efforts put forth in the last month. · Said he recognized that due to a lot of the growth in the last years, they could have done a better job in communicating with the neighbors and their staff has reacted to that quickly although belatedly. · Said the Planning Commission and staff had the full support of the Board of Managers and YMCA staff to continue the open communications and try to continue to resolve issues that may come up. · Appreciated everyone's help and cooperation and the neighbors who have come forth to put their issues on the table. Megan Early, 1520 Ashcroft Way, Sunnyvale: · Said she and her brother learned to swim at the Westchester YMCA in Los Angeles. · During 6 year membership to the NW YMCA they completed advanced swim and have been certified in youth strength training. · Have been attending YMCA camps for 5 years. · Supports the YMCA. Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 26, 2004 Alex Early, 1520 Ashcroft Way, Sunnyvale: · Has been a member of the YMCA since she was 6 months old. · During the summer the daycare at the YMCA watches over the kids; the kids want to go outside because it is warm and sunny but there is no safe place to play; so it would be great if the playground was built because they would have a safe place to play. Jim Limberatos, 20724 Garden Gate Drive: · Supports project. · Have resided there since 1951 and waited 43 years for the YMCA to put in a pool about 3 years ago; swim there 4-5 days per week. · Many people there with physical therapy needs and the YMCA meets their needs. · Wife uses pool and exercise facilities. · Both commend the YMCA staff for being considerate, capable and dedicated. · The children's programs are phenomenal. · Happy with the YMCA; it is an asset to the community. Cheryl Vargas, 20803 Alves Drive, representing the YMCA: · Echoed the thanks and appreciation to the neighbors for coming out and having open dialog with the YMCA and working through issues and concerns since meeting in December. · It is the commitment on behalf of the YMCA, not only at Northwest branch but the YMCA of Santa Clara Valley to continue the efforts and working together to make the relationship with our immediate neighbors amenable. · With regard to the HV AC system and continuing to work with the neighbor to reduce the decibel readings, will continue to keep those things in consideration as they move forward to the next step, the new baffle system in, and if necessary, go to the next step. · Thanked young participants who came out today and spoke on behalf of the youth the YMCA serves in Cupertino, Sunnyvale and surrounding cities. Chair Saadati closed the public hearing. Com. Miller: · The YMCA has gone the extra mile to work with the neighbors. · Recommend approval that they move forward with their playground since it is clear there aren't any issues that need to be worked on further. Com. Chen: · Wanted to confirm that the YMCA was committed to quarterly meetings to keep communication going with the neighbors. · Thanked the YMCA for providing great benefits to the community. · Glad to see the community working together to resolve issues. · Thanked all the speakers who provided information to help make a decision. · Supports the project. Vice Chair Wong: · Supports the application. · It is important that the YMCA had the opportunity to talk with their neighbors. · Tonight discussing the playground and the hours of operation. Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 26, 2004 · If the neighbors have a concern, the model resolution states that if there was a concern, the neighbors shall have a Planning Commission hearing, hence the safeguards built into the model resolution are good. · Appreciate the YMCA Board of Directors as well as the YMCA staff for being proactive and acting with the neighbors; they are willing to commit some money into noise reduction vs. mitigation abatement. · Pleased they are moving forward. Com. Giefer: · Said that when she visited the site she noticed that the shrubbery was deciduous and recommended that future landscaping be evergreen shrubs so that the neighbors enjoy more benefit and noise reduction through the plant materials selected by the YMCA. · The YMCA has done an excellent job in reviewing tapes from the proceeding hearings and has also spent a considerable amount of money rectifying the mistakes or the issues outstanding; based on their efforts and testimony heard tonight, she supports the project. Chair Saadati: · Supports the project. · YMCA has done a lot of work since the last Planning Commission meeting and applaud the effort in meeting with the neighbors and continuing to be a good neighbor and communicate with them. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to approve M-2002-06 as amended, adding the wording in Condition 3 that maintenance activities are permitted outside the above operating hours; add wording condition No.5, also additional evergreen shrubbery shall be planted along the existing wood fence. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Saadati moved the agenda back to Item 1. 1. MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 City of Cupertino Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 and related chapters affecting single-family residential development in the Rl zoning district. Location: Citywide Tentative City Council date: Feb. 17, 2004 Chair Saadati: · Reported that the study session was held earlier to discuss the process for this item; concluded that the item would likely go on for about three months and all Commissioners agreed that they needed to hear everyone on the subject and also to find out how many people are here to speak on this item. Mr. Peter GiIIi, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · In 1999 in response to public complaints about new construction, the RI ordinance was amended by the City Council; these regulations included second story limits and a design review process. · The staff report contains a detailed history. · Late last year the City Council authorized the Planning Commission to review the ordinance; the questions that are before the Commission include: is the ordinance accomplishing its Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 26, 2004 purpose; and are there ways to improve it and improve it for all members of the public, not just one side; those wanting more protection. · The Council approved the scope of work which is attached to the staff report. The scope includes issues that have been raised in the past few years, major issues including how much you can have on the second story and the design review process, and also a number of technical changes. · As the Chair referred to in study session, the Planning Commission chose to receive input and put off the discussion of issues until after all input is received. Also as agreed, the staff will put together all the public input into a tabular form for review. · While the Planning Commission is receiving all the testimony, they are asked to identify the issues and think ofthe large scale issues above the one issue, because later in the process, want to identify the principles that you want this RI ordinance amendment to represent. · Said that Exhibit A in the staff report is split into the major issues and what is perceived as minor issues. There are options included, it is going to up to the Planning Commission after hearing from the public to say what is going to be decided; there are some minor issues where there is a staff recommendation on the language and those are items staff does not perceive to be a controversial item. · Recommendation is to take public input, and after the initial input is received, there will be an organized version of the input and decision made on what steps to take after that. Mr. Piasecki: · Added for the benefit of the public that may not come to many of these meetings, the Planning Commission following its deliberations will develop a recommendation; which will be forwarded to the City Council and there will be another opportunity before the City Council to provide input on the recommendation. There will be many opportunities both at the Planning Commission and later on at the City Council. Chair Saadati opened the public hearing. Dennis Houlsby, 10255 Mira Vista: · Said that he submitted a letter in the packet. · Said he agreed with the main purpose of the ordinance, to limit the impact of monster houses on existing neighborhoods, and their intrusion in the privacy oftheir neighbors. · Suggested five points that could improve the ordinance: ~ The requirement that the second story addition not exceed the 35% FAR. The 35% requirement may be reasonable for a large houses, but not for small ones. ~ An existing 1600 square foot house would be restricted to a 560 square foot second story; however, a 3500 square foot would be allowed 1225 square feet. The owner would be forced to expand the first story in order to construct a reasonably sized second story if he had a smaller house. ~ The RI ordinance should allow larger second stories on smaller houses by increasing the FAR and the existing house decreases in size from the maximum allowed in the lot; thus the second story addition for a maximum sized house would remain at 35% which would increase the 50% on a sliding scale as the house decreased in size from its maximum allowable down to 2,000 square feet. That would be fairer for those with smaller houses; who want a reasonable or modest second story addition. ~ Rl requires that decks and balconies be included as living areas. This requirement severely impacts the size of the second story based on the FAR of 35%; for example, the covered patio is not considered a living space but a covered deck on top of that patio is considered living space. By duly restricting the second story, the R I ordinance should not Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 26, 2004 include decks and balconies as living space when applying the 35% rule. Again for a smaller house this is a large impact. ~ Rl requires that the visible second story wall height not exceed 6 feet, or 50% of the perimeter. When applied to existing houses built over 10 years ago, the pitch ofthe first story roof must be exaggerated in order to meet this 6 foot visible height requirement. When you do that, it becomes out of proportion and in my case the city required the homeowner to ask for an exemption based on the fact that the city wanted exemption to their own ordinance. This is the case where the city already knows that R I is inappropriate when applied to older homes, yet requires the homeowner to bear the expense of the exemption. The city should be able to write exemptions into the ordinance or waive the fee for design review. ~ RI contains privacy requirements for second story decks and views of the neighboring yards. This requirement makes sense in most instances; however, monster homes built before R 1 had no privacy requirements and peered down into their neighbor's yards and living areas. Usually it was the existing residents who had to plant trees and install window coverings to prevent intrusion from the monster house. However, when that neighbor wanted to put a second story or deck on his house, it now became his responsibility under RI to plant more trees and frost his windows so the offending could be further protected. The RI ordinance should require monster homes built before RI to share the expense and pain of protecting privacy when new second additions are built under R 1. ~ The requirements of R I are often required design reviews for interpretation of the exception. The time and expense for review and interpretation of RI is borne by the homeowner, not the city. When an ordinance is totally written subject to interpretation, it should not be the homeowner that bears the expense. The city however seems aloofto the expense required for design review, such as architectural engineering city and blueprint fees as well as delays in construction. The city should be more responsive to its citizens and not encumber them with such unreasonable fees and construction delays. Robert Levy, 10803 Wilkinson Ave.: · Said the second story was likely the cheapest way to add square footage to a building, you reduce the amount of roof that has to be built on the building, you reduce the amount of foundation that has to go in; at the same time I can remember when the behemoth went up at the end of our block and that is the way we referred to them and we still do. · Our house ceilings have this sort of shape, they go up with the roof slant and go straight across in the upstairs room because the city requires that our houses sort of squat down and not be obtrusive; but the behemoths the people were paying lots of money for them and most of it was going for the land they were built on and the net result was that the builders felt that they ought to have a big house to go on their expensive lot, and I think that is where the problem with the second stories came in. When you start making it look like a big house things fall apart. Mark Burns, 345 So. San Antonio Rd., Los AItos, representing Silicon Valley Association of Realtors: · Said they support simplification of the RI ordinance; also believe there was a miscommunication from the time it became ordinance because the way it is written is that the top floor can only be 35% of the bottom floor which actually produces a ratio closer to 26% in the top and 74% on the bottom. This limits designers in what they can do with houses; when literally Y. can be on top and Y. has to be on the bottom, resulting in unattractive houses. It limits homeowners in what they can do; we want to support a simplified process that we can get these designs through quicker, save homeowners money; there is always a need and a reason in the neighborhood where someone needs to expand their home and we want to Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 26, 2004 support an economical and easy process for homeowners to do that rather than make things more complicated and harder to conform to. · Support changing the ratios back to what former Commissioner Orrin Mahoney said in the first place, 35/65, not 35% of the bottom floor which produces a much worse ratio than what was ever intended. Scott Hughes, 7752 Huntridge Lane: · Concerned there seems to be a rush to relax some of the present restrictions, specifically some put into place in 1999. · Some of this is based on somewhat limited and quite polarized input. There doesn't seem to be a lot of people in the middle. · Also concerned there is little focus on fixing some of the existing issues with the looseness of today's restrictions, specifically in areas of size, privacy and neighborhood impact. · Concerned why there is a push to maximize home size. What does this say about what we value in our community? · Regarding some of the existing input, it is obvious there has been much time, effort and thought invested in most of the work. On the surface some of the proposals seem fairly minor and harmless; however, before we can properly improve the ordinance and guidelines we need to ensure there is accurate, complete feedback on how they are actually working today. Otherwise it risks reducing the quality of life for many to satisfy the complaints of what could be a vocal minority. · Questioned how much feedback has been received from the six to seven adjacent neighbors for all the home extensions, and how does the feedback compare pre 1999 vs. post 1999. · Said he felt not enough feedback has been received, and one reason may be that many people are reluctant to speak out publicly about their neighbors. · Said he was willing to volunteer time to get some of this vital information; one possibility being a door to door survey of people who have been affected. Survey needs to focus not on all the small details, but more importantly on how adjacent neighbor expansion has impacted their site lines, their privacy and their quality of life. Need to start at a higher level rather than quibbling over the details first. · Said he felt this type of broad direct feedback would provide a better assessment and complement the work that has already been done and better know where the restrictions are too tight or where they are too loose rather than trying to make everything easier. · Said he wanted to share his own experience relative to existing issues. Resides in a 1200 square foot single story home on a 6,000 square foot lot. Last year the neighbor diagonally behind him expanded his home with little or no impact to his neighborhood; this year the neighbor directly behind is installing a one story addition, well within regulations which will severely and negatively impact his site lines, privacy and quality of life. The combination of insufficient setback and a totally unnecessary height is a major issue and is not one or the other; it is a combination of the two working together. The atypically large amount of rear facing doors and windows with glass which are above the fence line is a significant privacy issue in both directions. · Said words alone could not describe the full impact; he extended an invitation to the commissioners or staff to come to his back yard to compare the two projects and come back and state their preference of the two projects, and why. · He said if they felt this one that is within regulations is reasonable, he would like to hear some of these case studies. · Can't fix what has happened in the past but based on the loss and how much more severely others have been severely impacted, he asked to ensure that these issues are addressed before anything is relaxed. Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 26, 2004 · Need to see how things are working now and make sure all the existing issues are addressed first and then go forward with some of the relaxations, some of which may be minor. · Said he discussed expansion options with some of his neighbors; said he would not pursue a style of expansion that would negatively impact his neighbors; not because he did not need the space, but because he didn't consider it the right thing to do, and he felt it is something to consider as a community. · Said he felt the 1999 changes were long overdue and probably a first step in the right direction; one which was needed to remind us all that our choices in expanding our homes affect more than just ourselves; we have a responsibility to consider the impact to the neighbors and the community. · Need more improvements in the present system before creating any more heartache and conflict by loosening the present regulations further. MaIka Nagel, Camino Vista: · Have been involved in the process for over a year and been also a participant of the process and well versed in it. · Story poles are very expensive; in my case many thousands of dollars, took many months to put up and stayed up since it was not known how long it takes for the committee to go through and approve the house; it becomes a major eyesore for the neighborhood to have poles stay up for months at a time; in my case they had to be strategically placed because of renters in the house and couldn't risk a liability with poles falling · In regards to design review, the process is painful, in my case it added 3 to 4 months to the process and as the gentleman said added substantial cost to the process and gave too much power to the staff. In my case I had to come back and alter my plans on issues that had nothing to do with the ordinance at all, it was some arbitrary election to say change this and that; no thought on the impacts of the outside of the house, or how it impacted the inside of the house. · Regarding design guidelines, they conflict with the ordinance and the way the city operates now, they are more important than the ordinance itself. · The ordinance should be clear, it should be easy to follow and the design guidelines should be guidelines and not the driver of the project. · Privacy goes two ways; it is not just the new impacting the old, but also the old impacting the new. Dave Russell, 22790 Mercedes Road: · In the review process on Exhibit A, the matrix of RI regulations; the review process topic for triggering for RHS hillside regulations, the problem stated in the document is that current regulations may not protect the hillside in the fashion that the general plan describes. I agree with that assessment and the option stated in the document, that the Planning Commission should discuss the issue and determine if the change is warranted, I think a change is warranted, and you should continue to discuss that. I would volunteer my time for that · The document called R 1 regulations also talks about RHS and R I review for development on 30% slopes. The intent is to trigger for greater review of development on RI hillside lots. · Said they should look at what the criteria are for triggering examination of developments and proposed developments on hillsides, especially those of 30% or greater. Have seen a number of homes approved on 30% or greater sloped properties in very close proximity to the major ridgelines. The homes that have been approved and subsequently built, one in particular that has just been completed, is not consistent with the overall plan, the residential hillsides zone plan. The construction of it does not fit into the heavily wooded area; does not fit in with other homes; it is a very large, tall home, worse upon worse it feels that the paint job on the house Planning Commission Minutes 11 January 26, 2004 was done specifically to make it stand out and not fit in. I would like some more teeth brought into these things and we should retrigger this. · Specifically in the document titled residential hillside zones, chapter 19.40.060, building coverage setbacks and height restrictions, the major point I want to get across, is I propose a new reduction formula which is called the slope adjustment criteria, so that a 30% or greater slope requires a 40% reduction in square footage; that reduction is 30% now, I would like to see the reduction greater than 30% and that criteria and formula be looked at for new trigger points in terms of this overall approval plan for homes on hillsides. The Hillside Protection Act does not feel much like a protection act these days. I really encourage you to take a look at the Hillside Protection Act and how the homes are built in there. Yvonne Hampton, no address given: · In favor of the project. · Said she and her husband in the past remodeled their home and we went round and round with the city; felt it was sad because they believed in guidelines. · That is what they should be; sometimes I wonder when there are people in the city are looking at plans, do they actually drive out to the neighborhood and look at what is there or do they look at just the guidelines. The arguments go back and forth; and we came in with the neighbors not long ago trying to tell the city we are in agreement with the neighbors plans and why are they required to go round and round at considerable expense and time delays in their desire to change the house. The neighbors were in agreement with what they were doing and thought it was all right. · Suggested that people looking at the plans for approval or denial, to look at the sites themselves; drive around the neighborhood and see if the plans would be appropriate; it might help facilitate the guidelines for the neighbors and for the people building the houses. The guidelines are there to help people, not hinder them. · Recently once again, the go around with guidelines, a person came to our home, frantic because they want to remodel, no second story, just change the home; they were thrown in with the requirement to put sidewalks in front of their house and maybe a lightpole; at their expense in order to do their remodeling. We have been in our neighborhood since 1974 and it has never had sidewalks; now they are requiring to put sidewalks in the lone house on the block. · Questioned what was being done to the residents? Guidelines are supposed to help, not torture people. Take a drive, go look at the neighborhoods at where the houses are being planned; it might be helpful for everyone to take a flavor of the neighborhood and help facilitate the real helpful application of these guidelines for the people of the neighborhood. Cary Chien, 10583 FeIton Way: · Welcomed new commissioner. · Echoed the sentiment people felt, one of privacy, one of overbearing homes; back in 1999 we did a good job of addressing those; specifically in RI ordinance you will find the privacy mitigation plan to address privacy; you will also find building envelopes which address the height issues people are concerned about. · Having been an applicant, there are three issues I would like the Planning Commission to address. First one is the second story ratio; it is too limiting and hinders people's ability to put enough space on the second story to accommodate their family. · Design review guidelines is a gray area; need a stronger ordinance instead of a stronger guideline · Relative to story poles, there are better ways to notice the neighbors, give them a clear picture of what the neighbors are proposing to do; rather than put up poles that cost too much and give little information. Planning Commission Minutes 12 January 26, 2004 · Discussion will take a long time, encouraged the Planning Commission to take their time with it; and make a good recommendation to the City Council before reaching a conclusion. Yiton Yan, 20846 Garden Gate Dr.: · Said first issue is logic; if you allow people to view the second floor for only 10%, the privacy of the neighborhood will be influenced by allowing that; and once you allow for 10% since that is going to happen, what is the difference for allowing 100%; there is no difference, but I can see that 100% is much more advantageous; once you built stairs to the second floor you have bigger areas that is more economical. · Secondly, if a person is going to build a house, you allow them for 45% of the capacity compared to land; if that 40% is fixed, I could see 100% for the second floor because environmentally you can save a lot of land for grass, trees and from the trees if you grow a lot of trees, you can improve the privacy for your neighborhood. I go for 100% of the second floor building. M.W. Lui, 10430 Stern Avenue: · Have a 5,000 square foot lot; 3 children. · Wife wants a master bedroom on second story and 2 children on second story also; want large backyard. · The existing RI ordinance does not allow for that; cannot build a master bedroom on the top with two wash basins and walk in closet and also an II x I I bedroom for each child. The ordinance needs to be modified to allow that to happen. Garrick Lee, 18871 Arata Way: · The city required a light pole on his property; no clear instructions on how to do it. · Had to pay a $5,000 fee to the city. · Other cities don't require the homeowner to do that. Chair Saadati: . Said it was a different subject matter; recommended speaker follow up with staff for the ordinance requirement and further clarification. Mr. Piasecki: · Suggested that the public hearing remain open anticipating that as the Planning Commissioners deliberates, the public may later on wish to provide additional input. Henry Lo, 20944 Fargo Drive: · Is a developer in the Rancho area; built about 15 homes; has seen the transition from no regulations to extremely tight regulations on the ratio, main concern is the ratio on the first floor vs. the second floor. · Said it rendered his services of providing new homes or remodeled homes difficult to do, as almost everyone is gone away except himself in Cupertino as a business person. · Recommended that the ratio be changed to be more reasonable so that ifthe parents are staying upstairs in the master bedroom they should have at least two rooms for the other children on the second floor also. · Each time doing a second floor is difficult; even with a 10,000 square foot lot it is difficult to have a good design or a reasonable design. Agree with the height restriction and all the offsets that have been imposed in the recent past, but the second floor ratio is the most difficult part that is causing problems for many people. Planning Commission Minutes 13 January 26, 2004 · Said that a more workable ratio would be similar to the Silicon Valley Real Estate Association, such as a 65%/35%. Said he was not certain what the ratio would be to get at least three bedrooms for a 10,000 square foot lot. He said it was difficult to design something with the current regulations. Jennifer Griffin, 10315 Calvert Drive: · RI regulations have evolved over a process of time from the years in the county and then coming into annexation two to three years ago. · They are going to require a great deal of evolution and they have evolved into the current set we have now. · Want people to realize too that Cupertino is not alone in having a changing or very tight set of building codes. Other cities, Los Gatos, Pacific Groves, Los Altos, all require story poles and many reviews of property; would not expect less of Cupertino because the homes in Cupertino are of an equal value to these cities. · Said that there were a set of story poles on Johnson in Rancho Rinconada; received a letter from the city stating there would be a design review for the property; she went down and looked at the plans in the office and they seemed to fit her specs which were height, privacy. · Said she felt it is a good approach for Cupertino to have story poles, design review, input from owners of big houses, little houses, two story and one story. · Said she and her husband live in a small house; one side is blocked by a large house prohibiting them from getting satellite TV. · Said that everyone should have input into the RI regulations fitting everyone's needs; it is good to review them. · Said she wanted a tight set of building codes. Les Burnell, Hollyoak Drive: · Lynwood Acres just went through a whole process, this also is a reasonable spec as part of the Eichlers, we keep talking about second story windows; there was quite a flap going on and they came up with anything that is 5 ft or above does not require louvers, these are from homes where you are looking side by side 5 feet from the fence you can look down. · My recommendation has been, any windows that are below this require louvers or require frosted glass, because when you talk about trees, with homes built five years ago, the trees are protecting nothing, some are falling apart, they are not healthy. · Relative to story poles, think they are excellent; they give a warning to the neighbors; they cost, but a small fraction of what a new building or modification is. · Said he felt the 1999 results have resulted in good architectured homes compared to what it was before. Mr. GiIIi: · Reviewed the first slide shown and said that at a cursory glance it looks as if the percentages aren't what the ordinance calls for; what you have up there is a total space, is 3375, then you took 35% of that and said that is on the second story. That isn't what is in the rules, that is what is referred to as the 35/65, but what is in the rules is 35% of the first floor, total area on the first floor. Kwong Tak Chui, 21885 Woodbury Drive: · He and his wife attend open houses to get ideas on remodeling and see what is going on in the new houses. Discovered in most cases that the two story house, you can put a master bedroom there and a tiny little room on the side which serves no purpose; the rest ofthe family members would be in basement; first story may also have one room. This lifestyle doesn't fit his family. Planning Commission Minutes 14 January 26, 2004 · Presently live on a Rl 10,000 square foot lot but have no interest to build to the maximum size, which is 35% or 45% with exceptions; we have no interest to build to 4500 square feet of home which is too big, interested in high 2000 or 3000 square feet house, but in that square footage there is no way we can put the master bedroom upstairs and have the children stay with them; to follow the current Rl rules, the kids have to live on the first floor or tucked away in the basement. · Urged the Planning Commission to look at open houses and get a feel of what is going on because of the current rules. Susan Louis, 21885 Woodbury Drive: · Reiterated her husband's comments that they attended open houses to get ideas on remodeling; family is growing and they don't want to put the kids in the basement but want to have a reasonable upstairs and don't want to have to build the upstairs to an enormous size to have reasonable footage upstairs. · Would like the Planning Commission to review the ratio of the first floor to the second floor, what is more reasonable. · Many moved to Cupertino because of the school system which translates to growing families; how do we deal with that problem and since we cannot put enough bedrooms upstairs and keep the family together, and especially families with younger children, it is a very difficult situation. · Have quite a few mature trees in the yard, and would like to keep them, but in order to achieve the footage to put the bedrooms I need, I could do a very big one story house and cut down some of the trees and compromise the privacy of my neighbors because I cut down the trees. If I built a one story home then I have to cut down some of the big trees which I don't like. · If the city allows for a more reasonable size upstairs, the overall the size of house could be slightly smaller for the first floor because you would acquire the desired footage upstairs, and then would actually be further away from the neighbor's property line and it would provide more privacy to them. · With the more recent newer homes development, the phenomena of having a master bedroom upstairs and maybe a nursery size not big enough to put a single bed, upstairs has an adverse affect on the property values of Cupertino. Frank Vernon, 10228 Mira Vista: · Cannot visualize what the difference is between the current ordinance; have lived here for 30 years and have seen a lot of changes; and the change and what the house would look like. · Would not want to go back to the 100%; we used to be able to see the mountains around us across the street, now see nothing but a wall of a house. · One of the reasons we moved to the neighborhood we could see the mountains and the hills; if it keeps going we won't see the hills anymore which is sad. · Comment on the sidewalks; one of our neighbors was required to put a sidewalk in and it doesn't fit in the neighborhood, nor do street lights; would like to see the requirement for street lights and sidewalks be stricken. Thanh Nguyen, 10687 Randy Lane: · Part of Lynwood Acres, which recently was rezoned. · Our area has had a ratio increase to 20%; which he feels is not adequate. · Illustrated photos taken throughout the city, built pre 1990 and after 1999 and some of the houses in the west San Jose area, which he said were houses that Cupertino residents were deprived of not being able to build. Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 26, 2004 · People who live in the San Jose area and go to Cupertino schools, use the library, use every city service, but have more flexibility in terms of building their houses. · Said people build the size of house they want to build because they have a need for it; within reasonable measure the ratio that we impose on the house at the current rate of 35% is not appropriate for the needs of their family. Frederick Ty, 10824 Bubb Road: · Supports application. · Has a 12,000 square foot lot with a plan to rebuild home, and have instructed the architect to postpone the submission of the plan pending the outcome of the hearings. · Said he has a 12,000 square foot lot and yet is having a difficult time putting a modern master bedroom and two decent bedrooms upstairs. Did not intend to build a monster home but because of the FAR in the first and second floor, is almost forced to do so in order to get the upstairs bedrooms. · Ask for reconsideration of the second floor area ratios, the setbacks. Steven McGarry, 1106 Steeple Chase Lane: · Said he was in the center of much construction, two behind his house; single story but have filled up their lot entirely and brought their homes to his back fence where they are within the codes of 5 feet but their overhangs are about 4 feet. · His home has a pool in the backyard and they use it all the time; the neighbors have no yard now and are impacting the privacy of his as well. · Have a single story home and have two children and running out of space and would like to consider to go up to a second story, but wouldn't know how to do it because of the restrictions in place now. · The cost of putting in a foundation to today's standards are far more to exceed the value of actual square footage gained above. The home was built in 1961 and is not cost effective to actually add on 700 square feet. · Said he did not understand why you cannot conform the use regulations for all to live with, and do a design properly that would be aesthetically decent to look at as well, since you allow the large single story homes to be within the height restrictions; they went up to 4 and 6 pitch roof which they actually could put a loft up there if they want but they have an open beam ceiling. · Said he would like a second story and be able to stay in the school district for his children. Com. Miller: · Asked Mr. McGarry, in his estimation, what formula or approach would work better that would allow him to build what he needed. · How much space is currently on the first floor? Mr. McGarry: · Said he had a Hunter design home; the ratio used was more of 60/40; not much more, but it is more than one master bedroom or one small unusable space with a stairwell leading up. · Currently have 1190 square feet on the first floor. · There is an illegal patio room built by previous owners, and he would like to remove it and put in a new kitchen and expand square footage on the first floor to gain a larger ratio on the second floor. · Said he would like to have 1200 square feet on the second floor. Chair Saadati: · Asked Planning Commissioners to comment on second story. Planning Commission Minutes 16 January 26, 2004 Com. Chen: · Happy to see so many people participate; shows concern about the ordinance and appreciate you input. · With so much new input don't know what the decision is going to be; would like to digest the input. · Said she concurred most with the input from the Oct. 6, 2002 City Council meeting, what initiated this whole review, is have the RI accomplish the purpose of the RI, it is a question that we should all ask ourselves and I believe Mr. Hughes suggested that we go back to the record to see how many houses have been built since 1999 by using this new ordinance how does that impact the neighbors as well as the home owners. · Said the main message heard tonight can be summarized as "how can we address people's private needs for larger space in the meantime without creating any negative impact to the neighbors." Secondly, how can we refine and revise the RI to make it suitable for the whole city which does impact 10,000 homes in Cupertino, including yours and mine. · Would like to see the survey and specific questions asked, going back to the purpose of the original RI revision in 1999 and the application of the Rl: How does that impact your home, whether you are a homeowner or you are on the receiving end of the neighbors building up next to you; Need staff recommendation on how long the survey would take; What kind of questions to ask; We should all come back and have the input and the survey results organized for further discussion. Vice Chair Wong: · Would like to hear from the public and get input; do we need to review it; do we need to modify it; how can we improve the process? · Said Mr. Gilli did a good job reaching out to the community through the media addressing letters to past applicants. · Want further outreach to the public to make sure all concerns are heard; how can we address them and how can we improve them so that we can have a better process. Com. Giefer: · Said it was interesting when the speakers were asked what was an acceptable ratio between first and second floor, there were not a lot of finite answers; conceptually everyone knows what it is they want and one of the things that would be helpful in terms offraming the concept and understanding what precedents we might be setting; what we are looking at, separating what one could do from what one should do in the future, is reviewing some of the existing remodel jobs and try to understand what those ratios are. Seven Springs is a good example of large second floors; if we look at some examples of what these look like today, and really visualize the impact we might be making in the future, it would be helpful for me as additional input, looking at the existing home inventory. She asked staff to get information on the FAR between first and second floor at Seven Springs. · I think too, I appreciated several people who brought up hillside protection; doing what makes sense; I heard a lot of people saying they really wanted to do what made sense and what was right for the neighborhood. Com. Miller: · The R I ordinance developed in 1999 came as an outgrowth of concern over monster homes; the ordinance controls that problem well; it doesn't allow that type of home in the neighborhood. · However, the ordinance was a best attempt to address a number of issues with that just being one of them; it was a best efforts attempt to address the issues as they saw it; as time Planning Commission Minutes 17 January 26, 2004 progresses and we are coming into the fifth year since that was written, it is appropriate that we look at the data as suggested and look at how well it is working and make adjustments, and that is the process we are about here. · Said he was encouraged that 20 people spoke, but the fact that there is more people here means it is of interest to you and we need the feedback; we want to find out how well it is working and fix the areas and would like to have more discussion among the Planning Commission to see how we proceed to. elicit the input; and want to encourage you if not tonight, send a letter stating what you would like to see and what additional information you would like to provide. Mark Roest, 10136 Camino Vista Drive: · Interested in the idea ofRI being little flexible in terms of business use of the home and the reason for that is the state of the economy and the large number of people who end up unemployed. · Rather than having a blanket prohibition, having a thoughtful process perhaps a charette about what is possible for encouraging people to do work at home; similar to the mixed use developments that smart growth is encouraging; it would be a good step forward. Com. Miller: · Asked Mr. Roest to expand on what he is looking for that that is not available today. Mr. Roest: · Said he understood that one could not run a business in their home in an Rl area. To have uses that are compatible with the quiet and peace and cleanliness of a neighborhood would make sense and only when someone is doing something that essentially creates nuisance should it be required to go offsite, because it is very hard to survive in this economy and to have to go out and get commercial space in addition to the space in the home. · Said on his street, there are several homes that are straight up boxes with much more than 35% floor area on the upper story. If people are going to 3,000 to 4,000 square foot homes, why shouldn't the land be used effectively, rather than forcing two locations to operate a home and business. The large firms are laying off and people are going to be in a position to find some form of income. Mr. GiIIi: · Said there was a home occupation ordinance on the website allowing operation of a home business; called a home occupation, as long as you meet the requirements of the ordinance. Fu-Huei Lin, 10636 Merriman Road: · Said when he purchased his house it was at high market, and because the seller had many offers, he didn't have time to study a lot offactors. Richard Denesha, 10394 Glenview Avenue: · Have a problem with lot, 50 x 100, but has a 10 foot easement in the back because of power lines. · Could only put in a lap pool if a swim swimming pool was desired; and if the desire was to build up, would be similar to putting a cupola on top of the house. · Suggested making a prototype of the house; find out what you need for the master bedroom, bathroom and bedrooms; tonight nobody suggested anything like that, just said they wanted more space. · Find out what the setbacks are going to be; find out what kind of windows to the side and back; there are the resources to do it. Planning Commission Minutes 18 January 26, 2004 Chair Saadati: · Said usually for a house, there is a set of plans, showing elevation of all four sides, plan view, second roof plan. Asked Mr. Denesha if that was not sufficient in his opinion. Mr. Denesha: · Not in this case; the second floor ratio is too small to do anything; resulting in unattractive houses. On Blaney there are three houses in a row; one is a monster home; another they tried to add a second floor; and the third should be out in the mountains with a slanted roof on it with skylights; doesn't fit into the area. The smaller one with the small second floor; if that had been expanded out 5 feet on each side of the existing second floor room, it would still be small but it would look a lot better and would give a lot more square footage inside. · Said the requirement for sidewalks where there were none before was unreasonable. Vice Chair Wong: · Regarding sidewalks and light poles, said the City Council has already passed an ordinance that you can petition the neighborhood. Asked staff to comment. Mr. Piasecki: · There is a process where the neighborhood can petition the city, saying we don't want the improvement, and get a percentage of their neighbors to concur with that, submit the petition and talk with Glenn Goepfert in Public Works and he can explain the rules for reviewing that. · If you do not have that exception by the Council in place, you are required and it is standard practice to require major additions and new homes to provide curb, gutter, sidewalks and sometimes street lights. The neighbors can sign a neighbor-wide petition, as it is not something exempted for one lot only. The stafflooks at it to determine ifthere is a safe route to school, is it a busy street, do we have to have walks only for public safety. · There is an evaluation process undertaken to bring the issue forward for City Council consideration. There are some neighbors that do not have certain improvements. It is understandable why some people seek that. Hal Morrison, 10425 Moretti Drive: · Concerned about the house behind his home; many people have expressed sentiment that they want more space; but I live in a one story house in Ranch Rinconada, and I would prefer that the neighbor directly behind would build a one story house as well for privacy issues in the back yard. · The house behind is a two story and will impact on privacy of his house, peering into his backyard and his house, with a balcony; the plans have been approved. · The restrictions that are in place in Cupertino do help existing homeowners in maintaining certain value in their own house, and that value is privacy. · Relative to notification process, he said there were notifications, some hearings, the architect's plan was approved with some modifications. Mr. GiIIi: · Noted the balcony was not part of the approved plan. Chair Saadati: · Relative to bringing the application back in two weeks, said he felt that two weeks is not sufficient time to allow staff to be able to gather enough information. Planning Commission Minutes 19 January 26, 2004 · At the study session it was mentioned to get some infonnation from neighboring cities for evaluation also; also would be good to get some information for some of the houses already built to get an idea of what they are looking for; most of the people are asking for flexibility. · Also need to look at the neighborhood that is pleasant, people enjoy walking on the street; not sure if changing the ratio will help to accomplish that. · Main issue remains to get more input and organize the information and bring it back. Com. Giefer: · Said she recalled from the General Plan Task Force that there was some primary research done by the city regarding house footprints, second stories. It was vague, something mentioned early on and thought they may have some ofthat data already. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that he did not think the data was available. · Could generate examples of people who have gone through the process; staff has some of those slides and we can get copies or at least outline building plans and show you what they look like. We can go back pre-ordinance and show you some of those building plans with the larger floor area ratios and that might help you get a sense and the public on a sense of what are our acceptable numbers. · Will provide neighboring city zones, examples of as-builts in the community, Seven Springs Ranch; summary of the input we received tonight. · Welcomed Commissioners to provide notes from meeting or send e-mails so that they receive all the input. · Said there was mention of a survey; staff would review it if the Planning Commission decides to go in that direction; it would be simple. Chair Saadati: · Added permeable surface; there are regulations relating to water seeping back into the ground. There is so much building going on and the regulations have changed and how are we going to address that in the future because it has been an issue. · People want to put pavers in front of their house, they are not permitted because the water must seep back in the ground so the water table won't be impacted in the future. · All the items discussed here in relation to second story ratio to first story, ifthe whole footprint of the house is made smaller, what impact would it have on the environment. Mr. Piasecki: · Staff can bring back a summary of those rules and the applicability, or lack thereof, to existing homes that are being remodeled. A Public Works staff member will explain that as the program is fairly complex. · The purpose tonight was to talk about what the issues are; if a survey is desired, the topics would have to be fairly specific. Com. Chen: · Requested that staff provide for the next meeting a list of properties that was redeveloped or built since the 1999 ordinance was in place and the neighbors who are impacted by this particular property. · Should ask how this project impacts residents in certain areas, and those certain areas should be categorized into the four large purposes stated in the previous ordinance. · Said it was her recommendation for the next meeting and perhaps allow three weeks for people to respond to the survey. Planning Commission Minutes 20 January 26, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · Said staff would bring something back to the Planning Commission and they can decide if they want to modify it, and then meet in three weeks. · The Planning Commission can decide what goes out to the block captains and the 2,000 notices. Vice Chair Wong: · Referred to the speaker who suggested a prototype, and asked staff if they could ascertain what percentage would be needed to put a master bedroom plus two bedrooms upstairs. Mr. GiIli: · Said they did not have the information on what is the average size of a master bedroom; there are some people saying they need to have 1200 square feet upstairs, there are some people who have entire houses less than that. Staff needs direction on what size it should be. Lisa Warren, 10279 Judy Avenue: · Since consideration is being given to a survey, think it is important you not forget the need to include homes that were remodeled or built within the last five years under county standards as well, since there are areas in the city five years ago were county and those are the neighbors and homeowners impacted a lot, trying to fight exactly what the discussion is about. If you ignore those homes that were built and those neighbors living with those homes, you are missing a big chunk of information because there is that overlap. · In answer to the question from the speaker who said he wanted about 1600 square feet downstairs and 1200 square feet upstairs on that 6500 square foot lot, it is 43%, 57%. Dave Russell, 22790 Mercedes Road: · Appreciate the comment about the survey and trying to apply some appropriate methodology to the survey; there are people who experienced developments and/or remodels in the zoning regulations prior to 1999; there are other people that experienced that in the 2003 regulations; there are other people like myself who have experienced home constructions and remodels that were approved and started in the 1999 regulations, and then another set that were approved and started in the subsequent regulations, the current ones. · Need to have those people participate in the survey as well. I think we can actually see a dramatic difference in the two types of housing styles that were approved on those, so I would like to participate in that survey. · There has been a lot of discussion about second stories and what percentage of first floor can be built onto the second floor, either as a new construction or as a remodel. · Said there was confusion about how to do the math around that and what size second story you could actually get and what the 35% means as a second story. Asked that it be clarified and have a matrix showing what the numbers mean. · He questioned how participatory this process would be; it has been a valuable exercise tonight, said he would like to see the survey happen and any regulations that happen that could potentially dramatically impact the quality of life in Cupertino, should be participatory as well. Female speaker who spoke earlier: · In your survey, I would like to make sure you include the homeowners that either remodeled or rebuilt during the last five years, and make sure you ask the question that if they did not have the 35% restriction on the second floor, how would they build their house, because I feel that Planning Commission Minutes 21 January 26, 2004 most owners won't build that close to the property line if the ordinance were different and I want to make sure those groups were included in your survey. · Believe that there should be limitations to the percentage that you can build on your property; based on the overall footage, instead of setting the limitation between first and second floor. · For a 3,000 square foot home, chasing to have 1500 square feet downstairs and 1500 square feet upstairs would overall not appear as massive as having 2500 square feet on the first floor and 500 square feet on the second floor. · Suggested considering that when setting the percentages in the guidelines. Com. Miller: · Said he felt the survey was a good idea; the challenge of a survey is to be as complete and inclusive as possible as we have heard comments on things that need to be added to the survey. · The question remains of how much the city can expend in terms of resources in doing this. Mr. Piasecki: · Typically in surveys of this type you can go to a professional group who knows how to structure these, and you are dealing with amateurs and we will do the best we can. We have to keep it simple and to the point. Unidentified male speaker: · What you said about the one story, because a lot of people gave up on two stories because of the impossible rules. Out of ten builders I knew before 1990 when the law was passed, one more is left and I can only build one story houses, because anything that is below 5,000 square feet is not worth trying to get a small head but a big body there · If you are saying if you have a 5000 sq ft house, when you design the house, you will have a small head on top with one bedroom and then a big body on the first floor, so everybody has given up and gone to one story house. · You have to have a 10,000 square foot house to get a reasonable second story. Anything below that will look unattractive and have a small head with a big body. Unidentified male speaker: · Said he objected to the last gentleman speaker; has a home that is 2100 sq ft and has three bedrooms upstairs, good size master bedroom, 2 baths and doesn't look like a box, it looks like a very good home. My suggestion for the Planning Commission is to drive down Rainbow Drive between Stelling and DeAnza Boulevard and look at the monster home that is there; that group of people went into orbit and got it stopped; that will tell you why the ordinance was generated; then the other people live in Rancho Rinconada and look at what happened to those homes when they had the specifications that San Jose had which some people here would like to re-implement;just look at it, you don't have to build models. Ms. Hampton, (spoke previously): · Said there were never any sidewalks since the neighborhood started in 1955. Referring to the comment about children being safe; said she raised children in the neighborhood with no sidewalks, no incidents, no problems with safety, which questions the reasonableness of the guidelines. · What is the actual real history of the neighborhood and do we have to make homeowners every single time a person wants to put a remodel in the neighborhood, petition the neighborhood again to find out if it is ok not to put a sidewalk in front of their house. · It wastes time, wastes their time building their home and it repeats the same thing that was settled in the neighborhood years ago, that it did not need sidewalks. Planning Commission Minutes 22 January 26, 2004 · Said she lived on the corner of Mann Drive, on Oakview Lane, for 30 years and cannot understand why the sidewalk issue keeps returning. People have to repeatedly do petitions; there is no safety problem with the children in the neighborhood and the sidewalks. Om Kalagia, 10164 Adriana: · Agree with speaker about sidewalks, or any other rule that you want to implement, you should know first that the neighbors or the community around that want that particular thing, otherwise it is just implementing on people what they don't want and that is not what we desire when we purchase the property. · If the whole surrounding area agrees to a certain law and regulation, you should respect that and abide by that. · Different people have different views on what is desirable and what is not desirable; should have reasonable regulations like Palo Alto. · People can't remodel because they feel too restricted. · Have reasonable regulations which makes people's life easier, not more difficult. Unidentified male speaker, (spoke previously): · Questioned if the ordinance could entertain something if he were to gain additional square footage on the second story and was willing to give up some more side setback as far as the front and back setback so that the privacy of his neighbors is more protected. Art Daveh, 22356 Hartman Drive: · Real estate developer and builder. · Said his dream was to build the city so that other people could have the benefit of the great city; unfortunately last three or four years the City of Cupertino's rules and regulations regarding the second story have become tougher; the timeframe for approval of a single home exceedingly too long for approval. · It has been four years since he has built anything in the Cupertino. · A lot of his friends that moved into the city with the same dream to build a beautiful city that can meet all neighbor's standards, bring in revenue for our schools, and other forms of revenue, felt betrayed by the Planning Commission in terms of giving the considerations. · They have all moved to neighboring San Jose and have been building over there; adding to their school taxes and their schools are improving. · Due consideration has to be given to this matter that eventually they can return back what made the City of Cupertino great, having sensible developmental plans, growth in revenue, growth in housing, affordable and better housing for all. Carola Elliott, 10128 Lebanon Drive: · Remodeled her home by adding on 25% because by doing did not have to put in curb and gutter. · There are no curbs and gutters on the whole street; the residents don't want them. · Said she tried to add on more this time because she has a 10,000 square foot lot; does not want to add on a second story. · Suggested that if one is allowed to add 45% for the first story, why not make the size of the second story also a percentage of the lot size, and not just of the first story. Com. Chen: · Asked Mr. Devah to elaborate on his comments about too many rules and regulations, and it takes too long to review, and he felt betrayed by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes 23 January 26, 2004 Mr. Devah: · Said there were too many rules and regulations, just built two houses in San Jose; bought the land in October and was building the house in December. · Said he paid $19,000 for city fees and school tax was about the same as Cupertino, but other city fees were $19,000. Also receive $5,000 back from the $19,000 fee. · Same size house in the City of Cupertino, those fees were almost $62,000. · Said his recommendation to the Planning Commission would be to have fees more in line with the surrounding cities. Builders pass costs down to the homeowners; the houses are no longer affordable in the City of Cupertino. · Said that Cupertino is 400% and sometimes $600% more expensive, and when discrepancies are that great, cannot build in Cupertino as it is not feasible. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to continne Application MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 for two weeks to review the snrvey qnestions. (Vote: 5-0-0). OLD BUSINESS: Covered earlier in meeting. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held. Housinl! Commission: No meeting held. Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners: · Com. Miller reported that the Teen Center was open. · Some discussion of the 4'h of July event. · Discussion of budget cuts. · Housing Chairman reported a nexus study to begin; reviewing bids for study on low income housing. · Library needs funding to continue additional service levels. · Mayor stressed the importance of voting for Measure B. · Bicycle Commission reported on progress of bridge over Mary Avenue. · New Senior Commission formed; have not had first meeting yet. Schednle for Mavors Breakfast: . 7 a.m. on February 17'h at Hobees; Chair Saadati is scheduled to attend; Com. Miller will be alternate if Chair Saadati is unable to attend. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Piasecki: · State ofthe City address February 11 Ih at Quinlan Community Center. · City Council has set two days for joint study sessions with the Planning Commission to hear the General Plan Task Force advise the City Council and Planning Commission on what their recommendations are; set for March I, 5 to 6 p.m., and March 2 from 3 to 6 p.m. The City Council has a date to talk about the General Plan.