PC 09-27-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 27, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi
Saadati.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Comrnissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Cornrnissioner:
Cornrnissioner:
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Cilàert WORg Angela Chen
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner
City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Peter Gilli
Charles Kilian
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the August 23, 2004 Study Session:
Chair Saadati:
Page 18, middle of page, Chair Saadati: (second bullet) change "added" to read "addressed".
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chen, to approve the August 23,
2004 minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
4.
TM-2004-06
Tiep Nguyen
22570 San Juan Road
Tentative map to subdivide a 1.31 acre parcel into two
parcels of .54 and .77 acres respectively. Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed. Request
postponement to October 26, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
2
September 27, 2004
MOTION:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone Application
TM-2004-06 to the October 26, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote:
5-0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1.
EXC-2004-13
Elephant Bar Restaurant
19780 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Sign exceptions to allow wall sigos that exceed 24 inches
in height and to utilize exposed neon.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen, to approve Consent
Calendar Application EXC-2004-13. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chairperson Saadati moved the agenda to Item 3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
3.
M-2004-07, EA-2003-09
Jane Vaughan (Menlo
Equities) 10050 No.
Wolfe Road.
Modification to Use Permit (U-2003-04) and tentative
map (TM-2003-02) to construct a 107-unit condominium
project and 6.450 square feet of new retail space.
Tentative City Council date: October 4, 2004.
Mr. Peter GiIIi, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Application is for a modification of a Use Permit and Tentative Map that was approved by
City Council and had a positive recommendation of the Planning Commission in Dec. 2003.
· In earlier meetings, the project was discussed and intended to be a condominium project.
However, in the conditions of approval and on the approved map, it did not reference a condo
project, and the present application is to add it to the approval.
· No new conditions or issues raised because of the change; staff recommends approval.
Com. Giefer:
· Said that since the discussion of the Rose Bowl, there needs to be connection between this
project and the ongoing Rose Bowl development.
· Asked ifthere was possibility of adding a condition to ensure that they provide both pedestrian
and bicycle connectivity with that project.
Mr. GiIIi:
· In the approval from 2003, there is a condition that requires the applicant to have easements
with the property to the north and east at such time that it can be required of the adjacent
property owners, and the applicant has agreed to that.
· Staff has everything in place to make that occur.
Vice Chair Wong:
· For the record I called staff and they verified that because I had the same concern.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to
speak.
Planning Commission Minutes
3
September 27,2004
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen, to approve Applications
M-2004-07 and EA-2003-09. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Saadati moved the agenda back to Item 2.
2.
MCA-2003-02
(EA-2003-19)
City of Cupertino
Citywide Location
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code
(R I Ordinance) Continued from September 13, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not
Scheduled.
Mr. GiIIi presented the staff report:
· He reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report.
· Based on the presentation from the City of Palo Alto on wall plane, the Planning Commission
agreed to go with that concept and remove the second story side setbacks.
· He reviewed the changes to the second story area, second story side setbacks vs. two story
building envelope; second story wall offsets; design review process; and guidelines in the
Ordinance; as recommended by the Planning Commission, which were outlined in the table on
Page 2-2 of the staff report.
· Staffs recommendation is to review and comment on the draft, to take public input, and either
provide direction to staff which will be incorporated into a final draft at the next meeting, or to
recommend approval of the draft with some modifications to the City Council.
Com. Miller:
· Said that the surveys were included in the packet for all residents, and asked that a complete
packet be made for the City Council that also includes the cuts the Planning Commission made
for the people who know RI and also for people who went to a public hearing.
· In the draft itself; page 2-39; staff added a category Rl 5,000 to the ordinance; I don't believe
we discussed that. Concern is that without discussion, what I wouldn't want happening is
larger parcels being divided down into 5,000 square foot lots; obviously we have inherited
some and they are there because we inherited them, but it is not clear without further
discussion that we should be opening the door to 5,000 square foot lots.
· Page 2-40, No. 3b: 50 square feet doesn't nearly cover what a stairway is going to take, and if
we are going to give some allowance for stairways, we should make it more reasonable. I
would suggest 100 square feet, or something higher than 50.
· Page 2-41, C1.h.: Looked at what existing houses were in town, roughly speaking 75% of the
houses that exist in Cupertino, which is subjective, have the garages closer to the street than
the homes, but this guideline suggests that we do the opposite. There is some inconsistency
there because in other parts of the ordinance we talk about being consistent with existing
neighborhoods, but here this proposal is to be doing something completely different than what
is in existing neighborhoods.
· Page 2-41, 0 Setback, side: our ordinance currently states that it has to be no less than 10 feet
on one side and no less than 5 feet on the other side, and the suggestion here was we might
want to allow more flexibility so that the total minimum is 15 square feet, but if for some
reason there was a need for flexibility because of the particular configuration in neighboring
houses to allow 7 and 8, or 6 and 9, I think that would be a reasonable addition.
· Page 2-42, G. Height: I know we talked about Item 2.a.l, that is a change from what the
ordinance is currently, I really only have a question; does that work out to a 12 foot, 12 foot at
5 feet in from the property line, are those two equivalent.
Planning Commission Minutes
4
September 27, 2004
Mr. GiIIi:
· This case is within 3 inches, if you do the trig, it is the closest map.
Com. Miller:
· Page 2-43: 4. We have had some people come, some neighbors of houses we have reviewed,
with the comment that rather than see roof they would rather see a window, and that particular
requirement is not always in the best interest of a pleasing design.
· My comment there is perhaps we might consider making that a guideline instead of a
requirement in the ordinance.
· Page 2-48: (top of page, first line, reo noticing) [think at least in my view, the only plans that
need to be distributed are the site plan and the elevations, we should specifically say that in the
ordinance as opposed to development plans which leaves it open to possibly reproducing 12 or
15 pages of development plans, II x 17, and distributing them to a lot of people with matter
that is unnecessary.
· Section B.3. , Page 2-48: Concerned about the word "design". The ordinance talks about mass
and bulk and this is the first instance of including design into the ordinance and ask that the
word be removed.
· The word has been used elsewhere, and am concerned about us getting involved in helping
people design their houses too much.
· Page 2-49: 8.1: I am not sure how much more the color will add for the neighbors but it
potentially makes it more difficult for applicants who might be dealing with someone who
doesn't have easy access to color equipment and is at a considerable added expense, and not
sure the expense is warranted.
· Page 2-50, A, last sentence: Add the same clarification there of specifying which pages of the
plan set they shall receive.
· Exhibit E, Page 2-85: July 12, elimination of story poles: There are a number of comments;
and vote indicating the Planning Commission wants to eliminate story poles, and discussion
that they should not be doing that; and if all that is going to be included, I would like to
include some notes that give the reason that the Planning Commission voted to remove the
story poles, namely that they are expensive and of questionable use. Cupertino and Los Gatos
are the only two cities that require them; so much comment in favor of keeping them, yet the
vote was to eliminate them; I would like to add some comment to that side as well.
· Page 2-86, August 9: comment that Corns. Miller and Wong may have misunderstood the
intent, regarding incorporating key guidelines into the ordinance; said he did not
misunderstand the intent at this point.
· Vote remains not to do it.
Com. Chen:
· Page 2-40: Same question regarding the 50 square feet of bonus which was not in there before;
has there been discussion about adding that in.
Mr. GiIIi:
· June 28 - it was talked about; you were in attendance and in support of it. (Page 2-84)
Com. Chen:
· Said she would not want to exceed 50 feet.
· Page 2-47: 19.28.075: minor residential permits: I assumed that the definitions defined are on
Page 2-88 where the flow chart is, so minor residential permits as rear yard setback reductions,
17 feet plus gable end.
Planning Commission Minutes
5
September 27, 2004
Mr. GiIIi:
· Those are the items in the code that say they need a minor residential permit and if it is
highlighted in the code and you will only see it if you are at that section. One thing we could
do is specifY in the minor residential permit section also.
Com Chen:
· I think that would be good if we could clarify it by doing that. Page 2-48 we have small two
story residential permit; do we talk about the title being small and large, or have we discussed
a possible change to a different title, major or minor.
Mr. Gilli:
· It was presented as small and large and I noted at the study session that the commissioners
may want to come up with a different name; that is just a first draft.
· Major, minor, the only conflict with that is we have minor residential permits and you are
going to have a minor two story and then a major two story.
Com. Chen:
· Concerned about large, because large is still within the 45% FAR and all has to comply with
the guidelines, regulations and don't think it is large; it seems to give the wrong perception.
· It needs a title.
· My last comment is a question also, Page 2-88, the flow chart, the last process regarding
design review for ordinance exceptions, can we put a public hearing or public meeting in the
DRC box, so we know it is a public process, not within the department process.
· Re: II x 17 plans, agree with Com. Miller that we should specifY what other charts need to be
distributed; no problem with II x 17, black and white or color; the rules for two story building
have relaxed quite a bit and color coordination with neighbors is extremely important, not to
put them in a position to decide whether or not the development should go through, but it is
important to communicate with the neighbors so they understand what is coming into their
neighborhood, II x 17 color would be appropriate.
Com. Giefer:
· Also request one cut of the survey data we did earlier and I know Mr. Gilli: ran this and I am
not sure if it was distributed to all commissioners; I would like to see the second story ratio as
the answer was given by home owners in the area; I think that is a really good representation
of what percentile people who are vested in our community have in terms of what they believe
the correct second story ratio should be.
· In that one it showed of the majority there were two times as many home owners in our
community who felt that the second story ratio should stay 35% or lower and that was just a
telling statistic to me as I was considering this because I went in thinking it didn't matter if it
was 100% second story but I think the data collected was so overwhelming that we need to
give it consideration and I would like City Council to see that data.
· In the RI model, one of the things that has been bothering me through this process as we are
talking about the second story height, and that it directly hits at the mass and height of building
and specifically as you get to larger lots; many of these are located at the base of the hillside at
the west side of our community; the potential to build extremely large homes exists there and
there is no way you can adequately screen a 15,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 square foot two story
home at 50% you are going to have an extremely large home and we have a lot of people in
our community who are sensitive to their protection of viewing the hillsides and I don't think
they acknowledge or understand how quickly those hillsides are being built up with large
homes, I would like to add a maximum home size in Cupertino.
Planning Commission Minutes
6
September 27, 2004
· Thought about changing the slope trigger where it is a 15% slope, then you mandatorily have
to follow the hillside regulations, but I am not sure what percent of the problem that would
solve; staff may have the answer to that question. That is one approach I considered, waiting
to rezone those R I lots at the base of the hills and in the hills, but I think those properties are
currently getting subdivided and sold off and I don't think we can wait for the General Plan
designation to change.
· If those lots are blocked by property owners in legal suits, which would be another concern,
there is a lot of building and massive homes that could be built in the hillsides. I would like us
to add a maximum home size under Section 19.28.060, Page 2-39; that no Rl homes may
exceed, and the hillside number I believe is 6500 square feet, so I would like to suggest that,
regardless of the FAR within the R I lot.
· I believe we need to take more of an evolutionary approach to our second story ratio and my
feelings changed dramatically because of the data we collected in the survey and I think 50%
just feels too revolutionary to me, because if we change the maximum second story height to
50% today, in five years [ don't know what it would be, 75 or 100%. The one thing [ like
about the building envelope concept is as more space is put on the second story, the home gets
smaller and one moves away from their property boundaries and that is a positive thing for us.
[ am not comfortable agreeing with 50% number to this date, and although I believe we need
to show some change, we need to increase that number. It seems too large to me at this time.
· Page 2-40 with the design guidelines I understand why we have changed some of the "shalls"
to "shoulds" because they are perceived as guidelines and I am comfortable with most of them.
The one [ am not comfortable with is the ones that are regarding a three car garage; I think that
if you have a three car garage that is a huge wall plane and if that is facing the street, [ don't
think it is appealing for the neighbors.
· Either take this out of the design guidelines and add stronger language with regard to the
setback for the third garage; prefer the old language that it should be a setback of at least 2
feet, and disagree that on a narrow lot you would still be allowed to have a lot less than 60
feet; it says that there should not be a three car wide garage, but feel that we should not have a
three car wide garage on a lot less than 60 feet because the lot becomes primarily garage at
that point and from an aesthetic point, [ don't agree with that.
· Page 2-47, G: Bring to staff's attention that there may be seasonality involved in replacing
trees that are designated for privacy screening; some trees are just not available for
transplanting all year round; [ don't know how we address that. Would like to give them some
opportunity to choose the tree they like, which would prevent them from replacing the tree
within 30 days if the tree is not in season. I don't want it to go on indefinitely.
· Page 2-48: One of the things [ was looking for in reading the RI draft is language explicitly
explaining that staff would be doing a review of the design. I like the idea of staff reviewing
the design, [ like the work design; and I feel confident that we will see more consistent
improvement in both the mass and scale of homes and hopefully have better designed homes
with a staff review of this. They are professionals and they can add value to the process
without slowing it down. The review will be done early enough in the process so as not to
increment costs at the time of structural drawings. I would like that called out more, and also
just to make people aware of what the process is; and [ am not sure where the right place to put
it, and if it is here or earlier on in the document.
· On stairwells, am comfortable with 50 square feet for stairwell allotment.
· When addressing where the notices will be posted, there are a few flaws; on a flag lot, where
does the notice about remodeling go; you cannot see the house from the street and there is no
direct access except for the driveway to the street; and this specifically says that it needs to be
posted by the sidewalk; but where, is it within 3 feet of the sidewalk? Needs to be
wordsmithed for clarity; also need to say how long it is to be posted.
Planning Commission Minutes
7
September 27, 2004
· Page 2-49, D: I suggest that we send everything by first class mail and electronic mail. The
reason is that if the e-mail stops moving, e-mail can be lost. If you approach it from both
physical mail and a virtual mail environment, one of them is bound to go through, so I would
like to have both of them sent.
· I would also suggest that we have the staff review on the matrix of R I regulations,
recommendations for changes, and study.
· Asked Mr. Gilli if the process change is not included in this document and is only in the flow
diagram, will Council understand that it is a process change.
Mr. GiIIi:
· It will be in our presentation to them that there is a process change; it is not known whether
they would be able to gather that by reading the ordinance.
Com. Giefer:
· It is a positive thing and adds value to the process without slowing it down or creating
incremental fees.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he shared many comments made by his colleagues.
· Regarding the group care activities with 6 or fewer people, asked staff to review.
Mr. GiIIi:
· It is a change we considered minor because under conditional uses you are allowed to have
group care with over 6 people, you would infer that as permitted use you could have group
care with under 6 people, and that is the intention in the ordinance; it is added as language.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he agreed with Com. Miller that the mIDlmum size should be 5,000 square feet to
accommodate some of our small lots in Manta Vista and Rancho Rinconada, but they cannot
be subdivided below 6,000 square feet. One thing that makes Cupertino unique is our RI
ordinance and our single family homes.
· Regarding the staircase, 50 square feet is too small; want to allow more flexibility; and talking
to colleagues if we could compromise some and allow perhaps 75 square feet, staff was open
to a little higher, maybe 100 might be too high for some; suggesting it go to 75 square feet.
· Regarding design guidelines, I like how they are incorporated into the ordinance, that it should
be "should" vs. "shall".
· Regarding three car garages, said he discussed it before Com. Giefer became a Commissioner,
that there shouldn't be any three car garages. Said he liked what Com. Giefer said, that maybe
you could include a third car as a guideline with an offset originally, but I think the three car
garage should be included in here, but should be offset and should be in the guidelines.
· If they are on a pie shaped lot, I agree with Com. Giefer that if you set the three car garages far
back, there may be enough room to have it, so it might penalize those residents on the cul de
sac and we need to take that into consideration.
· Page 2-41, H: (living area should be closer to the street, while garages set back more); a lot of
our houses are older stock, ranch style houses where you have garages up front and when the
people tried to remodel their homes, you might have one or two houses that have houses stick
out in front and the garages are in the back. Being that one of the goals is being harmonious, I
don't see that as being harmonious. I would rather see that as a guideline vs. in the ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes
8
September 27, 2004
· Page 2-41, same thing on the side setbacks for the first story; maximum of 15 feet, also want
flexibility, 8 and 6 or that also.
· Page 2-43, No.4: Would like to see 50% percent of the total perimeter length be a guideline
also. Many people would rather see a window or some things other than seeing roof trying to
cover the mass and bulk. [agree with the principle of reducing mass and bulk, but by seeing
roof, I don't think also achieves that goal either.
· Page 2-44, second story setbacks: Not comfortable with 15 feet; suggest 10 feet since currently
the ordinance is 5 and 10 and by making it 10 feet including the landscaping mitigation
measures; would like to see it 10 feet.
· Page 2-46, No. II.C: front yard tree planting: Feels 24 inch box or larger as excessive.
· Page 2-48, top of page: development plans: I want to be specific, we did agree in the matrix of
the Planning Commission tentative decisions that we agree that would be the site plan and
elevation plan that was on Page 2-85; four commissioners agreed to that.
· Page 2-48, B3: When I read the goals of the R I were to reduce mass and bulk, make the
guidelines user friendly, etc., design is in the eye of the beholder and although we have a great
professional staff, you can never get two architects to agree and I am not sure if I want to
emphasize design; I think I want more emphasis on reducing mass and bulk.
· Page 2-49, B.1.: Regarding posted notice, agree with Com. Miller that it should be black and
white; should be cost effective. Agree with Com. Giefer regarding notice of action to City
Council members and Planning Commissioners that if for some reason e-mail does not work, it
should be sent by first class mail unless it is requested. Currently I think I am the only
Planning Commissioner and none of the City Council members, everybody is receiving it
through e-mail, but I do request it through first class mail, unless it is requested just bye-mail.
· Commended Mr. Gilli for the excellent job of putting the Planning Commissioners' tentative
decisions in a matrix which will assist the City Council and public understand that we have
been at this since May 24'h and even earlier. The application actually began in 2003; we have
been at this for two years.
· Want to make sure this is correct, regarding August 9, 2004, it was clear in my mind on how I
voted, so I wanted to make that note to staff regarding incorporating the key guidelines.
· Regarding story poles, 1 think that Corns. Giefer and Miller had some good ideas but I think
that it would be easier, either to include both their comments or not include either of them and
they could just read the minutes in the report. I appreciate Mr. Gilli for putting all the minutes
in the report.
· See not having story poles because of the safety hazard; also as an expense, staff supports
eliminating story poles; there was an e-mail done to the Planning Commissioners that the
Director is not really married to the story poles and I wanted that on the record as well.
· Agree that we should be more specific on where the noticing should be in front; one of the big
improvements about this is that notification, you go to a lot of DRC meetings, and a lot of
folks just received the legal notices, but they have no clue what is going on; either they don't
have time to come down to the Planning Department to see what the plans are, and having the
elevation and site plan will be good.
· Don't strongly believe in showing where the rooms are and things like that because I think that
is privacy concern and I think that if they are concerned, they should go down to the City Hall.
· Regarding the 6,500 square foot maximum, I understand where Com. Giefer is coming from,
but I see this as a private property issue that if you are lucky enough to have a very large lot
that is on a flat piece of area, you should be able to build to what is in the ordinance; we did
agree that regarding some areas that should be in the RHS, that should be done through the
General Plan and those folks should be notified who might be transferred to RHS, should be
notified at that time but I strongly believe that 6,500 square feet should not be the maximum.
Planning Commission Minutes
9
September 27, 2004
· We spent a lot of time this year discussing the second to first floor area ratio, and wanted to
reiterate that I personally had to take a lot of compromise and want to thank staff for
supporting the 50% to second first floor area ratio and also taking into consideration the
second story plane. The reason I am supporting the 50% is to allow flexibility so that you can
get a master bedroom, two bedrooms upstairs.
· He said that Council member Don Burnett said that they picked the 35% because at that time
they were one of the first city councils to make that decision; at that time 35% sounded right
and he said that things can change and he understood where it was coming from; there were
some things we agreed to disagree. By doing the second story daylight plane together with the
50%, and with the design review guidelines, this will make an improved ordinance that will be
user friendly to the applicant as well as the staff and the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Com. Miller:
· Relative to the chart of significant changes, one is to highlight that we are increasing the
noticing significantly, because over the last couple of years if anything it has come back to us
that we are not doing sufficient noticing for some of these projects. That is a significant change
that I think the City Council will appreciate.
· Relative to the 50% ratio for second/first story, one of the things learned from people who are
building houses is that in many instances, people are building larger first stories than they
normally need in order to get sufficient space on the second story, and that was in effect
resulting in houses that are larger than necessary. This by increasing the second story and
allowing you to get a reasonable amount of space in terms of a three bedroom configuration is
potentially going to result in smaller houses and less mass and bulk.
Com. Giefer:
· Would like to take an approach of common sense noticing; it is more applicable on some of
the townhouse and condo developments; but applied here as well; especially in those very
large lots where you can build the 30,000 square foot homes. If we took a common sense
approach and started our 300 feet noticing, where the adjacent neighbor is, for example, if I
live on a lot where I don't have a neighbor within 300 feet of me, let's go to the neighborhood
boundary and do the 300 foot noticing from the beginning of the adjacent neighborhood, and I
think that would also work with a lot of the issue that are coming up with the Rose Bowl
development and the Hewlett Packard lands, and we heard this over and over again at the
Crossroads. There is no neighborhood within 300 feet of that development, so if we took more
of a common sense approach to this, it might help solve some of our problems.
Chair Saadati:
· Regarding the front elevation of the home, in the past we have discussed that the front
elevation ffefH of the house should not be more than 50% garages; do not recall seeing that.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Said it is not in the ordinance or the guidelines.
Chair Saadati:
· If we put that in, that will take care of the garages taking over the whole house; it is one item
we should emphasize.
· Page 2-39 regarding the porches; somehow I wasn't sure if using unenclosed porches and
patios would clearly explain what we are looking for. Is there any other way; if it is enclosed
by glass, it is closed, but it can be viewed; privacy is going to be impacted.
Planning Commission Minutes
10
September 27, 2004
Mr. GiIIi:
· The standard definition of enclosed is if it has walls (glass walls included) or partial walls on
three sides and a roof.
Chair Saadati:
· Page 2-40, C: Concur that we should change "should" to "shall" and on lots with 60 feet, with
no car garages, basically you can't fit them based on the 50% rule.
· Page 2-41: was hoping for a clearer definition on the garages being set back and also
comments from other commissioners about some of the existing homes and garages are sitting
in front of the rest of the homes and what may address the issue is the new homes be
harmonious in a design compatible with others, would that override this requirement.
Mr. GiIIi:
· The intent of this was it is understood that the pattern is having the garage out front; that is
also something we have heard is not attractive, so the idea was make a guideline that said we
would like you to do this. Yes it may not be compatible but it is meant to be something that is
an improvement; this would be one of those guidelines that would be very loosely enforced.
Chair Saadati:
· Page 2-46: The privacy and allowing the trees within three years to provide privacy; three
years is a long time to look at a two story home. I have expressed concern about this in the
past and still think putting a 24 inch box tree with a 6 foot high limit on it, that is too long to
wait for it to mature. Perhaps we should look at this in such a way that the privacy planting
shall be sufficient to provide the desired needs within two years or frosted glass or other things
that we discussed. We have heard from the public that the trees are not enough.
· Page 2-48: Had same concerns regarding small or large; probably should come up with a
different definition; it does not accurately fit the description.
· Page 2-48, No. B.3: How much will staff influence the design material because I am not
necessarily looking for the adjacent house to look the same; it is good to have variety if done
with taste; if the intention is to achieve that, it is fine; but not dictating to every owner who
wants to build their house, how to design it. Is that going to be done through the architect's
review? It is for the larger homes.
Mr. GiIIi:
· The particular finding in question is the same present wording, so it was transferred over. The
intent is we would enforce it as we are enforcing our findings now, so in cases where it would
have to go to the architect's consultant, it would; in cases where it didn't, staff would do the
best we can to find ways to improve the design with minor detailing and use of materials.
· Said that mostly the applicant concurred with the recommendation or they have in the past.
Chair Saadati:
· It is fine if the intent IS Just to provide some guidance to the designer. Getting colored
rendering is not that difficult nor expensive; everyone in their home has black and white and
color printer that they can produce color prints.
· Regarding hillside development, Com. Giefer brought up, I have been concerned because I am
not sure if this ordinance would really increase the possibility of the homes being more visible.
Going through the design process will help to make it less visible, by how the house is situated
in the hillside and the way it is designed, and also the tree planting that is required, so the
Planning Commission Minutes
11
September 27, 2004
design is a big factor in how the house is going to turn out. The size of it doesn't necessarily
will resolve the house that is very visible from distance looking up the hillside.
· Noticing should be specific and the duration needs to be mentioned.
· Regarding the stairway, the usual stairway is about 8 feet wide and 10 feet long; from first
story to second story. If it is a single climb, it is about 4 feet wide so you can; if you put in a
curved stairway, you need a lot more space. 75 feet would be a good compromise, I am
willing to concur, to provide some flexibility.
· Agree that first class mailing and e-mail both should be used to make sure all information is
received.
· The building envelope is an improvement; it provides a guideline and flexibility for people to
build their homes within a given space and if they chose to build more on the second story,
they push the building back, resulting in a nicer home.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Agree with Chair Saadati and Com. Chen that the draft language on the name "large and
small" homes may not be the right name in the eye ofthe beholder.
· Instead of having large and smaller homes, perhaps it should be two story residential homes
that are under 35% and two story residential homes that are over 35%.
· Asked Mr. Gilli if the definition of smaller home is under 35%.
Mr. GiIli:
· Yes, that is correct.
Com. Giefer:
· Suggested the alternative of two story residential I, and two story residential II, then you have
no judgmental language; it is not confusing and not a long name.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Ms. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive:
· Pleased with R I since its inception as of 1999 to 2000; it was a vast improvement over what
the Rancho Rinconada community experienced under county jurisdiction prior to 1999.
· Was pleased with R I when annexed into Cupertino when Rancho came in.
· The current RI has effectively solved most of the problems the Rancho community
experienced prior to 1999.
· At this point see no reason to change RI; it is a General Plan year and there is a tendency to
change the document.
· The R I document is a strong document that deals with a lot of the problems that have plagued
the residents and building problems in Cupertino.
· Concern is that many of the changes proposed for RI will have negative impact on small lots;
the Rancho community is at risk.
· She is a homeowner attempting to protect family investment in property.
· See changes to RI being counter-manding my property value; I think that we should keep the
story poles, they work effectively in the neighborhood and some other cities require them.
Increasing the second story allowance to 800 square feet would be disastrous in Rancho where
most of the lots are under 6,000 square feet.
· Eliminating second story setbacks would be disastrous; saw what happened prior to 1999, and
invite people to come into Rancho and see what types of homes that were constructed there.
Planning Commission Minutes
12
September 27, 2004
· I hope that everyone will see fit to keep R I as tight and strong and as effective as it has been; it
works for me; it appeared from the survey and I was here in January of 2004 which was the
first time I was aware that this document was being changed for R I , the consensus was that the
neighborhood property owners did not want to change significant portions of R I.
· Urged everyone to keep RI in tact as much as possible.
Mr. Dennis Whitaker, resident:
· Reported that a fire occurred last July where the landlord thought there were 8 people living in
the home, but there were 14 people living there; and a child died in the fire.
· Expressed concern about garage conversions; noting that safeguards into garage conversions
had not been mentioned.
· There has been talk about decreasing the size of garages, setbacks, moving them around; but
the purpose of setting limits is to make sure you have in the places and you can't stop families
from growing but can stop additional families from moving in.
· What kind of safeguards can be placed into the draft to protect against conversion of garages
to increase the living space for uses other than what is originally intended.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said there were parking requirements for enclosed number of parking spaces that prohibit
people from converting legally; if they convert illegally then it is on a complaint basis, staff
responds to that and through code enforcement and the Building Department, we will either
stop an in-progress conversion or insist that they convert it back when it comes to our
attention.
· No additional verbiage is needed in the ordinance to prohibit garage conversions.
Leslie Burnell, Hollyoak Drive:
· Was present at all the R I meetings several years ago and is familiar with the issue.
· Like the idea that Com. Giefer said to make it evolutionary, don't make it a big jump. He said
while Vice Chair Wong is correct about 50%, but a 15% increase on 35% is really a 43%
increase in the size of the upper story. It is not a 15% increase on the size of the upper story,
because if the upper story is 35% now, you add 15%, resulting in a 43% increase in the size of
the upper story, which is large.
· Historically, former Commissioner Orrin Mahoney was responsible for arriving at the
calculation of 35%.
· Said the story poles were evolutionary; he went and took photos in Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
and said they modeled the best way for people to see things, as proven by the Crossroads. At
the Crossroads, the only buildings that showed were the new ones and not the old Apple
building so people got a misinterpretation, but having pictures out front, the average person
does not understand and can't read them correctly. The story poles do cost money but they are
an excellent idea. Before you say no to them, talk to the people in Los Altos and why they still
have them.
· Reiterated that the second story size was being increased 43%, not 15%.
Vice Chair Wong: (Directed to Mr. Burnell)
· Said he asked Mr. Mahoney the same question about the 35% and would check with him one
more time; he recalled Mr. Mahoney believed that the Planning Commission came up with
35%; it wasn't for the first story, but for the whole two story home.
Planning Commission Minutes
13
September 27, 2004
Com. Miller:
. Said he had a long conversation with Mr. Mahoney about this; what he originally intended
what that it be 35% of the total building square footage, and if calculated would come up to
be roughly 50% of the first story.
Mr. Burnell:
· Said that 50% was incorrect; it was 43% and explained the calculation.
· He reiterated that the increase of the second story was 43% larger than it is now.
Chair Saadati:
· Said a simple way of looking at it, now maximum second story 600, changing it to 800, the
difference being 200, which is approximately 30%.
Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Chair Saadati declared a short recess.
Mr. GiIIi summarized earlier concerns:
· Clarified earlier concerns of Vice Chair Wong and Com. Miller relative to the issue of the RI-
5 zone, Page 2-39 of the staff report.
· It is included because there is an RI-5 area which is Rancho Rinconada and it recognizes the
fact they exist. You cannot rezone an RI-IO to an RI-5 and then subdivide; the RI-5 has a
density of slightly over 5 units per gross acre, whereas the rest of R I has a density of under 5
units an acre; so you actually cannot rezone from RI-6 and above to RI-5, without changing
the General Plan. The notation is just recognizing we have a neighborhood that is R 1-5; in that
zoning category its lot area is 5,000 square feet.
Vice Chair Wong and Com. Miller:
· Said the clarification answered their concerns.
Mr. GiIIi:
· On stairway bonus, there were two for 50, two for 100, but the 100 said they would consider
75 which the Chair specified. Are there three Commissioners comfortable with having the
stairway bonus being 75 square feet.
Com. Miller and Vice Chair Wong:
· Said they would go with 75, and Vice Chair Wong thanked the Chair for compromising.
Com. Giefer:
· Recommended minor word change on Page 2-46: Under E: "the covenant ...... Change "new"
to "all" because there may be existing privacy plantings that would not be recorded unless we
say Hall".
Mr. GiIIi:
· Relative to the issue of side setbacks, currently 5 feet on one side, 10 feet on the other; two
commissioners brought up the concept of can it be changed so that it adds up to 15; so that
you can have a situation where it is 9 and 6 or 8 and 7; most of the properties zoned or
annexed from the City of San Jose after 1979 were built such that they don't meet our 5 and
10 and they have an existing situation of 8 and 7 and so on; so those cases are treated as legal
non-conforming and have to go through the permitted yard encroachment rules. If change is
Planning Commission Minutes
14
September 27, 2004
made, staff would suggest the minimum always be 5 and the other side be 10, but if they want
to make their small side 7, they can make the other side 8. Staff is neutral; except that there
are people on the larger lots who expect that one of the sides is going to be 10 feet; beyond
that it is not a major change.
. Asked for input on three commissioners who had not previously commented.
. History of 5 and 10: Said the neighborhoods historically that were developed in Cupertino,
had lot sizes of minimum 7,500 square feet and many 10,000 square feet; with those larger
lots they were generally wider and when it was decided what the setback would be, 5 and 5
was not enough, and they decided that one side should be at least 10, with the smallest side
allowed to be 5. It may still hold true on the larger lots, but on the smaller lots brought in
from San Jose, the RI-6, RI-7.5s those do not necessarily work as well.
Com. Chen:
· No preference; 15 feet is appropriate.
Com. Giefer:
· No strong feelings but to get any heavy equipment into your back yard to do construction or
excavation or yard re-Iandscaping, you need to have a minimum of space to get back there;
which is the only reason to keep 5 and 10 if possible.
· I don't know if there are safety issues regarding the fire department.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Said the fire department would likely prefer more clearance. Some neighborhoods, most of
Rancho has setbacks of 5 feet on both sides, and there are small lot areas in neighboring cities
that have 5 and 5; it may just be an issue for the Commission that do you think the larger lots
should have a larger setback or can it be averaged out.
Com. Giefer:
· Before going with a split the difference approach, would need to give it more consideration
than has been given.
Vice Chair Wong:
· The Planning Commission voted recently on Santa Clara Avenue, that one minimum had to be
5 feet and when it came to the DRC, the other size was only 3.5 feet, so I can see where you
are coming from, but it would be dependent on the situation. We have approved something
that one side was only 5 feet and the other side was less than 5 feet.
Chair Saadati:
· My position is we could have minimum 5 feet and flexibility would be good. Also the
neighbors have a right to come and speak as long as neighbors do not object to it; it is good to
have flexibility like 6 and 9, but this does not include the fireplaces that could encroach into
the space.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Two things, the change discussed would affect single story houses that won't have any type of
review, so one neighbor wouldn't have input.
· On the issue of the fireplace, the fireplace is allowed to encroach 2 feet into a setback, as long
as it is no closer than 3 feet and that is regardless if it is on the 5 foot side or the 10 foot side.
Planning Commission Minutes
15
September 27, 2004
Chair Saadati:
· Put the flexibility in as long as the neighbors have no objection or their input is received.
Mr. GiIIi:
· The only way to do that is require a minor residential permit for anybody who wants to use
that amount of flexibility; that is the only way to get the neighbor input.
Chair Saadati:
· How many projects in the past have come and requested to have different setback than what is
in the ordinance.
Mr. GiIIi:
· As the rules are now, there are not many applications for smaller size setbacks; if they have an
existing house that is non-conforming, they have a rule that allows them to extend a wall so
that normally takes care of one side, and the other side meets the 5 foot setback. We haven't
seen this in the case of a new house being built, the old house being torn down, everybody has
met the 5 and 10; they choose which side will be the 10 feet based on their preference.
Chair Saadati:
· It is easier because they don't have to consider too many options, they just do it. If that has
worked in the past, we should keep it and they can ask for an exemption and it would come to
the DRC.
· Supports minimum 5 feet on one side, splitting the difference. (Total of 15 feet for both sides)
Com. Chen:
· Said she would agree with 5 and 10, with one side not less than 5 feet.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Relative to the issue of plan sets, the Commission was clear they didn't want the floor plans;
the reason that wasn't specifically put in the ordinance is because there are certain things that
may change over time, we may learn that people want the floor plans and they may not have
an issue with it, there is a point to how much detail you put in the ordinance; this was one
section to leave flexible so that as commissions and councils change, the ordinance would not
have to be amended to say that the floor plan is included now or isn't included. Our intention
is to implement it as the Commission stated, but not have it specifically spelled out in the code.
· Three or four commissioners indicated you did want specification as to which of the plan
sheets are to go to a neighbor in the code. Do all still want that.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Referred to Page 2-85 on the matrix for summary of decision on floor plans.
· Justified his reason for not putting floor plans in is that not only will they get a legal notice,
they also get a rendering; they will see the elevations and by using common sense they can tell
if the windows are a little smaller on the second story, it's likely is a bathroom; if it a little
bigger, mostly likely it is a bedroom on the second story. If they want more information, they
should go to the Planning Department and get more information.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked if the information mailed would indicate to the adjacent neighbors in the noticing that
further information and the floor plan is available at the Planning Department.
Planning Commission Minutes
16
September 27, 2004
Mr. GiIIi:
· Would state that the complete set is available; I don't think we would spell out that the floor
plan is.
Com. Giefer:
· I think if we said it in common terms that the layman would understand and spell out what
plans and permits are available for public review in the Planning Department, it may eliminate
the need for an extensive amount of information mailed, but I do think that there is merit to
providing the floor plans for neighbors because it may make a difference if a bonus room
upstairs or media room upstairs was overlooking your bedroom, where potentially people will
be making a lot of noise or looking down into a bedroom in your single story home.
Chair Saadati:
· My view is as long as the neighbors get the site plan that shows what is on the first and second
floor in general, and they are informed that the plans are available for their review, that should
be sufficient. The neighbors who are very concerned will usually go to the Planning
Department and look at it.
Mr. GiIIi:
· That is how it would be implemented. The issue is whether or not you want to spell out in the
ordinance which sheets are included and which are not; it also hurts you in cases where it is a
unique case that an additional sheet of a section drawing of the site could be useful if you were
limiting it to just the site plan and just the elevations. There are enough reasons in our mind
that you shouldn't be explicit but if the Council agrees with the Commission that it doesn't
need the floor plans, that is how it is going to be implemented.
· What we are asking is don't spell it out so that we have to amend the ordinance if the Council
or Commission in a year says floor plans shall be included.
Ms. Wordell:
· Suggested some wording that could cover both bases, such as "would include plan sets,
normally consisting of elevations and site plan" and then if the occasion arose where you felt,
or the applicant wanted the floor plan to go out, it still would be possible.
Chair Saadati:
· That would be appropriate, the main thing is the elevation that each neighbor wants to see how
it is going to look from their house.
Com. Chen:
· Said she agreed, for the purpose of notifying neighbors, I think this said is enough, just to let
people know there is a new development going in and what it looks like.
· Supports eliminating the story poles, but feel it is helpful information to have the storyboard
ready to help neighbors understand how this new development will be like in relation in terms
of height, look with neighbors. Questioned if it should be a requirement in the ordinance.
Mr. GiIIi:
· As the rules are now, these kinds of things are not listed in the ordinance; there is no
requirement in the ordinance that you have to do a storyboard; it is a requirement in the
application and that goes to the argument of not tying yourself down so much so that if you do
want a storyboard, you can still have it required in the application or if you don't, then you
don't have it required because it is spelled out in the ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes
17
September 27, 2004
· We can still do that, and have it required of the applicant, but it really doesn't need to be in the
ordinance.
Com. Chen:
· Following Mr. Gilli's explanation, concurred that the storyboard should be part of the
application for the applicant to prepare, and not included in the ordinance.
Mr.GiIIi
· Asked if there was a majority of the group that accepts the general language that the plan sets
will normally include a site and elevation plan, and other plans as deemed needed on a case by
case basis. The intention is not to have floor plans.
The majority agreed with Mr. GiIIi's proposal.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Is there agreement on the naming of the two story processes, instead of "small" and "large"
name it "two story residential permit F' and "two story residential permit IF' or is there
another term that is more appropriate.
The majority agreed to the suggested new titles.
Mr. GiIIi:
· All comments about wanting additional information to go to City Council will be incorporated
into their packets
· Remaining question is would the Commission prefer to have the changes made in the draft and
brought back to the next meeting" or have them incorporated and sent to the Council?
Vice Chair Wong:
· Page 2-43: overlap of the roof to disguise wall heights... could colleagues comment ifit could
be made into a guideline.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Explained that it was the regulation that calls for 50% of the perimeter of the second story to
have wall heights of a certain height and a certain offset. This has not been discussed because
it was left out of the scope of work and not known if the Council intended it not to be touched
or it was an oversight.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he was bringing it up because he was using Mann Drive as an example, and the City
Council set a precedent, or just changed it. It can done either through a window or through
architectural design. Another example on the DRC is that there was a turret on Tantau across
from the elementary school and it was a nice tower element that they used a staircase inside
and draped that tower case with a roof like skirt.
· Said he felt the element was a nice element and it should stand out and they had the roof
covering it. There are other cases that half the roof covers half the building and for design
wise I know that Com. Chen thinks highly of desigo that maybe using the roof to cover it may
not be the best way to have a good design.
· I also look at it as a design standpoint as well and would rather have it implemented as a
guideline.
Planning Commission Minutes
18
September 27, 2004
Com. Miller:
· Also spoke to this point and agree.
Vice Chair Wong:
· No wording change, it is a good language; just as a guidelines.
Mr. GiIIi:
· It was part of the ordinance in 1999.
Com. Chen:
· Since it is not part of the scope of work, I would just leave it.
Com. Giefer:
· Concurs with Com. Chen that because it was not part of the scope of work, I would leave it.
· Said she appreciated what Vice Chair Wong said about the design element, and as long as we
have staff reviewing the design, if the design merits it, then a Director's minor modification
can be made to let the design stand and that is one of the advantages of having the staff review.
Vice Chair Wong:
· If we had a DRC because it was staff's recommendation to have the skirt around the turret, it
was the DRC that ruled differently, so that it will not come to the attention of the Planning
Commission unless the applicant wants to appeal the case. Time is money; there is one
instance of an emergency meeting for the DRC last Friday and the applicant was honest that
the setback was not done correctly so they had to do a modification vs. the next door neighbor
did not bring it to staff's attention. Once something is set, it is hard for them to ask for a
change or ask for another public hearing, so hopefully someone will reconsider.
Mr. GiIIi:
· It is one of the more difficult rules. If you look at what it is trying to achieve, it is not possible
to simplify it; it is calling for the second story wall over a portion of the house, over half of the
elevation to be pushed back from the first story wall and then to have a roof. In the cases that
Com. Wong cited, that didn't have anything to do with this rule; Mann Drive was not asking
for an exception to this rule and in the case with the turret, it was a judgment that the mask
could use the breakup, but it wasn't to address this rule either, because the turret is straight up
and there is no offset.
· If the Commission is split on this, one idea that is in the middle would be that allow exceptions
to this rule without going through the full exception process; if there is a case where, the
design doesn't need it, that the design has mass bulk that is reasonably compatible with the
neighborhood, staff has no problems with it, the neighbors have no problem with it, let this be
one of the things that avoids having to go through the public hearing and pay the extra fee and
have this also be an exception that the director can approve; that allows flexibility but also lets
the neighbors have a voice if they like the concept.
Chair Saadati:
· Having the second level set back, this is similar to some guidelines or ordinances which other
cities have in place.
Planning Commission Minutes
19
September 27, 2004
Mr. GiIIi:
· It is, except this talks specifically about the portion of the second floor that has to have it; it
goes a little further; a lot of cities will say your second story needs to be set back a little bit,
but it won't say half of the perimeter.
· It was part of the 1999 amendment; the second story wall offsets and the size of the second
story were the three main regulations added in 1999.
Chair Saadati:
· Leaving it in with allowing exception that you mentioned that will give some flexibility.
Mr. GiIIi:
· It would have to add a section to the exception language to say there is one particular case that
the Director can approve an exception, where all the other exceptions will be at the DRC with
hearings; and we would also have language at the regulation that says you can ask for an
exception according to this rule.
Com. Miller:
· Both ways would achieve the same thing; the only comment I would have is the way the staff
is suggesting, is a little more complex, by moving it to a guidelines we are not really changing
the requirement because everything goes through staff and you are going to review it in that
regard. It does allow the flexibility for an application like the one with the turret that it doesn't
require an exception and you are proposing some other way of doing it; my comment it is
more straight forward to move it to a guideline. What you are proposing will work as well.
Mr. GiIIi:
· The only caveat about moving it to a guideline is this will be the only guideline that is specific,
all the other guidelines are general, like we move the wall offset to guidelines but we didn't
keep the exact language, we just said you should have articulation on the second story wall. If
we had that amount of specific language it would be awkward with the general comments.
Com. Giefer:
· Couldn't we leave it to the interpretation of the Planning Director 19.28.130 because he has
the discretion to interpret.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Yes, that is in a case where there is a gray area where the rule isn't explicitly clear; in this case
we can calculate out whether it meets this or not, and it's not a matter of us not being sure.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Want to ask about the implementations that, if we put it through DRC, it would be better since
what with the turret idea, since staff already supported putting the roof around it, maybe it
should go to DRC vs. the Director.
Mr. GiIIi:
· That is possible, except as I said that turret was not implementing this rule, because this rule
talks about there is an offset between the first and second story, and that turret it went straight
up. We just added a band; that roof overhang was not this rule. They met this rule either with
that band or without it; they still met it.
Planning Commission Minutes
20
September 27, 2004
Vice Chair Wong:
· But staff recommended that they should have it; staff implemented the recommendation; there
is no third party like the Planning Commission; I think that it makes the process simpler but
then there is no oversight from the Planning Commission and that is what my concern is.
Chair Saadati:
· How does that differ from making it the guidelines.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Is that it is "should" vs. "shall" since it is in the ordinance.
Chair Saadati:
· It is "shall" but if you add the allowance for exception it goes through the Director.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Which we will work out; I am open to that; what would be better is to go to the DRC for the
exception.
Mr. GiIIi:
· As the code is now, if they didn't meet that rule, they would file for an exception and go to the
committee, so the idea was making something in the middle that was cheaper, quicker.
· In the case of the roof element on the tower, it was a recommendation of our architectural
consultant that it broke up the mass of the tower, and the applicant did not indicate to us that
they had a problem with that; so had they indicated they did not want it, it may not have ended
up as it was presented.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said when people come to the DRC, he asks them what they want; sometimes feel that they
are not communicating with staff based on the fear of not having the application passed. Then
look at the ordinance to see ifthere is some flexibility.
· Asked if the current way it is, if they oppose it, it goes to DRC.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Currently, because it is a regulation, if they don't meet it, it would be an exception and they
would go to the DRC.
Vice Chair Wong:
· If the exception goes to the Director, that is fine with me.
Chair Saadati:
· Does the majority concur?
Response:
· Yes.
There was consensus that the ordinance return to the Planning Commission at the next
meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
21
September 27,2004
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked for clarification on the three car garages.
Mr. GiIIi:
· There were some people who said it should be guidelines, that it should be a regulation, but
there weren't enough people who said one way or the other to change what the language is in
the draft.
· There was not a majority on any issue regarding garages.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he believed the three car garages should be a guideline; agree with Com. Giefer that the
third car should be offset currently as stated in the current ordinance.
· Believe that we should take into consideration applicants who are in cuI de sacs.
Com. Giefer:
· Prefer the language that Chair Saadati recommended; it is a simpler way to solve the issue, that
no more than 50% of the street facing the plane could be garages; also feel that rather than a
design guideline, the inset of a third garage if it works measurably, should be mandatory, not
just a guideline.
· The 50% rule mitigates the impact of the plane.
Com. Chen:
· Agrees with Com. Giefer, the 50% rule is easy to understand.
· The third garage should be recessed.
Com. Miller:
· Where are we implementing the 50% from; the face of the house or the street?
Chair Saadati:
· The elevation; when you look at the front of the house, you don't want to see more than 50%
garage.
Com. Miller:
· That is a good question; so if it is a 50 foot wide lot and there is 5 feet on each side, that leaves
40 feet and a garage would normally take 20 feet; it would meet the 50 foot rule.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Staff recommends it be made a guideline because there will be cases where it may be 55, but it
is all they could reasonably do on the lot to get a 2 car garage.
Com. Miller:
· Prefer staff suggestion of a guideline.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked if there was agreement on a third garage having a mandatory inset; as opposed to being
in the same plane even if it meets the 50% rule, just to break it up.
Planning Commission Minutes
22
September 27, 2004
Mr. Gilli:
· As it is now, having a 2 foot offset on the third car garage is in the guidelines; what Com.
Giefer is saying is make that a required ordinance requirement that if you have a three car
garage, the third one has to be minimum of 2 feet.
Com. Miller:
· I agree that in general three car garage across doesn't look that attractive; only concern is we
are talking about flexibility and there might be an instance where that is the only way to do it.
Chair Saadati:
· Said that they could apply for an exception.
Com. Miller:
· Said it was a minor point, and would agree with the other commissioners.
Chair Saadati:
· Said his position remained the same.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she would e-mail minor grammatical changes.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to continue Application
MCA-2003-02 to the next Planning Commission meeting. Vote 5-0-0
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
· Com. Chen reported that the meeting was cancelled.
HousiDl! Commission:
· Com. Giefer reported that the meeting was postponed and cancelled.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl!:
Com. Giefer reported:
· Mayor updated the other Commissions on the Rose Bowl development and part of the delay
with some of the approval for theater are because Penneys and Sears would like
improvements, and are working with their management to get those.
· All revisions of the General Plan Task Force are in one place and they have added a Hot Topic
section, which will also be on the city website.
· The status of the three initiatives by the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino is it is currently
looking as though is going to be a special election in February and the cost to the city is
$371,000 for that ballot initiative. The Chamber of Commerce is opposing those particular
initiatives and trying to organize some response to them.
· The Library is opening October 30th with a street faire on Torre Avenue; they need to raise
$1.2 million in funding to pay for library furniture and other items.
Planning Commission Minute~
23
September 27, 2004
· There is a library sculpture being done for the Library of Children that the Fine Arts
Commission is working on, which will add value to the aesthetics of the building.
· There is also a Gala scheduled for the Library as part of the fundraising for the furniture.
· Bike and Pedestrian Commission has done a safety and walk to school campaign and working
on different crosswalks; one they are trying to advocate is a crosswalk across from Quinlan
crossing Stelling Road.
· The Telco Commission is using at HGTV and voice over IPs; they are running a series of
different topics in the Cupertino Scene. One suggestion was made to also talk about wireless
communications and cell phone uses and antennas to try to help educate the public on the need
for those.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Mr. Piasecki reported:
· Tentatively the new Council chamber will be available for the November 8th Planning
Commission meeting and we will be scheduling some training on the new equipment.
· Planning Commission meetings will be held on Tuesdays beginning in November.
Ms. Wordell reported:
· Staff will be bringing a proposed conceptual schedule to the Planning Commission, to firm up
dates at the October II th meeting. As mentioned in the Director's report the Planning
Commission recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration on
October 18th. If the schedule is approved, community meetings can be held in November and
December and public hearings in January.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission meeting
on October II, 2004 as 6:45 p.m.
Submitted by:
,
Ellis, Recording Secretary
Approved as Amended: October 11, 2004