Loading...
PC 01-25-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 25, 1999 ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON MOTION: Com. Harris moved to nominate Com. Doyle as Chairperson for 1999 SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: Com. Stevens moved to nominate Com. Harris as Vice Chairperson for 1999 SECOND: Com. Corr VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Newly nominated Chair Doyle chaired the remainder of the meeting. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Charles Corr, David Doyle, Andrea Harris, Patrick Kwok, Jerry Stevens Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, Michele Bjurman, Planner II: Vera Gil, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the meetings of December 17, 1998 and January 6, 1999 MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the minutes of the December 17, 1998 and January 6, 1999 Planning Commission meetings as presented. SECOND: Com. Stevens ABSTAIN: Corns. Carr and Kwok VOTE: Passed 3-0-2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: Chair Doyle noted for file the Rancho Rinconada newsletter, The Community Crier. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: 2. Application No.: Amendment to Newsrack Ordinance Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1999 Consideration of amendments to Chapter 10.21 (Newsrack Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to require modular newsracks. Tentative City Council Hearing date: March 15, 1999 Request continuance to February 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Application No.(s): 29-U-85(M) Applicant: Stanley Wang (First Baptist Church of Cupertino) Location: 10525 Miller Avenue Use Permit modification to relocate an existing parsonage and demolish and rebuild a detached garage at an existing church. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to the February 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting MOTION: Com. Stevens moved to continue Application for Amendment to Newsrack Ordinance to February 22, 1999 and Application No. 29-U-85(M) to February 8, 1999 SECOND: Com. Harris VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 4. Application No Applicant: Location: 13-U-97(M) Sunnyview Lutheran Home 22445 Cupertino Road Use Permit modification to relocate below -grade parking to surface parking for an approved addition to an existing assisted living facility. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Chair Doyle excused himself from discussion of the application because he resided within 300 feet of the property. Vice Chair Harris chaired the meeting in his absence. Staff presentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Planner I1, referred to the overhead of the site plan and reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. She noted that the application was approved in January 1998 to construct the new wing and a below -grade parking garage; however, because of flooding experienced during the past winter, the applicant feels it is necessary to remove the underground parking and provide surface parking. She reviewed the proposed changes and location of the new parking stalls. In response to Com. Stevens' question relative to flooding problems, Ms. Gil said that the applicant had experienced flooding in years other than the El Nino event. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, discussed the drainage pattern for the site. He clarified that it was staff s recommendation that the property owner relocate the underground parking because of potential flooding problems. Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 25, 1999 A discussion ensued regarding mitigation measures to address potential flooding, and landscaping modifications, wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. Ms. Gil also noted that the proposed parking changes create a loss of 2 to 3 parking spaces for the site; however, she said that Sunnyview was overparked by 20 spaces, and staff felt that the loss of the three spaces was not significant. Mr. Ron Zielske, Sunnyview Lutheran Home, referred to the site plan and indicated the location where previous flooding had occurred and explained the mitigation measures used. He said that because of some water in the buildings, they were considering the concept of the back parking lots to be used as a holding tank for the water. He noted that the building elevation remained the same as what was approved in 1998. Com. Harris expressed concern about approving the application without seeing the updated plans. She said she was not comfortable with approving the application, when they were aware there was a dip, and it was subject to flooding and already had problems this year. Mr. Cowan clarified that the Public Works Department and Mr. Zielske had discussed taking care of some of the buildings in the far southwest corner of the property where there was previous flooding; and it was being done on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Zielske said he would be willing to make the turf blocks part of a condition of approval. Vice Chair Harris opened the hearing for public comments; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Stevens said that it was an attempt to approve something that has not been laid out to the satisfaction of reducing or eliminating flooding; and the proposal was to remove the basement for underground parking because it has a high probability of flooding. He said he was not clear about the reason for doing it, other than stating that underground parking was not needed. Mr. Cowan said it was not staff s intent to be involved in the detailed aspects of the drainage issue, other than to relay the plan changes as a result of the displacement of the cars below the building. He said there were ongoing discussions with the city's engineer and the engineer for Mr. Zielske on how to best solve the long term flooding aspect, and that it has been ongoing for the last 3-4 years. Com. Kwok said he supported the proposal although he was also concerned about the drainage problem. He said it was Public Works' and staffs role to address the problem when the design drawings are submitted and make sure the drainage problem is addressed. He said he had reservations about the pipe as a holding storage and Public Works should investigate the flooding problems along the pipelines to ensure that the problems are not passed to the neighboring properties. He said he would support the project, with the condition of adding some turf blocks and some drain rocks. Com. Corr said that he felt the applicant had done a suitable job of responding to the issue of what could be a problem with the cars in the basement being flooded out. He said he was in favor of the turf block concept, but felt there was not a need for additional trees in the northeast corner because of the slope, which he said may have been the reason they referred to trees at the north which would include the new parking area. He said that although he was concerned about getting trees in there, he supported the issue. Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 25, 1999 Com. Harris said she preferred things in writing because in the future no one remembers what was decided years ago, and all the principles change. She recommended the following changes: Under additional landscaping Page 4-3, that it read "turf block and dry well shall be placed in the new parking area" and she stated the drainage item, Item 8 on Page 4-4, only addresses offsite drainage and not onsite drainage. She recommended that the language read: "on and offsite drainage" as she felt the drainage on the property was important as well. MOTION: Com. Stevens moved that Application 13-U-97(M) with the conditions modified in Item 2, additional landscaping, having the words "turf block and dry wells shall be placed in the new parking area", and Paragraph 8, have drainage defined as on and offsite SECOND: Com. Corr ABSENT: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Chairman Doyle returned to the meeting and resumed chairing the meeting. Application No.: 41-EA-98 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to streamline the procedure regarding conditional use permits and variances. Tentative City Council Meeting date: February 16, 1999 Staff presentation: Ms. Gil explained that the primary purpose of the amendment was to eliminate the setting of a public hearing before a decision making body when a use permit or a variance expires. She reviewed the changes made to the ordinance by the City Attorney, with his direction to the Planning Commission to take the ordinance as a whole, stating that the primary purpose was to eliminate that public hearing process, noting that the city attorney had in some cases consolidated language and in some cases felt it was necessary to insert additional words. She noted the two wording changes made as noted in the staff report. Staff recommends a negative declaration and that the amendments be approved. In response to Com. Stevens' concern about the vague meaning of the wording "prior to expiration" on Page 5-4, Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, said it did not matter as long as it was prior to expiration. Mr. Cowan noted that if there was a change in ownership, there would not be a need for a change, as it runs with the land. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 41-EA-98 according to the model resolution, including changes discussed above SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 6. Application No.(s): 11-Z-97, 8-EA-98 Amendment to RI -Ordinance Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 25, 1999 Scope of work for design guidelines for R-1 Ordinance Staff presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman, Planner II, reported that during the development of the project as a whole, the Planning Commission met with staff and the City Council and several subcommittees comprised of architects, engineers, and parts of the development community in order to identify what concerns about single family homes the Planning Commission and City Council had, and the outcome of the meetings. She explained the three phases: (1) Privacy protection measures currently in effect including a combination of landscape requirements and window alignment requirements, as a result of the Planning Commission and City Council concurred that there needed to be some type of regulation for the control of privacy from new single family 2 story homes being built, and their impact to existing single family homes in a neighborhood. (2) The second phase related to building mass. When the scope of work for the building mass was developed, it was decided that they did not want to develop design regulations for all new, single family homes, and/or all new single two story additions in single family zoning districts because it would be over regulating; they wanted to allow architects the flexibility of design, but that there may be portions of the community that do have architectural types that may need to have architectural control; the major concern being with building mass. The Planning Commission adopted and recommended to the City Council a series of building mass regulations which included sliding scale FAR, and some changes on how to calculate building mass for first and second story relationships, and the series of other changes to what is included in the calculation of FAR along with many other changes that the City Council will be considering. Ms. Bjurman reported that the remaining portion of the project, which is the Phase 3 design phase would be addressed. Staff was directed to conduct a survey of architectural types in the community with Mr. Srebnik and draw some conclusions from that and make recommendations about what portions of the community, architecturally were significant and should be protected. She noted that the findings were included in the staff report, and a slide presentation identifying the different architectural styles within the community would be shown. Ms. Bjurman said that staff was approached by the Fairgrove neighbors which are Eichler homes and they submitted a survey to staff expressing their interest in preserving their look, feel and privacy of their particular Eichler design. She said that staff was suggesting that the Planning Commission direct staff to have a series of meetings with their subcommittee to identify what types of things they would like to have included in any design regulations for that neighborhood. She noted that a decision was needed on how the regulations would be applied, such as rezoning the entire neighborhood into one of two different zoning districts, one would be a Planning Developing zoning district which would require that any new addition or new two story home be required to have architectural review, which would provide some discretion in the design and staff would develop design guidelines which would not be mandatory and would be used by the deciding body to decide how to apply them to the architectural style. The other method would be to rezone the neighborhood to a special zoning district, such as RI-E, designating Eichler, and develop specific mandatory guidelines specific to Eichler homes, and the homeowner in conjunction with the architect would do a building design that would be consistent with those and apply for a building permit, and avoid a public hearing unless they were not consistent. Ms. Bjurman showed a slide presentation which illustrated the Polynesian -ranch style neighborhood, which staff feels is architecturally, but not historically unique. She reported that staff forwarded a copy of the staff report to the neighbors in the area and asked for feedback whether they would like to have architectural protection for their particular style homes. She said Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 25, 1999 staff would present the response to the Planning Commission at the end of February, noting that only by the request of the homeowners, would they be interested in protecting that particular style. Mr. Mark Srebnik, contract architect, showed a slide presentation of a variety of ranch homes in the Cupertino area which consisted of one story ranch, 1-1/2 story ranch, two story ranch, split level, and homes with additions. He also showed slides of the Eichler homes and the Polynesian - ranch style homes. Com. Harris suggested that in order to be proactive a publication notice be given to all Cupertino residents in the event there were other groups interested in preserving their particular style home, and were not present at the meeting. Chair Doyle listed the issues of concern: (1) neighborhood specific design review, particularly discussing where the threshold for that is; (2) neighborhood survey, with two options (3) streetscape — to disallow removal or require tree planting; (4) publication notice to all Cupertino residents regarding their possible desire to preserve their distinctive neighborhood; and (5) sidewalk tree plantings. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public comment. Mrs. Nancy Burnett, Stendahl Lane, said that a survey of the Eichler neighborhood was included as part of the staff report, and noted that another survey related to the characteristics that make up the unique feeling of the Eichler neighborhood, had recently taken place, the results of which would be presented as a later date. She referred to a book entitled Design For Living — Eichler homes, and said she would be happy to provide the Planning Department with a copy. She also presented a copy of an Eichler newsletter, and noted that a Palo Alto Eichler home was named Home of the Year for Metropolitan Home Magazine. She pointed out that there were no Eichler homes in Rancho Rinconada, but designs referred to a pseudo Eichlers. Mrs. Burnett thanked the Planning Commission for recognizing the Eichler homes for their uniqueness and said the owners were proud of their homes. She welcomed new Planning Commissioners Patrick Kwok and Charles Corr, and congratulated Chairman Doyle for being nominated chairman. Ms. L. Baltusis, resident, said she appreciated Com. Harris' suggestions about being proactive in the community. She said she appreciated the opportunity to attend the meetings and the workshops, and said it was difficult to summarize one's passions in a short speech. She expressed concern that all the decisions are being made by architects and builders, and said it would be helpful to have input from the public as they have a different perspective. Chair Doyle closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission commented on the following recommendations: 1. Planning Commission should direct staff to meet with Polynesian Ranch, Rancho Rinconada and Eichler groups and return with design criteria. 2. Planning Commission should decide between the two approaches for implementation of the design criteria on the Eichler neighborhood. 3. Planning Commission should continue the discussion on the Polynesian -style design criteria until its February 22 meeting. 4. Planning Commission should decide whether the existing Heritage and Specimen Tree ordinance should be reviewed to either require tree planting in the front yards of new two story homes/additions or to add new specimen trees for preservation. Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1999 5. Direct staff to return to the February 22 Planning Commission meeting with the sidewalk and street tree planting policies. 6. Discuss whether the Planning Commission wants to further address the building orientation and garage domination topics. Com. Stevens said that he would deviate slightly, because he felt they were putting in detail without hitting the overall concept they were trying to address with the design; in that if the desire is that new additions, or second stories should complement that neighborhood, and not be unique in that neighborhood; try to have the second story or addition blend with the same architectural style. He said he felt that was the goal, and he was in favor of it. He said that he agreed with Com. Harris' suggestion about other areas identifying their distinctive style, but not that it be every five or six houses. Com. Kwok said it was a good idea to have input from the Fairgrove neighbors, but the whole community should be involved because public input is important. Com. Corr said that the community is concerned about what is being built, however, a specific concern is being addressed, namely should there in addition to the normal care taken with planning any construction, should specific neighborhoods be addressed that are architecturally unique and then give them special consideration that states because it is so unique, it should stay the way it is. He said it may be more restrictive in a way that would be the case throughout the city, and he was not opposed to that. He suggested that the Eichler name be removed from any reference to Rancho Rinconada. He concurred also that the staff should visit all the neighborhoods. Com. Harris said she felt if they were going to come up with some specific architectural ideas for the Eichler area, she would like more information and would like to review the book Mrs. Burnett mentioned. She also suggested a field trip to Eichler neighborhoods, Rancho Rinconada and also the Polynesian ranch neighborhood, with a public notice to residents, so that they could be included in the field trip if they were interested. She also suggested visiting the Palo Alto Eichler neighborhood for ideas on how to plan the design rules. Com. Harris said she felt Nos. 1 and 2 went together, and said if it is done as a Planned Development, each one would have to be addressed unless there was a discretionary review. She said it was considered before and they decided not to do that. Com. Harris said that she felt No. 2 was appropriate, to come up with the classification of RI-E, require conformance to the design criteria developed and then have an exception policy, wherein the Planning Commission would see the exceptions instead of each time someone wants a change. She said that it should not be put off, but that staff should proceed with it, if any neighborhoods contacted them after the public notice. Com. Doyle said he agreed that staff should work with the neighborhoods; with the Eichler neighborhood drawing a strong consensus. He said he felt as a group they should try to set a threshold and make it the people's responsibility to see if they think that they should be a special district. He said care should be taken to set a threshold that 2/3 of the designated neighborhood be in agreement and have some restrictions or criteria defined for them. He said he felt they should proceed with the Eichlers, but let the neighborhoods define what they want for their specific homes. He recommended not going to the other neighborhoods, but waiting to hear from them following the public noticing. Com. Harris concurred. Planning Commission Minutes g January 25, 1999 There was a consensus to do a public notice, proceed with the Eichler investigation; after the public noticing, see what kind of response there is from the other neighborhoods and discuss the percentages later. Com. Harris said that she commented on No. 2 earlier, that she wanted to have design Rl-E with a set of standards as opposed to individual review of each. Relative to No. 3, she recommended visiting the Polynesian -ranch neighborhood before reaching a decision. She said she was in favor of expanding the Heritage Tree ordinance to native tree, etc. of a certain size. She said that she was in favor of planning modernization of the house keeping in mind the trees that are already on site and dealing with streetscape and planting in front yards. Com. Harris pointed out that streetscape was a key issue, and felt that Public works would not want to pay for a large amount of street trees, which would leave the responsibility of mitigation to the people doing the remodeling. Relative to building orientation and garage domination, Com. Harris said that it was a major issue on Stelling Road, with the side of the houses facing Stelling Road instead of the front. She said she was opposed to the swath of concrete on most of the garages, but that it was possible to mitigate it with attractive windows. She said that she was also in favor of the citywide notice to the neighborhoods. Com. Corr, said that relative to No. 2, he was in favor of the special classification; he was in favor of continuing the Polynesian -ranch discussion to Feb. 22; was in favor of the Heritage Tree ordinance with disallowing removal; No. 5 is appropriate; abstain on the garage issue as he was not familiar with the issue; he was in favor of the citywide notice and the exception process. Com. Kwok said that Nos. 1 through 7 were appropriate; but he felt he needed more information about the two approaches and needed to talk to staff more about the pros and cons; stated that discussing the variance is a long, time consuming process, but at the same time will give some flexibility. He said he needed more information before reaching a decision on No. 2; and questioned whether the garage domination issue was the design or orientation of the garage. Ms. Bjurman said that there was a concern about the design, but staff would come back with examples of different situations where garages dominate and discuss whether there is an issue. Com. Harris clarified the garage domination issue. Com. Kwok said he did not have an issue with the citywide notice to neighborhoods, as long as it did not become a burden to staff. Com. Stevens reemphasized his first statement, that compatibility of a new structure to fit in an existing neighborhood is the objective, and if the area is so unique like the Eichlers because they are so unique, that that may be more restrictive, as far as making them compatible. If it was an area other than the Eichler or Polynesian -ranch, then it would be less restrictive, which is the concept he was in favor of. He said he was not looking to identify various areas, but for an overall city policy with accent on particular areas if the people wish that. He said of the two approaches, the Rl-E designation was his choice. Com. Stevens said that the Heritage Tree and Specimen Tree Ordinance was suitable. Relative to No. 5, Com. Stevens said that he would like to come back with the sidewalk and street planning policy. He said he had a curved driveway at his home; however, three car garages were becoming dominant and popular, and as mentioned by Com. Harris would fall out of compatibility with the neighborhood, and he was concerned about it. He said he was in favor of citywide notice, and the exception process. Chair Doyle said from his perspective, relative to No. 2, there should be a special zoning district, wait on the Polynesian -ranch style until closer to a more definitive answer whether they are inclusive or not. Relative to the Heritage Tree ordinance, he said he felt they should review the Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 25, 1999 street tree part of it, and not relax it any on the heritage tree. Chair Doyle said he concurred with Com. Harris about the garage orientation, that it dominates the house, especially with the 3 car garages, and any way to mitigate it would be appropriate. He said he agreed with Ms. Bjurman's suggestion to bring back examples of garage domination. He said that he was in favor of the citywide notice and the exception process. Ms. Bjurman summarized that no vote was needed and the staff direction was clear. She said staff would meet with the Fairgrove neighbors with the idea of developing a rezoning with an exception process; wait for feedback from the Polynesian -ranch neighborhoods, and report back by the February 22" d timeline. She said at that time staff will also attempt to bring more information about the street tree policies which will lead into an expansion potentially of the tree ordinance and discuss further protection of trees for construction. Ms. Bjurman said that staff will also return with expanded information on garages and building orientation; and in the meantime will send out a citywide public notice about specific neighborhoods and whether people are interested in trying to create a threshold that they can address the John Way consensus issue. Mr. Cowan said that he would forward the February 2" d City Council packet for the item to Corns. Kwok and Corr, so that they would have the previous background material to review. MOTION: Com. Stevens moved to continue Application 11-Z-97, 8-E-98 to the February 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting SECOND: Com. Corr VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 7. Application No.(s): 36-EA-98 Amendments to Accessory Structure and Tree Ordinance Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Consideration of modification to Chapter 19.80 Accessory Buildings/Structures and Chapter 14.18 (Heritage & Specimen Trees) related to privacy protection measures. Tentative City Council Hearing date: February 16, 1999 Staff presentation: Ms. Bjurman reviewed the three issues related to the accessory buildings/structures ordinance, including the privacy protection related to second story decks; detached accessory buildings — privacy impacts; and second dwelling unit ordinance modification, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends: (1) Discuss either the creation of an exception process for new second story decks or requiring side facing decks to comply with the privacy protection requirements; (2) The Planning Commission may want to consider amending the accessory structure ordinance to require obscure windows or new windows on detached accessory buildings which are less than 5 ft. to a property line. These alternatives are provided in the draft ordinance, should the Planning Commission elect to recommend it; and (3) The Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council adoption of the second dwelling unit ordinance modifications to clarify that two story, second dwelling units must be attached to the primary residence. Staff answered questions relative to the privacy protection measures. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public comment. Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 25, 1999 Mrs. Marion Alice Jarrett, Scofield Drive, said that she had resided in her home since 1951, and she was concerned about the prospect of new residents having to deal with a neighbor's window which is similar to having a second story looking into her yard which is very open with a pool, grass and a house with big windows, looking through her house, which is a violation of her privacy. She expressed her appreciation for having her concern agendized to be addressed. She said 8 foot landscaping mitigation would only shade her pool in the autumn when she should be able to enjoy the benefits of her swim pool. Chair Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Stevens pointed out that whatever the mitigation is, it would not affect Ms. Jarrett because the neighbor's structure has already been built; but that they should try to eliminate it reoccurring in the future. He said modification of the fence on her side could eliminate that particular problem, and recommended it if it meets with her approval to pursue it. He said relative to the exception process for new second story decks, a deck is not the same as a window; one has 180 degree view and the other you are inside the building looking out, therefore the 30 degree/60 degree span would be applicable to windows, but a deck is completely different and creation of an exception process for a deck is appropriate. Com. Stevens said he concurred with No. 2. Relative to No. 3, he said he thought it was resolved, but recommended that the second story addition be attached to the main house, so it is looked at as one. Com. Kwok said he concurred with Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and also concurred with Com. Stevens' comment that deck and windows are totally different. He said sometimes windows are 60/40 which is compared with a deck which could be 10 or 12 feet long, therefore it is difficult to provide mitigation measures as part of the privacy act; flexibility is needed and the same guidelines as the windows do not need to be followed. He concluded that he was supportive of Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Com. Corr said that he concurred about the windows and deck; and relative to the accessory structure to put obscure windows or no windows facing the yard. He said he agreed with the adoption of the second dwelling unit. Ms. Bjurman clarified that all second story decks would be required to go before the Planning Commission through an exception process, and the review process will be to see how the deck itself will impact positively or negative privacy protection to adjoining properties. In order to grant an exception, they would have to meet findings that they are not creating significant visual impact to the adjoining house or privacy impact to the adjoining property. Com. Harris said she concurred with Ms. Bjurman's clarification. She said she did not agree with the accessory structure ordinance, obscuring the window, and questioned how it was different than a house built next to another house. She said that when someone builds a new accessory structure close to the fence, they should be required to put in landscaping; not obscure windows because they may be more intrusive to the neighbor five feet away. Relative to No. 1, Com. Harris said that the issue of writing the exception such that the side or rear of the house is called the side, and a deck cannot be built unless there is 15 feet setback. She said she was in favor of No. 3 if the lot is less than %2 acre, noting that there were many residential lots and residential hillside lots where a second residence for in-laws was needed, and if the lot is large enough, she felt the house did not have to be attached. She said that she was not opposed to a detached two story accessory building if the lot exceeded'/2 acre. Planning Commission Minutes 11 January 25, 1999 Chair Doyle said that the second story decks should go through the review process; an exception would be required that it be reviewed and a decision made whether it meets privacy requirements or not. Relative to No. 2, Chair Doyle said that he felt the 5 foot requirement was adequate, with some flexibility in fence height. He said he was opposed to the landscape solution, because typically building a 20 foot fence would block the sunlight and may not be the intrusion desired; the better alternative might be opaque materials used on the windows on the sides. Relative to the second story dwelling, he said he felt it should be attached if they are second story even on very large lots. He said if there are going to be impacts, the impacts should not be on the adjoining property. Ms. Bjurman clarified the change required to the ordinance was on Page 2 (Page 7-5 of the staff report) Item Jb would be deleted; Ja would remain. Staff was directed by Com. Harris to clarify the definition of front, side and rear and what is accepted there, and noted that would be the only change required. Com. Harris said she would not be opposed to the opaque material. MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 11-Z-97 and 36-EA-98 as discussed and amended SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: There was a brief discussion regarding the meeting schedule for the Housing Committee and the Environmental Review Committee. MOTION: Com. Harris nominated Com. Stevens to serve on the Environmental Review Committee SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: Com. Stevens nominated Com. Corr to serve on the Housing Committee SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: Com. Harris nominated Com. Stevens to serve as an alternate on the Housing Committee, and Com. Kwok as an alternate for the Environmental Review Committee SECOND: Com. Corr VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Doyle proposed that a workshop be held for the new Planning Commissioners to provide them with a background of the history of the Planning Commission and acclimate them to their positions. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan reviewed the recent City Council agenda and items relating to the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None Planning Commission Minutes 12 January 25, 1999 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission at 6:45 p.m. on February 8, 1999 Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary Approved as presented: February 8, 1999