Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 07-26-04 Study Session CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 5:00 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED STUDY SESSION MINUTES JULY 26, 2004 CONFERENCE ROOM C, CITY HALL MONDAY The Planning Commission study session of July 26,2004 was called to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Cornrnissioner: Cornrnissioner Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Angela Chen Commissioners absent: Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli Eileen Murray PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION 1. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Arnendrnents to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (RI Ordinance) Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled Mr. Peter GilIi, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Purpose of the meeting is to discuss the design review process and the relationship with the Planning Commission guiding principles, to help determine what avenue the Planning Commission may chose to take. · One of the principles relating to this concept that was on many of the commissioners' lists, was having either improved design or good design, in some cases called nice design. · On the topic of good or nice design, it is staff's viewpoint that regulations either loose or strict, don't cause or preclude a good or bad design. If you want improved design you have to have design review process and high expectations of applicants. · Staff needs to know if the Planning Commission is comfortable with what has already been done with the projects being built. If the Commission believes that the current projects are already quality design, no changes are necessary to the process to improve it. If the Commission wants to improve design, changes would have to be made. · The first question relates to where the Commission wants to be on the spectrum of design review. If the Commission wants to improve design, either to mitigate the impacts of increased second story area or just as a general principle, then the process should be expanded and what Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 2 July 26, 2004 the Commission was talking about at the last meeting having a consulting architect at the meeting, that kind of process should be explored. That is generally shown in Exhibit E. · There was another principle and that was to streamline the process and improve affordability. That and expanding the process are two principles that are going to clash if the design is acceptable as it is now, then we think there are ways that the process can be streamlined and made cheaper to the applicant, and that can be achieved if Exhibit F is used. · Exhibit F would save about $1,400 in fees to each applicant and about two weeks of time. There have been architects who say that they admittedly don't have a problem with that kind of concept; this process would continue to allow neighbors to have input into projects, but instead of a hearing date, it would have a due date to provide comments to staff. · The residents/neighbors would call, e-mail or show up at the Planning Department counter by that date. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked how the concerns would be mitigated. Mr. GiIIi: · Will proceed in the same way that the Planning Commission and DRC has in the past years. If it is a case where a neighbor says they don't want a two story house there, and that is the only complaint, it will likely get approved; a chance it would get appealed. If the issue is over trees, if applicant is agreeable, that is the kind of discussion we can have and that happens at the DRC, but then we often have to have a continuance to make sure everyone is happy. The concept is to take those small problems which seem to be what we are having, and address them in a nerving way that it can be solved quicker. If there is real conflict, it will be appealed by somebody and will go to a hearing; estimation is that it would be about 5% or 10% at most. · Appeal costs are $140 vs. not going to DRC, there would be a cost but it would be subtracted, the cost of hearing and staff time at the hearing and such would be deducted, it is a saving of about $1,000. The earlier number mentioned on the $1400 is overstated; that is the difference between the current fee and the fee prior to July. That should actually be $1000 because we would still have to charge a fee because there is a level of review, we have to do noticing, but that fee will be $1000 less than what they would pay if they went to a hearing, $800 vs. $1900. · If there is no hearing, it would be about $800 to $900, based on how much a Director's minor modification cost. · It is estimated that it would be about the same amount of time; appeal would be $140, staff would not be able to recover the staff time for the appeal; $800 costs are the costs to still have a review and have the noticing of neighbors, but having at Director's approval. · Instead of having a hearing to come to, neighbors would have a date on which to provide comments and the idea was also to have the date, whether it's a hearing or the comment date, on the posted notice in the front yards and that notice will also have the renderings, which was previously agreed to. · Once the Director acts on the project, all neighbors who provide comments will be notified of what action was taken; the applicant, Planning Commission and City Council are going to receive a notice of the action and a copy of the approve plans, which is how director's minor modifications are handled now. · Any interested party is able to appeal the decision. Mr. Piasecki: · It would take less band width than the current process because of the staff that is working on various projects, it would be spending less time on RI design review. Cupertino Pl2llllinR Commission Stndy Session ] July 26, 2004 · He said he would quiz them with the same kind of issues that the Planning Commission would; for less money and less expenditure oftime, we will get most of what you have wanted with the other process, and you still have the ability to appeal. Mr. GilIi: · If there is an appeal it would add about a month. · There would be two weeks time provided for notice and for the neighbors to provide feedback. Com. Giefer: · Said she was concerned about the two week time line, because neighbors are saying it is not enough time for them to provide input. Chair Saadati: · Said his experience is that sometimes two months is not adequate, because people receive notices, toss them out, and later on when the time comes, they wake up and show a concern. Mr. Piasecki: · There is the appeal process you have now with the Planning Commission and/or DRC which is same, you have the competing interest between the neighbors' interest who have had the time to review it, and the applicant's interest, who is also a neighbor, who wants to get their plans pushed through, so you could easily say that you cannot hold people up forever, with the possibility that someone might appeal. Com. Giefer: · The one thing that is different about this that helps everybody, is if we have the plans and the renderings in front of the property; then it is not an unknown to them and it helps make it real. Mr. GilIi: · The immediate neighbors will get the elevations and site plans. Com. Miller: · Some people come through this process, and whether it is because it is a language issue or it is a lack of understanding, they are not clear on what the process is, or even that they have the right to appeal. · Is there a way we can make it very clear on the applications exactly what the process is, and that in fact if they go through a Director's review and they are not happy with the result, they do have the right to appeal and the cost as well. Mr. GilIi: · When there are issues where it does look like a happy ending isn't on the horizon, we let them know early on, and this is for all types of projects, unless you are at the City Council already, you have appeal process and cost. If the applicant is not happy that they have to do a certain thing, or if there is a neighbor who is not happy, that is one of things that we tell them early on; it can be put in the notice. · Average annual applications are about 20, but this year was higher, because of allowing second stories to be higher with exception; the city is now on track for about 35 this year which is the highest. Cupertino Planning Commission Stndy Session 4 July 26, 2004 Ms. Wordell: · That is what was projected going into the Rl process, when estimating how much time this would take. Com. Giefer: · Asked if staff felt the number is higher than it has been before because people know that they are reviewing the RI process and they perceive there is going to be a change in second story ratio. Mr. GiIli: · It is more because the committee and staff has been comfortable with second story exceeding 35%, going up to 40% in exceptions. · Many people aren't able to get what they wanted out of that, there are some people who are going to wait, hoping it goes to 50%, but for most people, the 40% number is appealing and they are applying. Com. Miller: · Referred to the change regarding adding things for Director's review, and asked if it was correct that they did not review anything for one story, nor any review or very much for two stories under 35%. Mr. Gilli: · Said examples of minor issues were use of the rear setback, having a gable end outside the building envelope over 17 feet, having second story deck, and extending of a legal nonconforming building line. · Another principle was to allow for neighbor involvement especially in cases of privacy; in staffs eyes there are privacy impacts with a second story. · In order to address the privacy impacts there should be some level of review of all two story projects, not just the two story projects over 35%. Currently the ordinance calls for all two story homes to meet certain design standards; these are guidelines relating to the mass, bulk, scale of the house. In that respect requiring them to go through a director level process like the rest of the homes if that is agreed to, would not be an added burden as far as what they would be required to do. · There would be added costs in time but in many cases these two story houses with 35% FAR or less, have applied for building permits and had their structural drawings drawn and then they have had to adjust them. The architects who have had to do this would rather have a formalized process where they know ahead of time, rather than have to do structural plans and redraw it. · The other alternative is to not look at anything on a two story house under 35%. · Since the second story is going to be increased likely to 50%, that actually increases impacts on neighbors because you are going to have more rooms upstairs; and if we review all two story homes that will make it a simpler ordinance. In some ways it requires more of some people, but it is a simpler ordinance in that you don't have a certain process if you are two story over 35% you don't have this process; if you are under, that is the rationale why staff believes you should review all two story homes; it is something the Planning Commission agreed to in 2003, but this Planning Commission is not held to that in any way. · Staff does not recommend the current process remain in its present form; if the Planning Commission is happy with what is coming out of the design review process, staff can do that without the hearings and have a yearly report showing the Planning Commission what has Cupertino Planninl! Commission Study Session 5 July 26, 2004 been approved and the Planning Commission can give feedback on whether they are content with that or not. · Can do things so that the Planning Commission is aware and comfortable with what has been done at the staff level; but currently having the hearings, staff does not feel is enough of a benefit to outweigh the costs on the applicant, unless the Commission wants more out of the design. · Staff recommends the process following either Exhibits E or F; if the current designs are appropriate, Exhibit F is recommended; if the Planning Commission wants improved designs, Exhibit E is recommended. · On the later meetings of the Planning Commission, it is likely the next meeting will cover guidelines, which ones to incorporate into the ordinance, which ones to not have, the 23 cd there will be a presentation from Palo Alto, and staff recommends each be a study session, since the 9th is a full meeting. · In September, unless the Commission wants to act on the Palo Alto concept, staff will get language to the Planning Commission in September on what has been agreed upon. Com. Miller: · Presently we don't review 35% houses and the reason that was in the original ordinance was that people in general felt that they were not issues for mass and bulk, or intrusion. · Relative to making the process simpler by adding it, he said he did not see where now it is added to the one story. · He said they leave the two story below 35% along with the one story, it doesn't seem to complicate the process any, because there is still the one story that is treated that way, and we continue to do what we are doing with the two story houses. · Open to staff suggestion that staff does a director's review and that the appeals go to the DRC as opposed to the present process. · Favors streamlining the process. Mr. GiIIi: · On the issue of current process and two stories, it does go through a different process when compared to a one story, because it does have to be reviewed by staff in order to meet certain guidelines, such as issues of wall heights, and ridge heights. · We use the actions of the DRC and the Planning Commission as a barometer, and if the Planning Commission is comfortable with a certain height, certain mass for the ones under 35%, we generally require a step under that, as far as strictness. Ms. Wordell: · Said those elements are prescribed in the ordinance. Com. Giefer: · Said she was comfortable with the streamlining suggestions because it serves one of the consistent issues heard from people both in the public hearing process as well as people in the community who have remodeled homes. · Support going with the streamline process to see how that works. · Said her discomfort felt across the board with that is the information from the survey indicates that the community is not comfortable with the increase to 50%. Also, four years ago it was resoundingly put at the current ratio, and the concern is that in four years from now will it be up to 75% and then 100%; some creeping up happens. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 6 July %, 2004 · Said she is supportive of replacing the housing inventory and keeping it up to date, but has a bottom line discomfort, even though she feels they need to show leadership and move forward; is not comfortable with 50%. Vice Chair Wong: · Agree at this time with the information presented that architect is not needed; the staff and architects provided at stafflevel are adequate. · Regarding DRC; it depends on the design and compatibility, which we haven't really got there yet and you talked about process vs. design review. · Mass and bulk are still my guiding principle and we should let the ordinance determine the other parts. · Regarding the second story compromise in 1999, the City Council thought hard about it and for two stories under 35% FAR, it was a compromise; for people who wanted to build two stories they wouldn't be under as stringent guidelines. · By making all two stories fall under there, it will deviate from what the 1999 ordinance wants to do. · Agree with Com. Miller that the one story, and two story under 35% should be left as is; two stories over 35% FAR should go through a Director's approval and that is dependent on what happens on the design compatibility when discussed at the next meeting, because he said he may change his mind. · Asked staffto explain: both in the current process and the new process, both streamlined and expanded, is consulting architect review for design, and staff review for guidance and conformance. Mr. GiIli: · What occurs when a preliminary project is submitted, staff looks at it and we look at its contents; and we make sure it meets the guidelines in a way consistent with all the actions of the committee. Then it is sent to the architectural consultant and he reviews it to make recommendations on improving the design within the framework of the project · He tries to keep the interior spaces as the applicant would like it, in trying to recommend exterior improvements and once that is done, it is set for hearing. Vice Chair Wong: · What is the difference from under 35% and over 35% currently; is it the over 35% that goes at the design review guidelines vs. under 35%? Mr. Gilli: · Under 35% we still look at the major guidelines; it is just that how much we would try to push an applicant is based on what the committee is doing on projects; if the committee has a sensitivity to a certain issue, and we look at a project that is under 35% that is doing the same thing that the committee is concerned with; we will require the applicant to come close to what the committee has approved. We don't require to meet it because it is under 35% and it is smaller house overall. Vice Chair Wong: · Summarized that he supported what currently is, shown in Exhibit D, one story and two story under 35%, that flow chart, and cross out story poles and have director's approval; that would be contingent on what happens in the next meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 7 July 26, 2004 · Told Com. Giefer he understood her concern about going over 35%, but many people with expanded families, even staff feels comfortable coming close to 50%; based on sitting on the DRC and his almost 2-1/2 years on the Planning Commission. Com. Giefer: · Said everyone has their own opinions; she felt that in four years they will be talking about 75% and even bigger, and is not sure that is a trend. · Is comfortable with 35%, not going to 50% at this time. · Trend-wise, it is easier to get bigger and bigger; people always want more. Vice Chair Wong: · It has been about 5 years since we first looked at it and it is about the right time to review it; perhaps in 5 years, it will either go more, or even go back. Com. Miller: · Addressing comments about surveys; said he felt it looks at who you consider and that is why there are breakouts; when you look at respondents who know RI, 57% said they wanted 50% or more. · It is a collection of people who are both residents who had homes built and also neighbors, but people in that group who said they understood the ordinance. Com. Giefer: · Said they serve the entire community, not just people who have issues with planning or getting a large home built. · Relative to Com. Miller's comment that they are residents who had homes built and also neighbors, but people in the group who said they understood the ordinance; from her perspective it is immaterial, because she looks at what the greater pool of respondents say. Com. Miller: · She said she understood, and thought the point of these four meetings was now that they had experience with R 1, they would go back and look at it from the standpoint of the experience, and the greater pool includes a lot of people who don't have any experience or are going off their thoughts of 4 or 5 years ago. Com. Giefer: · Or their experience of living in Cupertino for 30 or 50 years. Mr. GiIli: · Said it was a general question, but noted that some people marked that they were familiar with Rl, and some marked they were familiar but were not, and some who knew what the major issues were, and some who said no. Com. Giefer: · Said it was a subjective issue, and she was not taking task with anyone, just stating that she did not have a comfort level with the 50% number, because she is concerned about the precedent they are setting for the future. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session g July 26, 2004 Chair Saadati: · The second to first ratio increases the overall square footage of the home, it is not going to increase, it will still be maintained; so that puts some limit on how much is going to be built on the lots if you go with 35% or 50%; it's the total square footage; it is much the same except you may have more back yard or side yard. There is some benefit that could be gained. · Regarding the streamlining, the savings of $1,000 when someone builds a house about $300,000 to $400,000 does not seem like a lot, but they are trying to encourage that they put more emphasis on a rendering which that money can go toward that. If streamlining of the process wi II help keep things moving faster, and also you have to compare homeowners building or developers building, as it will be different. · Said he was in favor of streamlining and to simplify it, and not knowing if we are going to end up with up to 50% second story, it is better to have the same eyes look at the under 35% and over 35% up to 50% because then you put more emphasis on design and consistency. · If it is changed to below 35% and one story goes through one set of rules and then over 35% up to 50% and another group reviewing it, you may not get the same consistency. All over two story going through the same process, moves fast under the Exhibit; but I think at least you have some design input because my concern is you may have 35% second story that is going to look worse than a 50% home. That is possible. Mr. Gilli: · On the issue of two story over or under 35%, that is not second story area, but is total. You could have a two story house with a 35% FAR, that second story is 50% of the first. · Now there are two processes based on the total FAR, not on the proportion of the first and second story. Chair Saadati: · Concern is second to first story, not increasing the allotment. · The exceptions to go through DRC are appropriate. · In favor of Exhibit F as shown; not breaking up the 35%. Mr. GiIIi: · Asked if it would help the Commissioners if staff did a quick survey of local builders and local architects to get their opinion. Most of the two story homes are done by a handful of local architects. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked to see both plans; the streamlined current process and the current process with two story under 30% and two story over. · Two commissioners want the illustrated one, without the story poles and would need Director's approval. Mr. GiIIi: · Said he would take it and add two story under 35% back in. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked if they could do without the guidelines? Mr. GiIIi: · He said if they were 99% happy with the product, it is possible to not have them. Cupertino PI2llllinR Commission Study Session 9 July 26, 2004 · There may be some applicants who like knowing in advance some of what the city wants, but most of the applicants are local and they have already done it in Cupertino. · If the Commission is happy with what we are getting, then not having guidelines is a possibility. Com. Giefer: · Asked if they discussed incorporating the guidelines into the RI? Vice Chair Wong: · Said he wanted another option. Com. Giefer: · Not in favor of getting rid of the guidelines altogether; want to have some qualitative examples available, either separately as a guideline or as part of the body of the RI because it is difficult to understand what quality we are seeking or what we view is acceptable; unless you are one of those few handfuls of architects that work in the city who understand it. · It is helpful for homeowners and newer people who are interested. Mr. GilIi: · We could still have the guidelines but not have it as a finding of approval; presently it is a finding of approval that you meet the guidelines; if that is not in there as a finding, we could still have the document saying this is what we would like to see in general but you don't have finding, and it truly becomes guidelines; there is no enforcement capability. Vice Chair Wong: · Suggested a discussion at the next meeting. Com. Miller: · Said in his mind, knowing people who have gone through the process of building homes, some people actually prefer to do a two story greater than 35% FAR, but will go to a one story or a two story 35% FAR simply to avoid the extra work and the extra process that is entailed in doing that. · If you put the 35% FAR into the same process as the higher than 35% FAR, then you have done away with the incentive of building a smaller home and that might lead to larger homes overall. · Asked that when they talk to the people, they specifically address that issue. Mr. Gilli: · Said there were many people who avoid going the route of review; the impression being that they don't want the hearing. They don't mind if the neighbor has some input; they are more comfortable and these are just certain architects, they are more comfortable if they know who is making the decision and they work with us and have an understanding of what they need to do with us. · There are many architects who slowly had to get use to being in review and now they have no problem with it. Chairperson Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 10 July 26, 2004 Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident: · Said that the study session was beneficial as it was important to find out where the RI changes are going and the design review process. · Concerned about changes that are made to RI; there is a long history of precedence into the creation ofRI, particularly as pockets have annexed into Cupertino. · Said she understood that prior to 1999 and the annexation of certain pockets, Cupertino was looking at changing and upgrading the design codes. · At that point, the term R I was adopted; contiguous to the time that Rancho Rinconada annexed in 1999 the building code was upgraded in Cupertino to reflect changes that were being made to Cupertino and to incoming communities that were annexing parts of Monta Vista and the section on Stelling. · There is a long history on what is currently RI now, to start breaking it down means that there needs to be a thorough survey into why R I is the way it is now; there is a precedent for every piece in that document. · Concerned about the 10 foot setback which should be 20. Said there was a home next to hers that is pre-annexation, is 3500 square feet, maybe more, with no second story setbacks. It is a prime example of what Cupertino was seeking to avoid when they instituted RI as of 1999. · Would be horrified to see RI go back to that point because that is about as bad as you can get; said she understood Willow Glen has had some very severe building problems. · Other communities have been successful in taking an approach to try to make everyone happy; I understand some cities have much more tight building codes, such as Los Gatos; San Jose is less restrictive, Saratoga is probably more like Los Gatos. Los Altos is more like those areas. · I am very concerned with changes to RI and I hope that everyone takes a close look at what is occurring because those were hard fought battles to get RI to where it is today and my husband and I are concerned since we plan to live here and raise our family in this area for many years. It is important that everyone realize that R I is very important to the neighbors and the community, and it is there for a reason. · Asked that they take special consideration when anyone anticipates changing it. · Responding to Vice Chair Wong question, she said she was referring to back setbacks. · Said she attended a Planning Commission meeting a month ago when there was an occurrence of a home being built on Wunderlich in Rancho Rinconada; it appeared that part of the house is within 10 feet of the setback; most of the older homes in Rancho are at least 30 feet back from the back property; all the new homes are at least 20 feet. There is a very large house with a large window and it is right into the back of the property that it butts up against, owned by Mr. Martinez; it is currently a vacant lot; the house was stripped off pre-annexation. · She said Mr. Hughes had a similar problem in his neighborhood; the code appears to contain ambiguous wording about 10 foot setbacks, relative to allowing a side yard to be a certain size · She understood it related to pie shaped lots and was an incomplete piece of code that was not clarified at the time; had good intent, but needs to be cleaned up because Mr. Hughes is upset, he has a large window looking into his back yard. · My husband and I would protest vigorously if this occurred around us; I understand the neighbors currently cannot complain about this but hopefully with Mr. Hughes input and with our understanding of what can occur with this, there might be some change. Rancho has very small lots and commissioners need to be sensitive when they start talking about increasing the second story FAR that you look at the size of the lots in the community that you are at. Vice Chair Wong: · Said the ordinance is 20 foot rear setback; asked if Mrs. Griffin was referring to the extension ofthe legal nonconforming building line. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 11 July 26, 2004 Mr. GilIi: · No, the ordinance says the rear setback for the ground floor is 20 feet but it can be reduced to 10 feet so long as you have a useful rear yard area equal to a certain amount. Com. Giefer: · One of the things discussed this evening was streamlining the design process for second story homes and other things as a courtesy to neighbors, and to make working with the city easier. · Asked Mrs. Griffin if she would appreciate receiving a mailed notice that somebody within 300 feet was going to make a property modification. · Asked Mrs. Griffin if she would be comfortable with two weeks notice. Mrs. Griffin: · Confirmed that she would appreciate receiving the notice. Stated that in January or February of this year she received a notice that there was a home proposed under construction on Johnson, and there was a notice within 300 feet. · Supports story poles; it was helpful to be able to see where the story poles were going up; she went to the Planning Department and looked at the plans. · Said she would be more comfortable with having a notice sent and there being a organized review on a certain date. · Prefer the way it is now, with the DRC meeting. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked if she was willing to trade the story poles for noticing going out to a further area. The story poles can cause building damage; if noticing was sent out to cover a larger area, people could e-mail the staff, and come to the DRC meetings. · The renderings would be II X 17 plans and would be sent out; the elevations could be seen on all four sides, two dimensional renderings would be sent to the neighbors. Mrs. Griffin: · Said she felt story poles were the way to go; they are required in most cities; if they are properly constructed they don't fall down. · Said they are helpful for the neighborhood and because people are working during the day, it is difficult for them to communicate on an ongoing basis with staff, or planning department or City Council because of other commitments. The current process works well, and I don't think giving up story poles is the direction to go. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he wanted to be certain that Mr. Gilli heard him correctly; that he agreed when you add the two stories under 35% FAR which is the current process, and have staff review for guidelines the performance and the next box would probably be going, will follow the one story, go to courtesy notices and then to the building permits. Want to clarify that. Mr. GilIi: · Said he would copy Exhibit F, put the two story under 35% above minor issues, which would allow to go to the courtesy notice without a mess. · Reviewed the guidelines and objectives. Cupertino Plmmin¡¡ COIruniççion Study Seggion 12 July 26, 2004 · Summarized that the guidelines were straight forward; other than the issue with the vaulted ceilings ys. taU exterior wall height, most of the guidelines aren't controversial. Vice Chair Wong: · The suggestion for the next meetings, either keep them as guidelines or implement them into the ordinance. Mr. GilIi: · That is up to the Planning Commission, as far as staff is concerned we already have the ability to implement them because it is a finding of approval; all the Planning Commission has to do is give us their interpretation of what the guidelines mean to them and if we can do that, or you can go the extra route of actually taking the ones you really want and putting them where you want them. Vice Chair Wong: · Said if they follow Com. Miller's point of view that if they follow the current ordinance as two story under 35% FAR, then they wouldn't be as strict under the guidelines vs. over 35%. Mr. GilIi: · It is hypothetically possible if the Planning Commission said they want a certain level of review of all two story homes, but we want the smaller homes to not have to meet the guidelines as much; that is a direction you can give and that we would implement; as it is now, that is already being done. Vice Chair Wong: · With the current directions since July because of Nann Drive, have we heard more or less regarding neighborhood concerns about two story homes since we implemented to use less of the guidelines since July. Mr. GilIi: · The homes approved since July aren't done yet. Chair Saadati declared a recess and convened the meeting to the Council Chambers for the Planning Commission regular meeting of July 26,2004 at 6:45 p.m. \ ~ Respectfully submitted: Ellis, Recording Secretary Approved as Amended: August 9, 2004