Loading...
Draft minutes 4-24-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. APRIL 24, 2007 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 2007, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Lisa Giefer. . SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Cary Chien David Kaneda Marty Miller Gilbert Wong (Arr. during discussion ofItem 1) Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki City Planner: Ciddy Wordell Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling Assistant Planner: Piu Ghosh Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the March 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Chien, second by Com. Miller, to approve the March 13, 2007 minutes. (Vote: 4-0-0, Com. Wong absent) Minutes of the April 10, 2007 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Chien, second by Com. Miller, to approve the April 10, 2007 minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-0, Com. Wong absent) POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 3. TM-2007-04 Rick B1eszynski 10185, 10215, 10227 Empire A venue Tentative Map to subdivide two parcels into three parcels, ranging from 6,650 to 7,047 square feet. Planning Commission decision Final unless appealed. Postponedfrom the April 10,2007 Planning Commission meeting. Request postponement to the May 8, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 April 24, 2007 Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Chien, to postpone Application TM-2007-04 to the May 8, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0, Com. Wong absent) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. U-2007-01, ASA-2007-01, TM-2007-01 (EA-2007-01) Frank Ho (Baig residence) 10630 Linnet Lane Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval for four 2,185 square foot single-family residences in a planned development. Tentative Map to subdivide a 22,647 square foot parcel into four parcels ranging from 4,575 to 5,247 square feet. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Postponed from the March 27,2007 Planning Commission meeting. Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for Use Permit, Architectural and Site Approval and Tentative Map to demolish an existing single family home with detached garage, construct four for-sale single family residential units with attached two car garages, and subdivide the property into four lots with a common access road, as outlined in the staff report. . She reviewed the trees proposed to be removed, which include 6 trees, and staff is proposing to remove an additional 3 trees based on the arborist's recommendation. Detailed information on tree species, condition of trees, retention and replacement of trees is outlined in the staff report, Pages 1-2 and 1-3. . Staff recommendation is to approve the applications based on the model resolution and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration per the recommendation of the ERC. The applicant did not address the Planning Commission. Com. Wong arrived at the meeting. Piu Ghosh answered Commissioners' questions relative to the application. . Said it is not required by the Fire Department regulations to have a turn around that large and it is a private roadway and they can have private standards. . Said that staff is proposing such large box trees as a result of the arborist's recommendation based on his valuation of the trees. . Said it was zoned for planned residential and commercial. The setbacks are not typical for Rl setbacks, this is not intended to be a single family residential zoning area. It is a planned development area but for the most part we tried to maintain as much setback as feasible, given the circumstances of the property. For planned development, the setbacks don't need to meet the Rl standards. . The density for the property is up to 25 dwelling units per acre; they could get up to 12 or 13 units based on the acres they have. Com. Wong: . Has staff talked to them and considered if they can maximize? Did you consider having 7 to 8 units on here and having some BMR units as a consideration to maximize this infill project? Cupertino Planning Commission 3 April 24, 2007 Piu Ghosh: . The project that the applicant has proposed is consistent with the project which is across the lot. What you are suggesting with the higher density would probably be more conducive to the apartment complex behind it. However, just given the setting it is in, there are single family residential in Sunnyvale and then you have the slightly higher density in Cupertino which are the seven single family planned development units. This seemed to fit in more. Com. Wong: . On the same side there is already a multi family apartment complex. I am just thinking to be consistent on what is on the particular side. Steve Piasecki: . Said that the property faces onto the private park which is fronted by the small lot single family homes to the north side and staff feels it is a better complement to those small lot single family homes. The apartment complex referred to is behind it and is not directly visible in terms of the relationship. Com. Wong: . My concern is that because there is a park across the street and by having a little bit higher density plus we can get some more affordable housing units; it could be a more well rounded project. Steve Piasecki: . The numbers you are talking about are fairly small, one or two. We feel that the first effort should be fitting into the neighborhood context and then the BMR requirements second. We think this fits better and it is important to the neighbors across the way and the neighbors living on Linnet that we do not load it up just because we have some higher density developments in the area. We just think this fits better all the way around. You can talk to the applicant if it is the wish of the Commission to push for higher density but that is not staffs preference. Chair Giefer: . Clarified that the General Plan allows a 60 foot tall structure in this area, if we wanted to move forward on that. The actual application is coming in at 25 feet. There is no tree removal as part of this application although staff is recommending that one additional tree be removed. Piu Ghosh: . Said the tree removal can be done with the subdivision with the tentative map. . Staff is also recommending that the Deodar Cedars be replanted in exchange for the trees that are removed because the city arborist recommended replanting with Deodar Cedars or Oaks. Steve Piasecki: . Said that the Commission could select a different tree type. In this case, the yards would be landscaped with sprinkler systems, and the Redwood trees would work better. Chair Giefer: . Said that the Deodar Cedar would spread more and the Redwood trees could be managed more; they are also native to the area. She said she felt it would be a better fit. . Relative to the driveway configuration, she asked if the applicant was including bioswales for drainage. She referred to a previous application, where the Commission insisted on adding bioswales, and said she would prefer to see something like that if there was consensus, to handle the runoff in the area and to make it more environmentally friendly as a project. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 April 24, 2007 Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said that she was surprised to learn that one of the lots in the project is only 4,500 square feet, which she felt sets a bad precedent for Cupertino in creating substandard lots. It appears that although the project is a Planned Development community, many people are acting as if it is an R1 zoned area. This is not; it is a Planned Development community with four lots with a substandard size. They are packed in on a small lot. . Expressed concern that an adobe home with a barn on the property, likely from 1920 or 1930, and questioned whether there is any historic significance to the home. There are so few homes remaining in Cupertino that are salvageable. She said they need to look at trying to preserve homes. . She also expressed concern about the number of trees being removed and questioned why the Ash trees were being removed from the area. . She said she felt the project would be better represented as traditional; three lots of R1 nice standard size lots with a cuI de sac. . She said she hoped that if the project proceeds as a Planned Development community that it will have adequate parking and that the homeowner fees will not be high, and the project won't look like it is too densely built for the property. . She recommended that there be adequate sound shielding as the project is located close to Highway 280. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Steve Piasecki: . Said there was no evidence in the General Plan that the house located on the property was considered a historical property. He explained the process for suggesting that a building be specified as a protected building. While there are structures in the General Plan identified, most of them are protected one way or another. There is not an ordinance dealing with private property and the insistence that people have to preserve a historic building. Com. Wong: . Referred to Page 1-6 of the model resolution regarding tree removal and planting for tree mitigation, and questioned if the suggestion was made by the arborist for the 60 inch box, the 54 inch box, and 48 inch box. Piu Ghosh: . The arborist provided the value of the trees being removed and he also mentioned what the cost of each of the box size trees would be, which was just a method to come up with that number that the trees would be valued at. . Said that the Planning Commission could suggest more appropriate sized box trees if they felt the costs were excessive. Com. Wong: . Said the parking was appropriate; above and beyond if it was an R 1, with 4 guest parking spaces on the private street. . Staff worked closely with the architect to get the design that blends into the other single family homes in the other planned development community. . Said that Chair Giefer recommended that the Deodar Cedars be replaced with Redwood trees. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 April 24, 2007 Com. Miller: . Said the application meets the requirements of the ordinance; design is acceptable; as pointed out, the applicant could have come in with a more intense project, but chose not to, but kept it at the point where Planning Commission approval is final. . Supports the application; and supports Chair Giefer's recommendation to change to Redwood trees or some other tree besides the Deodar Cedar. . Supports limiting the size of the box trees to a maximum of 48 inches. Com. Wong: . Said the project is well designed; he supports Com. Miller's comments; it also is a good addition for the area. . Said he concurred with Chair Giefer about the Redwood trees, and maximum 40 inch box trees. . Supports the application. Vice Chair Chien: . Said the project fits well into the neighborhood; meets all ordinance requirements with respect to the two issues. . Said he supported replacing the Deodar Cedars with Redwood trees. . Asked for explanation of the recommendation of 48 inch box trees. Com. Miller: . Said he did not support the requirement for 60 or 54 inch box trees, as they are excessive, difficult and unwieldy, and are just a formula definition. He said he felt it was unwarranted to put those large trees in. Pin Ghosh: . Relative to the replacement of trees, said that the ordinance states that it is up to the city's consulting arborist to determine what the adequate size should be. Vice Chair Chien: . Said he supported his colleagues' recommendation for 48 inch box trees. Com. Kaneda: . Said he was ambivalent on the type of tree that gets used, and on the siie of the box trees used. . Generally supports the project; architecturally it is fine. . Supports the density for the project. Chair Giefer: . Supports the project; if the homes are well designed, it is an appropriate .density for the neighborhood. Said she would like to remain consistent as a Planning Commission and have the driveway be the same type of impervious/pervious surface because it was a mix of both used on a previous lot with the drainage under it. She asked the Planning Commissioners to consider that as part of the motion that will be made. . Said she was comfortable with limiting the box size of 48 inches on the Redwoods and swapping out the Deodar Cedars for the Redwood trees. . Asked for comments on the driveway, making it more water absorbent and using swales for drainage similar to a previous project. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 April 24, 2007 Piu Ghosh: . Said that Public Works Department would have to provide the answer if using swales would suffice for drainage; however, the difference between this project and the project that Chair Giefer is referring to, is was on this project they have used a lot of pervious pavers; however, the project on Crescent Court was going to be all asphalt, which is why staff didn't recommend the percolation trench that the Crescent Court applicants came up with. Com. Wong: . Said he was more comfortable leaving it status quo, since the property was a unique property and Public Works was not present to respond. Piu Ghosh: . Said that on the previous project, they installed a catch basin at the lowest point in the driveway and added a 3x3 trench that was undergrounded under the asphalt with a French drain pipe to catch the water, with gravel around it. The water would be caught at the catch basin and run down the drainpipe and percolated through the gravel into the ground. Com. Kaneda: . Said he supported the concept of bioswales if they will accomplish something; otherwise he did not support putting them in just for the sake of putting them in. Piu Ghosh: . Said the condition could be worded as such, depending on the type of soil required. . Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to approve ASA-2007-01, ASA-2007-01, TM-2007-01, EA-2007-01 per the model resolution with the exceptions that the Deodar Cedar be replaced by a Redwood tree or other acceptable tree; and that the box sizes be limited to 48 inches. (Vote: 5-0-0) Steve Piasecki: . Stated it was a final action of the Planning Commission unless appealed to City Council within 14 days. 2. R-2006-02 Ray Chen (Lin residence) 7453 Stanford PI. Residential Design Review for a new, two-story 2,693 square foot residence. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued from April] 0, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the background of the application for a review of a residential design review for a new, two-story, 2,693 square foot residence. The application was discussed at the April 10, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, and continued to allow sufficient time for the neighbors to review the revised plans and have the applicant reduce the front entry feature. . He reviewed the responses to the neighbors' concerns and input, and the changes made by the applicant since the April 10lh meeting, as outlined in the staff report. . Staff recommends approval of the applicant with the recommended changes. Ray Chen, applicant: . Said since the April 10lh Planning Commission meeting, they explored many options in response to the neighbors' concerns, and verbally agreed to work with the rear neighbors to plant taller privacy protection trees in response to their concerns about privacy impacts. There Cupertino Planning Commission 7 April 24, 2007 will be a contingency added on minor permits required for any further tree removal or second floor window modifications on the plan. . He said he also explored a number of options by pushing back the portico by 12 inches. He reviewed the setbacks, and proposed changes in response to the concerns expressed by the neighbors. He said he felt the house was harmonious in scale and design with the neighborhood and would not be a detriment to the surrounding properties. . He said he would consider an awning window with obscure glass for the bedroom facing the neighbor's home to reduce the privacy impacts. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Richard Whittington, Stanford Place: . Opposes the application. . Expressed disappointment in the results of the designer, as he felt he gave little but took more back. He said he felt the applicant was not being cooperative with the neighbors and not making any changes as suggested. He said he did not agree with the applicant's statistics on setbacks relative to the neighboring homes. . Said he would prefer that the portico be lower than proposed, less massive. He also objected to the applicant's proposal to decrease the front setbacks, making the home closer to the street. Charles Robidart, Tiptoe Lane: . Opposes the application. . Said that his concerns were related to the location of his property to the applicant's, relative to pnvacy. . He said he had a verbal agreement on three items with the applicant to assist with the privacy issue. First, that the trees as they are planted will be a minimum of 12 feet tall; second, that the common boundary fence will be repaired and the cost split; and thirdly, that the vegetation currently along the fence will be removed to avoid future problems of the fence being pushed over by vegetation. He said he had not heard at the meeting a commitment from the applicant that the agreement is binding, and would like to hear something binding from the Planning Commission in the form of conditions on the plan, or from the applicant to respond to the three items which are currently in the form of a verbal agreement. . He noted that the plan presented by the applicant differed from the plan he received in the mail; specifically the plan he received illustrates four trees across the back, and the plan shown illustrates only three. He requested that the Planning Commission ensure that four trees are planted along the boundary which are necessary to achieve the privacy for both 7496 and 7508 Tiptoe Lane. . Requested that the verbal agreements be implemented, with respect to the issues raised by the addition of the second story home. If the requirements are met, he said he would support the project, which he does not support presently. Gary Chao: . Said that the difference in plans presented and mailed, was likely an unintended error on the applicant's part. He clarified that 4 trees would be planted as part of the rear privacy mitigation screening. . He said that the proposed changes in the setbacks from the applicant were new to the staff, and he understood that the applicant may ask the Commission to consider allowing him to push the house further forward. The Commission could decide to allow the change in setbacks, but for the benefit of the neighbors, that number should be clear. . Clarified that the decision would be based on the plan with 4 trees along the back. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 April 24, 2007 Larry Line, Cupertino resident: . Referred to numerous inconsistencies in verbal communication and the plans that still exist before action can be taken. He said that the applicant did not respond to his earlier questions that he said he would respond to. . He asked staff and the Planning Commission if there were any variances allowed for the plans that are not according to code. . He noted that a large tree previously existed on the front area of the lot and he recommended that the tree be replaced. . Stated that the proposed home is not consistent with the neighborhood relative to the front porch which extends beyond the garage. Currently there is only one front porch in the neighborhood which extends slightly in front of the garage, every other porch is recessed back away from the garage or flushed against the garage. The proposal is inconsistent with the overall pattern of the neighborhood. . Said he concurred with Mr. Whittington about the discrepancy of the distance between the homes; he indicated that the distance was about 25 feet, not 23.5 feet. Gary Chao: . Explained the possible discrepancies in the measurements. . Relative to the front yard setbacks, he clarified that the information in the current staff report is the information being considered by the Planning Commission. If the applicant wishes to make any changes, it would have to be defined this evening. The current proposal is to set back the house 24 feet and 2 inches to the bay window, and to the front entry canopy is 20 feet, 9 inches. . Relative to the courtesy notices sent to neighbors, the mailing to the neighbors went out on the same day as those to the Commissioners. Lixin Yu, Cupertino resident: . Said that since the current proposal for the master bathroom window is for an operable window, he recommended that a privacy tree be planted. He suggested that the window be smaller, similar to the other bathroom window. . He suggested that the privacy tree be the same size as that proposed for the back yard. . He asked that the second floor setback be pushed further back. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said that the neighborhood reflects the one story ranch style home, and any home built in the neighborhood if it is two story, should have wood siding and a shingle roof, with eaves that reflect the type of porches etc. that are on the adjacent homes. The neighborhood is not a neighborhood in transition and likely in the future the current homes would be remodeled in the same ranch style. She stressed the importance of retaining the ranch style in the neighborhood. . She said it was her opinion that the large two story stucco home may decrease the property values in the ranch style neighborhood. . Said she was disappointed no effort was made to bring back the second story setback on the right side, as her understanding was that everything on the second story has to be set back around the entire house, and if there is a deviation, they need to go back through the RI sessions again, because something is wrong and it takes little to make that second story setback. . She said she hoped for a peaceful resolution to the issue. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 April 24, 2007 Dan Borrego, Tiptoe Lane: . Thanked the applicant and architect for making the changes to the rear elevation of the proposed house, specifically flattening the bay window and obscuring the clear glass in the bathroom. . Thanked staff for being proactive in helping communicate with the applicant and getting an agreement to plant 12 to 14 foot tall trees, which will help provide privacy. . Asked that the Planning Commission consider the recommendation made regarding the suggestion that the trees and rear elevation of the house have a covenant to keep it from changing in the future. Requested that the changes be put in writing to ensure they are carried through. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Com. Kaneda: . Asked staff if a covenant was standard procedure for privacy plantings. Gary Chao: . Said it was a standard requirement; relative to the trees, prior to final occupancy approval of the house, confirmation would have to be provided to the city that the trees are planted according to the plans and/or ordinance. The trees will then be recorded by the applicant in form of a covenant at the County Recorder's Office, which goes with the address, not with the particular property owner. Com. Miller: . Asked the applicant if he had a choice between reducing the depth of the portico in return for allowing the building to be moved a couple feet closer to the street, would that be acceptable? Ray Chen: . Said he preferred not to lower the portico, but was willing to reduce the depth by one foot from the adjacent building and still be able to move one foot forward. Steve Piasecki: . Responded to a neighbor's question if there are any exceptions, setbacks or height, he said there are none being requested; this otherwise meets the Rl set back rules in the Rl Ordinance. Relative to front setbacks, he clarified that the setbacks are front property line, typically ten feet from behind the curb line. This building is required to be 30 feet from the street. Com. Wong: . He said there was a technical concern regarding lowering the portico, and asked if there was another idea on how to dramatically lower it so that it is not so imposing. Gary Chao: . Said without changing the roof of the bay window, one option is what staff suggested which is to simplify the bay window which would allow the lowering of the portico. The applicant stated that physically without doing that the bottom eave of the portico is almost touching the bay window roof so you cannot lower it. You could require that the gable end of the entry portico be revised to a hip, giving the visual appearance of that height coming down. It is not so intrusive right at the point blank. Another option is to introduce a decorative feature such as a trellis under the eave line to give it some texture and soften it up more. Discussion continued regarding the entry feature. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 April 24, 2007 Vice Chair Chien: . Said the house was well designed and fits well in the neighborhood. He said he was more concerned about the process that occurred; and he was reassured that the neighbors and architect met and discussed the plans and made some compromises. . Said that he felt the non-transparent windows did not set a good precedent; and people should be able to look outside and view trees, which is why there is privacy screening. They should not be expected to have to put up trees and cover their windows. He said he felt they should not be enforcing such a policy. . Said he was prepared to approve the plan today. Com. Kaneda: . Said he was pleased that the architect met with the neighbors in an effort to address issues and concerns. . He said he supported putting 12 foot trees in the back yard with the inclusion of the covenant; supported the portico as is, as well as the obscure glass in the window and the awning suggested by Chair Giefer. The wall is appropriate; the architect is correct that to offset the structure and move it a couple of feet is extremely inefficient structurally. He said he could support moving the building forward but it results in being a tradeoff between either moving the building forward and getting some privacy in the back yard or leaving the building where it is and getting additional setback from the street. You cannot have it both ways unless you shorten the building. He suggested that the building stay where it is and not move forward toward the street. Com. Miller: . Said he was also pleased that although not everyone got everything they asked for there has been movement on both sides. The applicant has agreed to some items which he felt were important; but he was less concerned with the issues of operable vs. inoperable and obscure vs. non- obscure. He said that he felt the front portico was too far forward, and he did not see the need for a side entry into the portico from the garage. . He said in his opinion, in attempting to tweak the plan, they were getting into a dangerous precedent in designing the project from the dais. He felt there was enough movement on the part of the applicant to satisfy some of the major issues of the neighbors to move forward on the application. Steve Piasecki: . Said that the fence repair/replacement and removal of vegetation issue is a private issue between the two property owners because there is not a public interest in maintaining or not maintaining it. Com. Wong: . Said he agreed with the neighbor on the right hand side that he would like to see a privacy protection tree regarding the windows on the right elevation. He recommended that suggestion to his colleagues on the issue. . Said he concurred with two Commissioners regarding the window on the right hand side, where a Jacuzzi tub is located, so the person who is in that comer will be actually sitting down. Since the sill height appears to be at least 4 to 4-1/2 feet high, in order for that person to look out they actually have to step into the tub and look out of the window. It would be nice to have natural sunlight coming into the bedroom. . Said he still had concerns with the front elevation. He suggested if they could make it into a bow window structurally, they could lower the portico height where there is concern from the Cupertino Planning Commission 11 April 24, 2007 neighborhood, perhaps by two feet. He said his concern is the massing towards the front of the building. . A neighbor suggested planting a large tree in the front yard as part of the landscaping plan to offset the portico. He said he was not opposed to the porch, but was concerned with the massiveness of the type of porch. The neighborhood understands they can build the second story if it can blend in with some type of landscaping plan. It is just a little bit too large. . He said aside from the previous comments, he supported the plan. . He complemented Gary Chao on the excellent outreach. Chair Giefer: . Asked if they stipulate a 12 foot Evergreen tree, which is what would be necessary, does that in some way conflict with the way they normally stipulate a box size for trees? Gary Chao: . Said that it may, depending on what kind of tree they choose. The minimum box size is 24 inches; if a minimum height is specified, the applicant should be able to find a 24 inch box size that is 12 feet at the time of planting. If not they would have to up the size to 36 to get the 12 foot height. Chair Giefer: . Said she felt the entry feature of the home was too massive for the neighborhood. She said she liked Com. Wong's ideas regarding reducing the height and changing the window type and significantly reducing the entry feature. . If we were able to agree to do this, this evening then I would support the project. If we do not agree to do that then I cannot support the project because I do have to go back to what the neighbors brought up the first time we heard this. It is compatibility within the neighborhood. At our first hearing on this issue, Com. Miller brought up that there is enough room on this parcel to do a single story development. Though you leave more of the ground open for percolation and other things, two story structures often make sense. . The property rights of the existing neighbors is very important and we cannot forget they have rights as well and expectations. The fact that this abuts to an Rl-i neighborhood I cannot help but consider that and what that means to those neighbors. Even though I don't think my position is going to win, I would support it if we dramatically changed the front entry feature to fit in better with the neighborhood. . Said she did not support the project in its present form because of the neighborhood fit. Vice Chair Chien: . Commented that the Planning Commission should not be ruling on agreements between the applicant and neighbors. Gary Chao: . Regarding the issue of obscure glass in the windows and privacy plantings, he said it was not a requirement to have both; there are three ways to address privacy based on the Rl ordinance: If the window is over 4 feet in sill height, there is no need for privacy protection; if the window is obscure but has to be fixed, it is pointless to obscure it when you can open it. That in itself will take care of privacy protection mitigation. The third option is to plant .trees. Chair Giefer: . The neighbors are not comfortable with just a gentlemen's agreement about the tree plantings; they want it to be legally binding. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 April 24, 2007 Com. Kaneda: . Said he concurred with Vice Chair Chien; and supported obscure glass or trees for privacy planting, but not both. He said he would also support moving the window up six inches and putting in clear glass. Com. Miller: . He questioned how the window could be opened if it was too high; and said the practicality is that people are not going to use that window to peer at their neighbors. He said from a practical standpoint, he did not feel it was an issue and they were spending an excessive amount of time on the issue. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Chien, to approve Application R-2006-62, with the following: rear yard trees to be 12 feet tall evergreen; applicant to use either obscure glass on side windows, or plant a tree for privacy screening on the right side. Com. Wong: . Presented a friendly amendment to add a tree to the front area. Gary Chao: . It is required for all single family homes to have one tree in the front, minimum box size is 24 inches. Chair Giefer: . Added a friendly amendment noting that the applicant agreed to an awning style window over the sinks. Com. Kaneda: . Said if obscure glass was used, it requires an awning style window. If planting a tree, it could be any glass. . Asked if the covenant was to protect the trees from being pruned and removed. Gary Chao: . Said if the window is obscured, there is no need for privacy protection if it is fixed. If the window is able to swing open, you may still need privacy protection trees. Com. Miller: . Said with the combination of the obscured glass and the awning style window, they decided they did not need that. He said he hesitated to make it fixed because the point of the window is to let the bathroom air out to prevent the growth of mold in the room. Gary Chao: . Said the applicant was presented options; but the ordinance requirement is that if you obscure the window and in order not to plant trees it has to be fixed. Com. Kaneda: . Presented a friendly amendment to do a privacy planting and the window could be whatever the applicant chooses. Vice Chair Chien: . As the second to the motion, he agreed to all the changes. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 April 24, 2007 Com. Wong: . Noted for the record that the site plan referred to for the front, and side setbacks is the plan the Commissioners received on April 18th in their packets. He said he was voting No because the front porch is very large and massive, and although he would support a porch, he does not support a porch that large. . He said that he felt the applicant did a good job at reaching out to the neighbors, although they could not come to an agreement on everything. . He said he agreed with the Planning Commission, but not on the mass of the front porch. (Vote: 3-2-0; Chair Giefer No; Com. Wong No.) Steve Piasecki: . Clarified that a mechanism exists in Cupertino's ordinance for neighbors to agree amongst themselves to set a one story height limit and set a more stringent requirement to changing that with a Use Permit requirement to go beyond that. Often there are comments that it is a one story neighborhood; but the one story neighborhood could with a majority, rezone themselves to a height limitation as did the neighborhood to the north. The reason it is rarely done is because people perceive it diminishes their property value or limits their property value. . The flexibility exists in the ordinance and people can so choose to opt for that if they wish. Com. Kaneda: . Asked if there were neighborhoods such as Eichler neighborhoods, where m addition to potentially a one story requirement, there is a stylistic requirement? Steve Piasecki: . Said that Monte Vista has some design guidelines but they can have one and two story homes. The Eichler area does not have a one story limitation; they can be designed in a two story format; it does have design standards for Eichler homes, typically the flatter or lower pitched roofs. Chair Giefer declared a short recess. 4. EXC-2007-02 Jennifer Jodoin (DeCarli residence) 11640 Regnart Canyon Drive Hillside Exception to construct a 689 square foot second story addition to an existing residence for a total of 6,870 square feet, which exceeds the 6,500 square feet allowed, and an exception to build on a prominent ridgeline. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Aki Honda Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for a hillside exception to construct a 689 square foot second story addition to an existing home for a total floor area ratio of 6,980 square feet, and an exception to build on a prominent ridge line, as outlined in the staff report. . She reviewed the background of the item, noting that in the property received a previous hillside exception in 1999 to build on the prominent ridgeline, which allowed for a 2,081 square foot, one and two story addition for a total of 6,171 square feet. Since then a 120 square foot storage shed was built on the premises, counting toward the FAR. . Staff is concerned that approval of the application may set a precedent for future exceptions to exceed the FAR without the application meeting all of the RHS exception findings. Only on rare occasions has the maximum size been exceeded and only where a new space was internal. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 April 24, 2007 . Staff has reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, and does not find that the proposed addition meets the findings, because the maximum level FAR of 6,500 square feet appears to allow for reasonable usage of the parcel and also the addition is not necessary to avoid greater negative environmental impacts on the property. . Staff does not support the project and cannot state that all of the findings for an exception can be met. Additionally, there are several mature trees around the property, particularly around the north side of the property which would need significant trimming to accommodate the addition on the north side, which would create some visual impacts on the ridge line. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the hillside exception application based on the findings in the model resolution. If the Planning Commission decides to approve the application, staff also recommends that additional landscaping requirements be added to mitigate the visual impacts from the valley floor and also replace the tree removal being proposed. . Staff has also added a condition of approval that would require an updated geotechnical report prior to issuance of building permits. Jennifer Jodoin, applicant: . Explained that the need for the second floor addition was to accommodate the owner's nephew and his family, who were caring for the property owner. Currently they are residing in a one room multi-purpose room and the proposal is for two bedrooms and a bath to accommodate the family. Jim Walker, Regnart Canyon Drive: . Supports the application. . Said his home was built 28 years ago, the same time the DeCarli residence was being constructed and he was happy with the neighborhood. He said he felt that this is a case where a city Planning Commission can take action to improve an existing condition by granting a variance or exceptions. The property is unique; there is both a water tank and PG&E tower on the property. If the home did not exist, both structures would be very visible and if the landscaping that is planted around those structures was not there, those structures would be even more visible. . It is a very unique piece of property, with two very large structures there that the home and landscaping hides. It is a large site, and the coverage as proposed with the addition, amounts to slightly less than 4% of the site, so this is not a case of a large home on a small lot. He said most of the landscaping is behind the house and shields the house around the tower and water tanks. . He said that the applicant is willing to plant any trees that the Planning Commission deems necessary. He said they were not so concerned about the trees behind the house or next to the water tank, but are concerned about the home as it currently exists, and the way it is viewed from the valley floor. . He urged approval of the project, stating that he felt it was a case where granting an exception and a variance if required, with mitigation measures, would be a benefit to the city, including the adjacent neighbors. . He said there may be some issues relating to paint colors, as he felt the house did not blend in with the surroundings. Those conditions are up to the city. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said she felt if the exception was approved, it would set a new precedent, with a residence with close to 7,000 square feet, compounded as it is on a ridgeline. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 April 24, 2007 . Suggested remodeling the current residence to accommodate more living quarters or building a cottage on the site for the extra living space. . She said if the exception is granted for additional space and increase in square footage, public hearings should be held and consideration given to increasing the maximum square footage for homes to 7,000 square feet. Com. Miller: . Relative to landscaping that was not done the last time, questioned if the city could compel the applicant regardless of the ruling, to plant the landscaping that was supposed to be planted in the past. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that staff would like to work with the property owner to do that and the city can require that they do that. . She recalled that the landscaping requirement followed the arc of the house as it faces the downhill valley, perhaps one-half dozen trees along the front facing arc. Jennifer Jodoin: . Reviewed the square footage of the current home, which included 2 bedrooms, an office, living room, a kitchen and dining room, multi- purpose room, 3 car garage, utility room, laundry room, and 3-1/2 bathrooms. . Reiterated that they would accommodate any landscape requirement. . Explained that the second floor addition was being requested to accommodate the caretaking family; Ms. DeCarli and partner resided on the first floor as it was not feasible for them to climb stairs. Com. Wong: . Noted that neighbors did not object to the proposed addition to the home; and said a neighbor was present who supported the request for the exception. . Said he understood the need for multi generations residing together and it seemed sensible to expand the property. . Said that if he supported the application tonight, he would recommend a comprehensive landscaping plan that is toward the front of the home; it is important to have some type of vegetation and that can be worked out at the staff level to make sure the addition does blend in with the neighbors. . Said he could support the variance based on the family's needs. Vice Chair Chien: . Said on the valley floor there is an FAR for single family homes; in the hills there is not only an FAR but also a maximum cap of 6,500 square feet. He said he felt it was a question of fairness; they have not in any frequent manner approved additional square footage even in situations where people have asked for sun rooms; they have been turned down. . He emphasized that they need to abide by the ordinance. Com. Kaneda: . Said he concurred with Vice Chair Chien and felt that there was room in the plans to make adjustments in the existing building. He said he felt 6,500 square feet was enough square footage to provide accommodations for two families. . Does not support granting the variance. Cupertino Planning Commission 16 April 24, 2007 Com. Miller: . Said that the applicant was in before in 1999 for a ridge line exception which was granted to add square footage. Part of the conditions called for them to do significant landscape planting; however, the owner did not comply. . Said it was difficult to accept that the applicant would come back to ask for another addition when they did not meet the city requirements on the previous addition. . He suggested that staff look into whether or not the Commission could require that the applicant comply with adequate landscaping without granting any further additions to the property. If not, he said he would support Jim Walker's suggestion to trade getting the landscaping and some other benefits such as improving the house colors, and also along with that to ensure that it was done in compliance with the city this time. Based on past performance, there is no guarantee that the applicant would comply with landscaping. He said he would insist on seeing the landscape plan, and approve it and also that the applicant provide a bond to cover the full cost of that landscaping as well as a bond to cover any damage to the road that construction vehicles might result in from large heavy construction vehicles moving up and down that relatively narrow road. Chair Giefer: . Said she concurred with Coms. Chien and Kaneda, and did not want to see the hillside policy eroded, giving exceptions to allow additional structures being built. . Staff said that they can enforce the prior landscaping plan that was submitted regardless of what action is taken tonight; and she felt that the Planning Commission in the past treated the applicant well and the previous Planning Commission granted them an exception to add onto a predominant ridgeline with a second story. . Said she did not support the application. . Said it was important to her to uphold the current hillside policy. There is a landscape plan that was previously approved and not implemented that staff can enforce today, which may mitigate some of the issues that surfaced regarding screening. She said it was a large structure and she was not willing to further erode the hillside policy. Com. Wong: . Said that if the 120 square foot storage unit was removed, there is still 360 square feet remaining. He asked if there was any possibility of further trimming to allow that addition. AId Honda Snelling: . Said that when the applicant came in for preliminary application meetings, at that time was asked if they could accommodate the addition within that 6,500 square feet. They looked at the plans and could not accommodate it, which is the reason they are on the agenda tonight. Ciddy Wordell: . Said if the applicant trimmed it and met the 6,500 square feet, all they needed to do is modify their previous exception; they wouldn't need an exception to keep it at 6,500 square feet. . Said that if it was brought back and if the majority wants to keep it at 6,500 square feet, the direction should be to bring it back at 6,500 square feet with some other configuration, unless you want the remainder of the Planning Commission to consider more than 6,500 square feet. Com. Wong: . Suggested that the item be continued and staff work with the DeCarli family to see if they can accommodate suggestions or changes. Cupertino Planning Commission 17 April 24, 2007 Chair Giefer: . Expressed concern that their representative explained that they have been working on this for four years and found there was no other way to make accommodations. If the item is continued, giving them the parameters that they need to fit into the 6,500 square feet maximum home size, it doesn't sound like it is a quick fix. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: . Said that if they are expected to come in at 6,500 square feet, it is for an exception to exceed the 6,500 square feet; there would be no point in continuing it if the Planning Commission decides to deny the application. They can always return for 6,500 square feet later; it would not be continuing the exception because the exception would be moot if they come in at 6,500 square feet. Ciddy Wordell: . Restated that although they would be at 6,500 square feet, if they added more square footage on a prominent ridgeline, that also requires an exception; hence it is more than just the maximum square feet. Com. Miller: . Said he felt the applicant has many alternatives; and he was still concerned about the impact on the city. He asked staff if they were confident that they could compel the applicant to install the previous condition for landscaping. (Staff said they were certain it could be done.) Com. Wong: . Said that if they were willing to come in at 6,500 square feet which I don't see any opposition from the Planning Commission; they still need a public hearing because they are building on a prominent ridge line to make sure they conform to the ordinance. In order for them to do that, we have to ask the applicant to come to see if they are wiling to continue the item or ask for a denial and then they would have to go to City Council to ask for an appeal. They have two options. Com. Miller: . Even if they came back, we would still have to consider an exception for the ridgeline issue. They would have to get an exception even if they get under the 6,500 square feet limit. Com. Wong: . Said that the proposed addition of about 400 square feet, is so small that on a prominent ridge line it would be very hard to see; and also it could be mitigated by landscaping. It would be a good opportunity to make sure that there is a comprehensive landscaping plan, because if we are going to go back to 1991 when they had their original modification, we are only going to cover that portion; it is not going to cover the entire property. He said his goal was to screen the entire residence so that the whole community would benefit. Aki Honda Snelling: . Said the previous exception from 1999 shows a preliminary landscaping plan with some trees on the outside portion of the arc, but the condition of approval required that a final landscape plan be submitted as part of the building permit package. Com. Miller: . He said they could not get complete screening of the residence without requiring a new approval. He said he might be inclined to explore that, but only under the conditions that the Cupertino Planning Commission 18 April 24, 2007 landscaping plan be approved before the addition to the residence is approved, and that they be required to post a bond to cover the full cost of the landscaping plan as well as other conditions to ensure that the road isn't damaged by construction vehicles as well as changing the colors. Vice Chair Chien: . Said he was concerned when straying too far from the scope of the application presented; the application asks for an exception in square footage and while he agreed with Com. Miller's and Com. Wong's goal of as much screening as possible, it strays too far from the application. He said he felt it could be accomplished through enforcement which is the first step to take to get there. . Said in terms of what they were approving, he was not comfortable with that. Com. Miller: . Said he concurred, although enforcement would not get screening of the entire structure. He questioned whether it was a greater benefit than what is being given away by doing so. Com. Kaneda: . Said he agreed with Vice Chair Chien, and questioned if the applicant would entertain a design that completely screens the building, resulting in no views of the valley. Jennifer Jodoin: . Said that the owner is open to accommodating any suggestions made by the Commission; however, she did not have a definitive answer. It would be unfortunate to lose the entire visual they presently have. She questioned if there was something they could add to the landscaping in front to minimize some of the structure, yet not completely obstruct the view; it should not be all or nothing in terms of the visual. Com. Miller: . Said their objective was to screen it from the residents downstream and the rest of the city, and that may not completely block their view. He said he was not prepared to approve the application without having a comprehensive landscape plan that proves they are achieving their goal. Com. Wong: . Asked Ms. Jodoin if it was feasible for the DeCarli family to fit their plans within the 6,500 square feet vs. the proposed application of 6,980 square feet? Jennifer Jodoin: . She said it may be possible to go back and try to get to the maximum 6,500 square feet while removing the shed. Without the 120 square foot shed, it would be 6,360 square feet. Chair Giefer: . Summarized that there are two different ideas; one to continue the item to try to resolve how the family would fit into the maximum 6,500 square foot floor area ratio allowed, and the other is they would need to come back for anything they did, because it is on the prominent ridgeline, and there have been concerns from several Planning Commissioners with regards to landscaping which mayor may not be agreeable to the applicant at the time when they return if it is continued. . Said she was not uncomfortable with 6,500 square feet; there are many issues with regard to the view, they have removed the middle branches from one of the redwood trees to ensure they Cupertino Planning Commission 19 April 24, 2007 have a view. She said she felt when people reside in the hills, they have the right to expect a valley view. Com. Kaneda: . Said that Com. Miller is concerned about screening, and based on what he heard, they will cut the screening. He asked Com. Miller if his viewpoint had changed. Com. Miller: . If we can condition it so that it serves to effectively screen the neighbors, screen the city the way it was intended when the first application was around; and the only way to get that full screening is to give them their addition, I am willing to make that tradeoff. However, as pointed out, they may come back and do something to make that screen ineffective and so under that circumstance, I am less inclined to support that. However, if you cut out the middle, my question is can you see that difference from a mile away or not. We can condition it, but there is no way to make sure that they are in compliance is the issue, because a year from now, they can cut that out and we will never know about it, and we have lost our screening. This applicant has not shown a willingness to comply with conditions of approval in the past; therefore I am inclined to not trust the applicant on any future approvals. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Chien, second by Com. Kaneda, to deny Application EXC-2007-02. (Vote: 4-1-0; Com. Wong No). The decision can be appealed to City Council within 14 days. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: The Environmental Reyiew Committee: . Chair Giefer reported that at the recent meeting, one of the applications for subdivision on this agenda was reviewed. Housin2 Commission: . Com. Kaneda reported that the meeting was cancelled. Mayor's Monthly Meetin2 With Commissioners: . No report. Economic Development Committee: . Com. Miller reported on the scheduled opening of the new theater complex. . Ciddy Wordell reported that Kelly Cline was hired as the new Economic Development staff person and would begin at the end of May. . Gary Chao reviewed the projects recently approved in Cupertino. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: . Ciddy Wordell reported that Gary Chao was promoted to Senior Planner and would be working with the Economic Development staff person.