The URL can be used to link to this page

Desk Item ,�� '�� c�� 1 Pc� . , e a o � re cto r s rova o a . . . w - r rm �t � t � on at o to e ca . 7 n r� n u t e a e cott u es ■ ve rv i ew • I ntrod uction • Reca of ori inal concerns p g • R1 • Draft Resolution • A I icant's Res onse pp p • Concl usion n ro uc � on • I have I ived at 7752 H u ntridge Lane si nce 1995 • Our neighborhood is a triangle bounded by Stelling Road to the east, McLellan Road to the north , and Highway 85 to the south/west • Excluding town homes and subdivisions, this neighborhood is predominantly one-story, ranch style homes built between 1960 to 1961 — 93. 1 % (122/131 ) of the R1 homes are one-story • I believe that the two-story project proposal at 7738 H u ntridge wi I I i rreparably deg rade ou r quality of life in this neighborhood ■ ' n ro uc � on con • On August 13, I submitted ten pages of input to the planner which included: — Detailed explanation of why this project does not satisfy the requirements detailed in sections 19.28. 110 (B) 1 . , 19.28. 140 (B) 3., and 19.28. 140 (B) 4. of the city's R1 ordinance — Ten areas of concern where the design need to be scaled back — Four items which could help reach reasonable privacy mitigation — Unanimous opposition from all eight noticed neighbors • Based on my reading of the staff report, draft resolution, and applicant's response it seems that our input was largely ignored � � • Section 19 .28. 110 (B) 1 . states "The mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern . New construction should not be disproportionately larger than , or out of scale with the neighborhood pattern" • I believe that this project does not meet this requirement • Staff contends "the proposed project conforms to all aspects of the R1 ordinance" ❑ � con • Specifically, the staff report states "the proposed project consists of a Mediterranean style similar to the existing two-story homes on Tomki Court and Jollyman Lane" • In reality, there are zero Mediterranean style homes in our neighborhood except for Tomki Court; which is a 1997 subdivision on the southern tip of our neighborhood triangle and is not relevant for this discussion • (see pictures) � . ' con • Further, we do not consider Jollyman Lane part of our neighborhood for many reasons — Cul de Sac separated by a busy street • Not where we walk, bike and live — Completely different building pattern • 100% two-story homes on larger lots • FAR's from 32 to 53% • Built in 1986, 1999, and 2007 — Comparable to much of adjacent Jollyman area; (Defoe, D u mas, etc.) bu i It 1986 — 1988 • (see pictu res) • Section 19.28. harmonious in neighborhood" ' con 140 (B) 3. states "The proposed project is scale and design with the general • I believe that this project does not meet this requirement • Both the staff report and the draft project is compatible in terms of other two-story ranch style homes Rose Blossom . . ." resolution state "the mass and bu I k with on Huntridge Lane, • Unfortunately, there are significant issues using these specific two-story homes for comparison (see pictures) Street Num Addition Num StreetName SF LotSize RawFAR Stories Date City Permit# YearBuilt 7709 Huntridge 2083 6100 34.15% 2 4/23/1975 SJ 86353 1961 945 RoseBlossom 1803 6955 25.92% 2 6/24/1987 CUP 12492 1961 927 RoseBlossom 2830 8308 34.06% 2 7/7/1975 SJ 88003 1961 924 Sage 2088 9540 21 .89°/a 2 7/3/1975 SJ 87965 1960 912 Sage 2177 10140 21 .47% 2 5/19/1989 CUP 16199 1960 908 Sage 1728 6300 27.43% 2 8/5/1968 SJ 1960 7799 Lilac Way 1734 11000 15.76% 2 3/17/1966 SJ 49435 1960 7759 Lilac Way 1709 6600 25.89% 2 9/27/1975 SJ 89796 1960 7803 Lilac Ct. 1788 8208 21 .78% 2 1960 ' con • Section 19.28. 140 (B) 4. states "Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated." • There has been an attempt at privacy mitigation but it is not enough to prevent significant visual impact on our properties — i.e., you need a lot of band aids to completely cover a large eyesore • None of the two-story projects referred to by staff or the applicant are on a 60'x100' lot surrounded by 60'x100' lots — This case requires more than a casual amount of landscaping to provide reasonable mitigation for a 26' home; regardless of the setbacks • Some of the specific improvements needed — Full Landscape Project Submittal (regardless of square footage) — More evergreens in key locations rather than depending on small, mature, deciduous trees — Pittosporum tenufolium extended to 60 degree view angle • (see pictures) ■ ra eso u � o n • Staff contends "the neighborhood is in transition" • Real ly ? ! ? — Who decided we were "in transition"? — Did we get to vote on this? — Were we noticed? • I 'm guessing that this term was created by a builder or developer � • I contend that our neighborhood is NOT in transition and that this term is an insult to our neighborhood ■ • Is an thin transitionin ? y g g — At least 42% (55 of 131 ) of homes have additions — 84% (46 of 55) of additions were one-story • All additions since 1990 have been one-story! — Only 16% (9 of 55) of additions were two-story • All 9 of these were between 1968 to 1989 ! • Is this a recent trend? — Sales increased in 1994 (Highway 85 opening) but since then the rate of sales has been slightly decreasi ng 20 � � ' �' 15 � � � � � 10 ; N � 0 � E 5 � Iz � 0 , � � Histogram of all Sales Transactions 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 Mor� Year of sale II ■ ' � can s es onse • The applicant refers to the "square footage we will use when we list the house for sale" — Is that what this is all about? — Maximizinq FAR on the project to help with a quick flip? • The applicant correctly pointed out a mistake in Appendix B of my original input from August 13 • However, the applicant then proceeded to confuse matters by guessing at actual FARs of other homes — This is very misleading • A more sound, statistical approach is to correct my one, small mistake; — Graph raw FAR=37.13% (2228/6000) instead of R1 FAR=44.87% (2692/6000) for the 7738 Proposal data point — The result is a more proper comparison to the raw FAR of other homes — Note that this means only one data point (7738 Proposal) was incorrect in my original Appendix B, Figures 2 and 4 30 25 �, 20 C� � � 15 �' � � 10 5 0 Neighborhood Histogram Data Neighborhood Histogram Data 5 4 �+ � 3 3 � � 2 � LL 1 0 � � � � � ■ � � � � ■ , , , ± , O�� O�� O�� O�� O�� O�� O�� O�� O�� O�� ', O°�° p°�° p°�° p°�° p°�° p°�° p°�° p�° p�° p°�° '�° '�°` '�� ti`� ti`° �° '�°` �� `�' �`° Far �°' �°`' �•�' �.`�' ti`°' �°' 3°`' ��' o�`�' o�`°' Far Nei hborhood Histo ram Data � Joll man Lane Histo ram Data � J J Y J � 20 -�._--_ _ �_._ .__._____m�..�_�.�_�_.__�__.�_�_____.____n..__�� ' S � ; ► ■ 67 of 131 R1 Properties ; � � (square footage from 5900 '' 4 � �5 � i to 6600) � � � ■ 7738 Proposal ', �, C ; ' _ ---J' C� 3 � __-- . ---- - � ' � � 10 } � � � i G� 2 � � � 5 � - 1 . _ � � _ ' 0 � ��° ��° 0�° ��° ��° 0�° ��° ��° ��° 0�° �\� �\� �o\o Do\c Oo\o Oo\c Oo\o Oo\o Oo�o Oo�o '�°� '�°`� '�� ti`�� ti`°� �°� ��`� �� `�'� �`°� Far �°' �°`' ��' ti`�' ti`°' �°' 3°`' 3�' o�`�' o�`O' Far ■ onc us � on • Details — Project does not meet R1 requirements — Overwhelming neighbor opposition • Big Pictu re — Should not let past mistakes lead to future poor decisions • many of the existing two-story homes would not meet today's R1 , so they should not be used as justification for new proposals — Cupertino is not like City A, "Cupertino Cares" — Cupertino leaders quoted "want a downtown like City X" • City X mayor; "come to our city to build your dream home, but it's got to fit in" — I believe it is important that we all work together to preserve our quality of life and that starts in neighborhoods like ours; please do not approve this project in its present form