Loading...
PC 01-06-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT 7:00P.M. ON JANUARY 6, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Doyle, Harris, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner 1I; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z-97, 8-EA-98 Amendment to RI-Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Single Family Residential ordinance regarding building mass, setback and height. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of December 17, 1998 Staff presentation: Ms, Michelle Bjurman, Planner II, reported that staff was previously directed by the Planning Commissioners to make a series of ordinance changes which are reflected in the proposed ordinance in the attached staff report. Staff also amended the exception section so that it only applies to the current amendments, and a "pipeline" section added as well. Staff recommends approval of the amendments to the definitions and single family ordinance, and that the item be continued to January 25, 1999 to discuss phase three, the design aspect. Mr. Mark Srebnik, contract architect, reviewed the changes. He reported that in order to get a clearer change in the massing shown in the slide presentation, the depth required for the first and second floor offset was changed to a 4 foot offset instead of 2 foot offset under the 50% rule. He noted the wording change so that the exposed wall height referred to is 6 feet, to enable a higher wall height, with more overlap of roof to wall; and the concept of the distribution of fist floor area and second floor area. He said that the matrix included in the staff report illustrated examples of different lot sizes and the results in different areas of first floor to second floor using 65% to 35% ratio of first floor to second floor area (Exhibit A). He noted that with the proposed rules and Planning Commission Minutes 2 Janua~ 6, 1999 ordinance changes, a variety of designs could be accomplished. Mr. SrebnJk reviewed the four examples of design oplions included in the staff report. A brief discussion ensued relative to wording on Page 2 of the proposed ordinance, wherein staff answered questions. Com. Harris suggested that wording relating to the noticing of public hearings be modified to inclttde properties located le~ fight and behind the subject property. She also suggested the wording of No. 5 on Page I of the ordinance be changed fi:om "between the first floor grade" to "anyfinishedfloor grade..." Com. Mahoney distributed a proposal for reduced upper floor massing. He reviewed the proposal which included a proposed penalty for second floor area and a bonus for first floor space without exceeding the overall FAR. He explained the advantages and disadvantages vs. the proposal contained in the draft ordinance, using an example of a 4,000 sq. ft. house on a 8,888 sq. ft. lot (FAR .45). A shde presentation followed illustrating examples of two story homes and addilions to homes throughout Cupertino. Staff answered questions during the presentation. Chair Austin opened the meeting for pubhc input. Ms. Marion Alice Jarreth 20668 Scofield Drive, expressed concern about setbacks on flee-standing buildings that are only 6 feet fi:om the fence. She said that her neighbor built a fxee-standing garage which has a window looking directly into her pool, yard and house. She requested that the issue be put on a future agenda for discussion. Mr. Cowan noted that Ms. Jarrett was interested in some type of control over free-standing detached buildings on R1 lots. Mr. Larry Mattheakis, said he felt it was a complicated issue; noting that a year ago reducing the FAR was being considered, at which time the Planning Commission decided to try to preserve the FAR and try to reduce the mass of the buildings through articulations. He said one of the things illustrated by the slide presentation is that despite what the Planning Commission decided, there were still buildings that satisfy the requirements except for the 15 feet. He said he was not convinced based upon the slide presentation that the 15 foot ceiling being counted as FAR would reduce some of the "massive" issues. Mr. Matthenkis said he felt it might have been simpler to go with a smaller FAR which would have eliminated the need for the year's work. He said he felt the R1 ordinance did not address the issue of chimney height and requested that the Planning Commission make a small adjustment to chimney heights. Mr. Bob Schwenke, architect, clarified the chimney heights. He said the regulation for the top of a chimney stack is 2 feet above the highest point of the roof 10 feet away. He said that he understood from the previous discussions that the width was going to be around 6 feet rather than 8 feet in order to accommodate for bathrooms that were offset. He addressed his concern regarding overhangs and said he felt the maximum entxy feature height should be from the finished floor line immediately below the wall, and recommended that the wording of No. 5 of Exhibit 2, be changed from "first floor grade" to "first floor elevation." Mr. Schwenke commented that the ratios fit in well with 8,000 to 14,000 sq. ft. lots, but questioned what would be done to the small lots, noting that the 33 or 35% ratio was not conducive to the small lots. Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 6, 1999 Mrs. Mabel McFarland, 10567 John Way, expressed concern regarding building large homes in established neighborhoods of smaller homes. She said it had been addressed before that the large homes do not fit in the neighborhoods with smaller homes and reiterated that it needed to be addressed again. She said she did not object to building the larger homes in neighborhoods with other larger homes, however she did object to putting them in the established neighborhoods with smaller homes where they did not fit in. She asked that the Rl-i neighborhoods be considered as one of the unique neighborhoods. Mrs. McFarland expressed her appreciation to staff and the Planning commXssion for their work. She encouraged the planting of trees to help the environment in new neighborhoods. Mr. V. McFarland, 10567 John Way, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work and said he was pleased with the staff report, but not as much as when the ratio was 35%. He said that relative to the overhang compensating for the height oftha second stoE/, looking at it from the street, it does not help; the shadowline may have some effect, but is still there. He said that he echoed Mrs. McFarland's concerns about the large size homes. Mr. Leslie Burnell, 21466 Holly Oak Drive, concurred with the concern about the large homes in the neighborhoods of smaller homes. He questioned the timeframe for a builder who already has received approval to bold, but not yet come forward to the Planning Commission. Mr. Cowan clarified the pipeline issue, pointing out that if the builder is already in the process and has paid the fee, he would be permitted to build regardless of the new standards, and said there was an exception clause. Relative to wall height, Mr. Bumell said he felt the wail height should be the wall height independent of the overhang. He also concurred with the concern regarding building the larger homes in the existing neighborhoods of smaller homes. Ms. L. Baltosis, resident, said she felt the main issue was compatibility of homes and said she would be opposed if one of the larger homes was built next to her home. She questioned if the issue of shadowing would be addressed. Ms. Bjurman reported that studies were conducted relative to daylight planes, and g~eater bulk reduction was achieved with the proposed modifications than the daylight plane. Ms. Balmsis also expressed her appreciation for the work done by the Planning Commission and staff. Ms. Linda Roy, resident, echoed previous speakers' appreciation for the work done by the Planning Commission and staff. She said it was difficult to please everyone, and felt part of the issue was "old" vs. "new". She concurred with Mr. Sehwenke's concern about the smaller lots. Ms. Roy said that she was in favor of Com. Maboney's proposal as it provided design flexibility and more variety in house styles. She said she was in favor of the concept of including the fireplace count in articulation, and said she preferred the 6 foot articulation to the 8 foot. Ms. Roy said she did not feel the need to go to 15 feet for the first floor, and noted that Palo Alto allowed 17 feet. She expressed concern with restricting ceiling height, and said that the purpose was to build attractive homes, not just meet some arbitrary number. She said that the effect on actual designs needed to be considered. Chair Austin dosed the public hearing. The issues of concern were listed and discussed and responses noted in the table below. Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 6, 1999 Issue Harris Doyle Mahoney Stevens Austin Should chimney meet offset No No exc. for Yes, if4 Yes, if 4 ft No requirement although it doesn't meet chimney ~.or wider or wider 8 t~ width Should interior building area on any Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes floor above 15 ft. count toward FAR Reduce offset width t~om 8 to 6 ft. No 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. Com. Ma.honey's alternative or staff Staff Alt. Com. Com. Either Either alternative for first/second floor FAR Mahoney Mahoney Should entry features be measured Grade Grade Grade Finished Grade fi.om finished floor or ~rade Floor Academic No - Use Is 600 sq. ft. second floor minimum 600 sq. ft. 600 sq. ft. using Mat. 1'5% or No pre£ adequate too large Proposal Com. Mat Proposal Is 4 foot offset adequate No - 8 ft. Yes - 4 ft. Yes - 4 ft. No -10 ft. Yes -4 ft Pipeline date of applicability (60 60 days 60 days 60 days 60 days 60 days days after City Council adoption) Daylight plane Retain Retain No N/A ' Keep open ~ Lgr FAR Reducing FAR Keep at 40 No No for smaller Keep open lot A discussion ensued regarding the reduction of FAR. Ms. Bjurman referred to a chart illustxating the FARs fi.om Mountain View, Palo Alto, Los Altos and Los Gatos, as a comparator to Cupertino. Mr. Srebnik said that since the strategy was to work toward reducing the mass and appearance of mass without cutting the FAR, one option to possibly consider would be to set up a mechanism with a review period at the end of a specified period. At the end of the review period, an evaluation would be done. If the issue was not satisfactorily resolved, the FAR could then be considered. Chair Austin suggested working on the present concept~ with a caveat that in six months to a year they would revisit the FAR if needed. Chair Austin opened the meeting again for public input. Mr. Schwenke clarified that Los Altos had a sliding scale FAR on lots exceeding 10,000 square feet, noting that they were down to .27 FAR. Mr. Mattheakis said that he was not convinced that what was outlined would make a difference. Mr. Bumell noted that three of the homes shown in the slide presentation would not be permitted under the proposal because of the tall roofs. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. Planffmg Commission Minutes January 6, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on 8-EA-98, including changes to the Single Family Residential Ordinance and the definitions Com. Harris Passed 5 -0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Maboney moved to approve Application 11-Z-97 with changes including changes relative to the interior fill in area on any floor above 15 foot counting; reducing the offset with the 6 feet with the ratio alternal/ve proposed by Com. Mahoney; clarifying that the entry features are measured from finished grade; pipeline 'date of applicability is 60 days; total buikYmg; page 2 No. 2 deleted; Public Heatings notification addition "left, right and behind"; changing notification information discussed earlier; Page 1, No. 5 of ordinance language changed to "any finished floor grade" Com. Stevens Com. Harris Passed 4-1-0 Com. Harris said that she felt the potential offset was not adequate, and felt the 8 foot portion of a long wall being offset was more appropriate than the 6 feet which was eluded to. She said she did not want to encourage 8 foot or 6 foot wide chimneys on the second floor. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to adopt the Paio Alto sliding scale FAR in addition to changes specified Com. Stevens Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-2-0 Com. Mahoney said that it was his understanding that previously there were three Commissioners who did not want to reduce the current development entitlement, and he still felt that way. Com. Doyle said that he also wanted to keep the development entitlement. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to the regular Planning ConUmssion meeting at 6:45 p.m. on January 11, 1999. Approved as presented: January 25, 1999 Respectfully Submitted,