Loading...
PC 01-26-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGU~. AR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION HELD ON JANUARY 26, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Mahoney, Stevens, Chair Harris (Com. Doyle arrived at 6:50 p.m. Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner II; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 12, 1998 regular meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the January 12, 1998 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMM-tINICATIONS: Chair Harris noted correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Roy; Mr. and Mrs. Barclay; and a fax from M. Auerbach. POSTPoNEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): 'Applicant: Location: 5-TM-97, 5-V-97 and 36-EA-97 Yun-Jung & Chin Yun Wu 10400 S. Stelling Road Tentative Map to subdivide a 19,850 sq. ft. parcel into the 10,272 sq. ft. parcel and one 9,307.5 sq. ft. remainder parcel. Variance to allow a 10 ft. rear yard setback for an existing structure on the remainder lot as a result ora proposed subdivision where 20 ft. is required. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 1997 REQUEST REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 26, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to remove Item 3 from the calendar. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Com. Doyle arrived. STATE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 1998: Chair Harris reviewed the attached State of the Planning Commission, January 26, 1998, which included approval of 1050 new apartments, with 10% being rented at below market rates; Hilton Inn Hotel; Hewlett-Packard and Symantec buildings; the General Plan changes made relative to using morning traffic as well as evening, reducing heights and densities and having rules for setbacks in the major corridors height setback rations; Walgreens and Chevron applications; and the upcoming City's residential ordinance, density and hillsides; welcome to newly appointed Commissioner Stevens and farewell to departing Commissioner Roberts. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None NEW BUSINESS 1. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to nominate Com. Austin as Chairperson for 1998. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to nominate Com. Mahoney as Vice Chairperson for 1998. Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Newly nominated Chair Austin chaired the remainder of the meeting. Chair Austin commended Com. Harris on her leadership and contributions the prior year. Selection of Environmental Review Committee Representative - Recommendation to City Council. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to appoint Com. Mahoney to serve as the representative on the Environmental Review Committee. Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to appoint Com. Stevens to serve as the alternate on the Environmental Review Committee. Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 26, 1998 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-EXC-97 and 29-EA-97 Ron Dick 11835 Upland Way/Lot 2 Hillside Exception to construct a residence on slopes greater than 30% in and an exception to the required second story setback in accordance with Chapter 19.40.050 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, I997 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the hillside exception to construct a 4,553 sq. ft. residence on a hillside parcel on Upland Way with greater than 30% grade and to allow for a second story exception. It was noted that the application had been reviewed through a previous subdivision in 1989. Drainage and erosion protection measures were installed in 1995 following a small landslide and the applicant plans to retain 10 of the oak trees and the olive tree on the property. Staff recommends a condition of approval for the preservation of the largest oak tree (No. 12). Architecture/design, visibility, second story setback exception, and tree protection and landscaping were reviewed, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application. Approval or denial of the project will be considered the city's final action on the application, unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site plan and reviewed the architectural design of the building, pointing out that it was a three level development. She briefly reviewed the landscape plan, noting that there were 4 new redwood and 4 new oak trees proposed, and the No. 12 oak tree would need to be evaluated by the arborist. Ms. Wordell discussed the issues of grading/erosion problems, noting that the geologist's recommendations were included in the conditions of approval. Relative to visibility, she pointed out that the structure would be visible from the valley floor only from the Upland and Rainbow intersection. Ms. Wordell said that the second story setback was minor and staff felt it was not an impediment to approval. Staff considered tree protection adequate with the condition to look into the protection of the No. 12 oak tree. Discussion ensued wherein Ms. Wordell answered questions relative to the building arehitectore/design. Mr. Ron Dick, architect, said that he was available to answer questions. Mr. Morrey Nelson, Nelson Engineering, said that the site had been studied in depth, and had some problems during the initial grading in October 1991; he reported there was heavy rain before the erosion control could get in place and a slide on the property. The geotechnical engineer identified several slides that were on the property, which since have been excavated, subdrains installed and the site completely stabilized. He reported that the site survived the past two wet winters without any erosion or disturbance. The geotechnical people and town's consultants feel that the site is now stable. Mr. Nelson reviewed the grading and drainage improvements made to the site. Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 26, 1998 Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Austin summarized the issues: exception to hillside slope, greater setback; grading; visibility; second story setback; and tree protection. Com. Doyle questioned when the drainage system for the street would be improved. Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, explained that most of Upland Way still was not annexed and was in County jurisdiction, and the city was unable to do improvements on county jurisdiction. There was a discussion on how the proposed subdivision relates to the master storm drain system. Mr. Nelson explained that the storm drainage system existed on Upland Way; about 200 feet down the street, and said it is normal drainage design practice to put an interceptor drainage inlet every 200 feet. He said the project is at the top of the hill, the system is there and noted that Ms. Lynaugh was referring to the fact that there is no curb and gutter between the end of this project and that storm drainage system and that will be installed as the projects come along and are annexed to the city; which will be a condition for their buildout. He explained that the drainage that there is concern about is there, however, it needs the curb and gutter to connect them from the project down to the drainage inlet. As part of this project, the curb and gutter are included. He said the client made substantial improvements to Upland Way along the frontage of the project. Com. Stevens reported that he visited the site and there were hay bales stacked around the driveways next to the proposed driveways to stop the fill from coming in, and pointed out that he felt that portion of Upland was in interesting shape and would not be there long after a substantial rainfall. He said that very soon something would be necessary to have it corrected. He questioned the maintenance of the driveways; and noted that the driveway and curbs were asphalt, and would have to be redone after building the house because asphalt does not hold trucks very well. Relative to seismic, he noted that the San Andreas fault was only three miles away. He said he felt that the drainage on Upland was a problem. Com. Stevens concluded that the house looks similar to the beautiful homes that are up there and is a good addition to the neighborhood. Com. Mahoney said that he concurred with staff's recommendations; the house steps in the hill suitably; one exception on the setback being minor; visibility is tucked in. Com. Harris concurred, and said she was in favor of the proposal. She said she agreed with Com. Stevens relative to the need for rebuilding the road after construction, and suggested that it be included as a condition. Com. Doyle said that he was in favor of the proposal. He said that he did not feel the front setbacks are necessary, therefore stay with the hillside requirements and not make an exception; as there was no justification or merit for making an exception and he felt there were other ways of doing it. Ms. Wordell clarified that the request was not for a ramp, but just the width of the entryway. Chair Austin said she concurred with the majority and was supportive of the application. She said that she felt upland drainage was a problem and would like to see it addressed. Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 26, 1998 Discussion ensued, wherein Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, said that there was a Condition 12 that gives the city engineer the ability to approve the project based upon city storm drain system, to install facilities to his satisfaction. He said he would return with a report on how the storm drain system works in general and specifically talk about Upland Way with a highlight on the area. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to grant a negative declaration on Application 29-EA-97 Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 1 I-EXC-97 per the model resolution Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 NEW BUSINESS Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: 11-Z-97 City of Cupertino Various City,vide Review of R-1 Standards Staff presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman, Planner II, explained that the application was a proposed amendment relative to single family residential ordinance R-1 regarding building mass, setback and height. She showed a slide presentation which illustrated homes built before the 1988 ordinance changes and homes built after 1988 ordinance changes. She said that identified problems included the scale of new homes being built were out of proportion to the existing homes; the remaining home or existing homes on adjoining properties have a lack of privacy because of the bulk of homes being built; sun being blocked on the side yards and back yards of the existing homes by the newly constructed larger homes; and that the new homes being built lacked architectural cohesiveness to the existing neighborhood homes. She said that proposed solutions include modifying the single family ordinance to eliminate the 20 foot wall height allowances prior to the second story setbacks being instituted on an exterior wall plane; returning to the Planning Commission with a sliding scale FAR; introduction to a daylight plane; and consideration of increasing second story side setbacks and/or introduction of a sliding scale second story side setbacks. She reported that the staff report included the proposed solutions in detail. Mr. Cowan pointed out the fundamental notion of continuing to use the ministerial prescriptive requirements which is staff's recommendation vs. the notion of a new approach; which is the idea of using a discretionary review; either through the Planning Commission, through a subcommittee of the Planning Commission, or through some type of staff review mechanism which would require some degree of public noticing process. He said that staff cannot make discretionary decisions absent some type of clerk reviewing/hearing process. He requested direction from the Planning Commission on which approach to follow. Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 26, 1998 Com. Harris referred to page 5-2 of the staff report, relative to FAR wherein it states that 7 jurisdictions of the 13 have FAR between .18 and .50 and Cupertino's is currently .45. She questioned if reference to developing a sliding scale FAR would be within the. 18 to .5 range, or if it would exceed the .5 range? Ms. Bjurman responded that they could choose the range most appropriate, and if the Planning Commission chose to pursue the sliding scale concept, she could return with graphics illustrating what the differences would be in those sliding scales and the range could be decided on. In response to Com. Harris' question about lot width requirement, Ms. Bjurman stated that it was a minimum of 60 feet in single family zone districts. Mr. Cowan said that after the report was written, he attended a meeting with the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, resulting in the topic of annexation to be discussed. He said that if annexation prevailed, some lots would come into the City jurisdiction; and staff would help decide to what degree the city requirements should change. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment. Ms. Rebecca Elliot, Public Affairs Director, San Jose Real Estate Board, 1451 Fmitdale Avenue, San Jose, said that the realtors had concerns, and offered to work with the city on study sessions so that together they could forge a solution that would be fair to everyone concerned, including realtors, buyers and sellers of homes in Cupertino. She said that some concerns were relative to erosion of property rights; and that for them property rights was a major concern, and they were always looking at ordinances and issues that take away even more from the homeowner than they have already had taken away by local government. She said that the potential for lawsuits also has to be considered when looking at this kind of ordinance because if a person buys a piece of property and then finds out after purchasing the property that they cannot do with it what they were hoping to do because of community outcry or a meeting; there is a potential for them to be able to say their rights have been taken from them; that they bought the property under duress or misleading circumstances. Then not only the realtors and the seller have to deal with the potential for those lawsuits but so could the city have to deal with it as well. Ms. Elliot said that there were other issues that arise with setback, with change of lot size and were are all things that can be worked out in an amenable and fair manner to all. She concluded that the real estate board would gladly work with the Planning Commission and any committee within the city to reach a reasonable solution for everyone. Ms. Cathleen Orr, 22066 Hibiscus Drive, said that she represented the majority of homeowners of Homestead Villa on Hibiscus Drive. She said that some local cities ban leaf blowers which produce only a momentary annoyance and they were faced with the prospect of spending what little precious time they spent in their homes in the shadow of stucco monstrosities which loom over them, increasing their self-consciousness and decreasing their spontaneity. She reported that they lived in their home for 17 years in a neighborhood that makes them newcomers; most of the people bought their homes new in 1952 expecting that they would never have to move. She said she was supporitve of the recommendations outlined in the R-1 standards review modifications as a minimum; their street had only single story homes until last week when a two story stucco was built on the comer across from her and next to her son's home, which blocks the light, and does not fit in with the other homes on the street. She said the neighbors were very upset and she wanted to express their feelings; they felt betrayed living in Cupertino with this home being allowed to be put on that property. Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 26, 1998 . Ms. Lacy Cantrell, 2118 Garden View Lane, said she strongly believed in private property rights and did not want the city or her neighbors imposing new restrictions on what she could do with her land. She recommended keeping the building rules that were in existence, and not put neighbors in charge of the building decisions. Ms. Linda Roy, Monte Court, a resident of Cupertino for 8 years, said Cupertino was a wonderful place to live, and said she liked the fact that Cupertino had new people moving in which created a lot of interest in working in the schools and volunteerism. She said that one of the reasons Cupertino had new families moving in was because it is one of the few cities they can afford to move into where they know they can still add to their home if they need to as their families grow. She said that many other cities in the area have much more oppressive and restrictive building rules and neighbors having input about house colors, changes to be made, etc. She said she felt that people living in Cupertino did not want to have their neighbors telling them what color to paint their house and that new restrictions would undoubtedly affect property values. Ms. Roy said that people buy homes thinking they can do what they want with their property and the more restrictions that are placed on their property, the less it is worth to them. People need to have the ability to change and modify their home to accommodate children moving back home or elderly parents. She said the reason some of the new homes don't seem to fit in is because the older homes are becoming obsolete; people don't want to live in 2000 sq. ft. homes any longer, they want larger homes if they can afford them. Change is inevitable; it is going to happen. You change or you deteriorate. She said that she was supportive of keeping building rules fair and reasonable; but said not to let the neighbors decide; they are often not fair and reasonable and the result could be discriminatory and could be very uneven and lacking in objectivity. Ms. Roy said that she had a petition signed by 34 residents, stating that the undersigned Cupertino residents oppose more restrictive residential building rules which could interfere with their basic property rights, increase remodeling costs or reduce property values. She said she also had a similar petition signed by 9 real estate agents who work in Cupertino and are very upset about the proposal. She urged the Planning Commission to be reasonable. Ms. Patricia Edwards, 7656 Rainbow Drive, said that she lived next to the construction site, and discussed the home which started demolition in August. She said that she had encountered numerous problems with construction, noise, and spoke to Mr. Cowan about health concerns. She said that the health department had been out to the construction site and requested the contractor to remove the pile of food stuff, old insulation, etc. She presented receipts from an exterminator who had to set 16 rat traps in her home as rats had eaten Christmas decorations and destroyed $2,000 worth of ~amping equipment. She said that her phone lines were cut into and had to be rewired. She expressed frustration with the problems and said it was very disconcerting to hear rats throughout the house and garage, especially with children in the home. She questioned how to get reimbursed for her expenses. Ms. Edwards said she is now faced with a 2 story home, with 9 windows on one side. She has had to remove debris from her front yard; last week orange spec numbers were painted in her driveway, the back fence is broken; bricks surrounding the planters have been broken by construction workers. She said it has been a nightmare. She moved into Cupertino because she thought it was a nice bedroom community; she likes her 2000 sq. ft. home. She agreed that change was good, but this change is a bad change. She said that the sheriff's department has been out to the construction site with a Poloroid camera. She requested a response regarding her request for reimbursement of expenses incurred caused by the construction. She concluded that she was upset and she felt certain that there were more people in the community that were upset also. Planning Commission Minutes s January 26, 1998 Ms. Samantha Van Epps, 10525 John Way, presented a photo montage of the neighborhood homes, which is 47 years old. She said she was not surprised that the realtors are unhappy with what is going on because it relates to money. She pointed out that their backyards were spacious, with plenty of room for single story remodeling with yard space left over as did most older neighborhoods in Cupertino; and all of the homes have hardwood floors throughout the original part. She urged that the fine homes not be taken down without considerable thought; homes in a state of disrepair can be cleaned up, added on to, using imagination, creativity, ingenuity, and quality materials to create an outstanding outstanding, beautiful, lovely large single story home that fits in with the original look of the neighborhood. She questioned if the look and integrity of Cupertino's older neighborhoods should be left to go by the wayside, and did they really want the harsh intrusion of the mammoth gigantic stucco buildings, helter skelter amongst the older but still worthy homes. She said that one of the houses on her street had been remodeled, single story, with 5 bedrooms, large family room, computer room, three full baths and an enlarged kitchen. She said she and her husband were grateful that their neighbors in back on Lana Lane have all remodeled their homes single story fashion. She urged single story remodeling. She referred to a house being built on Kirwin Lane by the same builder of the Rainbow Drive home; the old house has already been torn down and the new house is being built. A neighbor said that he did not object to the second story home being built, because if it raised the property values and he could sell his home for $500,000, he would sell it and move. Mr. Nanda Nandkishore, 10080 Carmen Road, said he lived in California, moved to Arizona and then back to California 2 years ago, and was in the market to buy a lot in Cupertino to build a home. He said he was currently in a rental home that was demolished and a new home built. He stressed the point that it is important for people coming in to buy a lot or house, to have a reasonable expectation of what they can do to their property. He said that if he was purchasing a lot on Upland Way, he should have a reasonable expectation of what Cupertino would allow him to do on the lot. He discussed an example of changes in Arizona. He suggested when changing the style or the structure, there will be some mix and match. With a vacant lot and a potential new development, the houses should look similar; but with an older neighborhood, such as one built in the 40s, 50s or 60s, and slowly being converted to newer homes, it would be a dichotomy; they would not be similar. He said for a newer area in Cupertino, there should be an idea of what kinds of houses would be acceptable in the particular neighborhood and lay out a plan for an older neighborhood that is being protected. Therefore, if a buyer wants to build a 4500 sq. ft. home there would be certain areas that the home could be built. He said that he sympathized with homeowners that were pressured by unreasonable neighbors to make changes to their property, or ruin their view. He concluded that there are many people desiring to move into Cupertino, and it should be done in such a way that when they purchase property or a home, they should be aware of what they can do, and based on that, the city should set guidelines in the neighborhoods so that the housing is consistent. Mr. Marc Auerbach, 18860 Barnhart Ave., said that he lived in Ranch Rinconada which might be annexed by Cupertino. He said relief from bulky new homes is one of the often cited reasons people wish to annex; and if Cupertino residents think they have a problem, Cupertino has only 5 foot setbacks on 5,000 sq. ft. lots He said that although he was a member of the Rancho pocket annexation committee, he was representing his own personal opinion and not taking an official position on the issue, but hoped to in the next week. He said that his observations of his own neighborhood is that there are four types of housing; the Eichleresque original houses, contractor build spec homes, owner-designed additions (which he termed ingestions, meaning renovations of old homes in which the old home is entirely subsumed by the new one in order to get around Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 26, 1998 certain rebuilding codes and revaluation and the old home is 'sucked out' at some later date); and reasonably proportioned one and two story homes. Mr. Auerbach reviewed the survey of North American cities, single family zoning regulations prepared for the city of Vancouver, Canada. The main points of the article are that problems of bulky housing in North America is a wide phenomena, not just local. He said he felt the dilemma in the Rancho neighborhood was how to maintain compatibility with the existing structures, the difference between 1,000 sq. ft. and a 12 foot high home and a modem 2 story structure being just too great a chasm to create something compatible. He said zoning may or may not control the bulk of housing but it may have the unintended consequence of having buildings built within the limit of the envelope, of buildings with no regard to how an individual building looks or how two or more of them look together. He said houses built like theirs, all at once, have the look of a certain era, which is their source of cohesiveness. With infill housing likely built over several generations, neighborhoods without schedules, that is some sort of design recipe that you can chose from, may have little or no architectural cohesiveness in the long run. Schedules in concert with zoning is one approach, another way may be front setbacks with more plantings to obscure differences in style. He concluded by asking that the Planning Commission consider not just how big should the houses be, but how should the town look. Mr. Chris Orr, 22051 Hibiscus Drive, said that he was a resident of Cupertino for 37 years; and 12 years ago decided to purchase a home in the Cupertino neighborhood. He said there were 5 bedroom, 5 bath houses in his neighborhood; and now there are houses being sold, tom down, and large monstrosities being built. He said he felt like a prisoner in his own home, in a fish bowl scenario. He said when he landscaped the front yard, he used sun-loving plants, and now with the _ 20 foot house next to his property, has to replant shade loving plants. He said the Planning Commission should consider what the citizens are saying about the communities they want to move into; and it didn't surprise him that the people opposed to it are real estate agents because they are looking for the dollar amount they can get. Mr. Joe Van Epps, 10525 John Way, said that the staff recommendations should include a provision for evaluation of second story addition or construction for infill housing. The second stories seriously impact surrounding neighbors on discretionary issues, such as privacy, shading and compatibility; and since they are discretionary, it is difficult to determine who is right or who is wrong; the builder or the neighbor for not wanting the two story built? He said some argue that they should be able to build what they want on their own property, but questioned how people could have that kind of disregard for their fellow neighbors. The ultimate solution is to limit all infill to single story; this then becomes prescriptive and not subject to interpretation by anyone. Ms. Mabel McFarland, 10567 John Way, said that she has resided for 40 years in the neighborhood, with large lots and was supportive of staff's recommendation relative to looking at this modification. Mr. Larry Mattheakis, Sunrise Drive, said that the lots on Sunrise were decent size, 10,000 sq. ft. lots; and what has happened the last couple of years is the homes are being torn down and in two instances the maximum FAR has been used to build 4500 sq. ft. homes, one directly in his backyard and one across the street; and in both cases the homes were spec homes, immediately sold after completion. He said he believed in homeowner's right to expand their living space, but the phenomena witnessed is being motivated by the market economics of the area. The developers don't care how the big homes fit into the neighborhoods, but are mainly interested in the square footage of the lot for the higher selling price. He said he would argue that building the two big Planning Commission Minutes lO January 26, 1998 homes increased property value; and would argue it is true if your purpose is to destroy the adjacent home and build another two story; for those who have remodeled and stayed with single story homes, they are faced with big monstrosities looking directly into their backyards. He said it was difficult to plant things that covers a 4,500 sq. ft. house. The things that make Cupertino a desirable place to live and keep property values up are things other than being able to build big homes; it is a nice place to live, good schools, all these factors combined keep the property values the way they are. Big homes are not needed to keep the property values up. Ms. Marie Akin-Griffith, Cupertino resident, questioned where they would be if all motivated by self-interests. She said that Cupertino was all originally wide open pastures; and reviewed the past history of Cupertino until people started building homes in the pristine environment, many of them dream homes for some in the audience. She said dream homes were individual and unique as our dreams, otherwise all of the homes would be identical. She said she had owned four homes in Cupertino and had always wanted a new home; remodeled all 4 of them, and spent a lot more than received in return, which is generally the case when you love your home. She pointed out that one of the beauties of private property and democracy is that we all have the right to express ourselves in the size of our families, culture, and our personal tastes. This expression often comes out in our home and to limit this right of self expression would be disappointing, and in some cases a travesty. She said that in all the great metropolitan areas of the world, there is no area that she knew that with the population of the Bay Area, enjoys as much open space as in the greater Cupertino area. She pointed out that there is already a gift with the beautiful open space in the hills that cannot be diminished by development; and in conclusion said she would like to add that we should be grateful for these fortunate people who have shared the great wealth they have accumulated in their life times by acquiring the property at market value and ultimately donated to the public trust for public enjoyment. She added that landscaping, which is so important; is the fundamental part of the beauty of a residence as well as the surrounding open space and for those of us who are concerned about visual invasion of private property, she said she would encourage those people to thoughtfully think about planting landscapes that will increase the beauty, privacy and enjoyment and value of their home and at the same time benefit the environment. Mr. John Luhring, 22066 Hibiscus Drive, said that he was supportive of the petition for single story dwellings on John Way as well as on Hibiscus Drive. He said his home was two doors down and across the street from the new monstrosity infill home, and was invaded with sight lines from the house. He said he had a pool in his backyard and could no longer sunbathe in his backyard without f~eling those residents staring down at them. He said that when he purchased his home they were all one story homes, and would not have pumhsed the property if he had known there were going to be two story homes. He said he objected to people being able to come in after the fact and build two story homes, although he might feel differently if it was a neighbor who decided they wanted to have more room for their family; but in this case it was a spec home built by a developer for his own pofit. He thanked the residents on Wallace drive behind him who decided to increase their house size from 1600 to 3000 sq. ft. Mr. Luhring said that he was collecting a petition of the 16 houses on Hibiscus Drive, with 9 signatures already to make the neighborhood a one story only for planning and future development or remodeling; and requested that the petitioners' wishes be accepted. Com. Austin closed the public hearing. Com. Harris commended Ms. Bjurman on the competent and thorough presentation. She said that she was supportive of strategy No. 3, neighborhood compatibility. She said that most speakers did Planning Commission Minutes Il January 26, 1998 not want incompatibility; which did not mean the neighborhood had to deteriorate, but seeking compatible construction. She recommended that the staffparsue all 4 strategies listed. Relative to Policy 2-26, on-site environments, she said that it had not been done in the R-I before, but felt that they should do those things in the redevelopment situation, which is more of what Cupertino will have. She recommended FARs, even if on a sliding scale and set a maximum at no greater than what there is currently, ranging from .18 to .45, and the same minimum lot width with separate rules written for an annexed area that has a different set of rules. She said she felt it was time to change the setbacks; which is not listed under solutions except for second story side setbacks, but she felt that a 5 foot first story side setback was not adequate. Relative to Page 5-4, Com. Harris said that the crux is in the ministerial recommendations and she was still in favor of total building height limits. She said she felt when a person buys property in Cupertino, they should know what they will be able to do with that property. Com. Mahoney said that while many audience members stated true facts, the task was to come to the middle groups; the times change and neighborhoods change, but sometimes the pendulum swings too far; which was the case in the hillsides a few years ago with the hillside ordinances. He said he was supportive of changing some of the rules and supportive of keeping it ministerial as well. He said it was not appropriate to get into a house-by-house examination of the architecture; and he recommended that the basic proposals be elaborated on. He questioned if there could be an FAR that could be approximately 120% of the existing FAR, that would create a slower rate of change in certain areas where if all the homes were quite small, then homes going in could be bigger, and it would avoid a dichotomy with a big house in the middle of a neighborhood of small homes. He said that relative to Rancho Rinconada, he recommended waiting to see what the change would be before proceeding. Mr. Cowan said that it had been done with setbacks where there may be a 20 foot setback, but if the neighborhood has predominantly 25 or 30 foot setbacks from the street, it would be used as criteria. He said that there has also been houses very close to the street, and would be appropriate to deviate from the 20 feet or 15 if everybody else is 15 feet. Com. Doyle said that he was in favor of ministerial; and that people should be able to have consistent expectations if they buy in or live in the area. The biggest issue is visual impact of the big box-type houses, and the privacy intrusion they create. He said he felt there was a possibility to modify it to make it better for the people in existing neighborhoods and still make a progression of develop, ment in the community occur also, because there are people that may need to make their 1500 sq. ft. home into a 3000 sq. ft. home and yet still remain good neighbors. People have proven they can do that and it needs to be reflected in the codes. He said he was not supportive of changing the code minimums to something else for a specific situation such as Rancho Rinconada. Mr. Cowan said that what could be done is to take some average lots and houses and address how the application and the new standards would work, and the Planning Commission could make the decision whether or not there should be different standards. Com. Harris said she was not supportive of writing new standards based on how most of the city was now, and what created the present problem. She said if an area with a particular plan was annexed, part of the annexation agreement would be to deal with them based on their needs, but not to take that and extrapolate it to the entire city. Planning Commission Minutes 12 January 26, 1998 In response to Com. Stevens' question regarding the reference to the 5000 sq. ft. lot, Ms. Bjurman said that there are existing lots in the community that are 5000 sq. ft. or less, and they are not being promoted; however, if they exist, they can in fact build. Com. Stevens said Rancho Rinconada may not have to be an exception basis. Mr. Cowan clarified that in terms of the 5000 sq. fr. lots, they were scattered. Com. Stevens said that he agreed with many of the comments, and stated that he has been a resident of the Idlewild tract since 1959, beginning with a 1500 sq. ft. home, and adding a second story. He said they did not have the 20 foot wall height, and had to move into where it was nestled, and the homes in the area. They also had to meet the amhitecture of the neighborhood so that the second story addition blended. The original tract homes did not allow side windows; and had 5 foot side setbacks. He said he felt it is wrong to build a large square box and stucco palaces into existing neighborhoods that do not have that as a dominant theme, even if it is the original homeowner or a person building to resell. He said gradual change was an interesting concept, but abrupt changes were not appropriate. Chair Austin noted that only Los Altos and Saratoga had stricter first story setbacks and a stricter maximum height, and said that she felt reducing mass was important, and referring to Exhibit A, it appeared that the discretionary way was the path to take. She expressed concern about the gross FAR as it did not include the basement or garage, but adds to the bulk. She said if there is a second floor, the first floor should be limited to 18 feet; and said she felt that the sliding scale FAR seemed to be fair if staff wanted to go into details about it especially if there were different and various sized lots. She said she was intrigued'with a specialized ordinance for specialized areas, and referred to the Monta Vista plan. She proposed having a Rancho Rinconada plan as it was important for them to decide what to do with one story, two story and privacy issues, and would allow for more public opinion. Chair Austin said that she agreed that a plan was needed for different areas for the furore, and she understood the frustration of having huge homes built in existing neighborhoods where they might not fit. She concurred that there should be a consistent expectation that when a buyer moves into a neighborhood, they should know what they can do on their property. She said that she concurred with keeping it ministerial. Ms. Bjurman requested that the Planning Commissioners clarify their direction, noting that they were in support of the staff's recommendation; but requested clear direction on the setback issue as she heard a variety of suggestions ranging from changing both furst story as well as second story setbacks a~d perhaps creating a tradeoff. Com. Harris said that she felt 5 foot setbacks on the ground floor were too small and possibly should be 10; Com. Mahoney said he was supportive of it for first floor because there is a fence; Com. Doyle recommended status quo on the first story setback. He said that he did not hear complaints about the first floor setbacks; most of them are in existence. He said that there is a deviation from the north; people have an expectation that current zoning sets that expectation and he felt there was no urgency to change it. Com. Mahoney said he was supportive of the concept and would like to see more on the daylight plane, which directly addresses some of the issues in a good way. Com. Stevens concurred. Relative to the second story setbacks, Ms. Bjurman questioned if the direction was to return with modifications to that or the sliding scale concept. Mr. Cowan said that the decision could not be forced tonight; and to consider the second story, and to consider the daylight plane as a means to resolve it. Com. Mahoney questioned what the daylight plane would do in lieu of, or in addition to. Planning Commission Minutes 13 January 26, 1998 Com. Doyle said that relative to second story, the issues were the visual impact of the building, the privacy issue and lines of sight; and he said that he would like to have a comparison to provide a better understanding of what the advantages are; and said that perhaps there would not be a lot of shadowing occurring, but there would still be a large box-like structure that would be obtrusive in comparison to the neighborhood, and setbacks may do a better job. Com. Mahoney said that there was discussion about compatibility with the neighborhood, relative to color, building materials, etc., yet everything discussed from a ministerial standards point of view had not addressed it. He requested that the kinds of ministerial things to address the comparability issues be explored. In response to Com. Harris question about FAR, Ms. Bjurman said that it was based on the net lot. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 11-Z-97 to the February 23, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to initiate a public hearing on the R-I standards Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 6. Review of City Design Review Process. Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, explained that the purpose of the process review was to attempt to reduce the Planning Commission workload by simplifying the design review responsibilities and divert minor applications from the Planning Commission agenda, while maintaining a design review function; and to incorporate professional architectural advice where it adds value to the design review process. He reviewed the design review procedures in various cities, ranging from full Planning Commission involvement to that of staff involvement only, or a separate appointed committee, as outlined in the survey in the staff report. He then discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the various design/review models as set forth in the staff report. Staff recommends the formation of a Planning Commission subcommittee with two planning commissioners serving on the committee, for the Cupertino design review process. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Harris said that she concurred with the staff recommendation for formation of a subcommittee; however, suggested that the meetings be held in the evening as members change, with different work schedules; and volunteer architects may prefer an evening meeting. A discussion ensued regarding the noticing procedures, frequency of meetings, and structure of the subcommittee. Chair Harris suggested that the word "adjoining" be changed to "neighboring" as defined previously. She suggested that the meetings be held on a monthly or semi-monthly basis; and that the staffreports include a recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes 14 January 26, 1998 MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to schedule a public hearing to further explore the concept of a subcommittee for design review process SECOND: Com. Harris VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE ]DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY ]DEVELOPMENT: Relative to the Annexation of County Islands, Mr. Cowan provided an update on a recent meeting with the Rancho Rinconada resident group interested in annexation. He said that he would meet again with the group relative to their particular lots and return to the Planning Commission with a recommendation. There was a brief discussion about the agenda for the special February 4 meeting. Ms. Wordell said that an agenda would be available later in the week for comment. REPORT OF THE PLANNI2N'G COMMISSION: Com. Harris noted that a replacement was needed for the designee to the Housing Committee. There was consensus to agendize the topic for discussion at a future meeting. ]DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPI2~GS: None ADJOURNlVIENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to the special meeting on February 4, 1998, at 6 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: February 9, 1998