Loading...
PC 05-06-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF TH~ PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 6, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Doyle, Harris, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Staff present: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner II; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted receipt of a written communication relative to the appeal on Application 4-ASA-98. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to consider Items 2 and 3 prior to Item 1 Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, explained that Items 2 and 3 were being considered first for the benefit of audience participation. Chair Austin clarified that discussion of the item was to determine if a public hearing would be set. NEW BUSI/~IESS Request from Hibiscus homeowners to set a public hearing for rezoning to RI-10i (single story overlay). Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell explained that there was a petition from 12 of the 19 Hibiscus Drive and Court residents seeking a single story designation for their properties, which area is located south of Homestead Road and east of Highway 85. She noted that there would be no decision made on the outcome of the request, but only to set a public hearing. Chair Austin opened the public hearing. Mr. John Luhring, resident, presented a petition containing 13 signatures from a total of 19 homeowners (2 absentee homeowners were contacted and stated that they did not wish to be involved). Mr. Luhring presented overhead photographs of various homes in the area, which Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 6, 1998 illustrated examples of single story homes and photos of newer two story homes that infringed on the privacy of the existing single family homes. He expressed concern that speculator contractors would demolish more one story homes and build larger two story homes, and requested that the Planning Commission declare a moratorium on any building in the area until the R1 ordinance is approved and a decision is made on the Hibiscus Drive single story zoning, to prevent further speculative building. Mr. Chris Orr, resident, thanked the Planning Commission for considering the rezoning request. He said he moved into the area because it was single story homes, and hoped that it would remain single story homes. Ms. Linda Roy, resident, said she felt privacy was a concept that was defined differently by people. She cited examples of communities that did not have backyard fencing and in contrast noted that she felt some people become obsessed with fear of having their privacy invaded. She stated her opinion that people do not spend a lot of time peering out of their two story bedroom windows into neighbors' yardq,, but that the windows are merely to let light and ventilation in, and for safety purposes. She said that she was not in favor of single story restrictions, and was against excessive paranoia about people seeing into neighbors' yards. She said she did not feel it was appropriate to have piecemeal streets with single story restrictions because the present residents preferred single story homes. Ms. Roy concluded that she personally did not worry about neighbors peering into her yard. Ms. Marjorie Simonds, resident, said that she felt that neighborhoods should be integrated with one and two story homes, but that people had a right to have some say. She said she felt that the city staff dropped the ball, and she noticed in the information received on April 20th that Cupertino used to have architectural review, review of landscaping, architecture and window placement. She said she thought Cupertino still had it, and said that her family had added an upstairs to their home. She asked why the city could not require that a large redwood tree be required to give the people some privacy and have the developer figure it into the home price. Ms. Simonds said that she was opposed to a public hearing to establish a one story restriction; that people have a right to build two story homes on their lots. Com. Mahoney clarified that the city never had architectural review for single family homes, but is now contemplating putting it in. Chair Ausii'n closed the public hearing. Com. Doyle said that he felt'a public hearing should be held to allow the residents of Hibiscus Drive to voice their opinions and their needs, and also to get the impact on the surrounding homes. Com. Mahoney said that he felt a public hearing should be scheduled, but that guidelines needed to be established on percentages. Com. Stevens said that he visited Hibiscus Drive and saw the house in question, which was built by a speculator. He said that prior to the meeting he felt that the large house would present a problem, and heard input at the meeting that it was out of scale. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to establish a public hearing for residential single story overlay on Hibiscus Drive and Court Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 6, 1998 Request from Scofield Drive homeowners to set a public hearing for rezoning to RI-10i (single story overlay). Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell illustrated the location of the Scofield Drive area on the overhead map, and stated that 16 of the 26 Scofield Drive residents had signed the petition; 62% support it; part of their recommendation was that a moratorium be set on any future additions on that street. Staff feels that since there are no applications for second story homes on that street, their position is that no moratorium is needed until an actual threat exists. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney, clarified that a public hearing must be held first as there is no ordinance created or no interim ordinance, and the City Council would have to do the interim ordinance. The Planning Commission would only recommend it. Chair Austin opened the public input portion of the meeting. Mr. Jim Lepetich, Scofield Drive resident, illustrated photos of homes on Scofield Drive, some with additions, and noted that the original architecture remains on the street and the neighbors want to keep the original look to the neighborhood and not have homes that don't fit onto the street, destroying the flavor of the street. He illustrated a photo of an older two story home which the addition fit into the existing style of the home and the remainder of the neighborhood. He said they were requesting a moratorium on any two story additions, in order to avoid any pipeline issues that arose, to protect the new owners and the remainder of the neighborhood. He invited the Planning Commission to visit the neighborhood. Mr. Tony Wade, Scofield Drive resident, said that privacy was an issue. He said that the view from one of the new homes peers into his home and see his family eating dinner. He said issues were the current view of the hills would disappear if second story homes were built, and compatibility with the size and look of that particular area. He said he purchased the home because it had a certain charm to it; it was built in 1949. He reiterated that the particular area has a special feeling to it and the residents like it and want to preserve the look, feel and charm of the neighborhood as opposed to going completely commercial. Mr. Sheng Feng, Scofield Drive resident, submitted a letter signed by eight families who were opposed to the one story restriction. He said he felt it was unfair to have the restriction placed upon certt/in homes, as there were already two story homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Frank Farran, resident, ~aid that he purchased a 2 bedroom home in 1951 and then a 3 bedroom in that neighborhood. He said that next to his home was a monstrous new home; and although attractive, it had 4,000-5,000 sq. ft. roof coverage which invaded his privacy. In response to an earlier comment made, he said that back east homes do not have fences because people don't spend as much time outdoors because of the invasion of bugs, insects and inclement weather. In California, the backyard is an extension of a living room. He showed a picture ora large new home, and said it was a beautiful home but was in the wrong location. He pointed out that he had lost the majority of his view of the Santa Cruz Mountains which was important to him, and also lost privacy. He said his next door neighbor cannot grow fruit on his trees because of the shade. Summarizing, he said the house across the street was a second story setback, no complaints. He said that if the city had setback rules for the second story as well as the first story, Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 6, 1998 it might be something residents could live with as opposed to no control of how someone builds a second story. Mr. Orland Larson, Scofield Drive resident, said he was in favor of the R1 designation, and that previous speakers summarized the issues. He said he attended the joint meeting with Palo Alto and was very impressed. Some of the developers said the homes didn't fit into the neighborhood. He expressed concern about second story homes on Scofield; developers are coming in, demolishing the homes and selling them for a profit, and do not care about the impact on the neighbors. He said that privacy was a precious commodity, but he was not paranoid about it. Mr. Larson said that he and his family spend a lot of time in their backyard, which has a pool and has not built onto his house because it would affect the space in his yard, and he would not want to invade the privacy of his neighbors. He urged a moratorium on second story construction if plans are submitted because he has lived in his home for 26 years, enjoys the neighborhood and would like to remain there. Mr. Joel Wolfe, Scofield Dr. Lve resident, illustrated pictures of his backyard and a home under construction, scheduled for completion in a few months. He said he was in support of the of the Rl-10i zoning because of loss of privacy. He said he is experiencing loss of privacy now even with the ivy on his fence and is upset about the design of the new neighboring house. He said the former house was bulldozed in one day, and the framing for the replacement went up quickly. Mr. Wolfe said he was a civil engineer and felt the design of the new home was very unattractive and did not fit in with the present neighborhood. He pointed out that Saratoga has single story development, attractive homes, and property values are not declining there. Mr. Jason Wang, said that he was going through escrow on the purchase of a home on Scofield Drive and felt that changing the land use designation would devalue the property. He said if the restriction is made, he would cancel the pumhase of the home for that reason. He said he was opposed to the single story restriction for the neighborhood. Mr. Victor Lee, resident, said that he purchased his property l-1/2 years ago and was planning to expand on his property. He said at the time he purchased the property, there was no talk about future restrictions on the neighborhood. He said the issue of privacy is a big concern in the neighborhood and privacy has different definitions. He pointed out that limiting Scofield Drive to single story homes does not guarantee privacy, because Sunrise Drive which is in rear of the homes, already has second story homes, which can look into backyards. He said the restriction is not for St/firise Drive which is directly behind, and people will be able to build there and see into Scofield Drive yards. He said it will devalue property on Scofield Drive, because if you have the capability of building a bigg6r home, your land value is worth more. Mr. Lee said that he was opposed to the restriction. He emphasized that it was an investment of your home and if the restriction is passed, it will limit the value of the home; and you don't want to limit the estate of your biggest investment which is your home. He said that he purchased the home knowing he would want to expand; and his home has very elaborate backyard landscaping; leaving him the option of extending on the second level. He concluded that for those reasons, he was definitely against petition for restriction to single story homes. Ms. Wordell clarified that the" i "designation does allow for a use permit procedure for a second story, in case anyone thought there was no relief for a second story. Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 6, 1998 Mr. Jim Marxmiller, Scofield Drive resident, said that he was neutral on the potential restriction, and had concerns both ways. He said he was concerned about the privacy issue, and even more, was concemed that the restriction was for one block only when they should be looking at the entire neighborhood, and asked how it was dealt with. Com. Mahoney clarified that it was a self-initiated action, and said if residents thought that the next street over or any other street should be included in the restriction, it was up to the property owners themselves to convince the others. Mr. Marxmiller said that Sunrise Drive has quite a few two story homes and several look into the backyards of the Scofield Drive homes. He said if they were going to limit themselves, others need to be limited also. He said that he felt there may have been some misleading information about the petition initially, and they were not permitted to discuss it as a group. If discussed as a group, there may be some different numbers on it. He expressed concern about how the city looks at these issues collectively, and asked if there were setbacks for the second story. He also expressed concern that none ~zf the property owners knew anything about the house design before it was constructed and then it was too late. He said when it impacts their neighborhood, they should have some say about what is built. Ms. Wordell clarified that the R1 standards do not require any noticing of the neighbors. Mr. Brian Miller, Scofield Drive resident, said that he was in the process of selling his home to Mr. Wang, who said he would not go through escrow if the R1 restriction was imposed. He said he was in favor of the overall city restrictions, and that the changes being made were good, except he was opposed for obvious reasons to the restriction on Scofield Drive. He said he felt some of the numbers proposed to the panel were misleading; Scofield Drive goes up to Faria School, which would total 35 houses, 7 of which are two story homes. He expressed concern about the proposed moratorium because it would require an additional hearing. He said the street is already multiple use and from the backyard one can see other buildings. He said he did not feel the second story automatically causes a lack of privacy. Mr. Miller concluded that he had a lot of concerns about the discrepancy in numbers before a hearing is scheduled. Mr. Pei Hsu, Rodriquez Avenue resident, expressed concern about the number of applications submitted for second story homes before a decision is made. He said that he now resides in a one story home, but could possibly want to add a second story in ten years. He said that because of the potenfihl restriction, he would submit an application before the deadline. Chair Austin clarified that Rodriguez Avenue was not involved in the R1 restriction. Ms. Jacqueline Lepetich, expressed concern that the two story homes being built do not fit in with the original design of the homes on Scofield Drive. She said that the homes on the other side of Scofield Drive (Western), are from a different period of time and are about 10-20 years younger, and are not included in the original petition. She said her main concern was to keep the architectural design the same, because homes from the 90s next to the homes from the 50s is a major eyesore. Mr. David Zecha, representing the Public Affairs Department of the Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors, Los Altos, said that the real estate board opposed any zoning restrictions placed on residential property. He said that in dealing with an older neighborhood such as the Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 6, 1998 Scofield Drive neighborhood, it was detrimental to place restrictions on Scofield Drive homes when the surrounding neighborhoods have not had the same restrictions placed on them. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting Com. Doyle said that he felt a public hearing was warranted to fulfill the residents' requests. He asked the staff to facilitate a neighborhood discussion prior to the action, as the Planning Commission should not be the ones making the decision; they merely reflect the will of the community, and if the community is divided about it, having the commissioners decide is a no- win situation. He said they would like to see if they could facilitate within the neighborhood and come back and well define the positions and what the tradeoffs/issues are or come up with a compromise to work through. He said some definition is needed to handle situations such as the possibility of a group as small as 5 homeowners requesting a special zoning designation. Com. Harris said that she was in favor of setting the public hearing because 16 property owners from the neighborhood reque, raed it. She requested that staffaddress the issue in light of defining the neighborhood and what is appropriate; looking at lot sizes, looking at solving this problem; perhaps using the next agenda item which is design standards for residential, addressing it in the light of those things. She said that some people may not have had a full understanding of what they were signing, therefore having a meeting with everyone together, hearing the same thing, staff could explain positions, effects, rules, etc. She said that she was in favor of the hearing, but that some more work was needed first. Com. Mahoney said he was also in favor of hearing it, but said that one of the considerations on John Way was the fact that the lot sizes there were very large and people had the ability to expand without going to second story. He said looking at these, including retroactive, lot size should be a data point in the discussion. Com. Stevens concurred, and recommended a review and putting it on the agenda; however, because the comments were about the two story homes built behind the street in question, he recommended that it be expanded to include the outer streets, as having one street with no backyard protection is almost academic. He said more review was needed. Chair Austin agreed with the planning commissioners and suggested staff look at the one house with the second story addition that fit into the neighborhood to see what made it successful for that neighborhood. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to set a public hearing for putting Rl-10i overlay on the section of Scofield Drive Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Chairwoman Austin moved the agenda back to Item 1. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z-98, 8-EA-98 Amendment to R1 Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 6, 1998 Amendment to the Single Family Residential Ordinance regarding building mass, setback and height. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: To be determined CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 27, 1998 Staff presentation: Ms. Bjurman reviewed the background of the item relative to the amendment to the single family ordinance regarding building mass, setback and height, as set forth in the attached staff report. She said that the item originated from the concern that the scale of new homes appear out of proportion compared to other homes in a neighborhood. Other related items included a lack of privacy, the blocking of sun on the side and rear yards of adjacent properties, and the lack of architectural cohesiveness with existing neighborhoods. The item was continued from February 23, directing staff to provide additional information on a variety of subjects including: (I) Development of the elements of a ministerial design review process; (2) Providing examples of floor,~area ratio impact if daylight plane were instituted; (3) Staff was directed to research the Solar Energy Act; and (4) Provide pipeline alternatives. The proposed methods to address the problems include the combinations of changes to both the single family ordinance and the definition ordinance to modify floor area ratio require a daylight plane, introduce design standards, and to complete a citywide architectural survey. She referred to the floor area ratio comparisons between the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Cupertino illustrated on Page 1-3 of the staff report. Staff recommends adoption of the City of Mountain View's sliding scale because they have similar lot sizes to Cupertino and the process is easy to administer and addresses the Planning Commission's concerns regarding building mass. The draft changes to the single family ordinances shown on Page 1-6 of the staff report reflect staWs recommendation. Ms. Bjurman noted other changes to the definitions section of the ordinance as shown on Page 1-5 of the staffreport. As shown on gross floor area, staffis looking at modifying the definition of floor area ratio so that it can be more inclusive as far as building area is concerned and expand what is included in the calculation of floor area ratio. The introduction of daylight plane is another method being considered by the Planning Commission to reduce building mass and alternatives; there are two alternatives being proposed in the single family ordinance changes. Two alternatives being considered, either the 25 degree angle or the 45 degree angle, and examples of the angles are on Pages 1-80 through 1-84 of the staff report and 1- 90 and 1-91. Staffrecommends that if the Planning Commissions wants the greatest effectiveness in reducing massing, they adopt the 25 degree angle alternative. She said that comparisons were done between the 25 and 45 degree angle, and those are also provided in the staffreport. Ms. Bjurman reported that ahother change to the single family ordinance is the introduction of design standards, listed on Page 1-8 of the staff report. There are two components to the design standards; the standards themselves and the appendix. The appendix would include a map of various neighborhoods that would be established by like types of amhitecture and architectural characteristics list; the appendix would be conducted by an architectural consultant and the standards and the appendices would be used by staff to conduct plan checks. The city attorney has reviewed the staff report and has proposed some changes to be reviewed with the Planning Commission, regarding the design standards. Some of the changes were related to formatting, notably two regarding roof forms; one change is the introduction of specificity by requiring that the design standard indicated for roof forms retain the existing neighborhood roof pitch shape and materials of 75% of homes in a neighborhood, (neighborhood is defined in the definitions section). Ms. Bjurman said that the new design standard states that if significant impacts not Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 6, 1998 addressed on the previous standards occur to neighboring properties, the Planning Director shall either refer the application to the Planning Commission for exception or notify adjoining property owners. Staff is concerned with this particular item; the city attorney created this condition because there may be significant design impacts which cannot be estimated at this time and would not be encompassed under the proposed standards and that they felt this new standard would address the unknown; however, they are concerned because there is no definition of significant impact, and that with a lack of definition they get away from their ministerial goal and move into some discretion. If the Planning Commission is interested in adopting this new standard, staff should return with a definition of significant impact. The other part of the wording is that once a significant impact is identified the Planning Director shall either defer the application to the Planning Commission for exception and this would be preferred by staff or notify adjoining property owners. Regarding the effective date of the ordinance, it was titled pipeline and staff retitled this to effective date of the ordinance, which is addressed on Page I-10 of the staff report. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission consider pipeline wording; that all building plans submitted to the building department prior to the effective date of the ordinance would have to comply with the new standards. Ms. Bjurman summarized the items for discussion: (1) Which floor area ratio method should be adopted; either the averaging method or sliding scale method; (2) Which daylight plane angle should be adopted; the 25 or 45 degree angle; (3) Suggestion for direction on recruiting an architect for the neighborhood architectural studies; and (4) Whether to adopt the city attorney initiated new design standard; and if so, direction to come back with a definition of significant impact; and (5) Confirm that there is a pipeline process identified and the building plans submitted to the building department after the effective date of the ordinance be held to the new standards. Com. Stevens said that he researched the purpose, and found that there was a purpose shown, but not contained in this package. He questioned if the purpose of what they were doing was still to maintain, what was the purpose stated, then the pipeline issue becomes academic because it is not being changed. The detail may be changed, but not the intent. Chair Austin questioned if the proposed changes follow the purpose which is intended to crate, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings, etc. Ms. Bjurman said that it significantly addressed the purposes; that when you introduce the daylight plane and you reduce holding mass for second stories, it definitely addresses that. Chair Austin opened the public hearing. Ms. Rebecca Elliott, San Jdse Real Estate Board, asked for clarification on the process being addressed. Chair Austin explained that the Planning Commission would hopefully reach decisions on cleaning up these issues and forward a recommendation to City Council. Ms. Elliott expressed concern about the daylight plane and the 25 degrees, the FAR and the view issue. She said views are not guaranteed and they are not protected so that when you start to get into insuring or guaranteeing views, there have been court cases upheld to say views are not protected, which opens another area of concern. She said she felt Mountain View's FAR was better than Palo Alto's and she was sorry to see them change the FAR, that with proper architectural design, you can maintain your current FAR and still design homes that are not so out of proportion with the rest of the neighborhood. She said there will be an impact on the property values in Cupertino with this type of ordinance, and that some sales may be pending on what action is taken tonight. Ms. Elliott said she felt the pipeline issue is a very important one and there has to be something in Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 6, 1998 the final ordinance that does address people in the pipeline issue or that are buying houses now with the intention of adding on to them in the furore. In response to Com. Doyle's request for clarification on the devaluing housing values, Ms. Elliott said that when people buy property and may want to enlarge their homes in the future, they want to have the option to add onto their homes, if not today, later in the future; and if they cannot do it in Cupertino, they will buy property somewhere else. She said that to put those kinds of restrictions on building can be detrimental to the entire community. She added that relative to comments about the impacts of design standards on views of the hills and views from peoples' homes, views are not guaranteed. Mr. Marc Auerbach, Rancho Pocket Annexation Committee, said that where they were at showed courage in terms of going beyond the strict ministerial guidelines; which is what those in Rancho Rinconada were expecting, and looking forward to as a point when they annexed to Cupertino that they would have this protection from the new ordinances. He said they were in line with what Rancho was looking far_and encouraged the Planning Commission to move forward with most of staff's recommendations. He questioned the floor area ratio, and whether it had any impact on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot with a 50 foot frontage and a 100 foot gap, with a 25 degree daylight plane. He asked what was the largest house that could be built given all the setbacks required at that point; and asked if staff had done any calculations on that point. He said they heard about the price of housing being impacted by tighter zoning laws, and said he felt it was a red herring; the housing prices are based on scarcity of land and desirabilty of land. Larger houses in less desirable places sell for less, and small houses in highly desirable houses sell for a lot more. Neighbors can be adversely affected by higher density development, and the Planning Commission and the city have to look toward longer term when perhaps the desirability for the large houses, say 50 years from now, is not as great, what will happen to them then. They turn into rental units and the characteristics of the neighborhood change dramatically at that point. He said the problem was eluded to, there is a disparity between 1950s development and the 1990s development with no middle ground and relief is needed for a more gradual transition. He said that some in Rancho are moving to 2 story homes; and the committee did not object to that, but want ones that really fit into the environment; and what is proposed is on track. Mr. Jim Lepetich, 20570 Scofield Drive, said he was impressed with what staffput together. He said he preferred the first alternative for the height of 11 feet and the angle of 25 degrees. Relative to the issue of planting trees, he illustrated a photo ora home with large trees in the yard and point4d out that the homeowner was responsible for the trees. If he or she decides not to take care of them and the trees die, the whole idea of having the trees goes away. He said that planting the large trees on three sides 'of the property would not be answer to either the neighbors or the homeowner, and said there must be a better way to do it. He said there must be other solutions and asked that the Planning Commission take that into consideration as well. Mr. Mare Blaszcyzk, 7453 Kingsbury Place, said that he was in favor of the pipeline clause, and commended staff on the report and the recommendations. He said he had invested time and money into an addition for his home, and it would be a burden if he was forced to make these changes after the fact, therefore he felt the pipeline clause should stay. He said another concern was on Page 1-7, a proposal to reduce the wall height from 20 to 15 feet and asked that consideration be given to have it 15 feet on the side where there is a 5 foot required setback, and on the other side where it is 5 feet, 10 feet on the side setback, allow 20 feet that remain on the 10 foot side; but on the 5 foot side, require it to be 15 feet. May 6, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes Ms. Lacy Cantrell, Gardenview Lane, said that she distributed information at the April 15 meeting which points out that Cupertino's current building standards are similar to Los Gatos and Mountain View; in fact Los Gatos allows larger homes, about 48% FAR on small lots compared to Cupertino. Mountain View also allows up to 50% FAR for good designs. She said that Cupertino's rules are already just as strict as many of the strictest cities. Mr. Garold Pugh, So. Stelling Rd., said that previously he left a partial petition from neighbors relative to the R1 requirements, and has talked to many people over a period of time and they like the restrictions the way they are and don't want to see the R1 designation for the single family homes changed. He said they all agree that it is an investment for them, and hope that when they retire their house will be worth something; and by restricting what can be built there, they don't want to lose the option for a buyer to be able to tear down the house and rebuild. He said he purchased the property understanding they could either develop or improve it, and want it to remain the same. Ms. Linda Roy, resident, referred to the overhead illustrating the FAR in Mountain View, Palo Alto, Los Gatos, and Los Altos. She expressed concern with the possibility that city government feels the need to react to a small but vocal arena of people who complain about what they don't like; noting that the tendency is to hear from the people who do not like what is going on and not hearing from the people who are happy with the way things are. She said she was also concerned about the possibility of a bias creeping in, and said perhaps the staff under the Planning Commission's direction orthe politics of the whole thing makes everybody feel like we need to do something conservative and to react to all the complaints heard. She expressed concern also with the May 6 staffreport which showed Mountain View, Palo Alto, Cupertino, but did not show Los Gatos; Los Gatos was on another staff report. She pointed out that when the garage is included in Cupertino, if you are looking at Los Gatos, they allow 48-1/2% FAR for a 5,000 sq. ft. lot, which means you can build a larger home on a lot in Los Gatos, than can be built in Cupertino. She questioned why Cupertino is pushing for the conservative plans like Palo Alto or Mountain View, less the FAR bonus when in fact Cupertino is already comparable to Mountain View and Los Gatos. She said she was opposed to changing it. Ms. Olivia Jang, resident, said that relative to the view, a homeowner does not have a legal right to a view; if they had such a right, neighbors could not plant a tree; and in some cases, even single story homes could block a view. Relative to the pipeline, she said that she felt it was importan(t~o have a legal interpretation of the pipeline to allow plenty of time for the people not planning to remodel their house immediately to get their plans submitted. She suggested that the deadline be 6 months or mm:e after the change, because many homeowners might already have spent money, and would have a chance to finish their plans. Ms. Carolla Elliott, Lebanon Drive, said that in her neighborhood there are new houses being constructed, the old ones are being torn down. She said the houses all look alike and referred to the paint jobs as pink elephants. She said that Rancho is another place where small homes exist and big pink elephants are being put up. She said this design does not fit into Cupertino. She said that she recently went to Menlo Park off Middlefield Road, where new homes are being built on former seminary land and the architectural design was very pleasing. She suggested that the city look at that area, and said she was in favor of&sign restrictions. Planning Commission Minutes ll May 6, 1998 Mr. Pei Hsu, resident, said that Cupertino was a diversified city with a business district as well as country style homes. He said with the freeways, and the mix, he would suggest the city be divided into two parts; one highway 85 west for single story homes because it has more trees and is more countryside style; and highway 85 east for business. He said he was the only minority to speak on this, and in today's market, most buyers are minority and they come to Cupertino because of the schools. Mr. Hsu said the families with one child put the child in private school, and the families with 2+ children move to Cupertino because of the excellent schools, and they need bigger homes. He said if the Mountain View rule is adopted, it should be adopted up to 50% FAR for exceptional design; and Cupertino should also allow for larger homes where they are well designed and fit into the neighborhood. Ms. Marjorie Simonds, So. Stelling Rd., said that she purchased her home expecting the zoning to stay the same; although people know that zoning does change and cities revamp and do general planning. She said that Cupertino used to have three height limit on commercial buildings, and somewhere along the line changed and now has huge buildings. She questioned whether they wanted to restrict themselves~Z She said she agreed with a previous speaker, that the tendency is to hear from a small minority of people with issues. She said the people she spoke to in her area believe this cannot be done unless put to a public vote, and said she was against changing the zoning. She said that there are large homes in Cupertino, although she would not want one. Ms. Simonds said that at one time Cupertino did review plans, and what they need to do is notify adjacent neighbors for input; but stipulate that people cannot build two story houses and start changing everything, other than if it means more revenue in the long run for the city. She said she felt the decision was motivated by a small group of vocal citizens. She said she felt Rancho should be annexed, the ads in the papers for rentals show those houses being in Cupertino. She said that Garden Gate is turning out to be a showplace and will be the prime location to live in Cupertino. She suggested driving by to see if the two bedroom slab floor houses should represent Cupertino. She said no, that is why it is going through transition. Mr. Jon Garliepp, Regnart Canyon Drive, said that he was a long time Cupertino resident, and said that he agreed that the houses should be kept similar in like neighborhoods, and no out of scale neighborhoods. He said that Regnart Canyon had rules which he was thankful for, because it limits the areas, keeps it status quo, and said he was supportive of the restrictions. Mr. Mike Bruner, Derbyshire Drive, expressed concern that the Planning Commission would consider taking action on some of the specific actions without looking at the context of Appendix A. He said if an architect is hired, he/she should conduct studies on daylight planes. He said he felt strongly about the issue o.f design, and noted he was in the business of building high density housing with design being a critical issue. He said he was experienced in working with the Steinberg group where they had the same floor plan with three different elevations, and based on the way the roof was cut and the plate lines were placed in the living room/dining room area, all three houses looked completely different, from an extremely massive looking house to a very elegant small looking house all with the same living space, noting that you don't have to take anything away from people that want to have bigger homes. He said he was concerned that they were not addressing all the issues with just two pages of criteria. Com. Doyle asked if there was a price difference between one story or two story or was there a tradeoff for the same size house? Mr. Brunet said that for the same size house, there would be certain families that would prefer 2 story. He said he was not opposed to saying that a certain district can only be a single story house; but his concern was reacting to what he considered Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1998 houses taken out of a plan book and slapped all over town, and reacting to that instead of looking at the real issue of design. He said some elegant things could be accomplished with 2 story additions without taking away the homeowner's rights. Without seeing what Appendix A will say, he said he had concerns. As a resident, he said he would prefer that the single story restriction be imposed, although he was against it from a developer's prospective and a property right's perspective. Mr. Brunet said that one of the items discussed at the neighborhood meeting was what do the residents want the neighborhoods to look like; and said things such as house elevations, if the house is completely turned away from the street, and should certain neighborhoods have porches, should be addressed. He again stated that without seeing Appendix A, they may be putting the cart before the horse by saying 'let's do these pages of prescriptive things, that will not necessarily improve the design quality of anything brought before the city; because knowing developers, if they can avoid spending money with the architect and the structural engineer to address concerns of a particular neighborhood for a house, they will take the plan book and what was built before and see if they can get it through the city and get it approved.' He said he was concerned that it may not be the appropriate house for the neighborhood. Mr. Bruner~said that some form of design guidelines may be an alternative without increasing any of the costs. Mr. Ron Shrewsberry, resident, said that he was in favor of keeping the .45% floor plans, but he felt an architectural review is in order. He said people have valid claims about the huge pink elephants and said he had lived in communities with color codes for houses and the neighborhoods do need to blend in. He said a good architect or review committee would be able to alleviate a lot of complaints that neighbors have. He said that in many of the areas where the new houses are being built, they are replacing 50 year old houses that are at the end of their line, and the value of the house is less than the land value. Mr. Shrewsberry said he felt it is important that more hearings be held to bring out more ideas, and as stated, perhaps the three pages are not going to address everything that is wanted. Builders will find a way to get around the designs and build pink elephant houses. Chair Austin closed the public hearing. In response to Com. Doyle's previous request for information on the property values that might be effected, Ms. Bjurman said that Ms. Elliott from the San Jose Real Estate Board had offered to provide some information, and previously stated for the record that there would be financial impact. Discussion continued about real estate values. Com. Harris said that she had mentioned a bonus for one story as a possibility; an issue about something in the FAR for ~ view preservation and there was an assertion that views are not protected. Ms. Bjurman summarized the items for discussion: (1) Which FAR; average or sliding scale; (2) Which daylight plane - 25 degree or 45 degree angle; (3) Direct staff to initiate request for proposal for Appendix A; (4) Does the Planning Commission want to add a new design standard regarding other significant impact. If they do, require an exception or staff/neighbor meeting? (5) Confirm that complete plans submitted to the building department after the effective date of the ordinance be held to the new standards; (6) Privacy: trees/windows location; (7) Noticing of property owners - adjacent; (7) Bonus: architectural compatibility and/or single story; (8) FAR: view. Ms. Bjurman pointed out that the American Institute of Architects has provided input to staff from the beginning on these issues and the scope of work for the architect. Planning Commission Minutes 13 May 6, 1998 Com. Mahoney said that relative to FAR, sliding scale was appropriate; he preferred the Mountain View one with the bonus. Philosophically as previously stated, he would break it into two pieces; one for a remodel or a rebuild and it is small enough and a good design that won't bother other people, then it would be acceptable; and if the design is stretching the limits, they would be forced to use good design and go through a process. He said he felt strongly about the concept of the bonus, that if the design stayed small, it would be allowed. He said he did not feel that they could pass this without knowing what the guidelines are. He was in favor of design review, not for each case, just the worst cases. He said that daylight plane needs to be a part of it, but leans toward the 45 degree angle, as the 25 degree angle will reduce architectural variety. Relative to roof forms, he noted that the condition sounded like a last minute idea for legal purposes; it was not suitable and should be changed. Com. Mahoney said that he supported design guidelines and a review committee for exceptions to the cases exceeding the triggers. Ms. Bjurman explained that point No. 4 was part of what the city attorney was suggesting, that if the proposed items 1 througl~5 do not address a particularly unusual significant impact, then the Planning Director would either refer it to the Planning Commission as an exception and/or meet with neighbors, if a significant impact occurs. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney, explained that she had not seen the revised version, but was responding to the first one in the staff report. Without any Appendix A, because our Appendix A is blank, a person reading this ordinance would not know what their neighbor was going to build as the design standards were not specific. Therefore it is suggested that notice be given to neighbors if there was a significant negative impact that the Planning Director did see even if the house fit into these specific standards, otherwise the neighbors are not going to know what is going up next to them if these are ministerial. Ms. Murray clarified that if there are going to be specific standards, which is attempted for the second version, she was not adverse to saying that the ordinance does not preclude the Director from notifying any person that he chooses to notify before the permits are issued. Com. Mahoney said that relative to point No. 5, once they know what they are doing, he would ponder the pipeline issue. Point No. 5, Com. Mahoney said that it has to be known what the effective date is. He said that trees can be the answer to privacy concerns. Relative to noticing adjacent property owners, he said that he would not notice anybody unless it was in the design trigger. Com. Mahoney previously indicated he was supportive of the bonus similar to Mountain View and ~aid Cupertino probably would not have to have a separate one for single story. He said he felt the view issue could not be done. Com. Mahoney disagreed with Com. Harris' comment that if view is compromised, 33ou then adjust FAR downward. Com. Stevens said he liked the present sliding FAR; Page 1-3 the center called Cupertino, he said no change; fixed FAR; add a flag lot because they exist (He said there were flag lots but they are not defined). He said he wanted the daylight plane to be the same as the neighborhood; wants the angle of the roof to be the same; asking for roofline compatibility; Appendix A as a wildcard because we don't know what it is yet; there should be design guidelines. Com. Stevens said preferred the entire package in the back because it makes it a lot simpler, 3 pages is not enough; the detail should be there. He said that design guidelines should be used basically, and if there is an exception to that which would trigger it to come to the Planning Commission, he would look to staff doing the majority of the work based on good guidelines and no major problems. If a problem arose within the guidelines to be presented to the Planning Commission, that is the Planning Commission Minutes 14 May 6, 1998 trigger point on notification. He said he would back offon Appendix A as it is questionable. He said he supported adding new design standards. Relative to the pipeline, he said he felt it was a blank check; if it is going through and the overall policy is not changed, only the details are being changed. He said he would like to look at each one, and he did not perceive a problem. Com. Stevens said that he did not like guaranteeing a pipeline on something he has not seen. Relative to the privacy issue, he said that window location is important; trees are appropriate but were living things and did not always manage to live. He said that relative to noticing of property owners of adjacent property, the same trigger points should apply which were stated before; if it is seen, the neighbors should be on the same trigger point. He said he felt bonus for compatibility was a good idea; and although not certain how to apply it, bonus for doing a better job than anticipated and keeping a single story were also good ideas. He said he wanted to keep the FAR as the base and give a bonus. He said that he was precluded from commenting on the view issue. Com. Harris said she preferred the sliding FAR and preferred the Palo Alto standards which are more restrictive, especially if there are going to be two kinds of bonuses. Relative to the daylight plane, she said she liked the.idea of protecting people's light and shadow, but when there is a specific angle, all the houses look alike, you limit the styles in the community forever and that is a problem, because styles change. She said she felt the daylight plane needs to be adjusted between the 25 and 45 based on setbacks, and if there are significant setbacks, she did not feel they should be imposed. Com. Harris said she preferred a sliding scale based on the setbacks; and if they have great setbacks, then they don't need a daylight plane. She recommended initiating a request for proposals for an architect to do Appendix A, but said she felt Appendix A should include a lot more than just picking neighborhoods and defining styles. She said when finished, there should be a worksheet, including what issues that should be looked at specifically. She said she liked the Palo Alto model although out of date; it helps people developing see what kinds of things they need to look at. Com. Harris said that she supported having design standards. She suggested that it say "and" not "either" referring to the Planning Commission or you notify the neighbors; but if referring it to the Planning Commission because it is not in the prescriptive things staff can approve, then you ought to notify them. She said felt the need to have a pipeline, because people spend thousands of dollars to do all this work and then they are kicked in the stomach. Privacy is a real issue that needs to be dealt with; trees are a great idea but not the only possibility because as stated, the trees die and they are removed. Window locations need to be considered. Relative to notifying the neighbors, she said that if there is an increase of 25% or addition of a significant second story, there needs to be a trigger to notice people so they can have input. She said she supported a bonus for single story, but not architectural compatibility because they would be demanding architectural compatibility and that will be part of the FAR sliding scale. She recommended that all applications be reviewed for design criteria; staff to review everything. Com. Harris suggested adjusting the FAR where the views are compromised similar to Saratoga which would speak to asking for a single story bonus and building a larger building on one floor. Com. Doyle said he felt the two governing things were to let people keep their current development potential and try to encourage them to minimize the impact on the neighbors. He said he did not want design review requirements, but if necessary, would need to have design guidelines so that it becomes as ministerial as possible, so people know up front what the expectations are and not the whim or some architects and other people. He said the process needed to be as simple as possible because if not careful, only experts would be able to navigate the path, and only spec houses would be seen. Relative to the FAR, he said he concurred with Com. Stevens' rule of staying at .45 degrees. Com. Doyle said that staff should initiate request Planning Commission Minutes 15 May 6, 1998 for proposals; design guidelines are needed and will come in Appendix A or B; privacy: trees are good; notice to property owners is appropriate for those close to it; bonus: not in favor of bonus; and not in favor of addressing view. Relative to design review, he clarified that if there were certain areas that have character and should be preserved, then there needs to be information to support it. He said that there were some neighborhoods that do not have a real strong tradition or flavor of the way they are designed. Com. Doyle said that he was not a fan of pipeline, but he wanted to be able to understand what kind of change being made. He said he was predisposed to not making any change; and stated that they should not take away development credit potential for people. Com. Harris added that she was in favor of window placement. Chair Austin suggested further review from Michael Freedman on the issues. She said that she was amazed that they would attempt to go through every neighborhood to try to decide which kinds of houses were suitable. She said she felt more research was needed; a design review committee with design guid~,ines was needed before addressing the other issues. Chair Austin said that she felt FAR was appropriate the way it is if done right; otherwise would go with the more restrictive such as Palo Alto. She reiterated that she was not in favor of proceeding in any direction until more guidelines were established. She said that trees and windows were important, but unless it is known that they are dealing with, there is Appendix A. She said she was in favor of leaving it as it until there is a review plan architect. Chair Austin said she would like to see it in a macro; numbers don't make a house beautiful, however, she was not in favor of ugly homes either. She reiterated getting further advice from Freedman, Tung and Bottomley before proceeding with further changes and recommending continuance until further study was completed. Com. Doyle asked that staff try to clarify what maximum house size can be developed, on standard sized lots. Com. Harris commended staff on the excellent preparation for the meeting and the staff report. She said it was a complex subject and was presented in an official way that allowed for responsible discussion in a few hours, and the community was able to understand it. She asked that staff get together with the city attorney and return with a document both agreed upon and one that covers all the bases in a valid way. Com. Harris reiterated Com. Stevens' point about the purpose and said that discussion would not be happening if the community did not feel they were failing at' it. The reason it was brought forward was because they were told with the redevelopment they were not.meeting their stated goals. Therefore whatever the appendix does, it needs to meet these goals or they need to be changed. Chair Austin said that everyone has a right to their own opinion and to come up with any ideas if it impacts them and they are concerned. She thanked the audience and Planning Commissioners for their contribution. Ms. Bjurman summarized Planning Commission direction: (1) Staff to return with a scope of work for the architect; staff to develop a proposal for hiring the architect, scope to be expanded. (2) Staff to return with the cost impact of the single stoW vs. 2 stow regardless of the limitations on the square footage because the square footage can still be achieved. (3) Review Saratoga FAR relative to the views. (4) Conduct a check in balance with joint meeting minutes. Planning Commission Minutes 16 May 6, 1998 Com. Harris suggested that when the RFP is developed, it be reviewed by some of the consultants who were present at the joint meeting with the City Council. MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to continue 11-Z-97 and 8-EA-98 to the May 26, 1998 Planning Commission meeting SECOND: Com. Mahoney VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF I'HE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on May 11, 1998. Respectfully Submitted, Approved as presented: May 26, 1998