PC 09-28-98CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED M1NUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1998
SALUTETO THEFLAG
ROLLCALL
Commissioners present: Doyle, Hams, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin
Staff present:
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner II; Eileen
Murray, Assistant City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the August 31, 1998 Joint meeting:
Com. Stevens requested clarification on the wording of Page 7, paragraph 2, fifth line from the
bottom; and noted that the word "is" ia the third line from the bottom of the paragraph should be
"il°'. The tiffin line from the bottom of the paragraph was deleted and replaced with "tree and
shrub proposal was the best interim solution rather than ".
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Hams moved to approve the August 3 I, 1998 minutes as emended
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
Minutes of the September 9, 1998 regular meeting:
Com. Mahoney noted that on Page 1-16, the second last line of paragraph 1 should read "wouM
not vote".
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN:
VOTE:
Com. Hams moved to approve the September 9, 1998 minutes as emended
Com. Stevens
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-0-1
Minutes of the September 14, 1998 special meeting:
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN:
VOTE:
Com. Hams moved to approve the September 14, 1998 minutes as
presented
Com. Stevens
Com. Mahoney
Passed 4-0-1
Planning Comrmssion Minutes 2 September 28, 1998
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted a letter received from a resident on
Prunefidge Avenue regarding the apartments.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
8-U-98 and 22-EA-98
Cupertino Dental Group
10383 Torre Avenue
Use permxt for a 1890 sq. ft. addition to an existing building
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of July 13, 1998
Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 1998
Application No.: 14-U-97
Applicant: Ji-Mei Chen
Location: 10580 John Way
Report to Council: Use permit to construct a second story addition to an existing residence.
Tentative City Council hearing date: September 2l, 1998
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1998
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to postpone Applications 8-U-98, 22-EA-98, and
14-U-97 to the October 12, 1998 Planning Commission meeting.
Com. Mahoney
Passed 5-0-0
ORAL COMMUNICATION: Ms. Mabel McFarland, 10567 John Way, said she would not be
able to attend the October 12 meeting, and thanked the Planning Commission and staff for the
progress made, includ'mg the weed control ordinance, and she said that special properties had been
cleaned up. She said she hoped the Planning Commission would continue to listen to the residents
concerning the large homes that are not compatible with the neighborhood. She noted that her
street was not like the proposed Sunset house with 4 or 5 acres, large floor plan and 3 car garage,
and the most recent floor plan for the John Way property included a large entry and a three car
garage which are not compatible. Plans are not the hideaway first heard about and nor is it in
keeping with the present styles on John Way. She said that she spoke to the next door neighbor to
Mrs. Chen and he had submitted two letters concerning his objection to the two story house.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Chair Austin moved the agenda to Item 4.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
6-U-97(M)
O'Bden Group
Valley Oak Development (former Diocese property) South
of I-west of Foothill Blvd. and Rancho San Antonio County
Park and Stevens Creek Blvd.
Use pemfit modification to allow adclitional housing types in Neighborhoods I and 4. Specific
housing types were approved for these areas, and this modification would create a process for
Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 28, 1998
allowing a certain number of additional housing types. Use permit modification to clarify
maximum heights in neighborhoods 2 and 3. Use permit modification to modify grading in
neighborhood 2.
Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell referred to the tentative map/site plan and said that they would be
addressing amending the basic use permit for the former diocese property which is now being
developed by the O'Brian Group. The original approval involved certain housing types for
neighborhoods I and 4; areas 2 and 3 are custom homes with no specific houses approved. Ms.
Wordell said that staff's recommendation was to allow 15% of the residences in areas I and 4 to
differ from the approved housing types, and noted the distribution of housing styles. Ms. Wordell
discussed the proposed requirement of maximum building heights in neighborhoods 2 and 3
because of an oversight in not establishing lower building heights for the single/split level
residences, since the intent of the requirement was to reduce visual impacts. Ms. Wordell
discussed issue three, the amended grading plan for a parcels 1 through 5 in area 2, unit 1. She
pointed out that the proposed grading was completed several weeks ago because of a
misunderstanding of directions to the grading contractor. Staff does not believe the grading
modification has any negative impacts and believes that the visual impact of the bank is softened
by reducing its height.
Mr. Steve Zales, O'Brien Group, referred to the elevations of the cottage style home, and noted
that it was a 3,000 sq. ft. single story home with a 23 ft. ridgeline, which was ~ecifically added for
the condition requiring single story homes on the northern and southern edges of neighborhood 1
that were visually sensitive. He said he felt the 23 feet is constraining in that the lots that this would
be applied to are twice as large in terms of size~ He said most of the homes will have a raised
wood floor foundation which is consistent with better homes and better construction and that adds
18 inches. He requested the Planning Commission to consider the height variance.
Mr. Zales addressed the issue of diversity, stating that diversity has always been their main
objective in the neighborhood, with 28 different home designs plus BMR designs as a result of
input from members of the community, and experience with a similar community in Menlo Park.
He said that the additional requested elevations are to further expand the diversity and provide a
custom look community rather than tract homes. Following Ms. Wordell's review of the how the
approval was written, it was determined that the proposal would have to be submitted to the
Planning Commission for their review. He requested consideration be given to the categorization
of styles in the event a home is presented which staff or commission cannot categorize it to one of
the styles presented which are all subjective in architecture. If it cannot be categorized and is
appealing to the Planning Commission and staff, that it be encouraged, not discouraged, and there
be an opportunity where it gets put in the 70% category as it "encouraged" style or if it is not
appealing, or wants to be discouraged, it could even be turned down or put in the "lets keep these
in the 30% category. He said he felt the proposal which was in the "discouraged" category was a
wonderful home and asked that they consider it in that light.
Mr. Zales answered questions about the FAR. He said the proposed 2 houses for area I compared
to the proposals already approved and are in the range, well below the FAR allowed on most of the
lots; 3400 living space on a 12,000 sq. ft. lot, 3 car garages. He said the houses range from 2800 to
3900 sq. ft. and have 2 and 3 car garages, and he said they would work with Mr. Kelly in terms of
trying to get a custom looking garage. He said there were not plans at this time to sell additional
lots but expected in the next 12 months as they moved toward the northern part of this
neighborhood, particularly in the row of single story to offer more plans. He said they did not
want to repeat the same house four houses down and wanted more diversity, He said he agreed
Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 28, t99g
with Ms. Wordell's objective in having staff make a determination on the majority of cases so as
not to burden the Planning Commission after setting direction. Mr. Zales explained that there were
two neighborhoods, and if it were the 20 new homes, would have at least 10 different homes and
allow a repeat from area 1 to area 4 but wouldn't look to increase repetition.
Com. Harris said she felt it was a construct, major 15%, and until she saw the product, could not
reach a decision. She said that 20 feet for a one story was suitable, 30 feet for a two story. She
said the three different issues were housing types, grading and height.
Com. Doyle said the grading was suitable; he preferred the maximum house height of 20 feet
instead of 23 feet; and he approved the concept of diversity or some addition of designs.
Com. Mahoney said that the grading was appropriate; 23 foot height was suitable because the
single story houses are big by definition, and if limited to 20 the result would be fiat roofs that
would not blend with the house. He expressed concern about the amount of reviews they would
get and said he saw no benefit to putting them in one category and another, and one percent and
another. He said he was open to test some diversity; and would lean toward 10%, with an
exception element; 15% is at directors review; only go to the Planning Commission if staff felt it
wasn't consistent with any of the approved plans.
Com. Stevens said he preferred 10% rather than 15%, with stuff review before. Based on the
information about the Sunset dream house, he said he preferred the 23 foot height. He said he did
not like looking at anything after the fact because it is academic.
Chair Austin said that 23 foot high was too high and would prefer a minimum of 21. She said she
agreed with Com. Harris on 30 ft. for a two story.
Com. Mahoney noted that the bigger the house is, either it will be taller to keep it in scale if you
want to serve it to the roof pitch; or it would be a very flat roof which is going to low peak;
therefore the size of the house and the RHS reading are even bigger, which is why it went to 30
instead of 28. He said he felt it would fit in with the scale of the house.
Chair Austin summarized that three commissioners felt the 23 foot height was acceptable. She said
the designs were all notable, and felt that staff could be trusted to redo them if necessary. She said
she had no preference for 10% or 15%.
Com. Harris said that she was not opposed to approving the use permit if she saw the product. She
noted that the use permit for this property was approved through many hearings, looking at the
product. She said she did not want to see them all, however, would like to see a few prototypes.
She said 10 is making it more restrictive; but if thay liked them, she was not opposed to 30, but at
the present time did not know what they were talking about because they had not seen it. She said
it was very unusual to approve a use permit without seeing the product.
Com. Doyle said that he was in favor of diversity; they have reviewed the site plans and designs
before and was not clear if going from lot to lot would result in a cohesive product.
Chair Austin said she felt it should be 10% of whatever, and it should be reviewed from the
Planning Commission architectural review and not staff.
plannmg Commission Minutes 5 September 28, 1998
Com. Mahoney said that they went through a lot of work and he felt that zero may be the correct
number. He said he would treat it as an exception and did not have a figure in m'md. He said he
was not willing to say start over, but was willing to go with 10% and see a few to get a good sense.
He said that he would also like architectural review.
Chair Austin said that she felt also that it needed architectural review.
Ms. Wordell questioned if the Planning Commission wanted the rem,ffming 15 to come to the
planmng commission directly.
Com. Maboney said that he was not adamant about them having 13; but suggested one in three
different places, noting that it was a big development. Com. Stevens said that his choice of 10%
was up to 10%, but he understood the effort of the other commissioners; however, he said that
change will occur and different ideas ,Mil come forward, and because different ideas are sometimes
good, he would like to see them. Chair Austin said tha~ the issue was whether to have architectural
review of 22 or 15 properties.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 6-U-97 per the model
resolution, ,Mth the heights according to the model resolution, grading per
the model resolution; lower the number to 10%; removal of category
Com. Stevens
Com. Hams
Passed 4-1-0
Com. Doyle said that if the properties return, make certain there is enough information to look at it
in context of the houses around it Com. Mahoney concurred with Com. Doyle. He said he knew
the direction headed about the questions about the FAR, and it was important because they
definitely had a certain scope and scale. Com. Harris said that she opposed the heights, it was a
senstive area, and 23 feet was too high for a one story and inadequate and unacceptable for a one
story to be built at 20 feet.
Chair Austin moved the agenda back to Item 1.
2a.
Application No.
Applicant:
Location:
12-ASA-98
Kelly Gordon Development Corporation
Lot 2, Oak Valley Subdivision (former Diocese property)
Architectural review of a new 4,540 square foot residence in unit 1 (Neightborhood 2)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
2b.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
13-ASA-98
Kelly Gordon Development Corporation
Lot 6, Oak Valley Subdivision (former Diocese property)
Architectural review of a new 5,009 square foot residence in unit 1 (Neightborhood 2)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
2C,
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
14-ASA-98
Kelly Gordon Development Corporation
Lot 9, Oak Valley Subdivision (former Diocese property)
Planning Comnmssion Minutes 6 September 28, 1998
Architectural review of a new 5,052 square foot residence in unit I (Neighborhood 2)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
2d.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
15 -ASA-98
Kelly Gordon Development Corporation
Lot 19, Oak Valley Subdivision (former Diocese property)
Architectural review of a new 4,145 square foot residence in unit 4 (Neighborhood 1)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
16-ASA-98
Kelly Gordon Development Corporation
Lot 8, Oak Valley Subdivision (former Diocese property)
Architectural review of a new 5,188 square foot residence in unit 1 (Neighborhood 2)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
2f.
Application No.
Applicant:
Location:
17~ASA-98
Kelly Gordon Development Corporation
Lot 5, Oak Valley Subdivision (former Diocese property)
Architectural review of a new 4,783 square foot residence in unit 1 (Neighborhood 2)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
2g.
Application No.
Applicant:
Location:
18-ASA-98
Kelly Gordon Development Corporation
Lot 16, Oak Valley Subdivision (former Diocese property)
Architectural review of a new 4,256 square foot residence in unit 4 (Neighborhood 2)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell provided an overview of Items 2a through 2g, architectural
review of 7 homes, 5 in Neighborhood 2, and 2 in Neighborhood 1. She briefly reviewed Exhibit
A Matrix. Following a brief discussion regarding Section II of the model resolution, the wording
in the second sentence "the changes are" was changed to "the proposal is".
Mr. Brian Kelly, Kelly Gordon Development Corporation, said that they worked closely on a
design review with the city and the O'Brien group to come up with a plan to meet the city's design
criteria as well as the O'Bfien design criteria so that the plans were compatible and complementmy
with the overall plan. He said he felt they had the unique opportanity to create a very nice
neighborhood at Oak Valley which is their ultimate goal, and to add some diversity.
Mr. Zales answered questions regarding the architectural features of the various plans, placement
of the garages, landscape plans and setbacks. He said that they would be considering various
methods of textunng the driveways to lessen the impact of the concrete.
Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to
speak.
Planning Commission Minutes ? September 28, 1998
Com. Stevens said that all seven proposed plans met all design standards and guidelines and the
architectural being discussed and said he would approve all plans. Com. Mahoney concurred with
Com. Stevens and said the plans were suitable, and said he was particularly pleased to see stone on
wood used on Cupen/no houses again. Chair Austin said she liked the colors and commented that
she hoped they would not use a mustard color. Com. Doyle said the homes were nice, and
expressed concern that the garages and concrete might dominate the rural environment, and
suggested adding trees to break up their impact. He suggested t~ying to minimize the flat work and
break it up with pavers or similar materials.
A discussion ensued regarding the location of the garages wherein Com. Hams said she did not
recall chi'ection fi:om the Planning Commission relative to turning the garages sideways, which
creates a huge sloth ofconcrote as seen fi:om the street. She said that the discussion was aborn not
having the garages be prominent features which could speak to them facing the street and being set
back or being detached, but it was not stipulated to mm the driveways sideways because as they are
turned sideways, there would be 20 feet of the side of the garage to create architectural features for,
in addition to having the entire curved concrete entry, which she was opposed to. She said she was
agreeable to their discussion to not make them focal points and having them out at the street. She
said she agreed with Com. Doyle that they were fine homes, will fit in, but did not feel it
appropriate to rush approval because a lot of them had focal artseapes instead of landscapes. She
said that the linear park out front is not going to be a softseape because one still has to get to the
driveway. She said she saw a problem with several of them for that reason; the ones that do not
have that problem are evident fi:om the plans, and the remainder were acceptable. She reiterated
her concern about the garage placement and the concrete.
Ms. Wordell said it was a tradeoff, because it was not a condition of approval, but there was
discussion about not having the garages facing the street, and she had talked to the applicants about
discouraging them fi:om doing, so they would be facing sideways.
Chair Austin said she was in favor of approving the proposal and agreed with Corns. Harris and
Stevens.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 12-ASA-9g (Lot 2)
according to the model resolution
Com. Stevens
Corns. Doyle and Harris
Passed 3-2-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mal~oney moved to approve Application 13-ASA-9g (Lot 6)
according to the model resolution
Com. Stevens
Corns. Doyle and Hams
Passed 3-2-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Maboney moved to approve Application 14-ASA-98 (Lot 9)
according to the model resolution
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 28, 1998
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 15-ASA-98 (Lot 19)
according to the model resolution
Com. Stevens
Com. Doyle
Passed 4- 1.0
Com. Doyle commented that he felt they were setting a precedent for ail the other ones in area 8 as
to 80 feet across and 30 feet of driveway.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 16-ASA-98 (Lot 8)
according to the model resolution
Corn, Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 17-ASA-98 (Lot 5)
according to the model resolution
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 18-ASA-98 (Lot 16)
according to the model resolution
Com. Stevens
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-1-0
Com. Doyle said that he felt a precedent was being set for the 40 foot fi.ont.
Chair Austin declared a recess fi:om 8:45 p.m. to 8:55 p.m.
Chair Austin moved the agenda to Item 5.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
l l-Z-98, 8-EA-98 Amendment to RI-Ordinance
City of Cuper6no
Citywide
Public heating to consider an amendment to the Single Family Residentiai ordinance regarding
building mass, setback and height. The Planning Commission will consider an interim ordinance
to address privacy issues.
Staff presentation: Ms. Michele Bjmmm~ Planner II, reviewed that the issues being addressed
through the modifications to the single family ordinance are issues of privacy, mass and design
which would be discussed in three stages. The privacy issue was recently adopted by City Council
after recommendation by the Planning Commission in an ordinance addressing privacy protection
measures with landscaping and window alignment. The second issue, massing, and third issue of
design were being discussed at this evening's meeting.
Ms. Bjurman explained that Mark Srebnik, contract architect, conducted a survey of Cupertino's
single family residential neighborhoods to evaiuate architecture. The purpose of the survey was to
use the survey as a basis for staff to make a recommendation on methods to control building mass
Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 2g, 199R
and to identify architectural themes in the city and make a recommendation on whether any of the
architectural styles should be protected with design requirements.
There was a brief discussion about street U'ee programs.
Mr. Srebnik said that the slide presentation would show the evolution of housing development over
time, how it changed, and depending on when an area was developed, would determine to a large
degree what type of housing was found there. He said in some areas there is original housing types
being re, developed because of land values, which is causing changes to the neighborhoods. He
showed a slide presentation of patterns of housing types throughout Cupertino which include the
Eichler, Polynesian-ranch style, and flat roof Garden Gate. Throughout the slide presentation, he
answered questions about the various housing styles. He pointed out the areas where new two
story homes were being built next to smaller one story homes. He said that the conclusion of the
survey is that some areas don't probably need a lot of attention because they are consistent unto
themselves, but as shown earlier, the developments that are undergoing redevelopment, such as
Garden Gate, where a new house is built next to art older smaller house, the new one tends to be
bigger, and the energy should be focused on those homes. He said the focus would be on
approaches to deal with the mass and bulk issues, which have attempted to be solved by controlling
the size of house through FAR and sometimes dayhght planes and second floor setbacks.
Mr. Srebnik said that rather than spending time to address what is the right number, it could be
approached in a different manner and looked at in a more qualitative approach, saying that perhaps
the issue isn't so much the exact square footage of the house, but it is the perception of the size of
the house and that if you can control the neighbors' perception, perhaps that is the real issue, as
opposed to dictating to somebody that their house should be a certain square footage. He said an
alternative approach is to control the perception of the size through the mass and bulk and perhaps
control that through the amount of wall area at the second floor that is exposed. He said it would
be objective in that there is a simple way of calculating if somebody met this goal, and what it does
is reinforces the approach seen in the slides of those partial two stories and the 1-1/2 story
approaches, by saying that one way to give people the second story that many want but yet control
that mass and bulk could be through control of the amount of wall plane that is exposed.
Referring to the overhead of the second floor wall height, Mr. Srebnik reviewed the alternatives to
addressing building mass, namely quantitative regulations, which include floor area ratio and
daylight plane; and qualitative regulations which include limiting second story wall plane, and
building articulation; as well as other qualitative solutions, which include reducing the height of an
entry feature and/or reducing the height at which second story setbacks are applied will also reduce
building mass. Mr. Srebuik said that they were not proposing any setback changes to the current
zoning. The other aspect is to look at the articulation of the wall plane at the second floor, to
possibly address some concerns.
Referring to the erdaibits, Mr. Srebnik said that the popout could occur any place along the wall,
that it would be something that would occur related to a floor plan, however, it has to be a certain
percentage of the total length of the wall and it has to pop out a certain amount, which would
hopefully provide some of the breakup and avoid some of the sheer flat surface. He said the goal
is to tod to control things in terms of the end result, the design, the things that people see as
opposed to coming at it from some FAR that some may find arbitrary. Relative to the tall enlry,
the staff report discusses reducing the height of the entry features, 10 feet as well as mentioned
earlier, reducing the height of the single story wall plane fi.om 20 feet to 10 or 15 feet to minimize
the mass perception of the single story elements.
Planning Commission Minutes 1o September 28, 1998
Ms. Bjurman explained that the zoning regulations would state that the maximum height of entry
features shall be X height, therefore at plan check it would just be confinned; and relative to wall
height, there is already a section in the RI ordinance that says second stories do not have to be
instituted unfit beyond 20 feet; they would be lowered to whatever figure wanted, 15 or 10. She
said it meant that any proposed structure that has a floor in it, two story, automatically institutes the
second floor setback.
Ms. Bjurman said that it was her goal to add on what staff's recommendation is to address the
building mass and those four recommendations are listed in the staff report. One is to limit the
amount of visible second story wall plane by measuring the total linear length of the second stoq~
area, and limiting that visible full height wall area 50%. q'he second is to require that all new two
stories have wall articulations yet to be defined. The third is to minimize the height of entry
features to what height still yet to be defined; and fourth, reduce the height at which second story
setbacks are applied from 20 feet to 10 feet or some other number. She said if agreed to, staff
would return with an ordinance or additional information if needed.
Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment.
Ms. Marion Alice Jarrett, 20668 Scofield Drive, said that she has lived in the same house since
195 l and was not aware of any problems until the neighbor behind her built a wall with a window,
behind her six foot fence. She said she was asking the Planning Commission to address the issue
as they are addressing the privacy ordinance. She said the neighbor is very tall and can look into
her yard. She requested that while the Planning Commission is addressing the privacy issue, and
working on side setbacks they would consider the setbacks along the back fences.
Ms. Bjurman said that the second story rear setbacks are 25 feet and detached accessory structures
are allowed at 6 feet of setback to be 9 feet of vertical height. She noted that windows are
permitted on a single story ~-ucture as close as 6 feet to a fence, which is currently allowed by the
accessory structure ordinance. She said that a mutual agreement with the neighbor could be
entered into to raise the fence up to 8 feet hi height with signature from adjoining property owners
and a building permit.
Chair Austin suggested that Ms. Jarrett talk to staff about her concern, as her problem was
discussed at a prior meeting.
Ms. Linda Roy, resident, complhnented staff on the outstanding job, and said she was happy to see
people talking about other ways of handling the perception of the building size, rather than trying
to address the size directly, because people in the city want and need large homes to accommodate
their families. She said if there is a way to let them have the size they went without it being
overwhelming to the neighbors, it is definitely the way to go; and is beRer than the daylight plane
because as seen in Los Altos, where you see all the homes look the same and are squat looking, this
allows variety and design and accomplishes many of the goals set out. She suggested also that the
Planning Commission consider in terms of frae ming, that the exposed second story wall is less
obtrusive if it is in the back yard than if it is in the side yard in general. She said with the present
plan they were treating all exposed two story planes the same regardless of whether they face the
fi'ont, the side or the back, and it seemed to be less obtrusive to everybody if it were facing the
back opposed to side yard.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 September 28, 1998
Ms. Bjurman said that Ms. Roy was correct in suggesting that they apply the 50% only as an
example to the sides or to the front.
Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting.
In response to Com. Mahoney's questions, Ms. Bjurman said the proposal was to apply it citywide
to any new homes; and if considering potential redevelopment in the community, the available land
that remains for redevelopment although it may all uniformly relate to one another, still abuts other
properties that are more characteristically single story and ranch style; therefore it would be
proposed citywide. She said that the slides showed a series of designs that integrated the proposed
regulation but still yielded a variety of design. Mr. Srebnik said that he did not feel it would
prevent a certain style, but would prevent having a house that the entire perimeter is full height
exposed second floors.
A brief discussion ensued whereIn Com. Mahoney said that he would like to see in particular how
the mediterranean or neo-mediteraunean would match, to make certain that it is not being wiped
out. Chair Austin said that she felt it should include new construction and remodels. Com. Harris
said that it was a new R1 standard set of rules, and if not to apply to new subdivisions, certain size,
it has to be specified.
Chaff Austin suggested a straw vote on limiting the amount of visible second story wallplane by
measuring the total t/near length of second story area and limiting the visible full height wall area
to 50%.
Ms. Bjurman listed the issues:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Limit visible 2nd story (all walls - front, side, rear; what %)
Wall articulations (any 2nd stories; what wall length)
Ent~ feature heights
2nd story wall plans (20)
Other
Eichler and other (design standards)
Applicability
In response to Chair Austin's request for clarification on the 50% issue, Mr. Srebnik clarified the
50% issue, explaining that per the diagram you would look at a second floor plan, look at the
perimeter walls on the plan, total up, look at each side and add up the perimeter wall length and
divide it by 2 to get 50%; and that is the amount of walls that could be 8 feet high, exposed on the
second story. He said they were proposing the second story could be turned wherever it works
with their design; it was not the intention tonight to say that it could only be on the left side or the
right side. He said the percentage for wall articulation was 10% and could be adjusted.
Com. Harris said she was opposed to the big box second story garage addition that sticks out on
the front of the garage and the long wall 55 feet two story, if the person next door only 5 feet away
has to look at. However, if you temper it with other things then it would be fmc, such as No. 4, if
you make the second story setback begin at 10 fl, namely when you go up the wall 10 feet, you
have to go in 5 that mitigates that hall long wall; if you do the wall articulation. She said she felt
10% was not enough.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 28, 1998
Com. Hams said that she favored 15 feet on the front and 10 feet on the side because the front of
the house has the street, for people far away; whereas on the side of the house there are ve~ small
setbacks. She said she would approve it only if it was coupled with some other things, because she
did not want to have a big prominent second story. She said she preferred only redeveloped areas;
and said that if building a new neighborhood where ali the houses are newly constructed and
modem, she did not feel those neighborhoods should have to go through this process, but should
do whatever is modem. She said she wanted to count the FAR over 15 feet, which would include a
20 foot living room, but the top would count in the FAR. She said it was a sensitive issue, but felt
that a consultant should be contacted regard'rog fen shui matters relative to the large asian
population. Com. Hams said that the streetseape needs to be part of the plan, and questioned if it
would be under design.
Ms. Bjunnan said that the streetscape would be presented at the next meeting to address the
historical and current policies on the issue and maybe be able to have some information about the
species that are currently on the list and what their growth rates are.
Com. Hams remarked that Mr. Srebnik had shown beautiful streets with trees several times and
felt tree easements in new neighborhoods should be included if there are no parking strips. She
said that streetscape should be further discussed. She said she was not ready to totally give up on
FAR, daylight plane and second floor setback changes. She said it was important for people to be
able to enhance their property and fix it up it is an older home, and change their home to meet their
present or perceived needs, and it would have to be done with the privacy impacts dealt with. She
said she was not opposed to redevelopment, and did not agree with some peoples' opinions to not
allow second stories. She said she was in favor of t-1/2 story homes, but not sinking half stoties
into the ground.
Com. Doyle said he felt a lot of what they were trying to do ks reduce the mass, the impact on the
neighbor's right, and were also getting into the design element. He said he did not care if the front
entry is very tall and high because it will be covered when design is discussed. He said he felt they
should not limit the curb impact, because it appears what people are trying to do is have a palatial
looking place from the street but make sure they don't impact on the neighbors and try to address
that on the design side. Relative to the four recommendations, limiting the second story 8 foot
plane is a very novel approach; he agreed with Com. Hams on the need to bring in some other kind
of restriction. He said he liked the daylight plane concept, which tends to give the slope to
properties but it addresses a lot of the fundamentals where formulas or a couple of rules will
convey an intent, but in actual practice it may not execute upon what they had hoped to do. He said
it should apply to new and remodels; Eichlers should be distmguksbed as a different group and
there should be some staff meetings to cover that area. Com. Doyle said he felt the second story
articulation was a good idea. As far as the 10, 20 feet and the like, he said he felt there should be
some way to taper or soften the impacts on the setbacks or those adjoining properties whether it is
a daylight plane, a 10 foot, or whatever else. Relative to the FAR above 15 feet, he said that the
general in line principle is the people should be able to maintain the development that they
currently have allocated, but that when done, it does not impact the person next to them or
minimizes the impact.
Com. Mahoney said that he felt it was a real step forward, that it was not just a size issue, but very
much a design issue. He said if it works to give the design desired and still be objective, it would
make a difference. He said he disagreed that what was being done was just to protect the
neighbors, but he felt they were going beyond that to the whole street ambiance. He said he felt
there was an element and it is a tradeoff on the entry feature heights, of trying to tone down the
Planning Commission Minutes 13 September 28, 1998
design and still let people have the flexibility, therefore he would not have it apply to new
neighborhoods. He said he felt the street impact should be dealt with, but did not know to what
extent. Com. Mahoney said that he agreed with Com. Harris that it has to come together as a
package, but is a great move in the right direction, with more work on percentages and possible
bonuses if it is the back, the side or the front wall articulations. He said he agreed that entry feature
heights should be addressed, not counting it in the FAR; want to pursue restricting entry features;
two story wall planes counting the open space towards the setback. The Eichler homes should be
dealt with at a later time. Relative to applicability, he said it should not be applicable to "new
neighborhoods" and the need exists to define what a new neighborhood is.
Com~ Harris asked if they were going to address the house or garage orientation. She said several
residents brought photos of their homes where they had to look at large curved driveways of
neighbors. She said that they should address the issue and decide whether or not they are going to
deal with and said that one of the things for unifying the neighborhood is orientation,
Com. Stevens said that relative to limiting the amount of visible second story space, he felt it
should be major wall, rather than any wail; if the house is oriented where the longest walls are
facing front and rear, then those two options should be looked at but not the sides, to prevent living
next to a billboard. However, if the lot is rectangular, the front or the back be the total linear
length, he said he did not see 50%, but saw around 35%. Relative to the side walls on that
configuration, front-back being the major, he said he felt there should be a setback 20 to 10.
However, if it were turned to where the lot is rectangular to where it is very narrow on the front,
but deep, then the sidewalk would be the major wails. He said it was redevelopment area, and
wanted to address it as a major wall rather than any wail; and he saw No. 1 as being the major wall.
Applicability, if you live against a creek or if you have a freeway abutting, that particular wall is
not a problem because it is not going to be seen by anybody: He said he felt it should be at least as
a statement that you can say, this is non applicable because I live against a creek. He said he did
not have a major concern with minimizing the height feature, but felt it should be mainly for
aesthetic looks. Com. Stevens said he agreed with reducing the height to which second story
setbacks apply. He said he did not like the billboard effect on a five foot setback against another 5
foot setback. He said the FAR was good and seems to be no major objection. He said Exhibit A
looks dominantly ranch, but ranch doesn't define; and the ranch homes on Montebello Ridge are
all two story but are still listed as ranch. He said he preferred redevelopment only.
Chair Austin said that the qualitative regulations are much more appealing, the perception of the
size of the house is what people see and she did not want to do away with the present FAR. nor
change the heights and the setbacks in existence on the sides and the back. She said she agreed
with Com~ Hams that the first four recommendations be interwoven, and agreed relative to
investigating the numbers, such as counting the 15 feet, and the FAR over 15 feet as a method to
explore of the cathedral entry way or grand entry way. She said she felt it should be for all new
building. She said the streetscape sets the tone in a neighborhood and community and she was in
favor of it. Fen Shul should be considered for placement. Chair Austin complemented the
consultant and staff for the excellent work and said she wanted to see more of what is in
Cupertino's neighborhoods.
Relative to the Eichler issue, Com. Doyle suggested that staff meet with the Eichlcr neighborhood
to try and define some distinctive design guidelines. There was consensus to address the issue at a
future meeting, as well as building orientation, including garages.
Planning Commission Minutes 14 September 28, 1998
Referring to his earlier remarks, Com. Stevens said as an overall role, he was opposed to daylight
plane because it is applicable in only half the cases.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 11-2-97 to the
November 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Doyle
Passed 5-0-0
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Relative to the Rt
ordinance, Com. Harris questioned which exception clause was omitted by the city attorney. Ms.
Murray said that it was the exception clause with the least modification. She said that she would
provide the information to Com. Harris. Relative to Mr. Kilian's letter to Councilmember James,
Com. Harris requested clarification regarding the wording relative to the sale of alcohol.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to the regular Planning
Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on October 12, [998.
Respectfully Submitted,
Approved as presented: October 12, 1998