Loading...
PC 11-18-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1998 CONFERENCE ROOMS C AND D; 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Doyle, Harris, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner II; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z-97, 8-EA-98 City of Cupertino Citywide Amendment to the single family residential ordinance (Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) regarding building mass, setbacks and height. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 1998 Staff presentation: Mr. Mark Srebnik, contract architect, showed a slide presentation of examples of two story homes in Cupertino. He reported that they would be addressing issues relative to the 15 foot entry height, two story walls; the height of the walls in general and how is affects the massing of the house. Referring to the overheads, he said that some of the proposed changes would affect the massing along one side of the house, and the concept of articulating the wall would break up some of the boxiness of some of the houses. He referred to computerized perceptions of a home, and pointed out that discussion would not include reduction of square footage, or changing the mass of homes by making the house smaller, but would include items attributing to mass differently to visually lessen the impact of any proposed house. He illustrated computerized perceptions of a house incorporating proposed design changes such as lowered entry features. Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 18, 1998 Referring to the various exhibits in the staff report, Mr. Srebnik discussed the quantitative and qualitative approaches to addressing building mass, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends the qualitative approach, which includes limiting amount of visible second story wall plane by measuring the total linear length of second stor~ area and limiting the visible full height wall area to 50%; requiring that all new second stories have wall articulations; minimize the entry feature height; and reduce the height at which second story setbacks are applied from 20' to 10'. Mr. Srebnik explained that the proposal included two methods to move forward on design. The first for an effective 2 story design, is to meet the 50% rule which is to have 50% of the walls fully exposed 8 feet tall as can presently be done, with the other 50% having some type of roof buffering, to mask the appearance of the second floor. The other method is to limit the second floor walls to 5'8" and then go with the steeper pitch roof such as in the older style I-1/2 story. Mr. Srebnik referred to the exhibit of a second floor plan, with the 5'8" walls at the perimeter and sloped ceiling towards the middle for a higher volume going into the center of the house. He also illustrated examples of dormers, and other roof styles. He then illustrated and discussed various exhibits of different roof shapes, placement of garages, daylight plane graphics, second floor plan wall articulation examples, and comparison of full and partial two story buildings. He said that on his tour of the different neighborhoods, he found subtle differences in houses, noting that when most of the other houses were developed, some of the differences resulted from lot sizes, which allowed for different forms of the house. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Leslie Bemell, 21466 Hollyoak Drive, expressed concern about large houses being built beside the smaller older homes, and questioned if the guidelines would be applied citywide. Mr. Srebnik responded that the rules were merely guidelines and were not meant to discourage or encourage the two story additions to homes. Mr. V. McFarland, 10567 John Way, asked if remodels, which included destruction of the entire house with the exception of one post standing, would this be covered. Ms. Bjurman responded that any second story or addition would have to comply only if the walls were greater than 5'8". Ms. L. Baltusis, commented that her house would be blocked from the sun with the addition of a larger house. It was noted that daylight plane was not being addressed at this time. Ms. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendahl Lane, presented copies of a survey taken in the Eichler homes neighborhood. Mr. Bob Swenke questioned how staff arrived at the 25 foot height and commented that a 24 foot height was more suitable as lumber was sold in 4 foot modules. He noted that 25 foot heights would result in wasted materials and add to the construction cost. Ms. M. Jarrett, 20668 Scofleld Drive, asked that when considering setbacks, consideration be given to including a condition that freestandings be added to the lots. Ms. Bjurman said that in- law quarters would have to be one story. Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 18, 1998 Mrs. M. McFarland, 10567 John Way, said that she was still concerned about the large homes fitting in with the ranch style homes in the established neighborhoods. She commented that neighbors have commended her and Mr. McFarland for their efforts and said that the residents of Cupertino are upset with the large homes being built'in the es~blished neighborhoods of smaller homes. She said she felt it was not a fair comment that all neighborhoods would eventually be redeveloped, as her former neighborhood in San Jose had not been redeveloped. She reiterated that many of the huge homes were not compatible with the existing neighborhoods. Mr. L. Burnell, commented that he recently viewed valances, trellises and accessories on buildings in Cupertino. In response to Mr. Schwenke's question, there was consensus that the 15 foot height was identified from the plate line. Mr. C. Chang, an architect and non-resident of Cupertino, commented that many houses in Cupertino were owned by Oriental families who wanted certain features of homes such as large front entry ways and open space. He encouraged staffto better educate all cultures on other ways to accomplish things and other features for homes. Ms. R. Coshone, resident, said she felt all ethnicities needed to be educated on the value of property. The issues were summarized: (1) 15 foot height; (2) 24 foot or 25 length modules; (3) 2 foot depth; (4) entry feature regulations (5) AIA coordination; design limitation, cost increase; (6) test standards - narrow lots, Rancho, Eichler, citywide/new development; (7) applicability - citywide remodeled; (8) projections - negative/positive; (9) architectural types to be affected; and (I0) overhangs. Com. Harris said she felt the 15 foot height was appropriate and 24 foot lengths suitable. She said she did not feel the 2 foot depth was enough, perhaps should be 3 or 4 foot depth; entry feature should be 15 feet to the plate; AIA coordination appropriate; suggested architect's review against the Monta Vista, Polynesian Ranch, Eichler, and Rancho to see if it applies or needs to be tweaked. She said that applicability should include all new additions, every house, and every renovation. She said projection was suitable, but needs to be more than 2 feet; and she was not in favor of overhangs. Com. Harris recommended that a general statement be included to encourage neighborhood impact consideration related to the development at that location. Com. Doyle said the 15 foot height was appropriate; 24 foot length suitable; 2 foot depth too shallow, 5 feet would be more appropriate; no limit on entryway features; AIA coordination appropriate, design limitations: yes. Relative to test standards, he said that it should be applied on a demonstrated area. Applicability: the overall rule should be applied to the entire city; remodels should apply every way; he said that negative and positive offsets were good things to have. He said that relative to architectural types to be affected, he did not want restrictions on certain styles, and they should reflect the surrounding community; overhangs were appropriate. Com. Mahoney said that the 15 foot FAR was appropriate; he was not certain relative to 15 foot setback; 25 foot module suitable; 2 foot depth appropriate; entry feature of 15 to 16 feet to plate appropriate; AIA coordination appropriate; agreed with test standards; except new development Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 18, 1998 on applicability; offsets either negative or positive. Relative to architectural types that would be affected, Com. Mahoney said that it would have to be addressed. He said that he encouraged roof overhangs. Com. Stevens said that 15 foot FAR was appropriate; setbacks: possibly; 24 foot or 25 foot lengths appropriate; 2 foot depth suitable, but not the only way; entry feature: 15 feet appropriate; agreed with AIA coordination; test standards to include Rl(i) also; applicability to include new development and remodels; positive or negative projections; encouraged overhangs. Chair Austin said that 15 feet was appropriate for both; was in favor of 24 foot or 25 foot lengths, whichever was most economical; preferred to have 2 foot depth increased to 3 feet; limitation of 15 feet for entry feature; in favor of AIA coordination; test standards to see if they fit, but not limit them. Relative to applicability, new develo, pment should follow same standards; negative or positive projections; amhitectural types to meet the surrounding community; roof overhangs appropriate. A brief discussion followed, wherein there was consensus that daylight plane was not an issue. There was consensus to continue the item so that the applicant could address cost impacts, address limits on two story entry, and expand definitions. There was consensus to continue Application 11-Z-97 and 8-EA-97 to the December 16, 1998 regular Planning Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPM3ENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p;m. the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on November 23, 1998. Respectfully Submitted, Approved as presented: December 14, 1998 Recording Secretary