Loading...
PC 03-28-88 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 28, 1988 Meeting Held in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Ave. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: 7:30 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Sorensen Vice Chairman Adams Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Szabo Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planning Director Travice Whitten, Assistant Oty Engineer Charles Kilian, City Attorney Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Com. Adams asked that on Page 6, third paragraph to read, "...if this Application..." MOTION: Com. Adams moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 14, 1988, as amended. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS! ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - Letter received from Mr. Jim Jackson addressing Item 3 of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 1: Application No(s) ApplicaJIt: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): l-Z-88 and l-EA-88* Monta Vista Bible Church Same as above 21971 McClellan Rd. between McClellan Rd and San Fernando Ave. .50 +- REZONING: (l-Z-88) From BQ (Quasi-Public) to RI-7.5 (Single-family, Residential, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 18, 1988 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 28, 1988 Page 2 PC - 540 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan presented the Application and a site map; he called attention to the Engineering Geologic Reconnaissance Study, Conclusions and Recommendations. Secondly, the proposed action would delete three parking spaces; the Church proposed to restructure parking and complete other site improvements at a future date. At such time, parking/circulation patterns could be addressed. Staff did not regard such as significant. Com. Claudy confirmed that access between the development and Church property would be closed when a cul-de-sac was built preventing use of the driveway as a throughway. Apnlicant's Presentation: Mr. Robert Leong, subdivder, provided information on lot sizes requested by Com. Szabo. In response to Com. Adams' question, he stated that either a wooden or concrete fence would be built between the lots to be sold and the Church property; a final decision on materials hild not yet been made. Com. Mackenzie questioned impacts of a residential use abutting a Quasi-Public use; Mr. Cowan conímned that such would be considered when a Use Pennit was applied for. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Rylan Luke, 10434 San Femando Ave., Cupertino, commented as follows: _ Did not object to lot sizes nor the single-faIIÚly houses proposed _ Residents were concerned that San Fernando Ave. remain closed to through traffic _ Preferred a mirti cul-de-sac be installed; such would have less impervious coverage and prevent cars from making speedy turn arounds _ Asked that a pedestrian wa1kway/bicycle path be allowed at the end of the street _ Asked that the large Oak tree on the property to be developed be preserved Mr. Vincent Strenulo, represented his grandmother, 10386 San Fernando Ave., Cupertino; she was not opposed to the proposed houses but was not favorable to a through street. Mr. Clay Stokes, Paster, Monta Vista Bible Church, addressed neighbors concerns stating that the Church did not intend a throughway; secondly, one lot was to be the parsonage. Mr. Anthony Scionti, 22079 San Fernando Ct., Cupertino, stated that neighbors' only concern was through traffic; there were no objection to pedestrian traffic. A member of the public suggested an easement to allow pedestrian access. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to close the Public Hearirtg. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 In response to Com. Claudy's question, Mr. Kilian did not think Conditioning a Zoning Application to preclude a through road or access would be appropriate; however, a Minute Order addressing this concern could be adopted. Mr. Cowan noted that the Monta Vista Plan was well defined with precise circulation plans; there was no traffic circulation shown through this site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 28, 1988 Page 3 PC - 540 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy moved approval of Application l-EA-88 (Negative Declaration) Com. Adams Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy moved to recommend approval of Application l-Z-88, per the Model Resolution. Com. Adams Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy moved to send a Minute Order stating the Commission's desire that there be no vehicular access from San Fernando Ave. to the Church site. Com. Szabo Passed 5-0 ITEM 2. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 4-U-88 and 9-EA-SS* James H Sisk/ferrv Brown Edwin/Carol FedeTSj)iel East side of Scenic Blvd !\ppmximately 450 ft north of Palm Ave 2.5 +- Parcel Area (Acres) USE PERMIT (4-U-88) To allow construction of five detached single-family dwell- ings and provide access to a sixth parcel located on the south side of the property. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 4, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan presented a Site Map and Exhibits showirtg the property relative to street patterns in the area and a comparison of boundaries of the original Application with the Item under consideration. The Application was reviewed. Staff recommended approval of 5 units with access beirtg derived from an upper portion of the site, rather than from Riveria Rd. as formerly requested; Conditions to make clear that a specific plan was not being approved at this time; rather, if the conceptual access proposed were approved, a Use Permit application would be submitted irt the future. He noted a change irt Condition of Approval, 17. Develonment Standards d) to read 370 ft. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Terry Brown addressed the Conditions as follows: 13. Private Streets, street width to be specified 30 ft. allowing parkirtg on one side; such could be accommodated on Lots 23 and 24 by shifting the house to the east. 24. Development Rivhts: questioned the "open space area;" it was not the intent of the Applicants to provide open space and/or common areas. Mr. Cowan responded that the Condition protected the 10 ft. hillside from development or accessory structures and did not imply a common open area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 28, 1988 Page 4 PC - 540 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kilian suggested a Condition that no structures or other types of irttrusions be built on the hillside with a deed restriction recorded in language acceptable to the Oty Attorney. Com. Claudy added that solid fencirtg would be prohibited irt the designated open area. Mr. Brown responded that 6 ft. solid fencirtg was not anticipated on site; any fencing to be irtstalled would probably be subject to ASAC review. In response to CQm. Szabo's concerns on the appearance of pole construction from below, Mr. Brown stated that Lot 28 could not develop without pole construction; however, such was not true of other lots. Lot 28 was not part of the Application under consideration. The Public Hearirtg was then opened. Ms. Helen Adzich, Scenic Blvd. Cupertino, was pleased at the 30 ft. driveway proposed and asked that a stone or concrete fence be irtsta1led to buffer noise and odors. Mr. Richard Gallant, 10335 Scenic Blvd., Cupenino, questioned whether neighbors would be able to view elevation plans. Mr. Cowan responded that building shape and configuration were to be determirted by the daylight plane map presented at the hearirtg. Com. Szabo was concerned that a fence on Scenic Blvd would create a view impairment; Com. Mackenzie noted that a solid fence required a building permit; traffic/safety hazards would be assessed at that time. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to close the Public Hearirtg. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 Mr. Piasecki suggested a Condition 27 to read, "Applicant/property owner shall forfeit all rights of access to the paper street known as Riveria Rd." Mr. Brown had no objection. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved approval of Application 9-EA-88 SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 4-U-88 subject to the conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Repon and this Hearing; Conditions 1-12; Condition 13, to read irt part, "..24 ft. in width plus 6 ft. in parking, totaling 30 ft." Conditions 14-16; Condition 17 b) deleted. Wording to be added to indicate that a fence along the private driveway be a solid fence (stucco or masonry); c) to read "370 ft." Conditions 18-23; Condition 24, replace the first paragraph to indicate that a CC&R's would be recorded on each lot irt a form acceptable to the City Attorney insuring that the open space area is not used in a manner detrimental to the adjacent natural hillside and that no permanent structures be built. Second paragraph as stated. Conditions 25-26; adding a Condition 27 to read, "Applicant/propeny owner shall forfeit all rights of access to the paper street known as Riveria Rd SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 28, 1988 Page 5 PC - 540 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 3: Application No(s) Applicant: Location: Parcel Area (Acres) 81.004.18 (RI). 81.004.12HA. AI). 81.004.8 (RHS) 2-EA-88. 3-EA-88 and 4-EA-88 City of Cupertino Citywide .NLA AMENDMENT OF THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL ZONING ORDINANCES: Rl Residential, Single-family RHS Residential, Hillside Al Agricultura1-Residentj.al A Agricultura1 Said amendments may irtclude revision of the requirements pertaining to setbacks, height, building area, bulk, lot size, landscapirtg, definitions and uses. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: No action taken at this time. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 18, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the history of this Application. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Alf Modirte, Property Owner, requested irtformation on the Ordinance amendment; Mr. Cowan provided irtformation on the origins of this document Mr. Richard Childress, 11701 Regnart Canyon Dr., Cupertino, commented as follows: - Noted the progress made on this Ordinance amendment - Asked that irt Cornnarison' Setback and Buildini Area. c1arification was required - Noted that the second floor width was restricted to 50% of fIrst floor area; such would create a number of design impediments. . He asked that greater flexibility be allowed - Wished to confirm that setbacks, especially front/rear setbacks, did not include unen- closed spaces, such as porches The original proposal was that garages not be irtcluded in the FAR; such would reduce the size and usability of garages since home owners wanted more floor space. If garages had been excluded from the FAR and considered a separate entity, he would not object to reducing the .5 FAR; however, he was reluctant to see the garages reduced and for that reason was favorable to the.5 FAR. If the Commission wished to exclude, for example, the fIrst 600 sq. ft. of garage so as not to discourage irtdividuals from providing storage and garage area, then reducing the FAR for the buildirtg would not be a problem. Mr. Childress concurred with Com. Szabo that alternating setback allowances prevented a "walled" effect; he discussed differences between remodelled projects and new homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 28, 1988 Page 6 PC - 540 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Terry Brown questioned the rationale for irtcreasing setbacks for fIrst story elements when the intent was to reduce mass; he equated mass with second story structures. Increasing front and rear yard setbacks on the fIrst story portion and maintainirtg the total FAR, the effect was to force the buildirtg of second stories; such seemed self defeating. As long as the rear yard area was 20 times the lot width, it seemed unreasonable to require that the front of remodelled homes be further from the street when other houses would be closer. If a new house were being built, the garage would have a 30 ft. long driveway; such was not quite long enough for two cars. Mr. Darrel Fazekas, Architect, was concerned that FAR's used in adjacent cities not be used in Cupertino; he proposed stricter ,standards for setbacks across the board. Property owners remodelling their homes suffered from FAR's, combined and percentage setbacks. He suggested consideration of Los Altos Hills' setback standard, without the FARs; the rationale beirtg that privacy impacts resulted from second story additions. Examples cited. Mr. Neil Burger reviewed Monta Vista housing and noted that individuals he was fanùliar with could not afford second story additions. Mr. Bob McLoskey, Rainbow Dr., Cupertino, commented as follows: Was not favorable to current buildirtg irt the City and favored imposition of restrictions Felt that residents who liked the environment and amenities offered by the City were not favorable to the current building irt the Oty Heard arguments that big houses were required on expensive lots; developers drove the prices up. Perhaps smaller homes would bring the prices back down Mr. Jan Stoeckemius, 22386 Cupertino Rd., Cupertino, commented as follows: If numbers on setbacks proposed were worked out: - The maximum house size with a .50 FAR on a 55 by 100 lot would be 2600 sq. fL - Maximum house size with a .55 FAR on the same lot would be 2500 sq. ft. Excepting the 100 sq. ft., individuals wouldn't care whether it was a setback or a FAR With respect to strict FARs verses percentage FARs, the latter was be more flexible Examples cited of percentage FARs Com. Mackenzie commented as follows: One problem with a strict setback was that houses ended up looking identical Design variety was required, especially with the number of infilllots or tract housirtg FAR controlled overall size without strict requirements on placement of struCture If overall size was controlled by setbacks, then setbacks became rigid Was favorable to the idea of excluding some square footage of the garage Favored setback which allowed a fairly large buildable pad and the FARs An additional setback to be applied on the left/right side or front yard or combination of the three to provide public open spaces; such would promote staggering of houses Such would provide flexibility irt providirtg rear yard area Com. Claudy commented as follows: Noted consideration of the ideas above The issue which precipitated this Ordinance amendment was the perception of mass PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 28, 1988 Page 7 PC - 540 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Com. Claudy continued as follows: It was relative mass, i.e., large houses with limited setbacks and small lots Suggested consideration of determinirtg the FAR, the fIrst story setbacks and the amount left over and such was the house that could be built; examples were presented Result was larger houses on larger lots with an increase irt the absolute amount of open space; relative space available was also irtcreased Favored inclusion of garages in calculating square footage; such contributed to the perception of mass Com. Adams felt that whatever conclusion the Commission came to, a minimum garage floor space area had to be irtcluded; he suggested consideration of a sub floor area or per- centage of the total FAR be set aside for an enclosed garage portion. In the case of a 3,500 or 4,000 sq. ft. house, he felt thát three car garage stalls should be required. Com. Szabo commented as follows: Favored exclusion of a portion of the garage with appropriate adjustment irt the FAR Counting garage area in the FAR would be ineffective for reasons already cited Favored the .5 FAR; the greater flexibility given the better Was unfavorable to the 30 ft. setback; such elimirtated rear yard space Chr. Sorensen commented as follows: Favored a strict FAR; .4 with a.l for the garage Favored flexibility irt setback requirements; such addressed design flexibility Com. Claudy added that setback requirements were more difficult for remodelled houses to comply with than new construction; he noted his efforts to allow flexibility irt such matters. In any case the perception of bulk needed to be reduced. Com. Szabo added that remodelled houses would not be built straight up thus relieving perception of massiveness; irt new construction, there was greater flexibility. Mr. Childress confirmed that new construction also built straight up; examples cited. Front and rear yards were important sirtce landscaping along the sides of houses obscured the structures themselves within fIve to ten years. He favored the Commission's effons to allow flexibility irt design. Chr. Sorensen was concerned about the lack of landscapirtg irtstalled in new construction. Mr. Piasecki cautioned that Ordinance requirements for the small percentage of sites where landscapirtg had not been installed in a timely manner would be an enforcement problem; Com. Claudy added such might discourage the plannirtg and installation of landscaping by professionals and/or consciousness homeowners. The Commission summarized the above discussion and asked that Staff irtcorporate such irt a final draft to be presented to the Commission forreview Apri125, 1988. Mr. Sam Marchese asked that A-I be discussed by the Commission. Consensus reached by the Commission to adopt Staff Recommendation on A-I. Mr. Marchese felt that 5 ft. side yard setbacks were too close; 10 ft. setback was preferred. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meetirtg of March 28, 1988 Page 8 PC - 540 NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ' ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:30 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of April 11, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. Respecûully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission At the Regular Meeting of April 11, 1988 ~ I 1..1 . ... ,.,;/ .' . ..¡¡;!(2'IPM'ú"Lð- ee Sorensen; Chairwoman