Loading...
PC 01-13-88 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 T01Te Avenue. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 13, 1988 Meeting Held irt the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Ave. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: 7:30 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairman Mackenzie Vice Chairwoman Sorensen Commissioner Adams Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Szabo Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Plannirtg Director PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application No(s) Applicant: Location: I-GPA-87 and 52-EA-87 City of Cunertino Citywide GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (I-GPA-87) 1. Clarification that the Floor Area Ratio bonus policy applies to the Traffic Inten- sity Performance Standard area. 2. Consider policies requiring residential design standards regulating height, bulk and mass of sirtgle-family homes. FIRST HEARING CONTINUED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 1,1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan presented the Staff Report and noted that two basic approaches to regulations were ministerial and discretionary; examples were cited. ResDonse of the Plannirtl! Commission: Commissioner Sorensen commented as follows: Noted the concern of the community regarding big houses on small lots Questioned whether the market caused this change - Traffic impacts to be considered - Neighborhood consistancy to be preserved Commissioner Adams: Questioned how large a house was acceptable Development of reasonable guidelines whereirt the burden of compliance was on the developer; use of mirtisterial approach PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. Adjourned Regular Meeting of January 13, 1988 Page 2 PC - 535 ~ . ,~ ~ ¡ (; .;ú PUBUC HEARING Continued ""~: ',..'. :,,'.' ':' _ _. " ,:¡¡r,,"J,' ,. ,',', "j' ., ;::-: ,. .Co,mmís~ioner Cla#dy: ....... '" ' - Houses are ilirge in proportion to'the10t; he rioted ~. community's concern regardirtg the size of new houses and one-story vs. two-story. He noted the impact of infIlllots ,- F.avored the, qeve~opm~n,tof re¡¡sonable butp:rinimum regulations f:.av~ithe.~sery,atiol\.i?nommunity ch:uacter, . .Sugg~sts.~lpmn~n?n~f ~el~h~r's penmssio,! to .a~teror add to an existing house; the Planmng C0Ip1D.1ssl0n l~ n:sponSlble for resolvmg such issues C01IllDÌssioner Szabo:.. ...' "J " ' .'.... - FeÌt that à problem existed and cite4 the fact iljat 40% of à lot could be covered Suggested the following aþproach to address this problem: - ~nfIll area (s~.ou,n,g¢bM,.\le~hborhood chaf'acter); he favored protection of vested mterest of eXl~W1gpropertyown~. . "." .'. - Isolated areas; lie would be more lement with 'reqùests for larger houses Chairman Mackenzie: L .';..1."" '.', '; j~" ,::":' - . Noted that Plan led DeYcelpRwem,s,JJ:1þ~J¡a9Jarge hQuses on proponionally small lots; howc:vc:r,~-lþ()usingsta!l~s usua)lyapp1i¥to PD, - No disuncnon between develQp';UC!nt. of!nf,tAys. ~~la~ area .. Favored the development of Otyw¡de'standards; Wllhng to compronuse neIghborhood compatibilityifnecessary " '";,,, f'" ....,:. Staff Repon, Table 7, comÍnented ~foíIO\ys: - Add, "Citywide compatibility'" ünder DesÌlm - Questioned "Protect Views~'and "Pro~tPrivacv'~ on.the predominantly 6,000 - 7,500 sq. ft. lots in Cuperti¡¡o~ OPPA$ed to thè qtý of Saratoga - Aesthetics: such was primarjly in the eYF of the beholder Chr. Mackenzie opened the discussion to membër~ 'of the public. Mr. Richard Childress, spoke on behalf of the. development industry; he noted that many of these professionals were also residents of Cupertinp.. Hedefmed the following issues: Size of houses: as defined by FAR, bulk or design? ' . - Privacy intrusion: hard to achieve on infilllots; defirtition of privacy in terms of lot size - Style of houses: noted the desire of property own~ to determirte style of their houses - "Wall" effect of houses; noted efforts to achieve relief from this effect - Compatibility; neighborhood or city compatibility? Problems previously cited. - Hag lots need clearly defmed rules; cited current regulations on increased setbacks - Property rights; need to balance rights.of property owner with other's rights "Pull up the gang plank" theory; individuals movirtg to Cupertino also had rights - Lead time; implementation of requirements-cited financial impact of new regulations New regulations to apply only to R-l zones; greatest impact will be felt by remodels - Softenirtg and screenirtg of mature landscaping--new houses initially appear large Mr. Alan Snyder, 19 year resident of Cupertino, cited the followirtg concerns: Privacy between lots, houses - Requirement for fireproof roofing - Building to include more quality of design, landscaping PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting of January 13, 1988 Page 3 PC - 535 PUBLIC HEARING Continued Mr. Alan Worth, 10 year Cupertino resident, noted recent development in the City which disturbed him; he cited lack of light and air, privacy impacts from two-story houses adjacent to single-story homes. Mr. Bruce Smith, Wilkinson Ave., Cupertino, urged neighborhood specific standards be adopted; selecting specific characteristics from a community wide base would be 1lifficult. In response to a request for information, Mr. Piasecki compared Table 1 of the Staff Report relating to development history with Table 3' describing lot sizes. Mr. Childress noted that defining a neighborhood could be difficult at times; definirtg such irt order to remodel an existing home was even more difficult. r- Mr. Pat Sheemy, Squire Hill Ct., Cupertino, questioned the accuracy of Table 3; examples cited. He noted the need for strong restrictions in order to retain the character of the City. Mr. Jim Wilmore commented as follows: La Playa Ct., advised that local interest was widely shared - Questioned existing regulations; Chr. Mackenzie discussed prescriptive regulations - Property rights should favor existing residents who were citizens of the City; Developers should accommodate existing residents ' . Mr. Childress responded that restrictions should apply equally to new construction as well as to existing property; he noted that current restrictions are stricter now than previously. Ms. Jane Chiavagi, Local Realtor, shared concerns of the Cupertino Gatden Club: - Big homes on small lots; prospective home owners wanted back yards - Reduced density and preservation of a rural character in Cupertino Pace development to extend irtto the 1990's, avoid obsolescence - Add Staff to monitor housing construction and review projects - Homes built on steep inclines, overshadowing other homes; safety concerns noted - Style: apply conventional wisdom of design in R-l; avoid eclectic mixtures - Completing Route 85 might reduce pressure on the housing market iI} the Oty Ms. Eleanor Werner, Local realtor and Cupertino resident, commented: - Neighborhood development on Bianey Ave. area; density, traffic impacts cited - Compatibility (homogenous) neighborhoods should be understood - Asked that residents be contacted regarding a proposed development - Cited impact of foreign investment on housing demand; noted increased density Mr. Ed Ford suggested a limit on number of residential construction permits issued per year. Mr. Perry asked if new regulations would have a lag time before going into effect and urged variety in tract developments. Mr. Ford further commented as follows: - Encouraged R-l Design Review; - Focus on housing goals that are possible and timely. Ms. Hilda Wong, Developer, commented on the marketability of her developments; irttent of project is luxury housing without the burden of a large lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting of January 13, 1988', ,. Page 4 PC - 535 PUBLIC HEARING Continued Mr. F:enton.IJill. McClellan Road resident,. commented as· follows: - With respect to remodels, localized standards are impractical , Hillside development differences from development on the valley floor should be recognized irt development standards - Architectural review for individual homes was impractical due to time limits Mr. Mike Meyer, Greenbrier Development Co., commented as follows: - Concerned about future development of Doyle School site - Standard should be compared to R-l; not Planned Development (PD) - Feels diversity already exists irt Cupertino - Architectural Review Board process is too difficult for ordinary remodels - Applications already made shoul~. get notice and reasonable opportunity to respond Mr. Jeff McKeuen, 4 year Cupertino resident, commented as follows: - Control abrupt differences in irtfill projects; Citywide standards will not address this issue - Noted the difficulty and cost of archite<:tUral'review on remodelling projects - Implementation of neighborhood standards requires definition of "neighborhood" Ms. Ann Anger, Cupenino resident for 43 years, quote a recent newspaper survey of housing preferences. .. Mr. Art Reed commented as follows: - Housing market should accotfunödate upscalè buyers - Suggested a possible geometric daylight plane between housing units - Encouraged requirement for ~hitectural interest. on front of homes Mr. Dick Oliver, Dividend Development Corp., - Discouraged R-l Design Review - New projects should not be compared with existing development because of differirtg maturity of landscape - Diversity of style within a neighborhood was acceptable - Landscapirtg was crucial in creating harmony and softening the effect of starkness and bulk; such should be required of all developments Mr. Dick Childress, Debcor Corp., summarized as follows: 1. Major problem is second floor irt terms of size and relation to street; - Suggested requirement for variable second story setback - Encourage sideyard/rear garages to reduce bulk, irtcrease living space, eliminate garage doorlparked car appearance; providè spacirtg between houses. - Stricter control on houses with second story elements which back up to R-l homes: - .25 2nd story FAR where not adajacent to existing R-l - .20 2nd story FAR where adajacent to existing R-l - Variable front setbacks and meanderirtg street alignment 2. Suggested eliminating neighbor's permission for construction work, especially for remodelling 3. Attic space above 7 ' height counted as living space and included in FAR Mr. Jordon Stetitinius commented as follows: - Discouraged R-l Design Review Suggested enforcirtg reasonable diversity irt design, lot size and irttensity of development PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting of January 13, 1988 Page 5 PC - 535 PUBLIC HEARING Continued Consensus reached by the Commission to continue discussion at the next regular meeting. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to Continue Application I-GPA-87 and 52-EA-87 to the Meeting of January 25, 1988. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. MOTION: Com. Claudy nominated Com. Sorensen for Chairperson SECOND: Com. Adams MOTION: Com. Adams moved to close the nominations SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 The Chair called for a vote on the Motion ValE: Passed, Com. Sorensen abstaining 4-0-1 MOTION: Com. Claudy nominated Com. Adams for Viœ-Chairperson SECOND: Com. Szabo MOTION: Com. Claudy. moved to close the nominations for Vice-Chairperson. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 The Chair called for a vote on the Motion. VOTE: Passed, Com. Adams abstaining 4-0-1 OLD BUSINESS: - None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: · Com. Mackenzie reported on a recent ~ayor's Luncheon REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: · None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: · None