Loading...
PC 09-08-08CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED ]VIINUTES 6:45 P.M. SEPTEMI3ER 9, 2008 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regulaz Planning Commission meeting of September 9, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Jessica Rose Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki Senior Planner: Gary Chao Assistant Planner: Elizabeth Pettis APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. M-2008-04 Modification of the Architecture and Site Approval Michael Ducote (Villa (ASA-2007-O.S) to amend the fees required by Serra Apartments) the conditions of approval. Tentative City Council date: 20800 Homestead Rd. September 16, 2008 Elizabeth Pettis, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for modification of the azchitectural and site approval to amend the fees required by the conditions of approval, :For the development of a proposed new public pazk, as outlined in the staff report. • On July 3, 2007 the City Council approved the expansion of the Grove and Villa Sierra Apartments, a new recreational facility, leasing; office, and development of a new public pazk. As part of the approval, the applicant is required to dedicate the land for the pazk, pay pazk Cupertino Planning Commission 2 September 9, 2008 acquisition and maintenance fees of $400,000 and park improvements of $640,000. The applicant is requesting relief from payment of both the maintenance fees and the park improvements. The maintenance fee of $400,000 is already a 50% reduction from the original amount of $801,000; when the project was approved, the City Council said that the applicant could request a further reduction in the pazk :fee when Council reviews the final pazk design scheduled for September 16, 2008. The Parks and Recreation Commission voted 4-1 to Select Option A as a pazk design, from Options A & B submitted. The .64-acre pazk will serve a dual purpose by providing open space not only for the apartment complex, buy: also for the public. If the applicant did not do the pazk, staff would have sought a significant. increase in open space throughout the complex or recommended denial of the application. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, reviewed the recommendation: • Originally in the staff report, staff suggested that the Planning Commission recommend denial, but the applicant has correctly pointed out that he was invited to come back once he developed the pazk improvement plan to have the discussion with City Council regazding how much the park fees should be. In fairness to that direction, and because of the issue of pazk funding is the prerogative of the City Council not the Plianning Commission, the Planning Commission should refer it to the City Council next week rind suggest that the applicant provide some cost data to support his request and let the City Council deal with whether they would grant a greater fee reduction or not. Staff's recommendation is to proceed and refer it to the Council and not give them a pro/con, because it is their prerogative and not the Planning Commission's. John Moss, Prometheus: • Agreed that there should be a park in the area based on discussion that took place a yeaz ago. He said they were questioning the interpretation of the city's ordinance as it pertains to the developer's obligations relating to the pazk. Their interpretation from the ordinances put forth in the General Plan in addition to the city ordinances, is that they are required to provide land for the public pazk; the .64-acre at 3 acres per ~i,000 was approximately the amount of land that would be required to be dedicated. They did not interpret the ordinances to state that they would be required to provide the land in addition to the improvements for the land in addition to a pazk fee. They are requesting clazification on the requirement. He said their interpretation is you provide either land or you provide a pazk fee, but not both those fees, but also the improvements as well. • He said they do not have the construction costs estimate yet that aze detailed because their plans are schematic at this time. If approval is given by the City Council next week, they will finish those drawings and get a detailed. estimate. They were told a year ago that it could be in the neighborhood of $600,000 for the improvements and that is the number they have been working with. Their obligations as they know it now from the city aze to provide the land, $600,000 for lack of a better number, improvements and half the original pazk fee or $400,000. Their understanding is they do land, call it $600,000 or $400,000 which is $lmillion in addition to the land and they thought the ordinances were to be interpreted that they would only provide the land and they aze still waiting for a good definition of that. • He said they do not feel there should be three different requirements; they believe there should be one and conceivably a portion of the second, but certainly not all three. Steve Piasecki: • Said the condition was very specific and it :is implementing General Plan policy that talks about providing pazks, land, improvements aa7d having those kinds of pazks associated with any new residential developments. He said they disagree, and went through the entire Cupertino Planning Commission September 9, 2008 negotiation process with the applicant, it was very clear to us they were providing it all and that is why they designed it and that is why the condition is worded the way it is. Said he did not know that it's a function of what the ordinances say; it is a function of what the applicant accepted as part of the condition and he did bring up his concern to the City Council originally and the Council voted this way. It is a very specific condition. Paul Brophy: • Asked Mr. Moss why he didn't appeal the condition in the 90 day period after Council approval. John Moss: • He said they sent communications to the city j~.rst a day or two prior to the July 3rd meeting and followed up with written correspondence to the city with the issues they took with this particulaz requirement within that 90 day period. He was not sure whether or not that constitutes a formal appeal; they felt like frorn their side the communication sufficed to be a place holder for that. He said subsequent to that communication which went out in September of last year, they have been working diligently with the city to try to better understand the condition, and better understand the ordinances. If that is a requirement of the City Council, it was very clearly stated and he agreed with staff on that, but said he thought that the Council had made that decision based on staffs interpretation of these ordinances at those meetings. He said they disagree with the interpretation of the ordinances, and have specific ordinances that they cited in all the communications to the city. • He acknowledged that they received the July l3, 2007 communication from the City Clerk of Cupertino which specified all the stipulations ,associated with the approval, and at that time he understood the conditions the Council placed on the project. He said that is why they responded back to the city as it relates to those conditions, specifically in writing. Chair Miller opened the public heazing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said that she hoped for successful negotiations between the developer and the city so that there can be a park at the corner of Homestead. (:upertino is deficit in pazks, particulazly in the Homestead Road area as it has an abundance ~~f new homes and apartment complexes; having a park there is a good thing. She said it appears that a lot of work was done in planning what would be in the pazk and she appreciated everyone taking the time to do that. When you have the chance to plan a modern park you want to make sure that everyone in the neighborhood is able to make good use of it; the children, the high school students, the seniors taking walks, walking grandchildren or just sitting on benches and she was hopeful there would be a successful resolution because Cupertino needs more pazks. Chair Miller closed the public heazing. Com. Brophy: • Said he agreed that they should pass the apf~lication on without a recommendation because there is no land issue involved; it is purely a Fmancial question and the approved language is on Page 1-30; a motion was approved that Cit}~ Council consider increasing the park fee credit, reducing the fee contingent upon the design ol'the park. It seems since it is a financial matter, the Planning Commission should let it go and let the Council decide what it is they meant or it should mean now. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 September 9, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • Concurred with Com. Brophy's position; and staid that since there has been so much time since Council communicated this and it was communicated to the applicant, she felt it was not their business to reduce or change the fee structure. However, she noted that she agreed with staff, the project would not be approved today had that not been agreed to; they would have required less density, more open space within the project itself, and more amenities. She agreed that it should be passed onto the City Council. Com. Kaneda: • Said he also agreed with Com. Brophy, and had no further comment. Com. Rose and Chair Miller: • Said they both agreed with previous comments.. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda, to forward Application M-2008-04 to the City Council without recommendation. (Vote: 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS 2. MCA-2008-03 Municipal Code Ame~idment to the Single Family R1 Ordinance City of Cupertino (Section 19.28.060) regazding the allowed ratio of the second Citywide Location floor building azea compazed to the first floor building azea. The Revised Ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to facilitate greater acchitectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building azea on an R1 lot or changing the required second story setbacks. Continued from the August 26, 2008 Pbxnning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not ScJ~eduled. Gary Chao, Senior Assistant Planner, presented) the staff report: • On May 6, 2008, the City Council as part of tl•~eir 2007-08 work program directed staff to look at review of the Rl ordinance specifically regarding the second floor to ground floor ratio. The direction was to have the Planning Commission review and provide recommendations back to the Council by Oct. 2008. In addition, as part of the process, staff will be introducing one or two minor suggestions unrelated to the ;second floor ratio housekeeping items. • On July 8, 2008 the Planning Commission reviewed the initial proposal from staff and provided direction that a more focused ordinance framework should be provided that tailored guidelines and principles applicable to the city of Cupertino issues. In addition, the Commission wanted additional images and graphics more pertinent to the community and the discussion whether the city architectural consultant Larry Cannon should also be involved in this process. Staff has since communicated with Larry Cannon and entered into a preliminazy contract with him; he is prepared to go pending; Commission's direction this evening. • In July, there were some concerns raised by the Commission. The first one was on the lack of prescriptive nature of the proposed new desi;~ review process. To clarify in response, the intent from the City Council to go through this exercise to potentially change the ordinance is to facilitate design flexibility; and in order to ;accomplish that, you have to have more flexible standazds to achieve the flexibility of optio~is to provide to applicants or homeowners or azchitects in this case. Staff has since then ad~3ed more specifics into the framework, tailoring it to the Cupertino issues. • Concerns were raised that this might prom~~te box style homes in Cupertino. Staff has established precise objectives and intent into this process so that when property owners and Cupertino Planning Commission 5 September 9, 2008 azchitects wanting to go through this voluntary process, will understand what is in store and what is expected of them, in particulaz azchitectural style needs to be identified and specific visual relief measures shall be applied. • Why create a new process; why not use the: current process? For example the exception process could entertain a project potentially having a second floor lazger than the 45% rule, the only comment regazding that is that the exception process does not currently have any specific provisions that allow us to ensure visual release on large wall planes and such. The exception process is also costly and intimidating to average homeowners and azchitects as well. • What staff is proposing in terms of review framework: The applicability this new process we aze suggesting to you would cover any application as proposed to have a residential home, a second floor lazger than 45% of the ground floor azea. We are not suggesting the overall FAR of the site be amended or that the minimum setback requirements also be retained and preserved as well. Those will not change as part of this proposal. In addition it is important to note that the existing quite prescriptive process that you have now are still intact; any property owner wishing to go through the current process and have no desire of wanting to propose a house over 45% second floor, can go through the current process without having to deal with the additional guidelines and objectives to cover. He reviewed briefly the comparative table between the current ordinance and the propoed ordinance, to give a sense of what is being changed and what is not. The three areas to highlight are the second floor to ground floor ratio; we aze suggesting that be allowed to exceeded. Also in conjunction with that rule, we are proposing that the second floor setback surcharge be exact for those who are going through this process from our conversations with local architects; you cannot have one without the other because homes aze expected to be larger; setback surchazge would prohibit that from happening. Therefore, in their suggestion to us that also should be lifted as well. In the change there is a lot of design techniques that we aze adding into the ordinance that will cover and mask some of the potentially lazger walls and blank walls with trellises, arbors and balconies. • Lastly the second floor 50% exposed wall n~le; we are suggesting that rule be redefined to allow the use of the new architectural relief techniques, azchitectural features as a way to address that rule or satisfy that 50% rule. • Said there doing this because the existing R1 ordinance limits the design flexibility due to the second story size restriction; as mentioned previously some of the second floor surchazge also is restricting as well, and it dictates what it is meant to be; what is meant to accomplish is to make sure that the homes aze wedding cake rind are set back quite significantly and you can see that from the example pix provided. ~~lso what we aze seeing is that this sort of architecture is more predominant now in the neighborhoods and they are pretty much taking over and the concern we are seeing is that is all we aze going to get; we are not going to get anything other than these until 10 or 20 years, and that is going to predominate the pattern, styles, the community and that is a concern. • Inadvertently, ground floors aze being maximized to ensure that the applicant's homeowners get the sufficient maximum allowed second :Floor because the ratio exists. The only way to have a lazge second floor is to maximize ;your ground floor; everyone is stretching the envelope to the max on the ground floor to accomplish that. • The objective of the new process is to allow greater design flexibility, at the same time not compromising good design; and also to address some of the known issues previously mentioned and that Cupertino Gazes about. Those aze usually articulation of walls, addressing blank walls, embellishments, visual relief of mass and scale of second floor wall planes. • The design principles previously mentioned; when an applicant comes forwazd wanting to go through the voluntary process, the Director of Community Development may grant approval to allow the proposal to exceed the 45% second floor ground floor ratio provided the seven principles outlined on Page 2 of the staff report aze met. • He reviewed the visual relief techniques listed on Page 3 of the staff report. Cupertino Planning Commission September 9, 2008 Other related minor ordinance changes that the Planning Commission should consider is the exception of the second floor 10 feet setback s,urchazge requirements and also the 50% second floor wall exposure requirement. Staff is bringing to you the more specific framework asking for directions and comments from you if you feel comfortable with it, provide u:> with directions, give us the green light and we will talk and communicate with the city architect and come back to you with a more precise ordinance amendment language in addition with pictures, illustrations, to better help the public understand some of the principles we are discussing. Staffs recommendation is for the Planning Commission to review the framework, give feedback, or alternatively, if you feel comfortable with this approach, you can recommend it to the City Council. Com. Brophy: • What is the difference between the current review process for two story homes and what the process would be for those two story homes that would ask for a second floor greater than 45% of the first floor. Gary Chao: • Staff is proposing that the process be the same timeline to make sure that it is not going to be a deterrent for people to go through. However, the findings, guidelines and principles that we use to review the two different applications would differ. The current process under the current rule if you stay under 45% second floor, as you know the ordinance is pretty prescriptive. As long as the color is not out of whack with the neighborhood, most likely it is an approval; that is what it is designed to do. It is the prescriptive nature in the Rl ordinance. With this new voluntary process for people w~inting to exceed the 45%, what we aze saying is, that in exchange to allow people to have a larger second floor, we aze suggesting additional design principles which were outlined already earlier that aze not covered by the current Rl ordinance. That should be evaluated and consi~3ered and found to exist on the proposal in order for the city to approve the application for them to exceed 45%. Com. Brophy: • When I look at the list of design principles, iri theory shouldn't we be applying this currently to any two-story home that goes through revie~,v; I can't see the difference. Steve Piasecki: • The intent of the existing rules was to be highly prescriptive and not have subjective review of whether the materials aze compatible with th~~ azchitectural style that is being proposed; nor necessazily whether the materials are of hil;h quality or whether you followed the basic principles of symmetry and balance, so you could have asymmetrical mixed up material house and still get through with that prescriptive process. That is not to say that we don't work with the applicants and point those things out to them and try to encourage them to incorporate them, but we cannot require it; it is not part ol'the purview. This is now saying that with these design principles, we aze more concerned about symmetry, balance, consistency of materials, and incorporating these other design features so we will exercise some more subjective review. Com. Rose: • Said she was looking at the design principl~:s that would be the role of Steve Piasecki to determine whether they have been met on each project. How is it defined what is considered a high quality material? Cupertino Planning Commission 7 September 9, 2008 Gary Chao: • It is usually a combination of many different rings; how the materials tie in with each other; the compatibility of the material to the style ~~f the home; sometimes people want to build a Mediterranean style house or Spanish style house and a true Spanish style siding is usually more smooth and hand troweled finish, high~:r quality than just sprayed on materials. It is difficult to answer; it is not always defined by cost, but is more of an architectural theme that has to be consistent. Steve Piasecla: Said the point was well taken that it needs to be defined better, either by example or some other way of defming it so that it is not confusing to people. We know that if you are proposing a Spanish style home, you probably don't want to use the metal faux Spanish roof material, even though that might be lighter and cheaper. Staff would coach the applicant to meet that part of the requirement that they would need to eliminate the T-111 siding or put in different materials in keeping with the Spanish architecture. If they disagree, they could take it to the Design Review Committee. He said rel~itive to the design principles, it is the intent that the applicant will reasonably comply with all seven design principles. Vice Chair Giefer: • Asked how staff would address a request to build a house that has an overhang, where the second story exceeds the ground floor level. Could you do this given what you are proposing; and what would be the reduction on the back end of it; would you allow them to exceed 100% in order to achieve that. Gary Chao: • The way the ordinance is proposed it doesn't have a maximum limitation, but is more design driven. From talking to some architects, we were discussing ways to articulate second mass and the idea was that you don't necessarily always have to recess and indent from the ground floor. There is very nice, beautiful looking homes that have nice gable elements that project out with corbels underneath, so there is a lot of opportunity and we are excited about this for that reason, there are projections you can a~nsider, overhangs that you can consider, that would meet the intent of the ordinance and breaking up mass as opposed to setting things back. • Said he had not thought of the second question in terms of reduction and tradeoff; again, it is going to be like a package that we have to look at as a whole. The way the ordinance is being proposed, you could potentially exceed that l00% ground floor to second floor ratio. You could say as a Commission your recommendation is to stop at 100% or whatever other percent you are comfortable with. Chair Miller: • Said that the new ordinance specifies th<<t new buildings shall be in conformity or compatibility with existing buildings on the street. How do you reconcile the attempt to bring some more diversity into the neighborhood vs, our existing ordinance which says we want the same thing on the street. Gary Chao: • We have people making that argument now with the current ordinance, somebody wants to build a Mediterranean house in a Ranch or Spanish neighborhood and the way the ordinance has been interpreted up to this point in terms of compatibility is not that house designs have to exactly mimic or replicate the existing predominant style of the neighborhood, as long as the material color massing scale respects the adjacent neighbors house. Basically that constitutes Cupertino Planning Commission 8 September 9, 2008 • being compatible with the neighborhood. It i;~ a good thing to allow different flavors of style homes in a neighborhood. Chair Miller: • Said there may be an inconsistency with the e~,:isting wording of the ordinance. Steve Piasecki: I think what staff is saying is that the problem you are describing, doesn't go away with this. The fact that we are asking people when they bring their building in, tell us what it is, tell us what it is, what is this animal you are trying to construct, and if it is Calif. Ranch fine, if it is Craftsman fine. But your point is well taken, you are still going to get potentially the argument that we don't have Craftsmen homes in the neighborhood, therefore what are you doing building a Craftsman style. Staffls point is that you need to be at least respectful of mass and the materials utilized throughout the neighborhood, not completely ignore it. We try to be fairly flexible today, we will continue to try and be flexible, but it is a good point; that conflict still goes on. Chair Miller: • Relative to the architectural style selected, it implies that there is another level of work that staff is going to take on to inspect the details of each house to make sure every detail is consistent with the style. Gary Chao: • In concept yes, if a person wants to do a Craftsman style house, we don't want him to propose an element, an entry feature that is from another style and doesn't jive with the design. What we are saying is whatever style they decide to go with, they should do the best they can to ensure that all the features, embellishments, c~~lors, materials, shape of the roof, design of the windows are consistent with that style, to make; the house coherent and nice looking. Chair Miller: • Expressed concern that they may be getting; into an area where there is way too much interpretation on the part of staff in terms of what an applicant can and cannot do. Steve Piasecla: • Said the Commission could suggest to the Cite Council that every one of these go to DRC and have an open process where they can have that discussion. Chair Miller: • Referred to No. 7 of the design principles "the design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance", and said that it was already in the ordnance, and he was concerned with that. He illustrated a book by Dahlen Group, a renowned architect who shows lots of good and tasteful examples of symmetry and asymmetry. Said lie always had a problem with the issue of lining up all the doors and windows as it doesn't alw<<ys make good architectural design to do that. Steve Piasecki: • We have heard both sides of that argument and. maybe we could defer to some of the architects to talk about; and we intend to see this in other design guidelines, that in balance that we would like people to think about achieving a degree of symmetry. The asymmetry you tend to see in homes that can be tasteful, is usually not a very dominant asymmetry; it is not a heavy reliance on it. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 September 9, 2008 • You could take No. 7 and say as a rule that y~~u shouldn't strive for this, that some variations aze acceptable, but they need to be done tastefi-lly. Com. Kaneda: • This modification only applies when people are proposing to go over 45% on the second floor. (Staff Yes; if they exceed the 45% ratio) If' they stay under, it is the current rule. I would suggest we think about is if we are going to do this, let's do it or not do it; not write this azbitrary. You get to some arbitrary number and then we are going to make the houses look nice and otherwise they don't look so good. • Said he agreed about the language regarding being consistent with the neighborhood and the language that talks about architectural diversity; and said it was confusing to him personally, and also to the community, because so many times people come to the Commission and play the "not consistent with the neighborhood cazd" as a reason why a house should not get built. • In most cases I like diversity; it is nice to have some diversity and if you aze just looking for good architecture and consistent massing and materials, why don't we just say we aze looking for good architecture consistent massing and materials, rather than say it has to match the neighborhood. Com. Brophy: • Said since the last public hearing on the item, he has been struggling with the issue that Vice Chair Giefer raised, which was more the social dynamics of how this would be applied; that there is already a perception in the commur.~ity that the process by which either the staff, Commission or Council goes through in making decisions, has an azbitrary or unreasonable procedure; and here where we are dealing with the whole situation of review by its very defmition, there is a certain amount of that the process is a subjective and judgmental kind of process; and I am wondering whether or not b~~ opening this up in this direction if the irritation from either would-be home builders or neighbors of the project would be greater than whatever aesthetic benefits that we would gain from this process. Gary Chao: • You could ask some of the azchitects in the audience for their feedback. Most of the azchitects I have worked with have no complaints; they are pleased with the process. Having said that, the key is that this is a voluntary process; however, the way the current ordinance is established now, it is working; people aze used to it. For those who do feel up to the challenge of wanting to go through this more of a creative process, they can still opt to build under the current rule and go through a more prescriptive nature and get their building floor plan approved. • For the azchitects who aze usually looking to do good designs, they look at these rules; these aze some of the things that they would do usually regazdless of whether there is provision for it or not. However, the feeling is that they are limited because of the way the current ordinance is set up. For those who want to do something creative and out of the box, they don't have the tools or mechanism to do that. This process allows for that, and at least from my conversations with some of the azchitects that do a lot of work, they feel comfortable with these rules because they are fairly basic. Com. Brophy: • The would-be builder of the home has the option to opt into these rules; neighbors who might oppose the project don't have that option. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 September 9, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • In azeas of the city where you have smaller lots such as Rancho Rinconada, have we thoroughly thought this out on the 5,000 sq~aaze foot lots, where I can build 100% of the second story but the lot size is so small that it still may be difficult for me not to have a house that is too massive or out of scale with the nei€;hborhood. • When people talk about neighborhood compatibility, what it boils down to is mass and scale and if you aze on a small lot, I can see azeas where that may be problematic. Where someone is on a corner facing another street, what is what is interpreted as their side yazd setback (Garden Gate); their privacy may be interrupl:ed by an adjacent property looking down upon them. How do we make sure that the programs still work and that the massing and scale is not overwhelming for small lots in particular.. Gary Chao: • Many property owners having lots under 6,000 square feet that aze less than 50 feet wide; have a difficult time meeting the current rule and after applying all the articulation rule, the setback, you end up with literally a hallway on the second floor. There are arguments both ways. You could stipulate that there may be ;some special consideration for lots under 6,000 squaze feet or Rl-5 areas; there may be some special provisions to get at what you aze talking about, ensuring that the mass is not excessive. Steve Piasecld: Said if you have a 5,000 square foot lot, 50 by 100, the 45% overall floor area ratio limits you to a 2,250 squaze feet home. Already you have a smaller house. The setback requirements of 10 and 15 on the side yards force that house into the center of the lot as they would on a lazger lot. You are getting 1125 squaze feet, let's sa}~ you want 100% on the ground floor and on the second floor. You have the setbacks of 10 and 15, you aze at 1125, you have to provide adornments and trellises or something to break up that building mass. Proportionally everything stays about the same and it doesn't really matter; you can argue that the position of the setbacks doesn't change as you get smaller. You have a greater obligation in terms of the relative size of your lot compared to a 10,000 s,quaze foot lot. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that was the azgument made when the~~ changed the Rl FAR to 45 feet, that it was scalable; but on smaller lots just because you ~~re so much closer to your neighbors than on the lazger lot, it is more problematic having 45% coverage. Steve Piaseclci: • You could opt for some kind of scaling, although the Council said do not look at the FAR so you can still say we think it should be scaled. I think you are getting at that, because of the setback requirements and the FAR, it gets scaled down anyway. It may be more problematic for somebody who has an extraordinarily narrow lot, to accommodate the 10 and 15, if you have a 35 foot wide lot or 40 foot wide lot:, you can start to see how those eat into your developable azea. • If you want to when we come back, we can try to find examples of the 5,000 squaze foot lots and show you how that might look. Com. Rose: • The way this has been approached, it sounds. like everyone is coming to Planning saying I want to build a Craftsman house but I ca~i't, so I am going to build a wedding cake Mediterranean. Is that is what is happening? S'ou aze getting a lot of frustrated people because the design they want, which like these pictures, they aze beautiful homes, that people aze Cupertino Planning Commission 11 September 9, 2008 coming in with that vision and when they look: at going through the exception process and the cost of that, they are backing up and saying they are actually fine doing the tier. Steve Piasecki: • Said his impression is that it isn't that so much; people aren't saying they want to build Frank Lloyd Wright Craftsman and you are making them build Mediterranean wedding cake. More likely what is happening is, they want to put a little gable end on their house and cannot do it; or the requests coming in are fairly minor things that are prohibited by our ordinances; they don't have any flexibility at all, so they end up with the wedding cake because everything pushes them to be uniform. Com. Rose: • I am going on the assumption of what I see p~^imarily here that comes to us as well as what I see driving in our neighborhoods, is that it seems to be that the Mediterranean style is predominantly what people want to build whe~i they build in Cupertino, so my question would be, is a gable considered consistent with the ar~;hitectural style of a Mediterranean home? Steve Piaseclci: • Said that Page 2-8 shows a Mediterranean or Spanish home with a gable. He said the ordinance was designed to please the neighbor.. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Requested that all speakers given the same amount of speaker time, whether a resident or an architect. Said that the method of giving some speakers extra time was highly unusual and requested that the speaker time be timed. • Illustrated an article from S.F. Gate, about a community in Manteca and what happens to the community with 100% buildout on the second story. She presented photos which showed the articulation in the front area of the homes; the side walls are 100% buildout with no articulation; and the two-story rear of the homes have no adornment. In a different neighborhood, she homes where they did the fronts, but not the other three sides. The size of the homes and the fact that every developer who came into my neighborhood cut down every street tree. We have boxy big square homes all over my neighborhood, they are all over Monta Vista, a lot of them in Garden Gate. Cu~~ertino itself was hit with this. • Said that she felt the city was a heartbeat away from monster homes. It is going to become neighbor to neighbor as it was in the pre-90s and in 2000 when Cupertino adopted a new building code that reduced the size of the homes. She said six months from now there will likely be the desire to go to 35 feet again and to have the homes that are buildable on the lots, where currently a 5,500 square foot lot can take 2,400 square feet. • Many people were relieved when they annea:ed into the city because there were protective building codes; that is why we had the choice: of coming into Cupertino. We are on the road now to having each one of these thrown down and I think that if we go down this road we need to have an ordinance for lots less than 6,000 square feet to have a special zoning area where you cannot have over 45% or whatever the City Council has decided. 45% is still what the City Council has decided until otherwise chanl;ed. • Said she lived through the experience for 5 to 8 years with the battles of annexation; they would be opening a Pandora'a box and it would happen all the way across the city. • Eight years and nobody believed building codes could change; R1 is being tom down. When they went through this two years ago, some of the developers said you couldn't get three bedrooms in 600 square feet on the second story; some people in Rancho Rinconada put four Cupertino Planning Commission 12 September 9, 2008 bedrooms in 600 square feet. Two yeass ago the second story quota was increased to 800 square feet; architects still claim today that you cannot put three bedrooms in 800 square feet. There are two plans recently in my neighborhood, one across the street, and they have three bedrooms, a massive master suite and two other bedrooms, full baths; it can be done. What we decide here is going to affect all of Cupertino; but it is also going to be devastation for Rancho Rinconada. Those examples shown eazlier by staff look like gorillas in tutus; I wouldn't want any of those homes next to me. We have a lot of boxy structures in Rancho Rinconada; they are too high, too big; now the trees have grown up, you cannot really see them; there is nice people who live there, but I wouldn't want my neighbors to build anything that exceeded 45% near me; I think there aze people in Cupertino who don't realize; was CrE;ston notified? She said they had not received citywide notification on the project in nearly a month or two; and it should be heavily noticed before it goes to the City Council The City Council should not take their final vote in October; it is too f~~r encompassing; getting rid of the second story surcharge. She recalled the first time that was applied to homes in Rancho Rinconada in 1999 and 2000 because when they were in the County, they were put under the auspices of the Cupertino Building Code. Said she had more things to discuss but was riot sure of her time limit. She commented that she had a Bachelors degree in Chemistry, and ]loped that the architects didn't get to talk longer than she did because she did not consider their training any more effective. Dick Fang, Cupertino resident: • Said he was a professional designer in the azea. for 20 years. Tonight there is a chance to raise the second floor and ground floor more than 45%. He said he read all the staff reports and there is a sense that if you build a larger second floor, you should get nicer architectural features; but he worried that things such as processing timing or processing to get approved will get more complicated. • Said his clients want only 3% or 5% more; if you go more than 45% they only get 3% or 5% more than you go to another level of the study; that probably is not fair for the small lot; most of Cupertino lots aze 6,000 square feet; Rancho Rinconada azea is 4,500 or 5,000 squaze feet. • Said if the desire is to open from 45% to up to no limit, he suggested current zoning ordinance change to 45% to 50%, all requirements stay the same; then people can more easily get either three bedrooms of decent size upstairs or bigger size they can get four bedroom upstairs. • They might not go to 100% of the house, 100°'0 of the second floor; if you could split by 50%, lower than 50% keep the ordinance as is now. If people build more than 50% to 100% of the second floor, they need to think about style wise, material wise, everything, so that might be fair to all my clients' wishes. Steve Yang, Cupertino resident: • Practicing architect for 27 years. • Relative to concept, Cupertino hinges on 45, this number for about 5 years. Prior to that a smaller number and then because most of the community thinks it is a monster house, let me add to that one too, when Ms. Griffin show~:d the photo on the screen, I thought it was a disaster. True; however, that property coming to a PD project is not a single family stand alone house, so it probably should have considered two types of approach for 45% or increase more, whereas for PD or single family it would come into two different solutions possible. • When you design a home the Commission brought up 100% buildout; I totally disagree with that. The reason is that being an architect de:~igning a home you can see it, giving a size of 5,000 to 7,000 square feet you should go fir;~t floor is heavily used space, the second floor would be the bedroom normally; if 100% buildout you probably violate the 45% ratio of the FAR, that is automatic. However, I support this increase. As far as up to 100% buildout of a Cupertino Planning Commission 13 September 9, 2008 single family stand alone house, in my dictionary I don't think so. I never see it; and the city of Cupertino invited a good architect to review the design before the fmal. • Said he had a recent project in an undisclosed city; which is called a small lot single family; and it looks like 100% bit it's not, but is a well designed one with two story, about 800 square feet. • That piece of architecture is well done plus they have an architectural review by not only the Planning Commission but also outside consultant. Before they got it approved it had to go through many layers, so I agree with this proposal of 45%. Steve Piaseclci: • Clarified that the city does not use an outside architect for single family home remodels; people come in and they meet the prescripti~~e requirements of the ordinance; we don't go through Larry Cannon. We do for multiple family projects or single family developments where we have five or six homes; but we donn't do it for the individual single families. The practice was abandoned because the ordinance became very prescriptive and it was costly and took too much time. Tom Tofigh, Cupertino resident: • Said he wanted to share his experience of the process of building a single family home he purchased in Cupertino about 2004. He reali:-ed that the home was built about 56 years ago and was not energy efficient. Unfortunately the process took almost 2-1./2 years by the time they received the permit. He said the people in city hall and planning department were very nice and he appreciated all their patience. He spent about $500 just for copying costs alone and his construction loan was in process. By thE; time he got the permit and the credit crunch arose, he lost the construction loan and was out about $40,000 just on permits, etc. The flexibility was not there, maybe if you trained the architects who do single family homes, they know what all the codes mean and how to go ~ibout it and things can go faster, but the process took such a long time that I missed the opportunity to build a new home for myself. I got to a point where there was only the demolishment ;permit that I needed to get, but I didn't have the financials to go forward with it. Part of it lead to do with giving too much leeway to the neighbors regarding what they like to do, they didn't like the style and they wouldn't say what I could do about the style so I could change it. That process took such a long time. • He asked the Commission to show compassior.~ to the people building a single family home for themselves vs. somebody who is professional and building a large number of homes and have a lot of experience. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Chair Miller: Steve Yang brought up an interesting point; we have two standards, one for single family homes and one for PDs. In PDs we do this tis a matter of course go above 45%. Can staff comment on that difference in treatment. Steve Piaseclci: • What he is referring to in almost all the PD examples of their higher density projects, Murano, or Astoria, these are projects in the 10, 12, 20 units to the acre category in most cases. There are other examples of conventional single family and if we have multiple units being built and they are developing an Oak Valley or four or five unit development, we are more concerned about how to fit that in, how to make those units work together, so we refer to the architectural Cupertino Planning Commission 14 September 9, 2008 • advisor for typical single family developmer.~ts, one house at a time, the remodel example; again, we don't; we found that the prescriptive requirements work fairly well so we just use those. • If you had a one unit PD project, you would have to go through the acchitectural advisor. The rationale is partly you aze being given greater flexibility in a plan development with small lot single family homes a conventional home is being allowed. There aze stricter design requirements for PDs and in return for that, the:y aze given the flexibility to go up to 100%. Chair Miller: • What we aze proposing here, is it is not going; all that way, because we aze less restrictive in PDs on all requirements including setbacks an~i lot size. Com. Kaneda: • Said he had mixed feelings; and he strongly supports acchitectural diversity; the wedding cake style developed in Cupertino is highly inei~cient from a construction standpoint, but it requires builders to use much more material and it is environmentally not the best way to design. There is this issue of controlling mass. The conflict is between having a nice clean set of prescriptive rules which is what we are c-riginally trying to do; so there is not a lot of subjective review involved in the process; a-id relaxing those rules to allow flexibility, but trying to control the quality of the building 1-y putting in subjective review. The concern I have is we aze going to create one of two things; either a bottleneck because somebody has to review all these designs and I don't agree with the idea of just doing it on projects over 45% where the second floor is over 45%; I think y~~u should either do it or not do it. Now you are creating a situation where all these projects have to be reviewed by someone; and the other thing is because it is so subjective, there aze horror stories from other cities about the architectural reviews where people just have their pet look they aze trying to achieve and if you don't match it then they just dig their heels in and you cannot do. On the one hand Palo Alto does have beautiful buildings, but there have also been many complaints in the acchitectural community about how hard it is to build in Palo Alto. • If we get into discussing wordsmithing different parts of the ordinance, there aze other comments to make. Com. Rose: • This is an important issue to discuss because there aze areas of Cupertino that aze experiencing new home development on a lot by lot situz~tion at a rapid rate; most of them aze pockets annexed into Cupertino in the last 15 years. What I think drove that annexation for many of those communities, was the desire to get aw~iy from the county's building ordinance which was a lot more lax. The ratio for the first to second floor was up to 100%, and yeazs of that and watching this new trend towazd building a more modern and more can ent home design, we were seeing a trend toward very lazge homes without any architectural features and everyone just maxed out the lot. That supported a lot of the annexation that happened in the last ten years very smoothly for the city of Cupertino which worked very hard to try to lure and annex those communities. • The biggest carrot they were dangling was a. process for building and also an Rl that was going to be stricter and more considerate and. include such amenities as a privacy landscape plan for homes with second floors, etc., things that we were not experiencing. I live in a neighborhood that is transitional, under the county jurisdiction. I do think we have to be cautious here, there was a lot of annexation done smoothly because of the carrot of support in what was happening with development in these neighborhoods. That being said, when we look at, again, as someone who lives in a neighborhood, any Rl changes that happen in the next 6 months, I will be witnessing within tiveeks and months, and constantly I see homes Cupertino Planning Commission 15 September 9, 2008 every four months being built around me. I am aware of this and if I could speak for people in those communities where there is a lot of turnover; there is a lot of neighborhoods in Cupertino that do not really ever get to see th~~ Rl in action; they are not as transitional and I think when you live in a community that is ~~ansitional, you welcome older homes that are outdated being replaced with newer homes; it makes everything look better; often times sidewalks are improved, street lighting is improved, so the connotation that development is a negative thing for many of the older neighborhoods is false, and with that I think there is some frustration that there is a predominant look ~md feel of a Mediterranean style and they are larger homes, so they often stand out, but I don't think the changes that we are talking about here are really the right way to solve the "problem of wedding cake" which I also think is tied to the problem of one design. We talked a log: about Craftsman style homes and I don't see a lot of people wanting to build them and I don't think it is because of the FAR; I think people really want that Mediterranean look and I think whether my neighborhood was under the county ordinance or Cupertino ordinance, consistently everybody builds out to what the maximum percentage numbers are in the ordinance. If we look at simply changing a number to solve our concern about a design, I think we :ire going to be disappointed in solving a design problem. I think what we are going to find is just larger Mediterranean style homes. What seems to be happening when people are building these homes, it boils down to what the words are on the ordinance; even though we can have these 7 recommendations and ask the Planning Department to make sure these h~~mes meet these 7 things, what seems to be consistently happening when someone is prf;senting an existing neighborhood with a new home design and there is controversy with neighbors, you are going to find that when your new homes goes through the planning process, what is really happening in Cupertino today is it boils down to the exact thing that the ordin,~nce says, and I think if we all ask ourselves as Planning Commissioners, when we look at a plan and it is controversial and there are two sides of the street here in front of us, we make our decision boiled right down to the bare bones of that ordinance, and so if the bare bones of treat ordinance says 45% plus, the objective of a high quality building material or trellis or be~ich, all of things get watered down and pushed around and negotiated and the plan moves forward based on a number or a privacy landscaping plan. But it doesn't go beyond that; so if we are looking at changing a number, I think we have to know that is going to be the norm; people are going to take the maximum and do the maximum; that is what they do now, i~t is not going to change and when we are faced with issues, all of these good intentioned sevE;n items are going to get watered down and we are going to end up saying, well the ordinanc:e says you can do xyz, so we need to let them follow what the ordinance says. She said she was speaking as someone who ryas watched development under county and city ordinance for 15 years, someone who has, also lived in a neighborhood that will be immediately affected by these changes and she would welcome new design. I know we are not going to get smaller homes, because everyone wants a big house, but I would like to see this done right. We are making ourselves and planners into architectural experts; there is a whole process that would reed to be developed that could really push this through correctly but I don't think this is the right way to do it. She said she was rejecting the proposal. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt it made no sense to change the second floor 10 foot setback surcharge requirement; if anything it should be easier to meet that requirement if you have a smaller first floor. I don't know why we would seriously consider that. I have been going back and forth on this, we have had two previous votes on this in which I voted Yes to move it forward and between now and when we vote I still may wobble, but I think I am leaning toward voting No on this now. Cupertino Planning Commission 16 September 9, 2008 The going away from a prescriptive to a subjective judgment of aesthetics is just a process that we have great trouble dealing with much more simple issues and when we have an issue that simply cannot be resolved by any defmitive facts, I just think it will make things worse. I would be tempted to, if as a compromise if v~~e could look at a smaller FAR ratio for homes that are over 45% second floor to first floor, I might consider that, but at this stage it seems to me that the benefits of modifying the R1 ordinance in this manner are just not worth the gain. Again, I am open to that; it seems to me that. we have spent a great amount of time dealing with what are not the key issues. Let me offer as an alternative way of looking at it, a couple of meetings ago when we had our Lindy Lane cases, the case of the Simas house which was essentially 100% and it is probably one of the most attractive homes in the city; part of the reason it works is because the FAR on that is far below .45, so I think there is certainly a case where we could get better architecture through some process; but I guess given the other clauses within the Rl ordinance, I just don't feel comfortable that the gains would be worth it. At this stage, I will likely vote No. Vice Chair Giefer: • It seems to me that everyone who has spoken so far is in favor of promoting our architectural diversity within Cupertino; the problem is, .how do we do it; plus protect the neighbor's privacy as well as the person who is building the proposed home. • I agree that the proposal before us does not solve the key issue that I hear from people in neighborhoods, which is the new home is inv,~sive, it is too massive, it is out of scale for the neighborhood. I also agree that your neighbors should not have veto power over the home you want to build. We have heard one resident testify that he was stuck in planning for 2-1/2 years trying to get his home plan approved and because of market situations wasn't able to complete the process. • In contrast to what Steve Yang said about the Architectural Review Board in Palo Alto, perhaps that resident would have preferred us to have had an Architectural Review Board that he and his architect could have made progress with. What is the right type of review for a city like us, and what is the right way for us to promote architectural diversity within our city. • I agree with Com. Kaneda that if we did change the process for second stories, we should have one process for all residents; any second stogy addition would need to go through a review process of some sort because otherwise my c;xperience on Planning Commission is that we have processes for people under 45% second story and over 45% second story; they are not going to get it, it will just be too difficult for them to understand it. • I think that one of the things I appreciated about the sample design guidelines we were given from Los Altos and Los Gatos, is both of them talked about neighborhood sensitivity in transitional neighborhoods, and I think that is key. You need to be sensitive to the style of the neighborhood and what you want to achieve without giving your neighbors veto power. • I agree with many of the Commissioners who spoke prior to me; that this is not going to achieve the objective that we want it to achieve; what I would like to suggest for discussion because I think we have a majority on this, that this would not achieve that objective, is what would. Should we send a request back to Council that perhaps we have a review board, if all second story additions go to DRC or go to are architectural review board. I have always felt that the FAR is either too big for some lots or too small for other lots the way it is today. Really it is the architectural quality that we treed to focus on. Perhaps what we should ask Council to do is let us review the Rl in total. As a response we are adding an architectural review board for second story additions. Chair Miller: • The current ordinance was changed in 1999, and the reason was because people were worried about mass and bulk. They were addressing mass and bulk and they addressed it not Cupertino Planning Commission 17 September 9, 2008 necessarily by reducing the overall floor to area ratio but by instilling stricter setbacks. Before 1999, they didn't have any first floor to second floor ratio, and in 1999 they made it 35% of th4e first floor. There was some discussion about the intent of the Planning Commission at that time; it was really to make it larger than 35`% but somehow when it got to Council, it got changed and moved down to 35%. One of the things I am struggling with is we don't want to increase mass and bulk but we are considering making the second story alittle- lazger and the second story correspondingly smaller and staff's view aze we going back to Ire-1999 by doing this or not. Steve Piasecld: • The effect was to have the greater setbacks to offset the second floor, to push it in. They increased the second floor FAR compared to the first, in effect it was a tradeoff, we will let you have more second floor but you have to set it in with surcharges. As long as you maintain the second story setbacks, you are not going hack to pre-1999 because you know the concern about privacy, the window is in the same position as it is with the lower floor. Chair Miller: With respect to the neighbors, these ratios acid these things come into play because of our concern for neighbors' privacy and access to air and light. As long as we have the second story setbacks in place, regardless of what thy: size of the second story is, I believe we have achieved that; we still have the second story can't be any closer to the neighbor than it currently is, and we still have all the requirements for privacy. I am not seeing where increasing the second story makes any difference in terms of how it is perceived by the neighbors. If anything, the neighbors might perceive that the houses are built a little further away; there is a little more space because the first story is going to shrink, meaning that the setbacks could potentially be larger on the first story. The next thing that went through my mind was listening to Com. Kaneda's comment which was a good one, and that is that if we aze going to consider design review, it shouldn't be broken at 45%; so my question on that no~~v, we have more of a prescriptive ordinance presently and we are not doing detailed design review below 45% and my question is how is it working. Are we getting bad or good designs in staff s view. Gary Chao: • A mixture of both; there are decent designs; a lot of people tend to spend a lot of time with the detailing, but the majority are standard development constructions and could use more embellishments, and quality material. If desired, you could design something within our ordinance that looks good. Com. Brophy: • If we are not doing much review on single family homes, why did it take the last gentleman 2-1/2 years to get his house through? Steve Piasecki: • Said he did not have any facts relating to the c,~se; I can't tell you how it would take so long; it should not have. Gary Chao: • It normally takes two to three weeks to turn a preliminary set of plans back to them. Once it is back to them, it is up to the architect to make; the appropriate changes, if any. It should not take more than two months to get out of the preliminary conceptual review process and get to the application phase which takes about one month and a half. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 September 9, 2008 Chair Miller: • Com. Rose mentioned that her concern was that if we allowed a greater second story, people will go to the limit and max it out. In all othc;r cities azound here where there isn't a limit on the second story, in staffls view, does everybo~3y max out their second story. Steve Piaseclei: Said he was not certain he had enough facts to help. If the question is, do people try to. max out the total allowable FAR that is a standard response, whether it is a 35% FAR overall or 45%; land is expensive and people don't have; the luxury of living in a grand estate; so many people aze doing that. In other jurisdictions, the process is much more onerous than it is in ours; I have seen examples in other communities where applicants aze brought forth very attractive designs and have been told they have to change it and modify it and go through a lot of processes. To your question, generally it is probably true that people attempt to build as much as they can total FAR. I have not seed a second floor to first floor as a rule in other cities, I think we are a bit uncommon in that regard. Chair Miller: • Steve Yang spoke to that to some extent and said that it is not likely people are going to go 100% on the second story. I am not sure I have seen that beaz out and I am heazing an architect say that he hasn't seen it in his experience. Com. Rose: • She said to go to Gazden Gate where most of the homes that were built in the County where you were allowed to do that aze sheer wall, second floor to first. Steve Piaseclci: Pointed out that the vast majority of homes in the community aze already there; there aze 18,000 or 19,000 housing units total, and of those 8,000 to 10,000 aze single family; most of what is seen is remodeling activity and it is physically difficult in a remodel to shape it so that it is 100% because you are usually trying to build something over something that exists. Steve Yang is correct that you are probably not going to see 100% as a rule; if you are building a new home you may want to take advantage of it more so, and that is Com. Rose's point, is that any new home they are going to try to do that because it is more efficient to build up at the walls. What we are suggesting here is you will have a process and some requirements that will replace what would have been a first story element with other azchitectural elements to soften and control and make it look more attractive. 'T'hat does require that you go through some type of process. Chair Miller: • Com. Brophy and Vice Chair Giefer mentio~ied that perhaps another way to approach this would be to reduce the FAR. I am in agrec;ment with that, particulazly after we had Vye Avenue applications. However, the Council is not, and we have already gone that route. Vice Chair Giefer suggested and sent it back to the Council saying we want to review the whole Rl and the Council rejected that. I am not in favor of asking the Council a second time to do something they rejected the first time. When I think of what the benefits of increasing the second story over the first story aze, I firmly believe that it is a functionality benefit; we aze helping the residents in terms of functionality. • I believe that staff is correct in that we will be increasing the diversity of styles in the neighborhood instead of having one monolithic style. I like the idea that we are giving people the opportunity to have a smaller footprint; b;,~ having a smaller footprint means that there is Cupertino Planning Commission 19 September 9, 2008 more landscaping, there is more green area acid there is more open space for each resident in the city, instead of forcing everyone to maximize their first story and all we see is home after home right up to the setback limits and lots of house and very little open space and green azea. The challenge is~ what kind of process do you put in place because there is a concern that you aze not going to get good design and that is a very lazge challenge. Said it was frightening to think they were not architects, and the DRC is not going to be in a position to look at architecture, and it was mentioned that staff has some architectural skills but they are not formal azchitects and the last thing we need to do is be putting lay folks in the position of defining architectural style and cerl:ainly picking out what, to make sure that we are consistent with a particulaz architectural style. Steve Yang also mentioned that it was rare that you find a true architectural style where the house is totally consistent. Said he felt he was in the minority, but thought the benefits of increasing the second story outweigh the disadvantages and was strugglin€; with how, if the Commission is concerned with the quality of what they get out of this, how to achieve that and still work with the idea, at least for the applications that come to them. Said he was not unhappy with the architectural styling and the architecture of the houses seen, but they don't see a lot of the houses that staff approves. If there is a benefit to going to a larger second story and the fact that none of our neighboring towns have instituted an ordinance like we h:~ve, speaks to the fact that there is not a lot of support in the region, in fact, for limiting the :;ize of the second story. Again, I think that one solution might be to reduce the FAR but we are not at liberty to do that unless we ask Council is they would want to reconsider that particula~• option. Com. Brophy: • It is true that the second floor to first floor ratio item really strikes me as kind of a strange tool with which to control design and I wish we hail better ones. A lower FAR would work because that is what most of the communities we aze comparing ourselves to do. A number of them are at 35%. I have been wobbling on both sides ~~f the issue and I guess at this point, I feel that, while I think the proposal has merit, I think that without addressing the underlying problem of homes that are too large for the lots. The be;nefits, given the stress on the community and unhappiness between neighbors, will not outweigh the cost. • Said he was prepared to switch sides and vote ~'~o. Chair Miller: • If we made a recommendation to increase the second story and also recommend that the FAR be reduced accordingly, would that be more supported from your standpoint. Com. Brophy: • Yes, but I am not willing to go with a proposed ordinance. I would just send it as a recommendation to the City Council. I havE; seen that the little caveats seem to disappear when they make it to the Council, so if we want to send it as a recommendation, that is fine, but not as a proposed ordinance. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she concurred with Com. Brophy, because it would be very easy for them to send it to Council. If they send it back to Council and said they would go with no second story ratio provided that the FAR was lowered to 35%, acid hold no public hearings on that, she would be uncomfortable just stating that, although it v~~ould probably address many of the issues that come up to often. • Sending it back to Council and saying no, but we recommend that we vote No on this proposal but would like to do is open up FAR or open i~p the entire Rl because there aze other things in Cupertino Planning Commission 2(i September 9, 2008 the Rl that need correcting besides FAR. • Said she was not opposed to getting rid of a se-cond story ratio, but if you aze trying to add 3 to 5% to the second floor, you aze just reducing the bottom floor by 2 to 3%; which is not a lot; it is negligible in terms of the impact of this policy; I don't really see any difference there. Com. Kaneda: • Palo Alto has a strong architectural review Board; it got quite a strong diversity of projects. I know their process is set up with view planes, so you can do a straight two story building that doesn't have a setback. Los Gatos also has ~~ lazge diversity of architecture; do they have a similar Architectural Review Board type process; I am not familiaz with their process. (Staff responded that they do) • City Council asked us to look at the ratio first floor to second floor, but somehow a stronger architectural review process got slipped into the mix. Is that because the cities that we have studied that have a different way of controlling; buildings and building styles that seem to have a nice result; is that the consistent theme that you found that they have a strong acchitectural review board. Steve Piasecki: • Said he did not know if he would make the correlation directly, but they couldn't think of any other way to handle the issue of the straight ul~ walls short of some kind of additional process; and they were not comfortable trying to do a prescriptive rule about architecture. • They are going through more process; and the: process is either some kind of rigorous Design Review Board or Planning Commission review. There is an open public forum process review. • We mentioned that we had taken the architectural advisor out of the process and went to the more prescriptive one. You could put the azcl-itectural advisor back into the process; it would cost about $1,000 per home and he could do a very good job of providing comments. We also try to coach applicants because we see a lot of dumb designs and we know enough when we see a dumb one to try to help people not do that; it is not in their own self interest. We have no authority to force it one way or another and wee don't. Chair Miller: • If the main concern is the vertical walls, ~,vhy not just address the vertical walls if an application has vertical walls in it, then why n~~t that's the trigger point where we require more intensive design. That is what I thought you were saying your main concern is vertical walls. Steve Piasecld: • That is one of the principle concerns and you could try to address it that way, but I think as Com. Rose pointed out, you are going to have people pushing that limit. I have a two inch offset to my wall, therefore it is not vertical. ~"ou have to define what you mean by vertical. Vice Chair Giefer: Commented that she heard at least three people agreed that this doesn't work for them and she said what might be a better use of their time is to focus on what is the right response to Council. Do we want to send this back to them and say No, it doesn't work, we want to add an Architectural Review for all second stories to try to promote architectural diversity, because that seems to work in neighboring communities where they do that. Said she did not have a problem sending it b<<ck to Council, saying it doesn't work, and that they want to review the R'. The Council can make the decision whether or not they want the Commission to pursue it, and if so, begin public hearings on it. Cupertino Planning Commission 21 September 9, 2008 Chair Miller: Said Com. Kaneda commented on the design review process; then we talked about having an architect as a possible solution. My feeling ors design review boards, I am hesitant to have lay people commenting on architecture that they don't know about, but I probably wouldn't have a problem with an architect looking at situations that we define as important, and Com. Brophy and you suggested that if lowered the FAR, t}iat might be more acceptable to Commission. I think we probably have a majority in support of that as well; I think we are headed in the right direction. Vice Chair Giefer: • Do we want to start getting consensus around those items, because I also heard Com. Brophy say that he is hesitant on sending a recommendation such as that because Council tends to piecemeal what we send to them, and they jus,; take the acceptance of getting rid of the second and not worry about the FAR. Chair Miller: • Asked if there was any reason for them to ask: staff to do further research and come back at a later time, or is a motion appropriate. Com. Brophy: • Said he did not think they were at a point where additional staff work would move them any further along. Com. Rose: • I think we can make a motion; what I am hearing and we can discuss this, there is an interest across the Council even to some degree staff, and ourselves on the Planning Commission in making the architectural look and feel of new building in Cupertino have more diversity than it does today. Doing that in a way that enhances neighborhoods and unifies neighborhoods as best it can, and I don't think that is something that is too high to expect of our community Com. Brophy: • Said he was not happy with the idea of committing to an Architectural Review Board; and from what friends in the architectural community have described to him about the Palo Alto experience, the San Francisco experience, he vras hesitant to support that process. • Said he agreed that they should recommend they not go forward with the change to the first floor second first floor ratio unless at the very least the FAR is reduced; and he would be willing to open up other areas of Rl if necessary. He said if there was such an interest, he would be very reluctant to emphasize Architectural Review Board based on what he knows. Com. Kaneda: • You were asking my thoughts on the language;, and my thoughts were more focused primarily on the architectural issues, so that is irrelevant at this point. Vice Chair Giefer: • Commented on Com. Brophy's comment. If they strike adding an Architectural Review Board at this time, if Council decided that we should review the Rl to clean it up and make changes to FAR, then that might be an outcome of that review at that time if it makes sense because we don't hear a lot of complaints about Saratog~i and Los Gatos, and Los Altos that I know all have them, so perhaps it is better for us to spend some time understanding that. Cupertino Planning Commission 22 September 9, 2008 Chair Miller: • We both know that opening up the R1 could entail a year's worth of effort; personally I don't think that is realistic, not from staff's time, not from our time and not that the Council is willing to accept. We can ask them again to do that, we have already asked them once and they said No, so I am not sure what benefit there is in going down that route again. On the other hand, if we can identify some very limited areas in the R1 that enhance what we are trying to do here, then I see benefit in going; back along that line, and perhaps they would reconsider it at that point. There has been some acceptance about possibly reconsidering lowering the FAR in order to do that; maybe ttie time when you do lower the FAR is when you have these buildings that have larger second stories in order to compensate for what some people feel is greater mass and bulk. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said it was an interesting point of view, but going to the comment about going through the Rl looking for things that would support this language, we would be opening it up anyway. I think the proposal before us now is not one ]: am hearing consensus on. As the seconder, I would be comfortable striking the point of design review on this if the motioner would also accept that. Com. Rose: • Our comment would be to recommend that ~~e open up the FAR or the entire Rl to look at how to better address design diversity. She ~:ummarized the motion: We do not recommend that the City Council adopt the Rl ordinance amendment regarding the fast floor to second floor ratio requirement; but instead recomme~:d that we open up the FAR and closely related matters which impact design diversity. Com. Kaneda: • We are talking about FAR, second story ratio and design diversity. Com. Rose: • Correct, we are trying to achieve design diversity in our Rl ordinance. Com. Rose: • To properly address design diversity, the Planning Commission recommends that to properly address design diversity, they would need to examine areas of the Rl, FAR and second story ratio. Com. Kaneda: Said he felt they were talking about three things; the requirements of the Rl FAR, the requirements of the Rl second story ratio, and how to encourage or increase design quality. Vice Chair Giefer: • What I am hearing is that in addition to FAR and the second story to first story ratio, it is the design guidelines that actually need to be strengthened to promote architectural diversity and better quality design and execution within the city of Cupertino. Steve Piaseclci: • Said there wasn't much in the form of design guidelines in the current Rl; it is prescriptive, and you can do just about what you want. Cupertino Planning Commission 23 September 9, 2008 Chair Miller called a brief recess to allow staff time to compose the appropriate wording for the motion. Chair Miller: • When you just address design diversity, that is a staff concern, but the applicants that come up here, their main concern is design functionalit}~. I think there is a major word missing in there. The issue here is that the small second story limits design functionality or limits functionality period. Staff has a concern about design diversity, but the intent of changing the ordinance I think is primarily from a functionality standpoint. Steve Piasecki: • The flip side of what we are talking about is just the uniformity of design that you are getting now. We get variations on a theme, but it's much the same thing. Vice Chair Giefer: • If our recommendation is to deny this proposal, what is missing is we don't specifically address the area we were told to look at which is second floor ratio. She suggested rather than talking about residential functionality, to pint back in the key of this reviewing FAR and perhaps be very explicit of its impact to second floor area ratio, She said they could get rid of that ratio, and only need one ratio (second floor/first floor ratio). • Asked the Commission if it is explicit enough that their intent is to review FAR as part of this. Steve Piasecki: • That would be the wording "and consideration of the overall impact of the allowable floor area" which is FAR. Where it says "overall" take out the words "in consideration of the allowable floor area and second floor to first fl~~or". Com. Brophy: • Said he thought there was a good case to be made for being clear that is what they wanted to look at. Once again, if they say No, it would be a dead subject and move on. Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second ley Vice Chair Giefer, that the Planning Commission does not recommend tbie proposed approach to deal with the second floor to first floor ratio. The Planning Commission recommends that the concern for design diversity and functionality are better addressed by evaluating a more comprehensive design review process for two story homes, and consideration of the allowable floor area ratio and second floor to first floor ratio. (Vote: 4-1-0; Chair Miller No) NEW BUSINESS• None REPORT OF TFIE PLANNING COMMISSIOPI Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No meeting. Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners:. No report. Economic Development Committee: No meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission 24 September 9, 2008 Misc: Com. Rose questioned if the speakers at the Planning Commission meeting were required to give their address when identifying themselve-s. Mr. Piasecki clarified that their names are noted for the record and they are not required to provide their address. Any member of the public, whether or not a resident of the city of Cupertino, is permitted to speak at the public meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUI\fITY DEVELOPMENT: No additional report. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for September 23, 20(18, at 6:45 p.m. r Respectfully Submitted: ~ Elizabe lis, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: September 23, 2008