Loading...
PC 08-31-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED IVIINUTES OF THE JOINT WORK STUDY SESSION OF ~ CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AND THE CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 31, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATION: None JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL Application No(s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z-98, 8-EA-98 Amendment to R-I Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Joint meeting with City Council and Planning Commission to discuss immediate solutions to privacy problems. The work study session convened at 6 p.m. in Conference Rooms C and D of the Cupertino City Hall. Mayor Michael Chang; Councilmembers Wally Dean, John Statton, Sandra James, Donald BurneR; Planning Commissioners: Donna Chair Austin, David Doyle, Andrea Harris, Orin Mahoney, Jerry Stevens, Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Charles Kilian, City Attorney; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney Mayor Chang convened the meeting and explained that the purpose of the study session was for a workshop for expressing individual opinions, not making decisions, and providing clear direction to the Planning Commission. He pointed out that work was being done to modify the R1 ordinance; however, a number of complaints were being received regarding second story additions infringing on neighbors' privacy and it was decided to attempt to fast track part of the ordinance to provide some privacy mitigation for affected neighbors. He noted that privacy mitigation is not meant to be a full solution, but a partial solution to provide some relief until the ordinance is completed. Staff has included a number of options and is recommending two; the landscape planting and limiting window size. He noted that a major goal for the meeting was also to look at the overall R1 ordinance revision and to confirm the direction and the scope of work. He said that public input would be welcomed from 7:30 to 8:00. Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 31, 1998 Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, introduced Mark Sribnik, American Institute of Architects, who has been retained by the city to help with the process, particularly with the issues involving design. He said the planning department staff was dealing with issues of bulk and mass, and may include architectural designs. He said it was important to get clear direction from the Council relative to the ordinance review. Mr. Cowan said that the staff report discussed a number of options that should be considered, and it will be the role of the City Council to look at them, see if they are complete, and add individual ideas; and the Planning Commission will discuss the options later in the meeting. Mr. Cowan summarized the options to consider, which included the use of landscaping as a technique to solve privacy issues; the reduction of FAR, limiting the size of the second story window area; require all second story additions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission; the short term solution of a moratorium on second story additions; and limit the second story area. He said they would consider the options to address privacy protection from new second story additions and homes, for the consideration of the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Mr. Mark Srebnik, architect, showed slides which illustrated various options using landscaping screening materials for mitigating the privacy intrusion issue. He referred to Exhibits A through D and explained how the placement of second story windows and landscaping planting could help mitigate the privacy issue. Using a computerized 3d version of bedrooms, Mr. Srebnik discussed the placement and size of windows to help mitigate the privacy issue. Mr. Cowan pointed out that a waiver process was recommended, which would allow a neighbor who didn't have a problem with bigger windows, to sign off. The applicant has assurances they can do this and the landscaping. He said that the fence ordinance states that there are 6 foot high fences, and if someone wants a 8 foot high fence, they would get a sign off from a neighbor stating they did not object to the 8 foot high fence Councilmember Burner said he did not feel the planting approach would work because it had been tried in the development behind his house; the developer planted trees which are under- watered and not doing well and they are totally dependent on the people on other side of the fence to take care of them and enforcement problems are difficult. He said he felt the two ways to mitigate the privacy issue were to require the side and back windows be above eye level. Another option, particularly for bathrooms, would be obscure glass, which allows light in but people cannot see in. Mr. Srebnik explained that the UBC requires that at least one bedroom window be an egress window with a maximum off-floor height of 44 inches; only the secondary window could be positioned higher. He said that a sliding door or single door to a balcony is considered egress as well. Councilmember Statton said skylights might be an option to consider as well. A discussion ensued regarding code enforcement relative to the maintenance of the landscaping for mitigation purposes. Com. Harris said that the issue of second story decks should be discussed. Mr. Srebnik said that in most cases, well kept trees are assets to properties and add to the value of the property. Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 3 I, 1998 Mayor Chang directed the Planning Commission to study the privacy issue at the Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember James said she felt the landscaping was critically important. She said she understood Councilmember Burnett's concerns about upkeep, but the real value of the landscaping was that it is affordable, instantaneous, not only helps with the privacy issue but also maintains the quality of the neighborhoods, helps with the new home in the established neighborhood and is environmentally friendly. She said most people will maintain their landscaping, and if there are some built-in ways to monitor and enforce it, it is worth putting in. She said she was in favor of encouraging mature landscaping as part of the new ordinance because it quickly addresses the privacy issue. Relative to the windows, it is an objective way to look at where you need to place the windows, and side windows not directly looking into another window is very important. Councilmember James said she was opposed to not allowing second story decks and suggested architectural guidelines rather than restricting them. Councilmember Statton suggested a private agreement with the adjacent property owner if a property owner desired to sell his privacy rights to the developer. Com. Austin suggested building placement so that pads could be alternated. Mayor Chang referred to the list and five options submitted by staff: 2. 3. 4. 5. Landscaping is affordable Address privacy issue Daylight plain - push 2nd floor in Sell privacy right to neighbor Alternate building pads. Five options: 1. Landscaping along perimeter property line affected by new two story home or addition 2. Reduce FAR 3. Limit size of 2nd story window area 4. Require all second story additions to be reviewed by Planning Commission 5. Limit second story area to a percentage of the first floor area Mayor Chang said that staff was recommending Options 1 and 3. He said the window option can include some of the comments made and can include size, height, and opaque windows. Relative to the planting, he suggested a simple straight forward partial mitigation as a first step, which could be added to. Councilmembers will also be asked to react to other options mentioned. Mr. Cowan noted that it was not a public hearing, but the initial concept was to identify the options for the Planning Commission to explore and address at the Commission level for presentation at the public hearing on September 8. Councilmember Dean said he endorsed Com. Doyle's issue on the daylight plain; that is part of the setbacks. The FAR now at .45 could change, but as a start moving it back, condensing it. He said he hoped that FAR would be considered in the discussion. Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 31, 1998 Com. Harris said that one of the best ways to mitigate a second story deck is landscaping adjacent to the deck which is not in the perimeter, and is something to explore. Mayor Chang said that relative to the deck, an option could be to wait until completion, which would allow more time to make a decision, which is an option the Planning Commission should consider. Councilmember Bumett said that he disagreed, because he felt decks were intrusive, and given that thero cannot be controls, they have presented some real problems. Com. Mahoney suggested investigating something restrictive with a review process. Councilmember Statton suggested focusing on the windows and landscaping, with a taller fence in some cases, which might take the place of landscaping. He said that discussions about building size and mass were getting into the architectural details. Councilmember Bumett said he agreed with Councilmember Dean, that there were some straight forward explicit things to address that do not deal with privacy which are not complex, such as FAR, and would like them to be considered at this time as part of the urgency ordinance. He suggested also limiting second floor area to a percentage of first floor area. He said he was opposed to requiring all second story additions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Councilmember James said that she was in agreement with the fast track solutions, noting that the others would take longer. She said she wanted to be involved in the articulation of the building as well. She said she was in favor of concentrating on the privacy issues relative to landscaping and windows. Mayor Chang said that he agreed that windows and landscaping were the first step to consider. Relative to windows, he said it was important to include different kinds of windows and height. He said that maintenance of the plantings was an issue. He said that FAR or daylight plan would require more discussion and suggested them as a second phase. Mayor Chang pointed out that with a huge room, the mininum size window could be a very large window, therefore setting a maximum size might be considered. He said that second story decks were also an issue. Mr. Cowan said that one of the initial ideas was to look at the notion of developing standards on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis which entailed surveying the entire community and trying to find individual styles of various neighborhoods. Eichler is easily identifiable and there are some other areas in the western part of Cupertino that are mixed. He said that clear direction ~vas needed on what the degree of involvement in architectural style should be as well as FAR, daylight planes, setbacks, heights, etc. Mr. Sribnik showed a slide presentation illustrating some of the items that affect how people feel about homes; including shape, proportions, scale, how the home is viewed from either afar or close up; angle of view, the setting, the streetscape of the home; the materials used in the home; and the patterning on the surface of the home. The slides included pictures of different neighborhoods in Cupertino, including ranch homes, older neighborhoods, Eichler homes, and the newer developments. Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 31, 1998 Mr. Sribnik discussed the four basic levels of design control: (1) Dealing with the privacy issues and streetseape issues. (2) Level one controls in addition to general controls such as FAR, and daylight plane issues. (3) Level one and two control as well as neighborhood controls such as Eichler or ranch neighborhoods. (4) Design review approach dealing with things on a case-by- case basis with guidelines for appropriate design on an individual basis. Councilmember James said she preferred Level 3, noting that Cupertino had some neighborhoods that have a specific architectural style that if deviated from, affects the ambiance and culture of the community. She said she did not want to put a lot of restrictions on people to say they have to build a ranch house like the 50s, but care needs to be taken that they fit into the neighborhood. Relative to Level 4, she said she did not feel the Council would want to be at that level because of the time involved for the people wanting to do something on their house. She said she would like the process available for certain instances such as a deck, as there are backyards on a stream and a deck would be desirable, and a blatant rule prohibiting second story decks would not be appropriate. She said she felt it should be available for unique circumstances and she was interested in focusing on architectural issues such as articulation of the building, streetscapes, etc. as having the opportunity to give guidance and guidelines as well as help along the way. She said she was somewhere between Levels 3 and 4 but did not think that there should be only certain neighborhoods where you can only build one kind of house as it was too restrictive. Mr. Sribnik pointed out that it was appropriate to have a variety of styles in a neighborhood vs. in some areas it might not be suitable. He said the neighborhood level guidelines could be reflective of the Council, Planning Commission and community. Councilmember Burnett said that he favored Level 3 as well, noting that he felt the ranch homes should be protected as well as assuring the facade lines are reasonably consistent. He said there is an exception process and if people want things done quickly, they follow the rules, and if they want special things, it takes more time. Councilmember Dean said he appreciated the pictures shown, especially the two story straight wall, which he is opposed to. He expressed frustration at choosing issues to discuss because other plans come in that are in the system. He said he agreed with two previous speakers that the FAR issue should be addressed, perhaps going to 33 with an appeal process. He said he strongly suggested Level 3. Councilmember Statton said that he supported Level 3 also, and said he felt building materials should be addressed, as one of the issues being raised in the community was the facade building materials. He said that wood siding and masonry don't necessarily mix well in some neighborhoods where one of those materials is predominant. Councilmember Bumett said that in terms of process efficiency, he recommended Level 2 as soon as possible because the items are objective and relatively straight forward, and it may take a lot of time to deal with Level 3, and, in the meantime some houses would be inappropriate. Mayor Chang said that he felt Level 1 was suitable; Level 2 would be FAR, and daylight plane should be reviewed. He expressed concern about people being able to make adequate changes needed for their family. He said Level 3 depended on the survey that will be conducted, and felt it would probably apply mostly to the Eichler and ranch styles. Mayor Chang said he was inclined to keep it simple. Planning Commission Minutes 6 August31,1998 Councilmember Statton said that relative to streetscape, the city trees program should be considered independently of the building guidelines. Councilmember James commented that the city should be doing a better and more inclusive job of the city streets and sidewalks but it should be going onto the other side also, which is shown in some of the pictures and is part of the recommendation. She said she felt it is part of what makes the city and neighborhoods beautiful. Com. Austin said she felt the feedback was that there was a short run plan and long run plan; the long run plan with some guidelines. Mr. Cowan said that if it gets that far, they would actually be standards in the ordinance; ordinance requirements to deal with the subjective issues about design. Com. Mahoney said he understood was being fairly restrictive down low which is an exception process and not reviewing everything, but with special cases allowing to go outside the restrictions. Mayor Chang said that a process for the appeal process needed to be spelled out. Com. Harris clarified her understanding was the goal to have the Planning Commission come up with an interim urgency ordinance for the Council to act on September 8th, with the possibility that some things in that ordinance could change over the next few months, which meant it did not have to be cast in stone at this point. Mayor Chang clarified that the Planning Commission would tonight consider privacy issues, mitigation only. A discussion ensued regarding the main focus of the Planning Commission discussion at the subsequent meeting. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, said that some people considered No. 2 as major, a change in the community, and may not want to consider doing it tonight because most of the public would think privacy issues were being dealt with; and there may be a need to have another hearing on No. 2 by the Planning Commission even though it can be done semi fast track. Mr. Kilian said that changing the FAR changes the character of the community. Mayor Chang opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Gary Vershup, resident, expressed concern about trees being planted and having his backyard shadowed because the neighbor's second story blocked the sunlight. Unidentified male resident, said that FAR is being addressed, and what he felt was important was the second story elevation. An unidentified male resident, said he owned a two story house in Cupertino and also a one story house surrounded by two story homes. He said the goal of the ordinance change was to mitigate alleged privacy intrusions and it is the perception of loss of privacy vs. the tree loss of privacy, and because it is perception the issue cannot be resolved externally to the person having the issue. He said with all due respect to people who feel they have lost privacy, the solution is to install curtains, reflective film on windows, or plant their own trees. Forcing the owner of an adjacent two story home to compromise their plan is misdirected because they are not part of the problem. He added that Cupertino residents are notoriously hard working, so they are either at work or home sleeping; furthermore most people don't care what the neighbors are doing, and no amount of landscaping or legislating window size will prevent someone from invading their neighbor's Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 3 l, 1998 privacy if they want. He said the proposal is merely a placebo which would not work, and that it was discriminatory because the owners of existing two story houses are treated differently than the owners of proposed two story houses. The City of Cupertino should provide the trees for people who perceive they have a problem and they should be planted on the property of the people having the problem. Ms. Linda Roy, resident, said that because it was an interim solution, it was important that everyone remain calm and not get overly excited about a few people who complain. She said they had been through it before, talked about FAR before, and there is really only two or three jurisdictions in the county that are as strict about FAR as Cupertino; and questioned why FAR would have to be cut back, especially since Mr. Srebnik pointed out that FAR isn't really the problem. Ms. Roy said she felt it should be kept as minimal as possible. She said that the window and shrub proposal was hing is wonderful and was the best interim solution rather than work with building restrictions and the like. She said that she did not understand the window size restrictions because the actual size of the window did not matter is someone was really interested in looking at a neighbor. She encouraged the Planning Commission to act rationally and take the time to consider the whole picture rather than acting impulsively and regretting the decision later. Mr. O. Lawson, 20613 Scofield Drive, said that he felt the FAR was important and that it was common sense to notify neighbors of the plans. He encouraged a portion of No. 4, at least to notify neighbors so they can review the design of the home proposed to be built so they have some input. Mr. Kit Cham requested consideration be given in the ordinance to the distance between the home and the neighbors if the distance is as much as 20 feet or more. Mr. Larry Mattheakis showed an overhead of an example second story home which was intrusive on his back yard. He said trees were a good idea but expressed concern about what course of action to take if the trees die. An unidentified man suggested putting in the tree first and then see how the property relates. Mr. P. Patel, Astor Lane, said that the house behind his was six feet above the level of his back yard which creates the problem of looking into his back yard. Mayor Chang encouraged those with more comment to attend the Planning Commission meeting following. The joint meeting was adjourned to the Planning Commission meeting. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Doyle, Mahoney, Harris, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Eileen Murray; Deputy City Attorney;