Loading...
PC 12-17-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 17, 1998 CONFERENCE ROOM C ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Coms. Doyle, Harris, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner 1I; Veto Gil, Planner 1I; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney ORAL COMMUNICATION: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z-98, 8-EA-98 Amendment to RI-Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Public hearing to consider an amendment to the Single Family Residential Ordinance regarding building mass, setback and height. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of November 9. 1998. Staff presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, stated that the objective of the meeting was to fmali~e the second stage, the design regulations; the frrst being the privacy, the third being the particular design criteria for special neighborhoods. As requested, staff met with two builders and three architects to review the regulations. He noted that builder Terry Brown and architect Bob Schwencke were present at the meeting. Mr. Mark Srebnik, consultant, reported that they had received input on the proposals from builders and architects at a recent meeting, and would review the adjustments. He reviewed the slide presentation shown at a previous meeting which illustrated the various housing types, including ranch style, partial two story, one story, and various two story elements and roof designs. He referred to diagrams illustrating various wall articulations and discussed options to be considered in addressing building mass. Com. Doyle said he understood where the gray areas existed, and the concept of the envelope being developed, and hoped to match it with the areas that were not acceptable. planmng Commission Minutes :Z December 17, 1998 Com. Mahoney said that he understood fi.om the previous meeting that their was consensus that the roof in fact had a high part of the second story, and them needed to be an offset which was not in the regulations. He reiterated that 50% of the second story would be hidden either below or above by a roof element. Relative to offsets, Mr. Srebnik said that an example of where the two foot offset issue may not be necessary was if someone built a porch with enough depth and shadow on the house, the issue of stacked walls would not be a problem, but would be a cross section condition. Mr. Teny Brown, builder, said he understood the goal was to reduce the number of massive and massive appearing homes in the various neighborhoods, and said an architectural law or nde exists where less is more, but pointed out in this case the regulations are headed toward more is less. He said he felt the goal should be to reduce mass, not hide mass. He pointed out that he felt the architectural concepts put forth by Mr. Srebnik were good concepts, but said if there is not a regulation requiring people to reduce the massiveness of their home, it merely invites people to circumvent good design practices by adding things to houses that make no sense. In order to accomplish the goal, he said some architectural guidelines or standards should be adopted, but reducing the massiveness of the houses being built in the neighborhoods of small home should be foremost. He said he felt it could be done in the confines of the FAR, but was not proposing that the FAR be reduced; but loosen the requirements by encouraging the building of first floor living space as opposed to second floor living space. One way to accomplish that is to say that any living space with the plateline higher than 12 feet would be taxed at 1.5 and mitigate the effects of that on reducing the allowable building area ora place because there are setha~ requh'ements. He said he would want to reduce secoud story sizes and encourage people to build more on the first floor. Mr. Bob Swencke, architect, concurred with Mr. Brown. He said that it was more appropriate to analyze and do a proportional second floor to first floor and not allow the second floor to be larger than the first floor; and said in many cases that is what occurs as a result of pushing the envelope on the FAR. He said that although there are second floor setbacks, one can still gain the extra footage, where if you had a limitation on the second floor proportionate to the first floor, that would give all the perceived mass that you are trying to reduce. He clarified that the FAR does not limit living space because in Cupertino most people are getting by the FAR requirement by building full basements. He said the concern was not with the FAR, but with the mass and how it relates to second story construction. He said if there are regulations that encourage people to push their square footage of living space down, reduce the size of the upstairs, which would result in better neighborhoods and fewer of the truly objectionable homes. Chair Austin expressed concern that the .45 FAR was too high, and said she felt they should discuss the design review issue. Com. Harris said she agreed that the .45 FAR issue should be readdressed also, was in favor of less, and would also favor a sliding scale. Com. Stevens said he was looking at the overall concept, and the concept presented was an excellent one on how to reduce the appearance of mass as that as being the only problem. He said they were not stating how to recommend building a second story or addition, but pointing out the restrictions for building. He said one rule. would not fit all the neighborhoods because they have different styles. He said he felt .45 FAR was a reasonable number. Planning Commission Minutes 3 December 17, 1998 Com. Doyle said that three ways to control the mass were to work with the FAR, work with the development envelope, and lastly the design restrictions. He said he felt that controlling the FAR was not the right path to follow; because what people are looking at is consistency with their neighborhoods. He said he felt looking at the development envelope was the way to control it. Com. Doyle said that he wanted to be sure that there was minimum impact on the adjoining properties and not encumber the person on their own property. Com. Mahoney recalled fi'om the previous meeting there was consensus to attempt to reduce the visible mass through design restrictions without going through individual review. He said he was in favor of lowering the standard FAR, with the option to go to the .45 max with an exception process. He said that at that meeting three Commissioners were not in favor of changing the FAR. Com. Hams said that she did not want to restrict people's fight to develop their property, but suggested promoting developing on the ground floor to rninimize the impact on the adjoining properties. Com. Doyle reiterated that the concept was to try to promote the development on one floor or minimize the impact on the adjoining properties. Discussion ensued regarding the potential ways to encourage larger first floor expansion and smaller second floor expansion. Mr. Mark Auerbach, Rancho Rinconada resident, questioned if the articulations would be regarded as appurtenances and counted toward the setbacks. Mr. Cowan responded that a fireplace or bay window would not count toward setbacks. Chair Austin opened the public hearing for corament. Ms. Mabel McFarland, 10567 John Way, said that she was pleased with the direction the Planning Commission was headed. She said she felt it was a matter of returning to the purpose of the City Code of having a reasonable compatibility with the neighborhood which is the concern of the residents. The larger homes are not compatible with the smaller homes in the neighborhood and they are still being built. She urged more encouragement to expand on the first floor, especially on the large lots. She pointed out that some of her neighbors had expanded on the first floor of their homes and their homes were still compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Auerbach said that many of the Rancho lots were 5,000 square feet, and almost all developments going into Rancho were large, bulky houses. He pointed out that not all two story homes were objectionable, but those that encroached upon adjoining properties which large overhanging second stories were the issue. Relative to design guidelines, he suggested that some neighborhoods remain single story neighborhoods and not allow exceptions. Ms. L. Baltusis, Menitt Drive, expressed concern with articulation, noting that there were positive elements; however, she said that the home being built on Blaney Avenue exhibited some of the negative features. She said that if a second story home was built next to her one story home, she would be affected by shadows and no longer have a view, and no articulation would mitigate the issue. Ms. Nancy Buraett, Eichier resident, questioned if increasing the amount of home that could go on the first floor in relation to the FAR were related. Relative to the Eichler homes, she said that there Planning Commission Minutes 4 December 17, 1998 were several things that would not apply to the Eichler designs, and questioned how the Eichler homes would be addressed relative to issues on mass relative to design of a neighborhood. She said that the maximum height for ent~ways might cause problems for Eichler homes. She noted also that the five foot side setbacks might present a safety hazard if bay windows and landscaping are involved. Mr. Cowan said that there were some special neighborhoods in Cupertino calling for special design criteria. Ms. Baltusis commented that views from residents' rear yards would present a clearer illustration of the impact that two story homes had on the view and privacy of the one story homes. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding appropriate formulas to consider for the fa'st and second floor FARs. Com. Stevens summarized that the envelope explained was keeping the largest mass of a home possible to build and how to build it so it doesn't appear to be a monstrosity in the neighborhood. He noted that it is possible to add a second story addition, smaller than the first story, meet the setbacks and not be a negative impact on the neighborhood. Com. Doyle noted three potential approaches; one to use FAR and design control; one to use the development envelope type of approach; the last to provide a bonus or negative to keep from building up. Com. Doyle questioned the builder and architect that if there were two ways of meeting the requirements; one to place a penalty for the second floor or one with more restrictive daylight plane or development envelope requirements; which one would provide more flexibility and which one would provide more variety of product that could be designed or developed and still be economical? Mr. Brown said that working with daylight planes would be far less desirable than working with resUicting the upstairs FAR. A brief discussion ensued regarding scheduling a meeting the first week of January to continue discussion of the amendment to the Single Family Residential Ordinance regarding building mass, setback and height. Com. Doyle concluded that staffgo back and look at how to keep the same development rights on these parcels, but drive it down to the first floor, and then look at design restrictions to be used in that context to minimize the visible mass of the home. Chair Austin lefl the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Discussion continued regarding offset requirements and articulations. The slide presentation illustrating the various second story design styles was viewed again for reference purposes. Vice Chair Mahoney said that there was consensus that covering parts of the house with a roof would make it less visually obtrusive. A brief discussion followed regarding necessa~ text modifications relative to entry height, roof overhangs, architectural features, etc. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to initiate a modification for the definitions ordinance; and a definition of floor area ratio to include building volume Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 5 December 17, 1998 Com. Doyle summarized the concerns: retain the same development potential; incentive for development on the first floor and decrease it on the second floor; create design restrictions to break up the visible mass. Summary of staff direction: 6. 7. 8. 9. Create a ratio or a mathematical equation to encourage a larger first floor and smaller second floor addition. Limit second floor wall height. Second story walls greater than 6 ft. are limited to 50%. Require that second story heights greater than 6 ft. have building offsets fi.om the first story every 24 ft. for a minimum 2 ft. depth and 8 ft. width. Roof does not have to be offset. Bay windows will not count as offsets, unless full wall height. Require wall offsets. Minimum 4 ft. structural offset required between first and second story for the 50% portion of the second story roof that is 6 ft. or less. Reduce height of walls at which the second floor setbacks apply fi.om 20 ft. to 15 ft. Modify the definition of floor area ratio to include interior space over 15 ft. in height. Reduce height of eatry features to 14 ft. Modify definitions section and present at next meeting. Retain requirement for roof overhangs. There was consensus to continue the item to the January 25, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission at 6:45 p.m. on January 11, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, ,~~ Recording Secretary Approved as presented'. January 25, 1999