Loading...
PC 05-13-04 Study Session CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 5:30 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MAY 13,2004 CONFERENCE ROOM A THURSDAY The Planning Commission study session of May 13,2004 was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Angela Chen Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director City Planner Senior Planner Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 City of Cupertino Citywide Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 and related Chapters affecting single-family residential development in the Rl Zoning District Tentative City Council date: not scheduled Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 2004 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 2 May 13,2004 Chair Saadati: Explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the RI Guiding Principles Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: The concept of having "guiding principles" is to facilitate meetings that are open to the pubic Only a few principles, which address the fundamental issues, are needed . Ex.: The majority of the commissioners might feel that the second floor to the first floor ratio is too restrictive, based on information, testimony, design review, survey, etc. One of the guiding principles would be to evaluate that and to open the topic up to public discourse and discussion The purpose of this during the public hearing session would be to hear the arguments for and against the concept of relaxing the standard in various formats. The commission could then decide how to go about making changes Cautioned that the commissioners need to be clear that the current ratio of 35% of second floor to first floor really gives a roughly 1. - % relationship . 35% is approximately 1/3, and the comparison has to be 1/3 compared to 3/3, so it is basically 1. above to % below to get that kind of ratio If the commissioners went to something as flexible as 50% of the first floor, it would be a 1/3 above and 2/3 below ratio . The "tiering on the wedding cake" gets shaped a little differently-it becomes a little less flat and a little more vertical Another guiding principle might be design review and the issue of compatibility in terms of the evaluation of what should go through design review and what is important to the community in terms of design review The position taken in the past was that single story homes did not need to go through design review, because they had less chance of being incompatible with the neighboring homes As styles have changed, even single story homes have gained more volume, and the commissioners may want to discuss whether there should be a principle relating to design review, and the process one goes through during design review-who does what and when The question of compatibility could be rolled into the design review process, with a definition of what is meant by neighborhood compatibility. (Is it the 6 homes you see when you walk out on your front porch, or is it literally the whole neighborhood?) . Large neighborhoods such as the Rancho Rinconada or Monta Vista areas may be handled through neighborhood plans rather than through the ordinance Chair Saadati: Privacy is another item that might need to be considered Mr. Piasecki: There does not seem to be a lot of controversy regarding privacy The commission could decide whether they want to enhance or not enhance current privacy regulations Most people responding to the survey want the privacy regulations Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 3 May 13, 2004 Chair Saadati: Design review seems to be a big issue. A lot of neighbors have concerns about the current policy that allows trees to be planted that take three years to grow. This could be something that would be worth discussing Asked if the commissioners need to identify all of the issues, or just a few Mr. Piasecki: Suggested focusing on the "big" issues, because all of the other issues will come through in staff reports Chair Saadati: One of the largest issues is the second floor to first floor ratio Feels this should be the number one item Asked each commissioner to identify hislher top three priorities for discussion at the public hearings Com. Giefer: Agreed that it would be a good idea to identify each commissioner's top three items and see what are the most heavily weighted issues among the commissioners . Wants to understand better what the right first/second floor ratio is, if change is necessary, that will provide flexibility for people who want to minimize the footprint of their first story house but maximize the size they feel is necessary when designing and building a second-story home Wants to make sure existing neighbors' privacy is protected as well as possible while providing flexibility to people who are building up or out Special neighborhood design guidelines would merit consideration for specific neighborhoods such as the Rancho area. One case in point: A long-time homeowner from Rancho whose lot was re-surveyed and is much smaller than what she thought she had purchased 40 years ago. She is having a difficult time selling the lot, because the size house that can be redeveloped on her property is no larger than what she has now. For people like that, is there something that can be done to help them, while maintaining neighborhood compatibility and privacy Com. Wong: Wanted to know if it would be possible to add one more question asking if the community is open to having neighborhoods that are already in transition to continue doing things the way they are doing them now Current ordinance says the new development must be "compatible"---he wants to get the heartbeat of what the community wants Mr. Piasecki: That would be a fairly unusual case, but it has happened occasionally in other areas of town There are some very narrow, small lots in the Rancho area, and in the past it was discussed whether rules should be written to allow people to have single-car garages in those situations so there is not a dominant garage facing the street Some rules for specific areas could be written into the ordinance . Commissioners could invite neighborhoods to get together to write neighborhood plans, which would cover bigger issues than just the zoning issues and circulation. They could address such issues as desire for parks and access to schools, etc. Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 4 May 13,2004 . That may not need to be part of this ordinance unless it gets down to something specific like small lots and whether they should have special consideration for certain features Com. Miller: . There is a fairly large amount of housing stock that was built after WWII -some in the 50's, a whole lot in the 60's and some in the 70's That housing stock has reached the end of its useful life One of the guiding principles should have to do with the revitalization of aging housing stock Along with that, there should be sensitivity to changing needs. What people needed in the 1950's and 1960's in the way of housing is very different than what people need today Houses then were small, ranch-style houses. Now there are more two-story houses and much larger one-story houses In Cupertino, there are changing needs, because the demographics have changed. There is a larger Asian population and that population has different needs than the previous population The ordinance needs to be sensitive to the fact that things have changed---particularly important in the neighborhoods where it is clear that re-building is going on or should go on. In some ways the current ordinance is too restrictive and is holding back the revitalization. . Revitalization is important for the City and there should not be an ordinance that holds it back The second guiding principle is the "diversity versus conformity" issue Developments are built two ways: I) A large developer buys a mass of land and builds tract homes where everything looks the same. 2) Neighborhoods are formed when the property is sold off piecemeal and individual homeowners buy and build or individual builders build spec houses, and everything is different . One could look at one neighborhood and say it is great, then look at the other neighborhood and say it is equally great. It is not clear that diversity is a bad thing . The current ordinance penalizes diversity . There are a lot of diverse styles in Cupertino that were acceptable in the past which are no longer acceptable under the current ordinance Would like to see the flexibility to have diversity brought back into the ordinance The third guiding principle is "achieving a balance between property owners' rights and neighbors' rights. Before the 1991 ordinance, the balance was shifted more toward the homeowner and neighbors didn't have many rights. Some argue today that the balance has switched so that the neighbor might have more rights than the homeowner. The balance may need to be readjusted Com. Saadati: Questioned Mr. Piasecki about how the ordinance currently addresses the owner's rights versus the neighbor's rights It seems that our process allows all parties to come and speak and get a fair share of the benefits Mr. Piasecki: Asked Commissioner Miller to clarify his statements Com. Miller: Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 5 May 13,2004 Privacy is one instance where neighbors get far too much consideration, particularly if the neighborhood is moving from single-story to two-story. How much consideration should be given to a neighbor who is living in a single-story house who may live there 3-6 years compared to a neighbors who are building around that person who are planning to live there for the next 20-30 years and are building for the next generation? How much is the new home forced to be restricted by the current home? Chair Saadati: The privacy aspect addresses both sides There is public noticing and a hearing process. People can express concerns and work out the issues. Permits under design review are not approved until everyone is pretty well satisfied with the outcome Com. Chen: In addressing changing communities, the fIrst priority is to provide an RI ordinance that gives the maximum amount of flexibility for a good design, without forgetting the bulk and mass we're trying to avoid The goal is to have a good looking community Some of the rules, such as the building envelope and the first-story to second-story ratio need to be relaxed The second principle is to give more thought to "compatibility" and to the definition of compatibility Does compatibility pertain strictly to height and volume, or could it also pertain to materials and basic design style being in compliance with the neighborhood Wants to see if the total bar percentage for two-story homes be loosened. For the two- story, right now if it is over 35% FAR, it has to go through the design review process. Would like to raise the bar to 45% FAR, while adding other restrictions to encourage compatibility and correct design For the third principle, wants to add language to encourage environmentally friendly development Wants to establish balance between homeowners and neighbors. Neighbors need to get plenty of advance notice about proposed changes in the neighborhood Privacy issues can be addressed as part of the balance between homeowners and neighbors. A workable privacy plan needs to be developed to protect both homeowners and neighbors Com. Wong: First principle is to stay within the intent of the ordinance which is to reduce mass and bulk 0 The second story ratio should be less restrictive-increase to 45% 0 Fully enforce the daylight plane. Perhaps follow Palo Alto's example of not using a percentage of the second story ratio to still achieve the intent of reducing mass and bulk Second principle would address the Design Review Guidelines 0 Make them user friendly to applicant, staff and public 0 Fold Design Review Guidelines into the Rl ordinance Third principle should address affordability. Fees are being raised throughout the area. A lot of things in the ordinance are there to improve design, but the review process needs to be streamlined and take into consideration how much the applicant must go through in the review process without being "broke in the end" Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 6 May 13, 2004 Notification is very important. In DRC, it seems that a lot of people are not aware of what is happening and it needs to be explained a bit better The market is changing and people want to live in larger homes. With the changing demographics, there are a lot of extended families and homes need to be larger Chair Saadati: We cannot expect to have things done today the way they were yesterday, and in the future we cannot expect things to be done the same way. This needs to be kept in mind Policies need to be done in a way that minimize future changes and the policies need to be "built to last" The second to first story ratio needs to be flexible. We can be flexible by increasing the ratio and tying it to the setback by adjusting the setback--the more mass on the second floor, the more setback . The focus should be on how we can build homes that are nice and compatible with the neighborhood. Compatibility does not mean having tract homes that all look the same and don't enrich the neighborhood. The more desirable neighborhoods are those that have individual homes that are not all the same Mr. Piasecki: . Getting this information from the commissioners is very helpful, because it allows staff to focus on what issues are important As the public hearings are held, the public can give input on the main topics It would be helpful for commissioners to consider how to implement their principles. For instance, "homes that are nicely designed". Very few of our rules are aimed at getting nice designs. If that is an important consideration, it argues for more design review, which is contrary to some of the other objectives. . Commissioners can discuss what is meant by "nice" and if it is possible to achieve Chair Saadati: Give people some examples of attractive homes that have been built in Cupertino Provide a design guideline booklet that can be handed out Mr. Piasecki: The booklet could discuss basic design principles such as symmetry and balance and alignment of features . To get to that element, there needs to be an implementation mechanism and the guideline booklet would be one "soft" and suggestive way to do that Most of what will be seen in the communities will be homes that are added on to. There will be relatively few new homes, so most of the construction will be in existing, constrained homes. The homeowner may want to add a larger master bedroom on the second floor, enlarge a kitchen or develop a particular feature It is harder to design high quality into that type of construction Chair Saadati: The third principle is in the line of allowing the public and neighbors to get involved with privacy issues. If someone builds a house and the next-door neighbor is not happy, it will affect his attitude toward the City and toward the homeowner who built the house Currently there are requirements for planting trees or using frosted windows for privacy Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 7 May 13,2004 Concerned about the 3-year period that it could take the trees to grow to afford privacy. This is not acceptable to many people There is some concern with frosted windows that they can block the view or may not appeal to some people Anyone adding a second story to his home concems to be sensitive to the concerns of his neighbors Com. Giefer: Asked Mr. Gilli the size of the trees required for privacy planting Mr. Gilli: The trees need to be 24-inch box trees or 15 gallon shrubs Mr. Piasecki: There is a physical restraint against getting larger trees into existing yards Chair Saadati: Asked if the principles need to be rewritten to combine the common elements from the commissioners' proposed principles Com. Wong: There is already a tentative schedule proposed, and a lot of the guiding principles listed, such as a less restrictive second story area ratio and privacy planting can be discussed at the May 24 meeting The May 24 meeting would cover the guiding principles and any objectives outside the scope of work. Start with the minor modifications staff suggested regarding corner lots and other minor issues The June 14 meeting would include second story area ratio and high volume ceilings and second floor setbacks At the June 28 meeting, everything could be finalized and privacy could be discussed July 12 meeting: Lot coverage and corner garage setbacks could be discussed with the minor modifications from 2003 The July 26 meeting is scheduled to cover single-story privacy impacts, second-story setback for tall walls-regarding gables, heights and attic space The review process and design guidelines could be discussed on the August 9 and everything should be wrapped up by August 23 Mr. Piasecki: The principles will be assigned to the appropriate categories, then they'll be opened up to public for discussion. The Commission will discuss the topic and provide direction to staff on how to craft that section of the ordinance By the end of the process, there will be a draft ordinance that can be revised if necessary Com. Wong: At the end of the public hearing, each commissioner will give his feedback on every major segment, such as second story area, etc., and say "...this is what we want." . At the next meeting, we can talk about it and make sure that is what we want and vote on it and then move on to the next topic Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 8 May 13,2004 Mr. Piasecki: . Staff had envisioned possibly writing the whole ordinance and letting commissioners review it It seems that the preferred method is to listen to the discussions and then write the ordinance from the results of those discussions Com. Miller: This method would be less confusing and would allow commissioners to take public input before committing to a particular position Mr. Gilli: This process will slow down the schedule These steps will need to be taken: 0 The commissioners will talk about the issues and try to establish a consensus direction 0 Staff will draft that section of the ordinance 0 Commissioners will respond to the draft section at the next meeting to make sure that language reflects what was intended 0 Commissioners will then discuss another issue and try to give staff enough to write language for another draft section of the ordinance . If we look at past issues that have been handled in this manner, it has taken two or three meetings to finalize Mr. Piasecki: There doesn't seem to be another practical way to manage the process Some of the guiding principles conflict with one another and staff couldn't write a section of the ordinance right now if commissioners asked them to Ms. Wordell: Another way to do it would be to not visit it until the end and then say, "Here is what you said in the last few months." Mr. Piasecki: That method could be done, and in that way the issues would not be debated at the next meeting There would be a record of what commissioners intended for each topic and there could be a wrap-up meeting at the end to go through everything one more time . Wants to be an advocate of keeping the process simple so there will not be confusion of overlapping rules in the ordinance Com. Giefer: As we look for input on a specific issues, such as, should the first-second story ratio be increased and more flexibility be allowed, commissioners need to go in with an open mind When the survey data was reviewed, roughly 5 percent of the homeowners in Cupertino said to keep the first to second story ratio the same Probably one percent of the total population responded to the survey, so we need to listen to the feedback from everyone who participates Com. Wong: The survey is only one tool in the process Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 9 May 13, 2004 . The public hearing is very important to get input from citizens Chair Saadati: One e-mail or letter received as part of the survey said that the decisions should be left to the professionals . We need to inform and educate the public. Most of the public are not architects and have not in general dealt with a lot of buildings, but they live in the community and need to be able to comment on what is being built there Mr. Piasecki: Staff will combine all the principles that were shared by more than one commissioner, but otherwise leave the list as it is Commissioners can decide at any meeting to combine topics for discussion as long as at least three commissioners agree to the discussion Com. Wong: Wants to discuss slope lots and RHS at a different hearing, even though they are within the scope of work for the Rl Com. Chen: When this was discussed before, it was determined that slope lots and RHS were more of a zoning issue and belong in a different category Mr. Piasecki: Finish the RI, and on the heels of it, bring up the slope lots and RHS The Rl ordinance may be amended twice--we'll write an ordinance without it, and on the heels of that, you'll discuss the slope lots and RHS and we'll write another Rl amendment Chair Saadati: Asked if there is an estimated time for each meeting Mr. Gilli: It was anticipated that each topic would require a three-hour meeting, not counting public input Commissioners have a lot to talk about on each issue Staff will not be proposing recommendations. The commissioners will discuss the topics and come up with their own recommendations Ms. Wordell: The discussion schedule is also dependent upon what else is on the Planning Commission agenda If there are two and a half hours of public hearing time for applications, there will not be three hours to discuss the RI ordinance Mr. Piasecki: There may have to be some special meetings scheduled to keep the process on track ADJOURNMENT: meeting of May 24,2004 The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission Planning Commission Study Session Minutes Respectfully submitted: 10 May 13, 2004