PC 09-13-04 Study Session
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED STUDY SESSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM C
6:45 P.M.
MONDAY
The Planning Commission Study Session of September 13, 2004 was called to order at 5:00 p.m.
in Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Vice Chair Gilbert Wong.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Chairperson:
Commissioners absent:
Staff present: Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Senior Planner
City Attorney:
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
Gilbert Wong
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Angela Chen
T aghi Saadati
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin Jung
Peter Gilli
Charles Kilian
1.
MCA-2003-02
(EA-2003-19)
Citywide location
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code (RI Ordinance) Continuedfrom
Planning Commission Study Session of
August 23, 2004. Tentative City Council date:
Not Scheduled
Peter GUU, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Meeting is a continuation of discussion of the building envelope or daylight plane regulation
that the City of Palo Alto had, and discussion about incorporating it into Cupertino's rules.
· The staff report outlined examples of what that would mean; Exhibit A is an example that
shows how the Palo Alto envelope relates to the current building envelope which is only meant
to apply to single story homes or single story portions of two story homes.
· In summary, if the Commission utilizes the Palo Alto envelope, it is recommended that it only
be for two story elements, that we retain our single story envelope as it is now with a slight
change to start it at the property line instead of 5 feet in from the property line.
· That would make the starting point of both the one story envelope and two story envelope start
at the same point which is 10 feet high at the property line. If that is done, it is recommended
that you also eliminate the second story side setbacks surcharge and consider keeping the
minimum setback just for ease of use for the common resident that comes to the counter and
cannot visualize in three dimension what the envelope means. It doesn't make a difference to
staff either way if you kept that language or not.
P]anning Commission Study Session
2
September IJ, 2004
· The last item in the staff report~ the last study session two commissioners indicated that our
current second story wall offset requirements should be eliminated if we go with the building
envelope. Staff recommends that they remain because they provide a benefit even if we had a
building envelope; but at this point it appears that the Planning Commission recommendation
is going to be for two story review of all homes, so the offsets can be converted into a
guideline since staff has seen cases where offsets have been required in cases that they didn't
appear to be necessary.
· In summary staff's recommendations are outlined on Page SS-3; if the Commission chooses to
implement the Palo Alto envelope, and with the second story wall offset, it is recommended
that they at least remain as guidelines.
· The next meeting will be September 27lh to review the first draft of the model ordinance.
Mr. GiIIi:
· In response to Com. Giefer's question about frequency of offsets, he stated that currently the
rule is if you have a span of a second story wall over 24 feet in length, you have to have a wall
offset of at least 6 feet width and 2 feet in depth. At an earlier meeting there was a split
decision to increase the minimum width of the offsets to 8 feet, but at the same time there was
a majority opinion that the offset shouldn't apply in cases where the first story roof was
covering a certain amount of the second story wall.
Com. Giefer:
· Do you feel that if we looked at adopting a second story building envelope, that it would
impact or change the frequency and requirement of where the offsets would be; is there any
tangible difference between the way our prescriptive method is and the way it would be after
aø-8 a building envelope?
Mr. GiIIi:
· If you had a building envelope without any wall offset requirement or guideline then there
would be no regulatory method to have an offset; you could have a second story that could be
a straight wall over 20, possibly even over 30 feet in length.
Com. Giefer:
· Do you feel that we would still have to say if it was 24 feet long it would have to have one
every 8 feet or do you think you could say something like we require you to have several wall
offsets in the design, and staff approval.
Mr. GiIIi:
· If it were a guideline the language that I have in a draft form is just that it fit, state that wall
articulation is desired on second story and then it doesn't go into detail on how much. That
will be looked at on a case by case basis.
Com. Giefer:
· How would that work if it was a guideline for enforcement.
Mr. GiIIi:
· If it is a guideline then it could still be enforced through design review; if there is not a review
process then it can't be enforced.
P]anning Commission Study Session
3
September 13,2004
Com. Miller:
· Asked if the reason for having two different daylight planes is because of staff's concern for
the first story placement.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Said yes, if they did not have a single story envelope then a property owner could propose a
one story house that had 15 foot height on one side and a 19 foot height on the other side, in
terms of the wall height.
· The ordinance is currently limited to: on the side with the 5 foot setback, the height is limited
at 12 feet which translates into plate height of between 10 and 11 feet, and on the 10 foot
setback side, it limits it to 13 feet which translates into 12.
Com. Miller:
· Said he was impressed with the presentation that Palo Alto gave in terms of the success they
are having using the daylight plane.
· I believe it simplifies the regulations quite a bit which is always a desire; 1 appreciate Mr.
Gilli's point that laymen will have difficulty potentially understanding daylight plane;
however, the people who actually design the house will not have difficulty understanding it
and normally the owner does not design the house, he hires people. Those people won't have
any problem. Palo Alto's experience is that those people don't have a problem with that.
· Also sensitive to Don Burnett's remark last time which is he was in favor of going in this
direction and felt that the Palo Alto ordinance actually did a better job than Cupertino's.
· Supports the daylight plane.
Com. Chen:
· Many changes will be made if going for the daylight plane, specifically regarding the single
story heights.
· It is a major change and not within the authorized scope of work, will likely delay the process
and create confusion.
· Said he feels the existing plan works well, and will support staffs recommendation.
Com. Giefer:
· Several things were solved by the Palo Alto daylight plane policy; during their presentation
several concerns that I had; one of them being privacy and I think my understanding of the
way the plane works is the higher you want your walls to be the further in you need to go and
that is always a concern of mine. I think we have issues with how to design around the
existing one story; that was very attractive to me. I think there are several things we would
need to work out with regards to the detail relating to height; I would not want to see us use
daylight plane and make any changes to single story RI because that is not our directive from
City Council.
· I think we would create a lot of confusion, and going into this, if we are recommending a
change, I think we would have to acknowledge people who have traditionally built in
Cupertino and have invested time and effort understanding our current ordinance; this is a re-
education process and I am not sure how we address that, or if we have a way to address that
within the building community in Cupertino.
· I want to see some setbacks required, am not completely comfortable tossing them out and
saying they are all guidelines because it is new; so I have a concern regarding the setbacks that
would be building a lot of lovely tissue boxes within the building envelope, and I wouldn't
want to see that happen.
Planning Commission Study Session
4
September n, 2004
· I would also want to ensure that every second story home is reviewed by staff for aesthetics,
making sure it does fit into the daylight plane and that it follows the rules if we went that way.
· I see it as an opportunity for us to simplify several things in our current RI and protect privacy
of neighbors which is attractive to me, and I wouldn't have a problem having the starting point
for a single story and second story being at the same point; just to make that more simplistic.
· Do not want to see the overall height as high as Palo Alto allows for single story; I wouldn't
want to change that.
Vice Chair Wong: (To Mr. Gilli)
· If we were to go with the Palo Alto daylight plane, our maximum height of our RI ordinance
is currently ~ 28 feet, so even though the envelope goes over ;!(} 28 feet, which would
supercede, the envelope or the height of 28 feet.
Mr. GiIli:
· It is always going to stop at 20 feet. Even our current envelope on some lots will go over 20.
No one can go over 28 feet.
Vice Chair Wong:
· The design review guidelines would help mitigate some ofthe concerns of the designs that you
were concerned about to make sure that the design was important to you; and that is how I felt
that by using the daylight plane it allows flexibility;
· Asked Corns. Chen and Giefer if they would reconsider if Cupertino had a good design review
guideline similar to Palo Alto.
Com. Giefer:
· For second story, don't have a problem with the daylight plane, but want a staff review of
every second story; not just guidelines.
· Staff to actually review and approve it as they do in Palo Alto.
· Supports one story, if it doesn't go over 20 feet.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Currently all second stories are going to be reviewed.
Mr. GiIli:
· As it is now in the code, all second stories are reviewed in some form, but it is very limited if it
is under 35%, in the new proposal, it will be a more formalized process.
Com. Chen:
· Is open to two story; it can work with the staff review, a more formalized review process.
· Supports it.
Vice Chair Wong:
· With the one story house, more or less what staff is suggesting is just to keep the current
policy.
Mr. GiIli:
· What is recommended is if it is a single story house or a single part of a two story house that it
meet our single story envelope; the two story element meets the two story envelope.
Planning Commission Study Session
5
September 13,2004
Com. Miller:
· Supports two story daylight plane.
· Supports reducing the complexity of the ordinance if it made sense, but if the majority of the
commissioners are concerned about what that impact might be on the first story, we are going
to make recommendations to the City Council and it appears to be an open field.
Vice Chair Wong: (To Mr. Gilli)
. Asked staff to explain what the concern is about if it is one story; why is staff so concerned
about not having proof of one or two story.
Mr. GiIIi:
· If you look at the exhibit in color, you could build a one story house that filled up the green
and the blue, whereas right now if you build a one story house, you could only be in the
turquoise or the green, so what we are proposing if you do a one story you stay under our
current envelope, if two story stays under the blue envelope; if you didn't have the single story
envelope, there could be a 19 foot tall wall plane located 10 feet away from the property line.
Vice Chair Wong:
· The daylight plane where the one story currently is at the 5 to 10 feet or is at the property line?
Mr. GiIIi:
· It comes in at 5 feet, what we are suggesting is make it at the property line; that equates to
having 10 feet; it is currently a 12 foot high wall; at the property line it would be 10 feet.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Four commissioners agree to support the two story daylight envelope with a very good offset
of guidelines; and Com. Miller said that if the majority chooses, to remain with the one story.
· Said he concurred with Com. Miller.
Com. Giefer:
· Clarified that the one thing not said which would change her position 100%, is that there is not
a mandatory staff review of all two story homes; and she would not support it.
Com. Miller:
· Said it was previously voted 3:2 to have a mandatory review.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Reiterated that there will be a staff review.
Com. Miller:
· If you are building a two story home, you are allowed to go to the 19 feet.
Mr. Gilli:
· It is possible.
Planning Commission Study Session
6
September 13,2004
Com. Miller:
· On the two story homes, we are allowing the Palo Alto ordinance; you are saying if you come
in with a two story design, it is okay if you go that high. If you come in with a one story
design, it is not okay.
Mr. GilIi:
· If you have a one story element, you would have to meet the Cupertino one; it is as it is now;
on the building envelope now, only the single story has to be under that and the second story,
it is okay to be outside of that; as shown on the example, all of the one stories are under the
envelope.
Com. Miller:
· So that would force a setback because the one story element would be guided by the current
Cupertino ordinance; the two story; you are putting an enforced setback there.
Mr. GilIi:
· It could force a setback if the applicant chooses to put the single story as close to the side as
you can, they could also choose to have the first story wall where the second story wall is
going to end up.
· The bottom line is you could get a second story wall at the ten foot setback line; that is
basically how the Palo Alto total envelope works; unless you go with excessively high plate
heights, then you may be pushed back a little.
Com. Miller:
· You are saying if you are building a two story, you can have a vertical line up to 19 feet.
Mr. GilIi:
· If you extend that plate, it is still in the envelope; you would have to have a hip roof because it
may not fit the gable; it could be right there, which right now you could do also because our
min. setback is 10 feet. You could chose to put the surcharge on the other side.
Vice Chair Wong:
· By implementing this there wouldn't be any second story setback surcharge and it would put
some of this in the guidelines.
Mr. GilIi:
· That was staff s recommendation if you implemented this to take out the surcharge, to possibly
even take out all language about the side setbacks and with the wall offsets.
· Ifthere is a review of all two story houses, it works better in guidelines.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked Commissioners to review their previous comments and decisions.
Com. Giefer:
· June 28, SS-7 with regard to allowing 10 x 10 lightwell for single story basements; voted No,
and since then had a conversation with Mr. Gilli and better understand it and support it; change
from a No vote to aYes vote.
· July 12, Page SS-8 with regard to the story poles; I really want story poles and I know it is not
popular, but I vote No in terms of eliminating story poles; I want them. It is the best way of
Planning Commission Study Session
7
Septernber13,2004
noticing that we have in addition to everything else we discussed that would help solve the
problem; we are always hearing how noticing is a problem in this community and it is the one
visual outreach that we have; so I would like to change my position on that to a No from Yes.
Vice Chair Wong:
· I wanted to make sure that it was a decision incorrectly done or you changed your mind.
(delete).
· August 9th, Page SS-9, 3 commissioners voted Yes, 2 commissioners voted No; felt it was
redundant in the notes to state that 2 commissioners opposed and then the next paragraph, one
commissioner opposes; staff to correct. Also the use of Exhibit G; oppose e it.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Not certain of Com. Miller's stance on that; I don't have a problem taking out one opposes, it
is redundant.
· Should it say Miller and Wong's issue was with the formalized review of two story homes.
Com. Miller:
· August 9th - "No" Column.
Vice Chair Wong:
· August 23 - those notes have been clarified.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Will strike much of it; a final decision was not made and they will move to this meeting.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Clarification on June 28th - asked Com. Miller ifhe was in favor of 50 feet.
Com. Miller:
· It was not clear what the reasonable number for the stairwell is; 50 square feet seems like a
small space.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Commended Mr. Gilli's summarization of commissioners' suggestions.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Said he would go to June 28th on the two items; one is second story building envelope and
requesting authorization because it is addressed at this meeting; strike the process late
surveys, since that point was passed and it is pertinent to the City Council.
· Relative to presenting the design review guidelines, said he would move forward with what
was decided on August 9th to incorporate the key guidelines into the ordinance; but did not
plan on preparing a set of guidelines.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Suggested redesigning the format of the design review guidelines to be more simplistic,
similar to Palo Alto's being numbered vs. just groups in different categories.
Planning Commission Study Session
g
September Il2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it was dependant on whether they wanted to incorporate them into an ordinance or
separate guidelines, which should be resolved first.
· Now that you have decided on daylight plane, what should the guidelines say, how specific do
they need to be; now they don't want them in the ordinance whereas before they did.
· What is the pleasure of the Commission; it can be done either way; it will be a more
subjective process if they are not in the ordinance, but it was thought that the idea was to
make it more ordinance driven.
Mr. GilIi:
· It is not that the guidelines are now required; the guidelines are in the ordinance so that people
cannot say they did not see them.
Com. Miller:
· Said he was incorrect in thinking that putting the definition in the ordinance meant it went
from a guideline to a requirement, but understands that it is put in the ordinance to make it
easier for people to pick it up in one package.
Mr. GilIi:
· We may still have a separate sheet that may have some illustrations but the actual wording will
be in the ordinance.
Com. Chen:
· A follow up question is when staff does the review, the more formal; the more extensive
review. Is staff going to follow the guidelines more closely.
Mr. GilIi:
· Staffs intention is to follow the guidelines about how they have been enforced to date. For
example, there was an issue over wall height, a couple of years where it was enforced strictly,
now we are in a period where it is not enforced strictly, and will likely continue that until there
is a decision at either the Planning Commission or City Council that says we are stilI too strict
or too loose; that is where our intention is on the guidelines at this point.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Would you write the guidelines to reflect current practice or keep it vague.
Mr. GilIi:
· The draft language now is rather vague; it allows for us to adapt to a neighborhood.
· That has no interest in protection of mass to a neighborhood that has extreme concern about
new mass and also to change in time if a new council was elected who has completely
different ideas.
Com. Chen:
· What is the difference between a formal review process and an informal review process.
Mr. GilIi:
· For the houses that currently don't go to a hearing; those are two story homes with a total FAR
under 35%; the first time staff sees them is the plan/check stage. For the formalized review,
staff sees it before the plan/check stage before all the structural drawings are done, so if there
Planning Commission Study Session
9
September 13,2004
are some changes, we can do it at that point instead of having to wait until after we see
structural and then the architect has to adjust something. The applicants will have to show us
the envelopes on the elevation drawings. There will be notice of the adjacent neighbors in the
case of the smaller two story homes, and they will have a chance to comment at the conceptual
stage. For the cases over 35% FAR, it will have a 300 foot mailing, adjacent neighbors are
still noticed, it is the same overall process, except that more of the neighbors will be notified.
· Instead of using story poles the idea is to have a rendering which is a front elevation prettied
up a little with some color; in the case of bigger two story houses, it would be a perspective on
a large board and it would have the contact information on who is working on it at the city and
we hope that will serve to give people a better idea of what is being proposed.
· The notice board will be put out when staff feels the project is close to being approved; if a
project comes in and doesn't work architecturally at all, then we would not recommend to put
up the notice up yet because it would be the wrong elevation possibly; but once the design gets
to a certain point, that is when we would do the notification and the rendering.
Com. Chen:
· Summarized that staff will be involved in the project with applicant early on in the process and
the immediate adjacent neighbors would be notified if it is a two story under 35% square feet,
but that is after all the design review is done and accepted by staff.
· That work is not going to be reviewed by people around the 300 square feet radius; it is going
to be reviewed by adjacent neighbors. The larger than 35% will trigger the official design
reVIew process.
Mr.GiIli:
· It is not going to be called anything different, but it is going to have a larger noticing in and
more elaborate rendering on the board out in the front of the house.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The expectation is to try to write the guidelines as objective as possible. Let staff prepare it
and bring to you in a meeting with the ordinance; study it; if it has to be continued that is fine.
· Staff wants the opportunity to make sense of it.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said Com. Chen had appropriate questions. They agreed that there would be a 300 foot
distance; adjacent neighbors would get the II x 17 plans, elevations.
· Said he was not comfortable using the floor plan because he felt that if they really wanted to
come inside to see where the windows were showing, that the nearby adjacent neighbors
would come to look at it.
· Asked Mr. Gilli about staff's position, said he did not recall their position regarding having
floor plans.
Mr. Gilli:
· We think if it is going to be a case where the neighbors are getting notification of a two story
house next door, it is going to be important to the affected neighbor which room is looking at
them, and if you just look at the windows you don't know what room is behind them, you may
not be worried if it is the bathroom, you may be only worried if it's a bedroom, but if you
don't have the floor plans, you are not going to know.
Planning Commission Study Session
10
September n, 2004
Vice Chair Wong:
· W ouldn't that be indicated with the landscape plan and also force them to get more
information by coming to city hall.
Mr. GiIIi:
· From our position we think we should give as much information as the average person would
want and our position is we think the average person would like to have the floor plans so they
can see what is going to be the room that is looking down.
Com. Chen:
· Palo Alto plan limits the square footage.
Mr. GiIli:
· The Palo Alto situation is if you have a 5,000 square foot lot you get 45%; as the lot gets
larger, the FAR goes down. When you get to lot sizes of 7,500 to 10,000 the FAR is about
35%, with an acre in the RI zone in Palo Alto, the FAR would be.3.
Com. Chen:
· Palo Alto has a maximum home size, Cupertino should consider having maximum home size.
· Too many two story homes exceed the 35% coming forward and getting approved as a
standard process; it takes longer and delays the project.
· Would like the formal process for all two story reviews; make the notification more uniform,
for two story building.
· Allow 45% and go through the process of review notification and don't have to trigger the
design review process.
Mr. GiIIi:
· What the Commission agreed on was to have all two story reviewed, but not have a public
meeting because the public meeting often appears not necessary.
· The plan is to review all two story homes now, but nobody needs to go to a hearing unless they
have an exception. The idea is to save time for all parties and save money which would
translate into less fees. As it is now, our RI design fees are not as inexpensive as they were
and if we go to a process without a hearing, they can be reduced.
Com. Miller: (To Com. Chen)
· Wanted to clarifY: in terms of the process, the process that everyone agreed upon is that staff
gets to review everything, and if there is an exception it goes to DRC; if there is no exception,
it doesn't. Was that something you agreed with or were you concerned?
Com. Chen:
· Agrees with that.
Vice Chair Wong:
· If applicant disagrees with staff recommendation and it is appealed to DRC, and if the DRC
rules in favor of the applicant and not go through the process of the DRC, Planning
Commission, City Council; he said he would like to see a change in that; because the applicant
keeps paying and paying.
· Streamline the process; reduce the time.
Planning Commission Study Session
II
September 11,2004
Mr. GiIIi:
· The applicant only has to pay for an appeal once; it is not extra cost; it is extra time.
· The current practice is that the action of the DRC is treated like the action of the Director's
minor modification, and Director's minor modification goes to the Planning Commission for a
recommendation and then to City Council. The RI rules were made to mirror that.
· If they wanted to appeal the Planning Commission decision, they would have to pay again and
go to the City Council.
· What is in the model ordinance is going to stay with that process; instead it goes directly to
the Planning Commission and stops there; the idea is that the DRC is only two people, and if it
is a controversial issue then it should be something that can't be tied; that is in the model
ordinance.
Vice Chair Wong opened the meeting for public input.
Jennifer Griffin:
· Urged caution about adopting the daylight plane until the ramifications have been fully studied
on how it affects Cupertino, particularly.
· The second story setback is necessary and how they are affected by the daylight plane still
remains to be seen. Said she hoped that these changes would not be made to the RI at this
time until there can be a further study of the affect of the daylight plane, and how some other
cities have used the daylight plane or whether they are still using the FAR
· The second story setbacks are necessary for certain parts of Cupertino and in my
neighborhood; the lot size dictates that.
· Urged everyone to think clearly about changes.
Vice Chair Wong:
· The next meeting will be at the City Council chambers to introduce the model resolution on
September 27'" and depending on the outcome, may in the next meeting make a
recommendation to City Council.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Distributed a copy of the draft ordinance and reviewed changes and updates.
The study session adjourned and resumed at the Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. in the
City Council chambers.
Submitted by:
~
is, Recording Secretary
Approved as Amended: October 11, 2004