Loading...
PC 08-09-04 Study Session CITY OFCUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED STUDY SESSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2004 CONFERENCE ROOM C MONDAY The Planning Commission Study Session of August 9, 2004, was called to order at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati. ROLL CALL Cornmissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: T aghi Saadati Gilbert Wong (arrived after roll call) Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Angela Chen Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli Eileen Murray PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION 1. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) Citywide location Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl Ordinance) Continuedfrom Planning Commission Study Session of July 26. 2004. Tentative City Council date: not scheduled Peter GiIli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Purpose of the meeting is to discuss proper design guidelines and how they should be incorporated into the ordinance. · The staff report contains recommendations on how to incorporate the major points of the design guidelines into the ordinance, where and how it would be done. · There are also some options the Planning Commission may want to discuss on discouraging or de-emphasizing a garage and encouraging having the living areas of the house. · At the last meeting staff talked about meeting with local architects to discuss the proposed change to the process. · Reported that staff met with 8 architects who have been involved in a third to a half of the projects in design review since the process was instituted in 1999; and they were all agreeable that the process should not include a public hearing. They agreed that the process should include notification of neighbors and have it be handled at stafflevel. · The architects preferred an option which is crafted in Exhibit G. Staff hopes to address the guidelines and also finalize the discussion on the design review process because at the last meeting, there were two Commissioners in support of two different options. Planning Commission Study Session 2 August 9, 2004 · If completed tonight, the plan is to have the Planning Manager from the City of Palo Alto present at a study session to review their process and their regulation, specifically how they have a daylight plane but also what process they have in order to implement the daylight plane. · It is hoped that at the first meeting in September staff will bring to the Planning Commission a draft ofthe ordinance language that reflects what the Planning Commission has discussed. · Alternatively there can be one last meeting to review the lists of the changes if anyone wants to reopen an issue or wants to make sure they understand all the issues before it goes into ordinance language. Chair Saadati: · Asked for input on who wanted to see the draft ordinance at the first meeting in September. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he liked Mr. Gilli's idea because there were some items that were brought up and documented in the minutes, yet not discussed because time ran out. · Asked to see all the meeting minutes, tally of directions where the Commissioners are going, and the staff report. The process began in January and the information is needed for the City Council also. Mr. Piasecki: · Said staff would attempt to condense it as much as possible for the City Council and get it down to the fundamental issues that are left over that will include all the background material. Chair Saadati: · Said they would go back and discuss the various exhibits as Com. Chen was not present at the previous meeting when they discussed the exhibits and gave their preferences. Com. Chen (Comments Relative to Design Review): · Most of the local architects prefer not to have review at all, but consider staff approval to be a better avenue; they do not want a public hearing. If the process can be simplified by still having the design review group, it cuts the Planning Commission off similar to the Environmental Review Committee structure. · The Planning Commission still has some opportunity to provide input; in the meantime, they will hear staffs professional opinion. Not certain ifthat complicates matters. · Said she reviewed the purpose of the design review process and felt that No. I provides an opportunity to review the design of the building; and many times it is a follow up of the Planning Commission's decision where occasionally they will put a condition on the development to have the items come back to the DRC for final approval instead of making on- the-spot decisions. · Said it was another important reason to have a review process to facilitate public hearings so neighbors have an opportunity to review the project by their comments as well. It can be addressed from the noticing; the noticing will serve the same purpose, by how the comments will be addressed from the neighbors and who is going to be in a position to make a final decision. · Said another concern is the two story under FAR and two story over 35% FAR, and she was pleased to see the local architects actually want some more detail restriction on the 35% FAR rules; most of them feel 35% FAR is good, but they want to see some restrictions on the lot exceeding 8,000 square feet. Planning Commission Study Session 3 August 9, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · Said he felt they were saying that over 8,000 square feet, if you had an incentive it would be an easier process; under 35% or 8,000 square foot and above lots, many would choose that easier process because they don't tend to go as large; so they would like to see an easier process for second floor 35% or less; perhaps a staff review process. Mr. GiIIi: · That is the current practice, if it is 35% or less there may be six per year, they are always on the larger lots, informally reviewed by staff. · The idea is to have it more formalized which most architects agree would be a cost savings to them because presently they file for building permits, have their structural drawings done, and they may have to make a small change, which means they have to change their structural drawings which is costly. · If there was a quicker more formal process beforehand, they could get to the point before the design is approved and they do their structural drawings and they know they don't have to make any changes based on design or the guidelines. Com. Chen: · That applies to all the two story designs. Mr. GiIIi: · For two story over 35%, the process would remain as is, it would not go to a public hearing; it would be approved by staff after receiving comments from the public. Ifthere is going to be a process, they would rather it be approved by staff because it is faster, staff remains consistent and it doesn't change as much as the DRC members. · Said the items raised at hearings typically are things that could have been worked out with the applicant and the affected neighbor meeting; but if it goes a hearing then it normally needs to be continued so that the meeting can be held, which adds more delays. · The architects like Exhibit G. · Relative to addressing comments from the neighbors, staff would handle it in the same manner as the committee and Planning Commission has acted; they would look at how the Commission reviews the cases brought up to them and try to use that as a barometer and treat all the other applicants in similar fashion. · If a neighbor has concerns that staff feels are reasonable and the average person would agree is a concern; staff would work with the applicant to have him address that in some way; all the decisions are appealable. Mr. Piasecki: · If the neighbor does have an issue and the neighbor and applicant cannot resolve it to the neighbor's satisfaction, the neighbor can say they are going to the Commission. That gives them some weight, because it means more time for the applicant. Mr. GiIIi: · Ifthe neighbors decide to go to the Planning Commission to address the issues, the applicant would pay for the appeal. · According to the present rules, it goes to the Commission as a recommendation to the City Council and that mayor may not be how this process sets up; there has been some discussion about removing the step of going to the Commission, because a lot of them do not need to go all the way up to the Council. Planning Commission Study Session 4 August 9, 2004 · Also mentioned about the DRC reviewing projects because of conditions; it would still have that function ¡fit is a commercial project or mixed use project, it would still go to DRC and RI exceptions would still go to DRC. Com. Chen: · Relative to the two story under, the local architect would like to see another condition put in place which is if the lot size is less than 8,000 square feet, then the Planning Commission should allow the two story to go up to 45% FAR without going through the DRC process. Mr. GilIi: · What was said was that, if there is presently a process that allows you to have two story or one story house up to 45%, if you go over 35%, it needs to go to a hearing; if you go under, you don't need to go to a hearing. They like keeping the under 35% in a simpler process because they think it offers an incentive; it is not that they want to have different rules, it is a process Issue. Com. Chen: · Said she would agree with that. · It looks like there is a good process in place. Vice Chair Wong: · Ask Com. Chen some questions because she missed some meetings · Said he attempted to stress at the last Planning Commission meeting, the current process is that any two stories under 35% are treated like one story; it goes directly to a building permit. Mr. GilIi: · Said it does go through an informal review and the one story has nothing. Vice Chair Wong: · Reiterated that staff reviews for guidelines performance. · Said he tried to stress in the last meeting that in 1999 when the ordinance was passed, for two stories under 35% FAR, they wanted to encourage them to build a smaller two story house vs. a two story house that is over 35%. If they want to streamline the process, that is what the architects were attempting to discuss. · Said he felt strongly that for two stories over 35% there should be more noticing and go through the more regimented process; which is the reason he was pushing for a less streamlined process for two stories under 35%. Com. Chen: · Looking at Exhibit G, the only difference between the two in the requirement is the noticing that added to it, which all agreed that as any new construction occurred, they should be notified. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he could agree to that. · Asked Com. Chen if she would be open to that; and said he would agree they could skip the process and go straight through a courtesy notice similar to the one story and still fulfill the 1999 plan; or in the directive of streamlining two stories under 35%, since they want to give something to the residents to encourage them to build a two story house under 35% FAR. Planning Commission Study Session 5 August 9,2004 Com. Chen: · Said her concern was how would concerns and input from the neighbors be addressed, and she felt this step could address it. Vice Chair Wong: · Said they could appeal it; and asked if there would be an appeal process if they did not go through the Director's approval for the one story. Mr. GiIIi: · Said there was no appeal process for one story or for two story under 35%. · At the staff review, staff makes a judgment call as to whether or not it needs a hearing, and that is what the dotted line in Exhibit E is. · In the guiding principles discussion there was talk about letting the neighbors have input, especially regarding privacy. For two story houses, that is going to have the most privacy impacts, which is why staff wanted to give neighbors a chance to comment on the project and have the possibility of making changes in the plan. · There has to be some kind of discretionary approval, the concept is there will be a Director's approval which is appealable if either side is unhappy. If there is no Director's approval, there is nothing to appeal. Chair Saadati: · To clarify this with the new proposed exhibit, then for any of the scenarios, they can appeal because it goes to the Director's approval, except for one story. · How does a concerned resident raise their concerns about privacy? Mr. GiIIi: · There will be some cases where there will be no avenue; they won't have a chance to have their voice heard until it is done. There are other cases where on the minor issues such as the rear setback reduction, some information is tentatively agreed to having that be a Director's approval; it is a one story project that allows the reduction of the rear setback, but adjacent neighbors are going to be noticed and be able to provide input. · The process will allow the neighbors to have input on things such as extending a non- conforming building line where a neighbor might know the setbacks should be 5 and 10, and they see a neighbor building an addition along a non-conforming wall. · Staff is trying to take what they have heard from the public as the hot button issues such as privacy, reduction of the rear setback and such, and make it so that the public will have input on those; for other cases they won't. · If somebody builds a one story house and it meets all the rules, it will just be a building permit. Vice Chair Wong: · Thanked Com. Chen for answering his questions; said he understood where she was coming from. · Asked Mr. Gilli if the appeals process had to go to one stage vs. all the way up to City Council? Planning Commission Study Session 6 August 9,2004 Mr. GiIIi: · All the appeals are handled the same way; but he said he felt the City Council would not object if the R I did not go all the way to City Council. They do not necessarily want to see all the appeals. · There are not a lot of appeals; from staffs standpoint, the best solution might be to have it just go to the Planning Commission and stop. That is the final action. Vice Chair Wong: · Reiterated that it would not have to go the DRC, just straight to the Planning Commission for the final appeal and if they are not happy, they can appeal it. Mr. GiIIi: · From staffs standpoint that would be the best, because at the DRC it is only two Planning Commissioners and there is not as much input; and if isn't appealed it means it is already controversial. It is not an easy item; it makes sense to go to a larger body. · The DRC has two members; if it is split, there is no action. · Said the code changes could be incorporated into the R I. Com. Giefer: · Asked what percent of the DRC meetings do residents attend who may have objections to a project. · Questioned whether staff felt that the architects/builders' answers were in any way influenced by the current deliberations. · Said the prevailing sentiment amongst her fellow commissioners is that they want to increase the second story ratio to first. Questioned whether it was biased, now if you are over 35%, you go to DRC, but once it moves forward, the prevailing group sentiment is that it will likely be 50% second FAR. Those are the ones that are currently going to the DRC today as exceptions. · Asked if staff felt that any of that sentiment was funneled into this process. Mr. GiIIi: · Said a minimum of 50% to 75% of the architects he spoke to had a strong opinion on the rule change on the second story because they feel that is what their clients want; their clients want to have additional room upstairs in order to have in most cases three bedrooms. Now you can get two, or three of what used to be the standard size in the past; preferences are larger now. · Said he did not feel that influenced their decision because in general, architects are used to working with staff to get to a certain point and when they reach that point, it goes to a hearing. · If Commission and Council are happy with the output, they would rather skip the hearing, skip the extra time. · If faced with the option of larger two stories still being exceptions, they would still prefer Exhibit G, because it would be easier for their clients. · Said many architects were passionate about not having story poles, many of their clients were not aware of what they were and would prefer to have a rendering in the front, which is what Palo Alto, Los Gatos, and Saratoga do. · They also said the process of not going to hearing is similar to what is practiced in many cities. Planning Commission Study Session 7 August 9, 2004 Com. Giefer: · Referred to the comment in the staff report that commissioners change so DRC is somewhat of a moving target. Staff changes as well, how do they ensure they are getting the quality in design they are looking for as they replace the housing inventory in the city. Mr. GiIIi: · Said that in a staff approval process, what would happen is the Planning Commission might want to ask for each year a summary report of all the projects approved by staff; have a look at them and then the Commission has a chance to tell staff whether they are favorable or not, or anywhere in between. · There is a chance to appeal each decision; the Planning Commission and the City Council are still going to have that authority. Mr. Piasecki: · Part of what it implies and there is a checks and balances going on; it is not just we are doing it, and the neighbors can appeal to the Commission or Council. Com. Giefer: · Said she was not certain that the neighbors knew they had the power to do that. Mr. GiIIi: · It is going to be in the notice; everyone who provides comment will get something in writing explaining what staff did; if they want to appeal it, they can. The people would then provide comments. · The new Planning Commissioners and Council members will also be educated that they can appeal. Vice Chair Wong: · Said it would convince them that whatever they approve, it should be included in the process that the applicant or neighbors should be given a flow chart. · The City of San Jose provides flow charts. Com. Miller: · Relative to Com. Giefer's question about how many neighbors come out to the design review process, he asked what percentage of the applications for two story below 35% have neighbors coming out regarding concerns. Mr. GiIIi: · Estimate that it is at least 50%, which are phone calls. After construction is started and they are built, there is more negative feedback than when going through the process for larger homes. It may happen because they did not know and had no chance to comment. · Staff feels that when people are notified they have a process for commenting, and they choose not to comment although they do not approve of what is happening; they are not as bothered than if the process provided no opportunity for input. Many architects deal with that on an ongoing basis while the house is being built, two story houses under 35%; the neighbors are complaining about everything. It also adds to their problems during construction. · Said not as many people complained about one stories as well; most are the rare cases of rear setback production, it is a new house but the issue of rear setback reduction is being addressed and the new house is not. For the most part the impacts aren't as comparable if something is a Planning Commission Study Session 8 August 9, 2004 new one story house and meets all the setbacks, meets the heights, meets the FAR; the neighbor may have objections, but if it is a two story house that has privacy impacts and they had no chance for input, their objections on the two story are always more emotional. Com. Miller: · In the flow chart G, under noticing, there are three different approaches to noticing. Under one story minor issues, is that minor issues for the one story? Mr. GiIli: · The minor issues have a notation at the bottom; they are mostly one story issues but there are the second story decks. Com. Miller: · It says adjacent noticing with II x 17 plans; which is noticing and including the plans in the notice. · Two story under 35%, is adjacent noticing, posting notice in front yard with black and white rendering. · Two story over 35%, has color added to it. Mr. GiIli: · It is color; it is perspective, not just an elevation; and then the noticing is 300 feet. · Only the adjacent will get the II x 17s. Com. Miller: · Many of them were just phone calls on the ones under 35%; the issue was that they did not understand what was happening; and now they have more information. Mr. GiIIi: · They are not happy with the fact that it happened without them being noticed. Normally staff does not receive calls from a resident down the street; it is the adjacent neighbor who is seeing a two story being built and has concerns about the windows. Com. Miller: · In reading the comments from the architects, and looking at No.3, most believe Exhibit F needs improving because it removes incentive to build 35% houses on large lots. · If it is the assumption that the main issue with the neighbors on 35% houses is with the noticing and a better job is done noticing everybody, whether it is one, two or three story, but an incentive is provided to build less than 35%; it would be advantageous. · One thing already being done to provide an incentive to build less than 35%, is allowing more larger second stories by going up to 50% on the second story. Many people say the reason they build over 35% is because they need to have a much larger first story in order to get a decent second story, so they wind up with a bigger house than they really need. He said it did not serve anyone's purpose, not the city, not the builders, and the owners have to pay more for a house with more space than needed in the beginning. · Said he liked the idea of going higher on the second story because it provides an incentive for people to build a smaller house to begin with; and the other way to achieve that is by reducing the processing you have to go through in order to get a 35% lower house approved in the first place. Planning Commission Study Session 9 August 9, 2004 · Hopefully we achieve the issue of the neighbors by making sure everybody gets noticed about everything going on, so there are no surprises; those are my suggestions on that. · Said if the changes were made, he felt they were close to reaching agreement in that regard. · Relative to Exhibit G, and for two story under 35%, it says staff review for guideline conformance; the other exhibits state the same thing. Will that be a change in the process or is that the way it always was and no changes are proposed. Mr. GiIIi: · It is that way presently; no changes are proposed. · Specifically not adding a consulting architect if it is under 35%. Com. Giefer: · To follow up on Mr. Gilli's response to Com. Miller's question; on the conforming two story under 35%, there is the Director's approval process analogy, which is a change. Mr. GiIIi: · It is a change, and that is if you don't have that, then an appeal can't happen and the neighbors have no real weighting to have input into the process. Com. Miller: · Said he would still dispute treating the under 35% the same as the one story because that is the way it is presently done, and he would still like to see the incentive in terms of getting the people to build smaller houses. · The good and the bad have to be weighed; having people build smaller houses in town is more desirable than forcing them to make a decision, to build a bigger house, because there is no incentive to build a smaller one. Vice Chair Wong: · It would also set a new precedent because we are changing the original ordinance's intent that two stories under 35% and one story don't have this process. It was stated that by adding the Director's approval for all two stories, it is changing the current process. Mr. GiIIi: · It is changing the process; it is staying within the intent because a lot of the issues on the intent is to protect privacy and this provides neighbors with input before the house is built. · The architects would rather have a more formalized process so they don't find out when their structural drawings are done that they have to make a change. · From staff s standpoint, especially after speaking with the architects, the process for an under 35% house; there is incentive there because you don't have the consulting architect which saves at least $1,500 and time; there is not as much noticing; the notice in the front is just a front elevation in black and white, whereas on the larger two story it is going to be a color perspective rendering, and all of those will add up to time and money. · There is the added step of having an action but there are only six a year and the people who are doing them are agreeable with it. Staff is confident that it is not going to cause problems for people. Com. Chen: · Said with the theory of giving incentives, changing the ratio between first and second will be an incentive to build a smaller house; and the process will probably work. Plannin¡r Commiggion Study Seggion 10 Augu~t 9, 2004 Com. Miller: · Asked if an architect came in with an under 35% and asked for an informal staff review up front, would staff agree to that or not agree, if they did not have this process in place. Mr. GiIIi: · Said staff always does that, even if it is a one story house, if an architect wants to come in and have an informal review to make sure it meets everything before they do structural, that is something staff handles at counter presently and will do so in the future. Com. Miller: · There is still the question in terms of, if they want more formalized review but yet it is available to them if they ask for it, but they want to actually see it in the rules. Mr. GiIIi: · If it is over the counter, staff is dealing with sketches, there is nothing in writing; and there is nothing final saying it is approved. · They would like it to be that before they do structural they have some assurance they are not going to be adding more cost to structural because of a design issue. They have the ability to have a level of review now, but not all of them use it and sometimes when the details plans are done, new things come up. It is staff s attempt to make things so that it is not a burden on neighbors or the applicants. Com. Miller: · Clarified his understanding that by having the Director's approval, a neighbor can read the plans and if he is unhappy with them, can send in a letter saying he is unhappy with the plans. The process will work, and there is no Director's hearing, Mr. Gilli: · On the posted notice, on the noticing in the mail, it will have a deadline in order to provide comments instead of a hearing date; staff will get the comments and if it is a comment stating they don't like it, it is two story, they don't want it; staff will inform the complainant that the applicant is allowed to do two story, and staff cannot help with that type of complaint. · Complaints relative to size of windows, staff will take those issues to the applicant and see if they can plant larger trees to mitigate the privacy concerns. · The Director will act upon it, all parties will be notified of the decision; if satisfactory it will move on; if not it could get appealed. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked if it would be sent to the Planning Commissioners and City Council regarding Director's approval, to allow for some oversight. · Said he was concerned about that since the DRC is taken out because the process was being streamlined. Mr. GiIIi: · Said they would be e,mailed a link; and go to the link for the resolutions and plans; you can also ask for any paper. Planning Commission Study Session II A.u~~t 9,2004 · You will get the action and the approved plans. · We can even include a copy of any comments received that influenced the decision. Vice Chair Wong: · Questioned if it had to be colored for the two story over 35%; or could it be black and white, as he did not see any major difference. Mr. GiIIi: · It would be less costly, if doing a level of design review, part of the subject looked at is color and making sure it is compatible with the neighborhood. On the storyboards, they ask for that; if this process is used, they will not have storyboards because it won't be needed. · It would be more money, but not a significant amount over black and white. Chair Saadati: · Asked for the definition of adjacent noticing. Mr. GiIIi: · Adjacent will be any property that actually touches the site or across the street would touch the site. Chair Saadati: · Said he was not sure it would be enough, because that would be four, the neighbor behind, either side and also across. · Questioned the reason for the architect to state that Exhibit F removes an incentive to build 35% FAR houses. Mr. GiIIi: · Said if it was a perfectly laid out subdivision, they would include the ones that have a connection at one point; if it were like a tic tac toe box, and are diagonal, there is a point of connection and it would be considered adjacent. Mr. GiIIi: · Ifthe process is easier, a lot of clients will choose it, and if Exhibit E has its split, Exhibit F was an idea where all two story were going to be reviewed together, same process and the same required of it. A client who wishes to save money may go with the house at 35% rather than build the house they wanted more that was 37%. Chair Saadati: · With Exhibit G by removing the architects reVIew, is staff going to do the revIew for consistency? Mr. GiIIi: · Yes, and at this point, that is how it is done; the consulting architect reviews it and focuses more on just overall design quality in detail and style. What is looked at on the staff level is how it conforms to the guidelines; at most we would try to mimic a little of what the consultant might have said, but it is not going to be an extra cost for applicants. · In general we will ask for more improvements and details of a house that is at the maximum size than we would at the smaller size; because the visual impact of a house is generally larger Planning Commission Study Session 12 August 9, 2004 if it is larger and less if it is smaller, so we tried to keep what we ask of people in proportion to what they are asking for. Chair Saadati: · Said Exhibit G is an improvement and he liked the process because it gives the applicant or the neighbors the right to appeal for under 35%. · There should be a process that the neighbors who are close to the new home can bring their concerns. · Having the appeal process helps to address their concerns. A straw poll vote indicated that three commissioners were in favor of Exhibit G, and two were in favor of Exhibit E. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he supported Exhibit E because he wanted to provide an incentive for applicants to build a two story home under 35% and stay within the intent of the 1999 ordinance. Chair Saadati: · Said he was concerned there is no opportunity for the neighbors to appeal based on Exhibit E; and he wanted to give the residents an opportunity to raise their concerns and be heard. Mr. Piasecki: · Mr. Gilli will move forward to incorporate the guidelines into the ordinance wording. Mr. GiIli: · Staff needs suggestions on how to incorporate the guidelines as they now do not incorporate every single guideline; focus is on the most useful ones. · There are some items that should be addressed or could be addressed and staff would provide options on how that could be worded. · There is also a discussion point on methods to de-emphasize a garage and emphasize having living space instead. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked if when they use design review guidelines, should the Commissioners let staff know that they want to implement the guidelines how the City Council directed in July or are they going to be implemented prior to July. Mr. GiIli: · Said at this point they would implement them as they have been based on direction received in July. The question for the Commission is which of the guidelines should be incorporated. At this point if the commissioners said there would be a reasonable level of compatibility of forms and heights, staff would use how the Council directed in July. · He said the question was did they still want to say that on each of the topics. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked how they would know that the July decision ofthe City Council won't be reversed. Planning Commission Study Session 13 Àugust 9, 2004 Mr. GiIIi: · Said it could be and it would likely happen on an appeal of a project because that is how that decision happens as a result of an appeal. · When a case comes forward and it is appealed and a policy decision is made, much of the actions afterwards are adjusted. · In five years, assuming it is not amended again, Council and Commission would all agree that it should be a certain way, either based on appeals of projects or periodic updates of how staff has been acting on projects. Vice Chair Wong: · Now the guidelines are meant to be guidelines only until the Council changes that directive. Mr. GiIIi: · The guidelines have always been guidelines but what has to be done by the approving body is a determination that the guidelines are still there, it is just how we interpret what is reasonably compatible changed in July. Vice Chair Wong: · Viewed guidelines just as guidelines only and the whole point of going through the appeal process on Mann Drive was that you see a lot of applicants from July on, it was a lot easier flow than prior to July. Chair Saadati: · Are these guidelines incorporated into the ordinance? Mr. GiIIi: · A lot of the guidelines are in the ordinance, and then a handful are added. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he read the staff report, but questioned if staff was recommending to not have design guidelines at all or to still have them. Mr. GiIIi: · Said what was put in the report was how you would incorporate in the ordinance because that is the direction received. Vice Chair Wong: · Said if they incorporated them based on their discussion, they would not have any guidelines. Mr. GiIIi: · It would not have to be a separate package. · It is worded such that it is not required; it is still worded in a way that it is vague, which means it is up for interpretation and will be flexible based on the opinions of the public at that time. · It will be required that a project be in scale with the rest of the neighborhood; what that means is going to evolve and change over time. What it presently means is different from what that meant in 1999 and it would probably evolve over time, but the general concept is that it should be compatible; the question is how close is compatible. Planning Commission Study Session 14 August 9, 2004 Com. Miller: · Said if they were going to have guidelines, he would agree with Vice Chair Wong that they should just be guidelines and they shouldn't be enforced. · What we are saying is they are not enforced, they are interpreted and the whole area is foggy. · Said he was concerned in general about the inconsistencies in the way things are done, starting with the goals and guiding principles of design guidelines. The first principle is to create harmonious homes in scale and design. The next principle is to allow for continued evolution of the city's housing stock. · Those need further discussion; three and four provide a speedy development process, all agree on that; and all agree to provide neighbors with input to the development process. · Said he wanted to make sure to allow for continued evolution of the city's housing stock as it was very important to him and he has always been concerned that they view compatibility as compatibility with housing that is at the end of its useful life that was built 40 or 50 years ago, and is no longer meeting the needs from a functional standpoint of today' s population who are living in Cupertino. · Concerned that they don't overdue it on giving the impression that porches are needed; some neighborhood porches are appropriate, some stand out like a sore thumb. · Some people would interpret guideline goal No. I - create harmonious homes in scale and design, as being all the homes have to be somewhat similar in terms of a tract neighborhood. He said he has seen neighborhoods where every home is different and yet the neighborhood looks very pleasing as a whole. · Said he did not want people who are redeveloping in Cupertino to feel like they have to build something that is similar in scale and design to something that was done after World War II. Com. Giefer: · Said she agreed with many of Com. Miller's points raised. · Agreed that many of the neighborhoods currently are at a phase where the dilapidated homes are being replaced as they don't meet the needs of today's families. Said he would favor adding some ofthe things that are in the design guidelines into the RI itself. · Supports keeping it at design guideline, it also goes into more depth and talks about appropriateness of materials. · Does not want to see homes being built today be homogenous with the tract homes that are monotonous in many cases or poorly redeveloped or remodeled by a contractor putting a box on the second story; it is not very appealing, although highly functional. · Said that on some of staff's suggestions, she felt strongly that they need to encourage the entry and living areas closer to the street instead of having the garage projecting forward; do not want a garage focused community. · Said she was supportive of any way to turn, rotate, de-emphasize the garages, would like to see that language go into the actual ordinance. · Said she discouraged garages that dominate the front elevation; the intent of what staff was saying is encouraging and she was supportive of having more pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, although uncertain how to include it in the ordinance or keep it in the design guidelines. · Felt they needed to provide flexibility so that there are not just tract style homes being built in neighborhoods; need to allow for some creativity while maintaining the neighborhood privacy. Com. Chen: · Said she agreed in general with Com. Miller's basic direction to provide more flexibility to address the change in the community and said it was a good opportunity to bring better designs to Cupertino. Planning Commission Study Session 15 August 9, 2004 · Staff's recommendation for Section 19.28.060 does provide good direction to facilitate the change and also without putting too much restriction on the remodeling or new development jobs. · In favor of the change and the recommendation to discourage the garage that dominates the front elevation. She said she felt it could be worked into the inspection. · The guidelines help to clarify many of the suggestions and directions that are provided in Section 19.28.060. The guidelines and the graphics illustrate a lot of what is encouraged and discouraged, so for most homeowners, who are not doing this for a living but putting their lifetime investroent into building their own home, it helps a great deal. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he felt his colleagues had interesting comments and overall they all support the goal to have a better design review guidelines for Cupertino's residents. · After hearing the input, he said he felt if they were using the desigo review guidelines based on what City Council directive they based on guidelines, it would be better to improve the guidelines vs. incorporate them into the ordinance. · Said he supports what is currently in Section 19.28.060; would not add to it, and said he would rather have it in the guidelines as it would send mixed messages to the applicants. · In some areas porches make sense; some don't. · Said he supported Com Chen's comment about garages, that they shouldn't dominate the front; but noted at the following meeting they would be hearing an application asking for a variance to have a smaller width in the front, and they couldn't build a two car garage in the front, which is a conflict. If they are using them as guidelines only, he said he did not want them to be incorporated in there, some of them are already incorporated. · Said he understood the point of view regarding discouraging garages that dominate the front elevation, but in smaller lots it will be very challenging not to have that because many people drive cars. He recommended following the parking ordinance regarding the issue. Chair Saadati: · Said that in a previous meeting, comments were made that the guidelines were not consistent with the ordinance; and it was discussed that if the guidelines are incorporating the ordinance, it would be less confusing for people who apply for the 'perfect home' which he felt is why they chose that route. · Regarding the language, clearer definition is needed of what is meant by narrow lot discouraging three car garages; a 50 foot lot with three car garages is going to appear to be all garage. If someone wants to build three garages, two of them should be tandem which would prevent having so much mass. · It becomes a design issue; how well the design architect can incorporate all of it into the plans so that the final product is attractive when people walk by. That is what they are striving to achieve. · Overall, adding porches, if they are done nicely, add a focal point for entry, and he said he agreed that the living area should be closer; not certain what the impact would be if the garage was five feet back. It depends on the features used, the elevation, and the windows; everything has to be a good package. · He said overall he agreed with the language, clearer definition needed to eliminate confusion for the applicants. Flexibility can be provided as well as clarity. Planning Commission Study Session 16 August 9, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · Asked Mr. Gilli to explain, what it means to encourage entry and living areas closer to the street instead of having the garage projecting forward (Page 2, staff report). Mr. GiIli: · Said it was one of the options on the second page of the staff report; also examples given included one in Lynwood Acres to have a special allowance that the front porch can encroach in the front setback 5 feet; requiring that a garage be set back more than the living area; or make an allowance that the actual interior living area can have a setback encroachment. · There are many ways to do it, but it is at the Planning Commission's discretion if they think it is a goal that should be strived for, and what is the best way to do it. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked to clarify ifthey want a porch, they can encroach 5 feet into the front setback Mr. Piasecki: · It is one option; the theory is that with a porch you are not getting the whole structure out there, just the posts and overhang, it is not the same massing effect that a wall creates. Chair Saadati: · It is not the living space. Mr. Gilli: · Porches are not counted; if it is open - no; if it has walls on three sides and it is roofed - then it does. · If it is open; if it just has a wall and a porch and there is a post around there, it won't be counted. Vice Chair Wong: · When stating de-emphasize garages, the garage is an option, it is just set back five feet so the living area is projected out more. Mr. GiIIi: · It is an option; or if the Planning Commission isn't quite sure how to handle this, state with language in the guidelines that are vague, we can see how it works, then in a year maybe two, the Planning Commission can say they liked how it worked, and let's try to make it into a rule; it is up to the Planning Commission at this point. Com. Miller: · Said that if they were going to allow some encroachment in the front, which he felt was the easiest place to allow encroachment, he was in favor of saying they would allow the porch, or would allow them to push the house forward so that the garage appears to be set back. · Commented on No. Eon SS4, "doors, windows, architectural elements should be aligned with one..... in placement." Said he felt it was a guideline that is extremely difficult to achieve and restricts the amount of creativity that a builder can use in coming up with a house. If it is a new house and if it is a remodel adding a second story, it restricts down what you can do and emphasizes form over function to the extreme. Said he was concerned about the language on that particular one. Planning Commission Study Session 17 August 9,2004 Mr. Gilli: · The idea is not that they shall be aligned, it is that they "should". Ifthere is a case where you could align it, and the architect either isn't a good architect, try to at least line one side of the window, so it is not just a haphazard placement of windows. · It is not that all things must align and be symmetrical; perhaps the wording needs to be changed. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · Questioned about the neighbors having to pay for an appeal, and if it was a new procedure. Mr. GiIIi: · Said it was the current procedure; if the neighbor is not happy or if the applicant is not happy with an action, it is appealed (after an initial review). Ms. Griffin: · Was pleased to hear regarding the rear setback reduction, the house on Wunderlich currently has acquired 2 more feet of a utility box; now the closest approach of that house on Wunderlich is 8 feet to the back property line. · Glad to hear that it is at the Director's discretion, so that neighbors would have a process to appeal something like this. · Said she was hopeful that story poles will be restored to the process. · Said she recently saw a building project near Santa Cruz with story poles, and was of the mind that many cities use them and have used them for many years, they are useful and she strongly hopes that everyone keeps the story poles in the process which allow neighbors to understand what is going on. · Said there was a comment that neighbors don't understand what story poles are, but said after going through it once, you know what they are about and she was thankful they had them now. · Relative to talk about increasing the size of the second story, she said that the house next door is blocking their attempt to get satellite TV because there is 1700 square feet on the first story and 1700 square feet on the second story and the house is physically blocking the direction. · Said she was concerned about porches; some people have porticos, that type of structure in the front of the house can go into the front setback. · Said six years ago there was a home on Loree A venue that had an entry way and she was told at the time it was legal to go into the front yard. (Staff and Chair Saadati said it was under county rule) Ms. Griffin: · Said she was concerned, at all times there needs to be neighborhood input, and was dismayed to occasionally hear comments that the neighbors would not have any way to appeal. · There should always be a way to appeal; if the construction ordinance is good and fair, there will not be a need to appeal. Vice Chair Wong: · After hearing the daylight plane presentation, the origiBll1 plan should be followed.