The URL can be used to link to this page

13. R1 ordinancec c 3 /~7~oy~ ~l3_ Piu Ghosh From: Susan Chen [susanchen @ gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 7 6, 2009 5:32 PM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: Re: planning Piu, I _Qot trio files and read though all of them. I support the new desi~tt principles and agree to eliminate the 2nd story setback surcharges and wall height limitations. Do you kno~a~ ~~.~hat time is this issue to be discussed on tomorrow's council meeting'? About 7:00 PAT? See ~ ou there__ Susan Pam ~ C C 3 ~~ 7~Dp and other similar features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls. ~ ~3 B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the residential development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. ] _ The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot ~',~.~ is forty-five percent. The maximum floor area of a second story r'~~" ',.~ is forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is greater. ~. l~he llirecu~r of Community Development rnay sranl approval to a second Moor to first floor ratio sreater than -~5~/o provided that the following= desi~~n principles are met. These ciesis~rinciples are further explained in the document referenced as "City of Cupertino "l~wo Story Design Principles". a. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided. h. Design features. proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style selected; c. Visua] relief :'~•~" '~° -,--°-•~~'°~'- _ ~ 1-.., I 1 ]. ° .-. ; ~].~ A : F Fem..- ~ 1„~ . , I .~ .3u _ _ ,~F'a Y,,_ :.]°... 1. h. .L - _ t ° - ~ b...~A.-._...-.,ter] r _r.11 :..,~... ~.] I..r~: Ees g 11.11 l.~ !1 i rl ~9r other :,i{t3ilar -are-t~i~ee~l.-.,I~rrapr;=.-~ fedeemed to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development shall be provided d_ Materials shall be of Kish qualitl: 3/17/2009 j ~~ -.~/-~ • October 21, 2008 -City Council directed staff to: - Compare existing ordinance, staff's proposal and the council alternative option - Prepare draft design guidelines/ principles • February 17, 2009 -City Council directed staff to: - Evaluate second story setback surcharge - Clarify implications of adopting only the visual relief techniques section of the proposed design principles - Revise the design principles document 1 ~~~~~~ • Design principles provide a cohesive framework for: - Design flexibility - Architectural diversity - Authentic details - Appropriate treatments • Visual relief alone will not promote better design or diversity 2 -Y ~, ' .\ ~ • Revised - Per Council direction - To enhance readability • Sustainability section added - Language from General Plan - Resource materials • Pictures in Section I are mainly Cupertino homes • Outreach with architects - Positive comments received Adopt two-tier process • - Adopt • model ordinance with the changes; • design principles document; - Allow staff updates to the resources and tax credit sections of the design principles document; - Include an item at the next Council Fee Assessment review to increase the application fee for homes > 45% 2nd floor to 1'~ floor ratio or Adopt single-tier process • Amend the trigger for visual relief measures to walls exceeding 10 feet in height and 15 feet in length • Include language to allow CDD to waive requirement of visual relief measures when deemed appropriate • Adopt the design principles document • Include an item at the next Fee Assessment review to increase application fee 3 ____ _ __ • Adopt either the two-tier or ~,~-=~~.;;;~ single-tier option ~ ~- • Conduct first reading of ~' -;,,~ ordinance (Single-tier will require continuation for preparation of model ordinance) ~~: °~~~~~ ~~ • Adopt the design principles ,~ ~; document at the second reading ~~~ << after advertisement of the r° 4 action. ~ ~ ; 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL (S°~~ I 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C O P E RT I N O (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 Summary Agenda Item No. ~ Agenda Date: March 17 2009 Application: MCA-2008-03 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: City-wide SUMMARY: Consider a Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family R1 Ordinance (section 19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The revised Ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed second floor ratio and associated 2nd floor setback surcharge/exposed wall rule to allow greater architectural diversity. The revised ordinance will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an R1 lot or m;n;mum required second story setback relationship with neighboring properties. The Ordinance amendment will also include minor language clarifications relating to gardening activities and miscellaneous wording changes to improve the readability of the document, Application No. MCA-2008-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide. RECOMMENDATION The Council has the following options: 1. Take no action and retain the existing; R1 Ordinance 2. Adopt the staff recommended two-tier process 3. Adopt the Council Alternative single-tier process BACKGROUND: The past Plann;ng Commission and City Council actions are summarized below: May 6, 2008 -The City Council amended i:he Planning Commission work program to include a limited review of the R1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The Council directed the Planning Commission to present recommendations on ordinance options to the City Council. MCA-2008-03 March 17j,~009 R 1 ORnu~atace Urnn'r>: Application: MCA-2008-03 Mazch 17, 2009 Rl ORDINANCE Urnn're Pafre 2 July 8, 2008 -The Plaruiillg Commission reviewed proposed R1 Ordinance amendment and directed staff to provide a focused ordinance framework with specific list of principles and guidelines. September 9, 2008 - The Planning Commission did not recommend the proposed approach to deal with the 2nd floor to 15t floor ratio. The Commission believes that the concern for design diversity and functionality are betEer addressed by evaluating a more comprehensive design review process for two story homes including consideration of the allowable overall floor area ratio and the 2nd floor to 1st floor ratio. October 21, 2008 -The City Council directed staff to provide a comparative study of the existing ordinance with staff's recommendation and the Council alternative option. The Council also directed the preparation of design principles and guidelines from staff. February 17, 2009 -The City Council directed staff to • Provide further clarification on second story setback surcharge • Clarify the implications of adopting only the visual relief techniques without the other design principles and • Revise the Design Principles document per council direction. DISCUSSION: SECOND STORY SETBACK SURCHARGE The Rl Ordinance requires second story side yard setback to be twenty-five (25) feet with a minimum of ten (10) feet on any side. Second story setback surcharge is an additional setback requirement that requires applicants to add an additional 10 feet, in any combination, to the second story front and side setbacks. The purpose of the surcharge requirement is to prescribe physical building articulation from the first floor and ensure that the second story mass is in check in the absence of the requirement of architectural features and design elements. Staff is comfortable recommending removal of the surcharge for homes with a second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45% because the proposed design principles will ensure added visual interest and reduced perceived mass of the two story bulk from the street and the neighbors. ADOPT ONLY VISUAL RELIEF TECHNIQUES WITHOUT THE OTHER DESIGN PRINCIPLES Council raised a question at the last hearing about the implications of adopting only the visual relief techniques (Section 3.1 of the Design Principles) without the rest of the design principles. The design principles are the most critical element in the proposed ordinance update. They serve as the guiding framework to achieve architectural diversity and flexibility at the same time ensuring home designs are authentic and built with the appropriate treatments. Without the clear directions set forth in the design principles, the discretionary review process for homes exceeding 45% second floor ratio may be onerous and confusing for homeowners. Furthermore, the resulting home designs may not be satisfactory to the Council in achieving the intent of promoting architectural diversity with a higher quality of design. 13-2 Application: MCA-2008-03 March 17, 2009 Rl ORnu-rprrcE UrDa't'e Page 3 REVISE DESIGN PRINCIPLES The Design Principles document has been revised per Council direction (see attached Exhibit A). Language in the draft has revised by staff to enhance readability and improve clarity of the document. Language has also been added to address sustainability and resources related to sustainability. Council also requested astrike-out version of the draft design principles document (see Exhibit B). Staff modified the pictures in Section 1 of the Design Principles document to be predominantly homes in Cupertino. Only one of the thirteen picture:; is a home outside of Cupertino. Outreach effort has also been conducted by providing local architects a draft copy of the Design Principles for their input. To date, staff has received communication from three architects stating that the principles and additional language will be helpful and useful to them (see Exhibit C). Additional correspondence received by staff from the architects will be presented to the Council at the hearing. COUNCIL OPTIONS: The Council has the following options if it decides to proceed with the R1 Ordinance Amendment: 1. Adopt the Two-Tier option (staff proposal) • The Council should direct staff to o include an item at the next Council Fee Assessment review to study the increase the Two-Story applia~tion cost by $500 for homes exceeding 45 second to ground floor ratio • Allow staff to update the resources and tax credits cited sections in the Design Principles document. • The Council may evaluate the performance of the ordinance amendment after a year, at which time the Council ma.y decide other ordinance options (such as Single-Tier option) and/or direct any other necessary ordinance adjustments; or 2. Adopt the Councilmember Single-Tier option • Staff recommends that the Council censider adding the following changes: o Amend the trigger for visual relief measures to walls exceeding 10 feet tall and 15 feet in length o Apply the revised two-story design principles (Exhibit A) to all two-story homes o Include language to allow the Director of Community Development to waive the requirement of visual relief measures when deemed appropriate • Direct staff to include an item at the next Council Fee Assessment review to increase the R1 Two-Story application cost by $500 to any two-story proposal • Allow staff to update the resources :end tax credits cited sections in the Design Principles document. 3. If the Council is not satisfied with either of the above options, you may elect to retain the existing ordinance provisions. 13-3 Application: MCA-2008-03 R 1 OxDINnNC6 UYDATE Prepared by: Pi osh, Associate Plaruzer Review d y: Stev Piasecki, Director, Community Development Approved by: f~,~~L~ ~~ ~ ~-- David W. Knapp City Manager March 17, 2009 Enclosures: Draft Ordinance: Please see Exhibit C in Staff Report dated February 17, 2009 Exhibit A: Revised Draft Design Principles Exhibit B: Strike-out version of text of draft design principles Exhibit C: Email communication from architects with comments on Design Principles draft Exhibit D: City Council Staff Report with attachments, February 17, 2009 Exhibit E; Minutes from City Council hearings on February 17, 2009 and October 21, 2008 13-4 CITY OF CUPERTINO E71Ch~b%t /~ TWO STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES DRAFT INTRODUCTION Cupertino's neighborhoods have developed over a period of decades with varying architectural styles. Recent zoning regulations that were intended to soften the mass and bull: of two story homes force prescribed setbacks and offsets resulting in the construction of a sunilar, "~+~~edding cake' style of home in the City- Now, homeowners and builders are allowed greater design flexibility if their design conforms to the following design principles- Two story homes with a second story to first floor ratio greater than 45% are allowed when they offset the buildutg massing with designs that encompass higher quality architectural features and materials. DESIGN PRINCIPLES These design principles help integrate new homes and ad- ditions to existing homes with existitg neighborhoods by providing a fi-an~ework for the discretionary review and approval process. VJItere possible, additional details and examples have been provided- Conditions not covered by these examples will be evaluated on a case-by-cases basis- Z. PROVIDE AN IDENTIFIABLE ARCHITECTLJR Ai- STYLE Attractive homes are designed by usutg elements from one consistent theme. It is best to work with your designer to identify and carry out one style around the entire house. The following pictures illustrate traditional and medittera- nean homes with succes ui identifying a single style_ Ad- ditional resources for information on home styles are listed ut the side bar on page 3. 1 3 - 5 3/7 7/09 P4ce 1 - Simple Fenn - Architectural Detail - Grouped +cindows - Recessed Garage - Stron_e firs[ floor form - Authentic details - Materials variety - Recessed Garage - Prominent entry First floor roof gave - \jaried roof heights - Symmetrical +i indo+vs - Varied roof forms - \\'e 11 defined entry - Architectural details - One-story form CITI' OF CI~PERT77~0 T\\'O STORY RESIDE~Tl-°.L DESIGN PRI_~C1PLE5 DR4FT 13-6 3/17109 PAGE ~ - Simple forms - Prominent porch - Varied front \rall planes - ~'~'ood siding • Prominent porch - Recessed eazage - Simple roof fornts Organized \vindo\Ys - Authentic details ~ Second story ba]cony • Organized windo\vs - Architectural detail - Simple building forms - Large porch - Recessed gazage Organized \vindows - Simple building form - Full \vidth porch - Simple roof form - Organized \vindo\rs - Prominent Entry Front facade depth - Material variation - Varied height and bulk - Architectural detail - \1'ide roof o\'erhan¢s - Recessed earase - Prominent entry CITY OF CL-PERT IF~O T\\'O STORY RESIDE\Ti-4L DESIG\ PRLVCIPLES DR4FT 2. DESIGN FEATURES. PROPORTIONS AND DETAILS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ARCHITECTURAL STYI-.E For assistance in understanding architectural styles and details, refer to the sources in the side bar on the right and on page 6. 2.1 Architectural Details Each architectural style has developed with its own unique details that add human scale and visual interest- Their use will ensure a consistency of scale and design authenticity. - Use decorative elements and details that are typical of the architectural style selected. E-~- use Spanish St}>le details on a Spanish Style home and not a Ranch St} le home. - Select ~~. all siding, trim and roofing materials that are suitable to the architectural style selected- - Visually definitive window true is highly desirable for both wood siding and stucco structures. - Use of natural trim materials for projecting trim around windows and doors is desirable- If simulated material is used, material that can be painted or cov- ered with a smooth stucco finish should be used. 2.2 Porches and Entries Porches and entry features should be proportional and appropriate to architectural style: • Select columns that are traditional to the architec- tural style of the house. Take care in selecting colunms with an appropriate width to height ratio for the style- - Except for a ver}> few styles, the colurnns should have appropriate caps and bases with proportions t}>pi- cal of the style- - Provide a «>ell proportioned beam beriween the column caps and the roof- Size and detail the beam so that it looks like a convincing structural member. - Railings should be constructed of materials suitable to the architectural style. Homes with predominantly stucco and stone exteriors may have metal or precast stone railings otherwise railings should be constructed of wood. Provide both top and bottom rails with the bottom rail raised above the porch floor level for ~n ood and metal railings- I~tote: All porches should be functional with a mini- mum depth of 6 feet. 2.3 Balcot>_ies - Large second floor decks should be supported on appropriately sized and proportional columns. - Balcony railuigs should be desigz~ed as discussed for porch railings- 2.4 ~/indoc~-s Size and Pattern Each architectural style has a typical pattern of wutdow-s that should be carried out throughout your design- - Window size and proportion should be appropri- ate to the proposed architectural style- - Window styles should be consistent- - Use grouped windows in combinations of rivo or more ~~ here they are t}-pical of the architectural style- - Relate and align the location of wuidows on second floors to those on the first floor, if possible- Placement should not appear haphazard- ARCHITECTURAL STYLE These principles are not intended to establish or dictate a specific st}'le- While a ~~=ide range of architectural styles is acceptable, there is an expectation that any specific style selected will be carried out with an integrity of forms and details that are consistent with that style- The following resources may be useful to homeowners, builders, and design professionals in understanding the special qualities of specific house styles. - A Field Guide to American Homes Virginia R Lee McAlester Alfred A- Knopf 2000 - The Abrams Guide to American House Styles \r/ilkin Morgan Harr}> N. Abrams, Inc 2004 - House St}>les in America James C- Massey Penquin Studio 1996 - Celebrating the American Home Joanne Kellar Bouknight The Taunton Press 2005 • The Distinctive Home, A Vision of Timeless Design Jeremiah Eck The Taunton Press 2005 Pace 3 13-7 3/ 17/09 Grouped \s>indo\vs Cm• of CLTERTL~O T~.'O STORY RESID)='~TL4L DE9G7~' PRL`~CIPLES DR4FT 2.5 Detail Materials Installation Guides • Openings in ~;=a]ls should be constructed as if they •i=ere constructed of the traditional material for the style- For example, provide substantial ~;=all space above arches in stucco and stone walls. Traditionally, •~=a11 space above the arch was necessary to structurally span the opening. • Treat s}=nthetic stone as one «=ould design with real stone (e.g., normal coursing for load-bearing w=alls with significant returns at windows and cornets to avoid apasted-ott look). • Openutgs u1 walls faced ~i=ith stone, real or syn- thetic, should have defined lintels or headers above the openuig except u~ Mission or Spanish styles. Lintels or headers may be stone, brick or wood as suits the style of the house- - Make materials and color changes at inside corners rather than outside corners to avoid a wasted on look. Inside /nstde Ou[slde ~°~~' Outside or catx Change materials Not at and colors at outside lnSidO cOrn0r5 Corners 3. FACADE ARTICULATION 3.1 Visual Relief Techniques The following techniques offer ways to mitigate the bulk of targer homes in smaller scale neighborhoods and the impact of two-story tall walls on adjacent neighbors and the stre.etscape. - Second floor setbacks - Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes - Pop outs - Bay windows - Chimneys • Wide overhangs with projecting brackets - Juliet balconies • Belly bands • Window boxes and pot shelves • Landscaped trellises and lattices • Projecting window ri-un • Materials and color changes • Inset balconies • Applied decorative features - Rocesscd garage doors - Recessed windows • Window ri-im • Tall ri-ees to break up views of long walls 3/ 1 7i 09 PAGE -t 13-8 CITY OF CL-PERTItiO T\\'O STORY RESIDE!~TL4L DESIG:~I PRL`~CIPLES DRAFT ~ssed windows architectural detail and belly band P.acF 5 13-9 ./7 7109 Crrv OF CL'PERTL~O T\\'O STORI' RESIDE!~'TLAL DESIGN PRINCSPLES DRSFT 3.2 Defined Entry Feature Entry features should be definitive and appropriate bosh in terms of scale and design to the style of the house. • Covered porches are strongly encouraged. Especially in neighborhoods with a predominance of one-story homes, a porch with a roof at the first floor will help to integrate the new, taller house into its surroundings. 3.3 Simple Forms Traditional architectural styles usually have rela- tively simple floor plans and roof forms (See ex- amples on pages 4 and 5)- • Develop plans aftd elevations to~ether- • Complex floor plans require complicated build- ing masses and roof forms which significantly utcrease the cost of construction. 3.4 Bay windows Bay windows help add context and articulation to the house, however the following should be consid- ered when designing bay windows: - Avoid very large bay windows that compete \vith the entry as the focal point of the house. • Bay \vindows should be desisned \~, ith a base el- TRADITIONAL DETAILS Architectural details will be expected to follow traditional standards. Three refer- ence resources that can help are the fol- lowing: - Traditional Construction Patterns: De- sign RDetail Rules of Thumb Stephen A. Mouzon McGraw-Hill 2004 • Get Your House Right Architectural Elements to Use and Avoid Marianne Cusato, Ben Pentreath, Rich- ard Sammons, and Leon Krier Sterling Publishing 2008 - Architectural Graphic Standards for Residential Construction: The Archi- tect's and Builder's Guide to Design Planning and Construction Details (Ramsey/Sleeper Architectural Graphic Standards Series) The American Institute of Architects John Wiley 8c Sons 2003 3/ 17i 09 ement to the ground or ~~-ith supporting brackets at the base for first floor wutdows. For second floor bav_ win- dows, supporting corbels or brackets are ens l Sloped roofs should be _ _ _ used and covered with ,~°"~ - a material that matches Different goof ~/~ the roof material or material :'/` \vith metal. -' - Avoid usutg wall - - materials beri~~een the J._ individual windo~i s of 'r ~_- ~ ~_-_ ~= the bay window unless ~ ' _- __ - v/ood ~an,b s. the window fs large. _ -sills and Heads Generally, bay «•in_ doves look best when - - - ~~ ~~ e- i _ the windows are closes - ~~."' together and separateri - by wood jambs that - SUronog case _ PP_ _ ~' match wood sills and _ - heads as sho«~n in the example. _ -?~ 4. DESIGN CQITH ARCHITECTUI2AI. INTL'GRITY ON ALL SIDES OF THE HOUSE • Attention to detail and architectural consistency shall be maintained on all elevations of the house. • Avoid "false front' architecture with attractive street facades and stripped down facades facing neigh- bors on the second floor. $. USE HIGH QUALITY 1~'IATERIALS Traditional materials, such as wood and stone, are de- sirable, and strongly encouraged. If synthetic material is used, it must closely resemble authentic materials. G. SUSTAINABILITY The City of Cupertino is committed to sustainable planning that integrates and balances environmental decisions with economic considerations and recog- nizes the symbiotic relationship beri~°een the natural environment, the community and the economy. This commitment to envic-otunental stewardship, social responsibility and economic vitality of our community can be realized in all design projects, fi-om single fam- ily residences to large commercial properties, through gt-een building measm-es- Green building is defined as an integrated fi-ame~~ork ofdesian, construction, operations andl~e~~olition practices that encompasses the environmental, eco- P_ace 6 C7Tl' OF CCPERTINO T\vO STURY RE:SIDE!~TL~L. DESIGN PRy\~CIPLES DA4Ft' nomic, and social impacts of bui]dings. Green building practices recognize the interdependence of the natural and built environments and seek to minunize the use of energy, ~i-ater, and other natural resources and pro- vide ahealthy, productive indoor environment. 6.1 Green Building Principles 2~tew construction or additions to your home provides a wonderful opportunity to incorporate green building components- Green components can be healthier for you and the environment and save you money over time. Section 5, Enviromnental Resources/Sustainability, of Tl7e City of Cupertino's General Plan presents essen- tial components of a Breen building design and plan- ning process- These elements create a frame\vork for evaluating green building measures applicable to the construction of t\vo story residential design principles including but not limited to: - Site planning -passive solar- orientation to reduce heating and cooling costs; protection ofexisting vet etation and use of ecologically appropriate landscaping to conserve \vater resources, reduce urban runoff pol- lutants and increase site carbon sequestration value- s Energy efficiency- architectural design, plwnb- ing, electrical, appliances, utsulation (exceed state Title 24 requirements), heating ventilation and air conditionutg to mitisate heatin_e, cooling and lighting loads and reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions- - Material efficiency -foundation, structural frame, flooring, exterior and indoor finish selection, substitu- tion and reuse of durable and sustainable construction materials to reduce waste and promote resom-ce recov- ery- - t~~ater conservation -employ design techniques and devices to promote water savings inside and out- side the home- .- Section 5 ofthe General Plan may be vied-ed at the followutg link: h-},: :; •.. -.;-cup~7-[in:~.c~r~ index. a.p,,'~pase tla G_2 Accreditation Options The City bas identified the following reconnnended stattdards to support homeowners and builders in achieving green building measures: Green Point Rated or LEED Certified. Green Point Rated: hnp: ;; .;-.;.bui]~it_rcCn.i r_ LELD: ]u~p: .; ;; ;;_us_hc.c~r_ 1_FI.D G_3 Green Incentives To support residents and builders of new residential construction projects in implementing green building design principles, the follo~~ ing economic incentives are available 1 . Federal Tax credits are available at 30% of the cost, with uo upper limit through 2016 (for existing homes 8c new constt-action) for: Geothermal Heat Pumps, Solar Panels, Solar ~Tr~ater Heaters, Small Wind Energy Systems, Fuel Cells- (Visit: t-rt;x .; .; .. en~r_; ~t:_r- -r\ 2- Federal Tax credirs are also available at 30% of the cost, up to $1,500, in 2009 and 2010 (for exist- ing homes only) for: Windows and Doors, Insu]ation, Roofs (Metal and Asphalt), HVAC, Water Heaters (non-solar) and Biomass Stoves- (Visit: I-~~p: \; •:.; ~-t- .-_• ..ter c ~~ n7.~~\.~i'.77 ~. =4~n: .'. s:~__ i~r ;.SR_~'C .:.7i>=~'~) 3- Federal Tax credits are also available for a new energy efficient home that achieves 50% ener_ey savings for heating and cooling over the 2004 In- ternational Energy Conservation Bose (IECC) and supplements. (Visit: hrF. ,; -.; \>, encr_ti ~.ar.•~o~ i.-..c~- ~lri7~--j~rC~i~i:~i~ i..-'r _!a~_ rCdita=~f/) 4- Utility (PGRE) Residential I~tew Construction RebatesQ7ttp .. \; ;; 1~-_e_~~~rn m_\husincss cc~er_~~a~- :~7_>rC ~'•._ic> 17;~C!7i 1\ c~13; i!l ~7 ustn nc\t:Jnstruc2 -~-.1 ) are available for builders of residential dwellings that incorporate ener_ey efi=lcient features- Incentives are available if builders meet the Energy Star requirements - 15% more efficient than required by the 200 Title 24 Energy Code. For those homes that do not meet the Energy Star label but still include energy conservin_a features, PGRE offers prescriptive rebates to builders. 5. Cupertino offers up to $1,000 for new residences to reimburse a portion of the cost of having a GreenPoint Rater or LEED Accredited Professional certify your ne\v home- The city also expedites its Plan Check for all green projects. Contact the Building Department or >u~tainabilit~ cupcrino.cr~~ 6. Cupertuto offers a reduced permit fee of $300 for residents pursing solar installations on new or existutg homes. G.4 Other Resources Erie Cooke -Environmental Affairs Coordinator sustainahilit; a cupenino.orJ (408)777-7603 ;>,\;~a.cupertinc,.\v_ i;xiev a~p~^l..a_.e=] ~- Plarming Deparnnent plannins d cup~rtino.org/ (408)777-3308 1 3 - t t Pace 7 3/ 1 7i 09 EXHIBIT B INTRODUCTION ''~~~rCupertino's `--= _ ~~~ neighborhoods hay e developed over a period of decades «ith ~ar~in~ architectural stiles- r-~ - c'- - - mz }ia e'~ee--; ~ tm t d n C~~-Ret2nt z~~nina rem-ulations. that ~i~r~ intended to cofren the mass an.3 hull. ~•t t~~c, <torv homes- force pre~cribrd setbacl.s and olTsets re~u7une in the construction of a similar '~~eddin~ -ake" ct~le of home in the City . - _ - - _ ~r- 1c,~a- homco~s Hers and builders are allo~~ ed creatzr destsn f7eaibtlity. tf their dest~-tt conforms to the follo~+in~ desi~nprinciFles.Thz f-+1}~~tiin_ d i_rr~rineiFle ~n-ottr~-e - -- ' . --- . - -- a~"•`rn~cxc'mcr TWO ct 021 }-l ~~nle~ ~~ 7Ch 3 ~CC6nd ~t Or\ IO ~ • 1`: _ _ first :tcr rat[o ~'rzater [h:tn ~_ ~ nre all~~~~~,~- t.t_.~ -_ ,,a ~ ~ ~~- ~, ' a ' d = nd •or~ - #- •l zE r t when they offset the building massing with designs that encompass higher quality architectural features and materials. DESIGN PRINCIPLES These design principles help integrate new homes and additions to existing homes in;~F-~~ ;th cv~un~, neighborhoods- B~ nro~idine =~-;-; :-,:~- a frame~~-ork for the discretionary review and approval process. Where possible, additional details and examples have been provided. Conditions not covered by these examples will be evaluated on a case-by-cases basis. 1. PROVIDE AN IDENTIFIABLE ARCHITECTURAL STYZE .~ttracu~e #~homes are designed by ;-2=a~~usin~- elements from _~-,-r-_'__'__ -ne consistent theme- It is best to work with your desia per ~-Lto identify one theme :end ~ carry out ~~d one sty le :irc,und the entire house. ~ :; s.: ~-~e?3i~~} a~}-z~ ~ ,. ' ix~,r.do- ~~_. .-.a -'et~i}s t33at are rye}} -alzc#-te the-1=rH~-s. -f-a~ .13e la 3 : e c : ~ r~ _ ~ce ~ : ~ : }-3._.: : iv ~ i3vrrs3H~c3-I~. a33 ~ _ r _ 22zz~-ic--~o-~vc-rti--r~ . The following pictures illustrate •'_- : __r _ -~'_. _'- =a2nti€-aE~}e stile i:t is e fa}}_ :'~:~~~traditional and meditterranean homes •-,ith ~uccea in 9dentifvin~* a single sr~]e. Additional resources for information on home styles are listed in the side bar on page 3. DESIGN FEATURES, PROPORTIONS AND DETAILS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE 13 - 12 For assistance in understanding architectural styles and details, refer to the sources in the side bar on the right and on page 6. 2.1 n-~-=-' ~rchirecturai 13detaiLc = - -- -- -~- -+--- __L=--_ _-_, _, c Each architectural style has developed with its own unique details. Their use ~s~ill ensure a consistency of scale and r'~~ is-lion authenticity_ Use decorative elements and details that are typical of the architectural style selected- E.g. used-_"_ -:u,: Jo~n,~h Style details on a~-:_:~-=-n~ Span~rt, Style home and not a Ranch Style home. _ a _ • Select wall sidin= and trim materials that are suitable to the architectural style selected,- . t i~~ail+ dctinin+c "~ ~ ~ ~~>indow trim is hijhly desu-able for both wood siding and stucco structures. • FOr [~rViCi :.G. irtm aro lind ~+ '-C: ~_ 3I':~ ~~ 'rte in it Ul ~l1 \ I t: f-.~ j-']"1\ j '] Ll]-- .] be painted or co+ered +~ ith a smooth stucco finish is hi~hl+ desit~d • L-sz of natural trim materials for projzctin~ trim wound \+indo++~ and doors is dz+irable Lf simulated nsaterial is uszd- matzna] that cjn `+z tainted or c~+erz~i -+ith a month ~ntcco finish should bz u~zd. ~,r--F.r~° -- - - ~ v sn.~~v .~~d d ~r rrj 3 ' 1,- - -I - h -- -~~' _ ~-- - ~f• n-h lte l , 1 f ~l e ~~# ,~_-. 2. '1'C _.1-3"r'1 _~.. _t=~=f2 `E3~ s rT'3 + i-~=_ _t_'t3 -3 '- I'i l3 ~c~ 35 # ~ ~l 33 i' r " ' ~-c~' E'-~==2 v`3 ~ • ~"i _ ~ -330E~' 13 - t3 ~ ~ ~i]. _ - Sri=~-1_ ,d -~-33pe i-ie~n 1-~n-{- c-i=t~_ 2.2 €-a~-~e-P$orch~s and Lentries a~~fo~>~ate to sfEl;ireet~fal -t~-1•e Porches and entrz- fearure~ ~13nti[d be de~iVncd ~i~th tl,e fc~Llo~z-inU con=ideration• Select columns that are traditional to the architectural style of the house. Take care in selecting columns with an appropriate width to height ratio for the style. Except for a very few styles, the colunms should have appropriate caps and bases +vith proportions typical of the style. • Provide a well proportioned beam between the column caps and the roof- Size and detail the beam so that it looks like a convincing structural member- :: _!:~ c!' 1}_ ~::'-!~ '_-.~- ;'.3 -a- ] _ J -1 ..t 3/11/09 Page 2 1 3 - t 3 Openings in walls faced with stone, real or synthetic, should have defined lintels or headers above the opening except in Mission or Spanish Eclectic styles. Lintels or headers may be stone, brick or wood as suits the style of the house_ Make materials and color changes at inside corners rather than outside comers to avoid a pasted on look. 3. FACADE ARTICULATION 3.1 -T'-1~-=t - - , -re t~-~-e de-~~~€t-~ fermi e ~'i=ua1 Relief 1e~l,ai*c~urs The-- 2olio~: in=~ :~~ hnwuea ~~=. offer ways to nutigate the bulk of larger homes in smaller scale neighborhoods and the impact of two-story tall walls on adjacent neighbors and the streetscape. - _ , - _ _ -~ Second floor setbacks Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes Pop outs Bay windows Chitnrneys Wide overhangs with projecting brackets Juliet balconies Belly bands Window bo3;es and pot shelves Landscaped trellises and lattices Projecting window trim Materials and color chances Inset balconies .. Applied decorative features Recessed garage doors Recessed windows Window trim Tall trees to break up views of long walls 3.2 Pr., `~-~t~$Defined Sentry Fearure€ef e~el~~ase A well defined entry can..... Entry features sh~~uld t+e dcfiniti~e and ai+t+r~~G+riate Moth in tcnTl~ -•f -ale ~nd de i~--n tc. the >t~ 1e c•f the hou.e. 3/11/09 Page 4 13 - 15 • Covered porches are strongly encouraged. Especially in neighborhoods with a predominance of one-story homes, a porch with a roof at the first floor will help to integrate the new, taller house into its surroundings. 3.3 - - - - -,. _~_ ___~:_--_~_-_' _-'-- Simple Forms r Traditional architectural styles usually have relatively simple floor plans and roof forms (See examples on pages 4 and 5)- Develop plans and elevations together- .~..~,..__,_. __ ___-_... - .,., _,_. _~ _- - -. Complex floor plans require complicated building - n~as.es and roof fornis ~~ hich simificantl~ increa_~e the cost of construction. f4t cair-i ~am.alics2ad ~..:~-+:.-.s :,. ~~~eESese-theme sen#IisF 4 iFh-~-;~,n ~-~- ~ ' F" - - - _~ _ a _ _ _ ~:._ - _. s~.i__ `1^_ _ ~' c __,y 2 39t~1 fer 1 339 E~6L - r 1 C" '92 ~c-~3 3 7 ' -~ _ ----- - '- -' -' -' c B13ay ~s~indovvs Bsy v: indov/s helps add context and articulation to the Rouse. however the follow/ing =heuld ba considered when dosicnino f/a~~ wir,dcv/s: • Avoid very large bay windows that compete with the entry as the focal point of the house. _Bay windows should be designed ~~~ith a base element to the ground or with supporting brackets at the base for first floor windows. Second floor bay windows should have substantial wood trim at its base. Supporting corbels or brackets are encouraged. Sloped roofs should be used and covered with a material that matches the roof material or with metal- Avoid using wall materials beriveen the individual windows of the bay window unless the window is large- Generally, bay windows look best when the windows are close together and separated by wood jambs that match wood sills and heads as shown in the example- 3/11/09 Page 5 13 - 16 4. DESIGN WITH ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY ON AI-L SIDES OF THE HOUSE ~rT 1 ~----~~d - 33~- ~1 -~31 + ~ ' a ~~u.~ ~~t,t. ;r .]~~ts;l _~;;~ ;irclrite~tur:~l ~, n~t~t~;r~. Thal] he n.t._rntarncd ~,n ,,I! clc~stt~_,n. of nc~ fn+u~c. Avoid "false front" architecture with attractive su-eet facades and stripped down facades facing neiehbors. 5. L ~E HIGH QUALITY nZP,TERrai ~S c , . - -. e~3;~-~13 c~ ~ It - -- - - ` - Traditional materials, such as wood and stone, are desirable, and strongly encouraged. Lf this is not possible, use synthetic materials that are often bard to tell from the authentic ones at a siouificantly lo~a~er cost. ~t _ a etial•s ea~ga~='~le --i''3 t13e c _1=r1~-~-T~- ~d Jcam;-~ri_dr~ ~~_s.-{r-~ ~.. .. ,r - ~ 'art T_3 _ ti _ 3 . h' 1- t L F, -~ --. - _L L _ _ F ~Ei~~ Tl C i ~3 E F ~~ LL~1Z1 21'[T^ G- '\TVL-D TT L'T.RC T!l !"/1 - T 'C S L; ST_41'_\T_4B I LI Tl The City of Cut~ertino is committed to cuctainable planning that irate--rates and balance ens ironm°ntal decision=~~ith econon-tic considerations artd reco~nizec the c~mbiotic relationship bet~~.een the natural envimnment_ the community and the ernnomv T1~ic commitment to en~imnmental stew ardshir, social respomibility and economic ~ itality of our comrnunit~ -an be realiz~d in all de~icn rrciccts. fmm single family recidencec to 1ar~-e convnercial pmF+ertie throu~-h ~rcen build in m°s~urc~ Green huildin~ is defined as an inter-rated frame~~or1: of deciRn conctructicn oc+eratic nc and demolition oractiees that encontpascec the environmental economic and cocial impact- of buildin c Green buildine practices reco~-nize the interdependence of the natural and built environments and gee}; to minimize the use of cner~_~. ~~ ater_ and ether natural resource: and ori,~ ide a heal?h~. rr~,~ucti~e indoor cn, imnment. 3/11/09 Page6 13 - 17 6.1 Green Building Principles ~e+a conswctic>•n or addinonc to +our home oro+-ides a wonderful op~+ortunitti to incorporate green t+uildinE ct?rnpl~nent_~. Green com~~nent. c-an t+z healthier for vuu and the en+-imnment and a+e +ou mone+ o+er tithe. Sectsutt ~_ Fat+in?nnxrital Re~:~urces~Sustainabrlit+_ of The Cit+ of Cupertino's General Plan presents essential comp~~nents of a Breen buildins decisn and plannin~~ prc*ce~~. Tlte.e eler7-tents create a frarl'teworl. for e:aluatins sre.en butldins measure. applicable to the conswcti:rn of t++-o stor+ residential desi~-rt principles utcludina but not hrnited to_ Site nlanniag -passi+e solar orientation to reduce hearins and cc~olins costs. protection of existing +e~Tetation arrd us.z of ecolosically appmt+riate landscapins to conser+ e •a ester re~ources_ reduce urban runoffpoIlutants and increase site ::ar-bs~n sequestration +alue. Eaergx- e~ciencc - archite.:tur.~l desir~t_ olumbins_ electrical_ apnliances_ insulation iexc-eed crate Title ~~ reluirertxnts)_ heatins +emilation and air conditioning to mitisate he.atins_ coolins and lichtins loads and reduc,_ associated greenhouse Qac emissions_ riaterial efficieac+ - foundntion_ swctura7 fratne_ fluorin s. exterior and indck>r furish selection. substitut7on and reuse of durable and sustainable construction materials to reduce waste and promote resources rerover+ - ~'ester consera-aiioa -employ desisn techniques and de+-ices to~+romote :+ester sa+in~s inside and outside the honx- _ Section ~ of the Genera] Plan ma+ be . ie~aed at the follo++in_ lirii:: http: i/w w w -Cupertino.ors/index -aspx'pase=709 6.2 Accreditation Options The Cite has identified the follo~+in_ rec~•nunended standards to support humeo++ners and builders in achie+ins =reen buildins measures: Grec-n Point Rated or LEED Certifizd_ Green Point Rated= htto:.'/+++++a .buildit~raen.or= LEED: htti,_'/w++++-usabc.vrslLEED/ 6.3 Green Incenti~>es To support residents and builders of ne+a residential construction projects in implementing ~ rcen buildins desi_ri ptzriciolec_ the follo+a-ins econorriic inccnti+~es are a+ailable ] . Federal Tax credits are a+ ailable at >O K of the cost_ w ith no upper limit throu~-h 2016 i for existins homes ci ne-a construction) for_ Geothermal Heat Pum~c_ Solar Panels_ Solar ~'.'ater Heaters. Small Z'v"ind Eners~ Systems. Fuel Cells_ iV'icit_ httr+:r:+++;++-enerslst:u-.~~o+%index-cfm~c=prc~ducts.pr tax credits-s6) ~. Federal Tax credits are also a+ailable at ?Or-c of the cost_ up to S1.~00_ in ?oC?y grid 201 O ifor existins homes on1+ 1 for: V1 indo+; . and Doors_ Insulation_ Roofs i'~1eta] and Asphalt )_ Ht'AC_ \>,'ater Heaters iron-solar) and Bioanas~ Sto+ec_ (Visit: h~_c//~±.~s~+_.eners+star-so+%irde?~-cfm~c=producL.vr tai: credits~c61 . reu'~r31 1 ~\ .'r~vii< nre.alS:• 1>C~Ilshle fC41 IlC'.+ cneRC-~ Bf ~7~'~711 ho.inC' Lh:il a."1;12\e~ ~I/`s ,Iler_+ 3/11/09 Page 7 13 - 18 swim=s for heatins and coohns o.er the ~00~ lntemational Eners~ Conservation Bowe ~IECCr and ~upplements_ ~ \-i sit: http:; ~~~. ~~. ~~ .energy ~tar.~o~ /indew.cfm''C=produCtti pr tai. Credit~-`~E, ~ ~. L tility i PGbE i Re~ldential ~e~+ Construction Rebate ~httnt//.+~~~a.p~e_cun~/mvbusiness/ever<~ca~in~~~rebateti/incenti~e~byindu.tr~ nee+conctrucuon/fare mailable for builders of residential d~~.ellin~~~ that inCOrporate enerR~ efficient feature. In-enti~e are mailable if builder: meet the Ener~v Star rccpuirement~ - 1 ~`-i more efficient Chart Iruuired b~ the ?00~ Title 34 Enere~ Code_ For those homey that do not meet the Enerav Star label but Mill include ener_• cun:er~in_ feature-~. PG~E offer: pre.cripti~e rebates to builder ~. Cupertino offers up to 57.000 for ne~+ residences w reimburse a portion of the cost of havino a GreCnPoint Rater or LEED _-'accredited Prufe:cional ertif~ ~ our ne~~ home The city also e~peditec its Plan Check for all ~Treen proiect~. Conta -t the Building Department or ~ustainabilit~ @CUpertino ors 6. Cupertino offers a reduced permit fee of 5300 for re~ident5 pur~in~ ~o1ar in~tallation~ on ne~~. or e~tistin~ homes. 6.4 Other Resources Erin Cooke - Envil~nmenta] .3ffair~ Coordinator suct~nabiht~ L Cupertino.orr/ t-sOSi777-%60~ ~~.-».'» -~ Llpertln C~.C~r~i lade~.a~P~ :'pa~Te= 1 1~ Planning Department plan nineL Cupertino.or_/ r~Ob x777-330£; 6~- R._T.-..___,~ uuxcc~zn c~ - ~ ~ l~ z^ ~ a h' a . f? H-e ca - _ - a - ~ - L. h t ri .- ~. _. --s. . t t t u . . a _ ,-, _ 3/11/09 Page 8 13 - 19 Piu Ghosh From: hmikechen@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 11:20 AM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: Re: R1 Design Principles ~n~b~t c Piu, I've reviewed the Draft Report, I don't have any major comments on the Report, Many Cities have similar Design Guideline, 1 believed it'd improve the design quality. sincerely, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org> Cc: susanchen8@yahoo.com <susanchen8@yahoo.com> Sent: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 5:35 pm Subject: R1 Design Principles Hello! The city is revising the R1 Ordinance to consider adjusting the allowed second floor ratio and associated 2nd floor setback surcharge/exposed wall rule to allow greater architectural diversity. The revised ordinance will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an R1 lot or minimum required second story setback relationship with neighboring properties. As part of Council direction, I am sending you a draft copy of the R1 Design Principles that staff will propose to the Council for consideration. Staff is proposing a two tier process where if you/your applicant wants to propose a ratio of second floor to first floor more than 45% you will be subject to a different design standard as explained in this attached document. The city wants to encourage architectural diversity and hence the errrphasis on the design principles. However, if you choose to propose a second floor to first floor ratio less than or equal to 45%, the process of approval is still the same as it is now. Please find the design principles document attached. Any input or comments will be welcome by noon tomorrow in order to incorporate into the staff report. Alternatively, any comments after that will be conveyed to the Council as a desk item at the meeting or you may attend the meeting to convey your comments. I appreciate your input in this matter. Regards, Piu Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar! 13-20 Piu Ghosh From: frank ho [franklho@yahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:41 F'M To: Piu Ghosh Subject: Re: R1 Design Principles Attachments: Picture (Device Independent Bitrnap) 1.jpg Hi Piu, I think with this design principle it will help Cupertino neighbor have more variety of architecture. I think it will sucess. Regard, FRANK L. HO, ARCHITECT STUDIO 61 ARCHITECTS INC 12480 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA CA 95070 Cell. 408.892.5020 Fax. 408.871.6923 From: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org> To: "Mike Chen (hmikechen@aol.com)" <hmikechen@aol.coln>; "Frank Ho (franklho@yahoo.com)" <franklho@yahoo.com>; "fangdesign@gmail.com" <fangdesign@gmail.com>; "sya1618@sbcglobal.net" <sya 1618@sbcglobal. net> Cc: "susanchen8@yahoo.com" <susanchen8@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:35:39 PM Subject: R1 Design Principles Hello! The city is revising the Ri Ordinance to consider adjusting the allowed second floor ratio and associated 2nd floor setback surcharge/exposed wall rule to allow greater architectural diversity. The revised ordinance will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an R1 lot or minimum required second story setback relationship with neighboring properties. As part of Council direction, I am sending you a draft copy of the R L Design Principles that staff will propose to the Council for consideration. Staff is proposing a two tier process where if you/your applicant wants to propose a ratio of second floor to first floor more than 45% you will be subject to a different design standard as explained in this attached document. The city wants to encourage architectural diversity and hence the emphasis on the design principles. However, if you choose to propose a second floor to first floor ratio less than or equal to 45 %, the process of approval is still the same as it is now. Please find the design principles document attached. Any Input or comments will be welcome by noon tomorrow in order to incorporate into the staff report. Alternatively, any comments after that will be conveyed to the Council as a desk item at the meeting or you may attend the meeting to convey your comments. I appreciate your input in this matter. Regards, Piu 13-21 Piu Ghosh From: Steve Yang [sya1618@sbcglobai.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:45 PM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: Re: R1 Design Principles Attachments: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) 1.jpg Hi Piu: I highly agree to the new R1 ordinance police. It would encourage the way professional design ability creating better-than-average Architectural. work in the community they serve design principals demonstrated in the draft are deemed to me as a min. threshold for achieving the housing design of those exceeding 45%. Will city set up rating system for the threshold? If not, otherwise approval of larger FAR could be not convincing in general. I hope my notion come in not too late, thanks. Steve Steve Yang Associates, Architect 1618 Willowhurst Ave. San Jose, CA 95125 Office: (408)694-1618 Fax: (408)694-8888 --- On Tue, 3/10/09, Piu Ghosh <Piu~>~a~.cunertino.orP> wrote: From: Piu Ghosh <piuG@cupertino.org> Subject: Rl Design Principles To: "Mike Chen (luiiikechen@aol.com)" <hmikechen@aol.com>, "Frank Ho (franklho@yahoo.com)" <franlclho@yahoo.com>, "fangdesign@gmail.com" <fangdesign@gmail.com>, "sya1618@sbcglobal.net" <sya 1618 @sbcglobal.net> Cc: "susanchen8@yahoo.com" <susanchen8@yahoo.com> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 5:35 PM Hello! The city is revising the R1 Ordinance to consider adjusting the allowed second floor ratio and associated 2nd floor setback surcharge/exposed wall rule to allow greater architectural diversity. The revised ordinance will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an Ri lot or minimum required second story setback relationship with neighboring properties. As part of Council direction, I am sending you a draft copy of the Rl Design Principles that staff will propose to the Council for consideration. Staff is proposing a two tier process where if you/your applicant wants to propose a ratio of second floor to first floor more than 45% you will be subject to a different design standard as explained in this attached document. The city wants to encourage architectural diversity and hence the emphasis on the design principles. However, If you choose to propose a second floor to Frst floor ratio less than or equal to 45%, the process of approval is still the same as it is now. Please find the design principles document attached. Any input or comments will be welcome by noon tomorrow in order to incorporate into the staff report. Alternatively, any comments after that will be conveyed to the Council as a desk item at the meeting or you may attend the meeting to convey your comments. I appreciate your input in this matter. Regards, Piu 13-22 Exhibit D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P S RT I N O (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 Summary Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: February 17, 2009 Application: MCA-2008-03 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: City-wide SUMMARY: Consider a Municipal Code Amendment i.o the Single Family Rl Ordinance (section 19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the' second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The revised Ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed second floor ratio and associated 2nd floor setback surcharge/exposed wall rule to allow greater architectural diversity. The revised ordinance will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or minimum required second story setback relationship with neighboring properties. The Ordinance amendment will also include minor language clarifications relating to gardening activities and miscellaneous wording changes to improve the readability of the document, Application No. MCA-2008-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide. RECOMMENDATION The Council has the following options: 1. Take no action and retain the existing; Rl Ordinance. 2. Adopt the staff recommended two-tif~r process 3. Adopt the Council Alternative single-tier process BACKGROUND. The past Planning Commission and City Council actions are summarized below: May 6, 2008 -The City Council amended the P1aruZiilg Commission work program to include a limited review of the Rl Ordinance regarduzg the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The Council directed the Planning Commission to present recommendations on ordinance options to the City Council. 13-23 MCA-2008-03 R1 Ordinance Page 2 February 17, 2009 July 8, 2008 -The Planning Commission reviewed proposed R1 Ordinance amendment and directed staff to provide a focused ordinance framework with specific list of principles and guidelines. September 9, 2008 - The Planning Commission recommended denial to the City Council citing the need for a more comprehensive design review process for two story homes to address overall massing, design and review process. October 21, 2008 -The City Council directed staff to provide a comparative study of the existing ordinance with staff's recommendation and the Council alternative option. The Council also directed staff to prepare a draft design guidelines with input by the City Architectural Consultant. DISCUSSION: The current 45% second story floor area ratio has resulted in a "wedding cake" style of architecture that is slowing becoming the predominant style of new two-story homes or additions in many neighborhoods. Many residents attempt to personalize their home with design elements representing traditional architecture; however the final design is limited by the existing second floor area restriction. Please refer to the October 21, 2008 staff report for the full discussion. Obj ective- Evaluate ordinance options to enhance and promote greater design flexibility for two- story homes. Existing Ordinance Constraints: • 19.28.060 B(2), 45% maximum 2nd floor area requirement • 19.28.060 G(3) (and a), Fifty-percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall. • 19.28.060 E(3), Additional 10-foot shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard second story setback requirements. Ordinance Solutions: Two-Tier Proposal (staff proposal) 1. Allow 45% or greater second floor to first floor area ratio by incorporating design principles: a. Provide an identifiable architectural style b. Design Forms, Proportions and Details to be consistent with Architectural Style c. Facade Articulation (visual relief techniques) d. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the house e. Use of high quality materials f. Ensure appropriate building mass aimed scale 13-24 MCA-2008-03 R7 Ordinance - ~ February 17, 2009 Page 3 g. Design shall reflect symmetry,, proportion and balance. 2. For homes with more than 45 % secorid floor to first floor ratio: a. Remove: 19.28.060 G(3), 50% second floor wall exposure requirement b. Remove: 19.28.060 E(3): Second story setback surcharge 3. Retain existing minimum second story setbacks 4. Retain existing total Floor Area Ratio 5. Voluntary Process, only applicable to those wishing to increase their second floor area above 45%. Homes that are designed to meet the existing Rl Ordinance second story limit would continue to be subject to the current R1 Ordinance standards and would not be required. to comply with the design guidelines. Staff Evaluation: Key highlights of staff's proposal are summarized as follows • The existing prescriptive process for homes with second floor ratios equal to or less than 45% of the ground floor is preserved for home owners wishing to go through a simple staff review process • This proposal incentivizes property owners to provide broader range of architectural design by allowing homes to exceed the 45% second floor area limit through a second tier more intensive design review process • The proposal provides architectural principles and visual relief options to soften the perceived building mass and facilitate a variety of building styles (see Exhibit B) • Notification of neighbors required for all two-story homes • The Director of Community Development approves all two-story homes but has the ability to refer projects to PlanninF~ Commission, if deemed appropriate Single-TierProposaZ (Presented by CounciZnzenzber Santoro at the October 2Z, 2008 meeting): 1. Remove: 19.28.060 B(2), 45% maximum 2nd floor area requirement 2. Remove: 19.28.060 G(3) (and a) 50% second floor wall exposure requirement 3. Add: All new two story homes or -two story additions to incorporate design principles 4. Add: Any wall, on a two-story house, exceeding 12 feet in height and 20 feet in length will incorporate visual relief techriiques recommended by staff A tabular comparison, of the current ordinance, the two-tier proposal and the single- tier proposal, has been included with this report (Exhibit A). Staff Evaluation: The highlights of the Council alternative proposal are summarized as follows: • The proposal also aims to provide' architectural flexibility for all new or remodeled two story residences 13-25 MCA-2005-03 Rl Ordinance Page 4 February 17, 2009 • Only one discretionary approval/ design review process is proposed for all new two story homes or additions • The proposed trigger (12 feet in height and 20 feet in length walls) for visual relief measures is still relatively long, tall and bulky two-story elements • Homes with less than 45 % second floor to ground floor ratio would have to go through the same discretionary process as homes exceeding the 45% second floor ratio • More discretionary review for all two-story homes is required by staff, which translates into more review time and cost for home owners • Notification of neighbors required for all two-story homes • The Director of Community Development approves all two-story homes but has the ability to refer projects to Planning Commission, if deemed appropriate FISCAL ANALYSIS: Staff is projecting that it'll take approximately 5 Hours of additional staff time to review homes triggering the more intensive development review process (Two-tier process - homes with second floor over 45%; Single-tier process -all two-story homes). At $100 per hour (Director and planning staff), we estimate that it'll cost an additional $500 to cover the staff review time. Staff recommends that the Council adopt an increase of the R1 two-story application fee accordingly at the Council's next fee assessment review. PUBLIC NOTICING: Per Council direction, citywide postcards (Exhibit F) were mailed out, informing Cupertino citizens of the City Council consideration on amending the Rl Ordinance. The original postcard for the Planning Commission hearing did not include language on the potential changes to the second floor setback surcharge or wall exposure rules to allow greater design flexibility. The appropriate language has been included in the second postcard. The City Attorney indicates that is legally sufficient public noticing. If the Council feels you need additional discussion and review, you could elect to refer it back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation relating to the second floor surcharge. COUNCIL OPTIONS: The Council has the following options if it decides to proceed with the R1 Ordinance Amendment: 1. Adopt the Two-Tier option (staff proposal) • The Council should direct staff to include an item at the next Council Fee Assessment review to increase the Two-Story application cost by $500 for homes exceeding 45% second to ground floor ratio • The Council may evaluate the performance of the ordinance amendment after a year, at which tyime the Council may decide other ordinance options (such as Single-Tier option) and/or direct any other necessary ordinance adjustments; or 13-26 MCA-2008-03 Rl Ordinance February 17, 2009 Page 5 2. Adopt the Councilmember Single-Tier option • Staff recommends that the Council consider adding the following changes: a. Amend the trigger for visual relief measures to walls exceeding 10 feet tall and 15 feet in length b. Apply the proposed two-story design guidelines/ principles (Exhibit B) to all two-story homes c. Include language to allow the Director of Com,-r,unity Development to waive the requirement of visual relief measures when deemed appropriate d. Direct staff to include an item at the next Council Fee Assessment review to increase the R1 Two-Story applic<<tion cost by $500 to any two-story proposal 3. If the Council is not satisfied with either of the above options, you could elect to retain the existing ordinance provisions. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Revie e b -, Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development Ap oved by: David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Exhibit A: Tabular Comparison of Existing Ordinance, Two-tier proposal and Single-rier proposal Exhibit B: Draft Design Guidelines Exhibit C: City Council Staff Report with attachments, October 21, 2008 Exhibit D: Draft Ordinance (not recommended by PL•ann;ng Comm;csion) Exhibit E: Email communication from the public including photographs Exhibit F: Citywide post cazd 13-27 EXHIBIT A COMPARISON OF EJCiSTING ORDINANCE, TWO-TIER PROPOSAL 8z SINGLE-TIER PROPOSAL Current Ordinance wo-tier proposal Single-tier proposal otal FAR -Section 5 % Unchanged Unchanged 9.28.060B 1 „d story to 1st story ratio - 5% dd: Ifgreater than 45%, Eliminate 45%. Apply design Section 19.28.060E (2) the~z apply new design rinciples to all new two- rincipZes story homes or two-story additions. Second story setbacks - 5 feet total with 10 Unchanged Unchanged Section 19.28.060E (1) 8z: (2) oot minimum Second story setback O feet Eliminate for Itozzzes with Unchanged surcharge -Section "d floor to 1st floor ratio > 19.28.060D 3 45% Second story wall heights O% of the Elizazinate for homes with Change: Arty wall exceeding - Section 19.28.060G(3) erimeter of second na floor to 1st floor ratio > 12 feet in height, and 20 feet story shall have 45% in length shall incorporate all height less principles and visual relief than 6 feet techniques. Applicability of new O YES, only to two story YES, to all new two story roposed design homes with more than 45% homes and new two-story rinciples 2nd story to 15t story. additions. Cost $2,142 $2,142 for < 45% 2nd floor to NO change proposed. Staff 1st floor ratio. $2,642 for > reco*+-+*~t~tendation to increase 45% 2nd floor to 1st floor fees to $2,642 for all homes. ratio. MCA-2008-03 February 1'~~20~ Rl ORDINANCE UPDATE CITY OF CUPERTINO Exhibit B TWO STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES DRAFT INTRODUCTION The City of Cupertino has a variety of neighborhoods developed over a period of decades. In recent years, many two story homes have been constructed in Cupertino. How- ever, the regulations have resulted in the construction of a similar style of home in the City. The following design principles encourage greater design variety and greater flexibility.Homeowners and developers are allowed to exceed 45% second story to first floor ratio when they offset the builduig massing with designs that en- compass higher quality architectural features and materials. DESIGN PRINCIPLES These design principles help integrate new homes and addi- tions to existing homes into Cupertino's neighborhoods. They provide a framework for the discretionary review and approval process. Where possible, additional details and examples have been provided. Conditions not covered by these examples will be evaluated on a case-by-cases basis. 1. PROVIDE AN IDENTIFIABLE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Homes are designed by mixing elements from comparable themes. It is best to work with your designer and identify one theme to carry out around the entire house. For most architectural styles, these include: Prominent entries that are in scale with the house fonn and size. • Window sizes, patterns, and details that are well scaled to flee house facades. Wide roof overhangs that reduce the visual bulk of two-story structures. • Architectural details that add human scale and visual interest to the structure. The following pictures illustrate the importance of haviig a single identifiable style ii successfully designed traditional and medittenanean homes. Additional resources for infor- mation on home styles are listed in the side bar on page 3. 13-29 2/17/09 PAGE 1 • Prominent entry First floor roof eave • Varied roof heights Symmetrical windows • Strong first Boor form Authentic details • Materials variety Simple forms • Varied roof forms - Well defined entry - Architectural details - One-story form CrrY OF CLTPERTINO TvvO STORY RESIDENI7AL DESIGN PRINCIPLES DRwrr - Recessed garage - Front facade depth - Architectural detail Varied height and bulk 2/17/09 PAGE 2 - Prominent porch First floor roof eave - Simple roof forms Organized windows • Simple forms Prominent porch • Varied front wall planes Recessed garage - Prominent porch - Simple roof forms • Simple building forms - Wood siding - Small street front mass - Recessed garage • First floor roof form - Architectural detail - Simple building forms Large porch • Limited front bulk Organized windows - Simple building form - Full width porch - Simple roof form Organized windows - Architectural detail - Wide roof overhangs - Recessed garage - Prominent entry 13-30 CRY OF CUPERTII~O TVVO STORY RESIDENTIA7. DESIGN PAWCIPLES DRAFT' 2. DESIGN FEATURES PROPORTIONS AND DETAILS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE • For assistance in understanding architectural styles and details, refer to the sources ui the side bar on the right and on page 6. 2.1 Provide architectural detail consistent with the architectural style of the house and the neighborhood • Each architectural style has developed with its own unique details. Their use will ensure a consistency of scale and feeling of authenticity. • Use decorative elements and details that are typical of the architectural style selected. E.g. use Craftsman Style details on a Craftsman STyIe home and not a Ranch Style home. • Avoid ornate details in neighborhoods where the houses are simple and modest ui their use of azchitec- tural detailing. Select wall and trim materials that are suitable to the architectural style selected. Wood window trim is highly desirable for both wood siding and stucco structures. • For projecting trim azound wuidows and doors in stucco walls, avoid rough textured stucco over foam trim. It often has the look of cake icing, and looses the crispness of the trim forms. A better selection is high density foam that can be painted or covered with a smooth stucco finish. • Avoid heavy textured roof materials (e.g., concrete tiles) on architectural styles that would have Typically used composition shingle roofing. 2.2 Ensure porches and entries are proportional and appropriate to architectural style • Select columns that are traditional to the architec- tural style of the house. Take care ui selectuig columns with an appropriate width to height ratio for the style. Except for a very few sTyles, the columns should have appropriate caps and bases with proportions Typi- cal of the style. • Provide a well proportioned beam between the col- umn caps and the roof. Size and detail the beam so that it looks like a convincing structural member. It should be visible both from inside and outside of the porch. • Railings should generally be constructed of wood. Meditterranean style homes with predominantly stucco and stone exteriors may have metal or precast stone railings. Provide both top and bottom rails with the bottom rail raised above the porch floor level. • Vertical balusters should be appropriate to the acchitectural style. Some are quite simple while others may have special shapes. Note: All porches are expected to be usable and have a minimum depth of 6 feet. 2.3 Use window sizes and patterns consistent with the architectural style Each architectural style has a typical pattern of windows that should be respected. The bullet points below address some of the common problems often seen today. • Avoid overly large windows: Except for modern design styles, wuidows should make up only a small percentage of the wall area. • Window proportions: that are consistent with the architectural style should be used. Most architectural style windows are vertical in proportion. • Group windows: in combinations of two or more. Use grouped windows where they are typical of the architectural style. Pw~~s 3 ARCHITEC"TURAL STYLE These principles are not intended to establish or dictate a specific style. While a wide range of architectural styles is acceptable, there is an expectation that any specific style selected will be carried out with an integrity of forms and details that are consistent with that style. The following resources may be useful to homeowners, builders, and design professionals in understanding the special qualities of specific house styles. - A Field Guide to American Homes Virginia 8r Lee McAlester Alfred A. Knopf 2000 - The Abrams Guide to American House Styles Wilkin Morgan Harry N. Abrams, Inc 2004 - House Styles in America James C. Massey Penquin Studio 1996 - Celebrating the American Home Joanne Kellar Bouknight The Taunton Press 2005 - The Distinctive Home, A Vision of Timeless Design Jeremiah Eck The Taunton Press 2005 13-31 2/ 17/09 CITY OF CLTPERTWO T~i'G STORY RESIDENTrar DESIGN PRWCIPLES DRnrr • Relate 8s Align: the location of windows on second floors to those on the first floor, if possible. Placement should not appear haphazard. 2.4 Detail materials installation with traditional design authenticity to architecural style Treat openuigs in walls as though they were con- structed of the traditional material for the style. For example, provide substantial wall space above arches in stucco and stone walls. Traditionally, wall space above the arch would have been necessary to structurally span the opening, and to make the space too small is incon- sistent with the azchitectural style. Treat synthetic stone as one would design with real stone (e.g., normal coursing for load-bearuig walls with significant returns at windows and corners to avoid a pasted-on look). • Openings ui walls faced with stone, real or syn- thetic, should have defined lintels or headers above the opening except in Mission or Spanish Eclectic styles. Lintels or headers may be stone, brick or wood as suits the style of the house. • Make materials and color changes at inside confers rather than outside confers to avoid a pasted on look. R ~- wan ~ !nslde YES lnslde ~APPllad ~ ~NO Ourslde material Ourslde or oobr Change materials Not at and colors at outside inside corners corners 3. FACADE ARTICLTI.ATION 3.1 Take special care in the design of two-story structures These principles offer ways to mitigate the bulk of larger homes ui smaller scale neighborhoods and the impact of tcvo-story tall walls on adjacent neighbors and the streetscape. Some techniques are illustrated below and on the following pages. These include: • Second floor setbacks • Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes Pop outs Bay ~~vindows • Chimneys • Wide overhangs with projecting brackets Juliet balconies • Belly bands • Window boxes and pot shelves • Landscaped trellises and lattices • Projecting window trim Materials and color changes Inset balconies • Applied decorative features • Recessed garage doors • Recessed windows • Wuidow trim 2/17/09 PAGE 4 • Tall trees to break up views of long walls CITY OF CUPERTINO TN'O STORY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES DRAFT .._._. Materfa[s ; Recessed windows and architectural detaf[ ,.'c. and belly band PAGE S 13-33 2/ 17/09 CI'T'Y OF CIJPERTINO TVVO STORY RESIDENTIAI. DESIGN PRINCIPLES DRAT l 3.2 - Traditional Construction Pattenis: De- sign 8c Detail Rules of T1minb Stephen A. Mouzon McGraw-Hill 2004 - Get Your House Right: Architectural Elements to Use and Avoid Marianne Cusato, Ben Pentreath, Rich- ard Sammons, and Leon Krier Sterling Publishing 2008 - Architectural Graphic Standards for Residential ConstructiolL The Archi- tect's and Builder's Guide to Design Planning and Construction Details (Ramsey/Sleeper Architectural Graphic Standards Series) The American Institute of Architects John Wiley 8c Sons 2003 2/17/09 PAGE 6 3.3 Avoid complex forms not consistent with the architectural style Traditional architectural styles usually have relatively simple floor plans and roof forms (See examples on pages 4 and 5). - Develop plans and elevations together. - Avoid complex floor plans that require complicated buitdu--g masses and roof forms. Complex plans signifi- cantly increase the cost of construction. - Avoid complicated builduig forms because they conflict with sinple forms like below. 3.6 Provide consistency in window types, sizes and details - Avoid the use of widely varied window Types and sizes. The repetition of a limited number of window types and sizes will help give the house visual unity. - Divided lights (i.e., larger window panes broken up into smaller pieces) are common in many traditional home styles. Use either vertical or square proportions for the smaller window elements. Be consistent in the proportions (i.e., the ratio of the horizontal to the verti- cal dunension) of the smaller panes. Avoid snap in flat grids to simulate divided lights. Use either true divided lights or one of the newer simulated divided lite win- dow systems that have dimensional muntins on both the exterior and interior of the glass. Use consistently for windows on all sides of the house. 13-34 Provide a deSned entry for each house - Covered porches are strongly encouraged. Es- pecially in neighborhoods with a predominazice of one-story homes, a porch with a roof at the first floor will help to integrate the new, taller house into its surroundings. - Avoid large formal entries. They will conflict TRADITIONAL DETAII..S Architectural details will be expected to follow traditional standards. T}u-ee refer- ence resources that can help are the fol- lowing: CRY OF CVPERTWO Tw'O STORY RESIDENTL4L DESIGN PRINCIPLES DRAFT True Div Window Lite Window 5. HIGH QUAi.ITY MATERrni c 5.1 Use high quality materials Traditional Inaterials, such as wood and stone, are desirable, and strongly encouraged. If this is not possible, use synthetic materials that are often hard to tell frotn the authentic ones at a significantly lower cost. 5.2 Select materials compatible with the neighborhood • Wail and roof materials should be selected with compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Use Inaterials or combination of materials drawn from nearby homes this helps to adapt newer, larger homes ilrto existing neighborhoods. • Avoid concrete the or other heavily textured roof- ing that is out of character and scale with other nearby homes. i G. OTHER ITEMS TO CONSIDER ABOUT ARTICULATION G.1 Balconies • Avoid large second floor decks supported on tall, narrow columns. • Balcony railings should be designed as discussed for porch railings. X5.2 Brackets • Brackets at roof overhangs, balconies and bay windows should be designed to extend to roof fascia, balcony edge, or projecting bay window or slightly be- yond. Avoid stub brackets that do not appear substantial enough to support the element above. 3.7 Use care in the location, size and details for bay windows • Avoid very large bay wuidows that compete with the entry as the focal point of the house. • Bay windows should be designed with a base ele- ment to the ground or with supporting brackets at the base for first floor windows. Second floor bay wuidows should have substantial wood trim at its base. Support- ing corbels or brackets are encouraged. Sloped roofs should be used and covered with a material that match- es the roof material or with metal. Avoid using wall materials between the individual wiidows of the bay wiidow unless the window is large. Generally, bay win- dows look best when the windows are close together and separated by wood jambs that match wood sills and heads as shown in the example. 4. DESIGN WITH ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY ON ALL SIDES OF THE HOUSE • Use materials and details from the front elevation (e.g., wil~dow trim, exposed roof rafters, stone or brick bases, and similar details) on all facades. Avoid "false front" architecture with attractive street facades alldstripped down facades facing Iteigh- bors. 13-35 PACE 7 2/17/09 Exhibit C City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO Co*r+munity Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: October 21 2008 Application: MCA-2008-03 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: City-wide Summary: Consider a Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family Rl Ordinance (section 19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the secoizd floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The revised Ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to facilitate greater architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or changing the required second story setbacks. The Ordinance amendment will also include minor language clarifications relating to gardening activities and miscellaneous wordu1g changes to improve the readability of the document, Application No. MCA-2008-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide. RECOMMENDATION The PlaiZning Commission recommends that the City Council deny: • MCA-2008-03, citiuzg the need for a more comprehensive design review process for two story homes. The City Council may consider the followiulg alternatives: 1. Adopt the Plaiuzizg Commission recommendation aizd initiate a review of the. Rl Ordinance includuzg but not, limited to topics on the ratio of 211d floor area to 1st floor area, the total 45% floor area ratio and the overall Rl desio i review standards/process; or 13-36 MCA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance October 21, 2008 Pale 2 2. Adopt the staff recommended orcii~ance framework and direct staff to work with the City Architectural Consultant and return in a month to present fiuzal ordinance details for consideration. BACKGROUND: On May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Plann;,-ig Commission work program to include a limited review of the R-1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The intent is to allow greater design flexibility to property owners. The Coiuzcil directed the Planning Commission to present recommendations on ordinance options to the City Council.by October 2008. On July 8, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Rl Ordinance amendment. The Commission directed staff to provide a focused ordina~lce framework with specific list of principles and guidelines that will address Cupertiu>'s residential development needs. On September 9, 2008, the Plar,r,;r,g Commission reviewed the proposed design review framework, and recommended denial to the City Council, citing the need for a more comprehensive design review process for two story homes to address overall massing, design aizd review process. DISCUSSION: The currently 45% second story floor area ratio has resulted in a "wedding cake" style of architecture that is slowing becoming the predominate style of new two-story homes or additions in many neighbo$coods. By creating a process that allows homeowners to increase the second floor ratio, new architectural opportwzities become available. Staff believes that achieving architectural diversity does not require increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an R1 lot or changing the minimum setback requirements. Through approp=riate design review and specific enhanced design principles, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45% second floor area limit in exchange for higher design quality and broader range of architecture. In addition, the proposed process is voluntary, only applicable to those wishing to increase their second floor area above 45%. Homes 1=hat are designed to meet the existing Rl Ordinance would oizly be subject to the current R1 Orduuzai2ce staizdards. Please refer to the attached August 26, 2008 Planning Commission staff report for the detailed staff proposal. 13-37 MCA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance October 21, 2008 Paae 3 Planning Com*r;ssion Recommendation Plar,r,;ng Commission voted 4-1 (Miller voting no) to not recomn-+end the proposed approach to deal with the 2na floor to 1St floor ratio. The Commission believes that the concern for design diversity and functionality are better addressed by evaluating a more comprehensive design review process for two story homes including consideration of the allowable overall floor are ratio and the 2na floor to 1St floor ratio. Primary concerns of the Planning Commission are as follows: Massive and visually intrusive homes will result from increasing the 2'=d floor ratio to potentially ZOO% of the 1st floor (especially on small Zots). Not enough process or detail specified to achieve the desired architectural quality and diversity. Evaluation sTxould also include the total floor area ratio and a more comprehensive desigrx review process. Clear expectation of tlxe design requirements and review time should be provided Please refer to the attached September 9, 2008 and July 8, 2008, Plann;ng Com,-nission meeting minutes for the detailed discussion. Staff Comments/Recommendation Massive and visually intrusive homes: In most cases, having 100% 2na floor area to 1St floor area ratio is impractical and mathematically challenging due to the physical constrahlts resulting from typical lot sizes, minimum setbacks, and functional livhlg space requirements on the 1St floor. Those lots that can accomt-r+odate between 75-100% 2na. floor to 1St floor ratio would have to substantially reduce their building footprints to izot exceed the total floor area of 45% (see illustration # below). Consequently, residences would be oriented further away from adjacent properties, creating more outdoor space/buffer and lessen visual intrusions. The illustrations below are example building footpruzts aizd setbacks on two typical Cupertino lot sizes (5,000 and 7,000 square feet) intended to compare builduZg massing and relationship to adjoinixZg properties between a typical 45% 2na floor to a 100% 2na floor. 13-38 MCA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance October 21, 2008 Pale 4 ~ b ` e~ ~I ~1 1 ~ i c 1 ! i i ! t 1 I .. _ ' -~- - ~ ~ 1 1 1 Ltr~~Lx _ uu~ ---i!Ua1HUN »^LS -- K# $w W.tiL~ A4ih ~ys-i 2~FL A^.e F.1C} ACS .i-t S ~f r n ~. ti y ~ a~ ~r ~ ~' ~ ~' ~I T-1 ~~ I ~1 I ~ ~ ~ 1 1 - ~ 1 i __ _ 1 1__i__-_. __-__ -~_.. _-I- __ _-_______ _.. -;_ _. _I _ 1 i 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ I • 1 1 W ' I t i 1 ! ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • ~~-.~ 1 1 -- ._ .._ --_-_1---F__ t i I i i r j 'T 1 1 1 1 ' Lip ~- Y 4 ME --= sstvlxuH s~rRweKs ^r M~ ! Par t~~ ~~ F-4RZ ~O (reT LS FCCT «ET Y~~ li Lot Size: 5,000 Square Feet Lot Dimervsion=: 50 feet X 100 feet 13-39 MCA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance October 21, 2008 Page 5 ti w ~; ~ w e ~i Q' 1 i i i I I I I 1 ~ I I - I ' ZG Fe(. _.-1--I' __ ___ I 1 ~ I I I I I I I i ~ I G 1 I I I n I i ~ t I I i -~ ~ I - ~ ~ . _ _FFS r .. __,~_____._-,., ~-.,,~__-_.__~ _ _ 2PFFF~ I i _ _, 1 r i i i I r I t _ i I FR1r`r r._.. I i __ L~bEJGTy 1~ruJ6 -V J~i1M 7MK,y aSdTA.~Cr'S --. r,,~ g.~~l o,g~ ,.ca_t ~~~~s i'-'rime rarc, ~--~ n.s zz_c~~ I- I' .. .,~ ~. .I I T i 1 , I I I - I -1_--___________ _- __ ~ -~ I_ - ~ R~ I I I ~ 1 ~ ~ I I I 1 I i I ~ ` i "~ I I j I 1 I . ' I I I ~--i -f-.-. -_.__ - __ ~__ ! _-__ s~ _ _ ~ 2.5 __,..I-___-_ ._-T__-_-_- I I ~ I I 1 1 a I I I I ~ I FCaN T i ~ i t 1 z~yura i O Fi:~ FEFI FEFT ~¢E~ p~cry U.~ _~ ktwrnv++ grates - H,~ er4~~`'s`e '~ ~-, C'i"~ ~ Ftcr+C „-is ~ 20 _~ ~°-{~ Lot Size: 7,000 Square Feet Lot Dimensions: 70 feet X 100 feet Council Optiori: If the Cotuzcil finds merit in the proposed orduiance framework, the Council may elect to cap the maximum Zl~d floor building area to lsr floor building area ratio at 100% or less. Additio~zal process and details needed to achieve architectural diversity: The uztent of the new design review process for homes exceeding 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio is to provide greater design flexibility. 'T'herefore any new design staizdard must provide adequate flexibility to facilitate a variety of potential desigrt concepts. The staff proposed ordinaizce framework includes specific design 13-40 MCA-2008-03 - R 1 Ordinance October 21, 2008 Page 6 principles and visual relief techniques. These principles and techniques are not intended to establish or dictate a specii`ic style or mass but would rather provide assistance to applicants to understand various methods for minimizing visual mass. Please refer to the attached August 26, 2008 Planning Commission staff report for additional details on the proposed design principles and visual relief techniques. Council Option: The Council call direct additional review process or details if necessary. Additional evaluation of the total floor area ratio and a more comprehensive design review process: As mentioned previously, staff believes that achieving architectural diversity does not require changing the maximum 45% total building floor area ratio. By creating a process that allows applicants to increa:~e the second floor ratio, new architectural opportunities become available. Staff believes the proposed design principles and review requirements would offer an alternative and streamlined process for homeowners and design professionals. Council Option: The City Council cai~ initiate a more comprehensive residential design review process/guidelines similar to Los Gatos and Los Alto, if warranted. Other Related Mitzor Ordinance Changes Setback surcharge and 50% second floor exposed wall requirement Aside from the proposed desigiz principles and techniques, staff suggests that homes exceeding the 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio would also be exempt from the second floor 10 feet setback surcharge requirement. In addition, the 50% second floor wall exposure requirement would be revised to iuzclude the proposed visual relief measures discussed uz the previous section of the staff report. Other miscellaneous changes Staff is recorrunenduig additional language clarifications be made relating gardentiwzg activities allowed uz the Rl district aild minor wording change to improve readability of the general Rl Ordinaizce. Please see attached redline ordinance XXX for additional details. 13-41 MCA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance October 21, 2008 Page 7 COUNCIL OPTIONS: The City Council may consider the following options: 1. Do not authorize any change to the Rl Ordinance. 2. Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and initiate a review of the R1 Orduzaizce including but not limited to topics on the ratio of 2nd floor area to 1St floor area, the total 45% floor area ratio and the overall Rl design review standards /process. Note. This option will add significant time and cost to the process. The City would have 3. Adopt the staff recommended ordinance framework and direct staff to work with the City Architectural Consultant and return in a month to present final ordinance details for consideration. Submit d by: Approved by: C~/~ Steve Piasecki David W. Knapp Director, Community Development City Manager Attachments Exhibit A: Proposed Ordinance Recommendations Exhibit B: Existing Ordiiaizce Exhibit C: Planning Comirtission Staff Report with attachiizents, August 26, 2008 (postponed September 9, 2008) Exhibit D: Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes, September 9, 2008 Exhibit E: Plarulirtg Coiruizission Meeting Draft Minutes, July 8, 2008 13-42 Exhibit A CHAPTER 19.25: S][NGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1) ZONES . Section 19.28.010 Purposes. 19.28.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.28.030 Permitted uses. 19.28.040 Conditional uses. 19.28.050 Development regulations (site). 19.28.060 Development regulations (building). 19.28.070 Landscape requirements. 19.28.080 Permitted yard encroachmerits. 19.28.090 Minor residential permit. 19.28.100 Two-story residential permit. 19.28.110 Exceptions. 19.28.120 Development regulations-Ei-chler (R 1-e). 19.28.130 Development regulations-(Rl-a). 19.28.140 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.010 Purposes. R-1 single-family residence districts are ir~tended to create., preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods; B. Ensure provision of light, air and a ie:asonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels; 13-43 C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community; (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R-1 single-family residence district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.030 Permitted Uses. The following uses °'-~;~ are permitted in the R-1 single-family residence district: A. Single-family use; B. A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19.82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a conditional use permit; C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; D. Home occupations in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.92; E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products- .-.~ .,c .i-,.. F_ Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; G. Small-family day care home; H. The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept on the site; I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards; 13-44 J. Large-family day care homes, which. meet the parking criteria contained in Chanter 19.100 and which aze at least three hundred feet from any other large-family day care home. The Director of Cornniunity Development or his/her designee shall administratively approve lazge day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and proximity requirements; K. Congregate residence with ten or le:~s residents. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 195>9; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992; 19.28.040 Conditional Uses.. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the R-1 single-family residence district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by the Director of Community Development: 1. Temporazy uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.124; 2. Large-family day care home, which ~~therwise does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; 3. Buildings or structures which incorp~~rate solar design features that require variations from setbacks upon a determination by the Director that such design feature or features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; 5. Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. B. Issued by the Planning CoN+mission: 1. Two-story structures in an area designated for cone-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surzounding area; 2. Group care activities with greater than six persons; 3. Residential care facilities that fall int~~ the following categories: 13-45 a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider family or staff; b. Facility that has the appropriate State, County agency or department license and seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; 4. Congregate residence with eleven or more residents, which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet from the boundary of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yazd azea per occupant. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R-1 zoning symbol. Examples aze as follows: Zoning Symbol Number Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet R 1 5 5 ,000 R 1 6 6,000 R1 7.5 7,500 R 1 10 10,000 R 1 20 20,000 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection A(1) of this section, but not less than five thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width ~~.~e is sixty feet measured at the front- yard setback line, except in the R1-5 district where the minimum lot width is fifty feet. 13-46 C. Development on Properties with Hillside Characteristics. 1. Buildings proposed on properties generally located south of Linda Vista Drive, south and west of Santa Teresa and Terrace )Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive and north of Lindy Lane (see map below) zoned R1-20 that have an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent ~s..~~ are developed in accordance with the following site development standards:- a. Site Grading. i. All site grading s~ral~e a~ is limited to a cumulative total of two thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. The two thousand five hundred cubic yazds includes grading for building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other azeas requiring grading, but does not include basements. The graded area sl3all-be is limited to the building pad azea to the greatest extent possible. Grading quantities for multiple driveways ~'~~~ are divided equally among the participating lots, e.g., two lots sharing a driveway will divide the driveway grading quantity in hal£~ The divided share will be charged against the grading quantity allowed for that lot development. A maximum. of two thousand square feet of flat yard azea, excluding driveways, may be graded. ii. All cut and fill areas °'~~e are rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping which meets the. requirements in Section 19.40.OSOG. iii. A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and the City Engineer, s~rgtl-submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen out and fill slopes. iv. if the flat yard area (excluding driveways) exceeds 2,000 square feet or the cut plus fill of the site exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the applicant sl3a"~ is required to obtain a Site and Architectural approval from the Planning Commission. 13-47 b. Floor Area. i_ The maximum floor area ratio ~'~~"-~ is forty-five percent of the net lot area for development proposed on the existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to or less than 10% slope, of any lot. Formula: A = 0.45 B: where A =maximum allowable house size and B =net lot area. ii. Buildings or additions located off of the flat pad exceeding slopes of 10% and producing floor area exceeding 4,500 square feet of total house size, require approval from the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.134 of the Cupertino lYIunicipal Code. iii. Additions within an existing building envelope are permitted provided that the total FAR of the existing building and addition does not exceed 45%. c. Second Floor Area and Balcony. The second floor and balcony review process shall be consistent with the requirements from the Residential Hillside Zoning District ( Chapter 19.40). The amount of second floor area is not limited provided the total floor area does not exceed the allowed floor area ratio. d. Retaining Wall Screening. Retaining walls in excess of five feet shall be screened with landscape materials or faced with decorative materials such as split-faced block, river rock or similar materials subject to the approval of the Director of Communty Development. e. Fencing. i. Solid board fencing ~'~ is limited to a five thousand squaze foot site area (excluding the principal building). ii. Open fencing (composed of materials which result in a minimum of seventy-five percent visual transparency) shall be unrestricted except that such fencing over three feet in height may not be constructed within the front yard setback. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) f. Tree Protection. Up to two protected trees with a diameter less than 18 inches may be removed to accommodate a building pad subject to approval of the Director of Community Development. Removal of protected trees exceeding 18 inches or removal of more than two protected trees requires approval of a tree removal permit by the Planning Commission in accordance with the Tree Ordinance. 2. No structure or improvements shall occur on slopes of thirty percent or greater unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section 19.40.140, unless no more than 13-48 five hundred square feet of development, including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a slope of thirty percent or greater. D. An application for building permits filed and accepted by the Community Development Department (fees paid and permit number issued) on or before October 2, 2007 may proceed with application processing under ordinances in effect at that time. (Ord. 2011, 2007; Ord. 2000, 2007; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord_ 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, § 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building). A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage e is forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches and other similar features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls. B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the residential development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determining ' whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot s13a1-1~e is forty-five percent. 2. The maximum floor area of a second story °'~•~-bc is forty-five percent of the I existing or proposed fast story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is greater.. 3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have the mass and bulk of a two-story house and e are counted as floor area. a. If the house is a two-story house, this area will count as second story floor area; otherwise, the area will count as first floor area. C. Design Guidelines. 1. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with the adopted single-i'amily residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the following items are met prior to design approval: a. The mass and bulk of the design sal--be is reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately 13-49 larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights; b: The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c. There shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut. d. No more than fifty percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of garage area. e. Lona, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the second story. f. The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and placement. h. Porches are encouraged. i. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. j. All second story roofs should have at least aone-foot overhang. D. Setback-First Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a cm-ved driveway the setback °'~•-~~ is a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the two side yard setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard setback may be less than five feet. a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-yard setback on the sweet side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side yard setback shall be no less than five feet. b. For interior lots in the R1-5 district, the side yard setbacks are five feet on both sides. c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the front property line and the rear property line. 3_ Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. 13-50 a. With a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, the reaz setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. 4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an Rl district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a street property line. a. For projects with three-caz garages oriented to the public right-of-way, the wall plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of the other two spaces. E. Setback-Second Story. 1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except that no second-story side setback may be les~> than ten feet. a. In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is twenty feet from any property line. b. In the case of a corner lot, a minimum of twelve feet from a street side property line and twenty feet from any rear property line of asingle-family dwelling. 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section. F. Basements. 1. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house with a basement, one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide and up to ten feet long. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area, except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall .-,-.~. ,mac is five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall s~~e is ten feet. 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public sweet shall be screened by landscaping. 4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwe11.2005 S-4 13-51 S. The- perimeter of the basement and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the most effective root bazrier measures, as determined by the Director of Community Development. G. Height. 1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R1 zone shall not exceed twenty-eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances. 2. Building Envelope (One Story). a_ The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: 1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; 2. Atwenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential Permit. 3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be-structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from the first story exterior wall plane. a. The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.110 D. 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height ~'~,m '-tee is fourteen feet measured from finished grade to top of the plate. 5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by affixing an i designation to the R1 zoning district. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy 13-52 protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similar unenclosed features. 1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling. 2. The minimum side-yard setback sfra~~e is fifteen feet 3. The minimum rear-yard setback sh-alb-Iie is twenty feet I. Solar Design. The setback and height: restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solaz easements or adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires variation from the sett=pack or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord_ 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1E:08 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (pazt), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.070 Landscape Requirements:. To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and bulk of new two-story. homes and additions, tree and/or shrub planting is required. The intent of this section is to provide substantial screening within three yeazs of the planting. A. Applicability. This requirement shall apply to new two-story homes, second- story decks, two-story additions, or modifications to the existing second-story decks or existing windows on existing two-story homes that increase privacy impacts on neighboring residents. Skylights, windows with sills more than five feet above the. finished second floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers up to six feet above the finished second floor, and obscured, non- ope:nable windows are not required to provide privacy protection planning. B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two-story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied by a privacy planting plan which identifies the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and ~~roposed trees or shrubs. 1. New trees or sluubs ~'~~-~ are required on the applicant's property to screen views from second-story windows. The area •,vhere planting is required is bounded by a thirty-degree angle on each side window jamb. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. 13-53 a. New tree or shrubs aze not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified Arborist or Licenses Landscape Architect verifies that the existing trees/shrubs have the characteristics of privacy planting species, subject to approval by the Director or Community Development. b. Affected property owner(s) may choose to allow privacy planting on their own property. In such cases, the applicant must plant the privacy screening prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Waiver. These privacy mitigation measures may be modified in any way with a signed waiver statement from the affected property owner. Modifications can include changes to the number of shrubs or trees, their species or location. C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new two-story homes and two-story additions must plant a tree in front of new second stories in the front yard setback area. The tree shall be 24 inch-box or lazger, with a minimum height of six feet. The Director of Community Development can waiver this front-yard tree if there is a conflict with existing mature tree canopies on-site or in the public right-of--way. D. Species List. The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs. The list s-lral-l-includes allowed plant species, minimum size of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and planting distance between trees. E. Covenant. The property owner shall record a covenant with the Santa. Clara County Recorders Office that requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a final building inspection from the Building Division. This regulation does not apply to situations described in subsection B(1)(b) of this section. F. Maintenance. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a growth rate expected for a particular species. G. Replacement. Where required planting is removed or dies it must be replaced within thirty days with privacy tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Community Development. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.080 Permitted Yard Encroachments. A. Where a building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction, encroaches upon present required yards and setbacks, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building lines if the addition receives a Minor Residential Permit and conforms to the following: 13-54 Exhibit B 19.28.010 CHAP'T'ER 19.28: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Ri) ZONES Section 19.28.010 Purposes. 19.28.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.28.030 Permitted uses. 19.28.040 Conditional uses. 19.28.050 Development regulations (site). 19.28.060 ~ Development regulations (building). 19.28.070 Landscape requirements. 19.28.080 Permitted yazd encroachments. 19.28.090 Minor residential permit. 19.28.100 Two-story residential permit. 19.28.110 Exceptions. 19.28.120 Development regulations-Eichler (Ri-e). 19.28.130 Development regulations-(R1-a). 19.28.140 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.010 Purposes, R-1 single-family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detache.~3 dwellings in order to: A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods; B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonabl~s level of privacy to individual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scaly of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predominantly ]ow-intensity settin~~ in the community; (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, structu=e or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlazged in an R-1 single-family residence district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.030 Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the R-1 single•- famiIy residence district: A. Single-family use; B. A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19.82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a conditional use permit; C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; D. Home occupations in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.92; E. Horticulture, gazdening, and growing of food products for consumption by occupants'of the site; F. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or department with svc or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; G. Small-family day care home; H. The keep'uig of a ma:imunt of four adult household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept oa the site; I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards; J. Large-family day care homes, which meet the pazking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which are at least three hundred feet from any other I§rge-family day care home. The Director of Community Development or his/her designee shall administratively approve lazge day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and proximity requirements; K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 1.9.28.040 Conditlonal Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the R-1 single-family residence district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by the Director of Community' Development: 1. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.124; 29 2005 S-4 13 - 55 19.28.040 Cupertino - Zoning 30 2. Large-family day raze home, which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; 3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar design features that require variations from setbacks upon a detemvnation by the Director that such design feature or features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; 5. Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. B. Issued by the Planning Conunission: 1. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding azea; 2. Group raze activities with greater than six persons; ' 3. Residential raze facilities that fall into the following categories: - a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has six or Iess residents, not including the providers, provider family or staff; b. • Facility that has the appropriate State, County agency or department license and seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a m;,,;,,,um distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a m;n;mum. distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential raze facility; 4. Congregate residence with eleven or more residents, which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet from the boundary of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy-five squaze feet of usable rear yard area per occupant. (O"rd. 1954, (paz[), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 200D; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. 2008 S-15 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R-1 zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: ' Zoning Symbol Namber 1Vllnimum Lot Area in Square Feet Rl 5 5,000 Rl 6 6,000 Rl 7.5 7,500 R1 ~ 10 10,000 Rl 20 20,000 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection A(1) of this section, but not less than five thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled. B. Lot Width, The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet measured at the front-yazd setback line, except in the Rl-5 district where the m;nRmum lot width is fifty tbet. C. Development on Properties with Hillside Characteristics. 1. Buildings proposed on properties generally located south of Linda Vista Drive, south and west of Santa Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive and north of Lindy Lane (see map below) zoned R1-20 that have an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent shall be developed in accordance with the following site development standards: a. Site Grading. i. All site grading shall be limited to a cumulative total of two thousand five hundred cubic yards, eut plus fill. The two thousand five hundred cubic yazds includes grading for building pad, yazd areas, driveway. and all other areas. 13-56 30A Single-Family Residential (Rl) Zones 19.28.050 requiring grading, but does not include basements. The graded area shall be limited to the building pad area to the greatest extent possible. Grading quantities for multiple driveways shall be divided equally among the participating lots, e. g., two lots shazing a driveway will divide the driveway grading quantity in half. The divided share will be chazged against the grading quantity allowed for that :lot development. A maximum of two thousand square feet of flat yard area, excluding driveways, may be graded. ii. All cut and fill areas shall be rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping which meets the requirements in Section 19.40.OSOG, iii. A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and the City Engineer, shall submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen out and fill slopes. iv. If the flat yard area (excluding . driveways) exceeds 2,000 square feet or the cut plus fill of the sate exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Site and Architectural approval from the Planning Commission. - b. Floor Area. i. The maxirnum floor area ratio shall-be forty-five percent of the net lot area for development proposed on the existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to or less than 10% slope, of any lot. Formula: A = 0.45 B: where A = maximum allowable house size and B =net lot area. ii. Buildings or additions located off of the flat p;ad exceeding slopes of 10 `% and producing floor area exceedung 4,500 square feet of total house size, require approval from the Planning, Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.134 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. iii. Additions within an existing building envelope are permitted provided that the total FAR of the exis[ittg building and addition does not exceed 45 Y . c, Second Floor Area and Balcony. The second floor and balcony review process shall be consistent with rite requirements from the Residential Hillside Zoning District (Chapter 19.40). The amount of second floor area is not limited provided the .total floor area does not exceed Ste allowed floor area ratio. d. Reta;ning Wall Screening. Ret .~„=„g walls in excess of five feet shall be screened with landscape materials or faced with decorative materials such as split-faced bloclz, river rock or similaz materials subject to the approval of fire Director of Community Development. e. Fencing, i. Solid board fencing shall be limited to a five thousand square foot site azea (excluding the principal building), ii. Open fencing (composed of materials which result in a m;n;mum of seventy-five percent visual transparency) shall be unrestricted except that such fencing over three feet in height may not be constructed within the front yard setback. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) f. Tree Protection. Up to two protected trees with a diameter less than 18 inches may be removed to accommodate a building pad subject to approval of the Director of Community Development. Removal of protected trees exceeding 18 'inches or removal of more than two protected trees requires approval of a tree removal permit by the Planning Commission in accordance with the Tree Ordinance. 2. No structure or improvements shall occur on slopes of thirty percent or greater unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section 19.40.140, unless no more than five hundred square feet of development, including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a slope of thirty percent or greater. D. An application for building permits filed and accepted by the Community Development Department (Fees paid and permit number issued) on or before October 2, 2007 may proceed with application processing under ordinances in effect at that time. (Ord. 2011, 2007; Ord, 2000, 2007; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635,§ 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.060 Development Regulations (Bnilding). A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is Allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches and other similar features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls. B. Floor Are9 Ratio. The objective of [he floor area ratio- (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for squaze footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the residential development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2008 5-15 13-57 31 ~ Single-Family P:esidenttal (Rl) Zones 19.28.060 1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot shall be forty-five percent. 2. The maximum floor area of a second story shall be forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first store floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever i:~ greater. 3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet,. measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have: the mass and bulk of a two-story house and shall be countedl as floor area. - a. If the house is a two-story house, this area willl count as second story floor area; othernise, the area wiL count as first floor area. C. Design Guidelines. 1. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent: with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The: Duector of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the following items are met prior to design approval: a. The mass and bulk of the design shall be. reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood. pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches; save heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights; b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c. There shall not be athree-car wide driveway curt cut. d. No more than fifty percent of the: front elevation of a house should consist of garage area. e. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the second story. f. The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained: g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in member, size and placement. - h. Porches are encouraged. i. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. j. All-second story roofs should have at least aone- footoverhang. D. Setback-Pirst Story. 1. Pront Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the two side yard setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard setback may be less than five feet. a. For a corner lot, the minunum side-yard setback on the street side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side yard setback shall be no less than five feet. b. For interior lots in the Rl-5 district, the side yard setbacks are five feet on both sides. c. For lots [hat have more than two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for. all side yards between the front property line and the rear property line. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. a. With a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, the rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. 4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an Rl district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a street property line. a. For projects with three-car garages oriented to the public light-of--way, the wall plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of the other two spaces. E. Setback-Second Story. 1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except that no second-story side setback may be less than ten feet. a. In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is twenty feet from any property line. b. In the case of a corner lot, a minitnum of twelve feet from a street side property line and twenty feet from any rear property line of asingle-family dwelling. 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section. F. Basements. 1. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house with a basement, one lightwell may be up to ben feet wide: and up to ten feet long. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area, except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet. 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 4. Railings for lightwelis shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwell. 2005 S-4 13-59 19.28.060 Cupertino -Zoning 32 5. The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the Director of Community Development. G. Height. 1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R1 zone shall not exceed twenty- eight feet, no[ including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances. 2. Building Envelope (One Story). a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height oa single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: 1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; 2. Atwenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential Permit. 3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from the first story exterior wall plane. a. The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.110 D. 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height shall be fourteen feet. 5. ~ Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Counci] may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by affixing an "i" designation to the R1 zoning district. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second .story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is not to requtre complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similar unenclosed features. 1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling. The minimum side-yard setback shall be fifteen feet. 3. The minimum rear-yard setback shall be twenty feet. I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.070 Landscape Requirements. To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and bulls of new two-story homes and additions, tree and/or shrub planting is required. The intent of this section is to provide substantial screening within three years of the planting. A. Applicability. This requirement shall apply to new two-story homes, second-story decks, two-story additions, or modifications to the existing second-story decks or existing windows on existing two-story homes that increase privacy impacts on neighboring residents. Skylights, windows with sills more than five feet above the finished second floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers up to six feet above the finished second floor, and obscured, non-operable windows are not required to provide privacy protection planning. B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two- story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied by a privacy planting plan which identifies the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs. I. New trees or shrubs shall be required on the applicant's property to screen views from second-story windows. The area where planting is required is bounded by a thirty-degree angle on each side window jamb. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. a. New tree or shrubs are not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified Arborist or Licenses Landscape Architect verifies that the existing trees/shrubs have the characteristics of privacy planting species, subject to approval by the Director or Community Development. 2005 S-4 13-60 33 Single-Family ResldenHat (Rl) Zones 19.28.070 b. Affected property owner(s) may choose to allow privacy planting on their own property. ]n such cases, the applicant must plant the privacy screening prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Waiver. These privacy mitigation measures may be modified in any way with a signed waiver statement from the affected property owner. Modifications can include changes to the number of shrubs or trees, their species or location. C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new two-story homes and two-story additions must plant a tree in front of new second stories in the front yard setback area. The tree shall be 24 inch-box or larger, with a minimum height of six feet. The Director of Community Development can waiver this front-yard tree if there is a conflict with existing mature tree canopies on-site or in the public right- of-way. D. Species List. The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs. The list shall include allowed plant species, minimum size of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and planting distance between trees. E. Covenant. The property owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorders Office that requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a final building inspection from the Building Division. This regulation does not apply to situations described in subsection B(1)(b) of this section. F. Maintenance. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pru*-ng as necessary to yield a growth rate expected for a particular species. G. Replacement. Where required planting is removed or dies it must be replaced within thirty days with privacy tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Community Development. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.080 Permitted Yard Encroachments. A. Where a building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction, encroaches upon present required yards and setbacks, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building lines if the addition receives a Minor Residential Permit and conforms to the following: 1. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback and the height of•the existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. 2. The maximum length of the extension is ftfteen feet. 3. The extension of any wall plane of a first-story addition is not permitted to be within three feet of any property line. 4. Only one such extension shall be permitted for the life of such building. 5. This section applies to the font story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property become part of the City. B. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that 'no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1660, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 7999; Ord. 1808, (part),- 1999; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.090 Minor Residential Permits. Projects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall be reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of this process is to provide affected neighbors with an opportunity to comment on new development that could have significant impacts on their property or the neighborhood as a whole. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject property, including properties across a public or private street. The notice shall invite public comment by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches In size. B. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Community Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The permit can be approved only upon making all of the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in [he vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the_ general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. 2005 S-4 13-61 19.28.090 Cupertino -Zoning 34 C. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning Com.,,ission, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action by first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the Planning Commission will make the final action on the appeal. _ D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Permit.-Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Minor Residential Permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Minor Residential Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant aone-year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development a Minor Residential Permit can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications.(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.100 Two-Story Residential Permit. Two-story additions or two-story new homes require a Two-Story Residential Permit in accordance with this section. Two-story projects with a floor area ratio under 3595 shall require aLevel ITwo-Story Residential Permit, while atwo-story project with a floor area ratio over 3595 shall require a Level lI Two-Story Residential Permit. A. Notice of Application (Level I). Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject property, including properties across a public or private street. The notice shall invite public coumtent by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice in the front yard of the subject site that is clearly visible from the public street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide firmly attached to a five-foot tall post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: a. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the address is not known. b. A brief description of the proposed project, the content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; c. City contact information for public inquiries; d. A deadline for the submission of .public cormnents, which shall be at least fourteen days after the date the notice is posted; e. A black and white orthographic rendering of the front of the house, at ]east eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting. B. Notice of Application (Level II). Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the subject property. The notice shall invite public comment by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice consistent with subsection A(1) of this section, except that a colored perspective rendering shall be required instead of a black and white orthographic rendering. C. Story Poles. Story poles are required for any Two-Story Residential Permit. D. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Community Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The permit can be approved only upon making all of the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit will not result in. a condition that is detrimental or injurious to. property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impact's on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. E. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action by first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the Planning Commission will make the final action on the appeal. F. Expiration of a Two-story Permit. Unless a building pernut is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Two- Story Permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Two-Story Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant a one-year extension, without a 2005 S-4 13-62 35 Single-Family .Residential (Rl) Zones 19.28.100 public notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to the Two-Story Permit is filed before the expiration date anal substantive justification for the extension is provided. G. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of tr;.e Director of Community Development, aTwo-Story Permit can be processed concurrently with other discretionazy applications. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.110 Exceptions. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19.28.060, 19.28.070 and 19.28.120 may be granted as provided in this section. A. Notice of Application. Upon receiptofacomplete application, the Community Development Department sha:~l set slime-and place for a public hearing before the Design Review Committee and send a notice by first class mail b~ all owners of record of real property (as shown in the lat:t tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the subject property. Properties that are adjacent to the subject site, including those across a public or private street, sha71 receive a reduced scale copy of the plan set with the public notice. B. Decision. After closing the public hearing, th~~ decision-maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application based on the fmdings.in this section. Any interested party can appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 19.136. C. Expiration of an Exception. Unless a building; permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid anti control number issued) within one year of the Exceptiot approval, said approval shall become null and void unless :c longer time period was specifically prescribed by the: conditions of approval. 7n the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Exception shall become null anti void. The Director of Cormunity Development may grant a one-year extension, without a public notice, if arc application for a Minor Modification to the Exception it: filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. D. Findings for Approval. 1. Issued by the Director of Community Development. The Director of Community Development: may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulation. described in Section 19.28.060 G(4) upon making all of the following findings: a. The project fulfills the intent of the visible second-story wall height regulation in that the number oi' two-story wall planes and the amount of visible second story wall area is reduced to the maximum extent possible. b. The except to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the mi.,i**+um variance that will accomplish the purpose. c. The proposed . exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. 2, Issued by the Design Review Committee. The Design Review Committee may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulations described in Section 19.28.060, except 19.28.060 G(4) and Section 19.28.130 upon making all of the following findings: a. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. b. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare. c. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. d. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.120 Development Regulations-Eichler (Rl-e). R1-e single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural form through the establishment of district site development regulations. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned Rl-e. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude a harmonious two-story home or second story addition. A. Setback-First Story. 1. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet. B. Building Design Requirements. 1. Entry features facing the street shall be integrated with the roof line of the house. 2. The maxitnum roof slope shall be three-to-twelve (rise over run). 3, Wood or other siding material located on walls facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart. 4. The building design shall incorporate straight architectural lines, rather than curved lines. 5. Section 19.28.060 G(4) shall be considered a guideline in the R1-e district. 6. The first floor shall be no more than twelve inches above the existing grade. 7. Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards shall not exceed nine feet in height measured from the top of the floor to the top of the wall plate. C. Privacy Protection Requirements. 1. Side and Rear Yard Facing Second Floor Windows. In addition to other privacy protection requirements in Section 19.28.070, the following is required for all second story windows: - 2006 S-8 Repl. 1 3 - 63 19.28.120 Cupertino - Zoning 36 a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor; or b. Obscure glass to a height of six feet above the second floor; or c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum above the second floor. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000) 19.28.130 Development Regulations-(Rl-a). Rl-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned Rl-a. "In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The m;n;mum lot size is ten thousand square feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be seventy-five feet measured at the front-yard setback line. C. Second Story Area. A second floor shall be no more than forty percent of the first floor, except as follows: 1. A second floor may be at least seven hundred square feet itt area. 2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one thousand one hundred square feet in area. D. Setback -First Story. 1. Front Yard. The m;n;mum front yard setback is thirty feet. " 2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear -yard setback is twenty feet. E. Setback -Second Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard_ The combined side yard setbacks shall be thirty-five feet, with a minimum of fifteen feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is forty feet. 4. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.060 E(3) does not apply in this district. - F. Second-story Regulations. 1. Second story decks shall conform to the second- story building setbacks, and may be located on the front and rear only. 2. The second-story shall not cantilever over afirst- story wall plane. 3. The front-facing wail plane(s) of the second-story must be offset a minimum of three feet from the first-story wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid atwo- story wall plane on the front elevation. G. Front Yard Paving. No more than fifty percent of the front yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No more than forty percent of the front yard setback area may be "covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: a. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade and located ten feet from property lines; b. A twenty-five degree roof line angle projected inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in subsection H(2)(1) of this section. I. Variation from the R1 and R1-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the Rl-a district. J. Design Review. All two-story development shall require discretionary review based on Section 19.28.100, except that the Design Review Committee shall approve or deny the project at a public hearing based on the findings in subsection N(1) of this section. K. Design Guidelines. The guidelines in this section shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines. In cases where there may be conflict between the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall take precedence. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. 1. Second-story windows." Windows on the side elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor or should have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy. 2. All second story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured from the second story finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four feet, with a m;n;mttm four-foot depth and ten-foot width. The offsets should comprise the full height of rite wall plane. 3. Section 19.28.060 G(4) shall be considered a guideline in the R1-a district. _ 4. Garages. The maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be twenty-five feet, "which will accommodate atwo-car garage. Additional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a detached accessory structure at the rear of the property. L. Permitted Yard Encroachments. 1. Where a principal building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches, upon present required yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building line. a. The extension or addtion may not farther encroach into any required setback and the height of the existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. 2005 S-4 13 - 64 37 Single-Famfly Residential (Rl) Zones 19.28.130 b. In no.case shall any wall plane of a first-story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. c. This section does not apply to attached accessory structures such as attached carports. d. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property become part of the City. 2. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. 3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are encouraged in this zone. When viewed from the street, a porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportionately greater height than its width. Use of this yard encroachment provision shall require the approval of the Director of Community Development. a. Posts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts, for porches aze allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback. Structural supports must be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive. b. Columns. The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged. c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback area. d. Eave Height. The eave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. e. Detailing. porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback. M: Landscaping. 1. Landscaping plans shall be required for ali additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms from the street and adjacent properties. Specific measures are not prescribed. Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences. 2. Landscaping plans for two-story development shall include specific mitigations for impacts from mass, bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28.070 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: a. Privacy planting shall have a m;n;mum setback from the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the spread noted on the City list. b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of twelve feet at the time of planting. c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views from second-story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated. d. The Duector may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified azborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. N. Design Review Findings. 1. Findings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review application for two-story development only upon making all of the findings below: a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. The granting of this petmit will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions to property or improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety or welfare. c. The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials and designs of homes in the neighborhood. d. 'The project is consistent with the City's single- family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result in impacts on neighbors. e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the maximum extent possible. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.140 Interpretation by the Plannfng Director. In R1 zones, the Director of Community Development shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of thischapter consistent with the legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation of the chapter by the Director of Community Development may petition the Planning Com..,icsion in writing for review of the interpretation. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 2005 S-4 13-65 39 Slagle-Family Rcadential (R-1) Zones 19.28.130 19.28.150 Appendix ]B-Release o[ Privacy Protection Measures. Single-Family Residential Ordinance Ord+nAnr,~- 19.28 (Slagle-Family) requires that aRer September 21, 1998,-all new two-story additions or homes be required to complete privacy protection measures. Staff may grant a modification or deletion to this requirement if the adjacent affected property owners sign a release agreeing to modify or delete the requirement. 13-67 19.28.150 Cupertino -Zoning 40 Date Property Location Address: I agree to waive or modify the privacy protection measures required of the Single-Family Residential Ordinance as follows: Property Owner: Address: Phone: Signature: (Ord. 1860, $ 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) 13-68 41 Slagle-Family Residential (R-1) Zones 19.25.160 19.28.160 Appeadla C-Privacy Protection Planting AfIIdavit. Purpose. To assure the decision-makers and neighbors that the privacy protection planting has been installed according to the planting plan. Validation. An Internationally Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect shall certify ffie design and accuracy of the privacy protection planting. A reduced eleven b}~ seventeen copy of the approved planting plan shall be attached. Submittal of this form shall be required prior to final inspection of the residence_ Planting Certification I certify that the privacy protection planting and irrigation is installed at: and-at is consistent in design, height and Iocation with th<: landscapeplantiag and Irrigation plans drawn by dated (attached). Name Title Professional License # Date (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Clyd. 1834, (part), 1999) 13-69 19.28.160 Cupertino -Zoning 4z Exhibit 1. t. i_ . l 30' Angle Privacy invasion Mitigation 'required in stiaded areas L Window Jamb ~. ~~ :_ .. i 13-70 Exhibit C CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVEI:.OPMENT REPORT FORM Application: MCA-2008-03 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: Citywide Agenda Date: September 9, 2008 ITEM SUMMARY: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements DISCUSSION This item was continued from the August 26, 2i~08 Planning Commission hearing. Please refer to the attached August 26*h staff report for the detailed analysis. Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior P1aruler Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm Attachments Exhibit A - August 26, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments. 13-71 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: MCA-2008-03 Agenda Date: August 26, 2008 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: Citywide Item Summary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements RECOMMENDATION 1. Review the draft ordinance framework and provide comments or direction to Staff; or 2. Recommend that the City Council adopt the R-1 Ordinance amendment regarding the first floor to second floor ratio requirements. _ BACKGROUND On May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission work program to include a limited review of the R-1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The intent is to allow greater design flexibility to property owners. The Council directed the Planning Commission to present recommendations on ordinance options to the City Council by October 2008. Staff believes through a focused design review process, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio thereby permitting greater architectural diversity. On July 8, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed R1 Ordinance amendment. The Commission directed staff to provide a focused ordinance framework with specific list of principles and guidelines that will address Cupertino's residential development needs. DISCUSSION PZanninQ Commission Concern • The lack of the prescriptive nature of the new design review process. Staff Response: The zntent of the nezv design revzezo process for homes exceeding 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio is to provide greater design flexibility. Therefore any new design standards must provide adequate flexibility to facilitate a variety of potezztzal design concepts. The proposed ordinance language has been revised to provide additional specificity (see attached Exhibit A). The proposed design review process is voluntary, only applicable to those wishing to increase 13-72 MCA-2008-03 - Rl Ordinance August 26, 2008 Page 2 their second floor area above 45%. biomes that are designed to meet the existing Rl Ordinance would only be subject: to the current R1 Ordinance standards. • The new guidelines may encourage "box" style homes with uninteresting 2-story wall planes. Staff Response: Applicants will be required to have an identifiable architectural style. Specific visual relief measurers or elements will be required to ensure that 2-story wall planes are broken up and treated. In addition, high quality and variation in details and materials will be required. • Currently, the R1 Exception process allows applicants to propose greater second floor areas, why create a new process. Staff Response: The current exception process does not provide any specific standards and/ or visual relief techniques to treat 2-story wall plaizes, or unarticulated walls to ensure architectural integrity. Also, the exception process is costly and intimidating for averagE: property owners. Desig~z Principles Staff believes that to facilitate greater architectural diversity does not require increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or changing the required second story setbacks. The goal is through appropriate design review and the application of enhanced design principles, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45 second floor area limit provided that that ~:hey are designed appropriately for the lot, the neighborhood, and the overall design of the structure. Staff. recommends that the Director of Coxrununity Development may grant approval to a second floor to ground floor ratio greater than 45% provided that all of the followings design principles are met: 1. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided; 2. Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style selected; 3. Materials shall be of high quality; 4. Design with architectural integrit~~ on all sides of the structure; 5. Visual relief shall be provided for two-story walls; 6. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale; 7. The design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance. The Director's decision inay be appealed to i:he Design Review Committee or elevated to the Design Review Con-~,,,;ttee if needed. 13-73 MCA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance August 26, 2008 Page 3 Visual Relief Techniques By allowing second floors to potentially be larger than 45% of the ground floor to facilitate other design options, staff recommends that the following visual relief options for two story walls be added to the Ordinance: • Extended or wrap around porches • Pop outs and bay windows • Material and color changes • Wide overhangs with projecting brackets • Juliet balconies • Window boxes and pot shelves • Landscaped trellises and lattices • Or other similar architectural features deemed to be appropriate by the Direct of Community Development Other Related Minor Ordinance Changes Homes exceeding the 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio would also be exempted from the second floor 10 feet setback surcharge requirement. In addition, the 50 % second floor wall exposure requirement would be revised to include the proposed visual relief measures discussed u1 the previous section of the staff report. CONCLUSION If the Planning Commission fiizds merit in the proposed ordinance framework then Staff will work with the City Architectural Consultant to enhance the document with additional graphics and illustrations. The Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review the final draft before making its formal recommendation to the City Council. Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner L-~'%/~ ~ ~~ ~_ Vim. Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmer~ Attachments Exhibit A - Draft RT Ordinance Framework Regarding Homes Exceeding 45% Second Floor to First Floor Ratio Exl-tibit B - July 8, 2008 Planning Commission Rl Ordinance Staff Report and Exhibits 13-74 ~n~b~t ~- City of Cupertino Draft R1 Ordinance Frarrlework Regarding Homes Exceeding 45% Second Floor to First Floor Ratio INTRODUCTION The design principles listed in this documesnt were created to assist property owners, developers, and city staff in working together to retain and enhance the special qualities of Cupertino's neighborhoods. They are intended to allow greater flexibility of architectural styles, and assist in developing good design practices and solutions. The principles apply to all new or remodeled two-story residences with second floor building areas greater than 45% compared with the first floor area. Traditional Architecture in Cupertino: The City of Cupertino has a variety of neighborhood architectural styles developed over many decades. Similar style homes, such as Ranch homes clustered throughout Cupertino, Eichler homes in the Fairgrove neighborhood, and tFie Monta Vista bungalows, were often built in relatively large groupings. Despite the diversit~~ between these styles, they are small in scale and relatively informal. Problem Statement: One recent trend in new or remodeled homes is the demand for significantly larger than older existing homes. Because of the current 45% second story floor area ratio requirement in the Single-Family Residential Ordinance, a "wedding cake" style of architecture is slowly becoming the predominate style for new or remodeled two-story homes. However, through appropriate focused design review, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio thereby permitting greater design flexibility. Design Review Process: To provide greater flexibility of design, an applicant may increase their second floor area and second floor wall exposure by applying addition~~l design principles and by participating in additional architectural review. The Director of Community Development may grant approval of these projects if the following design principles <-ire met: Desion Principles: 1 . An identifiable architectural style shall bey provided; 2. Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style selected; 3. Materials shall be of high quality; 4. Design with architectural integrity on all =sides of the structure; 5. Visual relief shall be provided for two-story walls. 6. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale; 7. The design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance. Visual Relief Techniques: Apply visual relief options for two story walls. Recommended techniques include: Extended or wrap around porches •:• Pop outs and bay windows •:• Material and color changes o'• Wide overhangs with projecting brackets :• Juliet balconies :• Window boxes and pot shelves :• Landscaped trellises and lattices •:• Or other similar architectural features deemed to be appropriate by the Direct of Community Development 13-75 Exhibit B CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: MCA-2008-03 Agenda Date: July 8, 2008 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: Citywide " Item S+++Y+mary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council adopt the R-1 Ordinance amendment regarding the fu st floor to second floor ratio requirements BACKGROUND Oiz May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Co*-*~++-+~ ~ ssion work program to include a limited review of the R-1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. first floor to second floor ratio requirement. The Council directed the Planning Commission to present recommendations on ordinance options to the City Council by October 2008. The Council direction limited the amendment to only consider if the current second floor to first floor ratio should be adjusted. The Couizcil directed that this review would not consider chat bQing the setback requirements or the allowable overall building floor area ratio. The concern is that the 45% second story to first floor ratio requirement inadvertently encourages homeowners to increase the size of the first floor to ensure the second floor proportion is large enough to accommodate the desired number of bedrooms. Also, the current second floor to ground floor ratio results in a repetitive style of "wedding cake" architecture making it difficult to desigiz other traditional styles of architecture such as :'Victorian" or "Queen Anne." The following sections of the staff report will discussion ordinance options to adjust the allowed second to ground floor ratio to allow greater architectural diversity. A citywide postcard notice of the pubic hearuzg was mailed out to Cupertino residents inviting them to participate in the discussion (see attached). DISCUSSION Existing Ordinance The existing Rl Ordinance was updated in January 2005. One of the major changes was to increase the 2nd floor to ground floor ratio from 35% to 45%. The intent was to allow enough space on the 2nd story to acconzrnodate three bedrooms while controlling the overall mass and scale. Since the 2005 ordinaizce amendment, very few p~l~~ic MCA-~_ .~e3-03 - R1 ordin..._..:e Suly 8, 2008 Paae 2 concerns have been expressed about i:he allowable second floor building space. Rather, there has been an increase of concerns regarding the limitation of architectural flexibility due to the second floor to ground floor ratio. Weddzng Cake Style ofArcTzitecture The current 45% second story floor area ratio has resulted in a "wedding cake" style of architecture that is slowing becdmiuzg the predominate style of new two-story homes or additioizs in many neighborhoods. Although exterior design elements, such as corbels, VVain~COt111g, and window treatments, are provided to suggest an architectural style, the overall "wedding cake" style is the same from house to house_ The images below are examples of the existing Rl Ordinance "wedding cake" style architecture: Many residents attempt to personalize their home with design elements representing traditional architecture, however the final result is greatly limited by the existing second floor area restriction. This is especially the case on smaller lots under 6,000 square feet where the width of the lot is already restricts design options. 13-77 MCA-~w8-03 - R1 ordino,.ce 7uly 8, 2008 Pale 3 Traditional Architectus•e Traditional architecture, such as Victoriai2, Queen Aizne, Farmhouse, Colonial Revival, Italian Renaissance, typically have the majority of the second story walls aligned with the ground floor walls. Second story ~valls may even cantilever over portions of the ground floor wall to emphasize a certain architectural element or material change, What is importaizt to the traditional architectural is the attention and emphasis given to quality arcltectural treatments and exterior embellishments to help visually min;m;~.e what would otherwise be unarticulated walls or boxy forms. The following are some styles of architecture that may be difficult to design under the current Rl Ordinance: When Desig-sz Regulations Are Not Applied to Two-Stos-y Homes Two-story "box" forms caiz be articulated in a way that minimizes the mass. However, unregulated two-story homes are often sterile in design and visually imposing. Without design review, attempts to m;r,;m;ze the mass and scale (as seen ii1 the following image) may- not always be appropriate, and may not always achieve the intended goal. 13-78 MCA-2w8-03 - R1 ordinazice 7uly 8, 2008 Paae 4 -~ , ±~-~ ,' Exa~npZe Design Guidelines From Other Communities The neighboring communities of Los Gatos and Los Altos have accommodated greater architectural variety, while meeting the community's privacy and compatibility needs by requiring a higher level of architectural integrity in their projects. Excessive mass of a residence is not determined by the second story to first story FAR, but by the perception that the size aild mass of the house is too large for the size of the property. The goal is to have the home designed to _•_`it the lot, and then apply elements that assist in reducing the perception of bulk. The City of Los Altos includes the follovTing list of ways to reduce the perception of bulk in their residential desigiz guidelines. They are si ~Tr r*~ arized below: • Use of more than one material on an elevation is appropriate to break up the vertical mass of the house. Sometimes an accent material such as a lo~N horizontal band of brick or stone with stucco or wood siding. • Soften the elevation with the use of architectural elements (porches, bays, overhangs, trellises), aizd detail (molding, trip, brackets, etc.) • Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. For example, painting the triangular area iz a gable end one color and using a shade (or color) lighter or darker below. • Provide some variation in large expanses of wall and roof planes. For example, cantilever the second floor:- over the first floor. • Use horizontal elements to soften vertical ones in an elevation. A cha~ige of direction in siding or adding moldvlgs iz stucco can achieve this. • In some cases, a simplification of shapes and materials will reduce bulk. For example, too many different materials aild changes iz types of wizdovvs add complexity of the facade. • Minimize use of tall or two-story-high design elements_ This would include tx>o-story entry ways, turrets, ect. • Use visually heavy materials sparingly, particularly on two story designs. Use stone or brick as an accent material or wavlscot on an elevation. i a - ~s Example of aNon-Regulated Two-Story Residence. MCA-L~..~8-03 - Rl ordinance Tuly 8, 2008 Page 5 • Choose landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. This should not be a substitute for good design however. • Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible. • Use roof forms that reduce bulk (love to medium pitch, minirr,um number of hips and valleys. • Avoid massive, tall chimneys. Locate them either on an internal wall or centered on a gable end when possible. The following is some architectural tecluziques used by Town of Los Gatos to provide visual relief for two story walls: • Horizontal belly bands • Pop outs and bay windows • Material and color changes • Chimneys • Wide overhangs with projecting brackets • Juliet balconies Window boxes and pot shelves • Landscaped trellises and lattices All or some of the above methods may be applied to a clew or remodeled residence (see images belo~v). MCA-2.008-03-R1 ordinance July 8, 2008 Paae 6 Recommended Ordinance Solution Staff believes that achieving architectural diversity does not require i~zcreasing or decreasing. the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or changing the required second story setbacks. The goal is thu-ough appropriate desigiz review and the application of eizhailced design principles, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45% second floor area limit provided that that: they are designed appropriately for the lot, the neighborhood, azzd the overall design of the structure. Staff recommends that if ail applicant wishes to increase the second story FAR above 45%, then a discretionary staff level design revieva be incorporated into the process with notification to the adjacent neighbors. Additional architectural principles would be upheld, while maintaiiziilg the existing goals of symmetry, proportion and bala~zce. The Director of Community Development may grant approval to a second floor to ground floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the followings design principles aizd tecluziques are met: • Ensure avnrot~riate architectural iraer_est and comtoatibility with neighborhood design theme and character. ~ Add ~risual interest to the elevation. with the use of architectural elements (i.e., porches, bays, overhar~gs, trellises; moldings, trim, wood sid"wigs, brackets or metal work). ~3-81 MCA-2008-03 - Rl ordinance July 8, 2008 Pale 7 • Ensure appropriate building mass and scale. ~ Avoid monumental scaled forms (e.g. towers, turrets and tall entry features) that contrast with the neighborhood architectural forms. ~ Avoid eave lines and roof ridges that are substatltially taller than the . adjacent houses. ~ Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass of the house. ~ Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible. ~ Use more thaiz one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass (i.e, wainscot, wood siding, belly bands). ~ Use visually heavy materials sparingly (balustrades or stone on second floor). ~ At least 25% of all two story wall planes should be treated with architectural features to provide visual relief and architectural interest (include but -not be limited to stone, brick, alternative siding materials, balconies, porch elements, long roof eaves, window boxes, pot shelves; cantilever features, trellises, corbels, trims, metal work, other features deemed appropriate). ~ Use landscape materials to help soften the appearaiZCe of bulk. ~ Use color chaizges to help visually break up the elevation. :• Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure (maintain symmetry, nronortion and balance). ~ Avoid o~Terly complex architectural elements and/or roof features. ~ Line up architectural features and elements both vertically and horizontally (i.e., roofs or windows). The Director's decision may be appealed to the Design Review Committee. Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Plaiuzer C ` Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~~ j~,~;_~ Attachments Exlbit A - Citywide postcard titled, "Limited Review of the Single Family Residential (R 1) Ordinance". Exhibit B - Draft Model ordinance Exhibit C - Highlights for the Los Altos Desig~~ Guidelines Exhibit D - Highlights from the Los Gatos Design Guidelines. *Note: City of Cupertino Architectural Consultant, Larry Cannon, assisted in the development of the Los Gatos Design Guideluzes. 13-82 On May 13, 2008 the City Council initiated a limited revie~N of the Single Family Residential (R1) Ordinance, regarding the allowed ratio of second floor building area compared to the first floor building area Section 19.28.060. The current R1 Ordinance limits the size of the second floor to no more than 459'0 of the first floor. The revised ordinance w@Il GORSIder od)usting the allowed ratio to ollo~w grecEtBr csrchitecturc~f diversity, but will not consider increcss@ne,~ or decreasing the total allo~~red building ®rea on ®n R1 iQt or cE-®nging the rec@uired second story setbacks. .The total allowed building area and the second story setback relationship to neiahborina r~rooerfies will not chance. The Planning Commission is holding a public hearing to receive public input and consider ordinance options on the allowable ratio of the second story on the following date and time: MCA-'2008-03 Tuesday, July 8, 2008, at 6:45 p.m. Cupertino Community Hc111, 10350 Torre Avenue The current R1 Ordinance can be viewed on the City's v.~ebsite at v,n~,nv.cuoertino.ora/R1. For additional information about this section of the ordinance you-may contact Leslie Gross with the Cupertino Planning Deportment at (408) 777- 1356 or e-mail any comments to IeslieaC~cuoertino.oro. If you are unable to attend the public hearing, on online webcast of the hearing is available at v.~v~v,~.cuoer!ino.o-o/Rl. Also, please check the City's website for follow-up infiormation regarding the Planning Commission and City Council hearing schedules. Please note the c~gEncfo ie sub%sct to thongs, so you m¢y want to contcrct the Pfanrzirrc„~ Deportment prior to tha mestiRg cf¢ta to verBfy tfs¢t the item is still on the ag~encSo. 13-83 CITY OF C~'PERTIN~- ; IXHIBIT A IXHIBIT B Development Regulations (Building)_ A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be~forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches and other similar features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls. B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective. of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the residential development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in deterr~n;ng whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot shall be forty-five percent. 2. .The maximum floor area of a second story shall be forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is greater. 3. The Director of Conltuunity Development may Brant approval to a second floor to wound floor ratio sreater than ~5% provided that the follo~~.-in es desi~*ti principles and techniques are met: a. Ensure a~ropriate architectural interest and compatibility «'ith neighborhood design theme and character.- i. Add visual interest to the elevation with the use of architectural elements (i.e._ porches. bays. overhanss_ trellises. moldings. trim_ «~ood sidings. brackets or metal «-orkl_ b. Ensureappro~riate building mass and scale. i. Avoid monumental scaled formes (e. e. to«~ers. turrets and tall entry featured that contrast ~yith the neighborhood architectural fornLS. ii. Avoid cave lines and roof ridges that are substantially taller than the adiacent houses. iii. Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass of the house. iv. Kezp second floor exterior ~yall heishts as loce~ as possible. v. Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical macs (i.e_ ~yainscot_ wood sidins_ belly bandsl. vi. LTse visually heavy materials sparingly (balustrades or stone on second flood. vii. At ]east 25% of all t~a~o story wall planes should be treated w-ith architectural features to provide visual relief and architectural interest (include but not be limited to stone. brick_ altenlatiye sidins materials. balconies_ porch elements. Ions roof e.aves_ windo«~ boxes. pot shelves. cantilever features_ trellises. corbels. trims_ metal work. other features deemed appropriate). viii. Use landscape materials to helg soften the appearance of bulk. ix. Use color chances to help visually break up the elevation. c_ Design ~~>ith architectural integrity on all sides of the structure (maintain svn~metry. proportion and balance). i. Avoid overly complex architectural elements and/or roof features_ ii. Line up architectural features and elements both vertically and horizontally (i.e.. roofs or windoci-sl. 13-84 ~. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have the mass and bulls of a two-story house and shall be counted as floor area. a. If the house is a two-story house, this area will count as second story floor area; otherwise, the area will count as first floor area. C. Design Guidelines. 1. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the following items are met prior to design approval: a. The mass and bulls of the design shall be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately lazger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights; b. -The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c. There shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut. d. No more than fifty percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of garage area. e. Long, unarticulated, exposed second. story walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the second stogy. f. The curt'ent pattern of side setback acid gazage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and placement. h. Porches are encouraged. i. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. j. All second story roofs should have at least cone-foot overhang. D. Setback-First Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yazd setback is twenty feet; provided, that .for a curved driveway the setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the tvvo side yard setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard setback may be less than five feet. a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-yazd setback on the street side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side yard setback shall be no less than five feet. b. For interior lots in the R1-5 district, the side yard setbacks are five feet on both sides. c. For lots that have more than two side; yards, the setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the front property line and the rear property line. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. a. With a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, the rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduc'on, the usable rear yazd is not less than twenty times the lot width a measured from the front setback line: 13-85 4. Garage. The front face of a gazage in an R1 district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a street property line. a. For projects with three-car garages oriented to the public right-of-way, the wall plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of the other two spaces. E. Setback-Second Story. 1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. 2. Side Yazd. The combination of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except that no second-story side setback may be less than ten feet. a. In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is twenty feet from any property line. b. In the case of a corner lot, a minimum of twelve feet from a street side property line and twenty feet front any rear property line of asingle-family duelling. 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section. F. Basements. L The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for eb ess, light and ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house with abasement,-one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide and up to ten feet long. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area, except as follows: a. The nzin;mum side setback for a lightwell ret~;n;ng wall shall be five feet- b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet. 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwell.2005 S-4 5. The perimeter of the basement -and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated andlor reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as deternvned by the Director of Conununity Development. G. Height. 1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal d~~~elling in an R1 zone shall not exceed twenty-eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances. . 2. Building Envelope (One Story). a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: 1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; 2. Atwenty-five-deb ee roof line angle projected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential Permit. 13-86 3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty pe:rcent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a m;n;mum t~~vo-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from the first story exterior wall plane. a. The Director of Community Develoj~ment may approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings in Section 7 9.28.1 10 D. 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height shall be fourteen feet. 5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The ~~ity Council may prescribe that all buildings ~~vitlun a designated area be limited to one st~~ry in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by affixing an i designation to the R1 zoning district. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yazds shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the pri~~acy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similaz unenclosed features. 1. A second-story deck or patio may ericroach three feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling. 2. The minimum side-yazd setback shall be fifteen feet. . 3. The minimum reaz-yard setback shad be t«~enty feet.. I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infrinje upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2.001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 13-87 Exhibit C City of Los Altos _ ~--- ~r,..,~~ ..... scncn.~ m I Less Impact I ---~-_ _~ ~~ f ~ ..2/.S m ,~, ~ I Single-Family Residential New Homes 8~ Remodels 13-88 1.0 INP:RODUCTION These guidelines were developed after an extensive community-wide Iook at the values and expectations that neighborhoods have for the housing that surrounds them. The purpose of this handbook is not meant to promote a specific type of design nor to establish a rigid set of guidelines. Instead., it is meant to guide the homeowner, architect, developer and builder in planning an~i executing a successful design of new and remodeled single-family dwellings. This :handbook will also serve as a guide for the City. Council. Planning Commission and City staff in the design review process_ Often, newly built homes have more complex plan and building forms than existing houses_ ?his fact, along with stylistic and size issues, has reinforced perceptions of newer homes as being very different from older .houses. The design policies and implementation techniques in this handbook are not meant to discourage individual designs_ Rather, they set forth the implementation of the findings that must be made for design review applications, serve as a basis on which decision- making bodies may base their design.-review decisions, and assist in developing consistency in the approval process from neighborhood to neighborhood across the city. The primary purpose is to guide property owners toward successful solutions to their needs and to maintain the existing po:~itive physical qualities and character of the residential neighborhoods of Los Altos. These guidelines implement the goals anti policies of the Generai Plan. They also identify the findings from the Los Altos Municipal Code which must be followed to gain approval of a project. Los Altos requires design review on all residential construction. The majority of design review is performed by Planning Department staff_ Applications for.two-story construction or unusual architectural design are heard by the Architectural and Site Control Committee (A&S), a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. The functions of the ABzS Committee are delineated in th.e Los Altos Municipal Code. From a historical perspective, the character of neighborhoods in Los Altos relates back to the incorporation of the city in 1952. Decisions made at that time encouraged arural-like atmosphere. Thus, Los Altos developed with spacious quarter acre lots, minimal usL. of curbs and gutters, extensive use of landsc:sping and large trees, openness of front yards to the street, and the relatively low profile and height of residences. Prior to the City's incorporation, housing had developed more in continuity with surrounding communities- thus, there are areas of town that have smaller lots, and the zoning regulations distinguish between these smaller lots and larger lots in terms of setbacks, height, etc_ These design guidelines, however, apply to lots of all sizes. 13-89 Residential Deci n (' ,id Iin Although most of the housing stock was developed during the 1950's and a predominant style is the "ranch°, there is a vast diversity of design and style within Los Altos. Today, demands for housing are far different than they were at our incorporation. As a result, housing styles and home size have changed dramatically_ Whereas, earlier there was an emphasis on "low profile", now there is a tend_ envy to "build out" a lot Whereas, before there was an emphasis on designing from the exterior inward now there is a tendency to design from the interior outward. At times this results in home designs that appear to overwhelm neighboring homes either in mass or complexity of design. To monitor such changes, the City Council first amended the zoning regulations to lower height and to establish daylight planes and floor area to lot area ratios. After working with these new regulations fora period of time, it became evident that development standards alone are not sufficient to address such impacts as privacy invasion and change to neighborhood character. Thus, the next step involved the adoption of requirements for design review of all new homes and remodels. These guidelines have been developed with the expectation that their use will encourage creativity that will result in a high level of residential design quality. It is recognized that guidelines do not encompass the full range of possibilities for excellence. For this reason, variation from these guidelines will be considered when compensated by a related improvement which contributes to the excellence of the project_ To use these guidelines, please refer to the Table of Contents. Chapter 1 is the Introduction, and Chapter 2 explains the intent of the guidelines as well as the design review process. Chapter 3 presents information on how design is viewed in relation to the design review process. Chapter 4 presents the basic philosophy of these guidelines and provides general guidance in meeting the findings required for design approval. Chapter 5 explains procedures and includes the basic `do's axd don'ts" for design approval. There are three appendices: Appendix A presents the goals and policies from the General Plan that are applicable to these guidelines; Appendix B is a Glossary of Terms; and Appendix C provides a basic pruner on Architectural Styles, and can assist you in identifying the style of your home. We wish you well on your project 13-90 4.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES PI-iILOSOPHY This chapter defines the philosophy of Z,os Altos with regard to how housing should develop within our neighborhoods. This chapter is general in nature and reflects the major concerns of neighborhood compatibility and site planning, including the relationship of your property to adjacent F~roperties. The next chapter goes into greater detail regarding the do's and don'ts for all n~sw construction and remodels. These guidelines were developed from the belief that there can be a balance between the desires of the community to achieve neighborhood compatibility in house design and individuals' rights to build their "dream home". There is a need to be sensitive in crucial areas that govern the relationship of a home to its surroundings, e.g. existing homes, public streets, open spaces, privacy invasi~~ii, etc_ These guidelines are not intended to prescribe a specific style, nor to limit development to one story in height 4.1 NEIGHSORI300D COllg'ATIBIL7ZY Before starting the design process, yoci should understand the character of your neighborhood and the impact your project will have on the neighborhood. Not all neighborhoods have clearly defined boundaries or character_ Often, the boundaries of a neighborhood are delineated by arterial streets, topography and other non-architectural features. Neighborhood character within a subdivision may be a result of private CCSzR's (Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions). These CC8zR's may contain restrictions on height, size, setbacks, and other design isstces. Review your title report to see if there are any CC8cR's that may apply to your projeca_ Even though enforcement of CC8sR's is a private civil matxer, you will need to acknowledge on your design application whether your project follows all CC8zR's. When the appli~~ant indicates that a project deviates from the CCBzR's, the neighbors will be notified. Neighborhoods in our community fall into one of the following groups: consistent, diverse and transitional. Following is a discussion regarding each of these types of neighborhoods. One of the considerations for a project is the compatibility it has within the neighborhood. A project determined to be inconsistent with the neighborhood will not necessarily be denied_ It may be that: mitigation will be required in order for the project to be approved. CONSISTENT CuauaCTER NEIGf~Oli2HOODS: These neighborhoods have a similar style and character to the homes and streetscape. This does not mean that the homes are exactly alike, just that they share similar 13-91 9 R cir~anrial 17 characteristics of style, house type, setbacks, and streetscape character. ~2ajor renovation or new construction projects in these neighborhoods require more design sensitivity to the neighborhood than other neighborhood types when they depart from the neighborhood character. r-id~~ ~~ ea..e lin.~-, Consistent NeightsiMassing • Za consistent character neighborhoods, good neighbor design has design elements, material, and scale found within the neighborhood and sizes that are not significantly larger than other. homes is the neighborhood. The emphasis should be on designs that "fit in" and lessen abrupt changes. • APPr'o~'al of an inconsistent design will require mitigating design measures to lessen the neighborhood impact Mitigation may include change in size, increased setbacks, large trees or other landscape materials for screening and other changes in design to reduce impacts. The goal of mitigation is to soften the differences between the new construction and the existing homes. story entry rri~ja hair t r~~.Ii.~ Less Desirable ~ Consistent Character Neighborhood_ Remodels S Additions DIVERSE CZiARAC'I~R NEIGFZBOItHOODS: In contrast, diverse character neighborhoods contain a variety of architectural styles and may have a varying stz'eetscape as well_ This can result from homes which were built in different eras or by_ individual homeowner/developers, or be a result of a neighborhood in transition. 13-92 i.onsi scent Setbacks ~ s t r e e t_ _.. ~_ _,_ r:__ _ I wverse House Types & Setbacks Diverse Styles and/or Sizes • In a diverse cbaracteer neighborhood, good neighbor design bas its own design integFity while incorporating some design elements and materials found in the neighborhood. desi ~hgatroa for items :such as size and bulk may be used for some gns depending on the relationship of a home to its neighbors. TRANSTITONAL CuauaL-1~g ~IGI~ORHOODS: Transitional character neighborhoods are those that are in the grocess of changing their character and identity. Major changes include two-story additions in a one-story neighborhood, large homes in a neighborhood of small homes, and many upgraded homes in a neighborhood of older, smaller designs. • In a transitional character neighborhood, a_ good neighbor design reduces the abrupt changes that result from juxtaposing radically different designs or sizes of structures; proposed projects should not set the extreme and should be designed to soften the tran:;ition. Significant deviations could be cause for mitigation. tun-et. 3 l ~ r c)3rdcJe.~ ~U. cttf.tnttay~ --~~ ~-+~ ~- am _ font _ --~en.~,e lirie,-I Not Desirable Transitional Character Neighborhood: Remodels & Additions 4.2 STI'E PIANNING -- - r i~ height eaves ii+,~ m -- - ® - - m Ranch Bungalow Spanish Integration of your home with the site is an important aspect to good design. How your home is sited on its lot in relation to your neighbors, the placement of the garaget~iii~ 5.4 DESIGN TO MININIIZE BIJI E{ One of the biggest issues (other than privacy invasion) raised by residents concerning additions or new homes is that they are too massive or bulky, which may result in homes that stand out from the rest of the neighborhood. Part of this perception is due to the size and mass of the house compared to the size of the property. Usually, the perception is that the home is too big for the lot A home should be designed to fit the lot and surroundings and with internal design integrity. Then, the elements you have chosen must lend themselves to reducing the perception of bulk_ There are many ways to reduce the perception of bulk. Some of these include: • Use of more than one matErial on as elevation is appropriate to break up the vertical mass of the house. Sometimes an accent material such as a low horizontal band of brick or stone with stucco or wood siding above can be appropriate. However, too many elements can add to the appearance of bulk; good design must achieve balance. • Soften the elevation with the use of architectural elements (porches, bays, overhangs, trellises) and detail (moldings, trim, brackets, etc.). Be careful not to overdo, though. • Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. For example, painting the triangle area in a gable end one color and using a shade (or color) lighter or darker below. • Provide some variation in large expanses of wall and roof planes. For example, cantilever the second floor over the first floor. 13-94 17 - R cid nti^l D ci~n (" ,id lin c • Use horizontal elements to soften vertical ones in an elevation. A change of direction in siding or adding moldings in stucco can achieve this. • In some cases, a simplification of shapes and materials will reduce hulk. For example, too many different materials and changes in types of windows add to the complexity of the facade. • Minimize use of tall or riNO-story-high design elements. This would include two-story entry ways, turrets, etc. • Use viisualty Heavy materials sparingly, particularly on two-story designs. Use stone or brick as an accent material or as a wainscot on an elevation. • Choose landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. This should not be a substitute for good design, however_ • KEep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible. • Use roof forms that reduce bulk (low to medium pitch, minimum number of hips and valleys). • Avoid massive, tall chim~ieys. Locate them either on an internal wall or centered on a gable end when possible. • Design -the house from the "outside-in". Houses designed from the "inside-out" rather than the reverse tend to look lumpy and lack a clear overall design. This often adds to the perception of excessive bulk_ • Lower the height of a two-story house below 27 feet maximum to mitigate other design issues. Keep in mind that overdoing anything can result in added bulk. 5.~ LANDSCAPING Natural features, such as mature trees, ro~:k outcroppings, and other landscape elements should be retained; quite often they can serve as design inspiration. • Designs should take -- - - advantage of natural features found on site. Natural features include mature trees ~.-• ~~ and other landscape materials (hedges, gall ~-' shrubs), rock outcroppings, and creeks. rT rr*°~: - ~ •• Design around existing landscape features - ~ --" " ~_ Exi~ibit ~ Town of Los Catos CONTENTS CONTENTS 7 INTRO_ DUCTION Applicability .............................:...•-••---------------...................5 Relationship to other plans .................................................6 Purpose ......................•--------....--•-------°---.............------........6 Community Expectations .................................................70 - Historic Preservation...• ....................................................70 Ho~v to Read Your Neighborhood ....................................77 General Design Principles ................................................77 Maximum Floor Area Ratio ..............................................72 Design Review Process .....................................................7 2 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS ~ General Neighborhood Design Principles ........................73 Street Presence ..............•------------°--•--............----.......... 74 Form and Mass ..............••------`---------°.........---••----........... l 5 Garages .........................................................•---•------------ 7 8 Site Development.........--••----------•---........,..-•---------=---°---.20 3 BUILDING DESIGN General Building Design Principles .................................. 27 Architectural Style---------------------•-------.... ----.......------------...22 Height/Bulk/Scale -----------------------°-----.................------......23 Garages .................................°°°----................°............ 25 - Roofs ..............................................................••----.......... 27 Entries .............................•-•-•--._.............------------------------- 29 \Nindov.~s .....................•--...................................---.......... 30 Materials ......................................................................... 32 Additions/Accessory Buildings/Secondary Units ............... 33 Architectural Detail.•--.---.---• ....................................••-.....34 Privacy and Solar Access ................................................. 35 Sustainable Design .......................................................... 37 4 HISTORIC RESOURCES Application/Enforcement ................................................ 39 Historic Presen~ation .......................................................39 . Approval Process for Historic Resource Alterations.......... 47 Historic Districts .............................................................. 43 Building Classifications .................................................... 43 Demolitions .................................................................... 43 Pre-7947 Structures ..............•-•-°----------..........................46 Protected Exterior Elements ............................................46 Restoration/Rehabilitation/Reconstruction ....................... 47 Additions and Outbuildings ............................................. 54 New Construction .......................•-•------°......................... 55 Noncontributing Structures ............................................. 5 6 S GLOSSARY Definitions ...................................................................... 58 APPENDICES Appendix A Ho~v to Read Your Neighborhood \n~orkbook Appendix B Historic Districts Appendix C Cellar Policy Appendix D Sustainable Design Appendix E Historic Resources Status Codes 13-97 Residential Design Guidelines ~~ Town of Los Gatos ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TOWN COUNCIL Barbaza Spector R~IQyor Mike t~asserman Vice llSayor Ste«e Glickman Diane McNutt Joe Pirzynski PLANNING COMMISSION Joanne Talesfore Chair D. Michael Dane Vice Chair John Bourgeois Philip 2~7icciche Thomas O'Donnell Stephen M. Rice Marico Sayoc GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE John Bourgeois Plannis:g Cornsasissiosz Tom O'Donnell Planning Conrsnirsion Joanne Talesfore Planszing Conzsssission Joe Pirzpnshd Town Council Barbara Spector Tom~z Council Barbara Cardillo ComnsusziiJ•~ Sesvice.r Consnsz.rcion Marcia Jensen Publsc Kegs ecentative Jane Ogle Pulslr'c Representative I~~Sazgazet Smith Busiszess Representative H{STORK PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Kendra Burch Cbazr Len Pacheco Vice-Chair Bob Cowan Philip Ivlicciche Z~Zazico Sayoc TOWN STAFF Greg Larson Toum Manager Pamela Jacobs A.cristant Toum 1ldanager Orry Korb Torun Attos7ze,~ Bud Lortz Conrnsuszity Development Director Randy Tsuda Ascirtant Community Development Director Sandy Baily A.crociate Plaszner Lazry Cannon Tou-•nAscbitect/Cannon Design Group 13-98 4 Residential Design Guidelines 0. .1.~1:~ O~- .~... n-_4 f-_1_-.._~. -~ Town of Los Gatos t "_ BUILDING DESIGN 3 BUlL©ENG E3ES[GN Homes in L.os Gatos come in many forms, sizes and architectural styles. This diversity is one of the features that contra-butes to the Town's unique identit}: Older Victorian Style homes, Spanish Eclec- tic St} le homes and new interpretations of Craftsman Style homes often occupy the same street front. One-story Suburban Ranch Style homes may occupy one street of a larger neighborhood while nea>er to>o-story contemporary homes may occur arour..d the corner or down the street t~hile this juxtaposition might seem hazsh if repeated in a new community, the large amounts of mature land- scaping and the evolution of the Town's neighborhoods o~>er a long period of time hay-e allowed the con~rnunity to comfortably absorb this diversity of home sizes and styles. Perhaps more than these mitigating factors, the self-restraint of residents and the mutual respect of one neighbor for the nest has conu~buted to neighborhoods with a great deal of visual unity and similarity in scale. tfilhile architectural styles often vary considerably in any individual neighborhood, few homes stand out in marked contrast to the predominant size and bulk of their sLSroundings. The intent of these guidelines is to set forth some. of tie common sense techniques that have been employed o~>er the yeax-s to achieve this strong sense of community 3.l GENERAL BUILDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES The following principles hay-e been used as touchstones for the development o£ these design guidelines for home additions and new houses. In the event that the specific guidelines do not clearly address a given condition, these general principles, along ~c>ith dze Basic Design Principles on page 11 should be consulted for direc- tion. The following principles u>ill be used by the Town staff and Pla,,{,i,~g Commission/Town Council when e~>aluatingprojects, and a>hen considering the acceptability of unique proposals that vary from the specific guidelines. ~ Selected architectural styles shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. ~ Design features, proportions and details shall be con- . sistent with the architectural style selected. ~ Materials and design details shall be suitable to the neighborhood and consistently used on all sides of the house and any accessory structures. ~ Garages shall be subservient to entries and ground floor living spaces. ~ The use of renewable energy resources for heating, cool'_ng and lighting should be maxi,T,;~ed. O Projects should be designed to conserve energy and water. NEW HOMES SHOULD BE ADAPTED TO THE SCALE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD \X~hile some larger new homes may be acceptable in established neighborhoods, theya>ill be e3Pected to be designed to mitigate their ~zsual size and bulk. Three examples are shoo=n beloRc ~ Materials should be used to reduce the consumption of 13-99 nonrenewable resources and that improve air uali Residential Design Guidelines ~It• BUILDING ~ES[GN 3 Town of Los Gatos 3.2 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE 3.2.1 Select an architectural style with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood • StSdes with front facade eaves at the first floor level will be easier to adapt to predominantly one story neighborhoods than styles with taco story; unbroken front facades. • Styles with ~=aaations in the plane of the front facade u=all may fit more comfortably in neighborhoods u=ith smaller houses or with smaller building masses close to the street. • Avoid selecting an architectural style which t}~ically has roof pitches that are substantially different from others in the nearby neighborhood. 3.2.2 Design for architectural integrity in general, it is best to select a clear and distinctive azchi- tectural style rather than utilizing generic design elements pr miring elements from different architectural styles. • Building massing, roof pitches, materials, azndow types and proportions, design features (e.g., roof dormers), and other architectural features should be consistent a=ith the traditions of the selected style. ' Carry wall materials, window types and architectural details around all sides of the house. Avoid side and reaz elevations that are mazkedly different from the front elevation. • Dew=elop floor plans that allow the location and size of windows to match the selected architectural style. For ex- ample, some styles emphasize the placement of tc~ndows in a symmetrical relationship to the entry. Some architectural styles require simple shapes and formal symmetry of the do_ ors and windows 13 - 100 Residential Design Guidelines ~~ ~ ~- Example of the poor selection of a large and formal architectural style for the small scale and informal style neighborhood This style would have been more compatible ~~~ith the neighborhood shown above Continuation of front facade materials and detailing onto other walls gives this Los Gatos residence good design integrity Town of Los Gatos 3.3 HEIGHT/BULK/SCALE 33.7 Develop the house plans and elevations together Avoid complex floor plans that require complicated building mass and roof forms. ' t~/ork within the traditional forms of the azchitectural style selected- Unless the azchitectural style selected dearly sup- ports substantial complesit3; generally keep building mass- ing and roof forms simple as is the norm for traditional architecture. At*oid comple3 second floor plans and roof forms if that is not the norm for the neighborhood. 3.3.2 Height and bulk at front and side setbacks • Two story houses map not be appropriate for every neigh- borhood- For neighborhoods dominated by one story homes, an effort should be made to limit the house to one story in height or to accommodate second floor space within the roof form as is common in the Craftsmazi Style. tYJhen utilizing a cellaz or extended foundation wall, avoid. setting the first floor height at an elevation abo':*e grade that would be significantly different than those of the adjacent houses. Cellaa s are defined as an eazdosed area that does nor extend more than 4feet above the existing oa-ftnssbed grade, and are azot courued in the Floor.4rea Ratio calculations, by Towaz Councslpolic~~. However, ifanypartofa cellarisabovegr-adc, zr shall be considered in analyziazg the bulk and anass ofrhe sta-ucture, even ifzr is azot included in rheF~4R. Die iazrenr set forth in rbe Gennal PLaaz is ro provide hidden sguarefoorage in-lieu afvisible aas.ass." Iaz the spirst of that intent, applicarioazs wit,~i cellar space will 6e carefully evaluated ro ensure that subszantial ~orrs have been made to reduce visible aazass to ensure ,-onzpatibiliry with the sire's immediate neighboahood. For rex;' ofthe Cellar Policy, seellppendix C. • A~=oid ea~re lines and roof ridge lines that are substantially taller than the adjacent houses. • Give special attention to adapting to the height and massing of adjacent homes. Ac*oid tall, unbroken front facades when ', other nearby homes have more articulated front facades with horizontal u>all plane changes. In neighborhoods acrith small homes, try to place more of the floor area on the first floor a>ith less area on the second floor. t BUiL~ING DESIGN 3 Some elevation of the FrsL floor /eve/ may be acceptable and/or required in some neighborhoods 13 - 101 Residential Design Guidelines Avoid overly complex second floor plans and roof shapes like this example Substantially elevated first floors like this may not be acceptable in neighborhoods where they do not currently exist ~ - BUIL~ING DESIGN 3 Town of Los Gatos ` Take care in the placement of second floor masses. Unless the architectural style traditionally has the second floor front mall at or near the first floor wall, set the second floor back from the front facade a minimum of 5 feet. ` The design of tcvo story homes constructed adjacent to one story houses should include techniques to Ini_n;nliZe their s-isual impact and provide transitions in scale. Some techniques include: - Step down to one story elements near the side set- backs - Provide substantial side setbacks for the entire hoes e - Provide substantial second floor side setbacks - Use hip roofs at the sides rather than gables Avoid monumental scaled forms (e.g., towers or turrets) that contrast aTith the neighborhood architectural forms. • Avoid bay windows and other features that compete arith the entry as the home's focal point. ` Avoid the use of too many active building forms added to the mass of the building. An excessi~*e use of roof forms is a common problem: Other two story wall mitigation techniques 3.3.3 Provide visual relief for two story walls Some techniques include: • Belly bands (see photo below left) ` Pop outs and bay w=indows • Z~Zaterial and color changes Chimneys • hide o~%erhangs aTith projecting brackets Juliet balconies (see photo below left) ` R7indow bores and pot shelves ` Landscaped trellises and lattices This Craftsman Style house includes several features to mitigate the visual height of the side ~~~a// -c~... ..b .. - a~~. ~ Lgait rF~S and Ctrtpr tJtssan.ry cE'~Emney Projecting windaw pap Uut 13 - 102 Residential Design Guidelines Avoid too many building elements competing for attention Avoid too many roof forms that overly complicate the design Town of Los Gatos 3.4 GARAGES 3.4.7 Limit the prominence of garages • Avoid designs that alloa* the garage to doming _e the street facade. ' I iizzit the garage ~x-idth to a marimi1nz of 50 percent of the total facade width. • Set garages back from the front facade. Limiting the width of garages and seizing them back from the front facade can minimize their visual impact ` Recess garage doors as much as possible from the garage facade. ` Consider adding trellises with landscaping over garage doors to soften their visual appearance. ` Integrate the garage into the house forms in a manner that de-emphasizes the garage doors. .-_- ..~;~~, - c~' ~ Y - - _ _-- ~. _ - ~ - ~. ~:: ~ _~ - Divided garage opening with high quality wood doors and a t BUILDING DESIGN 3 root form with dormer integrated into the main house helps minimize Lhe visual impact of this garage 13 - '103 Residential Design Guidelines Avoid designs that a/lo~v the garage to dominate the street facade like this one does as possible v Use windows and landscaped trellises over garage doors to soften their appearance BUILDING DESIGN 3 Town of Los Gatos 3.4.2 Minimize the visual impact of larger garages Three caz gazages may not be appropriate in most neighborhoods. t4Jhere larger garages are customary and appropriate, steps should still be taken to minimize their visual impact on the house and streetscape. Some techniques include: • Using side loaded or split apazt garages where possible Accommodating additional cars in tandem spaces (see diagram on page 19) - Separating the gazage doors - Breaking up driveway paw-ing with landscaping and/or special paving 3.4.3 Integrate garage doors into the design with appropriate details • <Windows in gazage doors are encouraged. • R'~ood doors are encouraged. • Use wood trim similar to the house v~indows Avoid wide driveH~ayys, as shown above, in favor of adding landscaping as below ~ ~ I 13-104 Residential Design Guidelines 26 Pi ~I-~lir Rcv~o~w. rl~o Fr CoF+~~ ~~'.. '1 -)nna Separating garages can reduce their visual impacts in some cases Utilizing individual doors helps to reduce the visual imoact of multi-car earaPes Town of Los Gatos BU1l.~ING DESIGN 3 3.5 ROOFS 3.5.7 Unify roof pitches • Utilize the same slope for all primary roofs. ' Roof slopes for porches may be lower than the primazy roof slope, depending on the architectural style. ` Dormer roof slopes may sometimes be steeper than the primary roof slope, depending on the architectural style. 3.5.2 Avoid excessive roof form complexity • Avoid multiple floor plan pop outs that produce multiple roof gables. Where roof ear=e variation is desi-ed, consider vertical a=all extensions and dormer roofs, as :shown in the e3ample below: ~~ - .... ~ . ~,~ %, t,, s Sj =~ z~ a - - T~~ * . €- ; - - - `~ _-~ .. ~~ ~iili This is a good example of roof eave variation without excessive complexity 3.5.3 Relate roof overhangs to the architecEuraa style and '' to the surrounding neighborhood ' Some architectural st}=1es (e.g., Z,4ission and Spanish Eclectic) often come in small and lazge overhang versicns. In those circumstances, tailor the roof overhangs to the general character of the surrounding homes. -_~ Some architectural styles have a different roof pitch for attached porches 13-1OS Residential Design Guidelines Most architectural sty/es maintain a uniformity of roof pitch BUILDING DESIGN 3 _ Tov.~n of Los Gatos 3.5.4 Design dormers with atEention to the architectural style and the neighborhood ' Avoid dormer sizes that aze out of scale with the roof and contrary to traditional designs. ' Gable dormers, single or an aggregate of multiple dormers, should rarely exceed 50 percent of the width of the roof. Shed dormers can be wider. / ~y i - ~-_ - ~ - - a wi ' ~r~~ In favor of smaller gable dormers ~ 13 - 106 28 Residential Design Guidelines n..Ll:_ rf _. .. _... __4 r_L___.- ~..-..-. .. Avoid /arge gable dormers that dominate the roof dormers appropriate to their architectural styles Or use a shed dormer Town of Los Gatos 3.6 ENTRIES 3.6.1 Provide a clear expression of entry • Orient the entry to the street front It should be visible from the street- - Pro«de a separate walkw=ay from the sidewalk to the entry if that is the common pattern for adjacent and nearby homes. A~=oid using the driveway as the u=alk-way to the entry unless that is the norm for the neighborhood. In cases u>here the driveway is used, consider the use of modular pay=ers or decorati~•e banding. 3.6.2 Design home entries with sensitivity to -the architectural style Most architectural styles hay=e a distiacti~=ely L.nique entry type. Ac=oid using an entry type that is not part of the style. For example, avoid using projecting entries, especially those with an eave line higher than the first floor roof, for Ranch St51e houses or in Ranch Style neighborhoods. 3.6.3 Design entries with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood Avoid lazge and formal entries unless that is the norm for nearby houses. It is often best to start the de;;ign consid- eration a=ith an entry type (e.g., projecting or under cave porch) that is similar to nearby homes. • Houses on corner lots should consider using porches that wrap around from the front to the side elevation, as shown below Tlus can assist in reducing the visual height of taller side walls, and in enli~-ening the side street frontage. ~.. BUILDING DESIGN 3 HOME ENTRY TYPES COMMON !N LOS GATOS ~° ~. ~ N~, _ ~~ 6. Projecting entry ~- E E 3.6.4 Entry coh,m„s, railing, steps, and lights are just a few ele- ments that can be used to add individuality to a house. Inset entry' 13 - 107 Residential Design Guidelines Projecting porch Entry under roof cave - ~n~ith or without porch ~-~ Entry details are encouraged BUILDING DESIGN 3 Windows with some depth from -the frame to the glass are desirable ~n 3.7 WfNDOWS Town of Los Gatos 3.7.1 Arrange windows in patterns and groupings consistent with the architectural style and surrounding neighborhood • Many architectural styles hay=e indiv-idual windows that are grouped into patterns of taro, three or more vlndows. Be conscious of this fact, and organize the aTindoa=s to comple- ment the style. 3.7.2 Match window types and proportions to the architectural style and to the surrounding neighborhood ` Select ~x~indow types to complement the style of the house. Each architectural stSle generally has one or two vlndow types that are traditional to the style. Double hung alndoa=s, for esanzple, are common features of Victorian and Crafts- . man Styles while casement windows are seen frequently in Zvfission and Spanish Eclectic styles. • Most architectural styles feature u=indoa=s drat ham=e either vertical or square proportions. Avoid horizontal alndoa= proportions unless the style (e.g., hTodern or Stanch Style) is clearly supporti~*e of that shape. Horizontal groupings of vertical and squaze window=s are one means of pro~Tiding visual balance to a facade design. ` Limit the number of different alndou= tjTes and propor- tions to enhance the ~-isual unit}. of the house design. ` For second floor additions to existing homes, match the windows on the original first floor. • Match the size and shape of window shutters to the shape and size of the a%indotc=s. Shutters that are large enough to cow-er the u%indows, if closed, should be the goal. Hinges on shutters to allow their closure are desirable. Ac=old very nazrow shutters drat are clearly not wide enough to cover the window opening. 3.7.3 Match window materials to the architectural style and to the surrounding neighborhood V(rood a=indo~vs are common in Los Gatos. mood is still the desired choice for styles drat traditionally used mood. Hoa=e~*er, today there are some ~c=indow materials, such as ~-inyl clad ~+c=ood windows drat are not noticeably different from wood at a short distance. They may be used if their ~risual appearance matches wood. • Generall3; avoid metal a~indoa>s. They may be considered acceptable for a Modern Style house, but would be strongly discouraged for all other styles. 'I 3 - ~ 08 Residential Design Guidelines Group windows in a manner that is traditional for the architectural style Most architectural styles have vertica/ly proporlioned windows Town of Los Gatos 3.7.4 Qesign the windows with attention to matching the traditional details of the architectural stj~Ie ' Most architectural sty>les -except D~Iission, Spanish Eclectic or Modern -should have wood trim around the w-indoa-s. The trim width should be matched to the style, but in gen- eral, should not be less than 3 1 /2 inches aide. Head trim depth should be equal to or wider than the jamb casing, but not less than one-sixth of the opening width. ' Projecting window sills and heads are strongly encouraged unless the architectural st51e would not normally have those features. ' ~/ood trim is also encouraged on stucco houses unless die a>indow frames are recessed at least 6 inches from the out- side face of the ct>all. The use of stucco cow*erc.d foanz Hinz is strongly discouraged. ' Di~>ided lights (i.e., larger window panes brck-en up into smaller pieces) aze con~nzon in many home st1>les found in i.os Gatos. Use either vertical or square proporrions for the smaller window elements. Be consistent in the proportions (i. e., the ratio of the horizontal to the vertica_ dimension) of the smaller panes. Do not use snap in flat gods to simu- late di~Tided lights. Use either true divided lights or one of the newer window systems that have dimensional muntins on both the exterior and interior of the glass along a>ith a spacer muntin beta>een the panes of glass. Use consistently for windows on all sides of the house. 3.7.5 -Special window shapes and styes shou!Id be used sparingly • At>oid Et>ate Hosne S~~le windows (e. g., tall arched a>indows) in neighborhoods where the homes are more modest and informal in character. • Bay windows should be designed with a base eL~nent to the ground or v>idZ supporting brackets at the base_ :Sloped roofs should be used and coy-eyed aTith a material that matches die roof material or with metal. Avoid using call materials beta*een die indi~>idual arindo~vs of the bay ~vvldow unless the window is large. Generally; bay windows look- best a>hen the a>indows are dose together and sepazated by wood jambs that match a>ood sills and heads as shorn in he example to the right. BUt~~iNG ~ES[GN 3 GiHereni r4af crtatar7a 1 Wand jambs, sills artd heads Straaag base Use bay ~~>indo~vs sparingly and detail them as an integral part of the design 1 t3-'109 Residential Design Guidelines Public RPVIPW f7rafh FPI-in~ar~i ~ ~nnu ~. 3l Most architectural styles will be complemented by wood trim at the jambs, heads and si!!s `, BUILDING DESIGN 3 ARCHITECTURAL COPPER The use of Architectural Copper is generally discouraged because of its potential to contribute pollution to surface waters and the San Francisco Bay through urban runoff Industrial, municipal and some other users are required to folloxx= regulations and obtain permits for discharge under the Enx*irorunental Protecvon Agen- cy's National Pollutant Discharge ELuzzination System (NPDES) pernvt program, which controls xxrater pollu- tion by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into xvaters of the United States_ Although indiv-idual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not hax=e a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit, the potential for crater contamination from copper is of concern to all Bay Area com- munities. The major uses of architectural cop- per in residential construction are roofs, gutters, and copper-treated composite shingles. Town of Los Gatos 3.8 MATERIALS 3.8:7 Use high quality materials • Use materials and mines of materials that are consistent a>ith the architectural style selected. • Traditional materials, such as wood and stone, are most desirable, and strongly encouraged. Hoxvex*er, the cost of materials and labor for many building components ham*e led to the development of synthetic materials that are often hard to tell from the authentic ones. If any of these substitutes are selected, they must pass the test of looking like the authentic material at a distance of 3 feet if used on the first floor and 1 O feet if used on the second floor. • Avoid rough te3tured stucco in favor of a smooth sand finish. • Composition roof shingles may be acceptable in lieu of xx=ood shakes. However, sl"ngles should be selected a>ith a texture that is similar to other houses in the neighbor- hood. 3.8.2 SelecE materials that are sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood • One way of fitting a new house into an existing neighbor- hood. -especially if the new house is bigger than man}= of the others around it - is to use materials drawn from the surrounding neighborhood. An all srucco house might seem out of charactervi an all wood neighborhood, but the predominant use of wood siding ac>ith some elements of stucco can often work. there stone accents (e.g., chim- neys) are common in a neighborhood, the use of stone at the xx>alL base and elsewhere can assist in maltizig the nexx> home seem better connected to its surroundings. t~/hen using a n~i_~ of materials, ax=oid using too many materi- als -two or at most three are enough. Avoid an ex=en split of materials (i. e., 50/50) on the facades. It is best to ham=e one material as the dominant surface with the second material playing a lesser role. The use of a two-third to one-third ratio is a good place to start io Residential Design Guidelines 32 .-. ~ ._ ~ ., .. - - ---- Town of Los Gatos it BUit_~ING aES[GN 3 3.8.3 Use traditional detailing • Treat openings in walls as though they a>ere constructed of the traditional material for the style. For example, be sure to provide substantial ~c>all space above azches ui stucco and stone walls. Traditionall}; wall space abo~>e th<: arch a>ould ' have been necessary to structurally span the opening, and to make the space too small is inconsistent with the azchi- tectural sty=le. ' Openings in a=alls faced with stone, real or synthetic, should have defined lintels above the opening except in Mission or Spanish Eclectic styles. Lintels nay be stone, brick or a>ood as suits the stSle of the house. • Treat synthetic materials as though they a=ere authendc_ For example, select synthetic stone patterns that place the individual stones in a horizontal plane as they a=ould have been in a load bearing n~asoxir}= a>all. • Select roof materials that are consistent a%ith th e traditional architectural sty=le (e.g., ac>oid concrete roof tiles on a Crafts- man Style house.) 3.8.4 Materials changes ' Z~Take materials and color changes at inside corners rather than outside corners to ac=oid a pasted on look_ ~-- tivsiE-fir Mside YES ~ t _I ,a~~r~a ~ ~~4 Outab+a mssr:at ourskso s:~~ CMaRgb maE¢rials NoE aE aRd COlOPS aL OEfESEde ~RS5de CgiilelS GUTerS 3.9 ADDITIONS/ACCESSORYBUILD{NGS/SECONDARY UNITS Follow the provisions set forth in Guideline 4.9 on page 52. _ ~ ~} 'r Gar~~e style, farm, materials ; ~,__ ~ anal datails rssatah pE-smary tEause ; Additions, accessory buildings and secondary units should match the form, architectural sty/e, and details of the original house I 13 - 111 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1 . 2OC1R 33 Use stone or En>ood lintels over openings in stone walls BUIl~ING DESIGN 3 34 Town of Los Gatos 3.70 ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL 3.70.7 Porches and Entries Select columns that aze traditional to the azchitectural style of the house. Take care in selecting columns with an ap- propriate width to height ratio for the st}>le. Except for a very few styles, the columns should hay>e appropriate caps and bases with proportions typical of the style. Provide a well proportioned beans between the col.~*+~+-+ caps and the roof. Size and detail the beam so that it looks like a con«ncing structural member. It should be visible both from inside and outside of the porch- A common problem is to make this element of the porch too small or to face it u>ith a material (e-g., siding) that would not carry the ~z>eight i above if it were structural. For most architectural styles, molding and trim v,~-ill ditTide the beam vertically into three major elements of varying height. Railings should generally be constructed of a>ood unless the specific architectural style allows for metal or stone. Pro~-ide both top and bottom rails with the bottom rail raised above the porch floor lei*el. Vertical balusters should be appropL~ate to the architectural style. Some are quite simple a>hile others may have special shapes. Take care in designing porch stairs. They generally should match the porch floor (e-g-, a>ood) or the side~x>alk material if other than concrete (e-g., brick). Note: Allporcher are vpected to Ge usable and bav~e a minimuvn depib of G feet orprefeoably more. 3.70.2 Balconies A~>oid balconies that project more than 3 feet from the face of the building unless they are typical of the architectural sty>le. Pro~Ttde supporting brackets or beams that are large enough to clearly appear to provide structural support for the bal- cony Raili-rigs should be designed as discussed abo~>e for porch railings- For longer railings, intermediate posts with caps and bases should be used to break the railing into smaller increments. 3.70.3 Brackets Brackets at roof overhangs, balconies and bay windows should be designed to extend to fascia/balcony edge/pro- jectingbay front or slightly beyond. A~>oid stub brick-ets that do not appear substantial enough to support the ~ 3 n~ef,2nt abo~=e. Residential Design Guidelines Porch beam example with good depth and details columns and railings ~ ~,.. While others require much more refined detai/s Town of Los Gatos 3.10.4 Chimneys It .. BUII_~ING ~ES[GN 3 • Cl,i.,,,,eps should extend to ground les=el. As~id cantilevers above the ground. ` Chimney materials, size, shape and height should be appro- priate to the azchitecturat style and to the scale of the house. A~=oid undersized chimneys that are too narrow and too low Add chimneys for gas fireplaces a=hen the azchi~ectural style would normally feature c7,i+,-+.,eys. Pro~~de t-himr,ey caps that are interesting and appropriate to the architectural style. 3.70.5 Roof flashing and vents Paint flashing and vents to match the color of the roof. 3.10.6 Skylights ` First, consider the use of roof dormers or clerestories instead of skylights. • Use flat profile sh-S lights rather than domed models. Select glazing to avoid the feeling of roof beacons or lan- terns that are highly visible from the street or neighboring properties. 3.77 PRIVACYAN~SOLARACCESS 3.7 7.l Minimize shadow impacts on adjacent properties Locate structures to miniiTi>e blocking sun access to li~=- ing spaces and actin=ely used outdoor areas on adjacent homes. 3.71.2 Minimize privacy intrusions on .adjacent residences • Windows should be placed to m;r,im;>.e views in .o the living spaces and yard spaces near neighboring homes. • t~hena~itidows are needed and desired in side building«=cells, they should be modest in size and not directly opposite windows on adjacent homes. tX~here possible, second floor uTitidows that rni;ght intrude on adjacent property prig=acy should have sill heights abo~=e eye lei=el or have frosted or tebtured glass to reduce visual exposure. • Bay w=indows should be avoided on side walls ~3=here they would intrude on adjacent residents' privacy • Second floor balconies and decks should be used only when they do not intrude on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. i E~cistitsg Fiew taro one story _`~:` story Y+ame hawse ti~ ~- ___ ' i Avoid second floor masses in locations that ~n>ould block sun access to adjacent homes I 13 - 113 Residential Design Guidelines Puhlic Raviaw draft Fain ~n r.. 1 '~nnn ~S Avoid placing ~vindo~vs in locations that would look into adjacent neighbors' windows or active private yard spaces BUILDING ~ES[GN 3 i ~ ~ -f3O° i ~ f ~ j ~ndaws ~ i ... ~ ~~~ 1 p _\/ i li ~ ~~~~ t t E ~.,.~~ P/ace landscaping in the shaded areas shown on the diagram above to mitigate privacy intrusions on adjacent homes Use dec6duous tn~ - - to sdreen walls !tarn ~- ~ hot summer sun Use landscaping to minimize energy usage Town of Los Gatos • As a general rule, balconies and decl~s that are more than to=o feet abo~=e grade should try to maintain a distance of ten feet from side property lines and twenty feet from rear property lines a-hen the adjacent use is single family resi- dential. • t~Jhen allowed, the design of railings should be tailored to the pri~>acy concerns of neighbors (e.g., balcony or deck sides overlooking adjacent windows or actin=ely used yard space should be solid in form). Open railings should only be used where privacy concerns are mLnim al. • Landscaping may be used to mitigate prig>acy concerns so long as the landscaping does not deny solaz access to living spaces and actively used yazd azeas of neighboring homes. • Landscaping used for privacy scresni ~ purposes, should be of sufficient size and of an appropriate species to provide such privacy uZthin a tcz>o year time frame. • Trees should be to=enty-four inch boy: size. • Shrubs used to promote privacy should be fifteen gallon in size and sia feet *nini,~,um height at planting. • As a general rule, pris*acy landscaping should be placed with a cone-of-v=ision defined by a thirty degree angle from the side a>irrdow jambs of second story windows. 3.17.3 Design and plan for energy efficiency • Design to r~;,~;,-.,;>e energy costs by selecting and locating landscaping and windows to block hot sn,-,~,r.,er sun expo- sure and allow a>inter sun e_~:posure. 3.7 7.4 Solar Fariels - Locate solar panels so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-a-a}=. • Align solaz panel faces u>ith that of the underlying roof slope. Avoid panels with slopes that are different than that of the roof_ • Integrate the design of panels into the design of the roof. A~-oid a tacked-on appearance. 3.7 7.5 Minimize exterior lighting impacts on neighbors • All exterior light fixtures should utilize shields to ensure that light is directed to the ground surface and does not spill light onto neighboring parcels or produce glare ~i:hen seen from nearby homes. • Decoratis=e residential light fixtures should be chosen rather than strictly utilitarian secutit}> lighting fixtures. I 13 - 114 Residential Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos t .- BUILDING ~ES[GN 3 3.72 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN Sustainability and the conservation of natural resources aze impor- tant issues to Los Gatos residents. Sustainability refers to the use of natural resources in a manner that ensures their continued at=ailability to future generations. The Town belies*es that historic preservation is the most sensitive path to sustainabilit3; but recognizes that this is not ala%ays possible, and that an emphasis on green building can be an effective means of promoting the conservation of natural resources. The term green building is often used to relate sus:.ainability to de~relopment Green building addresses a broad range of techniques to reduce the consumption of natural resources dudng construction and over the lifetune of a home. These include designuig structures to be energy and water efficient, utilizing building materials that reduce resource consumption and improve indoor air qualitS; and taki a maaur~um advantage of renewable energy resoL~rces. The Green Building Strategies and A~Iaterials in l~ppendi~ D contain design strategies that ma~iniize the use of rene~crable energy resources for heating, cooling and lighting, addidonal_sirategies that conserve energy and water, a list of building materials that reduce the consumption of nonsenea*able resources and improve air qual- it}; and a list of various sources for "green building" information and their vreb sites. 13 - 115 Residential Design Guidelines CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Agenda-Date: May 13, 2008 Item Summary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements RECOMMENDATION: Discuss this item, then note and file this report. BACKGROUND: On Tuesday May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Plann;ng Commission work program to include a review of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirement. The Council directed that the Plaruuiig Comrn;ssion wrap up your work in September and present the recommendation to the City Council in October 2008. ' DISCUSSION: The Council direction limited the amendment to considering if the second floor to first floor ratio should be changed. T1ze CoTnm;GSion is not authorised to evaluate changing second story setbacks or other elements of the ordinance such as the overall floor area ratio. Council members voiced conceriz that the 45 % second floor to first floor ratio inadvertently encourages homeowners to increase the size of the first floor to ensure the second floor proportion is large enough to accommodate the desired number of bedrooms. Also, concern was expressed that the current formula results in a repetitive style of "wedding cake" architecture. For example a "Victorian' or "Queen Anne" style of architecture is difficult to design with the current rule. Staff anticipates that the Commission will need to address the amount of exposed second floor wall plane as this rule directly relates to the issue of potentially allowing the first and second floor walls to align. The Conurussion will need to assess if some alternate method of breaking up the wall plane should be considered such as awiZiuzg or trellis elements. Finslly, the Coiiunission may need to consider alternate review procedures for applicants taking advaiztage of any amendments. Staff will send out acity-wide mailer and attempt to provide articles in the Cupertino Scene and on the web site to keep the public informed of this review. Staff anticipates the item will be ready for the Plaruung Commission in July 2008. In.the meantime staff will evaluate i_f this change will potentially delay any other work program items. ._ Submitted by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmei 13 - 116 Exhibit B CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: MCA-2008-03 Agenda Date: July 8, 2008 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: Citywide Item Summary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council adopt the R-1 Ordinance_ amendment regarding the first floor to second floor ratio requirements BACKGROUND On May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission work program to include a limited review of the R-1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. first floor to second floor ratio requirement. The Co~incil directed the Planiziilg Commission to present recommendations on ordinance options to the City Council by October 2008. The Council direction limited the amendment to only consider if the current second floor to first floor ratio should be adjusted. The Council directed that this review would not consider changing the setb:~ck requirements or the allowable overall building floor area ratio. The concern is that the 45% second story to first floor ratio requirement inadvertently encourages homeowners to increase the size of the first floor to ensure the second floor proportion is large enough to accommodate the desired number of bedrooms. Also, the current second floor to ground floor ratio results in a repetitive style of "wedding cake" architecture making it difficult to desigiz other traditional styles of architecture such as ;'Victorian" or "Queen Anne." The following sections of-the staff report wild discussion ordinance options to adjust the allowed second to ground floor ratio to allow greater architectural diversity. A citywide postcard notice of the pubic hearing was mailed out to Cupertino residents inviting them to participate in the discussion (see attached). DISCUSSION Existing Ordinance The existing R1 Ordinance was updated in January 2005. One of the major changes was to increase the 2nd floor to ground floor ratio from 35% to 45%. The intent was to allow enough space on the 2nd story to accommodate three bedrooms while controlling the overall mass and scale. Since the 2Ci05 ordinance amendment, very few ~ p~Y~Jic MCA-2008-03 - R1 ordinance July 8, 2008 Page 2 concerns have been expressed about the allowable second floor building space. Rather, there has been an increase of concerns regarding the limitation of architectural flexibility due to the second floor to ground floor ratio. Wedding Cake Style of Architecture The current 45% second story floor area ratio has resulted in a "wedding cake" style of architecture that is slowing becoming the predominate style of new two-story homes or additions in many neighborhoods. Although exterior design elements, such as corbels, wainscoting, and window treatments, are provided to suggest an architectural style, the overall "wedding cake" style is the same from house to house. T1ie images below are examples of the existing R1 Ordinance "wedding cake" style architecture: Many residents attempt to personalize their home with design elements representing traditional architecture, however the final result is greatly limited by the existing second floor area restriction. This is especially the case on smaller lots under 6,000 square feet where the width of the lot is already restricts design options. 13 - 118 MCA-2008-03 - R1 ordinance 7uiy 8, 2008 Page 3 Traditional Architectus•e Traditional architecture, such as Victoriary Queen AiZne, Farmhouse, Colonial Revival, Italian Renaissance, typically have the m~ijority of the second story walls aligned with the ground floor walls. Second story wa1Ls may even cantilever over portions of the ground floor wall to emphasize a certain architectural element or material change. What is important to the traditional architectural is the attention and emphasis given to quality architectural treatments and. exterior embellislunents to help visually minimize what would otherwise be unarticulated walls or boxy forms. The following are some styles of architect ure that may be difficult to design under the current Rl Ordinance: When Design Regulations Are Not Applied to Two-Stony Homes Two-story "box" forms can be articulated in a way that miry;,,-,; ~.es the mass. However, unregulated two-story homes are often sterile in design and visually imposing. Without design review, attempts to minim;~e the mass and scale (as seen in the following image) may not always be a~~propriate, and may not always achieve the intended goal. 13 - 119 MCA-2008-03 - R 1 ordinance July 8, 2008 Page 4 Example Design Guidelines From Other Communities The neighboring communities of Los Gatos and Los Altos have accommodated greater architectural variety, while meeting the community's privacy and compatibility needs by requiring a higher level of architectural integrity in their projects. Excessive mass of a residence is not determuted by the second story to first story FAR, but by the perception that the size and mass of the house is too large for the size of the property. The goal is to have the home designed to fit the lot, and then apply elements that assist in reducing the perception of bulk. The City of Los Altos includes the following list of ways to reduce the perception of bulk in their residential design guidelines. They are s»mmarized below: • Use of more than one material on an elevation is appropriate to break up the vertical mass of the house. Sometimes an accent material such as a low horizontal band of brick or stone with stucco or wood siding. • Soften the elevation with the use of architectural elements (porches, bays, overhangs, trellises), and detail (molding, trim, brackets, etc.) • Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. For example, painting the triaizgular areav1 a gable end one color and using a shade (or color) lighter or darker below. • Provide some variation in large expanses of wall and roof planes. For example, cantilever the second floor over the first floor. • Use horizontal elements to soften vertical ones in an elevation. A charge of direction in siding or adding moldings in stucco can achieve this. • In some cases, a simplification of shapes and materials will reduce bulk. For example, too many different materials and changes in types of windows add complexity of the facade. • Minimize use of tall or two-story-high design elements. This would include two-story entry ways, turrets, ect. • Use visually heavy materials sparingly, particularly on two story designs. Use stone or brick as an accent material or wainscot on an elevation. i s - i zo Example of aNon-Regulated Two-Story Residence. MCA-2008-03 - R 1 ordinance July 8, 2008 Page 5 • Choose landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. This should not be a substitute for good design however. • Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible. • Use roof forms that reduce bulk {low to medium pitch, min;mum number of hips and valleys. • Avoid massive, tall chimneys. Locate them either on an internal wall or centered on a gable end when possi-ble. The following is some architectural tecluiiques used by Town of Los Gatos to provide visual relief for two story walls: • Horizontal belly bands • Pop outs and bay windows • Material and color changes • Chimneys • Wide overhangs with projecting brackets • Juliet balconies • Window boxes and pot shelves • Landscaped trellises and lattices All or some of the above methods may lie applied to a new or remodeled residence (see images below). MCA-2008-03 - Rl ordinance July 8, 2008 Page 6 Recommended Ordinance Solution Staff believes that achieving architectural diversity does not require increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or changing the required second story setbacks. The goal is through appropriate design review and the application of enhanced design principles, homes may ~be allowed to exceed the 45% second floor area limit provided that that they are designed appropriately for the lot, the neighborhood, aild the overall design of the structure. Staff recommends that if an applicant wishes to increase the second story FAR above 45%, then a discretionary staff level design review be incorporated into the process with notification to the adjacent neighbors. Additional architectural principles would be upheld, while maintaining the existing goals of symmetry, proportion and balance. The Director of Community Development may grant approval to a second floor to ground floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the followings design principles and techniques are met: • Ensure appropriate architectural interest and compatibility with neighborhood design theme and character. ~ Add visual interest to the elevation with the use of architectural elements (i.e., porches, bays, overhangs, trellises, moldings, trim, wood sidings, brackets or metal work). 13 - 122 MCA-2008-03 - R1 ordinance July 8, 2008 Page 7 • Ensure apt~ropriate building mass and scale. ~ Avoid monumental scaled forms (e.g. towers, turrets and tall entry features) that contrast with i:he neighborhood architectural forms. ~ Avoid eave lines and roof ridges that are substantially taller than the adjacent houses. ~ Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass of the house. ~ Keep second floor exterior v~all heights as low as possible. ~ Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass (i.e, wainscot, wood siding, '.belly bands). ~ Use visually heavy materials sparingly (balustrades or stone on second floor). ~ At least 25% of all two story wall planes should be treated with architectural features to provide visual relief and architectural interest (include but -not be limited to stone, brick, alternative siding materials, balconies, porch elements, long roof eaves, window boxes, pot shelves; cantilever features, trellises, corbels, trims, metal work, other features deemed appropriate). ~ Use landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. ~ Use color changes to help vi:~ually break up the elevation. • Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure (maintain symmetr~proportion and balancel_ ~ Avoid overly complex architectural elements and/or roof features. ~ Line up architectural features and elements both vertically and horizontally (i.e., roofs or windows). The Director's decision may be appealed to the Design Review Comm;ttee. Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm t Attachments Exhibit A - Citywide postcard titled, "L.imited Review of the Single Family Residential (R1) Ordinance". Exhibit B - Draft Model Ordinance Exhibit C - Highlights for the Los Altos Design Guidelines Exhibit D - Highlights from the Los Gatos Design Guidelines. "Note: City of Cupertino Architectural Consultant, LarrS• Caruzon, assisted in the development of the Los Gatos Design Guidelines. 13 - 123 On May 13, 2008 the City Council initiated o limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1) Ordinance, regarding the allowed ratio of second floor building area compared to the first floor building area Section 19.28.060. The current R1 Ordinance limits the size of the second floor to no more than 459'0 of the first floor. The revised ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to allow greater architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an R7 lot or changing the required second story setbacks. .The total allowed building area and the second story setback relationshio to neiahborina urooerties will not chance The Planning Commission is holding a public hearing to receive public input and consider ordinance options on the allowable ratio of the second story on the following dote and time; MCA-2008-03 Tuesday, July 8, 2008, at 6:45 p.m. Cupertino Community Hall, 70350 Torres Avenue The current R1 Ordinance can be viewed on the City's website at www.cupertino.ora/R1. For additional information about this section of the ordinance you may contact Leslie Gross with the Cupertino Planning Deportment at <408~ 777- 1356 or e-moil any comments to lesiiea@cuoertino.ora. If you are unable to attend the public hearing, an online webcast of the hearing is available at ww~w.cuoertino.ora/R1. Also, please check the City's website for follow-up Information regarding the Planning Commission and City Council hearing schedules. Please note the agenda is subject to thongs, so you may wont to contact the Planning Oeportmsnt prior to the meeting dofa to verify that the item is sti// on the oganda. 13-~24 CITY OF CUPERTING' IXHIBIT A ® Development Regulations (Building). IXHIBIT B A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches and other sinular features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls. B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective. of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the residential development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 1. The maximum floor area ratio of all :>tructures on a lot shall be forty-five percent. 2. .The maximum floor area of a second story shall be forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is greater. 3. The Director of ConznZUnity Development may grant approval to a second floor to s-round floor ratio eneater than 4590_ provided that the followings design principles and techniques are met: a. Enure appropriate architectural interest and compatibility with neighborhood design theme and character_ i. Add visual interest to the elevation with the use of architectural elements (i.e., porches. bays. overhangs. trellises. moldings, trim, wood sidings. brackets or metal work). b. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale. i. Avoid monumental scaled formes (e. g. towers. turrets and tall entry featured that contrast with the neighborhood architectural forms. ii. Avoid cave lines and roof rid=es that are substantially taller than the adjacent houses. iii. Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass of the house. iv. Keep second floor exterior wall he°ishts as lo~v as possible. v. Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass (i.e. wainscot, wood siding_ belly band vi. Use visually heavy materials sparinely (balustrades or stone on second flood. vii. At least 25% of all two story wall planes should be treated with architectural features to provide visual relief and architectural interest (include but not be limited to stone, brick. alternative siding materials. balconies. porch elements, long roof eaves_ window boxes, pot shelves. cantilever features. trellises. corbels, trims. metal work_ other features deemed appropriate). viii. Use landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. ix. Use color changes to help visuall~~ break up the elevation. c. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure (maintain synznZetry_proportion and balance). i. Avoid overly complex architectural elements and/or roof features. ii. Line up architectural features and elements both vertically and horizontally (i.e., roofs or windowsl. 13 - 125 4~. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have the mass and bulk of a two-story house and shall be counted as floor area. a. If the house is a two-story house, this area will count as second story floor azea; otherwise, the area will count as first floor azea. C. Design Guidelines. 1. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the following items are met prior to design approval: a. The mass and bulk of the design shall be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights; b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c. There shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut. d. No more than fifty percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of garage area. e. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the second story. f. The current pattern of side setback and gazage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and placement. h. Porches are encouraged. i. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. j. All second story roofs should have at least aone-foot overhang. D. Setback-First Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yazd. The combination of the two side yard setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard setback-may be less than five feet. a. For a comer lot, the minimum side-yard setback on the street side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side yard setback shall be no less than five feet. b. For interior lots in the R1-5 district, the side yard setbacks are five feet on both sides. c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the front property line and the reaz property line. 3. Rear Yard. The m;nimum reaz yard setback is twenty feet. a. With a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, the rear setback nzay be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line= 13 - 126 4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an R1 district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a street property line. a. For projects with three-car garages oriented to the public right-of-way, the wall plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of the other two spaces. E. Setback-Second Story. . 1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. 2. Side Yazd. The combination of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except that no second-story side setback may be les:> than ten feet. a. In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is twenty feet from any property line. b. In the case of a corner lot, a minimum of twelve feet from a street side property line and twenty feet from any rear property lime of asingle-family dwelling. 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section. F. Basements. 1. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house with a basement, one lightwell may be up to tern feet wide and up to ten feet long. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area, except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet. 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwell.2005 S-4 5. The perimeter of the basement -and aP1 lightwell retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the Director of Community Development. G. Height. 1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R1 zone shall not exceed twenty-eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances. 2. Building Envelope (One Story). a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by_ 1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; 2. Atwenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural b -ade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential Permit. 13 - 127 3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from the first story exterior wall plane. a. The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.1 10 D. 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height shall be fourteen feet. 5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by affixing an i designation to the R1 zoning district. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similar unenclosed features. 1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling. 2. The minimum side-yard setback shall be fifteen feet. 3. The minimum rear-yard setback shall be twenty feel I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, <part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 13 - 128 Exhibit C ~- f~ m ~. ~ ___}_~ Single-Family Residential New ]domes " <~ Remodels •••s• f Less Impact i City of :Los Altos -~-- 13 - 129 1.O INTRODUCTION These guidelines were developed after an extensive community-wide look at the values and expectations that neighborhoods have for the housing that surrounds them. The purpose of this handbook is not meant to promote a specific type of design nor to establish a rigid set of guidelines. Instead, it is meant to guide the homeowner, architect, developer and builder in planning and executing a successful design of new and remodeled single-family dwellings. This handbook will also serve as a guide for the City Council, Planning Commission and City staff in the design review process_ Often, newly built homes have more complex plan and building forms than existing houses_ This fact, along with stylistic and size issues, has reinforced perceptions of newer homes as being very different from older houses. The design policies and implementation techniques in this handbook are not meant to discourage individual designs_ Rather, they set forth the implementation of the findings that must be made for design review applications, serve as a basis on which decision- making bodies may base their design-review decisions, and assist in developing consistency in the approval process from neighborhood to neighborhood across the city. The primary purpose is to guide property owners toward successful solutions to their needs and to maintain the existing positive physical qualities and character of the residential neighborhoods of Los Altos. These guidelines implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. They also identify the findings from the Los Altos Municipal Code which must be followed to gain approval of a project. Los Altos requires design review on all residential construction. The majority of design review is performed by Planning Department staff. Applications for two-story construction or unusual architectural design are heard by the Architectural and Site Control Committee (ABzS), a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. The functions of the ABzS Committee are delineated in the Los Altos Municipal Code. From a historical perspective, the character of neighborhoods in Los Altos relates back to the incorporation of the city in 1952_ Decisions made at that time encouraged arural-like atmosphere. Thus, Los Altos developed with spacious quarter acre Lots, minimal use: of curbs and gutters, extensive use of landscaping and large trees, openness of front yards to the street, and the relatively low profile and height of residences. Prior to the City's incorporation, housing had developed more in continuity with surrounding communities; thus, there are areas of town that have smaller lots, and the zoning regulations distinguish between these smaller lots and larger lots in terms of setbacks, height, etc. These design guidelines, however, apply to lots of all sizes. 13-'130 Residential >J si n yid lin c Although most of the housing stock was developed during the 1950's and a predominant style is the "ranch", there is a vast diversi:ry of design and style within Los Altos. Today, demands for housing are far different than they were at our incorporation. As a result, housing styles and home size have changed dramatically. Whereas, earlier there was an emphasis on "low profile", now there is a tendency to "build out" a lot Whereas, before there was an emphasis on designing from the exterior inward now there is a tendency to design from the interior outward. At tunes this results in home designs that agpear to overwhelm neighboring homes either in mass or complexity of design_ To monitor such changes, the City Council first amended the zoning regulations to lower height and to establish daylight planes and. floor area to lot area ratios. After working with these new regulations for a period of time., it became evident that development standards alone are not sufficient to address such impacts as privacy invasion and change to neighborhood character. Thus, the next step involved the adoption of requirements for design review of a.ll new homes and remodels. These guidelines have been developed with the expectation that their use will eni:ourage creativity that will result in a high level of residential design quality. It is recognized that guidelines do not encompass the full range of possibilities for excellence. For this reason, variation from these guidelines will be considered when compensated by a related improvement wl-iich contributes to the excellence of the project_ To use these guidelines, please refer •to the Table of Contents. Chapter 1 is the Introduction, and Chapter 2 explains the intent of the guidelines as well as the design review process. Chapter 3 presents information on how desigx is viewed in relation to the design review process. Chapter 4 presents the basic philosophy of these guidelines and provides general guidance in meeting the fuzdings required for design approval. Chapter 5 explains procedures and includes the basic "do's and don'ts" for design approval. There are three appendices: Appendix A presents the goals and policies from the General Plan that are applicable to these guidelines; Appendix B is a Glossary of Terms; and Appendix C provides a basic primer on Architectural Styles, and can assist you in identifying the style of your home. We wish you well on your project! 13 - 131 4.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES PHILOSOPHY This chapter defines the philosophy of Los Altos with regard to how housing should develop within our neighborhoods. This chapter is general in nature and reflects the major concerns of neighborhood compatibility and site planning, including the relationship of your property to adjacent properties_ The next chapter goes into greater detail regarding the do's and don'ts for all new construction and remodels. These guidelines were developed from the belief that there can be a balance between the desires of the community to achieve neighborhood compatibility in house design and individuals' rights to build their "dream home". There is a need to be sensitive in crucial areas that govern the relationship of a home to its surroundings, e.g. existing homes, public streets, open spaces, privacy invasion, etc. These guidelines are not intended to prescribe a specific style, nor to limit development to one story in height. 4.1 NEIGI3BORIi00D C011~ATTBIIS"IY Before starting the design process, you should understand the character of your neighborhood and the impact your project will have on the neighborhood. Not all neighborhoods have clearly defined boundaries or character_ Often, the boundaries of a neighborhood are delineated by arterial streets, topography and other non-architectural features. Neighborhood character within a subdivision may be a result of private CC8cR's (Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions). These CC8zR's may contain restrictions on height, size, setbacks, and other design issues. Review your title report to see if there are any CC&R's that may apply to your project_ Even though enforcement of CC8zR's is a private civil matter, you will need to acknowledge on your design application whether your project follows all CC8cR's. When the applicant indicates that a project deviates from the CCBzR's, the neighbors will be notified. Neighborhoods in our community fall into one of the following groups: consistent, diverse and transitional. Following is a discussion regarding each of these types of neighborhoods. One of the considerations for a project is the compatibility it has within the neighborhood. A project determined to be inconsistent with the neighborhood will not necessarily be denied. It may be that mitigation will be required in order for the project to be approved. CONSISTENT CIiAI2ACTER NEIG>FIBORHOODS: These neighborhoods have a similar style and character to the homes and streetscape. This does not mean that the homes are exactly alike, just that they share similar 13 - 132 RPaidential Dpcio., (-` 'd line characteristics of style, house type, :setbacks, and streetscape character. Major renovation or new construction projects in these neighborhoods require more design sensitivity to the neighborhood than other neighborhood types when they depart from the neighborhood character. • In consistent charactF~r neighborhoods, good neighbor design has design elements, material, and scale found within the neighborhood and sizes that are not significantly larger than other homes is the neighborhood. ate emphasis should be on designs that "fit in" and lessen abrupt changes. APPro~'al of as incoasi:stent design will require mitigating design measures to lessen the neighborhooci impact Mitigation may include change in size, increased setbacks, large trees or other landscape materials for screening and other changes in design to reduce impacts. The' goal of mitigation is to soften the differences between the new construction and the existing homes. story entry ~ r'tdga ]tai` Consistent Character Neigh~~orhood: Remodels ~ Additions DIVEItSg CEiARE~CTER 1~TEIG)~OItFIC)ODS: In contrast, diverse character neighborhoods contain a variety of architectural styles and may have a varying streetscape as well. This can result from homes which were built in different eras or by individual homeowner/developers, or be a result of a neighborhood in transition. 13 - 133 ~.ons~stent Setbacks ...uns~sienz neignts/Massing f ~~ _ ~_ s -t r e e t ba.cFc !~ ': Diverse House Types & Setbacks r i-dge height _-- cave fine m -' - ® - m Ranch Bungalow Spanish Diverse Styles and/or Sizes • In a divezse character neighborhood, good neighbor design has its own design integrity while incorporating some design elements and materials found in the neighborhood. • Mitigation for items such as size and bulk may be used for some designs depending oa the relationship of a home to its neighbors. TRANSITIONAL CHARACTER NEIGfIBORHOODS: Transitional character neighborhoods are those that are in the process of changing their character and identity. Major changes include two-story additions in a one-story neighborhood, large homes in a neighborhood of small homes, and many upgraded homes in a neighborhood of older, smaller designs. • In a transitional character neighborhood, a good neighbor design reduces the abrupt changes that result from juxtaposing radically different designs or sizes of structures; proposed projects should not set the extreme and should be designed to soften the transition. Significant deviations could be cause for mitigation. 3 Cc'1.r' chi.mnays ~`d9e ~-~ Not Desirable Transitional Character Neighborhood: Remodels & Addkions 4.2 STIR PIANNING Integration of your home with the site is an important aspect to good design. How your home is sited on its lot in relation to your neighbors, the placement of the garag~3d~t~ 5.4 DESIGN TO MII\TIM77R BUI~ One of the biggest issues (other than privacy invasion) raised by residents concerning additions or new homes is that they are too massive or bulky, which may result in homes that stand out from the rest of the neighbot-hood. Part of this perception is due to the size and mass of the house compared to the size of the property. Usually, the perception is that the home is too big for the lot A home should be designed to fit the lot and surroundings and with internal design integrity. Then, the elements you have chosen must Iend themselves to reducing the perception of bulk. /n4~,uL Chil.re -- y:~- cam. znZ~'Ls n..~s to qc aNe ~ HRH-'mFs ~ m ....ire-fir sc~ 0 c a~ ~., h Less Impact There are many ways to reduce the perception of bulls Some of these include: • Use of more than one material on as elevation is appropriate to break up the vertical mass of the house. Sometimes an accent material such as a low horizontal band of brick or stone with stucco or wood siding above can be appropriate. However, too many elements can add to the appearance of bulk; good design must achieve balance. • Soften the elevation with the use of architectural elements (porches. bays, overhangs, trellises) and detail (moldings, trim, brackets, etc.). Be careful not to overdo, though. • Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. For example, painting the triangle area in a gat~le end one color and using a shade (or color) lighter or darker below. • Provide some variation in. large expanses of wall aad roof planes. For example, cantilever the second floor over the First floor. 13 - 135 ~~ R attlPntial Tlr+cier, !` td lln • Use horizontal elements to soften vertical ones in an elevation. A change of direction in siding or adding moldings in stucco can achieve this. • In some cases, a simplification of shapes and materials will reduce bulk. For example, too many different materials and changes in types of windows add to the complexity of the facade. • Minimize use of tall or two-story-high design elements. This would include two-story entry ways, turrets, etc. • Use visually heavy materials sparingly, particularly on two-story designs. Use stone or brick as an accent material or as a wainscot on an elevation. • Choose landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. This should not be a substitute for good design, however • I{,eep second floor exterior wall Heights as low'as possible. • Use roof forms that reduce bulk (low to medium pitch, minimum number of hips and valleys). • Avoid massive, tall chimneys. Locate them either on an internal wall or centered on a gable end when possible. • Design the house from the "outside-in". Houses designed from the "inside-out" rather than the reverse tend to look lumpy and lack a clear overall design. This often adds to the perception of excessive bulk_ • Lower the height of a two-story house below 27 feet maximum to mitigate other design issues. Keep in mind that overdoing anything can result in added bulk_ 5.5 I~TDSCAPING Natural features. such as mature trees. rock outcroppings, and other landscape elements should be retained; quite often they can serve as design inspiration. • Designs should take -- - - advantage of natural features found on site. Natural features include mature trees . ~ ~- and otl-ier landscape materials (hedges, tall ~-~ shrubs), rock outcroppings, and creeks. r~`~' - Design around existing landscape features - ~ -~~' ~ •~~ ~ Exhibit D Town of Los Gatos CONTENTS CONTENTS l INTRODUCTION A licabili .........................................5 PP ty .............................. Relationship to other plans .................................................6 Purpose ....................................•-°--•----°------•.....................6 Setting ..........................................•-•---•°-•-----....................J Community Expectations.........•.•..-.-.•• .............................10 Historic Preservation ........................................................10 How to Read Your Neighborhood ....................................11 General Design Principles ................................................~~ Maximum Floor Area Ratio ..............................................12 Design Review Process .....................................................12 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS ~ General Neighborhood Design Principles ........................ l3 Street Presence -• ............................................................. "I 4 Form and Mass ........................................."......-----.......... 'I 5 Garages .......................................................................... 1 8 Site Development..-•---••--•-----------------------,........•-•--`•------..20 3 BUILDING DESIGN General Building Design Principles .................................. 21 Architectural Style--°----------•° .......................................... 22 Height/Bulk/Scale ....................:...........................•-•----.... 23 Carages ................:....................................°--°---------...... 25 Roofs-----------°•---° ...................................................•--.....27 Entries -• .....................................................•------.............. 29 Windows --------° ...................................••--•------------•--...... 30 Materials.--• •--• .....................................................°--------.. 32 Additions/Accessory Buildings/Secondary Units ............... 33 Architectural Detail ..................•....•..°.............................34 Privacy and Solar Access ................................................. 35 Sustainable Design ..........................................................37 4 HISTORIC RESOURCES Application/Enforcement ................................................. 39 Historic Preservation ....................................................... 39 Approval Process for Historic Resource Alterations.......... 4l Historic Districts .....................................•--•---------............ 43 Building Classifications .................................................... 43 Demolitions .... .......................................... •---.................. 43 Pre-"1941 Structures ....................................... •..----.......... 46 Protected Exterior Elements ............................................ 46 Restoration/Rehabilitation/Reconstruction ....................... 47 Additions and Outbuildings ............................................. 54 New Construction.-•-•--•-•----------------------•-----..................... 55 - Noncontributing Structures ............................................. 56 S GLOSSARY Definitions ........................•---------..............-----.................58 APPENDICES Appendix A ~ - How to Read Your Neighborhood Workbook Appendix B Historic Districts Appendix C Cellar Policy Appendix D Sustainable Design Appendix E Historic Resources Status Codes 13 - 138 Residential Design Guidelines Puhlir- Reviaw f~raft Fa!-iniara i ~nnse 3 Town of Los Gatos ACKNC-WLE~GMENTS TOWN OOUNCIL Barbaza Spector 11Za>~or Mike Wasserman Vice 1ilayor Steve Glickman Diane Mc2~Tutt Joe Pirzyn;;ki PLANNING COMMISSION Joanne Talesfore Chair D. Michael Kane Vr.'ce Cbair John Bourgeois Philip I~fia:iche Thomas O'Donnell Stephen M. Rice Marko Sayoc GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE John Bourgeois Planning Conarsrirrion Tom O'Donnell Planning Commission Joanne Talesfore Planning Commission Joe Pirzynski Town Council Barbara Spector Town Council Barbara Cardillo Cosnnsunity Sesrricer Comrsisrion Mazcia Jensen Public Representative Jane Ogle Public Representative Margaret S:-nith Business Representative HISTORIC: PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Kendra Burch Cbair Len Pacheco Vice-Chair Bob Cowazi Philip I~ricciche Marko Sayoc TOWN STAFF Greg Larson Town 11lanager Pamela Jacobs Assistant Town 11lanager Orry Korb Town Atta~7zey Bud Lorca Conrmuszity Devehpment Director Randy Tsuda Asszstmst Consmus:itj~ Development Director Sandy Baily Assocr'ate Planner Larry Cannon TownA~chitect /Cannon Design Grov+p 13 - 139 4 Residential Design Guidelines P. .Filir Ro..:o... fl~~f+ Geh~..-~'.. ~ ~nnse Town of Los Gatos BUILDING DESIGN 3 BUIL~WG DESIGN Homes in Los Gatos come in many forms, sizes and architectural stales. This dig=ersity= is one of the fearures that contributes to the Town's unique identity=. Older Victorian Style homes, Spanish Eclec- tic Style homes and new interpretations of Craftsman Style homes often occupy the same street front. One-story Suburban Ranch Style homes may occupy one street of a larger neighborhood while newer tcvo-story contemporazy= homes niay occur around the corner or dou=n the street. tVhile this juxtaposition might seem harsh if repeated in a new community; the large amounts of mature land- scaping and the e~solution of the Town's neighborhoods over a long period of time have allowed the community to comfortably absorb this dig=ersity of home sizes and styles. Perhaps more than these mitigating factors, the self-restraint of residents and the mutual respect of one neighbor for the next has contributed to neighborhoods arith a great deal of visual unity and similarity in scale- tWhile ardiitecrural styles often vary considerably= in any individual neighborhood, few homes stand out in marked contrast to the predominant size and bulk of their surroundings. The intent of these guidelines is to set forth some of the common sense techniques that have been employ=ed o~=er the years to achie~*e tlvs strong sense of community 3.1 GENERAL BU[L~ING aESIGN PRINCIPLES The following principles hay=e been used as touchstones for the development of these design guidelines for home additions and new houses. In the event that the specific guidelines do not dearly address a given condition, these general principles, along with the Basic Design Principles on page 11 should be consulted for direc- tion. The following principles grill be used by the Town staff and Plar,~-,ing Cozrurussion/Town Council when e~>aluatingprojects, and u hen considering the acceptability of unique proposals that n=ary= from the specific guidelines. ~ Selected architectural styles shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. ~ Design features, proportions and details shall be con- sistent with the architectural style selected. ~ Materials and design details shall be suitable to the neighborhood and consistently used on all sides of the house and any accessory structures. ~ Garages shall be subservient to entries and ground floor living spaces. ~ The use of renewable energy resources for heating, cool' a and lighting should be max+r,,;>ed. Projects should be designed to conserve energy and water. NEW HOMES SHOULD BE ADAPTED TO THE SCALE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD While some larger new homes may be acceptable in established neighborhoods, they will be ea-pected to be designed to mitigate their visual size and bulk. Three examples are shown below ~ Materials should be used to reduce the consumption of nonrenewable resources and that im row=e air uality. 13 - 140 Residential Design Guidelines o,~t-.I:.- rzo..: o.., r~~~a coF..~.-,'.. ~ ~nnn 2l '_ Town of Los Gatos BUILDING DESIGN 3 wou/d have been more compatible neighborhood shown above 3.2 AKCHITECTURAL STYLE 3.2.7 Select an architectural style with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood ' StS>les a>ith front facade eaves at the first floor level will be easier to adapt to predominantly one story neighborhoods than styles a>ith tcx>o stor}; unbroken front facades. ' Sti>les with variations in the plane of the front facade wall may fit more comfortably in neighborhoods u>ith smaller houses or with smaller building masses close to the street. • A~~oid selecting an architectural st}>le which typically has roof pitches that are substantially different from others in the nearby neighborhood. 3.2.2 Design for architectural integrity ' In general, it is best to select a clear and distincu~>e archi- tectural style rather than utilizing generic design elements or miring elements from different architectural styles. • Building massing, roof pitches, materials, window types an3 proportions, design features (e.g, roof dormers), and oilier architectural features should be consistent a>ith the traditions of the selected st}>le. ' Carry wall materials, window types and architectural details around all sides of the house. Avoid side and rear elevations that are markedly different from the front elevation. • De~~>elop floor plans that allow the location and size of wi~idows to match the selected architectural style. For ex- ample, some st5>les emphasize the placement of windows in :a symmetrical relationship to the entry: Sorne architectural sty/es require simple shapes and formal symmetry of the doors and ~~>irrdows ' ~ 3 - 141 Residential Design Guidelines 22 Public Review Draft February l .2008 formal architectural style for the small scale and informal style neighborhood Continuation of front facade materials and detailing onto other walls gives this Los Gatos residence good design integrity Town of Los Gatos t BUILDING DESIGN 3 3.3 HEIGHT/BULK/SCALE 3.3.7 develop the house plans and elevations together • A~=oid complex floor plans that require complicated building mass and roof forms. • t~i~ork within die traditional forms of the arcl-utectural style selected- Unless the architectural style selected clearly sup- ports substantial complexity, generally keep building mass- ing and roof forms simple as is the norm for traditional architecture- s A~=oid complex second floor plans and roof forms if that is not the norm for the neighborhood. 3.3.2 Height and bulk at front and side setbacks • Tvvo story houses may not be appropriate for every neigh- borhood. For neighborhoods dominated by one story homes, an effort should be made to ]uxiit the house to one story in height or to accommodate second floor space within the roof form as is common in the Craftsman Style. ` t3Uhen utilizing a cellar or extended foundation wall, avoid. setting the first floor height at an elev=ation abo~=e grade that a>ould be sigruficandy different than those of the adjacent houses. Cellazs are defined as asz enclosed area that does not extezzd »zore than 4feet above the existing orfizzishedgr-ade, and are not counted in the Floor area Ratio calculations, by Town Councilpolicy. However, ifanypartofa cellarisabovegrade, it shall be considered in analyzing tl~e bulk azzd zzzass of the sn-ucture, even fit is not included in iheFflR- Z7~e intent set forth in the Genezal Plazz zs to provide hidden squarefootage izz-lieu of visible mass.° Izz the spirit of that intent, appluariozzs wish cellar space will be carefully evaluated to ensure that substantial e$orts have been made to reduce visible mass to ensure compatibility with the site's immediate neighborhood. For text ofthe Cellar Policy, see~4ppendix C. ` At>oid eat=e lines and roof ridge lines that are substantially taller than the adjacent houses. ` Gig=e special attention to adapting to the heigl-it and massing of adjacent homes. Ac>oid tall, unbroken front facades u>hen other nearby homes have more articulated front facades with horizontal wall plane changes. ` In neighborhoods with small homes, try to place more of the floor area on the first floor a=ith less area on the second floor. Some a/evation of the first floor level may be acceptable and/or required in some neighborhoods 13 - 142 Residential Design Guidelines P. ~F.1 i.- {7 o..f o.., rl.of+ C.-. F. ~..-..-.. ~ ->~r~o 73 Avoid overly complex second floor plans and roof shapes like this example Substantially e/evafed frrst floors like this may not be acceptable in neighborhoods where they do not currently exist Town of Los Catos BUILDING DESIGN 3 ` Take care in the placement of second floor masses. Unless the architectural style traditionally has the second floor front wall at or neaz the first floor a>all, set the second floor back frc>m the front facade a ,,,;r,;,-r,um of 5 feet. • 'Tl~e design of to>o story homes constructed adjacent to one story houses should include tecluiiques to n„n;n~iye their visual impact and provide transitions in scale. Some tedv~iques include: - Step down to one story elements near the side set- backs - Provide substantial side setbacks for the entire house - Provide substantial second floor side setbacks - Use hip roofs at the sides rather than gables • Avoid monumental scaled forms (e.g., toot>ers or turrets) that contrast with the neighborhood architectural forms. ` Avoid bay windows and other features that compete with the entry as the home's focal point. ` Avoid the use of too many active building forms added to the mass of the building. An excessive use of roof forms is a common problem. 3.3.3 Provide visual relief for two story walls Some techniques include: • Belly bands (see photo below left) • Pop outs and bay a>indoa-s ` Ma-teiial and color changes • Chimneys ` \~ide overhangs with projecting brackets • JuL et balconies (see photo below left) • window boxes and pot shelves • Landscaped trellises and lattices This Craftsman Style house includes severa/ features to mitigate the visual height of the side wall ~ 13 - 143 24 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft Fehruarv ~ _ ~nnR Avoid too many building a/ements competing for attention Avoid too many roof forms that over/y comp/icate the design Other two story wall mitigation techniques Town of Los Gatos 3.4 GARAGES 3.4.1 Limit the prominence of garages ` A~*oid designs that allow the garage to doiziinate the street facade. ` T "imit the garage sx~idth to a maximum of 50 percent of the total facade width. ` Set garages back from the front facade_ • Recess garage doors as much as possible from the garage facade. • Consider adding trellises with landscaping over garage doors to soften their visual appearance. • Integrate the garage into the house forms in a manner that de-emphasizes the garage doors. L BUILDING DESIGN 3 Recess garage as possible Divided garage opening with high quality wood doors and a roof form with dormer integrated into the main house helps minimize the visual impact of this garage 13 - '144 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1.2008 25 Avoid designs that allow the garage to dominate the street facade like this one does Limiting the width of garages and setting them back from the front facade can minimize their visual impact Use windows and landscaped tre//ices over garage doors to soften their appearance BUILDING DESIGN 3 Town of Los Gatos 3.4.2 Minimize the visual impact of larger garages Three car garages may not be appropriate in most neighborhoods. \Xlhere larger garages aze customary and appropriate, steps should still be taken to minimize their visual impact on the house and streetscape. Scme techniques include: • U;:ing side loaded or split apart garages where possible ' Accommodating additional cars in tandem spaces (see diagram on page 19) • Separating the garage doors • Breaking up dri~reway paving with landscaping and/or sp _cial pa~*ing 3.4.3 Integrate garage doors into the design with appropriate details t~J:indows in garage doors are encouraged. ' tfi~<~od doors are encouraged. • Use wood trim similar to the house windows individual doors helps to reduce the Avoid wide drivewa favor of adding lane ~ ~ I 13 - 145 26 Residential Design Guidelines Puhlir RPViPW I7rafF Fahn urv 7 7nnR Separating garages can reduce their visual impacts in some cases closely re/aced to the rest of the facade Town of Los Gatos 3.5 ROOFS 3.5.7 Unify roof pitches Utilize the same slope for all primary roofs. Roof slopes for porches ma}> be loa>er than the primary roof slope, depending on the architectural sty=le_ Dormer roof slopes may sometimes be steeper than the primary roof slope, depending on the architectural st}=le_ 3.5.2 Avoid excessive roof form complexity A~=oid multiple floor plan pop outs that produce multiple roof gables. there roof cave variation is desired, consider vertical a=all extensions and dormer roofs, as shown in the example below 3.5.3 Relate roof overhangs to the architectural style and to the surrounding neighborhood Some architectural stales (e.g., 1~~7ission and Spanish Eclectic) often come in small and large overhang ~=ersions. In those circumstances, tailor the roof overhangs to the general character of the surrounding homes. BUILDING DESIGN 3 ~® Some architectural styles have a different roof pitch for attached porches ~ ~3-146 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 27 Most architectural sty/es maintain a uniformity of roof pitch This is a good examp/e of roof eave variation without excessive complexity -- BUILDING DESIGN 3 - Town of Los Gatos 3.5.4 Qesign dormers with atEention to the architectural style and the neighborhood • Avoid dormer sizes that are out of scale with the roof and contrary to traditional designs- ` Gable dormers, single or an aggregate of multiple dormers, should rarely exceed 50 percent of the width of the roof. Shed dormers can be wider. I 1 3 - '147 28 Residential Design Guidelines Pi iF~lir- Ravia~wi flr~ft Fcl-~r~iora i ~nnu Avoid large gable dormers that dominate the roof Two Los Gatos homes with well sca/ed dormers appropriate to their architectural styles In favor of smaller gable dormers Or use a shed dormer Town of Los Gatos BUILDING DESIGN 3 3.6 ENTRIES 3.6.1 Provide a clear expression of entry • Orient the entry to the street front. It should be ~>isible from the street. • Pro~>ide a separate a>alh-u>ay from the sidewalk to the entry if that is the common pattern for adjacent and nearb}> homes. Avoid using the driveway as the walb-way to the entry unless that is the norm for the neighborhood. In cases a>here the driveway is used, consider the use of modular pavers or decorative banding. 3.6.2 Design home entries with sensitivity to the architectural style Most architectural st3*les have a distinctively unique entr}> t}>pe. A~>oid using an entry type that is not part of the st}le. For example, avoid using projecting entries, especiall}> those with an cave line higher than the first floor roof, for Ranch St}'le houses or in Ranch St}'le neighborhoods. 3.6.3 Design entries with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood • A~>oid large and formal entries unless that is the norm for nearby houses. It is often best to start the design consid- eration with an entry t}>pe (e.g., projecting or under ear>e porch) that is similar to nearby homes. • Houses on corner lots should consider using porches that wrap around from the front to the side elevation, as shown below This can assist in reducing the ~Tisual height of taller side malls, and in enli~>ening the side street frontage_ HOME ENTRY TYPES COMMON IN LOS GATOS ~-~ °5? ~s ~ Projecting entry _ _•' ~~ 3.6.4 • Entr}> columns, railing, steps, and lights are just a few ele- ments that can be used to add indi~>iduality to a house. - Inset entry ~r 13 - 148 Residential Design Guidelines Puhlic Review f~raft Fahniarv l 7ll(1R 29 Projecting porch Entry under roof eave -with or f- without porch _ Entry details are encouraged BUILDING DESIGN 3 3.7 W'IN~OWS Town of Los Gatos 3.7.1 Arrange windows in patterns and groupings consistent with the architectural style and surrounding neighborhood • Many architectural sts=les have indiv=idual windows that are grouped into patterns of two, three or more window=s. Be conscious of this fact, and organize the windows to comple- ment the sts$e. 3.7.2 Match window types and proportions to the architectural style and to the surrounding neighborhood • Seiect a=irtdow types to complement the style of the house. Each architectural style generally has one or two window ts~~es that are traditional to the sty le. Double hung arindows, for example, are common features of Victorian and Crafts- . mart Styles a=bile casement windows are seen frequentl}= in 1~=Iission and Spanish Eclectic styles. • Most architectural styles feature windows that hay=e either ~=ertical or square proportions. Avoid horizontal a=irtdow proportions unless the style (e.g., Modern or Ranch Style) is clearly supportive of that shape- Horizontal groupings of vertical and square windows are one means of providing visual balance to a facade design. • Limit the number of different window types and propor- tions to enhance the visual unity of the house design. For second floor additions to existing homes, match the waadows on the original first floor. • Match the size and shape of window shutters to the shape and size of the window=s. Shutters that are large enough to co-aer the windows, if closed, should be the goal. Hinges oit shutters to allow their closure are desuable_ A~=oid very narrow shutters that are clearly not wide enough to coy=er the window opening. 3.7.3 Match window materials to the architectural style and to the surrounding neighborhood • Wood-windows are common in Los Gatos. t~Jood is still the desired choice for styles that traditionally used wood. Hoa=e~=er, today there are some window materials, such as vinyl clad u=ood windows that are not noticeably different from wood at a short distance. They may be used if their v=isual appearance matches wood. Generally; avoid metal windows. They may be considered acceptable for a Modern Style house, but would be strongly discouraged for all other styles. 13 - 149 Residential Design Guidelines 30 Public Review Draft February 1 , 2008 Group windows in a manner that is traditional for the architectural style Most architectural siy/es have vertically proportioned windows Windows with some depth from the frame to the glass are desirable Town of Los Gatos _ BUILDING DESIGN 3 3.7.4 design the windows with attention to matching the traditional details of the architectural style • Most architectural styles -except 1Vlission, Spanish Eclectic or Modern -should have wood trine around the windows. The trine width should be matched to the style, but in gen- eral, should not be less than 3 1 /2 inches wide. Head trim depth should be equal to or wider than the janib casing, but not less than one-sixth of the opening width. • Projecting window sills and heads are strongly encouraged unless the architectural style a>ould not normally have those features. • good trim is also encouraged on stucco houses unless the ~x>indow frames are recessed at least 6 inches from the out- side face of the wall. The use of stucco covered foam trim is strongly discouraged- • Divided lights (i.e., larger window panes broken up into smaller pieces) are conunon in many home styles found in L.os Gatos. Use either ~>ertical or square proportions for the smaller window elements. Be consistent in the proportions (i.e., the ratio of the horizontal to the vertical dimension) of the smaller panes. Do not use snap in flat grids to simu- late divided lights. Use either true divided lights or one of the newer u>indow systems that have dimensional muntins on both the exterior and inteaor of the glass along u>ith a spacer muntin between the panes of glass. Use consistently for windows on all sides of the house. 3.7.5 ~ Special window shapes and styles should be used sparingly • Avoid Estate Home Sij~le a>indows (e.g., tall arched v>indows) in neighborhoods where the homes are snore modest and informal in character. Bay windows should be designed with a base element to the ground or with supporting brackets at the base. Sloped roofs should be used and covered with a material that matches the roof material or with metal. Avoid using wall materials beta>een the individual a>indows of the bap u>indow unless the window is large. Generally, bay u>indoa>s look best when the windows are dose together and separated by a>ood jambs that match wood sills and heads as shown in the example to the right. ~ 13 - 150 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 3l complemented by wood trim at the jambs, heads and sills Use bay windows sparingly and detail them as an integral part of the design Town of Los Gatos BUILDING DESIGN 3 ARCHITECTURAL COPPER The use of Architectural Copper is generally discouraged because of its potential to contribute pollution to surface waters and the San Francisco Bay through urban runoff. Industrial, municipal and some other users are required to follow regulations and obtain permits for discharge under the Environmental Protection Agen- cy's National Pollutant Discharge F.limir,ation System (NPDES) permit program, which controls orate= pollu- tion by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Although individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit, the potential for water contamination from copper is of concern to all Bay Area com- munities. The major uses of architectural cop- per in residential construction are roofs, gutters, and copper-treated composite shingles. 3.8 MATERIALS 3.8.1 U~>e high quality materials • U:>e materials and mixes of materials that are consistent u>ith the architectural style selected. • Ttadirional materials, such as wood and stone, are most desirable, and strongly encouraged. Howes>er, the cost of materials and labor for many building components hay*e led to the dew>elopment of synthetic materials that are often hard to tell from the authentic ones. If any of these substitutes ate selected, they must pass the test of looking like dze authentic material at a distance of 3 feet if used on th~_ first floor and 10 feet if used on the second floor. • Avoid rough textured stucco in fay*or of a smooth sand finish. • Composition roof shingles may be acceptable in lieu of wood shakes. However, shingles should be selected urith a t eature that is similar to other houses in die neighbor- ho od. 3.8.2 Select materials that are sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood • One a>ay of fitting a new house into an exisring neighbor- hood -especially if the new house is bigger than many of the others around it - is to use materials drawn from dze swrrounding neighborhood. An all stucco house might seem out of character in an all wood neighborhood, but thc, predominant use of wood siding ac>idz some elements of stucco can often~c>ork. ~XThere stone accents (e.g., chim- ne-j+s) are common in a neighborhood, the use of stone at the mall base and else~x>here can assist in making the new home seem better connected to its surroundings. t~Uhen using a mir. of materials, avaid using too many materi- als - to>o or at most three are enough. A~>oid an even split of materials (i.e., 50/50) on the facades. It is best to have one material as the dominant surface c~>ith the second material playing a lesser role. The use of a two-third to one-third ratio is a good place to start. l3 -'Ibl Residential Design Guidelines 32 Public Review Draft February 7.2008 Town of Los Gatos 3.8.3 Use traditional detailing ` Treat openings in walls as though they were constructed of the traditional material for the stS=le. For example, be sure to provide substantial wall space abo~=e arches in stucco and stone u=alls. Traditionall3; wall space above the arch a=ould have been necessary to structurally span the opening, and to make the space too small is inconsistent a=ith the archi- tectural style. ' Openings in walls faced with stone, real or synthetic, should have defined lintels above the opening except in Mission or Spanish Eclectic styles. Lintels may be stone, brick or a=ood as suits die style of the house. ` Treat synthetic materials as though they were authentic. For example, select synthetic stone patterns that place the indiv=idual stones in a horizontal plane as they would ha~re been in a load bearing masonry wall. ` Select roof materials that are consistent with the traditional architectural style (e.g., avoid concrete roof tiles on a Cra$s- man Style house.) 3.8.4 Materials changes ` Make materials and color changes at inside corners rather than outside corners to avoid a pasted on look. R ~- wan-} " \ rria7de YES rrtswe Guxslea ~ms~ertat ~•'~, ounles er color Change materials Noi at and cola`s al outside inside Comers comers 3.9 ADDITIONS/ACCESSORY BUILDINGS/SECONDARY UNITS Follow the provisions set forth in Guideline 4.9 on page 52. t BUILDING DESIGN 3 ~ 13 - 152 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February ~ , 2008 33 Use stone or wood lintels over openings in stone wa1/s Additions, accessory buildings and secondary units should match the form, architectural style, and details of the original house BUILDING DESIGN 3 While others require details Town of Los Gatos 3_70 A,'RCHITECTURAL DETAIL 3.70.7 Porches and Entries Select coh~mns that are traditional to the architectural style of~ the house. Take care in selecting columns with an ap- propriate width to height ratio for the style. Except for a very few styles, the columns should ha~•e appropriate caps acid bases with proportions typical of the style. • Prov=ide a well proportioned beam between the column caps and the roof. Size and detail the beam so that it looks like a conv=incing structural member. It should be r=isible both from inside and outside of the porch. A common problem is to make this element of the porch too small or to face it with a material (e.g., siding) that would not carry the weight above if it were structural. For most architectural styles, molding and trim will divide the beans vertically into three major elements of varying height. • Rs"1' ~ should generally be constructed of wood unless the specific architectural style allows for metal or stone. Provide both top and bottom rails with the bottom rail raised above the porch floor le~=e1. • Vertical balusters should be appropriate to the architectural st; le. Some are quite simple a=bile others may have special shapes. • Take care in designing porch stairs. They generally should match the porch floor (e.g., a=ood) or the sidewalk material if other than concrete (e.g., brick). Nore: All jiorcbet air ea~ected to he usable and have o mir:imum depth of 6~eet orpreferabJy mos-e. 3.70.2 Balconies • Avoid balconies that project more than 3 feet from the face of the building unless they are typical of the architectural st3de. • Provide supporting brackets or beams that are large enough to dearly appear to prov=ide structural support for the bal- co try. • Railings should be designed as discussed above for porch railings. For longer railings, intermediate posts with caps and bases should be used to break the railing into smaller increments. 3.70.3 Brackets • Brackets at roof overhangs, balconies and bay window=s should be designed to extend to fascia/balcony edge/pro- jectingbay front or slightly beyond- A~=oid stub brackets that do not appear substantial enough to support the element above. 13 - 153 34 Residential Design Guidelines P..hli.- Rc... o.., n~~R CeF, ~.. ~... -t ^~nnzx Porch beam examp/e with good depth and detai/s Town of Los Gatos 3.70.4 Chimneys t BUILDING ~ES1GN 3 Chimneys should extend to ground lei=el. A~=oid cantilevers abo~*e the ground. • Chimney materials, size, shape and height should be appro- priate to dze architectural st}=le and to the scale of the house. As=oid undersized Chimne}=s that are too narrow and too low Add chimneys for gas fireplaces when the architectural st}>le would normally feature chimneys. • Provide cl,;m~ey caps that are interesting and appropriate to the architectural st}=le. 3.70.5 Roof flashing and vents Paint flashing and gents to match the color of the roof. 3.70.6 Skylights • First, consider the use of roof dormers or clerestories instead of skylights. Use flat profile sk}=lights rather than domed models. • Select glazing to avoid the feeling of roof beacons or lan- terns that are highly visible from the street or neighboring properties. 3.71 PRIVACY AND SOLAR ACCESS 3.l 1.1 Minimize shadow impacts an adjacent properties • Locate structures to minimize blocking sun access to li~=- ing spaces and actinrely used outdoor areas on adjacent homes. 3.77.2 Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences • ~~Jindows should be placed to iruru. iizsize views into the living spaces and yard spaces near neighboring homes. ` When windows are needed and desired in side building a>alls, they should be modest in size and not directly opposite windows on adjacent homes. • tWhere possible, second floor a>indows that might intrude on adjacent property privacy should hay=e sill heights above e}>e level or have frosted or te3aured glass to reduce visual exposure. • Bay windows should be a~=oided on side walls where they would intrude on adjacent residents' privac}~ Second floor balconies and decks should be used only a=hen they do not intrude on the prigracy of adjacent neighbors. ~ ~ ExFsting _ _ New two arts story -:~'_ _ _ _~ house -~_ '~4 Avoid second floor masses in locations chat would block sun access to adjacent homes ~ 13 - 154 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February ~, 2008 35 Avoid placing windows in locations that wou/d look into adjacent neighbors' windows or active private yard spaces BUILDING DESIGN 3 1•-•-• - -•-•---- --. 1 _~__ ~ 3Oo t j - ~ t ~ Windows - ~ 1 1 1 «.. 1 O I i ti 1 1 i ~ P/ace landscaping in the shaded areas shown on the diagram above to mitigate privacy intrusions on adjacent homes Use deciduous tree to screen walls from ~- -' hot summer sun Use landscaping to minimize energy usage Town of Los Gatos • As a general rule, balconies and decks that are more than ta.v feet abo~>e grade should try to maintain a distance of ten feet from side property lines and twenty feet from rear property-lines a=hen the adjacent use is single family resi- dential. • ~1aen allowed, the design of railings should be tailored to the privacy concerns of neighbors (e.g., balcony or deck sides overlooking adjacent windows or actin=ely used yard space should be solid in form). Open railings should only be: used where privacy concerns are minimal- • Landscaping may be used to mitigate prig=acy concerns se long as the landscaping does not deny solar access to lining spaces and actin=ely used yard azeas of neighboring homes. • Landscaping used for privacy screening purposes, should be of sufficient size and of an appropriate species to provide such privacy w=ithin a two year time frame. • Trees should be to>enty-four inch box size. • Shrubs used to promote prim=acy should be fifreen gallon in si<;e and six feet mi.,i,-Horn height at planting. • A:: a general rule, prig=acy landscaping should be placed with a cone-of-~>ision defined by a thirty degree angle from the side window jambs of second story windows. 3.l 7.3 ~<~sign and plan for energy efficiency • Design to m;r,;mi>e energy costs by selecting and locating landscaping and windows to block hot summer sun expo- sure and allow winter sun exposure. 3.'1'1.4 Solar Panels • Locate solar panels so that they aze inconspicuous from the public right-of-a=a}: • Align solar panel faces a>ith that of the underlying roof slope. Avoid panels with slopes that are different than that of the roof. • In~_egrate the design of panels into the design of the roof. Avoid atacked-on appearance. 3.71.5 Minimize exterior lighting impacts on neighbors • AT' exterior light fixtures should utilize shields to ensure that light is directed to the ground surface and does not spill light onto neighboring pazcels or produce glaze when seen from nearby homes. • Decorative residential light fixtures should be chosen rather ths~n strictly utilitarian security lighting fixtures. I 13 - 155 36 Residential Design Guidelines P~ ~F,1 i!- RP\/IP\A> 1'lrofr Fo{-.r~ urn. ~ ~nnsz Town of Los Gatos t BUIL[~ING DESIGN 3 3.72 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN Sustainability and the conservation of natural resources are impor- tai~t issues to L.os Gatos residents. Sustainability> refers to the use of natural resources in a manner that ensures their continued a~=ailability to future generations. The Town believes that historic preser~ration is the most sensiti~=e path to sustainability; but recognizes that this is not ala>ays possible, and that an emphasis on gv een building can be an effective means of promoting the conservation of natural resources- The term green building is often used to relate sustainability> to development Green building addresses a broad range of techniques to reduce the consumption of natural resources during construction and over the lifetime of a home. These include designing structures to be energy and water efficient, utilizing building materials that reduce resource consumption and impro~=e indoor air quality; and taking masimum advantage of renewable energy resources. The Green Building Strategies and Materials in Appendix: D contain design strategies that ma~:imize the use of renewable energy resources for heating, cooling and lighting, additional_strategies that conser~>e energy and water, a list of building materials that reduce the consumption of nonrenewable resources and impro~=e air qual- ity; and a list of ~=arious sources for "green building" information and their a>eb sites. ' 13 - 156 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 37 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 9'i014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELCIPMENT REPORT FORM Agenda Date: May 13, 2008 Item Summary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements RECOMMENDATION: Discuss this item, then note and file this repor`. BACKGROUND: On Tuesday May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Con-+m;ssion work program to include a review of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirement. The Council directed that the Planning Commission wrap up your work in September and present the recommendation to the City Council in October 2008. ' DISCUSSION: The Council direction limited the amendment to considering if the second floor to first floor ratio should be changed. The Commission i not authorized to evaluate changing second story setbacks or other elements of the ordinazice such as the overall floor area ratio. Council members voiced concern that the 45% second :1oor to first floor ratio inadvertently encourages homeowners to increase the size of the first floor to ensure the second floor proportion is large enough to accommodate the desired number of bedrooms. Also, concern was expressed that the current formula results in a repetitive style of "wedding cake ' architecture. For example a "Victorian' or "Queen Anne" style of architer:ure is difficult to design with the current rule. Staff anticipates-that the Corrunission will need to address the amount of exposed second floor wall plane as this rule directly relates to the is~:ue of potentially allowing the first and second floor walls to align. The Corrunission will need to assess if some alternate method of breaking up the wall plane should be considered such as awning or trellis elements. Finally, the Commission may need to consider alternate review procedures for applicants taking advantage of any amendments. Staff will send out acity-wide mailer and atternpt to provide articles in the Cupertino Scene and on the web site to keep the public informed of this review. Staff anticipates the item will be ready for the Planning Commission in July 2008. In.the meantime staff will evaluate if this _ change will potentially delay any other work program items. 5( , Submitted by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Co~ivnunity Developmer 13 - 157 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 September 9, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • Concurred with Com. Brophy's position; and said that since th ~hibit Council Comm ated this and it was communicated tot app business to reduce o hange the fee structure. Howe - ,she no _ the project would not be roved today had that nofbeen agreed to; they would have required less density, more open sppa~cs~within the project itself, and more amenities. She agreed that it should be passed onto the City Council.- Com. Kaneda: • Said he also agreed with Com. Br-ophy, anZi.,had no further comment. Com. Rose and Chair Millef: • Said they both agreed,with previous connnents.~ \ Motion: Mot' fi by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Kanb a, to forward Application M~008-04 to the City Council without recommen ion. (Vote: S-O-O) OLD BUSINESS 2. MCA-2008-03 Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family Rl Ordinance City of Cupertino (Section 19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second Citywide Location floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The Revised Ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to facilitate greater architectural diversity, but will not. consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an R1 lot or changing the required second story setbacks. Continued from the August 26, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled. Gary Chao, Senior Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • On May 6, 2008, the City Council as part of their 2007-08 work program directed staff to look at review of the Rl ordinance specifically regarding the second floor to ground floor ratio. The direction was to have the Planning Commission review and provide recommendations back to the Council by Oct. 2008. In addition, as part of the process, staff will be introducing one or two minor suggestions unrelated to the second floor ratio housekeeping items. • On Tuly 8, 2008 the Planning Conmiission reviewed the initial proposal from staff and provided direction that a more focused ordinance framework should be provided that tailored guidelines and principles applicable to the city of Cupertino issues. In addition, the Commission wanted additional images and graphics more pertinent to the community and the discussion whether the city architectural consultant Lany Cannon should also be involved in this process. Staff has since communicated with Larry Cannon and entered into a preliminary contract with him; he is prepared to go pending Commission's direction this evening. • In July, there were some concerns raised by the Commission. The first one was on the lack of prescriptive nature. of the proposed new design review process. To clarify in response, the intent from the City Council to go through this exercise to potentially change the ordinance is to facilitate design flexibility; and in order to accomplish that, you have to have more flexible standards to achieve the flexibility of options to provide to applicants or homeowners or architects in this case. Staff has since then added more specifics into the framework, tailoring it to the Cupertino issues. • Concerns were raised that this might promote box style homes in Cupertino. Staff has established precise objectives and intent into this process so that when property owners and 13 - 158 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 September 9, 2008 architects wanting to go through this voluntary process, will understand what is in store and what is expected of them, in particular architectural style needs to be identified and specific visual relief measures shall be applied. • Why create a new process; why not use t:he current process? For example the exception process could entertain a project potentially having a second floor larger than the 45% rule, the only comment regarding that is that the excerption process does not currently have any specific provisions that allow us to ensure visual- release on large wall planes and such. The exception process is also costly and intimidating to average homeowners and architects as well. • -What staff is proposing in terms of review iiamework: The applicability this new process we are suggesting to you would cover any application as proposed to have a residential home, a second floor larger than 45% of the ground floor area. We are not suggesting the overall FAR of the site be amended or that the rninirnum setback requirements also be retained and preserved as well. Those will not change as part of this proposal. In addition it is important to note that the existing quite prescriptive process that you have now are still intact; any property owner wishing to go through the current process and have no desire of wanting to propose a house over 45% second floor, can go through the current process without having to deal with the additional guidelines and objectives to cover. He reviewed briefly the comparative table between the current ordinance and the. proposed ordinance, to give a sense of what is being changed and what is not. The three areas to highlight are the second floor to ground floor ratio; we are suggesting that be allowed to exceeded. Also in conjunction with that rule, we are proposing that the second floor setback surcharge be exact for those who are going through this process from our conversations with local architects; you cannot have one without the other because homes are expected to be larger; setback surcharge would prohibit that from happening. Therefore, in their suggestion to us that also should be lifted as well. In the change there is a lot of design techniques that we .are adding into the ordinance that will cover and mask some of the potentially larger walls anti blank walls with trellises, arbors and balconies. • Lastly the second floor 50% exposed wall rule; we are suggesting that rule be redefined to allow the use of the new architectural relief techniques, architectural features as a way to address that rule or satisfy that 50% rule. • Said there doing this because the existing R 1 ordinance limits the design flexibility due to the second story size restriction; as mentioned previously some of the second floor surcharge also is restricting as well, and it dictates what it is meant to be; what is meant to accomplish is to make sure that the homes are wedding cake: and are set back quite significantly and you can see that from the example pix provided. Also what we are seeing is that this sort of architecture is more predominant now in the neighborhoods and they are pretty much taking over and the concern we are seeing is that is all we are going to get; we are not going to get anything other than these until 10 or 20 years, and that is going to predominate the. pattern, styles, the community and that is a concern. • Inadvertently, ground floors are being maximized to ensure that the applicant's homeowners get the sufficient maximum allowed second floor because the ratio exists. The only way to have a large second floor is to maximize your ground floor; everyone is stretching the envelope to the max on the ground floor to accomplish that. • The objective of the new process is to allow greater design flexibility, at the same time not compromising good design; and also to address some of the known issues previously mentioned and that Cupertino cares about. 'Chose are usually articulation of walls, addressing blank walls, embellishments, visual relief of -.mass and scale of second floor wall planes. • The design principles previously mentioned; when an applicant comes forward wanting to go through the voluntary process, the Director of Community Development may grant approval to allow the proposal to exceed the 45% second floor ground floor ratio provided the seven principles outlined on Page 2 of the staff report are met. • He reviewed the visual relief techniques listed on Page 3 of the staff report. 13 - 159 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 September 9, 2008 Other related minor ordinance changes that the Planning Commission should consider is the exception of the second floor 1 O feet setback surcharge requirements and also the 50% second floor wall exposure requirement. Staff is bringing to you the more specific framework asking for directions and comments from you if you feel comfortable with it, provide us with directions, give us the green light and we will talk and communicate with the city architect and come back to you with a more precise ordinance amendment language in addition with pictures, illustrations, to better help the public understand some of the principles we are discussing. Staff's recommendation is for the Planning Commission to review the framework, give feedback, or alternatively, if you feel comfortable with this approach, you can recommend it to the City Council. Corn. Brophy: • What is the difference between the current review process for two story homes and what the process would be for those two story homes that would ask for a second floor greater than 45% of the first floor. Gary Chao: • Staff is proposing that the process be the same timeline to make sure that it is not going to be a deterrent for people to go through. However, the findings, guidelines and principles that we use to review the two different applications would differ. The current process under the current rule if you stay under 45% second floor, as you know the ordinance is pretty prescriptive. As long as the color is not out of whack with the neighborhood, most likely it is an approval; that is what it is designed to do. It is the prescriptive nature in the Rl ordinance. With this new voluntary process for people wanting to exceed the 45%, what we are saying is, that in exchange to allow people to have a larger second floor, we are suggesting additional design principles which were outlined already earlier that are not covered by the current R1 ordinance. That should be evaluated and considered and found to exist on the proposal in order for the city to approve the application for them to exceed 45%. Com. Brophy: • When I Iook at the list of design principles, in theory shouldn't we be applying this currently to any two-story home that goes through review; I can't see the difference. Steve Piasecld: • The intent of the existing rules was to be highly prescriptive and not have subjective review of whether the materials are compatible with the architectural style that is being proposed; nor necessarily whether the materials are of high quality or whether you followed the basic principles of symmetry and balance, so you could have asymmetrical mixed up material house and still get through with that prescriptive process. That is not to say that we don't work with the applicants and point those things out to them and try to encourage them to incorporate them, but we cannot require it; it is not part of the purview. This is now saying that with these design principles, we are more concerned about symmetry, .balance, consistency of materials, and incorporating these other design features so we will exercise some more subjective review. Com. Rose: • Said she was looking at the design principles that would be the role of Steve Piasecki to determine whether they have been met on each project. How is it defined what is considered a high quality material? 13 - 160 Cupertino Planning Corr,m;ssion 7 September 9, 2008 Gary Chao: • It is usually a combination of many differe~rt things; how the materials tie in with each other; the compatibility of the material to the style of the home; sometimes people want to build a Mediterranean style house or Spanish style: house and a true Spanish style siding is usually more smooth and hand troweled finish, higher quality than just sprayed on materials. It is difficult to answer; it is not always defined by cost, but is more of an architectural theme that has to be consistent. Steve Piasecld: • Said the point was well taken that it needso to be defined better, either by example or some other way of defming it so that it is not confusing to people. We know that if you are proposing a Spanish style home, you probably don't want to use the metal faux Spanish roof material, even though that might be lighter and cheaper. Staff would coach the applicant to meet that part of the requirement that they would need to eliminate the T-11 1 siding or put in different materials in keeping with the Spanish architecture. If they disagree, they could take it to the Design Review Committee. He said relative to the design principles, it is the intent that the applicant will reasonably comply with all seven design principles. Vice Chair Giefer: • Asked how staff would address a request 1:o build a house that has an overhang, where the second story exceeds the ground floor level. Could you do this given what you are proposing; and what would be the reduction on the bac]c end of it; would you allow them to exceed 100% in order to achieve that. Gary Chao: • The way the ordinance is proposed it doesn't have a maximum limitation, but is more design driven. From talking to some architects, we were discussing ways to articulate second mass and the idea was that you don't necessarily always have to recess and indent from the ground floor. There is very nice, beautiful looking homes that have nice gable elements that project out with corbels underneath, so there is a lot of opportunity and we are excited about this for that reason, there are projections you can consider, overhangs that you can consider, that would meet the intent of the ordinance and breaking up mass as opposed to setting things back. • Said he had not thought of the second question in terms of reduction and tradeoff; again, it is going to be like a package that we have to look at as a whole. The way the ordinance is being proposed, you could potentially exceed that 100% ground floor to second floor ratio. You could say as a Commission your recommendation is to stop at 100% or whatever other percent you are comfortable with. Chair Miller: • Said that the new ordinance specifies ghat new buildings shall be in conformity or compatibility with existing buildings on the street. How do you reconcile the attempt to bring some more diversity into the neighborhood vs. our existing ordinance which says we want the same thing on the street. Gary Chao: • We have people making that azgument now with the current ordinance, somebody wants to build a Mediterranean house in a Ranch or Spanish neighborhood and the way the ordinance has been interpreted up to this point in term; of compatibility is not that house designs have to exactly mimic or replicate the existing predominant style of the neighborhood, as long as the material color massing scale respects the adjacent neighbors house. Basically that constitutes ~3-~61 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 September 9, 2008 • being compatible with the neighborhood. It is a good thing to allow different flavors of style homes in a neighborhood. Chair Miller: • Said there may be an inconsistency with the existing wording of the ordinance. Steve Piaseclci: • I think what staff is saying is that the problem you are describing, doesn't go away with this. The fact that we are asking people when they bring their building in, tell us what it is, tell us what it is, what is this animal you are trying to construct, and if it is Calif. Ranch fine, if it is Craftsman fine. But your point is well taken, you are still going to get potentially the argument that we don't have Craftsmen homes in the neighborhood, therefore what are you doing building a Craftsman style. Staff's pouit is that you need to be at least respectful of mass and the materials utilized throughout the neighborhood, not completely ignore it. • We try to be fairly flexible today, we will continue to try and be flexible, but it is a good point; that conflict still goes on. Chair Miller: • Relative to the architectural style selected, it implies that there is another level of work that staff is going to take on to inspect the details of each house to make sure every detail is consistent with the style. Gary Chao: • In concept yes, if a person wants to do a Craftsman style house, we don't want him to propose an element, an entry feature that is from another style and doesn't jive with the design. What we are saying is whatever style they decide to go with, they should do the best they can to ensure that all the features, embellishments, colors, materials, shape of the roof, design of the windows are consistent with that style, to make the house coherent and nice looking. Chair Miller: • Expressed concern that they may be getting into an area where there is way too much interpretation on the part of staff in terms of what an applicant can and cannot do. Steve Piaseclci: • Said the Commission could suggest to the City Council that every one of these go to DRC and have an open process where they can have that discussion. Chair Miller: • Referred to No. 7 of the design principles "the design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance", and said that it was already in the ordnance, and he was concerned with that. He illustrated a book by Dahlen Group, a renowned architect who shows lots of good and tasteful examples of symmetry and asymmetry. Said he always had a problem with the issue of lining up all the doors and windows as it doesn't always make good azchitectural design to do that. Steve Piasecki: • We have heard both sides of that argument and maybe we could defer to some of the architects to talk about; and we intend to see this in other design guidelines, that in balance that we would like people to think about achieving a degree of symmetry. The asymmetry you tend to see in homes that can be tasteful, is usually not a very dominant asymmetry; it is not a heavy reliance on it. . 13 - 162 Cupertino Planning Commission 9 September 9, 2008 • You could take No. 7 and say as a rule that: you shouldn't strive for this, that some variations are acceptable, but they need to be done tastefully. Com. Kaneda: • This modification only applies when people are proposing to go over 45% on the second floor. (Stafj`.~ Yes; if they exceed the 4S% ratio) If they stay under, it is the current rule. I would suggest we think about is if we are going to do this, let's do it or not do it; not write this arbitrary. You get to some arbitrary numb<:r and then we are going to make the houses look nice and otherwise they don't look so good. • Said he agreed about the language regarding being consistent with the neighborhood and the language .that talks about architectural diversity; and said it was confusing to him personally, and also to the community, because so many times people come to the Commission and play the "not consistent with the neighborhood card" as a reason why a house should not get built. • In most cases I like diversity; it is nice to have some diversity and if you are just looking for good architecture and consistent massing and materials, why don't we just say we are looking for good architecture consistent massing a~zd materials, rather than say it has to match the neighborhood. Com_ Brophy: • Said since the last public hearing on-the item, he has been struggling with the issue that Vice Chair Giefer raised, which was more the social dynamics of how this would be applied; that there is already a perception in the community that the process by which either the staff, Commission or Council goes through in making decisions, has an arbitrary or unreasonable procedure; and here where we are dealing with the whole situation of review by its very definition, there is a certain amount of that the process is a subjective and judgmental kind of process; and I am wondering whether or not by opening this up in this direction if the irritation from either would-be home builders or r~eighborg of the project would be greater than whatever aesthetic benefits that we would gain from this process. Gary Chao: • You could ask some of the architects in the :audience for their feedback. Most of the architects I have worked with have no complaints; they are pleased with the process. Having said that, the key is that this is a voluntary process; however, the way the current ordinance is established now, it is working; people are used to it. For those who do feel up to the challenge of wanting to go through this more of a creative process, they can still opt to build under the current rule and go through a moire prescriptive nature and get their building floor plan approved. • For the architects who are usually looking to do good designs, they look at these rules; these are some of the things that they would do usually regardless of whether there is provision for it or not. However, the feeling is that they are limited because of the way the current ordinance is set up. For those who want to do something creative and out of the box, they don't have the tools or mechanism to do that. This process allows for that, and at least from my conversations with some of the architects that do a lot of work, they feel comfortable with these rules because they are fairly basic. Com. Brophy: • The would-be builder of the home has the option to opt into these rules; neighbors who might oppose the project don't have that option. 13 - 163 Cupertino Planning Commission 10 September 9, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • In areas of the city where you have smaller lots such as Rancho Rinconada, have we thoroughly thought this out on the 5,000 square foot lots, where I can build 100% of the second story but the lot size is so small that it still may be difficult for me not to have a house that is too massive or out of scale with the neighborhood. • When people talk about neighborhood compatibility, what it boils down to is mass and scale and if you are on a small lot, I can see areas where that may be problematic. Where someone is on a corner facing another street, what is what is interpreted as their side yard setback (Garden Gate); their privacy may be interrupted by an adjacent property looking down upon them. How do we make sure that the programs still work and that the massing and scale is not overwhelming for small lots in particular. Gary Chao: • Many property owners having lots under 6,000 square feet that are less than 50 feet wide; have a difficult time meeting the current rule and after applying all the articulation rule, the setback, you end up with literally a hallway on the second floor. There are arguments both ways. You could stipulate that there may be some special consideration for lots under 6,000 square feet or R1-5 areas; there may be some special provisions to get at what you are talking about, ensuring that the mass is not excessive. Steve Piaseclti: • Said if you have a 5,000 square foot lot, 50 by 100, the 45% overall floor area ratio limits you to a 2,250 square feet home. Already you have a smaller house. The setback requirements of 1 O and 15 on the side yards force that house into the center of the lot as they would on a larger lot. You are getting 1 125 square feet, let's say you want 100% on the ground floor and on the second floor. You have the setbacks of 10 and 15, you are at 1125, you have to provide adornments and trellises or something to break up that building mass. Proportionally everything stays about the same and it doesn't really matter; you can argue that the position of the setbacks doesn't change as you get smaller. You have a greater obligation in terms of the relative size of your lot compared to a 10,000 square foot lot. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that was the argument made when they changed the R1 FAR to 45 feet, that it was scalable; but on smaller lots just because you are so much closer to your neighbors than on the larger lot, it is more problematic having 45% coverage. Steve Piasecki: • You could opt for some kind of scaling, although the Council said do not look at the FAR so you can still say we think it should be scaled. I think you are getting at that, because of the setback requirements and the FAR, it gets scaled down anyway. It may be more problematic for somebody who has an extraordinarily narrow lot, to accommodate the 10 and 15, if you have a 35 foot wide lot or 40 foot wide lot; you can start to see how those eat into your developable-area. • If you want to when we come back, we can try to find examples of the 5,000 square foot lots and show you how that might look. Com. Rose: • The way this has been approached, it sounds like everyone is coming to Planning saying I want to build a Craftsman house but I can't, so I am going to build a wedding cake Mediterranean. Is that is what is happening? You are getting a lot of frustrated people because the design they want, which like these pictures, they are beautiful homes, that people are 13 - 164 Cupertino Planning Comm;ssion L 1 September 9, 2008 coming in with .that vision and when they look at going through the exception process and the cost of that, they are backing up and saying they are actually fine doing the tier. Steve Piasecici: • Said his impression is that it isn't that so mcich; people azen't saying they want to build Frank Lloyd Wright CraRsman and you are making them build Mediterranean wedding cake. More likely what is happening is, they want to put a little gable end on their house and cannot do it; or the requests coming in are fairly minor things that are prohibited by our ordinances; they don't have any flexibility at all, so they er..d up with the wedding cake because everything pushes them to be uniform. Com. Rose: • I am going on the assumption of what I see primarily here that comes to us as well as what I see driving in our neighborhoods, is that it seems to be that the Mediterranean style is predominantly what people want to build when they build in Cupertino, so my question would be, is a gable considered consistent with the sLrchitectural style of a Mediterranean home? Steve Piasecld: • Said that Page 2-8 shows a Mediterranean or Spanish home with a gable. He said the ordinance was designed to please the neighbor. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Requested that all speakers given the same :amount of speaker time, whether a resident or an architect. Said that the method of giving same speakers extra time was highly unusual and requested that the speaker time be timed. • Illustrated an article from S.F. Gate, about a community in Manteca and what happens to the community with 100% buildout on the second story. She presented photos which showed the articulation in the front area of the homes; the side walls are 100% buildout with no articulation; and the two-story rear of the homes have no adornment. In a different neighborhood, she homes where they did the fronts, but not the other three sides. The. size of the homes and the fact that every developer who came into my neighborhood cut down every street tree. We have boxy big square homes all over my neighborhood, they are all over Monta Vista, a lot of them in Garden Gate. Cupertino itself was hit with this. • Said that she felt the city was a heartbeat away from monster homes. It is going to become neighbor to neighbor as it was in the pre-90s and in 2000 when Cupertino adopted a new building code that reduced the size of the homes. She said six months from now there will likely be the desire to go to 35 feet again and to have the homes that are buildable on the lots, where currently a 5,500 square foot lot can take 2,400 square feet. • Many people were relieved when they annexed into the city because there were protective building codes; that is why we had the choice of coming into Cupertino. We are on the road now to having each one of these thrown down and I think that if we go down this road we need to have an ordinance for lots less than 6,000 square feet to have a special zoning area where you cannot have over 45% or whatever the City Council has decided. 45% is still what the City Council has decided until otherwise chariged. • Said she lived through the experience for 5 to 8 years with the battles of annexation; they would be opening a Pandora'a box and it would happen all the way across the city. • Eight years and nobody believed building codes could change; R1 is being torn down. When they went through this two years ago, some of the developers said you couldn't get three bedrooms in 600 square feet on the second story; some people in Rancho Rinconada put four 13-1fi5 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 September 9, 2008 bedrooms in 600 square feet. Two years ago the second story quota was increased to 800 square feet; architects still claim today that you cannot put three bedrooms in 800 square feet. There are two plans recently in my neighborhood, one across the street, and they have three bedrooms, a massive master suite and two other bedrooms, full baths; it can be done. What we decide here is going to affect all of Cupertino; but it is also going to be devastation for Rancho Rinconada. Those examples shown earlier by staff look like gorillas in tutus; I wouldn't want any of those homes next to me: We have a lot of boxy structures in Rancho Rinconada; they are too high, too big; now the trees have grown up, you cannot really see them; there is nice people who live there, but I wouldn't want my neighbors to build anything that exceeded 45% near me; I think there are people in Cupertino who don't realize; was Creston notified? She said they had not received citywide notification on the project in nearly a month or two; and it should be heavily noticed before it goes to the City Council. The City Council should not take their final vote in October; it is too far encompassing; getting rid of the second story surcharge. She recalled the first time that was applied to homes in Rancho Rinconada in 1999 and 2000 because when they were in the County, they were put under the auspices of the Cupertino Building Code. Said she had more things to discuss but was not sure of her time limit. She commented that she had a Bachelors degree in Chemistry, and hoped that the architects didn't get to talk longer than she did because she did not consider their training any more effective. Dick Fang, Cupertino resident: • Said he was a professional designer in the area for 20 years. Tonight there is a chance to raise the second floor and ground floor more than 45%. He said he read all the staff reports and there is a sense that if you build a larger second floor, you should get nicer architectural features; but he worried that things such as processing timing or processing to get approved will get more complicated. • Said his clients want only 3% or 5% more; if you go more than 45% they only get 3% or 5% more than you go to another level of the study; that probably is not fair for the small lot; most of Cupertino lots are 6,000 square feet; Rancho Rinconada area is 4,500 or 5,000 square feet. • Said if the desire is to open from 45% to up to no limit, he suggested current zoning ordinance change to 45% to 50%, all requirements stay the same; then people can more easily get either three bedrooms of decent size upstairs or bigger size they can get four bedroom upstairs. • . They might not go to 100% of the house, 100% of the second floor; if you could split by 50%, lower than 50% keep the ordinance as is now. If people build more than 50% to 100% of the second floor, they need to think about style wise, material wise, everything, so that might be fair to all my clients' wishes. Steve Yang, Cupertino resident: • Practicing architect for 27 years. • Relative to concept, Cupertino hinges on 45, this number for about 5 years. Prior to that a smaller number and then because most of the community thinks it is a monster house, let me add to that one too, when Ms. Crriffin showed the photo on the screen, I thought it was a disaster. True; however, that property coming to a PD project is not a single family stand alone house, so it probably should have considered two types of approach for 45% or increase more, whereas for PD or single family it would come into two different solutions possible. • When you design a home the Com*.~ission brought up 100% buildout; I totally disagree with that. The reason is that being an architect designing a home you can see it, giving a size of 5,000 to 7,000 square feet you should go first floor is heavily used space, the second floor would be the bedroom normally; if 100% buildout you probably violate the 45% ratio of the FAR, that is automatic. However, I support this increase. As far as up to 100% buildout of a 13 - 166- Cupertino Planning Commission 13 September 9, 2008 single family stand alone house, in my dictionary I don't think so. I never see it; and the .city of Cupertino invited a good architect to review the design before the final. Said he had a recent project in an undisclosed city; which is called a small lot single family; and it looks like 100% bit it's not, but is a yell designed one with two story, about 800 square feet. That piece of architecture is well done plus they have an architectural review by not only the Planning Commission but also outside consultant. Before they got it approved it had to go through many layers, so I agree with this proposal of 45%. Steve Piasecki: • Clarified that the city does not use an outside architect for single family home remodels; people come in and they meet the prescriptive requirements of the ordinance; we don't go through Larry Cannon. We do for multiple family projects or single family developments where we have five or six homes; but we don't do it for the individual single families. The practice was abandoned because the ordinance became very prescriptive and it was costly and took too much time. Tom Tofigh, Cupertino resident: • Said he wanted to share his experience of the process of building a single family home he purchased in Cupertino about 2004." He re:~lized that the home was built about 56 years ago and was not energy efficient. Unfortunatel:/ the process took almost 2-1./2 years by the time they received the permit. He said the people in city hall and planning department were very nice and he appreciated all their patience. Hc: spent about $500 just for copying costs alone and his construction loan was in process. By the time he got the permit and the credit crunch arose, he lost the construction loan and was out about $40,000 just on permits, etc. The flexibility was not there, maybe if you trained the architects who do single family homes, they know what all the codes mean and how to go about it and things can go faster, but the process took such a long time that I missed the opportunity to build a new home for myself. I got to a point where there was only the demolishment permit that I needed to get, but I didn't have the financials to go forward with it. Part of it had to do with giving too much leeway to the neighbors regarding what they like to do, they didn't like the style and they wouldn't say what I could do about the style so I could change i:t. That process took such a long time. • He asked the Commission to show compassion to the people building a single family home for themselves vs. somebody who is professional and building a large number of homes and have a lot of experience. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Chair Miller: • Steve Yang brought up an interesting poir.~t; we have two standards, one for. single family homes and one for PDs. In PDs we do this as a matter of course go above 45%. Can staff comment on that difference in treatment. Steve Piasecki: • What he is referring to in almost all the PD examples of their higher density projects, Murano, or Astoria, these are projects in the 10, 12, :?O units to the acre category in most cases. There are other examples of conventional single family and if we have multiple units being built and they are developing an Oak Valley or four or five unit development, we are more concerned about how to fit that in, how to make those units work together, so we refer to the architectural 13 - 167 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 September 9, 2008 • advisor for typical single family developments, one house at a time, the remodel example; again, we don't; we found that the prescriptive requirements work fairly well so we just use those. • If you had a one unit PD project, you would have to go through the architectural advisor. The rationale is partly you are being given greater flexibility in a plan development with small lot single family homes a conventional home is being allowed. There are stricter design requirements for PDs and in return for that, they are given the flexibility to go up to 100%. Chair Miller: • What we are proposing here, is it is not going all that way, because we are less restrictive in PDs on all requirements including setbacks and lot size. Com. Kaneda: • Said he had mixed feelings; and he strongly supports architectural diversity; the wedding cake style developed in Cupertino is highly inefficient from a construction standpoint, but it requires builders to use much more material and it is environmentally not the best way to design. There is this issue of controlling mass. The conflict is between having a nice clean set of prescriptive rules which is what we are originally trying to do; so there is not a lot of subjective review involved in the process; and relaxing those rules to allow flexibility, but trying to control the quality of the building by putting in subjective review. The concern I have is we are going to create one of two things; either a bottleneck because somebody has to review all these designs and I don't agree with the idea of just doing it on projects over 45% where the second floor is over 45%; I think you should either do it or not do it. Now you are creating a situation where all these projects have to be reviewed by someone; and the other thing is because it is so subjective, there are horror stories from other cities about the architectural reviews where people just have their pet look they are trying to achieve and if you don't match it then they just dig their heels in and you cannot do. On the one hand Palo Alto does have beautiful buildings, but there have also been many complaints. in the architectural community about how hard it is to build in Palo Alto. • If we get into discussing wordsmithing different parts of the ordinance, there are other comments to make. Com. Rose: • This is an important issue to discuss because there are areas of Cupertino that are experiencing new home development on a lot by lot situation at a rapid rate; most of them are pockets annexed into Cupertino in the last 15 years. What I think drove that annexation for many of those communities, was the desire to get away from the county's building ordinance which was a lot more lax. The ratio for the first to second floor was up to 100%, and years of that and watching this new trend toward building a more modern and more current home design, we were seeing a trend toward very large homes without any architectural features and everyone just maxed out the lot. That supported a lot of the annexation that happened in the last ten years very smoothly for the city of Cupertino which worked very hard to try to lure and annex those communities. • The biggest carrot they were dangling was a process for building and also an R1 that was going to be stricter and more considerate and include such amenities as a privacy landscape plan for homes with second floors, etc., things that we were not experiencing. I live in a neighborhood that is transitional, under the county jurisdiction. I do think we have to be cautious here, there was a lot of annexation done smoothly because of the carrot of support in what was happening with development in these neighborhoods. That being said, when we look at, again, as someone who lives in.a neighborhood, any R1 changes that happen in the next 6 months, I will be witnessing within weeks and months, and constantly I see homes 13 - 168 Cupertino Planning Commission 15 September 9, 2008 every four months being built around me. I am aware of this and if I could speak for people in those communities where there is a lot of turnover; there is a lot of neighborhoods in Cupertino that do not really ever get to see the R1 in action; they are not as transitional and I think when you live- in a community that is transitional, you welcome older homes that are outdated being replaced with newer homes; it makes everything look better; often times sidewalks are improved, street lighting is unproved, so the connotation that development is a negative thing for many of the older neighborhoods is false, and with that I think. there is some frustration that there is a predominant look and feel of a Mediterranean style and they are larger homes, so they often stand out, but I don't think the changes that we are talking about here are really the right way to solve the "problem of wedding cake" which I also think is tied to the problem of one design. We talked a lot about Craftsman style homes and I don't see a lot of people wanting to build them and I don't think it is because of the FAR; I think people really want that Mediterranean look and I think whether my neighborhood was under the county ordinance or Cupertino ordinance, consistently everybody builds out to what the maximum percentage numbers are in the ordinance. If we look at simply changing a number to solve our concern about a design, I think we are going to be disappointed in solving a design problem. I think what we are going to find is just larger Mediterranean style homes. What seems to be happening when people are building these homes, it boils down to what the words are on the ordinance; even though vve can have these 7 recommendations and ask the Planning Department to make sure these homes meet these 7 things, what seems to be consistently happening when someone is presenting an existing neighborhood with a new home design and there is controversy with neighbors, you are going to find that when your new homes goes through the planning process, what is really happening in Cupertino today is it boils down to the exact thing that the ordinance says, and I think if we all ask ourselves as Planning Commissioners, when we look at a plan and it is controversial and there are two sides of the street here in front of us, we make o~~r decision boiled right down to the bare bones of that ordinance, and so if the bare bones of that ordinance says 45% plus, the objective of a high quality building material or trellis or trench, all of things get watered down and pushed around and negotiated and the plan mower forward based on a number or a privacy landscaping plan. But it doesn't go beyond that; so if we are looking at changing a number, I think we have to know that is going to be the: norm; people are going to take the maximum and do the maximum; that is what they do now, it is not going to change and when we are faced with issues, all of these good intentioned seven items are going to get watered down and we are going to end up saying, well the ordinance says you can do xyz, so we need to let them follow what the ordinance says. She said she was speaking as someone who has watched development under county and city ordinance for 15 years, someone who has also lived in a neighborhood that will be inmrediately affected by these changes and sJhe would welcome new design. I know we are not going to get smaller homes, because everyone wants a big house, but I would' like to see this done right. We are making ourselves and planners into architectural experts; there is a whole process that would. need to be developed that could really push this through correctly but I don't think this is the right way to do it. She said she was rejecting the proposal. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt it made no sense to change the second floor 10 foot setback surcharge requirement; if anything it should be easier to meet that requirement if you have a smaller first floor. I don't know why we would seriousl~r consider that. I have been going back and forth on this, we have had two previous votes on this in which I voted Yes to move it forward and between now and when we vote I still may vrobble, but I think I am leaning towazd voting No on this now. ' 13 - 169 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 September 9, 2008 The going away from a prescriptive to a subjective judgment of aesthetics is just a process that we have great trouble dealing with much more simple issues and when we have an issue that simply cannot be resolved by any definitive facts, I just think it will make things worse. I would be tempted to, if as a compromise if we could look at a smaller FAR ratio for homes that are over 45% second floor to first floor, I might consider that, but at this stage it seems to me that the benefits of modifying the R1 ordinance in this manner are just not worth the gain. Again, I am open to that; it seems to me that we have spent a great amount of time dealing with what are not the key issues. Let me offer as an alternative way of looking at it, a couple of meetings ago when we had our Lindy Lane cases, the case of the Simas house which was essentially 100% and it is probably one of the most attractive homes in the city; part of the reason it works is because the FAR on that is far below .45, so I think there is certainly a case where we could get better architecture through some process; but I guess given the other clauses within the Rl ordinance, I just don't feel comfortable that the gains would be worth it. At this stage, I will likely vote No. Vice Chair Giefer: • It seems to me that everyone who has spoken so far is in favor of promoting our architectural diversity within Cupertino; the problem is, how do we do it; plus protect the neighbor's privacy as well as the person who is building the proposed home. • I agree that the proposal before us does not solve the key issue that I hear from people in neighborhoods, which is the new home is invasive, it is too massive, it is out of scale for the neighborhood. I also agree that your neighbors should not have veto power over the home you want to build. We have heard one resident testify that he was stuck in planning for 2-1/2 years trying to get his home plan approved and because of market situations wasn't able to complete • the process. • In contrast to what Steve Yang said about the Architectural Review Board in Palo Alto, perhaps that resident would have preferred us to have had an Architectural Review Board that he and his architect could have made progress with. What is the right type of review for a city like us, and what is the right way for us to promote architectural diversity within our city. • I agree with Com. Kaneda that if we did change the process for second stories, we should have one process for all residents; any second story addition would need to go through a review process of some sort because otherwise my experience on Planning Commission is that we have processes for people under 45% second story and over 45% second story; they are not going to get it, it will just be too difficult for them to understand it. • I think that one of the things I appreciated about the sample design guidelines we were given from Los Altos and Los Gatos, is both of them talked about neighborhood sensitivity in transitional neighborhoods, and I think that is key. You need to be sensitive to the style of the neighborhood and what you want to achieve without giving your neighbors veto power. I agree with many of the Commissioners who spoke prior to me; that this is not going to achieve the objective that we want it to achieve; what I would like to suggest for discussion because I think we have a majority on this, that this would not achieve that objective, is what would. Should we send a request back to Council that perhaps we have a review board, if all second story additions go to DRC or go to an architectural review board. I have always felt that the FAR is either too big for some lots or too small for other lots the way it is today. Really it is the architectural quality that we need to focus on. Perhaps what we should ask Council to do is let us review the R1 in total. As a response we are adding an architectural review board for second story additions. Chair Miller: • The current ordinance was changed in 1999, and the reason was because people were wonted about mass and bulk. They were addressing mass and bulk and they addressed it not 13 - 170 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 September 9, 2008 necessarily by reducing the overall floor to area ratio but by instilling stricter setbacks. Before 1999, they didn't have any first floor to second floor ratio, and in 1999 they made it 35% of th4e first floor. There was some discussion about the intent of the Planning Commission at that time; it was really to make it larger than .SS% but somehow when it got to Council, it got changed and moved down to 35%. One of the things I am struggling with is we: don't want to increase mass and bulk but we are considering making the second story a little larger and the second story correspondingly smaller and staff s view are we going back to pre-1999 by doing this or not. Steve Piaseclci: • The effect was to have the greater setbacks to offset the second floor, to push it in. They increased the second floor FAR compared t:o the first, in effect it was a tradeoff, we will let you have more second floor but you have to set it in with surcharges. As long as you maintain the second story setbacks, you are not goin€; back to pre-1999 because you lrnow the concern about privacy, the window is in the same position as it is with the lower floor. Chair Miller: • With respect to the neighbors, these ratios and these things come into play because of our concern for neighbors' privacy and access 'to air and light. As long as we have the second story setbacks in place, regardless of what t:he size of the second story is, I believe we have achieved that; we still have the second story can't be any closer to the neighbor than it currently is, and we still have all the requirements for privacy. I am not seeing where increasing the second story makes any difference in terms of how it is perceived by the neighbors. If anything, the neighbors might perceive that the houses are built a little further away; there is a little more space because t]ie first story is going to shrink, meaning that the setbacks could potentially be larger on the first story. • The next thing that went through my mind- was listening to Com. Kaneda's comment which was a good one, and that is that if we are going to consider design review, it shouldn't be broken at 45%; so my .question on that now, we have more of a prescriptive ordinance presently and we are not doing detailed design review below 45% and my question is how is it working. Are we getting bad or good design:; in staff's view. Gary Chao: • A mixture of both; there are decent designs; ;~ lot of people tend to spend a lot of time with the detailing, but the majority are standard development constructions and could use more embellishments, and quality material. If desired, you could design something within our ordinance that looks good. Com. Brophy: • If we are not doing much review on single family homes, why did it take the last gentleman 2-1/2 years to get his house through? Steve Piasecki: • Said he did not have any facts relating to the case; I can't tell you how it would take so long; it should not have. Gary Chao: • It normally takes two to three weeks to turn a preliminary set of plans back to them. Once it is back to them, it is up to the architect to mace the appropriate changes, if any. It should not take more than two months to get out of the preliminary conceptual review process and get to the application phase which takes about one month and a half. 13 - 171 Cupertino Planning Cornrn~ssion 18 September 9, 2008 Chair Miller: • Com. Rose mentioned that her concern was that if we allowed a greater second story, people will go to the limit and max it out. In all other cities around here where there isn't a limit on the second story, in staff's view, does everybody max out their second story. Steve Piaseclci: • Said he was not certain he had enough facts to help. If the question is, do people try to max out the total allowable FAR that is a standard response, whether it is a 35% FAR overall or 45%; land is expensive and people don't have the luxury of living in a grand estate; so many people are doing that. h-i -other jurisdictions, the process is much. more onerous than it is in ours; I have seen examples in other comnzuniries where applicants are brought forth very attractive designs and have been told they have to change it and modify it and go through a lot of processes. To your question, generally it is probably true that people attempt to build as much as they can total FAR. I have not seen a second floor to first floor as a rule in other cities, I think we are a bit uncommon in that regard. Chair Miller: • Steve Yang spoke to that to some extent and said that it is not likely people are going to go 100% on the second story. I am not sure I have seen that bear out and I am hearing an architect say that he hasn't seen it in his experience. Com. Rose: • She said to go to Garden Gate where most of the homes that were built in the County where you were allowed to do that are sheer wall, second floor to first. Steve Piaseclci: • Pointed out that the vast majority of homes in the community are already there; there are 18,000 or 19,000 housing units total, and of those 8,000 to 10,000 are single family; most of what is seen is remodeling activity and it is physically difficult in a remodel to shape it so that it is 100% because you are usually trying to build something over something that exists. • Steve Yang is correct that you are probably not going to see 100% as a rule; if you are building a new home you may want to take advantage of it more so, and that is Com. Rose's point, is that any new home they are going to try to do that because it is more efficient to build up at the walls. What we are suggesting here is you will have a process and some requirements that will replace what would have been a first story element with other architectural elements to soften and control and make it look more attractive. That does require that you go through some type of process. Chair Miller: • Com. Brophy and Vice Chair Giefer mentioned that perhaps another way to approach this would be to reduce the FAR. I am in agreement with that, particularly after we had Vye Avenue applications. However, the Council is not, and we have already gone that route. Vice Chair Giefer suggested and sent it back to the Council saying we want to review the whole R1 and the Council rejected that. I am not in favor of asking the Council a second time to do something they rejected the first time. When I think of what the benefits of increasing the second story over the first story are, I firmly believe that it is a functionality benefit; we are helping the residents in terms of functionality. • I believe that staff is correct in that we will be increasing the diversity of styles in the neighborhood instead of having one monolithic style. I like the idea that we are giving people the opportunity to have a smaller footprint; by having a smaller footprint means that there is 13 - 172 Cupertino Planning Commission 19 September 9, 2008 more landscaping, there is more green area and there is more open space for each resident in the city, instead of forcing everyone to maximize their first story and all we see is home after home right up to the setback limits and lots of house and very little open space and green area. The challenge is what kind of process do you put in place because there is a concern that you are not going to get good design and that is :a very large challenge. Said it was frightening to think they were not architects, and the DRC is not going to be in a position to look at architecture, and it was mentioned that staff has some architectural skills but they are not formal architects and the last thing we need to do is be putting lay folks in the position of defining architectural style and certainly picking out what, to make sure that we are consistent with a particular architectural style. Steve Yang also mentioned that it was rare that you find a true architectural style where the house is totally consistent. Said he felt he was in the minority, but thought the benefits of increasing the second story outweigh the disadvantages and was struggling with how, if the Commission is concerned with the quality of what they get out of this, how to achieve that and still work with the idea, at least for-the applications that come to therm. Said he was not unhappy with the architectural styling and the architecture of the houses seen, but they don't see a lot of the houses that staff approves. If there is a benefit to going to a larger second story and the fact that none of our neighboring towns have instituted an ordinance like we have, speaks to the fact that there- is not a lot of support in the region, in fact, for limiting the size of the second story. Again, I think that one solution might be to reduce the FAR but we are not at liberty to do that unless we ask Council is they would want to reconsider that particular option. Com. Brophy: • It is true that the second floor to first floor ratio item really strikes me as kind of a strange tool with which to control design and I wish we lead better ones. A lower FAR would work because that is what most of the cormnunities we-are comparing ourselves to do. A number of them are at 35%. I have been wobbling on both sides of the issue and I guess at this point, I feel that, while I think the proposal .has merit, I think that without addressing the underlying problem of homes that are too large for the lots. The benefits, given the stress on the community and unhappiness between neighbors, will not outweigh the cost. • Said he was prepared to switch sides and vote No. Chair. Miller: • If we made a recommendation to increase the second story and also recommend that the FAR be reduced accordingly, would that be more supported from your standpoint. Com. Brophy: • Yes, but I am not willing to go with a 7roposed ordinance. I would just send it as a recommendation to the City Council. I have seen that the little caveats seem to disappear when they make it to the Council, so if we want to send it as a recommendation, that is fine, but not as a proposed ordinance. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she concurred with Com. Brophy, because it would be very easy for them to send it to Council. If they send it back to Council and said they would go with no second story ratio provided that the FAR was lowered to 35%, and hold no public hearings on that, she would be uncomfortable just stating that, although it would probably address many of the issues that come up to often. • Sending it back to Council and saying no, bL.t we recommend that we vote No on this proposal but would like to do is open up FAR or opera up the entire Rl because there are other things in 13 - 173 Cupertino Planning Commission 20 September 9, 2008 the Rl that need correcting besides FAR. • Said she was not opposed to getting rid of a second story ratio, but if you are trying to add 3 to 5% to the second floor, you are just reducing the bottom floor by 2 to 3%; which is not a lot; it is negligible in terms of the impact of this policy; I don't really see any difference there. Com. IKaneda: • Palo Alto has a strong architectural review Board; it got quite a strong diversity of projects. I know their process is set up with-view planes, so you can do a straight two story building that doesn't have a setback. Los Gatos also has a large diversity of architecture; do they have a similar Architectural Review Board type process; I am not familiar with their process. (Staff responded that they do) • City Council asked us to look at the ratio first floor to second floor, but somehow a stronger architectural review process got slipped into the mix. Is that because the cities that we have studied that have a different way of controlling buildings and building styles that seem to have a nice. result; is that the consistent theme that you found that they have a strong architectural review board. Steve Piasecki: • Said he did not know if he would make the correlation directly, but they couldn't think of any other way to handle the issue of the straight up walls short of some kind of additional process; and they were not comfortable trying to do a prescriptive rule about architecture. • They are going through more process; and the process is either some kind of rigorous Design Review Board or Planning Commission review. There is an open public forum process review. • We mentioned that we had taken the architectural advisor out of the process and went to the more prescriptive one. You could put the architectural advisor back into the process; it would cost about $1,000 per home and he could do a very good job of providing comments. We also try to coach applicants because we see a lot of dumb designs and we know enough when we see a dumb one to try to help people not do that; it is not in their own self interest. We have no authority to force it one way or another and we don't. Chair Miller: • If the main concern is the vertical walls, why not just address the vertical walls if an application has vertical walls in it, then why not that's the trigger point where we require more intensive design. That is what I thought you were saying your main concern is vertical walls. Steve Piasecki: • That is one of the principle concerns and you could try to address it that way, but I think as Com. Rose pointed out, you are going to have people pushirig that limit. I have a two inch offset to my wall, therefore it is not vertical. You have to define what you mean by vertical. Vice Chair Giefer: - • Commented that she heard at least three people agreed that this doesn't work for them and she said what might be abetter use of their time is to focus on what is the right response to Council. Do we want to send this back to them and say No, it doesn't work, we want to add an Architectural Review for all second stories to try to promote architectural diversity, because that seems to work in neighboring communities where they do that. • Said she did not have a problem sending it back to Council, saying it doesn't work, and that they want to review the R'. The Council can make the decision whether or not they want the Commission to pursue it, and if so, begin public hearings on it. 13-'174 Cupertino Planning Commission 21 September 9, 2008 Chair Miller: • Said Com. Kaneda commented on the desi~~-- review process; then we talked about having an architect as a possible solution. My feeling on design review boards, I am hesitant to have lay people commenting on architecture that the}~ don't know about, but I probably wouldn't have a yroblem with an architect looking at situations that we define as important, and Com. Brophy and you suggested that if lowered the FAR, that might be more acceptable to Commission. I think we probably have a majority in support of that as well; I think we are headed in the right direction. Vice Chair Giefer: • Do we want to start getting consensus arou~id those items, because I also heard Com. Brophy say that he is hesitant on sending a recommendation such as that because Council tends to piecemeal what we send to them, and they joist take the acceptance of getting rid of the second and not worry about the FAR. Chair Miller: • Asked if there was any reason for them to ask staff to do further research and come back at a later time, or is a motion appropriate. Com. Brophy: • Said he did not think they were at a point v~here additional staff work would move them any further along. Com. Rose: • I think we can make a motion; what I am hearing and we can discuss this, there is an interest across the Council even to some degree staff, and ourselves on the Planning Commission in making the architectural look and feel of new building in Cupertino have more diversity than it does today. Doing that in a way that enhances neighborhoods and unifies neighborhoods as best it can, and I don't think that is somethin;~ that is too high to expect of our community Com. Brophy: • Said he was not happy with the idea of committing to an Architectural Review Board; and from what friends in the architectural community have described to him about the Palo Alto experience, the San Francisco experience, he was hesitant to support that process. • Said he agreed that they should recommend they not go forward with the change to the first floor second first floor ratio unless at the .sery least the FAR is reduced; and he would be willing to open up other areas of Rl if nec~sssary. He said if there was such an interest, he would be very reluctant to emphasize Architectural Review Board based on what he knows. Com. Kaneda: • You were asking my thoughts on the langua;~e, and my thoughts were more focused primarily on the architectural issues, so that is irrelevant at this point. Vice Chair Giefer: • Commented on Com. Brophy's comment. If they strike adding an Architectural Review Board at this time, if Council decided that we should review the R1 to clean it up and make changes to FAR, then that might be an outcome of that review at that time if it makes sense because we don't hear a lot of complaints about Saratol;a and Los Gatos, and Los Altos that I know all have them, so perhaps it is better for us to spend some time understanding that. 13 - 175 Cupertino Planning Commission 22 September 9, 2008 Chair Miller: • We both know that opening up the R1 could entail a year's worth of effort; personally I don't think that is realistic, not from staff's time, not from our time and not that the Council is willing to accept. We can ask them again to do that, we have already asked them once and they said No, so I am not sure what benefit there is in going down that route again. On the other hand, if we can identify some very limited areas in the R1 that enhance what we are trying to do here, then I see benefit in going back along that line, and perhaps they would reconsider it at that point. There has been some acceptance about possibly reconsidering lowering the FAR in order to do that; maybe the time when you do lower the FAR is when you have these buildings that have larger second stories in order to compensate for what some people feel is greater mass and bulk. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said it was an interesting point of view, but going to the comment about going through the R1 looking for things that would support this language, we would be opening it up anyway. I think the proposal before us now is not one I am hearing consensus on. As the seconder, I would be comfortable striking the point of design review on this if the motioner would also accept that. Com. Rose: • Our comment would be to recommend that we open up the FAR or the entire R1 to look at how to better address design diversity. She summarized the motion: We do not recommend that the City Council adopt the RI ordinance amendment regarding the first floor to second floor ratio requiremezzt,• but instead recommend that we open up the FAR and closely related matters which impact design diversity. Com. Kaneda: • We are talking about FAR, second story ratio and design diversity. Com. Rose: • Correct, we are trying to achieve design diversity in our R1 ordinance. Com. Rose: • To properly address design diversity, the Planning Cormmission recommends that to properly address design diversity, they would need to examine areas of the R1, FAR and second story ratio. Com. Kaneda: • Said he felt they were talking about three things; the requirements of the Rl FAR, the requirements of the R1 second story ratio, and how to encourage or increase design quality. Vice Chair Giefer: • What I am hearing is that in addition to FAR and the second story to first story ratio, it is the design guidelines that actually need to be strengthened to promote architectural diversity and better quality design and execution within the city of Cupertino. Steve Piasecki: • Said there wasn't much in the form of design guidelines in the current Rl; it is prescriptive, and you can do just about what you want. 1 3 - '176 Cupertino Planning Commission 23 September 9, 2008 Chair Miller called a brief recess to allow staff time to compose the appropriate wording for the motion. Chafr Miller: • When you just address design diversity, that is a staff concern, but the applicants that come up here, their main concern is design functionality. I think there is a major word missing in there. The issue here is that the small second story limits design functionality or limits functionality period. Staff has a concern about design diversity, but the intent of changing the ordinance I think is primarily from a functionality standpoint. Steve Piaseclci: • The flip side of what we are talking about is just the uniformity of design that-you are getting now. We get variations on a theme, but it's much the same thing. Vice Chair Giefer: • If our recommendation is to deny this proposal, what is missing is we don't specifically address the area we were told to look at which is second floor ratio. She suggested rather than talking about residential functionality, to put back in the key of this reviewing FAR and perhaps be very explicit of its impact to second floor area ratio, She said they could get rid of that ratio, and only need one ratio second floor/first floor ratio). • Asked the Commission if it is explicit enough that their intent is to review FAR as part of this. Steve Piasecld: • That would be the wording "and consideration of the overall impact of the allowable floor area" which is FAR. Where it says "overall" take out the words "in consideration of the allowable floor area and second floor to first floor". Corn. Brophy: • Said he thought there was a good case to be made for being clear that is what they wanted to look at. Once again, if they say No, it would be a dead subject and move on. Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Vice Chair Giefer, that the Planning Commission does not recommend the proposed approach to deal with the second floor to first floor ratio. The Planning Commission recommends that the concern for design diversity and functionallity are better addressed by evaluating a more comprehensive design review process for two story homes, and consideration of the allowable floor area ratio and second floor to first floor ratio. (Vote: 4-1-0; Chair Miller No) None No meeting. Housinu Commission: ~I~o meeting. No report. No mee 7ng. 13 - 177 Cupertino Planning Commission 23 July 8, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • One riiUFe~because it is not specifically stated here; and as we are EXHIBIT E and other p s, we are going to have abutting uses to one ano that wherever po le, we are not chopping up par ots ingress/egress between varied ownership. For ple, if for any reason xose t3owl had parking access that abutted u o the Sand I-Ii roperty, and there were two different parking lots, I would want one to be able tra etween both of those land ownership parking lots and not have any barriers separa ' o parking lots; so I would like it to be specifically stated that "all parking lots accessible b een the different ownership groups." Said she agreed with amendrn to allow for the protec ' of residential areas. It is between the commercial/reta" aces; residential I agree should be otected, so I am not including that, but for yolrr-commercial parking, anybody should be able ark anywhere where they can fmd a- space. She said because it is under multiple ownership, s ould like it to be very obvious that that is the expectation. Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Com. Kaneda, to recommend approval of the Master Plan as amended. (Vote: 5-0.O) Chair Miller declared a recess. 4. MCA-2008-03 Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family Rl Ordinance City of Cupertino (Section 19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second Citywide Location floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The Revised Ordinance wilt consider adjusting the allowed ratio to facilitate greater architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or changing the required second story setbacks. Continuedrrom the May I3, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the background of the application for discussion of the RI Ordinance fast floor to second floor ratio requirements, as outlined in the staff report. On May 6, 2008 the City Council amended the Planning Commission work program for 2007-OS to include a limited review of the R1 ordinance, specifically regarding the size of second floor ratio compared with the ground floor, with recommendations to be presented to the City Council by October 2008. Citywide notification was mailed out as well as the creation of an information webpage with hearing information, related resources regarding Rl and the current regulations • Relative to the review framework, the focus will be considering whether there should be any adjustments to the required ratio of the second floor size to the ground floor. We also think that if the Planning Commission desires some adjustments, the rule pertaining to the total allowable exposed second floor wall height should also be considered since it goes hand in hand. Currently the ordinance requires second floor to not exceed 45% of the ground floor, or 750 sq. ft. whichever is greater. 7n addition, the existing ordinance also has a provision that says all the perimeter second floor walls shall not be over 6 feet in height exposed up to 50%. • He emphasized that it was a limited review, meaning for the viewers that the Council did not want us to look into tweaking the building areas or second story setbacks, and they want to look at ways to look within the existing ordinance infrastructure and see how we can facilitate greater architectural diversity. The City Council has expressed concerns and some concerns expressed by the residents that the exiting Rl Ordinance limits diversity of architecture. As part of the last R1 process, one of the changes at the time was to allow for a slight increase of the second floor ratio from 35% to 45%; at that time it was a reasonable accommodation to 13-'178 Cupertino Planning Commission 24 July 8, 2008 allow people to have a third bedroom upstairs to have enough room to have reasonable functionality of a second floor. In this ea::e, the consideration is different; it is not to allow people to have a larger second floor per se„ but the focus should be on allowing people some flexibility of the ratio so that other types of architecture could be fitted within the envelope. We have been hearing that the existing 45°.% second floor to ground floor ratio restricts, even though it covers mass and bulk, but it prevents other types of architecture such as Victorian style, true Craftsman style, and the fact that the 50% second floor wall exposure also contributes. to that limitation. As a result, v~hat we are seeing more is the repetitiveness of the "wedding cake" azchitecture as the dominant architecture and there is not going to be a lot of flavor and character, if you will that one would agree from a community like Los Gatos or Los Altos would have. Because of the resttictio0n on the size and second floor, people aze trying to increase their ground floor to accommodate for the size of the second floor that they want. It is counter intuitive, people don't necessariily need the square feet, but they are providing it to get the sufficient room they want upstairs. Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner: • Reviewed the various architectural styles in Cupertino, which are illustrated and detailed in the staff report. She also reviewed the design guidelines of other communities such as Los Gatos and Los Altos which are outlined in the staff'report. Gary Chao: • Said that staff believes that in order to achieve architectural diversity, one doesn't necessarily have to tweak the setback or the floor area ratio; they are proposing ordinance solution that by incorporating appropriate design review pro:~ess and the finding design principles that one can apply, that you can achieve architectural diversity through that process. Therefore homes may be allowed potentially to exceed the 45% :second floor limit and/or exceed the 50% second floor exposed wall rule if they are designed :appropriately. Staff is suggesting that the Director of Community Development may grant the approval to allow the second floor to exceed the 45% and at the same time to exceed the 50°,% wall rule provided that the following principles and techniques are met: ~ Ensure appropriate architectural interest and compatibility with neighborhood design theme and character, -s Ensure appropriate building mass and sc:ite; -~ Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure (maintain symmetry, proportion and balance). ~ It preserves the existing 45% rule, but if one wishes to exceed that, we could facilitate that process in exchange for better architecture and more diversity. The principles are to ensure appropriate architectural interest and compatibility with the neighborhood design in terms of theme and character, and some of that are adding visual interest such as balconies, porches, overhangs, and trellises, many of the things already touched upon. The decision of the Director may be appealed to the Design Review Coxrunittee. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt the Rl Ordinance amendment as proposed with the provision to also cover the 50% maximum second story wall exposure rule. Chair Miller: • Asked staff to review the process and the type of review that goes on today for two story residences in Cupertino. Gary Chao: • All two stories are discretionary review- it is state level approval; however, we would advertise 13-'179 Cupertino Planning Commission 25 July 8, 2008 the proposal to adjacent neighbors or neighbors within 300 feet. When an application is received, story poles are required to be erected, notice boards to be posted in front of the project site to disclose a floor plan and a rendering of the development. The adjacent neighbors are given a two week comment period before staff entertains approval or a decision; a decision of the Planning Department is appealable to the Design Review Committee. • The process for a second story greater than 45% is the same as what is being done now; it has been noticed already. It will be treated at staff level with neighborhood notification. Staff is suggesting that the decision of the Director can be appealed to the DRC. Presently there are no design guidelines or instructions how to treat some of the plain facades that may be prevalent in a more traditional architectural style. • Staff is suggesting that there be a special process and review process for that purpose with detailed guidelines for people wishing to exceed their second floor ratio. Vice Chair Giefer: • Recalled than when the Rl was reviewed, she and Com. Miller were the only two Commissioners still serving who were part of the process; the Committee determined that they wanted it to be as prescriptive as possible to eliminate the necessity of design guidelines and to incorporate as many of those features directly into the Rl. Steve Piasecld: • Said that when an applicant comes in and is informed they have some options, you can come in with a 45% second floor to first floor ratio; it is essentially one-third of the second, two- thirds on the ground floor. We were using the ground floor building area to act as that softening of that second story building wall. You can come in that way; you still notice your neighbors and they still have the opportunity for input. The alternative is you can go higher than that; essentially you are stripping away that softening element but you need to replace it with something else, and staff has described all the something elses that we would expect. We still notify the neighbors, but the applicant should talk to the neighbors before they apply for one of the options to make sure their preference isn't just privacy is the most important issue. You would replace it again with other elements, and then you would hopefully work it out with your neighbor before you come into the city. We would review it, notice the neighbors and if the neighbors want to appeal it to the DRC, it would be resolved in that format. and/or the Planning Commission. Staff will not be in the middle. Com. Brophy: • Has staff received any feedback from architects or local home builders relative to the proposed changes? Gary Chao: • Said they have spoken to several local architects who have done work in town and they all agree that if you were to tweak the second floor 45% ratio without tweaking the 50% rule, it is not going to work. Many of them admit what we have now; they have their system down in terms of satisfying their clients needs, and at the same time designing something that is acceptable to staff: However, they do recognize the fact that it is pretty much it; everything is going to look like a wedding cake and that precludes their ability to provide any other type of architecture and that the direction they are headed toward is a positive one. Com. Brophy: • In a lot of the town the wedding cake style of architecture is so predominant that people would fmd exceptions to that on new lots to be objectionable. I was wondering if that was .a problem. People get unhappy if you want to build something that is different from what the neighbors 13-~80 Cupertino Planning Commission 26 July 8, 2008 have; and I was wondering whether or not ~~re are opening up a new can of worms here. Gary Chao: • We have heard that before as well. That is why the term wedding cake came about. We get it both ways; often times people complain about repetitiveness of new style of architecture which is prescribed by our current ordinance; but then there are some who are resistant to the . different theme or style of architecture. It is important to note that a lot of the things we are discussing are to still respect the theme and character of the neighborhood. It is the main focal point of this proposal. Steve Piasecki: • Said it was important to note that what is being suggested is if you want to go in this direction, you need to replace it with something like this. Com_ Brophy: • Said that coming beck from the most recent DRC meeting that he and Vice Chair Giefer attended, they both had some second thoughts as to the vote we had on allowing exception to the second story setbacks. He said he wouIdi feel better if they are going to allow lazger se-cond floors; they could add a clause that makes it clear that the policy is to be skeptical of exception requests, especially for those homes that are at or near the maximum FAR Com. Rose: • Asked if someone today wanted to exceed the second floor ratio as it stands, do they have the option of asking for an exception, but it will not fit t he 45%; is there a process for that or is it automatically not allowed. Gary Chao: • There is a process for that; it would be an ail exception request; it would go directly to the DRC instead of staff level review. We haven't had a formal proposal as such since the last ordinance change. A lot of the times people's fear is that the word exception is not really accepted to neighbors once it is being noticed. Now we would likely entertain something like that if the architecture is superior; however, being that there is no case study in the past, it will be interesting how the DRC is going to treat that as well. Com. Rose: • Using the same argument you are using, you are suggesting a change if it was an attractive house that had treatments and landscaping, and side wraps and high quality materials and preserve mature landscaping and positive conversations with the neighbors; then it could very likely happen for that person. Steve Yiasecld: • Said it could be approved; it would need two exceptions: the second floor to first floor, plus the 50% wall plane and you have no rules or ;guidance about how to judge that. All this would do is give you some rules and language that would back up the granting of that. It wouldn't be called an exception. Com. Rose: • If this were to move forward as proposed witih the typical noticing of the ncighbors within the 300 feet, would it call out the change to Uie second floor area ratio as something that is different about this house? 13 - 181 Cupertino Planning Commission 27 July 8, 2008 Gary Chao: • Said it would be part of the legal description of the project on a notice that goes out. • Expiained the 50% wall plane rule. If you take all four walls of the second floor; the linear walls and stretch them out, you will get a total linear feet of the perimeter walls; the ordinance says that 50% of it has to be 6 feet or less in height exposed; and it goes into specifics as to how that could be accomplished. It cannot be just a trellis or lattice structure or some type of fake architectural skirt or roof around the ground floor; it has to be an enclosed structure down below with its roof going up to cover that wail up to 6 feet. You can have in theory two sides of the wall completely flushed all the way from ground floor to second floor; however, the other two have to be extremely recessed and indented. We don't normally see that happen; usually it is a combination of some vertical wall on the same elevation and some roof being used to serve as that cover Com. Kaneda; • Said he was under the impression that you could not have a two story wall anywhere at any time. Steve Pissecld: • ~ Said that people have been complying with that after a lot of explanation from staff. It is one of the most difficult things people have to comply with. . Com. Kaneda: - • Said that he generally supported what you are going for, but one of the issues becomes, there is a fine line between some of the projects you shared that were bad and some of the projects that you shared that were very nice and it boils down to architectural aesthetics. It is a good idea to ask the Planning Commission and City Council to make their judgment calls; that is the big difficulty. Palo Alto has an ARB that is famous; the buildings are nice, but difficult for the architects to get a building through the process. He said even though he liked the concept, how would it be done in real life? Steve Piaseclci: • Said it was a good point; this is where the rub is; you end up bringing in a greater level of design review and process and you are correct, and the communities that exercise this level of design review, it can be torture. • For the record, staff did not bring this forward, but we are trying to give you a method that will be between the two extremes, and the only one we can think of is we have a higher expectation of design, the proof is in the pudding, talk to your neighbors, bring it to the DRC or staff first, and if it looks like some of the pictures shown, we are likely going to approve it and anyone can appeal it. If it is anything significantly Iess than that, then we are not going to approve it; it will go to the DRC, and you are likely going to have a fight with your neighbors. The biggest rub here is people spend a lot of money designing houses, and they don't want to get too far down the line before they know that they have a winner. It can be 1 O% or 15% of the project costs, a half million dollar home is pretty expensive. You are identifying one of the real issues that comes up. Com. Kaneda: • Is there any value in coming up with a sliding scale based on lot size for the 45%. Steve Pissecld: ~ Said there is; the Commission can make any. recommendation to the Council; you can look at other options such as sliding scales, lower FARs, but it was not the direction from Council. 13 - 182 Cupertino Planning Commission 28 Tuly 8, 2008 Com. Kaneda: • Said he was concerned about matching the predominant style of the neighborhood. Some of the neighborhoods have a lot of variety and the Eichler neighborhoods are also attractive. Said he was concerned about putting in a set of rules for neighborhoods, especially for those that already have two story wedding cake, Mediterranean style, developer-looking California suburban homes which are now locked irrto that, and all the homes in that neighborhood theoretically have to match that style. Steve Piasecld: • Said it was an excellent point, and said it was offered on numerous occasions to neighborhoods who have strong opinions about being one-story ranches or Eichlers. A case can be made if you can show that there is a dominant style, and that is what the super majority of the neighborhood wants to live with; however, it is extremely difficult to get the super majority to agree. Com. Rose: • Asked questions how many homes are torn down and rebuilt per year, single family tgwo story residences; (sta„~''responded about SO,• major remodels with removal of a large portion of the house would be between I00-ISO per year.) • Are a lot of builders building less than they are allowed to based on their lot ratios and second floor ratios; is there a trend toward people being more concerned about a certain style of home or are they prioritizing how much house the3~ can get on the lot based on the ordinance. Gary Chao: • Said the current ordinance does an adequate job in allowing a reasonable size of houses compared to the lot size; we are not hearing people complain about why they can't build a bigger house, but most of the houses coming; in are coaxed out. What we are hearing is people saying they wished they could have done something different; you are designing my house for me; the home owner doesn't have a lot of flexibility, but doing as prescribed. Coco. Rose: • Said that the photos of homes illustrated a sh/le of home she did not see a lot in Cupertino; and wondering if you have, what I tend to see is i3re Meditenanean style and I am curious how that is going to look with the proposed 50% second floor ratio. Although the homes were attractive, she did not see that as a preferred style within the development that tends to happen residentially in Cupertino. She questioned i.f it was misleading to put that out there because that may not be what will be seen if the second floor ratio is changed. Gary Chao: • Said there were some Mediterranean styles that work; they tend to be boxy, but there are appliquBs and features that one could incorporate into it that will address the concern. He said that many of the Mediterranean homes in Cupertino are not true to fonm. The genuine style have a lot of recessed windows, cantilivers, attractive materials that go into the design. • He said that indirectly the design is locked in when a plan set is approved, especially atwo- story proposal, all the features are part of the approval. A covenant could be entertained to disclose to the future property owner that there should be special review if something on the house is changed. Steve Piaseclci: • Said that people max out to the 45% overall floor area ratio; if the house sells and sells again 13-'183 Cupertino Planning Commission 29 July 8, 2008 and the new property owner applies to put in a shed and his request is denied. You pre-empt all flexibility when you go to the maximum FAR, and it creates problems because every new owner wants to put their stamp on it. ' Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Matthew Klein, Cupertino resident: • Back in the 1930s, 40s to 70s, we didn't build 3,000 square feet second stories over 1,000 square feet first stories; we didn't have houses like this. A few people on Prospect decided to was offended. Hence, back to Com. Rose's question, why can't you build this house in Cupertino; because if you look at the second story you will see that it is more than 45%, it is more than 50%; in fact if you have it over the enclosed porch, call it 125% or 130%.. We have 125% roughly second floor to first floor; it incorporates an enclosed porch which is the state of design goal of the Cupertino Planning Commission but there is no affected enforcement of it or affected encouragement of it because if you do a 45% second story over something like this enclosed porch, you cannot build it. This is impossible today io build a building like this in Cupertino. Why is it people are building monstrosities wedding cakes? It goes back to Com. ICaneda's comment, this 50% exposed wail is very complicated but it is the single most objective thing and the single most important thing that is driving the wedding cake design_ It is in fact a defacto additional setback of the second wall plane over the first wall. Forget the general setbacks 20, 25, 15 feet surcharges; in order to get that 6 foot exposed on your second wall, you have to come up with a structural feature against it, typically a roof line, so every new building monstrosity in Cupertino, we are forced to look at people's roofline at the mid horizontal plane of their building. I don't want to look at your roofline, I don't want to look at your molars, but why is it that every single building we are forced to look at people's rooflines, because the architects and designers are forced to give you that feature in order to satisfy the exposed wall requirements. People don't want to build monstrosities and wedding cakes, they have to because people in Cupertino have children; if you want to add a second story to an existing building, i.e. a remodel which is different than new construction and you want to have your children live on the same floor as you, you want to have enough square footage to do that. But with an existing ranch style L-ranch, you are limited to 45% of your existing; typically these houses have 6,000 to 8,000 square foot lots, but to do a remodel you have to satisfy 45%, and with requirements for staircases and foyers, you are going to spend a lot of money to get 700 usable square feet upstairs; and the reason is because the 50% rule require§ an imposed setback from the fu~st plane. The existing house doesn't have sheer walls, or a foundation sufficient-for that so you have to remove the roof and spend a fortune to get a small second story addition. The family decides to sell and move to another city. The next buyer purchases the home and demolishes it and builds a monstrosity home. We have no design guidelines for windows. Delete the 50% exposed rule; delete the 45%; owners know what to do; no one is going to build a 4,000 square foot second story over 1,000 square foot. You can't do it because the setbacks won't permit it and the FAR won't permit it. Hence, regulations and setbacks on top of the setbacks are ridiculous; it is producing the monstrosity buildings which have been in the last ten years, and we scratch our heads and wonder why we have this mess; it is because of your design guidelines. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rincoaada resident: • She questioned why they were reopening the R1 ordinance; it is completely different than what was discussed in March. How did we wind up having this go to 50% and breaking up the sheer wall plane. This is contradictory to Rl; we are basically reopening the entire thing. • She expressed concern about the monster homes and creating big boxes, and Rancho 13 - 184 Cupertino Planning Commission 30 July 8, 2008 Rinconada is going to have to have a special zoning, Rl-R, just lake Fairgrove, the Eichler community. We have lots that are less than 5,000 square feet, my house is 800 sq. f3., now if we ever put a second story in, I am committed to putting in second story setbacks because I respect my neighbor's privacy. We have a balcony going up; across the street and that has completely upset the neighbors. Gary Chao designed a wedding cake house which has made the neighbors okay with the balcony, and the balcony looks right into all our homes. I saw the first story going up today; my neighbor across the street with two small children is going to have a balcony looking directly into her kitchen and backyard. The reason why we have R1 today; if we are going down this road, let's reopen the entire thing; I have spent hours and hours in this oily in these meetings discussing R1, so let's take it to the entire limit; my brother when they put a second story on their 1892 Victorian home in Los Gatos, it took 9 months to go through the code. Let's do it; let's have every possible little building restriction; let's limit the colors to six colors like you do with the Victorian in Los Gatos. In my neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada we need second story setbacks, we need neighbors' privacy to maintain our lovely wedding cake homes and some of our old Rancho homes. Matt ICamkar, Cupertino resident: • In favor of application. • I would like to urge to support and change; the 45% rule. Here are some of the issues that were not discussed. • When you make the second story larger compared to the first story, that gives you a bigger back yard; I believe a bigger back yard goes into both more green space and better quality of -life for your family. It would also be less strain on city resources as parks. The other reason I believe we need to do that is Vice Chair Giefer referred to purple pipe. The purple pipe will allow a bigger back yard gives you better miore room to do rainwater capture on a small well within your site and use the water for irrigation and landscaping. Second story, the current regulations will discourage solar panels because the angle of the roofs that come into the walls so a smaller £ust story which would be the result of this regulation being passed will create smaller roofs and smaller foundations which is more resource conservation. Finally, if a potential homebuilder has a choice between the property on our side of the border vs. San Jose that goes to Cupertino schools, they would chose the San Jose side and take the city of the opportunity to get funding and property tax upgrade that comes with more transactions within the city. For these reasons, I believe vve should go ahead and increase the 45% rule. Dennis Liu, Cupertino resident: • I am a developer and currently working with an architect to design a new house in Cupertino area and I just found out it is very difficult with the 45% law; my architect said it was impossible to build a two story house with three bedrooms on the same floor. As you know most of the family in this area that still have more than one child, so with this 45% rule, you can only build a maximum of two rooms on the same floor: We have forced the family to separate the children on a different floor, which creates a difficulty for some of the families. I work with many realtors in this area and they told me that they are all facing this problem; the young family moving into the area really like: the education system in Cupertino and have to sacrifice and put the young children on different floors. I think this is a tremendous diflculty for many young families, and I agree with many other architects; I would like to support and have this amendment to increase the 45%. He said in return for being able to do up to 100%, he said it was worth the effort to have a higher level of architectural review. Terry Brown, Cupertino resident: • Said he was in favor of eliminating the 45% rule. It is another example of efforts to reduce 13 - 185 Cupertino Planning Commission 31 July 8, 2008 good architectural design- to mathematical formulas; and it will fail every time. • Relative to the 50% rule, he said he hoped they were talking about the wall plane issue, not just changing the FAR upstairs to .5. (Sta„gsaid the SO% was wall plane area) • Said he was generally opposed to architectural review of any sort. I think that I prefer to have architects practice their trade; people build homes that they like the looks of, not necessarily some one else's choice; but I am certainly answer that question you put to the last speaker in pretty much the same way; if you can get rid of the .45, get rid of the mathematical formulas, then I guess we can put up with increased architectural review. Seema Mittel, Cupertino resident: • Said she designed homes in Cupertino, Palo Alto, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, all neighboring cities, and it is interesting how different the cities are and how the products of architecture are different in different cities. Most of the issues have been addressed between the people who spoke here and the Commissioners. • Said she supported removal of the upper story restriction and having design guidelines, because presently Cupertino does not have them. While it is subjective, there is nothing you can point to when working with your client. However, what happens when you change the rules in the middle of the road, we were building to 35% upper story, then a couple of years ago we started building to 45% and now inching up. There are certain homes that have already been built on that premise; they were 1,000 square feet on the upper Ievel and they assumed that the neighboring house would do the same. As a result, privacy views, sunlight, solar devices, are at stake. It is difficult to bring up those objections because they are not quantitative; they are qualitative. It is easy to enforce numbers but difficult to enforce something subjective. I think if there were graphic design guidelines and if the Rl code said that neighbors' concerns regarding view, sunlight, privacy; because there are options how you design upper stories; you have to keep the context in mind; you have to see what is going on in the neighboring houses; you can't just completely ignore it and say that you meet your numbers, so I have met the design criteria and I will sail through. • Said she had no objection to the increase, provided there are graphic guidelines and provided that the planners can enforce views, privacy. Chair Miller: • Pointed out that they did not change the second story setbacks; so your comment about it is going to change access to light and privacy is not completely on target, because the setbacks for the second story are exactly the same as they are today. Seema Mittel: • Said that the RI did not address the upper story balconies. You can have 1,000 square foot upper story balcony because it is not counted in the FAR and have a huge upper story mass, and it can't be questioned quantitatively because it adds to the mass but doesn't add to the square footage. _ Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Rose: • Said she appreciated the speakers providing input, and was in favor of keeping the status quo. • We are tasked with only to consider the current second floor ratio to first floor ratio and the argument that is asking us to look at this concern is that homeowners, the current situation encourages homeowners to increase the size of their first floor to get the most they can out of their second floor, which allows a certain number of bedrooms, children on the same floor. • The second thug we are addressing is the current ratio also encourages sort of one style of 13 - 186 Cupertino Planning Commission 32 July 8, 2008 home which is referred to as the wedding cake style, and it is not allowing people to design and build other styles of homes. • I wish I could feel confident that what we: are discussing tonight would change some of the architectural houses we are seeing coming up in Cupertino. I wish that the list of treatments that are proposed to soften a house that perhaps has a larger than 45% second floor would always be included in the architectural plans. Unfortunately I am skeptical for two reasons. I live in a neighborhood that used to have no requirement for a second floor setback or ratio, so I am surrounded by homes that have that block feeling on very large lots. I think that is indicative that when you are given the opportunity to build as big as you can, you do. Staff validated that point and a speaker also said. he would build as big as he can. I am not certain this is the answer to getting smaller home:;; generally it is just an open door to build larger homes that have more of a bulk appearance and that you are going to have to cross your £mgers that the builder and the staff are ;going to be working in sync to use architectural features to minimize the bulls of that house. I just don't feel comfortable with that much gray area when it comes to new development. • What staff was saying about the 45% rule must be changed with the 50% rule, I am not comfortable with the fact that we have sepaz•ated those two, and I think that it is difficult to say a house has to have a fi7endly presence to the street. I think everyone could have a different idea of what that means, so although I like all the ideas presented to soften the look of a house that potentially has a second floor that is greater than 45% of the fast, I am not confident based on what I see happening currently, that those suggestions will be cazried through in an attractive manner. I don't think we are ,going to see homes different than what we are presently seeing. • It needs to be thought of a lot differently anc~ a lot deeper than it is. If we are going to open up the R1, we should be looking at the much bil;ger picture than what we are trying to do today. Com. Brophy: • I would agree that I would prefer to see a more comprehensive look at Rl, but he Council has decided otherwise. Given that theoretically it has always been possible for a home builder or applicant to ask for an exception, I don't see that this change is a huge change; apparently home builders have chosen not to exercise tl~e right to ask for an exception or they feel that is not an area that can open up. I think I would with some hesitation, flip on the other side and think that it would hopefully lead to improved quality of architecture. ~ The one change I would make from the proposed ordinance, is include a class discouraging exceptions for second story setback requirements for homes that are at or near the maxunum FAR. Vice Chair Giefer: • Agreed with Com. Brophy that there is an avenue available to builders today that if they do want a building larger second floor and reduce the reduce the first floor, that the process does exist today. I share the same concerns that C:om. Rose had that it isn't really going to make a big difference; we are still going to see people move forward in the easiest path with the lease resistance which is the status quo today. • Recalled as one of the Commissioners when the last R1 C)rdinance revision was done, one of the reasons they went to a very prescriptive format, we did have design review guidelines, and it put staff in conflict with the property owners quite a bit of the time, and property owners we frequently heard that they were delayed by staff, so when I think about putting the design guidelines which when we approved the Rl, which I don't think I voted for the current R1, when we did approve that as a body, the major sentiment by many Commissioners was we needed to be highly prescriptive because otherwise the property owners felt that staff was dictating what could be built; which is some of what we are hearing today as well. 13 - 187 Cupertino Pla*+ning Commission 33 July 8, 2008 Expressed concern about putting staff back into the point of cottflict with the public, which could occur; we don't have design guidelines; I fmd the suggested language conflicts and will create greater confusion with our current R1 policy. I think that we are not directed to review the 50% wall ratio and so if we are going to go back to Council and say yes let's do this and we recommend further review of the 50%, there are a lot of other things I would rather review in the Rl than the 50% wall ratio and the change to the first second story ratio. I think there are a lot more compelling things we should look at in the Rl. When we moved forward on the Last RI we said we felt as a body we should review it every five years; we are at the five year mark, and perhaps we should open up the entire Rl as has been suggested, Put more thought into design guidelines. I would like to see more varied architecture in Cupertino; it is possible today. My final comment in reading all the other ordinances that staff provided us for part of our review for this evening, I was struck by how all of the cities were really community focused; they acknowledged that the people wanted to move into a specific neighborhood was because they wanted to be part of that neighborhood, and if you care about a neighborhood and you want to be part of that neighborhood, you are not going to disrupt the neighborhood; you will improve your property because it will vis a vis improve the neighborhood, but our Rl doesn't really care about the neighborhood; it cares about the rights of the incoming property owner to come in and build whatever they want to build, and if it is an attractive building, I support it. I think we need to do that. If it is a spec home that is being built as cheaply as can and as large as possible, then I think it needs greater scrutiny. >f we were going to move forward on the Rl, I would support taking more of a neighborhood buy-in process in the neighborhood orientation with where we go. Said she did not support what is shown today; I like the idea of further design scrutiny, but that is available today. Com. Kaneda: • Conceptually I support the amendment, but at this point I don't support it. I take exception to the way the ordinance is set up now; I think the wedding cake design pushes architects into doing mediocre design at best. • Talking about sustainability, there are soma real sustainability issues involved in that too, because if you are forced to go in, there is a resource issue, there is a structural issue, the sheer walls can't carry out; the flaming gets more complicated. It forces an architect to do things that are structurally unnatural, and so I think we have built a lot of buildings like that that haven't done a great service to the community. On the other hand, the whole reason that was put in place was because of some pretty egregious two story massive buildings that were built in Cupertino and those in their own way are as bad or worse architecturally. I am willing to look at a change that will allow people to do buildings that are two story and styles that are different, but I think it really needs to be thought out that there has to be a lot of care and time and effort put into putting the guidelines together, to make sure that it is done. ~ The other thing is I suspect that it is going to be frustrating for the architects that are designing buildings in our community because I .think a lot of times what will happen is you will be working within the rules still, but you have this layer of people telling you it doesn't look good because of this and this change or design. I am concerned; I am not sure how we will do it, but evidently a lot of the other cities have figured out how to do it. Look to the other cities to see how they are doing it, and fmd the best practice among them. Chair Miller: • I have never been in favor of limiting the second story, for many of the reasons that the speakers have addressed. • Matt Kamkar discussed the fact that you get more green space and you have less runoff to deal t3-t88 Cupertino Planning Commission 34 July 8, 2008 with; from that standpoint it is more of a green design by allowing people to go up. It also promotes better solar usage because you ge:t more access to roof area to do that, as opposed to having the little roofs here and there that you can't put a significant solar system on. I think that this change doesn't, if the cone:ern is that it affects privacy or it affects access to sunlight, I don't believe that is correct because second story setbacks are not being adjusted; and that is the governing rule that affects both the privacy and the access to sunlight, and we address privacy with different treatments oaf the windows and address it with landscaping and the fact that there maybe a vertical wall plane, it is going to be 15 feet from the property line, instead of 5 feet from the property line. In effect you are increasing the space between yourself and your neighbor if you chose to F,o vertical and to my way of thinking that is a good thing. If you go back east, all you see is vertical buildings and I have looked at this in Boston and Connecticut and in New York and other places, and the difference between there and here is the horizontal space between the buildings. The further you are away from your neighbor, the less objectionable the higher elevation is; when you deal with houses. The 50% wall plane, I agree with staff, we cannot do one without the other and since the Council did not direct us not to talk about the 50%, I think that is appropriate; otherwise we can't put this into effect. I agree with Com. Brophy that if we do this we want to discourage changing giving exceptions to the second story because then we would tre compromising the privacy of the neighborhoods and their access to light and sun. The comments that Matt Klein made, specifically with respect to remodels is so on target, that in order to do a remodel on a small house today, you basically have to tear it down and build a whole new house because of the limitations. The limitations we impose are far too onerous, so we are forcing people to do more development on their property than they really need to do. The other issue that seems to come up here i:s neighborhood compatibility and that has always been a difficult area for me because I don't see anything wrong with eclectic and if you go into some older neighborhoods in Willow Glean where all the houses were built by different builders and every house is different and yet the neighborhood seems to fit together nicely; it is quaint and the landscaping works; and even though the houses are different the area looks great. Willow Glen's resale values are up there with Cupertino's. What has a lot to do with it, is how well that architectural design works there, or the non-existence of architectural design, because the fact is when we talk about neighborhood compatibility, some people take it to the point of what I call neighborhood conformity. Every house has to look the same; and we have had people come up and argue in neighborhoods where most of the neighborhood was ranch houses built after World War II and argued that it has to be a ranch house in the World War II style and I just don't agree with that. I don't think that adds to the character of Cupertino. The other issue that staff brought up as snottier strong reason for moving ahead on this is that we are losing the style and the tradition of Cupertino houses to some extent because you can't build them under the current regulation, where you could be more compatible if we allowed more flexibility. Summarized that there were two Commissioners in favor of the changes, and two against, and one on the post. Com. Kaneda: • Said that he was against the changes, because the regulation needs to be thought oui more and cleaned up. If there is a way we can do that here, he would be willing to look at it. Chair Miller: • Asked Com. Kaneda if star came back with a specific set of guidelines for the Planning Commission to review, would that be acceptable. 13 - 189 Cupertino Planning Commission 35 July 8, 2008 Com. Kaneda: • Said it would be acceptable if staff presented a specific set of guidelines for further review. Com. Rose: • Said the examples everyone is giving of this new plan are homes that people aren't wanting to build in Cupertino, and I don't think it is a matter of not being able to because as pointed out, there is an avenue to build any kind of home you want; you just have to get an exception and the process that we are looking at would include additional DRC review anyway. • I am wondering if we should list some certain design styles, because I would be comfortable with that. My concern because what I see is a predominant Mediterranean style home and I see it where there were not second floor ratios that were built 10 to 20 years ago and I see a consistent desire to max out whatever building size you can do. I don't see this interest in bringing in new design and maybe if I could just do this; and I am not hearing from staff that people are asking how they can get their two story Craftsman or their New England Connecticut style home; I am hearing that everyone wants to build as big a home as they can and that tends to be the Mediterranean style so that is what concerns me. So if we want to go specific, why don't we list out some typical styles that are comfortable and if you want to task star, they could outline what is a soap box home and that could be an example of how you could have a larger ratio than 45% of the second floor. Clair Miller: • I am not surd why not; the fu-st comment we made is just get an exception; and therein is the key issue because you have to spend a lot of money to do a design these days. You go to an architect and he wants $30,000; if you go in for an exception, and the owner has to put up the money, the architect will say you have 50% chance they will let you do the exception, and he will say it is not worth the money, because they are on a timeline and they are on a budget and they don't have money to gamble with. The comment `just get an exception" is a very significant hurdle; that is why people don't do it. Corn. Rose: • It sounds like we are still asking people to go through a design process; if they say they pui their trellis; and there is argument whether it is a trellis; they are told to go to DRC. Chair Miller: • The difference is you can do some sketches and work with staff' and the cost is not that high• that is the issue why people don't go and people will not go for an exception. It is too expensive. Com. Rose: • Said she felt it was still not adequately thought out. Chalr Miller: • We have a difference of opinion on that. The other thing I don't think we want to do is say we are only going to allow certain styles; then we are getting into the job of being architects. Com. Rose: • Said she agreed, and knows .what the architect does; but I also feel that what is going to happen if this happens; it is not that people will say they don't have to build such a big fast floor; I can build a big first floor, I can build a big second floor and as a speaker mentioned, what is happening it is lovely to think that people are n~nn;ng around with their plans saying neighbor, I just got the lot and here is what I am going to do; the reality is that it is not 13 - 190 Cupertino Planning Commission 36 July 8, 2008 happening. My feeling is that before we jurnp into something like this, there needs to be more discussion around what we are trying to achieve. Because what this will achieve is stucco walls from the First floor to the second floor. Chair Millers • The reality is that it is happening because everyone who does a second story house has to put a rendering in front of their house and the story poles, so that no neighbor can possibly miss it. Even though some people go and talk to their neighbors, at this point what we force them to do is, you don't want to talk to your neighbor, -you want to stick it our in front like a big advertising sign. If the neighbor becomes upset when he sees it, he will come knocking on your door; and if he doesn't knock on your door, he will come down to the Planning Department and say that he is upset about what is going up there, do something about it. Nothing is getting past the neighbors anymore; we fixed that when we changed the ordinance 3 years ago. Com. Rose: • Nothing is getting past the neighbors but then when they bring it to our attention we tell them what the ordinance allows, and if they do not like the ordinance, the community has to get together and make their neighborhood a single story only neighborhood like Fairgrove. If the ordinance allows it, it is very rare that you are: going to get a situation in which the DRC or this body is going to overturn something if then ordinance allows and you will argue that you are selling houses to people and they are looking; at our ordinance and saying if I can build 45% then I should be able to build 45%. If we put it in the ordinance, then people are going to expect it. We are relying on this list of design treatments to soften it, and that is when we get into the architect's business that we were saying we didn't want to get into. I am not saying this is all a very bad thing, but it is a big thing and it is something that needs to be thought about and if we are really trying to have houses like Gary put on here, which I am not really seeing unless you go out to Rancho. If we really want that and that is what we are working toward, then we need to think about how we a-re working towazds that; we don't just change a percentage. Com. Kaneda: • Said he recently went through a home remodel; the architect said not to do two stories and he now has a sprawling house because he: followed the ordinance. Com. Rose: • If we aze going to change this ordinance, let's be careful about. Maybe Chair Miller's suggestions are right, maybe we tax staff' with defining all these different details for each type of house we are going to get; but I think the rc;ality is, is what people really want to build is a much bigger Mediterranean house with stucco walls. Vice Chair Gieier: • Has staff sat down and said with the setback requirements that we have, what is the maY:**+um second story percentile that is achievable? (.sta„i~''said it was I00%) • Has staff evaluated the conflicting language of the proposed modifications to the ordinance based on the rest of the language in the RI, bcc.ause you are giving different directions. Steve Piaseclci: • Clarified you could even go more than 100% if'you take out the 45% rule, second floor to first floor. You have two distinctive processes in t]'ie ordinance; that is why you lost the conflict. You can follow the old rules or you can come in and follow the new rules in which case you 13 - 191 Cupertino Planning Commission 37 July 8, 2008 are going to have greater design scrutiny based on these words in the ordinance. Soma Commissioners feel it needs to be more than words, maybe we need some design guidelines so that it is more specific. We don't have a problem with that; the examples we looked at in other communities were developed by architects but they have a much longer more scrutiny in the process; they cost a lot of money, none of which were part of the tasks that came from the trouncil so the Commission has a couple of options. You can say we really can't deal with this the way it is; we need more design guidelines and you need to authorize every expenditure to get that done and then we will feel more comfortable with it. You could also task staff with it and they will come back with pictures and the best we can do; homes don't look like they fit in Cupertino. You could give that a month try. We could take a shot at it and provide more specificity based on the comments from the Commission and the public. The other option is you can say that we cannot get agreement, send it back to the Council without agreement and we can explain the debate, because you had a good discussion and this is so typical of Ri; there is so much passion that goes into it; we heard it the last time we went through this; everybody has an interest in Rl. It couldn't hurt to wait 4 to 6 weeks and let us take a shot to drill down on some of the questions and issues to see if we can fmd better language that will provide better levels of comfort. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she did not feel it accomplished the goal; I think we are going to have a lot of unintended consequences of this because we are taking a quick swag at this; which is what I think it is; let's just take the dial and move it over here now and wait 5 years. and see what is billed to the city. I don't think we can do that. Steve Piaseclci: • Asked if the concern was that they would end up with stucco boxes with concrete roofs with appliques and a few trellises. Vice Chair Giefer: • The public is going to feel as though we are back to the pre-existing ordinance where the public is going to say that star is an impediment to building; we cannot get anything approved in Cupertino. Everybody's opinion of existing vs. future is different; I am not saying we don't need to re-think this; I am just saying that this will not solve the problem that we have been asked to address and solve; and that is why I am not supporting it. I am completely supportive of saying let's take a look at FAR, having meaningful design review put back in, and I would support that. I think that just trying to fix this one little ratio isn't going to achieve what we wanted to achieve. I think we are going to have unintended consequences. Chair Miller: • Said he understood what they were saying; and would rather try to address the problem than not address it, and Council has not given them the latitude to open the entire Rl, so it is what it is and there is a consensus for letting staff give it a try. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda to let staff take another look at it; to include some language about strong discouragement of exceptions to second story setbacks requirements for any changes. Steve Piasecld: • Suggested that the motion provide at least 6 weeks to go back and restudy it. Relative to the exceptions, eliminate them; with this route there is the variance option which is a harder standard to meet; discouraging exceptions doesn't work. 13 - 192 Cupertino Planning Commission 38 July 8, 2008 Second: Com. Kaneda Com. Kaneda: • Does it make sense to get some outside- professional help to try to come up with your guidelines; staff is understaffed and there are no staff architects; and in my mind a fair amount of this is highly architecturally related. Steve Piaseclti: • That is what the other cities are doing. '['he Los Gatos guidelines were developed by our architectural adviser at considerable expense and considerable time. The concept doesn't really change from city to city a lot; we can try to call from the examples we have given you and other examples; maybe we can put something together. If we are not successful maybe we would still want to have an architectural adviser come in and Look over our shoulder. We will look into different options to fry to do it with less expense and time. If that fails, you can send it to the City Council and say you really cannot do this without doing more elaborately and opening the whole R1 box up. It would be a. year and a half and a quarter of a million dollars. Chair Miller: • Maybe there is a middle alternative; perhaps: staff does their best shot at coming up with some guidelines. We have heard tonight from apt least one person who is an architect; I know of others who do business in Cupertino who would be happy to meet with staff and give further input and perhaps refine it, so it wouldn't take a lot of time from any individual architect to do that. Steve PlaseckI: • Said they would give it a try, and likely would seek their architectural adviser on an hourly basis (Vote: 3-2-0; Vice Clair Giefer No; Com. Rose No.) 5. Discussion of the pre-review option for the development prop Is. ~~~ Steve Piaseck3~pr~ seated the staff'report: • Said that the C cif sent it back to the Planning fission asking that they expand the noticing and look ome other options, specifi y the one seen in So. Vallco that in the cases of some larger de meats, perhaps .:o a sort of expanded community review process is appropriate; otherwise tak other look .all the options for early review. We have given you the verbatim transcript whic as make it clearer exactly what is intended. This is one given the Iateness of the hour, we make a greater outreach and with more notice, we could get more developers top cipate. Keith Murphy: • Said the proposal baffling as to what its real be twill be; I understand the idea of talking with dev opers about future applications they may ant to bring in front of the city and how may the community might feel about that or how s eels about that. I have a real problem it sets up the city for a lot of legal problems, would lik a city attorney's input, and if feels it will be more of a problem for the city or is it rea oing to solve the pro ms that we think it is. Is the city attorney going to be part of this pro s to be able to monitor some of these meetings and see if they really are going in the right direc ' which the Planning Commission and City Council would like them to; or are they going to be more of a 13 - 193 ORDINANCE NO. 09-20XX Exhibit D THE CTI'Y COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that the following sections of the Cupertino Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Rl) ZONES Section 19.28.010 Purposes. 19.28.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.28.030 Permitted uses. 19.28.040 Conditional uses. 19.28.050 Development regulations (site). 19.28.060 Development regulations (building). 19.28.070 Landscape requirements. 19.28.080 Permitted yard encroachments. 19.28.090 Minor residential permit. 19.28.100 Two-story residential permit. 19.28.110 Exceptions. 19.28.120 Development regulations-Eichler (R1-e). 19.28.130 Development regulations-(R1-a). 19.28.140 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.010 Purposes. R-1 single-family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods; B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels; 13 - 194 C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community; (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord_ 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulation:. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R-1 single-family residence district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (pazt), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.030 Permitted Uses. The following uses a are permitted in the R-1 single-family residence district: A. Single-family use; B. A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standazds and procedures described in Chapter 19.82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a conditional use permit; C. Accessory facilities and uses customazily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.8() of this title; D. Home occupations in_accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.92; E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products_ .,_ F. Residential care facility that is licensed ~.by the appropriate State, County agency or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; G. Small-family day care home; H. The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept on the site; I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yazds, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards; J. Lazge-family day caze homes, which meet the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which are at least three hundred feet from any other lazge-family day care home. The Director of Community Development or his/her designee shall administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the pazking and proximity requirements; 13 - 195 K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1601, Each. A (part), 1992) 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the R-1 single-family residence district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by the Director of Community Development: 1. Temporazy uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.124; 2. Large-family day care home, which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; 3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solaz design features that require variations from setbacks upon a determination by the Director that such design feature or features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; 5. Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. B. Issued by the Planning Commission: 1. Two-story structures in an azea designated for aone-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 2. Group care activities with greater than six persons; 3. Residential care facilities that fall into the following categories: a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider family or staff; b. Facility that has the appropriate State, County agency or department license and seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a miniiiium distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; 13 - 196 4. Congregate residence with eleven or more residents, which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet from the boundazy of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yazd area per occupant. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618, (part)., 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.050 Development Regulations (~~ite). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R-1 zoning symbol. Examples are: as follows: Zoning Symbol Number Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet R 1 5 5,000 R 1 6 6,000 R1 7.5 7,500 R 1 10 10,000 R 1 20 20,000 2. Lots, which contain less azea than required by subsection A(1) of this section, but not less than five thousand squaze feet, may nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width sirall~e is sixty feet measured at the front-yard setback line, except in the R1-5 district where the minimum lot width is fifty feet. C. Development on Properties with Hillside Characteristics. 1. Buildings proposed on properties generally located south of Linda Vista Drive, south and west of Santa Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive and north of Lindy Lane (see map below) zoned R1-20 that have an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent he are developed in accordance with the following site development standards: 13-197 a. Site Grading. i. All site grading ~'-~~ ire is limited to a cumulative total of two thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. The two thousand five hundred cubic yards includes grading for building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other areas requiring grading, but does not include basements. The graded- area s~a~e is limited to the building pad area to the greatest extent possible. Grading quantities for multiple driveways ~'~~~ are-divided equally among the participating lots, e.g., two lots sharing a driveway will divide the driveway grading quantity in half. The divided share will be charged against the grading quantity allowed for that lot development. A maximum of two thousand squaze feet of flat yard area, excluding driveways, may be graded. ii. All cut and fill areas a are rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with I landscaping which meets the requirements in Section 19.40.OSOG. iii. A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and the City Engineer, sl~~submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen out and fill slopes. iv. If the flat yard area (excluding driveways) exceeds 2,000 square feet or the cut plus fill of the site exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the applicant ~e is required to obtain a Site and Architectural approval from the Planning Com.,,ission. b. Floor Area. i_ The maximum floor area ratio c'~~ 'tee is forty-five percent of the net lot azea for I development proposed on the existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to or less than 10% slope, of any lot. Formula: A = 0.45 B: where A =maximum allowable house size and B =net lot area. ii. Buildings or additions located off of the flat pad exceeding slopes of 10% and producing floor area exceeding 4,500 square feet of total house size, require approval from the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.134 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 13 - 198 iii. Additions within an existing building envelope are permitted provided that the total FAR of the existing building and addition does not exceed 45%. c. Second Floor Area and Balcony. The second floor and balcony review process shall be consistent with the requirements from the Residential Hillside Zoning District (Chapter 19.40). The amount of second floor area is not limited provided the total floor area does not exceed- the allowed floor area ratio. d. Retaining Wall Screening. Retaining walls in excess of five feet shall be screened with landscape materials or faced with decorative materials such as split-faced block, river rock or similar materials subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. e. Fencing. i. Solid board fencing ~'-~e is limited to a five thousand square foot site area (excluding the principal building). ii. Open fencing (composed of materials which result in a minimum of seventy-five percent visual transparency) shall be unrestricted except that such fencing over three feet in height may not be constructed within the front yard setback. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) f. Tree Protection. Up to two protected trees with a diameter less than 18 inches may be removed to accommodate a building pad subject to approval of the Director of Community Development. Removal of protected trees exceeding 18 inches or removal of more than two protected trees requires approval of a tree remov,31 permit by the Planning Commission in accordance with the Tree Ordinance. 2. No structure or improvements shall occur on slopes of thirty percent or greater unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section x9.40.140, unless no more than five hundred square feet of development, including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a slope of thirty percent or greater. D. An application for building permits filed and accepted by the Community Development Department (fees paid and permit number issued) on or before October 2, 2007 may proceed with application processing under ordinances in effect at that time. (Ord. 2011, 2007; Ord. 2000, 2007; Ord. 1954, (Dart), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, § 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building). A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage e is forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is: allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches and other similaz features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls. B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside 13 - 199 (maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the residential development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot a is forty-five percent. 2. The maximum floor area of a second story e is forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is greater. 3. The Director of Community Development may grant agproval to a second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the following design principles are met. These design principles are further explained in the "City of Cupertino Two Story Design Principles" document. a. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided: b. Design features. proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style selected; c. Visual relief shall be provided: The following visual relief techni_9ues shall be provided if appropriate for the style of the residence: 1. Second floor setbacks or horizontal and vertical wall plane changes 2. Pop outs and bay windows 3. Material and color changes 4. 'Vide overhangs with proieciing brackets 5. Juliet balconies and inset balconies 6. ~~Vindow boxes and pot shelves 7. Landscaped trellises and lattices 8. Belly bands and window trim 9. Extended or wrap around porches 10. Recessed doors and windows 11. Or other similar architectural landscaping features deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Conu~~unity Development d. Materials shall be of high quality: e. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale: f. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure: 13 - 200 g. The design shall reflect svnzmetry, proportion and balance. 4. The Director of Community Development may elevate projects exceeding the 45% second floor to around floor ratio to the IJesi~n Review Con~nzittee for review if deemed appropriate. ~ 5_ Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have the mass and bulk of a two-story house and ~'~ are counted as floor azea. a. If the house is a two-story house, this area will count as second story floor area; otherwise, the area will count as first floor area. C. Design Guidelines. 1. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the following items are met prior to design approval: a. The mass and bulls of the design ~'-~ is reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights; b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c. There shall not be a three-caz wide driveway curb cut. d. No more than fifty percent of the front e:~evation of a house should consist of garage area. e. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the second story. f. The current pattern of side setback and g~u-age orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and placement. h. Porches aze encouraged. i. Living azea should be closer to the street, while gazages should be set back more. j. All second story roofs should have at least cone-foot overhang. D. Setback-First Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback ~`,~~ is a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two 13 - 201 such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the two side yard setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard setback may be less than five feet. a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-yard setback on the street side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side yard setback shall be no less than five feet. b. For interior lots in the Rl-5 district, the side yard setbacks are five feet on both sides. c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the front property line and the rear property line. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. a. With a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, the rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yazd is not less than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. 4. Garage. The front face of a gazage in an R1 district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a street property line. a. For projects with three-car gazages oriented to the public right-of-way, the wall plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of the other two spaces. E. Setback-Second Story. 1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except that no second-story side setback may be less than ten feet. a. In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is twenty feet from any property line. b. In the case of a corner lot, a minimum of twelve feet from a street side property line and twenty feet from any rear property line of asingle-family dwelling. 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section. F. Basements. 1. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house with a basement, one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide and up to ten feet long. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback 1 3 - 202 area, except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwea retaining wall sl~tal~--be is five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwe.ll retaining wall a is ten feet. 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwe11.2005 S-4 5. The perimeter of the basement and all li,ghtwell retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the Director of Community Development. G. Height. 1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R1 zone shall not exceed twenty-eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances. 2. Building Envelope (One Story). a. The maximum exterior wall height and Y>uilding height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: 1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; 2. Atwenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inwazd at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential Permit. 3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a minimum two- foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from the first story exterior wall plane. a. The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.11.0 D. b. This regulation does not apply for homes with second floor to first floor ratio sreater than 45%. 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height °'~~c is fourteen feet measured from natural grade to the elate. 5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by affixing an i 13 - 203 designation to the R1 zoning district. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similar unenclosed features. 1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling. 2. The miniiiium side-yard setback ..time is fifteen feet. 3. The minimum rear-yard setback sb~l-be is twenty feet. I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (Part), 1992) 19.25_070 Landscape Requirements. To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and bulk of new two-story homes and additions, tree and/or shrub planting is required. The intent of this section is to provide substantial screening within three years of the planting. A. Applicability. This requirement shall apply to new two-story homes, second-story decks, two-story additions, or modifications to the existing second-story decks or existing windows on existing two-story homes that increase privacy impacts on neighboring residents. Skylights, windows with sills more than five feet above the finished second floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers up to six feet above the finished second floor, and obscured, non- openable windows are not required to provide privacy protection planning. B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two-story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied by a privacy planting plan which identifies the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs. 1. New trees or shrubs s-1~He are required on the applicant's property to screen views from second-story windows. The area where planting is required is bounded by athirty-degree angle on each side window jamb. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. 13-204 a. New tree or shrubs are not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified Arborist or Licenses L:~ndscape Architect verifies that the existing trees/shrubs have the characteristics of privacy planting species, subject to approval by the Director or Community Development. b. Affected property owner(s) may choose to allow privacy planting on their own property. In such cases, the applicant must plant the privacy screening prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Waiver. These privacy mitigation measures may be modified in any way with a signed waiver statement from the affected property ow~~er. Modifications can include changes to the number of shrubs or trees, their species or location. C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new two-story homes and two-story additions must plant a tree in front of new second stories in the front yard setback area. The tree shall be 24 inch-box or larger, with a n~.i.nimum height o~F six feet. The Director of Community Development can waive} this front-yard tree if ti:~ere is a conflict with existing mature tree canopies on-site or in the public right-of--way. D. Species List. The Planning Division shill maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs. The list includes allowed plant species, minimum size of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and planting distance between trees. E. Covenant. The property owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorders Office that requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a final building inspection from the Building Division. This regulation does not apply to situations described in subsection B(1)(b) of this section. F. Maintenance. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a growth rate expected for a particular species. G. Replacement. Where required planting is removed or dies it must be replaced within thirty days with privacy tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Community Development. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.080 Permitted Yard Encroachments. A. Where a building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction, encroaches upon present required yards and setbacks, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended :Tong its existing building lines if the addition receives a Minor Residential Permit and conforms to the following: 1. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback and the height of the existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. 2. The maximum length of the extension is fifteen feet. 1 3 - 205 3. The extension of any wall plane of a first-story addition is not permitted to be within three feet of any property line. 4. Only one such extension s~-1-be is permitted for the life of such building. 5. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the granting of a vaziance or exception, either before or after such property become part of the City. $. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.090 Minor Residential Permits. Projects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall be reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of this process is to provide affected neighbors with an opportunity to comment on new development that could have significant impacts on their property or the neighborhood as a whole. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject property, including properties across a public or private street. The notice shall invite public con~rnent by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. B. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Community Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The permit can be approved only upon making all of the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare_ 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. C. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action by first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the Planning Com,,,ission will make the final action on the appeal. 13 - 206 D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Permit. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Minor Residential Permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Minor Residential Pc;rmit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant none-year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development a Minor Residential_ Permit can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications.(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.100 Two-Story Residential Permit. Two-story additions or two-story new homes require aTwo-Story Residential Permit in accordance with this section. Two-story projects with a floor area ratio under 35% shall require a Level ITwo-Story Residential Permit, while a t-avo-story project with a floor area ratio over 35% shall require aLevel IITwo-Story Residential Permit. A. Notice of Application (Level 1~. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject property, including properties across a public or private street. The notice shall invite public comment by a determ;,,ed action date and shall include a copy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice in the front yazd of the subject site that is clearly visible from the public street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide firmly attached to a five-foot tall post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the appli~~ation and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: a. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the address is not known. b. A brief description of the proposed projc;ct, the content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; c. City contact information for public inquiries; d. A deadline for the submission of public ~~omments, which shall be at least fourteen days after the date the notice is posted; e. A black and white orthographic rendering of the front of the house, at least eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting. B. Notice of Application (Level 11). Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that aze within three hundred feet of the subject property. The notice shall invite 1 3 - 207 public comment by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice consistent with subsection A(1) of this section, except that a colored perspective rendering shall be required instead of a black and white orthographic rendering. C. Story Poles. Story poles are required for any Two-Story Residential Permit. D. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Community Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The permit can be approved only upon making all of the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. E. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action by first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the Planning Co**~mission will make the final action on the appeal. F. Expiration of a Two-Story Permit. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Two-Story Permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Two-Story Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant aone-year extension, without a public notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to the Two-Story Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. G. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, a Two-Story Permit can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.110 Exceptions. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19.28.060, 19.28.070 and 19.28.120 may be granted as provided in this section. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Community 1 3 - 208 Development Department shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the Design Review Conin~ittee and send a notice by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the subject property_ Properties that aze adjacent to the subject site, including those across a public or private street, shall receive a reduced scale copy of the plan set with the public notice. B. Decision_ After closing the public hearing, the decision-maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application based on the findings in this section. Any interested party can appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 19.136. C. Expiration of an Exception_ Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Exception approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Exception shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant a one-year extension, without a public notice, if ati application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. D. Findings for Approval. 1. Issued by the Director of Community Development. The Director of Community Development may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulation described in Section 19.28.060 G(4) upon making all of the following; findings: a. The project fulfills the intent of the visit~le second-story wall height regulation in that the number of two-story wall planes and the amount of visible second story wall azea is reduced to the maximum extent possible_ b. The except to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose_ c. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. . 2. Issued by the Design Review Committee. The Design Review Committee may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulations described in Section 19.28.060, except 19.28.060 G(4) and Section 19.28.130 upon making all of the following findings: a. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. b. The proposed development will not be i~ijurious to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare. c. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum vaziance that will accomplish the purpose_ d. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from 1 3 - 209 abutting properties. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.120 Development Regulations-Eichler (R1-e). R1-e single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural form through the establishment of district site development regulations. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned R1-e. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude a harmonious two-story home or second story addition. A. Setback-First Story. 1. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet. B. Building Design Requirements. Entry features facing the street are ~'~~ '~~integrated with the roof line of the house. Z. The maximum roof slope ~'_.~a ,.fie is three-to-twelve (rise over run). 3. Wood or other siding material located on walls facing a public street (not including the gazage door) shall incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart. 4. The building design shall incorporate straight architectural lines, rather than curved lines. S. Section 19.28.060 G(4) e is considered a guideline in the R1-e district. 6. The first floor shall be no more than twelve inches above the existing grade. 7. Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards shall not exceed nine feet in height measured from the top of the floor to the top of the wall plate. C. Privacy Protection Requirements. 1. Side and Reaz Yard Facing Second Floor Windows. In addition to other privacy protection requirements in Section 19.28.070, the following is required for all second story windows: a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor; or b. Obscure glass to a height of six feet above the second floor; or c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum above the second floor. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000) 13-210 19_28.130 Development Regulations-()L21-a). R1-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned R1-a. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot size is ten thousand square feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width sl-i-all~e is seventy-five feet measured at the front- yard setback line. C. Second Story Area. A second floor shall. be no more than forty percent of the first floor, except as follows: 1. A second floor may be at least seven hundred square feet in area. 2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one thousand one hundred squaze feet in area. D. Setback -First Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. E. Setback -Second Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The combined side yard setbacks shall be thirty-five feet, with a minimum of fifteen feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yazd setback is forty feet. 4. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.G60 E(3) does not apply in this district. F. Second-story Regulations. 1. Second story decks shall conform to the :>econd-story building setbacks, and may be located on the front and rear only. 2. The second-story shall not cantilever over afirst-story wall plane. 3. The front-facing wall plane(s) of the second-story must be offset a minimum of three feet from the first-story wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid atwo-story wall plane on the front elevation. 13-211 G. Front Yard Paving. No more than fifty percent of the front yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No more than forty percent of the front yazd setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by_ a. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade and located ten feet from property lines; b. A twenty-five degree roof line angle projected inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in subsection H(2)(1) of this section. L Variation from the R1 and R1-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the R1-a district. J. Design Review. All two-story development shall require discretionazy review based on Section 19.28.100, except that the Design Review Committee shall approve or deny the project at a public heazing based on the findings in subsection N(1) of this section. K. Design Guidelines. The guidelines in this section shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines. 7n cases where there may be conflict between the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall take precedence. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. 1. Second-story windows. Windows on the side elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor or should have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy. 2. All second story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured from the second story finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four feet, with a minimum four-foot depth and ten-foot width. The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. 3. Section 19.28.060 G(4) a is considered a guideline in the R1-a district. 4. Garages. The maximum width of a gazage on the front elevation should be twenty- five feet, which will accommodate atwo-car garage. Additional gazage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a detached accessory structure at the rear of the property. L. Permitted Yazd Encroachments. 1. Where a principal building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches, upon present required yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building line. 13-212 a. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback and the height of the existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. b. In no case shall any wall plane of a first:-story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. c. This section does not apply to attached accessory structures such as attached carports. d. This section applies to the first story on y and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, ~,vhich is the result of the granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property become part of the City. 2. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. 3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches sire encouraged in this zone. When viewed from . the street, a porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportionately greater height than its width. Use of this yard encroachment provision shall require the approval of the Director of Community Development. a. Posts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts, for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback. Structural supports must be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive. b. Columns. The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged. c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback area. d. Eave Height. The eave height for a front. porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. e. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback. M. Landscaping. 1. Landscaping plans r,,,~, ,fie are required :for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms from the street and adjacent properties. Specific measures are not prescribed. Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences. 2. Landscaping plans for two-story development shall include specific mitigations for impacts from mass, bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28.070 of the Cupertino 13-213 Municipal Code, except that: a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback from the property line equivalent to one- quarter of the spread noted on the City list. b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of twelve feet at the time of planting. c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views from second-story windows across the street to neighboring homes aze partially mitigated. d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified azborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. N. Design Review Findings. 1. Findings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review application for two-story development only upon making all of the findings below: a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. The granting of this permit will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions to property or improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety or welfare. c. The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials and designs of homes in the neighborhood. d. The project is consistent with the City's single-family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result in impacts on neighbors. e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the maximum extent possible. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.140 Interpretation by the Planning Director. In R1 zones, the Director of Community Development shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of thischapter consistent with the legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation of the chapter by the Director of Community Development may petition the Planning Commission in writing for review of the interpretation. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 13-2'14 ~n~b~t E Piu Ghosh From: Traci Caton on behalf of City of ~ :upertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 8:47 AM To: Gary Chao; Steve Piasecki; Piu Ghosh Subject: FW: R-1 Residential City Council discussion FYI -----Original Message----- From: Robert Kirby Lmailto:Robert.Kirby@comc:sst.net] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 7:53 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: R-1 Residential City Council discussion I recently received the Cupertino city mailixzg on this topic_ Have council members who have received political contributions from donors connected with the home construction and/or real estate industries recused themselves from the discussions, for conflict of interest? Thank Yyu. Robert Kirby, Ph.D 915 Ferngrove Dr Cupertino, CA 95014 408-255-0180 13-215 Page 1 of 1 Piu Ghosh From: Caroline Chen [chiiluh@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 3:07 PM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: comments on associated 2nd floor setback surcharge/exposed wall rule Hello, I am a working architect who has designed single family homes for many years and recently built a 2 story home in Cupertino for myself. I heard you are reviewing the current R1 ordinance, so here's just my 2 cents. The current zoning about the '2nd floor exposed wall rule' is a major reason for the City's lacking of architectural diversity. (Some of my architect friends even joked about why they will never build their home in Cupertino.) I strongly encourage you to re-examine the daylight plane concept that many other cities have enjoyed. A daylight plane is very efficient in limiting the massing of a building. Plus, it is much more 'visual' about the requirements and therefore easier for the communication and review process. Best regards, Chii-Luh Chen Architect 21151 Hazelbrook Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 (650) 996-0622 13 - 216 '~/1 n/'7nn9 Page 1 of 1 Piu Ghosh From: P Butler [pbutler973@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 '12:54 PM To: Piu Ghosh Cc: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Doily Sandoval; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Subject: R1 ordinance We are unable to attend your meetings because they rur.~ to late at night. Good decisions often are better if people are fresh and alert. Our concern as Cupertino residents since 1964 is the size of the houses being built in neighborhoods with smaller existing homes. We live on Pennington Lane acid have a monster home with extended roof in the back being built currently after tearing down a smaller home on the site. Neighbors called to complain to the planning commission but were put off that there was nothing that could be done. Do the residents have any input at all to what the City rules are? It seems that we are at your mercy and you do not live in our neighborhoods. It is very frustrating to be a supporting Cupertino resident for so long and be run over by the City of Cupertino rules. It would be more appropriate to put the size of homes to a citizen's vote or a general election rather than a heazing and council vote that often goes to 1 AM when :most residents cannot attend. ~ctuL $ Jcccc/u.Pi T3 ~~r 13-217 2/1 t7/2n09 Page 1 of 1 Piu Ghosh From: Christine Solorio [csolorio1@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:22 AM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: Re: Limited Review of the Single Family Residential Ordinance Hello, Here are the photos of beautiful homes on Talisman Drive in Sunnyvale. I love the European look. Yet, as you can see the second floor is like 80% of the first floor. On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Piu Ghosh <PiuGncupertino.org> wrote: Christine, 1 would be more than happy to receive any inputs from the public including examples of what people would like to build. Regards, Piu -----Original Message----- From: Christine Solorio [mailto:csoloriolCa7gmail.coml Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:42 AM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: Limited Review of the Single Family REsidential Ordinance Hello Piu Ghosh, I am a resident in Cupertino and am against the current ration of first and second floor rule. There was a neighborhood house in Sunnyvale that I loved the style but it didn't meet Cupertino's 45% second story: l st story rule. I would like to see this ratio done away with or increased significantly. If I send you a picture of how a beautiful house, would you consider it as input from the Cupertino Community? Please let me know. :) 13 - 218 2/10/2009 13-219 ~ 3 - 220 1 3 - 221 Exhibit F On May 13, 2008, the City Council initiated a limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1) Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of .second floor building area compared to the first floor building Wren (Section 19.28.060). The current R1 Ordinance limits the size of the second floor to no more than 45% of the first floor. The revised ordinance will consider adjusting the o/%wed ratio and associated 2'd f/oar setback surcharge%xposed wa// ru/e to allow greater architectural diversity. The revised ordinance will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building Wren on an R1 lot. The total building area and the minimum required second story setback relationship with neiahboringproperties will not chance. The preliminary ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 8/September 9, 2008 and by City Council on October 21, 2008. The City Council is holding a second. public hearing to receive ndditiq~..,i public input and consider draft ordinance options on the allowable ratio of the second story. The current R1 Ordinance can be viewed on the City s website nt www.cupertino.org/R1. For additional information, you may contact Piu Ghosh with the Cupertino Planning Department at (408) 777-3277 or e-moil any comments to piug@cupertino.org. A/so, p/ease check the City's website prior to the pub/ic hearing for updated information in the event of any changes. P/ease a/so note that there may be additiono/ meetings on this subject_ P/ease contact the P/onning Department for fo/%w-up information regarding hearing schedu/es_ 13-222 MCA-2008-03 CITY OF C'UPERTINO 10300 Toi•re Avenue Cupertino, C~ilifornia 95014 RESOLUTION PTO. 6532 (Denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CI'T`Y COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 19 (SFiCTION 28.060) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE ALLOWED RATIO OF THE SECOND FLOOR BUILDING COMPARED TO THI's FIRST FLOOR BUILDING AREA The Planning Commission does not recommend the proposed approach to deal with the 2nd floor to 1st floor ratio. The Commission believes that the concern for design diversity and functionality are better addre:>sed by evaluating a more comprehensive design review process for two story homes :including consideration of the allowable overall floor area ratio and the 2nd floor to "Lst floor ratio. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Cor*~*T;ssion of the City of Cupertiino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer, Kaneda, Rose Brophy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: / s / Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Commission G: \ PZanning \ PDReport \ Res \ 2008 \MCA-2008-03. doc 13-223 February 17, 2009 Cupertino City Council Exhibit E -___=_=~=_=_ 9. Adopt a resolution affirrr+~*~g local support for the American Recove and Reinv ent - ' Act of 2009 funding, authorizing the filing of an application for American Re ery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding, and stating the assurance to comple the project, Resolution No. 09- 025. 10. A t applications for an Alcoholic Beveraee License: a) Asia Vine ands 17659 Montebello Road, Wine G wer (2) b) Hofi~rau Be Hall SV, LLC, 10123 N. W e Road #2124, On Sale General - Eating Place (4 ITEM5 REMOVED FROM THE C SENT ENDAR (above) 1. Approve the minutes from the Janu 27, 28, and February 3 City Council meetings. The Deputy City Clerk distri ted a page sho g corrections to the minutes of Feb. 3 and noted a correction tot minutes of Jan. 20 as 11. These items were ap oved as amended. _'_ -_`_ 5. Accept the P g Commission recommendation to app t Lisa Giefer as the ~=_='~_-~ Environme Review Committee re resentative. (Continued from b. 3). Under ostponements, this item was removed from the agenda. until member Sandoval said that when this item comes back she w d like information regarding whether Council needs to approve the ERC representative or ' the chair of the Planning Commission automatically becomes the representative. PUBLIC HEARII~IGS 11. Consider a Municipal Code amendment to the Single Family R1 ordinance (section 19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor buildinr~ azea compazed to the first floor buildine area. The revised ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to facilitate greater architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or changing the required second story setbacks. The ordinance amendment will also include minor language clarifications relating to gazdening activities and miscellaneous wording changes to improve the readability of the document, Application No. MCA-2008-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide. Associate Planner Piu Ghosh reviewed the staff report. At 7:27 p.m. Mayor Mahoney opened the public hearing. 1 3 - 224 February 17, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 4 Joshua Richardson said that because of current ordinance rules, he must artificially increase the bottom floor in order to give him the square footage he needs for the second floor. He urged Council to eli*n;r,ate the 45°/~ ratio rule. Jessica Rose showed pictures of the Garden Gate azea before and after it was annexed to Cupertino. She noted that before the annexation, the homes built were very boxy-looking but with the Cupertino restrictions, the homes were toned down and were anicer-looking Mediterranean style. She said that architectural diversity is a good goal but changing only one part of the ordinance wouldn't work toward that goal. She urged Council to focus more on sustainability issues rather than how' big the second floor can be. Jennifer Griffin said that many people vi the Rancho Rinconada area encouraged annexation because they wanted more protection against "monster homes." She said the o=dinance works well as it is now and that the homes being built under the current rules aze nice. She urged Council to either open up the whole Rl ordinance or leave it alone and focus on something important like sustainabiiity. Stanley Lee said that he is for the single-tier proposal and hopes Council doesn't put too much restriction on two-story houses and no additional restriction on houses less than the 45% ratio. Jeff Schullcen said that he was happy that his Rancho Rinconada neighborhood was annexed to Cupertino to slow down the building of "monster homes." He suggested Council open up the entire R1 rather than just one aspect, if Council looks at it at all. Eric Keng said that Council should streamlvze the planning process and let people build houses the way they want because the 45% ratio is not flexible enough. He suggested setting an absolute second floor square footal;e, instead of 45% of the first floor, by using the overall lot and the setback. Susan Chen urged Council to remove the 45% ratio because it is not environmentally friendly, since people are forced to build a bigger first floor and use more material. She also said that removing the 45% ratio would Faso create more diversity. Y.Q. Qi said he agreed with increasing the ratio for the second floor so there is more space for a yard. At 8:05 p.m. Mayor Mahoney closed the public hearing. City Planner Gary Chao explained that the Ra 45% ratio topic came up again as a design issue. Even though the existing ordinance works, Planning found that more people were building wedding-cake style houses. Staff wanted to see ordinance options without changing setbacks on second floor, floor area ratio (FAR), or privacy issues, to how best accomplish diversity in building styles. __ __{ 1 3 - 225 February 17, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 5 ~ ~`=_-_= Council discussed and commented on the draft Two Story Design Principles in the packet. Sandoval moved and Wong seconded to continue the item to March 17 with direction to staff regazding amending the design principles and pictorial examples, and also review the effect of removing the second story setback surcharge and applying the design principles, or keeping the setback surchazge but applying only visual relief techniques. Councilmember Sandoval also wished to have additional wording in the design guidelines about sustainability. The motion carried unanimously. Council recessed from 8:55 p.m. to 9:05 p.m. ~UNFINISIiI;D BUSINESS -none NE~bCBUSINE5S 12. Co 'der an anneal from Mr. Sridaz Obilesetty regarding undergrounding utili ' s, 10171 Leban Drive APN 342-14-008. (Continued from December 2). Parks and creation Director Mark Linder reviewed the staff report. - _- Appellant Sridaz Obilesetty showed a PowerPoint presen on stating his case. He = '-- explained that the blic Works staff reviewed and appr ed his blueprints, and those plans did not reflect th need to underground utilities. said it would have been easier to do it then than now, cause all the overhead rk would have to be demolished, thereby wasting energy and oney. He showed a cture of anewly-constructed home on Lorre Ave. which had overhe utilities. He d that that he was told undergrounding was an aesthetic issue and not a s ety issue d he asked that Council uphold his appeal and allow him to keep the power ov ea . Assistant Public Works Director enn Goepfert explained that it is a Public Works department policy to undergro utilities, d the current question is whether the City wants to participate in the c t of doing th undergrounding at this time because the City's process has someho cost the appellant m ney. Wong moved and S toro seconded for discussion deny the appeal and to require undergrounding of a utilities, with a modification to s a cap of $4,000 for the City's participation in a costs of undergrounding the electrical rvice, specifically for work beyond what dergrounding would have cost if constructed o finally, in exchange for a release of a City against all future claims, and the City should ork with the applicant to a the impact on the existing house. Wang added a frien amendment that the City ould only pay for 30% of the cost. The amendment was not acce ed. -_ -_ doval moved and Wang seconded to amend the motion that the City uld only pay for 30% of the cost. That motion failed with Mahoney, Santoro, and Wong vo 'ng no and Sandoval and Wang voting yes. - 226 October 21, 2008 Cupertino City Council Page 5 '=-``--=- to art of the City azea would be put in the Heart of the ocument; keep the Heart of the ocument simple. Council directed staff to b is itern b on Dec. 2 with City-wide noticing. Staff . will provide ablue-line Heart of the Specific Plan document (showing any changes) based on the previous docum ,with Gen Ian tie-ins- and talking points from the community and Planni ommission. Staff will ing'back a sample Heart of the City Specific Pl ocument that will show anything not ed in the General Plan, with an a ix that includes applicable policies from the Gener that refer to the He the City Specific Plan document. Council recessed from 9:15 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. 13. Consider a Municipal Code Amendment to .the Sin¢Ie Family R1 Ordinance (section 19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to the first floor building azea. The revised ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to facilitate greater architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building azea on an Rl lot or changing ttie required second story setbacks. __=<__ The ordinance amendment will also uiclude minor language clarifications relating to -~" gardening activities and miscellaneous vvording changes to improve the readability of the document, Application No. MCA-2008-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide. Written communications included the foalowing: • Staff handout of red-line changes to Municipal Code Chapter 19.28 • Hard copy of staff Power Point presentation City Planner Gary Chao and Assistant Planner Leslie Gross reviewed the staff report. At 9:42 p.m. Mayor Sandoval opened thc: Public Heazing_ Jennifer Griffin said she was confused as to how the Plan*+~*+g Commission voted and what staff wants. She said that "monster" homes have been built in her neighborhood from day one. When the R1 zone was ester--blished, it took the monster homes away, and now the threat is back. She is afraid the homes will. become big, squaze boxes. She showed pictures of homes in Manteca .showing lazge second stories. She said that she likes the wedding cake style houses. Susan Chen said that she likes to see mare variety of housing styles in Cupertino and not all the same, such as a wedding cake style. She noted that Cupertino has many small lots and with the current ratio people can't put three bedrooms on a second story. Instead, they have to enlarge the first floor as much as possible which reduces the space on already =--< small lots. 13 - 227 October 21, 2008 Cupertino City Council Page 6 Lisa Warren said that homework has already been done and to leave things the way they -= aze. Deborah Hill said that people want to build a house for their kids and can't afford to live in Cupertino. She said she was against making a change. At 9:53 p.m. Mayor Sandoval closed the public hearing. Mahoney/Wang moved and seconded to adopt the staff recommended ordinance framework, direct staff to work with the City architect consultant, and return as soon as possible to Council after the City wide noticing, to present ordinance details for consideration. Santoro made a friendly amendment to remove 19.28.060 section 2; replace 19.28.060 section G.3. and section a. with the following Ianguage: "Wall heights over 12' that aze over 20" long require relief. Acceptable methods of relief are: extended or wrap around porches; pop outs and bay windows; material and color changes; wide overhangs with projection brackets; julliet balconies; window boxes and pot shelves; landscaped trellises and lattices; or other similaz acchitectural features deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development" and to adopt the principles and guidelines to be provided by the City Architect. Mahoney said he would accept the friendly amendment as an alternative to be brought back by staff, along with staff's recommendation and any other insights that staff has. Wang withdrew her second because she stud she wanted to see more options. Sandoval seconded the motion. The motion failed with. Santoro, Wang, and Wong voting no and Mahoney and Sandoval voting yes. Santoro/Mahoney moved and seconded to remove 19.28.060 section 2; replace 19.28.060 section G.3. and section a. with the follov~~ing language: "Wall heights over 12' that are over 20" long require relief. Acceptable methods of relief are: extended or wrap around porches; pop outs and bay windows; material and color changes; wide overhangs with projection brackets; julliet balconies; window boxes and pot shelves; landscaped trellises and lattices; or other similar architectural features deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development." Aiso include design principles, adjustments, and • - guidelines from staff and bring a sample back to Council. - Wang made a friendly amendment to not include in the motion removing 19.28.060 section 2 regarding a 45% floor 'area ratio. Santoro did not accept the friendly amendment. Santoro amended his motion to include looking at the process to determine how the new method would be applied to second floors and include a look at other ratios that have some limit as well. Wang moved an amendment to consider reviewing the Rl ordinance regarding the second floor building ratio compazed to the first floor building area. If the ratio becomes 100% - 1 3 - 228 October 21, 2008 Cupertino City Council Page 7 T 's_ __ then consider all the conditions that Santoro suggested. The motion died for lack of a second. The following original motion-made by Sazrtoro, with his added amendment, carved with Mahoney, Santoro, ~rtd Wong voting ye:: and Sandoval and Wang voting no: Remove 19.28.060_ section 2; Replace 19.28.060 section G.3, and section a. with -the following language: "Wall heights over 12' that are over 20" long require relief. Acceptable methods of relief ale: extended or wrap azound porches; pop outs and bay windows; material and color changes; wide overhangs with projection brackets; julliet balconies; window boxes and pot shelves; landscaped trellises and lattices; or other similar architectural features deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development." Also include design pr~.:nciples, adjustments, and guidelines from staff; look at the process for how the new method would be applied to second floors; look at other ratios that have some limit as well;, and bring back a sample to Council. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Receive an update on the investment po] ice. Co cil concurred to receive the report. -= NEW BUSINES 15. Consider taking up question of increasing amendment. Written communications include a following: • An amended page from staffs wing le 2-A titled Development Allocation • A hard copy of the Power Poirit pr ntation from staff • A handout of hotel plans from a of speakers Tom Hugunin said that hew s Appae Computer show the plans for their project before increasing the office oration. Jennifer Griffin urge ouncil to proceed cautiously to see what ple and HP want to do with their prop ies first before increasing the office allocation. Dipesh Gup said he has already put in ari application to the City for ahigh-e otel on De A lvd. replacing the existing ga:; station. He noted that it would inclu 138 room conference rooms, a street cafe, and an interactive Iounge, and that it is a gre bu' ing LEED certified. He explained. that the project would have less traffic than the fisting gas station. He requested Council to move rapidly on the hotel allocation increase request. He distributed the project plans. 1 3 - 229