The URL can be used to link to this page

R1 Ordinance Section 19.28.010 19.28.020 19.28.030 19.28.040 19.28.050 19.28.060 19.28.070 19.28.080 19.28.090 19.28.100 19.28.110 19.28.120 19.28.130 19.28.140 19.28.010 CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Rl) ZONES Purposes. Applicability of regulations. Permitted uses. Conditional uses. Development regulations (site). Development regulations (building). Landscape requirements. Permitted yard encroachments. Minor residential permit. Two-story residential permit. Exceptions. Development regulations-Eichler (R1-e). Development regulations-(R1-a). 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; 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. 2039, (part), 2009; 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 buildi.J:lg, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R-l single-family residence district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 2009 S- 20 19.28.030 Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the R-l 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. 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; J. Large-family day care homes, which meet the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which are at least three hundred feet from any other large-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 parking and proximity requirements; 19.28.040 Cupertino - Zoning 30 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. Temporary 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 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 Commission: 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 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 minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; 2009 S-20 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 yard area per occupant. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; 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-l zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: Zoning Symbol Number Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet Rl 5 Rl 6 Rl 7.5 Rl 10 Rl 20 5,000 6,000 7,500 10,000 20,000 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection A(I) 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 is sixty feet measured at the front-yard setback line, except in the RI-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 RI-20 that have an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent are developed in accordance with the following site development standards : 31 Single-Family Residential (Rl) Zones 19.28.050 a. Site Grading. i. All site grading is limited to a cumulative total of two thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus f11l. 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 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 square feet of flat yard area, excluding driveways, may be graded. ii. All cut and fill areas are rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping which meets the requirements in Section 19.40.050G. iii. A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and the City Engineer, 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 f1l1 of the site exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the applicant is required to obtain a Site and Architectural approval from the Planning Commission. 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, defmed 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 2009 S-20 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 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 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 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. 2039, (part), 2009; 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 Cupertino - Zoning 32 19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building). A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage 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 is forty-five percent. 2. The maximum floor area of a second story is forty- five percent of the existing or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is greater. a. The Director of Community Development may grant approval to a second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45 % provided that the following design principles are met: i. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided; ii. Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style selected; iii. Visual relief deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development shall be provided; iv. Materials shall be of high quality; v. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale; vi. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure; and vii. The design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance. The "City of Cupertino Two Story Design Principles" are attached hereto as an Appendix and incorporated herein by this reference. 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 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-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: 2009 S- 20 a. The mass and bulk 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-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 avoid~d 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 a one-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 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 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 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 yard is not less than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. 33 Single-Family Residential (Rl) Zones 19.28.060 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 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 a single-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. a. This regulation does not apply for homes with second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45 % . 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 is five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall 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 lightwell. 5. The perimeter of the basement and alllightwell 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 Rl zone shall not exceed twenty-eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances. 2. Building Envelope (One Story). 2009 S- 20 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: i. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; ii. A twenty-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 fmdings in Section 19.28.110 D. b. This regulation does not apply for homes with second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45 % . 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height is fourteen feet measured from natural grade to 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 Rl zoning district. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall me 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 is fifteen feet. 3. The minimum rear-yard setback 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 19.28.060 Cupertino - Zoning 34 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 subjectto Section 19.28.090. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Drd. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Drd. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000; Drd. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Drd. 1799 ~ 1, 1998; Drd. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Drd. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Drd. 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 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 orshrubs. 1. New trees or shrubs are 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 fmal 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. 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 2009 S- 20 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 waive 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 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 fmal 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. (Drd. 2039, (part), 2009; Drd. 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 fifteen 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 is permitted for the life of such building. 35 Single-Family Residential (Rl) Zones 19.28.080 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 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. (ard. 2039, (part), 2009; ard. 1954, (part), 2005; Drd. 1886, (part), 2001; ard. 1868, (part), 2001; Drd. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000; ard. 1834, (part), 1999; Drd. 1808, (part), 1999; Drd. 1618, (part), 1993; ard. 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 fmdings: 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 2009 S- 20 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 a one-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. (Drd. 2039, (part), 2009; ard. 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 35 % shall require a Level I Two-Story Residential Permit, while a two-story project with a floor area ratio over 35 % shall require a Level II 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 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 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; 19.28.100 Cupertino - Zoning 36 d. A deadline for the submission of public comments, 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 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(I) 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 fmdings: 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. i 36, except that the Planning Commission will make the final action on the appeal. F. Expiration of a Two-Story Permit. Unless a building permit is f1led 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 2009 S- 20 Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant a one-year extension, without a public notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to the Two-Story Permit is f1led 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. 2039, (part), 2009; 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 Development Department shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the Design Review Committee 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 are 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 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 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 an 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 fmdings: 37 Single-Family Residential (Rl) Zones 19.28.110 a. The project fulfills the intent of the visible second-story wall height regulation in that the number of two-story wall planes and the amount of visible second story wall area is reduced to the maximum extent possible. b. 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. 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 fmdings: 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. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.120 Development Regulations-Eichler (Rl-e). R l-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 are integrated with the roof line of the house. 2. The maximum roof slope is 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. 2009 S- 20 5. Section 19.28.060 G(4) is considered a guideline in the Rl-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: 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. 2039, (part), 2009; 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 minimum lot size is ten thousand square feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width 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 square 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 yard setback is forty feet. 19.28.130 Cupertino - Zoning 38 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 a first-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 a two-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 defmed by: 1. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade and located ten feet from property lines; 2. 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 Rl 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 fmdings in subsection N(l) of this section. K. Design Guidelines. The guidelines in this section shall be used in conjunction with the City I 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 minimum four-foot depth and ten-foot width. 2009 S- 20 The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. 3. Section 19.28.060 G(4) is considered a guideline in the Rl-a district. 4. Garages. The maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be twenty-five feet, which will accommodate a two-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 encroache~, upon present required yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building line. 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 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 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. 39 Single-Family Residential (R1) Zones 19.28.130 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 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 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 are partially mitigated. d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist 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 fmdings 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. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 2009 S- 20 19.28.140 Interpretation by the Planning Director. In Rl zones, the Director of Community Development shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of this chapter 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. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Oni. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 40 Cupertino - Zoning [Next page is page 43] APPENDIX CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES CUPERTINO INTRODUCTION Cupertino's neighborhoods have developed over a period of decades vvith varying architectural styles. Recent zoning regulations that were intended to soften the rnass and bulk of two story homes force prescribed setbacks and offsets resulting in the construction of a sirnilar, '\vedding cake" style of home in the City. N O\V, horneowners and builders are allowed greater design flexibility if their design confonns to the following design principles. Two story h0111es \vith a second story to first floor ratio greater than 45% are allowed when they offset the buildIng massing with designs that encolnpass higher quality architectural features and rnaterials. DESIGN PRINCIPLES These design principles help integrate ne\v homes and ad- ditions to existing homes with existing neighborhoods by providing a fi-amework for the review and approval process. Where possible, additional details and exaInples have been provided. Conditions not covered by these examples vvill be evaluated on a case-by-cases basis. 1. PROVIDE AN IDENTIFIABLE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Attractive hornes are designed by using elelnents frorn one consistent theIne. It is best to work \vith your designer to identify and carry out one style around the entire house. The following pictures illustrate traditional and Inedittera- nean homes \vith success in identifying a single style. Ad- ditional resources for infonnation on horne styles are listed in the side bar on page 3. · Prominent entry · Varied roof heights · First floor roof eave · Symmetrical windows Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 · Simple Form · Grouped \vindows · Architectural Detail · Recessed Garage · Simple Forn1 · Grouped windo\vs · Materials variety · Synunetrical windo\vs · Strong first floor fonn · Materials variety · Authentic details · Recessed Garage · Varied roof forms · Architectural details · Well defined entry · One-story form PAGE 1 CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES · Prominent porch · Simple roof forms · Recessed garage · Organized windows · Prominent porch · Sirnple building fonns · Simple roof forms · Wood siding · Sirnple building forms · Recessed garage · Large porch · Organized windows · PrOlninent Entry . · Material variation · Front facade depth · Varied height and bulk Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 PAGE 2 · Simple forms · Varied front wall planes · Pro1l1inent porch · Wood siding · Authentic details · Organized \vindows · Second story balcony · Architectural detail ..~' - -; :- ~--::......,: -= ~ - · Simple building form · Sirnple roof fonn · Full \vidth porch · Organized windows · Architectural detail · Recessed garage · \Vide roof overhangs · Prominent entry 2. DESIGN FEATURES. PROPORTIONS AND DETAILS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE 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 O\V11 unique details that add human scale and visual interest. Their use will ensure a consistency of scale and design authenticity. Use decorative elelnents and details that are typical of the architectural style selected. E.g. use Spanish Sty Ie details on a Spanish Style hOlne and not a Ranch Style hOlne. Select \vall siding, trun and roofing lnaterials that are suitable to the architectural style selected. Visually definitive \vindo"w trinl is highly desirable for both \vood siding and stucco structures. Use of natural trun materials for proj ecting trim around windows and doors is desirable. If simulated material is used, material that can be painted or cov- ered with a slnooth stucco finish should be used. 2.2 Porches and Entries Porches and entry features should be proportional and appropriate to architectural style: Select colunms that are traditional to the architec- tural style of the house. Take care in selecting columns with an appropriate \vidth to height ratio for the style. Except for a very few styles, the colulnns should have appropriate caps and bases with proportions typi- cal of the sty Ie. Provide a well proportioned beam between the colUlnn caps and the roof. Size and detail the beam so that it looks like a convincing stlucturallnelnber. Railings should be constructed of lnaterials suitable to the architectural style. HOlnes \vith predominantly stucco and stone exteriors lnay have lnetal or precast stone railings otherwise railings should be constlucted of wood. Provide both top and bottoln rails with the bottoln rail raised above the porch floor level for wood and metal railings. Note: All porches should be functional with a lnini- mUln depth of 6 feet. 2.3 Balconies Large second floor decks should be suppolted on appropriately sized and proportional colulnns. Balcony railings should be designed as discussed for porch railings. PAGE 3 CHAPTER 19.28 - ApPENDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES 2.4 Windows Size and Pattern Each architectural sryle has a typical pattern of windows 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 of1\vo or lnore \vhere they are ty ical of the architectural style. Grouped windows Relate and align the location of windows on second floors to those on the first floor, if possible. Placelnent should not appear haphazard. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE These principles are not intended to establish or dictate a specific style. While a \vide range of architectural styles is acceptable, there is an expectatiori that any specific style selected \vill be carried out \vith an integrity offonl1s and details that are consistent \vith that style. The follo\ving resources nlay be useful to hOnleO\Vners, builders, and design professionals in understanding the special qualities of specific house styles. · A Field Guide to A111erican Honles Virginia & Lee McAlester Alfred A. Knopf 2000 · The Abranls Guide to A111erican House Styles Wilkin Morgan Harry N. Abranls, Inc 2004 · House Styles in Anlerica Janles C. Massey Penquin Studio 1996 · Celebrating the Alnerican Honle Joanne Kellar Bouknight The Taunton Press 2005 · The Distinctive Honle, A Vision ofTin1eless Design Jerenliah Eck The Taunton Press 2005 Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDIX A . CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES 2.5 Detail Materials Installation Guides Openings in walls should be constlucted as if they were constructed of the traditionallnaterial for the style. For example, provide substantial \vall space above arches in stucco and stone \valls. Traditionally, wall space above the arch was necessary to ~tructurally span the opening. Treat synthetic stone as one would design with real stone (e.g., nonnal coursing for load-bearing \valls with significant returns at windo\vs and comers to avoid a pasted-on look). Operungs in walls faced \vith stone, real or syn- thetic, should have defined lintels or headers above the opening except in Mission or Spanish styles. Lintels or headers Inay be stone, brick or wood as suits the style of the house. Make materials and color changes at inside comers rather than outside comers to avoid a pasted on look. ~ Wall-" Inside '\ YES Inside ~o Outside +1 Applied ~ material Outside or color Change materials and colors at inside corners Not at outside corners 3. FACADE ARTICULATION 3.1 Visual Relief Techniques The following teclmiques offer ways to mitigate the bulk of larger hOlnes in slnaller scale neighborhoods and the ilnpact of two-story tall \valls on adjacent neighbors and the streetscape. Second floor setbacks Horizontal and vertical \vall plane changes Pop outs Bay windows Chilllileys Wide overhangs with projecting brackets Juliet balconies Belly bands Window boxes and pot shelves Landscaped trellises and lattices Proj ecting \vindo\v trim Materials and color changes Inset balconies Applied decorative features Recessed garage doors Recessed windows Windo\v trim Tall trees to break up vie\vs of long \valls Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 PAGE 4 PAGE 5 CHAPTER 19.28 - ApPE1\TDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DES1GN PRlNCIPLES Architectural detail IRecessed windows and architectural detail Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 CHAPTER 19.28 - ApPENDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES 3.2 Defined Entry Feature Entry features should be definitive and appropriate both in terms of scale and design to the style of the house. Covered porches are strongly encouraged. Especially in neighborhoods with a predolninance of one-story homes, a porch with a roof at the first floor will help to integrate the ne\v, taller house into its surroundings. 3.3 Simple Forms Traditional architecturell styles usually have rela- tively simple floor plans and roof fonns (See ex- alnples on pages 4 and 5). Develop plans and elevations together. COlnplex floor plans require complicated build- ing nlasses and roof fonns which significantly increase the cost of construction. 3.4 Bay windows Bay \vindows help add context and articulation to the house, ho\vever the follovv'ing should be consid- ered when designing bay windows: Avoid very large bay \vindows that cOlnpete with the entry as the focal point of the house. Bay vvindows should be designed with a base TRADITIONAL DETAILS Architectural details will be expected to folIo\\! traditional standards. Three refer- ence resources that can help are the fol- Io\ving: · Traditional Construction Patterns: De- sign & Detail Rules of Thulnb Stephen A. Mouzon McGraw-Hill 2004 · Get Your House Right: Architectural Elenlents to Use and Avoid Marianne Cusato, Ben Pentreath, Rich- ard Sanmlons, and Leon Krier Sterling Publishing 2008 · Architectw.al Graphic Standards for Residential Construction: The Archi- tect's and Builder's Guide to Design Plamling and Construction Details (Ralnsey/Sleeper Architectural Graphic Standards Series) The AUlerican Institute of Architects Jolm Wiley & Sons 2003 Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 .p AGE 6 elelnent to the ground or wi th supporting brackets at the base for first floor windows. For second floor bay windo\vs, supporting corbels or brackets are encour- aged. Sloped roofs should be used and covered with a material that Inatches the roof lllaterial or with Inetal. Avoid using wall materials betvveen the individual Different roof material windows of the bay window unless the \vindo\v is large. Generally, bay \vindows look best when the windows are close together and separated by woodjalnbs that Inatch wood sills and heads as shown : in the exalnple. 4. DESIGN WITH ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY ON ALL SIDES OF THE HOUSE Attention to detail and architectural consistency shall be Inaintained 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. 5. USE HIGH QUALITY MATERIALS Traditional materials, such as wood and stone, are de- sirable, and strongly encouraged. If synthetic material is used, it lnust closely resemble authentic nlaterials. 6. SUSTAINABILITY The City of Cupertino is cOlmnitted to sustainable planning that integrates and balances environmental decisions with economic considerations and recog- nizes the sYlnbiotic relationship between the natural enviromnent, the community and the econolny. This cOlllinitlnent to environmental stewardship, social responsibility and economic vitality of our cOlnmunity can be realized in all design proj ects, froln single faln- ily residences to large cOlllinercial properties, through green building Ineasures. Green building is defined as an integrated fralnework of design, construction, operations and delnolition practices that enCOlnpasses the enviromnental, eco- CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES nomic, and social impacts of buildings. Green building practices recognize the interdependence of the natural and built environments and seek to minimize the use of energy, water, and other natural resources and pro- vide a healthy, productive indoor environment. 6.1 Green Building Principles New 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, Environmental Resources/Sustainability, of The City of Cupertino's General Plan presents essen- tial components of a green building design and plan- ning process. These elements create a framework for evaluating green building measures applicable to the construction of two story residential design principles including but not limited to: · Site planning · Energy efficiency · Material efficiency · Water conservation PAGE 7 Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 39 Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones 19.28.150 19.28.150 Appendix B-Release of Privacy Protection Measures. Single-Family Residential Ordinance Orrlinanr.e 19.28 (Single-Family) requires that after 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. Document referred to in Chapter 19.28.070B (2) Release of Privacy Protection Measures Single-Family Residential Ordinance Ordinance 19.28 (Single-Family) requires that after 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. 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, 91 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) Privacy Protection Planting Affidavit 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 the design and accuracy of the privacy protection planting. A reduced eleven by 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: address and it is consistent in design, height and location with the landscape planting and irrigation plans drawn by: dated (attached). Name Title Professional License # Date (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, S 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) 19.28.160 Cupertino - Zoning 42 Exhibit 1. 30. Angle . . . Privacy Invasion Mitigati9f1" required in sliadSdareas . Rear Yard Window Window . . . Second Floor · I . I I I . I I. I Document referred to in Chapter 19.28.0700 Landscape Mitigation Measures PRIVACY SCREENING MATERIALS I. NON-DECIDUOUS TREES A. Cedrus Deodara - Deodara Cedar B. Melaleuca Linarifolia - Flaxleaf Paperbak C. Pinus Helipensis - Aleppo Pine D. Eucalyptus Polyanthemos - Silver dollar E. Cinnamomom Camphora - Camphor F. Arbutus Marina G. Magnolia Grandiflora - Southern Magnolia Height to 80' 30' 40-60' 20-60' 50' 40' 80' Planting Distance- Maximum 20' 6' 10' 5' 20' 15' 20' Spread 40' @ ground 12-15' 20-25' 10-15' 50' 35' 40' The minimum tree size shall be 24" box minimum and a minimum of 8' high planted height. See Page 2 of Appendix A for minimum planting distance from City street trees for planting in the front yard setback. II. NON-DECIDUOUS SHRUBS A. Pittosporum Eugenoides B. Pittosporum Tenuifolium C. Pittosporum Crassifolium D. Pittosporum Undulatum- Victorian Box E. Cupressus Sempervirens - Italian Cypress F. Podocarpus Gracilior-Fern Pine G. Privet Ligustrum-Glossy Privet H. Laurus Nobilis-Grecian Laurel I. Rhus Lancia - African Sumac 40' 40' 25' 15-40' 60' 60' 35-40' 15-40' 25' 20' 20' 15-20' 15-40' 3-6' 20' 20' 20' 20' 5' 5' 8' 8' 5' 10' 10' 10' 10' The minimum shrub size shall be IS-gallon minimum and a minimum of 6' high planted height. See Page 2 of Appendix A for minimum planting distance from City street trees for planting in the front yard setback. Notes: The Community Development Department may use other species than those listed above subject to approval. Applicant shall be required to submit adequate documentation in order for approval of other planting materials. Documentation shall include a letter from an Internationally Certified Arborist or Landscape Architect stating that the materials proposed will meet or exceed height, spread criteria and growth rate of listed materials and that they are suitable for planting on the applicant's property. The goal is to provide a partial screening after three years' growth following planting. The purpose of this list is to give the minimum planting distance between the required street tree/ shrub planting in front yard setbacks and the City street tree. ਍䥃奔匠剔䕅⁔剔䕅਍਍偓䕒䑁਍਍䱐乁䥔䝎䐠卉⁔乁䕃ഭ䴊义䵉䵕਍਍⹁匠⹴䴠牡⁹慍湧汯慩പ䈊‮牃灡⁥祍瑲敬਍⹃倠楲潶൴䐊‮慃楬潦湲慩䈠捵敫敹਍⹅䈠物档਍⹆䠠汯祬传歡਍⹇䄠楲瑳捯慲⁴汆睯牥湩⁧敐牡പ䠊‮汆睯牥湩⁧汐浵പ䤊‮慍⁹整൮䨊‮敍慬敬捵ൡ䬊‮慅瑳牥⁮敒扤摵പ䰊‮牂獩慢敮䈠硯പ䴊‮楌畱摩䄠扭牥਍⹎䌠牡扯਍⹏䜠楥敧慲਍⹐删畨⁳慌据慩਍⹑䰠物摯湥牤湯਍⹒䌠楨敮敳倠獩慴楣⩯਍⹓䜠湩潫പ吊‮桃湩獥⁥慈正敢牲⩹਍⹖汅൭嘊‮祓慣潭敲਍⹗䴠汵敢牲൹堊‮楓歬吠敲൥夊‮慒睹潯⁤獁൨娊‮敍敤瑳⁯獁൨䄊⹁匠慨浭汥䄠桳਍䉂‮慃灭潨൲挊⹣娠汥潫慶਍਍〲ധ㈊✰਍〲ധ㈊✰਍〲ധ㈊✰਍〳ധ㌊✰਍〳ധ㌊✰਍〳ധ㐊✰਍〴ധ㐊✰਍〴ധ㐊✰਍〴ധ㔊✰਍〵ധ㔊✰਍〵ധ㔊✰਍〵ധ㔊✰਍〵ധ㔊✰਍〵ധ㘊✰਍〶ധഊㄊ✰਍〱ധㄊ✰਍〱ധㄊ✰਍〱ധㄊ✵਍㔱ധㄊ✵਍㔱ധㄊ✵਍〲ധ㈊✰਍〲ധ㈊✰਍〲ധ㈊✰਍㔲ധ㈊✵਍㔲ധ㈊✵਍㔲ധ㈊✵਍㔲ധ㈊✵਍㔲ധ㈊✵਍〳ധ㌊✰਍਍䐪湥瑯獥琠敲⁥畣牲湥汴⁹湯猠牴敥⁴牴敥氠獩⹴传桴牥琠敲獥瀠敲楶畯汳⁹湯氠獩⁴湡⁤慭⁹畣牲湥汴⁹硥獩⁴獡愠猠牴敥൴琊敲⹥⠠牏⹤ㄠ㘸ⰰ匠ㄠ⠠慰瑲Ⱙ㈠〰㬰传摲‮㠱㐳‬瀨牡⥴‬㤱㤹ഩ ORDINANCE NO. 09-2039 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RL) ZONES OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE ALLOWED RATIO OF SECOND FLOOR BUILDING AREA COMPARED TO THE FIRST FLOOR BUILDING AREA, SECOND STORY EXPOSED WALL RULE, SECOND STORY SETBACK SURCHARGE, CLARIFICATION REGARDING GARDENING ACTIVITY AND MINOR LANGUAGE CLEAN UP TO IMPROVE READABILITY OF THE DOCUMENT THE CITY 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. Ordinance No. 09-2039 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; 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, § I (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. F. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or 2 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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; J. Large -family day care homes, which meet -the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which are at least three hundred feet from any other large -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 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) 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. Temporary 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 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 Commission: 1. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story limitation pursuant to Section 3 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 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 yard 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 (Sit:). 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 RI 5 5,000 R1 6 6,000 R1 7.5 7,500 R1 10 10,000 RI 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 4 Ordinance No. 09-2039 other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width 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 are developed in accordance with the following site development standards: a. Site Grading. i. All site grading 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 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 square feet of flat yard area, excluding driveways, may be graded. ii. All cut and fill areas are rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping which meets the requirements in Section 19.40.050G. iii. A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and the City Engineer, submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen out and fill slopes. Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 is required to obtain a Site and Architectural approval from the Planning Commission. 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 Municipal 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 Community Development. e. Fencing. i. Solid board fencing 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 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 6 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 fled 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 e6ect 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 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 is forty-five percent. 2. The maximum floor area of a second story is forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is greater. a. The Director of Community Development may grant approval to a second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the following design principles are met: i. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided; ii. Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style selected; iii. Visual relief deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development shall be provided; iv. Materials shall be of high quality; v. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale; vi. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure; and vii. The design shall reflect syrmnetry, proportion and balance. The "City of Cupertino Two Story Design Principles" are attached hereto as an Appendix and incorporated herein by this reference. 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 are counted as floor area. 7 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 bulk 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, cave 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 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. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. All second story roofs should have at least a one -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 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. 8 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 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 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 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 a single-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. a. This regulation does not apply for homes with second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45%. 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 is five feet; 0 Ordinance No. 09-2039 b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall is ten feet. 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public sb-eet 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 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. A twenty -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. b. This regulation does not apply for homes with second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45%. 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height is fourteen feet measured from natural grade to 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. 10 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 is fifteen feet. 3. The minimum rear -yard setback 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 propert;� 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 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 are 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. Ordinance No. 09-2039 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. 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 larger, with a minimum height of six feet. The Director of Community Development can waive 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 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: 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. 12 Ordinance No. 09-2039 2. The maximum length of the extension is fifteen 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 13 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 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 a one-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 concun•ently 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 35% shall require a Level I Two -Story Residential Permit, while a two-story project with a floor area ratio over 35% shall require a Level II 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 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 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 comments, which shall be at least fourteen days 14 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 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 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 Commission 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 a one-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. 15 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 Development Department shall set a time and place: for a public hearing before the Design Review Committee 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 are 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 an 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 visible second-story wall height regulation in that the number of two-story wall planes and the amount ofvisible second story wall area is reduced to the maximum extent possible. b. 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. c. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. 16 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 (P.1 -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. 1. Entry features facing the street are integrated with the roof line of the house. 2. The maximum roof slope is 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) 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 17 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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: 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—(R].-a). RI -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 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 square 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. 18 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 a first -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 a two-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 R1 ••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. 19 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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) is 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 a two -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 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 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 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. 20 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 detAing 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 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 measurers 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 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 are partially mitigated. d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist 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. 21 Ordinance No. 09-2039 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 RI zones, the Director of Community Development shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of this chapter 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) INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of March, 2009, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of April 2009, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: Mahoney, Sandoval, Santoro, Wang NOES: None ABSENT: Wong ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk 1 1/? ,11, -� -.1 / ,� Mayor, City of Cu lno 22 CITY OF CUPERTINO TWO STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES CUPERTINO 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 bulk of two story homes force prescribed setbacks and offsets resulting in the construction of a similar, "wedding 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 building 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 existing neighborhoods by providing a framework for the 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 Attractive homes are designed by using 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 success in identifying a single style. Ad- ditional resources for information on home styles are listed in the side bar on page 3. • Prominent entry • First floor roof eave • Varied roof heights • Symmetrical windows Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 PAGE 1 • Simple Form • Architectural Detail • Grouped windows • Recessed Garage • Simple Form • Materials variety • Grouped windows • Symmetrical windows • Strong first floor form • Authentic details • Materials variety • Recessed Garage • Varied roof forms • Well defined entry • Architectural details • One-story form CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDix A CITY of CUPERnNo Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES • Prominent porch Recessed garage • Simple roof forms Organized windows • Prominent porch • Simple roof forms • Simple building forms • Wood siding • Simple building forms Large porch • Recessed garage Organized windows • Prominent Entry • Front facade depth • Material variation • Varied height and bulk Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 PAGE 2 • Simple forms • Prominent porch • Varied front wall planes • Wood siding • Authentic details Second story balcony • Organized windows Architectural detail • Simple building form Full width porch • Simple roof form Organized windows • Architectural detail • Wide roof overhangs • Recessed garage • Prominent entry 2. DESIGN FEATURES. PROPORTIONS AND DETAILS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE 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.g. use Spanish Style details on a Spanish Style home and not a Ranch Style home. • Select wall siding, trim and roofing materials that are suitable to the architectural style selected. • Visually definitive window trim 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 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 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 wood and metal railings. Note: All porches should be functional with a mini- mum depth of 6 feet. 2.3 Balconies • Large second floor decks should be supported on appropriately sized and proportional columns. • Balcony railings should be designed as discussed for porch railings. CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES 2.4 Windows Size and Pattern Each architectural style has a typical pattern of windows 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 two or more where they are typical of the architectural style. Grouped windows • Relate and align the location of windows 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 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 & 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 PAGE 3 Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDix A CITY OF C1IPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES 2.5 Detail Materials Installation Guides • Openings in walls should be constructed as if they were constructed 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 was necessary to structurally span the opening. • Treat synthetic stone as one would design with real stone (e.g., normal coursing for load-bearing walls with significant returns at windows and corners to avoid a pasted -on look). • Openings in walls faced with stone, real or syn- thetic, should have defined lintels or headers above the opening except in 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 pasted on look. .0— weu--� Inside YES Inside Applied Outside material Outside or color Change materials Not at and colors at outside inside corners corners 3. FACADE ARTICULATION 3.1 Visual Relief Techniques The following techniques offer ways to mitigate 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 • 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 • Window trim • Tall trees to break up views of long walls Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 PACE 4 Second floor setbacks i� gni � � ► , , a�A Bay. window pop out ..nnnuusru ��nnnnuue■ Substantial roof overhanq 1 ♦— Bay window Vertical wall S �� in � plane - - . Architectural _ detail and Large window trim roof overhai se' Belly "I F- ;g M 9 band Che r CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDix A CITY OF CUPERTINO TWO STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES Archit PAGE 5 Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDDC A CITY of CuPERTINo Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES 3.2 Defined Entry Feature Entry features should be definitive and appropriate both 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 and elevations together. • Complex floor plans require complicated build- ing masses and roof forms which significantly increase 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 with the entry as the focal point of the house. • Bay windows should be designed with a base 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 & Detail 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 & Sons 2003 Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 'PAGE 6 element to the ground or with supporting brackets at the base for first floor windows. For second floor bay windows, supporting corbels or brackets are encour- aged. Sloped roofs should be used and covered with a material that matches the roof material or with metal. • Avoid using wall materials between ' the individual Different roof windows of the bay material window unless the window is large. Generally, bay windows look best Wood jambs, when the windows sills and heads are close together and separated by wood jambs that match wood sills - and heads as shown mul: trong base in the example. upport 4. DESIGN WITH ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY 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. 5. USE HIGH QUALITY MATERIALS 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 between the natural environment, the community and the economy. This commitment to environmental stewardship, social responsibility and economic vitality of our community can be realized in all design projects, from single fam- ily residences to large commercial properties, through green building measures. Green building is defined as an integrated framework of design, construction, operations and demolition practices that encompasses the environmental, eco- CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDDc A CITY OF CUPERTINo Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES nomic, and social impacts of buildings. Green building practices recognize the interdependence of the natural and built environments and seek to minimize the use of energy, water, and other natural resources and pro- vide a healthy, productive indoor environment. 6.1 Green Building Principles New 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, Environmental Resources/Sustainability, of The City of Cupertino's General Plan presents essen- tial components of a green building design and plan- ning process. These elements create a framework for evaluating green building measures applicable to the construction of two story residential design principles including but not limited to: • Site planning • Energy efficiency • Material efficiency • Water conservation PAGE 7 Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 MCA -2008-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6532 (Denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 19 (SECTION 28.060) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE ALLOWED RATIO OF THE SECOND FLOOR BUILDING COMPARED TO THE 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 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino 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 G: � Planning \ PDReport \ Res \ 2008 \ MCA-2008-03.doc APPROVED: / s/ Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Commission Cupertino Planning Commission 6 May 13, 2008 talk about different models. They could also learn what Berkeley did with their bond me sur and be ipformed what a power purchase agreement (PPA) is. Com. Rose: • Suggested invit' rep from a neighboring city that is a few ste ead, someone from their staff or Planning Co 'ssioners who would be willing to de a 8 or 10 minute summary of how they got to where are. Vice Chair Giefer: • Pointed out that the community shou of similar size, because there are some programs that federally Cupertino would not be se of its size, such as Sunnyvale or Santa Clara who are applying for the feder oney to mo forward. Cupertino would not be eligible for some programs because it ' der 100,000 resid and there is a big difference in terms of what might be availabl ased on city size. Chair Miller: • Said that rhaps a vendor might help with discussing how the moved ahead with imple ting systems with small businesses; and shed some light on what the challenges are n O� wi espect to that. 2) Discussion of the R1 ordinance with respect to first to second floor ratio requirements. ` Chair Miller: • Said at the last meeting they sent a minute order to the City Council to consider changing the floor to area ratio to address the Vye Avenue issue. The Council decided that rather than make any changes to the ordinance with respect to FAR, they would agree among themselves that the application did not set a precedent. Therefore there was no need to revisit the FAR in general. However, at the same meeting, the Council also decided it was important to revisit the ratio to second story to first story and to ask the Planning Commission to specifically look into that and recommend changes or no changes. Steve Piasecki: • Said it would be a challenge to keep it contained. • Said that the last time they did the R1 was about 4 years ago; with endless amount of staff time, and they are hoping to be able to do that. Looking at the second floor to first floor ratio opens up the issue of the second story wallplane as well, because if you change one, you have to change the other. You may want to think about a process for those who take advantage of that opportunity, do we need to send those plans to the DRC, notice the neighbors and maybe people need to come up with other creative ways masking the two story wallplane. • There is a process issue there that you might start to focus on those instances where people wish to have a straight up wall. How do they treat it; is there a trellis; is there a canopy roof element that you walk under; there are a lot of ways to soften buildings. I am sure we are going to get input on other aspects of the ordinance, the Planning Commission is going to have to hold the line on that because it will spiral out of control if we are not careful. Chair Miller: • Said he would do his best to contain it just to the issue that the Council has directed them to address. They have addressed taking individual pieces of the ordinance in the past and reviewed them; and he said he felt it was not a different situation. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 May 13, 2008 Steve Piasecki: • Said it is important to refer to this as the second story to first story relationship; it is not about the floor area ratio. FAR remains at 45 and that is not on the table; it is not being discussed. For the public and anyone else participating as this process moves forward, the Council has not authorized a review in FAR. They have also not authorized a revisiting of the setbacks; that is if you have a second story setback relationship to the property line, it is to remain the same. The only issue then is would we allow a higher percentage of the second floor to first floor; part of the thinking is that some people are enlarging their first floor so that the 45% ratio allows them to get 3 bedrooms upstairs, and they are building more home than is necessary. There is probably some truth to that; we are also tending to get a standard architectural form which may be desirable to many people and that is what the whole hearing is about. The issue is not about the total FAR, it is not about the setbacks; it is only about the relationship of the second floor to the first floor; and how to better address that. Com. Brophy: • Asked if there was any feedback in the last few years from home buyers or home builders as to their sense of how the first floor to second floor ratio number affects the desirability of what is being built or remodeled. Steve Piasecki: • Some people have said they are being forced to increase the first floor, and that is obvious, because if you set a ratio and the relationship is the second floor to the first floor, it would be true that some people would have to enlarge that to get a bigger second floor; that is a valid comment. Other people have said they would like to have greater flexibility in architectural design. You could not build a Victorian or Queen Ann as a rule .because they tend to be boxier, even though you could put a lot of gingerbread on them and a lot of jewelry on the building to make it look pretty. Com. Brophy: • Asked how other cities handle the question of first and second floor ratio. Steve Piasecki: • As a rule they don't, they don't usually have a second floor limit and it came about because they were seeing a lot of straight up second two story homes that many thought were overwhelming. This was intentional to try to provide offsets on the first floor. As a rule, this is not a common thing seen. Chair Miller: • The issue is not the ratio of the first to second story; it is how to address privacy and the soft concept of mass and bulk. This is the way Cupertino addresses it; Palo Alto has a concept called the daylight plane and that is how they address it. • Asked staff to retrieve from their files the chart used several years ago which listed a number of cities in the area and how they specifically addressed or didn't address this particular issue. Vice Chair Giefer: • One thing that bares review is part of the first to second floor ratio and that has bearing on discussions completed regarding solar. • If you put a solar installation on your home, and your southbound neighbor remodels and adds a second story, they potentially could be blocking your solar panels which you invested in. • Said that as part of the review, changing the codes to support sustainability needs to be included. She suggested a minute order to the Council to include that discussion because if Cupertino Planning Commission May 13, 2008 they are going to spend the time and effort in encouraging the city to move to be more energy independent, they would not want to have the investment an individual is making taken away from them; and she felt they need to be more specific in the R1 about that. Said if she had a southern neighbor that blocked her solar panels, as the owner of the single story home with the solar panels, she would not want to have a two story structure blocking her daylight or trees blocking her daylight. She said she was speaking about a very specific situation if you have existing solaces solar arrays on your home and your neighbor comes in for plans. Chair Miller: • Said it was an important discussion, but it was not clear to him that it belongs in the first story or second story ratio. It belongs in perhaps the implementation of solar in residential areas. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that it needs to be in the Rl as well. It is a house structure and there are no building codes that pertain to green building currently. There is an Rl that pertains to the housing form but no ordinance that says here is your green building ordinance. There is a housing form ordinance. Chair Miller: • Said he did not necessarily disagree that it should be in the R1; but it was not clear to him that it belongs in a discussion of the ratio between first and second story and the specific directive that the Council provided. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said if they were opening it up, it should be included as part of a cleanup. Com. Rose: • She said that if they are going to be evaluating second floors, and second floors will have an impact on neighboring solar efficiency and effectiveness, then it makes sense to bundle those two topics. If they will discuss whether a second floor can be larger or smaller than it is today and you know that a second story home can compromise the efficiency of a solar panel on a neighboring house, it makes sense if they are looking at second floor to talk about not only the size and its ratio, but how it affects neighboring solar power programs. Chair Miller: • Said he did not agree; they are not talking about changing the second floor setbacks; they will remain the same. There was no directive from the Council to change the second floor setbacks, hence the orientation of the second floor will not change, regardless of what recommendations are made on the ratio between the first and second floor. • He said he did not see how it impacts the discussion of solar, since the orientation is not changing. • He said he agreed they should be talking about it relative to installing solar and energy efficiency; however, he did not see how it was relevant to the discussion of first to second story ratio. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that was why she suggested sending a minute order adding them, as we are talking about the R1, because there are instances where a second floor is not going to be appropriate, if you are blocking your neighbor's solar gays arrays. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 May 13, 2008 Chair Miller: • Said he did not disagree; but did not think it belongs in the discussion of first to second story ratios, and that wasn't the directive from the Council. Vice Chair Giefer: • Reiterated that was the reason she was suggesting sending another minute order. • It is R1, and if they are going to be changing the R1 ordinance, it is more efficient to add another piece to that ordinance that talks specifically about solar daylight. • She proposed sending a minute order to City Council suggesting that language be added to the R1. It protects an existing solar ray from a second story addition blocking their daylight. Chair Miller: • Said he was not opposed to adding a minute order that says they should talk about solar and how the second story affects that. He said he disagreed that it should be part of the discussion on first to second story ratios. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said it was not part of the discussion, but an additional discussion proposed. It is an equal amount of staff time to change the ratio in an existing code, as opposed to going through an administrative burden of having two different sets of public hearing on the same piece of legislation, and then making the administrative changes and having first and second readings on it. It is more efficient to handle it all at the same time. Chair Miller: • Said it was doing exactly what the Council asked them not to do, and opening it up to a wider discussion of the R1 ordinance, which is precisely what the Council did not want the Commission to do. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Rose, to send a minute order to City Council suggesting that modifications be made to the R1 so that a neighbor cannot block existing solar ray access to daylight with a second story addition; and that it be done in parallel to the second story ratio. (Vote: Motion fails: 2:2:0; Vice Chair Giefer and Com. Rose: Yes; Chair Miller and Com. Brophy No; Com. Kaneda absent.) Vice Chair Giefer: • Relative to the report, staff said that finally the Commission may need to consider alternative review processes for applicants taking advantage of any amendments. What does that mean? Steve Piasecki: • Said he referred to it earlier that if they design an amendment that allows a straight up wall; you may want to have a process to consider that you don't have a roof element built into the structure which is commanded by the current ordinance. Perhaps you would want to have other design elements and you would want to have it reviewed by the DRC for those instances where people would take advantage of it. His perception is that a number of homes that would be able to take advantage of this will likely not be as great as people might think. It would only be in a complete teardown or brand new home. Many people are adding onto their home and they have a first floor that is already out to a certain point; unless they wish to start tearing up some of the first floor. This is probably not going to be as great as people might perceive it to be. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 May 13, 2008 Said the caution is not about the understanding of what this is; the people who understand it will, it is a fairly contained concept. It is about the misunderstanding of what it is; the perception that people will have or lack of understanding they will have. The thing is making sure people understand how it is contained, and why Council directed that it be looked at and having clear examples of current conditions, options, to outline where we are going, and allow the public to fully understand that this is a contained discussion about one particular aspect of the R1 ordinance, not everything else. Chair Miller: • Said his objective was to conclude it in one meeting. Com. Brophy: • He said at last month's meeting, he was one who voted to suggest to the Council that they look at this. • He said it was not clear whether the change from the current first to second floor ratio would be in the city's best interest or not. • Said he would have preferred to see more interest in going head on and dealing with the whole question of floor area ratio and just having smaller houses, rather than worrying about the distribution between first and second floor, but he understood why the Council feels otherwise. He said if it is going to be a major time sinc, he would want to consider the whole issue of whether this particular aspect of R1 is of sufficient magnitude. He wanted to hear some thoughts from either staff or citizens whether there is enough there to justify the time and energy involved. Steve Piasecki: • Said the short answer is they have been directed to look at it, and they will. Com. Brophy: • I appreciate more of the concern that it is very hard to look at anything involved with the R1 ordinance without starting to unravel the whole ball there. Com. Rose: • Said the objective is to present this back at the end of September for the October Council meeting. Chair Miller: • Asked staff to consider the second meeting in June. Steve Piasecki: • Said they could not agendize it for the second meeting in June because going out to the contractor to do a citywide notice takes a month. They will aim for the first or second meeting in July. Chair Miller opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she considered herself an expert on R1 after following the issues such as creation of monster homes, loss of street trees, and trying to get into Cupertino. • She said it was a major thing for the neighborhoods that are impacted by any changes to R1 such as the floor to area ratio. It will force additional zoning in neighborhoods; different neighborhoods have different needs, and different lot sizes. The Eichler Fairgrove community Cupertino Planning Commission 11 May 13, 2008 has a special zoning; I see the direct result of this FAR discussion in whatever case and forum we are calling it; and R1 is going to result in the need for additional zoning in different areas of the city. • The last 2004-2005 discussions took almost two years. She said she was under the panacea that once they got into the city, the R1 would remain the way that it was after 1999; that was a big shock; it doesn't. FAR has now gone from 35% to 45% in less than 3 years. • She said she was not certain where they were headed; do they want to increase FAR to 55%, 65%, 75%? There was an interesting discussion about the larger the second story, the more you are blocking the sunlight on small lots. • She said they were not able to get satellite TV reception because her neighbor's county home has such a large second story that they don't get any southern exposure. • Said that she felt they did not have the time; Sand Hill has two to three projects that will tie up the summer, and she would rather concentrate on that. • Said if they have to do FAR, they will do it for 5 years and the rest of the time live in the city. She expressed concern that monster homes would come back. Chair Miller: • Reiterated the discussion was not about FAR, only the ratio of the second story to the first story. The FAR is not being changed; they are not talking about FAR in any way; only the ratio of the size of the second story to the first story. The proposal is to evaluate whether it should be evaluated or eliminated. • Said the proposal was to evaluate whether or not it should be larger or eliminated. They could also talk about making it smaller, but he said he did not feel that was on anyone's mind. John Stubblebine, Cupertino resident: • Said for discussion purposes, one of the ways to make the change 45% to 55% would be to make the top floor larger in this particular situation. The other one is to make the bottom floor smaller. Either one would accomplish that; those are two basic approaches. The impact of all of this is on a tall second story shading the neighbors in the front, back and both sides; shading the street and making a more massive appearance in the neighborhood from all sides. Chair Miller: • Said there were shading requirements, which is the purpose of the setbacks; other cities achieve the same objective by doing what is called the daylight plane. It is correct that the shading issues are important; they are already addressed and no one is talking about changing them. John Stubblebine: • Said he was concerned with the impact on the neighborhood; and he wanted to be certain that as the discussions move forward, he would be present to hear them; and that there not be further encroachment and further shading issues in neighborhoods. Chair Miller: • Reiterated they are not changing the setbacks; the setbacks are what govern the shading. That is not being changed or being proposed to be changed. • The first floor and second floor setbacks were separate items. • Said the concern was justified; the issues here and the way the ordinance is written is for privacy and shading and those have been addressed in the ordinance. Nothing being done or proposed to be done is changing that. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 May 13, 2008 John Stubblebine: • Referred to a photo illustrating houses in the residential area by city hall and pointed out a home where the second floor outline is the same as the first floor outline, which would be a 100% floor area second to first. He questioned if it would be allowed in Cupertino under what they are thinking of examining and proposing provided second floor setbacks and shading was obeyed. Chair Miller: • Said he was not certain, because it does not look like it meets the height limitations. However, in terms of the ratio of first to second story, it would be allowed. What we are thinking and talking about, depending on what we actually arrive at in terms of a recommendation to the City Council; is potentially to allow vertical walls like this one, and which would permit a Victorian home to be built in Cupertino; which it is not now. Also pointed out that we are not in any way impinging upon what the ordinance does in terms of protecting shading and protecting privacy; and would essentially force the overall setbacks of the entire structure to be greater than they are under the current ordinance, because if you are making the second story larger, that by definition implies the first story has to be smaller in order to fit the current far and again, we are not changing FAR in any way. If you are at the limit and you make the second story larger, the first story mathematically has to be smaller. John Stubblebine: • Asked if anyone was talking about height limitations or architectural features of the Victorian era. Would the historic Commission be interested in hearing about that? Chair Miller: • Said no; he did not know about the Historic Commission; and said that is not the directive they have from the City Council. • Said that under the current ordinance, there is an exception process, and if you can justify that and satisfy your neighbors concerns, you could come before the Planning Commission and ask for an exception. No change to the ordinance. John Stubblebine: • The actual plans in the modern version have an 11 foot ceiling downstairs, 10 foot ceiling upstairs, and then the 45 degree peaks on the top; the roofline is going to have to be right here below the ceiling line to fit the current ordinance. Chair Miller: • Said he understood, and pointed out the location in the middle of a dense downtown neighborhood might not be appropriate; and if you are up in the hills, nobody might care. John Stubblebine: • Said there was a neighbor on one side who would be affected by setbacks; and people on Bubb who might not like it out there. Said it clarified some of this; it also clarifies the issue that came from the City Council to the Planning Commission and said it was important for his neighborhood from the neighborhood's point of view, to have the shading and the front and side setbacks all have to be looked at very carefully. Chair Miller closed the public input portion of the meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 May 13, 2008 Com. Brophy: • Said that even in this brief discussion with limited audience, he appreciated more the difficulties of trying to limit any discussion. If this is the only subject that the Council wishes to open, whether or not it is in our power to keep the discussion under control; and whether any effort to discuss this one limited subject; it would take up more time than whatever the possible benefits would be. He said he was not sure what the answer is. Steve Piasecki: • Said that is what the Council has directed. Normally staff would do their best to try to implement their direction; and the Commission can also express its concern about that issue. The direction was clear about where they are going with it. Com. Rose: • Reference to the issue in the staff report stated that staff will evaluate if this change will potentially delay other work programs. She asked when they would know the impact of this action with staff's schedule of the 20 large projects they are now working on. Steve Piasecki: • Said he had not had the time to assess it. In process, this year there are about 20 items, all of which staff will be involved in; about half of those are fairly good sized projects that the Commission will be involved in; the housing element, Sand Hill properties, the South Vallco Master Plan; there are about 4 or 5 presently in a confidential phase. • Staff is having conversations with property owners and potential applicants; but they cannot be discussed as they are negotiating. The Rl, Heart of the City Plan, Results Way are going to be coming to the Commission shortly; there are approximately ten good sized projects the Commission will be working on for the rest of the year. He discussed how they prioritize projects. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that part of her thought process was they have the tools in the R1 today, if somebody wanted to exceed the second floor ratio to first, they could come in and ask for an exception, and staff tends to follow Commission's direction in terms of the decisions being made in DRC and in Planning Commission meetings. • If there is not enough staff time to make everything happen this year because of shortages and staffing, perhaps staff could be more lenient and consider exceptions more frequently; to see if it is happening where people are coming in and not maxing out. • If the overlying objective is to build smaller homes in Cupertino and this is one instrument to make that happen, then maybe what we do is ask staff to be more liberal in their interpretation over the next couple of months and report back on the success of that; and then we can begin our discussions at that time. • Said she felt there would be additional unintended consequences of this; and she felt it would be difficult to contain the R1 discussion to only the second story ratio. Chair Miller: • Said that in the event there are higher priority items to address, they will either re -prioritize here or ask the Council to re -prioritize them because they have higher priority items. The suggestion that the Commission be more liberal on exceptions is one solution to the problem, and can be discussed when the item is discussed. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 May 13, 2008 Com. Brophy: • Is it appropriate to make some sort of motion or informal recommendation, I think along the lines that both Chair Giefer and Chair Miller: have made, perhaps we go back to the Council and suggest that we feel that given the time demands, especially on staff and on the Commission that this be moved a bit down on the priority list, that we recommend that the staff in their review be more liberal, and the review of individual housing applications and bring them before the Commission with the understanding that our desire was to let the spirit of the ordinance be upheld more so than say the letter in terms of our attitude toward exceptions. Steve Piasecki: • Said the Planning Commission could make that communication to the Council if they wish. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said it was revealing that in her tenure as a Planning Commissioner, it would be the, second time they opened up R1, yet still had to work on sustainability. Chair Miller: • He noted that Vice Chair Giefer and Com. Rose spent time working on it last year; and he has been pushing hard and they have been working on sustainability and the reason they haven't moved ahead is they are waiting for the report to the Council on May 20. He had hoped to have it addressed sooner, but felt they were doing the best they could under the circumstances. Com. Rose: • Recalled the conversation they had about the issue when it was first proposed for them to consider, there was definitely discourse within the Commission and within their group as they discussed it. She said one of Chair Miller's comments was "we are not saying we are going to do this right now, we are saying we are putting this on the list; it could be on the bottom of the list." At that time the vote was 3:2, and it didn't pass gracefully and unfortunately that vote was not recalled to the Council; they did not discuss the fact that it was a 3:2 vote coming through the Commission. It was presented to the Council with the Commission's vote with their motion that they wanted to look at it again. Chair Miller: Said they did a minute order to the Council to discuss FAR, and the Council rejected that, and then the Council initiated that instead of discussing FAR, they discuss first to second floor area ratio. • Said the Council put a time limit on it, but that wasn't what he went to the Council and talked about; it is what came back to the Council. He said he was not pushing it; it is the Council's directive to the Planning Commission. Com. Rose: Said she felt the solution is to communicate back to the Council that the Commission's priority is sustainability and that they are not feeling the overwhelming pressure to look at the first and second floor ratio as being at the top of the list. She said they were also concerned about the Commission taking on a lot of new projects as their priority is sustainability and would like to revisit the directive after the Council meeting in June when they are given more direction on sustainability. She said she was cautious about them downsizing the potential of change that could happen by looking at sustainability to let people decide whether or not the homes are going to have bigger second floors. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 May 13, 2008 Chair Miller: • Said he did not disagree; but said he was not sure that it is not an either/or at this point. He suggested they wait until it is and then ask the Council to change the priority or if it is appropriate, just change the priority ourselves. Let's find out what is going to come out at the next meeting. Vice Chair Giefer: • Questioned if they went back to the date when they had the vote on FAR, if they were voting on the ratio of first to second floor, would they have recommended it to Council? She said that she is hearing perhaps people would not have felt that this was a high priority item for them this year. Chair Miller: • Said he did not disagree; that may in fact be the case. But again, the Council directed us to do this, and our objective at this point is to either implement what the Council asked us to do or we can send them a minute order saying we don't want to do it. Again, what I would suggest is, it is not clear to me at this point, that it has impacted anything; and at the point in time when it does impact something, that is the point in time that we go back to Council and say this is impacting our schedule, we are not going to get A, B and C done because we are trying to do this; what do you want us to do. • It sends a stronger message than just right now with an empty agenda going back and saying we don't want to do this. Com. Rose: • Said she felt they should not make any movement on the issue until hearing from the Council how they would like them to move forward with sustainability and at that point they could look at sustainability, be it topics that staff has proposed and then factor in what it is going to take to go through the second floor ratio issue. • They are asking the Commission to review it; however, before staff starts noticing for anything, we need to know what they are going to ask us about sustainability. Those are both items on our work plan so I think it is just as fair for us to say we don't really feel comfortable making any headway here until we know where we are going to be tasked with sustainability issues. • She felt if a poll was taken, the residents are more concerned about their action as leaders in sustainability than whether or not second floor has a higher ratio of square footage than the first. • Said she felt they should wait and find out what the Council's direction is after the next meeting. Chair Miller: • Said he felt it was a great idea. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt sending citywide notices out was overkill for the importance of the subject. He reiterated to encourage staff that are reviewing individual applications to have some flexibility in terms of reviewing the architectural plans and to encourage them to bring plans before the Commission and DRC that may not meet the exact requirements, but that would be most suitable for an exemption in terms of quality and design. Cupertino Planning Commission 16 May 13, 2008 Steve Piasecki: • The only caveat to that is that the ordinance is Council's ordinance as well; if I have that same direction from the Council then we can communicate to applicants freely. Com. Brophy: • Make a recommendation to the Council that they allow staff to review residential applications with an emphasis on quality of design and to be open to requests for exceptions to the literal standards as long as those designs improve the quality of what would be built. Com. Rose: • Said in theory it sounds like it would be something to try; but when looking at changing the size of the second floor there are architectural issues and neighborhood issues; that type of decision needs to go through a process. She said she was concerned about deciding off the cuff to use that as a way to bait it along now. • Suggested they wait until the next meeting when they know what they are going to be looking at and decide the best way to do it. Chair Miller: • Said he had similar feelings; either way it is opening a wider issue. If we suggest that to the Council, they are either going to bounce it back to ask what the ramifications are in doing that, and then we are into the discussion. Or they are going to do it at their level first, and they would likely not do it at their level, but bounce it back and the result would be back and forth and back into discussing it as one of the solutions to the problem. • Com. Rose suggested they do nothing until they hear from the Council on May 200s, one week away. He said he saw no harm in waiting to hear what the Council has to say next week. Steve Piasecki: • Summarized that the Commission would like to have a discussion about the R1 review process on an upcoming agenda; so that they will have direction on sustainability; and take whatever actions and motions at that time. 3. Discuss possible improvements to the development application process. e Piasecki: Sa' he provided a summary staff report that talked about the principles of the publi aring proces , he importance of maintaining a fair and impartial hearing for all sid nd avoiding holding a 'ng before a noticed hearing because in terms of the fa' s issue to both the applicant and th blic, they want to have the information avail o them so they can judge projects. It is impo t to maintain the appearance reality of objectivity of the Commission and Council allow the facts to co orward before reaching conclusions or project judgments. He reviewed Los Gatos' and Santa models for consideration. He suggested that they could use the existing structure ' the E which consists of one Commissioner and one Council member, which elt would meet th t fairly well because the rest of the Commission and Co it would not be weighing in; would be giving them one Commissioner a one Council member to provide the public vie the hot topic items. Said that i ' s existing structure, it doesn't change things a lot and it c robably be done for a urinal fee and offered as an option. He said he would favor the ERC, a already ve regularly scheduled meetings; concept review would be a topic instead of t e C looking at concept review. The advantage is that it gives the ERC the opportunity to say there Cupertino Planning Commission 23 Chair Giefer: / more because it is not specifically stated here; and as we ing about street parking ando arkings, we are going to have abutting uses to 0 other, and I want to make sure that wher possible, we are not chopping up g lots and that we are providing ingress/egress een any varied ownership. F pie, if for any reason Rose Bowl had parking access that ed up to the Sand ' roperty, and there were two different parking lots, I would want one to ble to tr etween both of those land ownership parking lots and not have any barriers separ a two parking lots; so I would like it to be specifically stated that "all parking lots b ces between the different ownership groups." Said she agreed with amending it llow for the ction of residential areas. It is between the commercial/retail sp , residential I agree sho a protected, so I am not including that, but for your co cial parking, anybody should be to park anywhere where they can find a space. a said because it is under multiple owners he would like it to be very obvious at is the expectation. Motion by Com. Rose, second by Com. Kaneda, to recommend of the Master Plan as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Miller declared a recess. 4. MCA -2008-03 Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family R1 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 May 13, 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 R1 Ordinance first 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 2007-08 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 R1 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. In 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 R1 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 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 case, 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, what we are seeing more is the repetitiveness of the "wedding cake" architecture 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 restrictio0n on the size and second floor, people are 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 necessarily 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 process 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; -� Ensure appropriate building mass and scale; -� 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 Committee. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt the R1 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: 0 All two stories are discretionary review; it is staff level approval; however, we would advertise 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 RI 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 R1. Steve Piasecki: • 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 retative 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 find 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 Cupertino Planning Commission 26 July 8, 2008 have; and I was wondering whether or not we 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 back 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 would feel better if they are going to allow larger second 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 R1 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 Piasecki: • 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 with the typical noticing of the neighbors within the 300 feet, would it call out the change to the second floor area ratio as something that is different about this house? 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. • Explained 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 wall 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 Piasecki: • 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 Piasecki: • 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 ahigher 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 less 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 10% 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 Piasecki: • 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. Cupertino Planning Commission 28 July 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 into that, and all the homes in that neighborhood theoretically have to match that style. Steve Piasecki: • 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; (staff responded about 50; major remodels with removal of a large portion of the house would be between 100-150 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 they 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 maxed 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. Com. Rose: • Said that the photos of homes illustrated a style of home she did not see a lot in Cupertino; and wondering if you have, what I tend to see is the Mediterranean 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 if 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 appliquds 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 form. 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 a two- 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 Piasecki: 0 Said that people max out to the 45% overall floor area ratio; if the house sells and sells again 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 to build a building like this in Cupertino. Why is it people are building monstrosities/wedding cakes? It goes back to Com. Kaneda's comment, this 50% exposed wall 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 requires an imposed setback from the first 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 Rinconada 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 RI; we are basically reopening the entire thing. • She expressed concern about the monster homes and creating big boxes, and Rancho Cupertino Planning Commission 30 July 8, 2008 Rinconada is going to have to have a special zoning, R1 -R, just lake Fairgrove, the Eichler community. We have lots that are less than 5,000 square feet, my house is 800 sq. ft., 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 city in these meetings discussing Rl, 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 Kamkar, 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 more 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 first 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 we 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 difficulty 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: 0 Said he was in favor of eliminating the 45% rule. It is another example of efforts to reduce 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. (Staff said the 50% 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 Mittal, 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 level 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 R1 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 Mittal: • Said that the R1 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 thing we are addressing is the current ratio also encourages sort of one style of 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 homes; 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 fingers that the builder and the staff are going to be working in sync to use architectural features to minimize the bulk 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 separated those two, and I think that it is difficult to say a house has to have a friendly 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 first, I am not confident based on what I see happening currently, that those suggestions will be carried 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 and a lot deeper than it is. If we are going to open up the R1, we should be looking at the much bigger 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 the 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 maximum 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 Com. 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 RI Ordinance 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 RI, which I don't think I voted for the current RI, 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. Cupertino Planning Commission 33 July 8, 2008 Expressed concern about putting staff back into the point of conflict with the public, which could occur; we don't have design guidelines; I find 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 R1 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 Rl 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 R1 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 R1 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. If 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 some 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 framing 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 find 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. 0 Matt Kamkar discussed the fact that you get more green space and you have less runoff to deal 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 get 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 concern 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 of 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 go 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 be 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 is 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 Glen 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 11 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 another 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 out 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 staff came back with a specific set of guidelines for the Planning Commission to review, would that be acceptable. 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. • 1 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 staff, 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. Chair Miller: • I am not sure why not; the first 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. Com. Rose: • It sounds like we are still asking people to go through a design process; if they say they put 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. Chair 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 first 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 running 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 Cupertino Planning Commission 36 July 8, 2008 happening. My feeling is that before we jump 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 Miller: • 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 the 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 are working towards 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 are 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 reality is, is what people really want to build is a much bigger Mediterranean house with stucco walls. Vice Chair Giefer: Has staff sat down and said with the setback requirements that we have, what is the maximum second story percentile that is achievable? (Staff said it was 10091o) Has staff evaluated the conflicting language of the proposed modifications to the ordinance based on the rest of the language in the R1, because you are giving different directions. Steve Piasecki: • 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 the 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 Cupertino Planning Commission 37 July 8, 2008 are going to have greater design scrutiny based on these words in the ordinance. Some 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 Council 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 R1. 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 find 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 Piasecki: • 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 staff 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 R1, 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 Piasecki: • 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. 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 Piasecki: • That is what the other cities are doing. The 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 try 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 at 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 Piasecki: • Said they would give it a try, and likely would seek their architectural adviser on an hourly basis (Vote: 3-2-0; Vice Chair Giefer No; Com. Rose No.) iscussion of the pre -review option for the development proposals. Steve Pia 'presented the staff report: • Said that ouncil sent it back to the Planning Commission as at they expand the noticing and to t some other options, specifically the one in S -o. Vallco that in the cases of some larger elopments, perhaps some sort of a ded community review process is appropriate; otherwise another look at all the ns for early review. We have given you the verbatim transcript w was to make ' arer exactly what is intended. This is one given the lateness of the hour, w uld a greater outreach and with more notice, we could get more developers to participat Keith Murphy: Said the proposal was b g as to what its real be will be; I understand the idea of talking with develop out future applications they may t to bring in front of the city and how maybe ommunity might feel about that or how st about that. I have a real problem tZ ets up the city for a lot of legal problems, would like ity attorney's input, and if els it will be more of a problem for the city or is it really to solve the pro s that we think it is. Is the city attorney going to be part of this proces a able to itor some of these meetings and see if they really are going in the right direction the laming Commission and City Council would like them to; or are they going to be more o Cupertino Planning Commission 4 September 9, 2008 air Gi.efer: Con d with Com. Brophy's position; and said that since there has be n o much time since Council c unicated this and it was communicated to the appli she felt it was not their business to re change the fee structure. However, sh ed that she agreed with staff, the project would no rovedtoday had that not begn agreed to; they would have required less density, more open spa thin the project it , and more amenities. She agreed that it should be passed onto the City Co Com. Kaneda: —'"%% • Said he also agreed with Co ophy, and had no further Com. Rose and Cha' er: • Said they bo eed with previous comments. Mo ' Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda, to forward Application M-2008-04 to the City Council without recommendation. (Vote: 5-0-0) ,OLD BUSINESS 2. MCA -2008-03 Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family R1 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 RI 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 July 8, 2008 the Planning Commission 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 Larry 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 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 the 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 exception 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 framework: 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 minimum 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 and 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 R1 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. Those 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. 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 10 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. Com. 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 R1 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 look 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 Piasecki: 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? Cupertino Planning Commission 7 September 9, 2008 Gary Chao: • It is usually a combination of many different 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 Piasecki: Said the point was well taken that it needs to be defined better, either by example or some other way of defining 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-111 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 to 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 back 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 that 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 argument 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 terms 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 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 Piasecki: • 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 point 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 Piasecki: • 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. Chaiir 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 architectural 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. 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. (Staff` Yes; if they exceed the 45% 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 number 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 and 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 neighbors 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 more 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. 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 Piasecki: • 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 10 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 1125 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 RI 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 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 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 Piasecki: • Said his impression is that it isn't that so much; people aren't saying they want to build Frank Lloyd Wright Craftsman 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 end 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 architectural style of a Mediterranean home? Steve Piasecki: • 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 Rinconadavesident: • Requested that all speakers given the same amount of speaker time, whether a resident or an architect. Said that the method of giving some 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 changed. • 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 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. Griffin 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 Commission 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 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 well 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 realized that the home was built about 56 years ago and was not energy efficient. Unfortunately 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. He 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 it. 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 point; 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, 20 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 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 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 improved, 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 we 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 our 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 bench, all of things get watered down and pushed around and negotiated and the plan moves 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 immediately affected by these changes and she 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 seriously 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 wobble, but I think I am leaning toward voting No on this now. 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 R1 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. • 1 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 worried about mass and bulk. They were addressing mass and bulk and they addressed it not 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 35% 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 Piasecki: • The effect was to have the greater setbacks to offset the second floor, to push it in. They increased the second floor FAR compared to 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 going back to pre -1999 because you know 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 the 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 the 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 designs in staffs view. Gary Chao: • A mixture of both; there are decent designs; a 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 make 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. Cupertino Planning Commission 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 Piasecki: • 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. In other jurisdictions, the process is much more onerous than it is in ours; I have seen examples in other communities 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 Piasecki: • 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 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 them. 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 had better ones. A lower FAR would work because that is what most of the communities 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 proposed 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, but we recommend that we vote No on this proposal but would like to do is open up FAR or open up the entire R1 because there are other things in Cupertino Planning Commission 20 September 9, 2008 the R1 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. Kaneda: • 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 pushing 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 a better 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. Cupertino Planning Commission 21 September 9, 2008 Chair Miller: • Said Com. Kaneda commented on the design 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 they don't know about, but I probably wouldn't have a problem 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 around 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 just 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 where 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 something 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 very least the FAR is reduced; and he would be willing to open up other areas of R1 if necessary. 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 language, 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 Saratoga 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. 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 requirement; 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 RI ordinance. Com. Rose: • To properly address design diversity, the Planning Commission 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 R1 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 R1; it is prescriptive, and you can do just about what you want. 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. Chair 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 Piasecki: • 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 Piasecki: • 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". Com. 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 functionality 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 Housing Commission: with Commissioners: No report. Economo Development Committee: No meeting. February 17, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 3 9. Adopt a resolution affirming local support for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding, authorizing the filing of an application for American kovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding, and stating the assurance to comp the project, Resolution No. 09- 025. � 10. Ac'bpt applications for an Alcoholic Beverage License: a) A o Vineyards, 17659 Montebello Road, Wine -Grower (2) b) Hofbra .,Beer Hall SV, LLC, 10123 N. Wolfe Road #2124, On Sale General — Eating PlMI�,(47) r. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) 1. Approve the minutes from the January 20, 27, 28, and February 3 City Council meetings. The Deputy City Clerk dist, if3uted a' page showing corrections to the minutes of Feb. and noted a correction to H`e minutes of'Jan. 20 as well. These items were a ved as amended. , 5. Accept the P ng Commission recommendation to appoint Lisa Giefer as the EnvironmenffReview Committee representative. (Continued from Feb. 3). Unde . stponements, this item was removed from the agenda. cil member Sandoval said that when this item comes back she would like formation regarding whether Council needs to approve the ERC representative or if the chair of the Planning Commission automatically becomes the representative. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. 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 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. 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. Associate Planner Piu Ghosh reviewed the staff report. At 7:27 p.m. Mayor Mahoney opened the public hearing. 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 eliminate the 45% ratio rule. Jessica Rose showed pictures of the Garden Gate area 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 a nicer -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 in the Rancho Rinconada area encouraged annexation because they wanted more protection against "monster homes." She said the ordinance works well as it is now and that the homes being built under the current rules are nice. She urged Council to either open up the whole R1 ordinance or leave it alone and focus on something important like sustainability. 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 Schulken 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 streamline 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 footage, 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 also 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 R1 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. 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 regarding 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 surcharge 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. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - none EW BUSINESS , °f 12. c%onsider an appeal from Mr. Sridar Obilesetty regarding under ding utilities, 10171 anon Drive APN 342-14-008. (Continued from Decembe Parks ar%,FZecreation Director Mark Linder reviewed gwfotaff report. Appellant Sri Obilesetty showed a Power, presentation stating his case. He explained that the blic Works staff revie and approved his blueprints, and those plans did not reflect eed to undergro titilities. He said it would have been easier to do it then than now, ause all t tfverhead work would have to be demolished, thereby wasting energy an ney.owed a picture of a newly -constructed home on Lorre Ave. which had overhead uti (ties. He said that that he was told undergrounding was an aesthetic issue and not a saf@ty issue, and he asked that Council uphold his appeal and allow him to keep the po„ er overhead. Assistant Public Works Director Glenn Goepfert explained that it is a Public Works department policy to underground utilities, and therrent question is whether the City wants to participate in the cost of doing the un , cuounding at this time because the City's process has somehow cost the appellant mo . Wong mov and Santoro seconded for discussion to de a appeal and to require undergro ing of the utilities, with a modification to set a c f $4,000 for the City's participation in the costs of undergrounding the electrical servic ecifically for work beyond what undergrounding would have cost if constructed origin exchange for a release of the City against all future claims, and the City should work the applicant minimize the impact on the existing house. Wang added a friendly ame t that the l'ity would only pay for 30% of the cost. The amendment was not accepted. Sandoval moved and Wang seconded to amend the motion that the City would only pay for 30% of the cost. That motion failed with Mahoney, Santoro, and Wong voting no and Sandoval and Wang voting yes. March 17, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 7 uilding Official Greg Casteel said that he made some unannounced visits a Serra wi he Fire Marshal and no that the walkways looked good. He dud a center access had is but Prometheus was responsive to those concerns.e"noted that the streets on the east si ere chewed up due to the rain and the sardbr Fire Marshall said that has now been impro He said he was impressed t}iat the site was as well-maintained as it was for a construction - Council gave direction to Pro us permanent, assigned par ' space regarding parking spaeing taken up Council rah ed the report. ItemlioOfi was taken up next. such as making sure every unit has at least one possible, and to notify residents effectively UNFINISHED BUSINESS 13. 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, Application No. MCA -2008-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide (Continued from Feb. 17). The revised ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio and associated 2"d floor setback surcharge/exposed wall rule to facilitate greater architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an R1 lot. The ordinance amendment will also include minor language clarifications relating to gardening activities and miscellaneous wording changes to improve the readability of the document. First reading of Ordinance No. 09-2039: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 19.28: Single -Family Residential (R1) zones of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the allowed ratio of second floor building area compared to the first floor building area, second story exposed wall rule, second story setback surcharge, clarification regarding gardening activity and minor language clean up to improve readability of the document." Associate Planner Piu Ghosh reviewed the staff report. Jennifer Griffin said that the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood came into Cupertino to avoid big, box homes but that they are now coming back because Cupertino has no rules to avoid them. She said she is against any changes to the ordinance, especially any bigger second stories, and doesn't want the second -story surcharge removed. Eric Keng said that the ordinance changes would give the architects more flexibility of design to create a better outcome. He noted that any project would have to go through a public hearing process so that would avoid big, boxy homes from being built. March 17, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 8 Joshua Richardson said that he chose his neighborhood because of the schools and that it has nice -looking, large homes. He said that this is what people want and by removing the 45% rule it creates more square footage and makes the homes more attractive. Larry Mattheakis said that he is against making any changes, but if any are made, he is in favor of applying design principles to all second stories. He reminded Council that in 1999 the residents also had a strong, public opinion against the "monster homes" that were being built then and noted that if Council approves the change in second stories to be greater than 45% then it would be the same as in 1999. He also noted that in an all - City questionnaire put out in 2004 regarding the R1, 75% of the respondents wanted the second story to be either less than 50% or to remain the same. He urged Council to take public opinion into consideration. Mary Roller said that she currently lives in a tiny house with four children and wants to remodel but won't consider a second story because the house would be too small and unattractive with the 45% rule. She said she was in favor of increasing the second story percentage and allowing the Architectural Review board to determine aesthetics. Ned Britt said that Council should consider lot size and slope lines as well as setback. Lin Tu said he supports removing the current 45% restriction so that more space can be accommodated for solar panels on the roof. Mayor Mahoney read comments by Miriam Salu: She said that she did not agree with making changes in the R1 ordinance except for allowing gardening and horticulture for personal use. YunQian Qi said that he doesn't like big, boxy houses but if the second floor to first floor ratio is limited then all two-story houses will look the same and would be unattractive. He expressed his support for an ordinance change. Rudy Parra said he designed houses before the change in 1999 and that now it's much more difficult with the restrictions. He said he supports changing the ordinance so that the second story could be built bigger and noted that with the design review in place, houses will still look attractive. Susan Chen said that she supports the Planning Commission recommendation for second - story design guidelines. She noted that the current restrictions consume more construction materials and increase the cost of building the house. She said that many of her clients decided not to build in Cupertino because of the restrictions. She urged Council to eliminate the second story restriction to build more attractive homes in Cupertino and keep it greener. Sandoval moved and Mahoney seconded to approve a two-tier process with no surcharge for the 2nd story Floor Area Ratio (FAR) over 45%; utilize Exhibit A as part of the March 17, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 9 ordinance as the full set of guidelines; include section 6.1 (Green Building Principles) in its educational entirety; and remove the word "discretionary" on page 1 of the Design Principles so that the first sentence under Design Principles would read: "These design principles help integrate new homes and additions to existing homes with existing neighborhoods by providing a framework for the review and approval process." Santoro offered a friendly amendment to include Section 6.1 only up to the first bullet. Sandoval modified her original motion to keep the first two paragraphs of section 6.1 and include only the bullets from the rest of the section: "Site planning, Energy efficiency, Material efficiency, and Water conservation." Mahoney agreed to the amended motion. The motion carried unanimously. The Deputy City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Sandoval/Mahoney moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Mahoney, Sandoval, Santoro, Wang and Wong. Noes: None. BUSINESS - continued 14. Rte information item on the Vallco (Cupertino Square) Wong moved an doval seconded to continue this item to41 fiiture meeting. Sandoval withdrew her secon d Council received the report.J1lf,s issue will come back to Council at a later date Na 4wtion item. Wit° ORDINANCES 16. Conduct the second reading of Ordj,*c o. 09-2040: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cup ertin :mending ion 2.18.080 of the Municipal Code relating to the City Attorney torify wording re a evaluations". City Attorney Carol Ko e recused herself and left the dais. Sandoval mov, and Wong seconded to read the ordinance by tt my and that the Z lerk's reading would constitute the second reading o£ Ayes: val, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. and Wong seconded to enact Ordinance No. 09-2040. Ayes: Mahoney, ro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. AFF REPORTS — These were taken up earlier in the agenda. April 7, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 10 ORDINANCES M CIA —,2000-05 16. Conduct the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 09-2039: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 19.28: Single -Family Residential R1 zones of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the allowed ratio of second floor building area compared to the first floor building area, second story exposed wall rule, second story setback surcharge, clarification regarding gardening activity and minor language clean up to improve readability of the document." Jennifer Griffin said that the R1 changes to building codes to allow bigger second stories on homes will result in overbuilding. She said that the "wedding cake" style that has evolved is an excellent solution for small lots. Wang moved and Santoro seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Mahoney, Sandoval, Santoro, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: Wong Wang moved and Santoro seconded to enact Ordinance No. 09-2039. Ayes: Mahoney, Sandoval, Santoro, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: Wong TAFF REPORTS -None CO1ICIL REPORTS Council me ers highlighted the activities of their committ and various community events. ADJOURNMEN At 12:27 p.m., the meetin as adjourned to esday, April 21 at 4:30 for Housing Commission interviews, to be followed by closed ions. The 4:30 p.m. portion of the meeting will be in Conference Room A, 10300 e enue, and will be followed by the regular 6:45 p.m. meeting in the Community Hall Co Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue. /s/ Kimberly Smith Kimberly Smith, City Staff reports, b p materials, and items distributed at meeting are available for review at the City Cl s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Intern at www.cupertino.org. Click on Online S ces, then Watch City Meetings. Mo Council meetings are shown live on Cable Channel 26, an^4L available at your ioEvenience on the web site: Visit www.cupertino.org , then click Online ices and Watch ity Meetings. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364.