Loading...
11. R1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - CITY HALL - 10300 TORRE AVENUE_ • CUPERTINO, CA 95044-3255 C O P E RT I N O (aos) 777-33os • FAX 0408) 777-3333 Summary Agenda Item No. ~ Agenda Date: February 17, 2009 Application: MCA-2008-03 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: City-wide SUMMARY: Consider a Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family Rl Ordinance (section 19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to the first floor building area_ The -revised Ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed second floor ratio and associated 2nd floor setback surcharge/exposed wall rule to allow greater architectural diversity. The revised ordinance will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or minimum required second story setback relationship with neighboring properties_ - The Ordinance amendment will also include minor language clarifications relating to gardening activities and miscellaneous wording changes to improve the readability of the doctunent, Application No. MCA-2008-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide. RECOMMENDATION The Council has the following options: 1_ Take no action and retain the existing R1 Ordinance. 2_ Adopt the staff recoirunended two-tier process 3_ Adopt the Council Alternative single-tier process BACKGROUND: The past Planning Commission and City Cotuzcii actions are summarized below: May 6, 2008 -The City Council amended the Planning Commission work program to include a limited review of the Rl Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The Council directed the Planning Comm;GSion to present reco*rmendations on ordinance options to the City Council_ MCA-2008-03 R1 Ordinance February 17, 2009 Page 2 July 8, 2008 -The Planning Commission reviewed proposed Rl Ordinance amendment and directed staff to provide a focused ordinance framework with specific list of principles and guidelines. September 9, 2008 - The Planning Corr+rr,;ssion recomrr+ended denial to the City Council citing the need for a more comprehensive design review process for two story homes to address overall massing, design and review process. October 21, 2008 -The City Council directed staff to provide a comparative study of the existing ordinance with staff's recommendation and the Council alternative option. The Council also directed staff to prepare a draft design guidelines with input by the City Architectural Consultant. DISCUSSION: The current 45% second story floor area ratio has resulted in a "wedding cake" style of architecture that is slowing becoming the predom~nar~t style of new two-story homes or additiorvs in many neighborhoods. Many residents attempt to personalize their home with design elements representing traditional architecture; however the final design is limited by the existing second floor area restriction. Please refer to the October 21, 2008 staff report for the full discussion. Objective: Evaluate ordinance options to enhance and promote greater design flexibility for two- story homes. Existing Ordinance Constraints: ? 19.28.060 B(2), 45% maximum 2nd floor area requirement ? 19.28.060 G(3) (and a), Fifty-percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall. ? 19.28.060 E(3), Additional 10-foot shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard second story setback requirements. Ordinance Solutions: Two-Tier Proposal (staff proposal) 1. Allow 45°~ or greater second floor to first floor area ratio by incorporating design principles: a. Provide an identifiable architectural style b. Design Forms, Proportions and Details to be consistent with Architectural Style c. Facade Articulation (visual relief techniques) d_ Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the house e. Use of high quality materials f. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale -2 MCA-2008-03 R7 Ordinance February 77, 2009 Page 3 g. Design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance. 2. For homes with more than 45% second floor to first floor ratio: a. Remove: 19.28.060 G(3), 50% second floor wall exposure requirement b. Remove: 19.28A60 E(3): Second story setback surcharge 3. Retain existing minimum second story setbacks 4. Retain existing total Floor Area Ratio 5. Voluntary Process, only applicable to those wishing to increase their second floor area above 45 Homes that are designed to meet the existing R1 Ordinance second story limit would continue to be subject to the current R1 Ordinance standards and would not be required to comply with the design guidelines. Staff Evaluation: Key highlights of staff's proposal are sununarized as follows: •S The existing prescriptive process for homes with second floor ratios equal to or less than 45% of the ground floor is preserved for home owners wishing to go through a simple staff review process ? This proposal incentivizes property owners to provide broader range of architectural design by allowing homes to exceed the 45% second floor area Iimit through a second tier more intensive ~.iesign review process ? The proposal provides architectural principles and visual relief options to soften the perceived building mass and facilitate a variety of building styles (see Exhibit B) ? Notification of neighbors required for all two-story homes ? The Director of Community Development approves all two-story homes but has the ability to refer projects to Plar•n~ng Commission, if deemed appropriate Single-Tier Proposal (Presented by Councilnsember Santoro at the October 21, 2008 meeting): 1. Remove: 19.28.060 B(2), 45% maximum 2nd floor area requirement 2. Remove: 19.28.060 G(3) (and a) 50% second floor wall exposure requirement 3. Add: All new two story homes or two story additions to incorporate design principles 4. Add: Any wall, on a two-story house, exceeding 12 feet in height and 20 feet in length will incorporate visual relief techniques recommended by staff A tabular comparison, of the current ordinance, the two-tier proposal and the single- tier proposal, has been included with this, report (Exhibit A). Staff Evaluation: The highlights of the Council alternative proposal are summarized as follows: ? The proposal also aims to provide architectural flexibility for all new or remodeled two story residences 11 -3 MCA-2008-03 Rl Ordinance February 17, 2009 Page 4 ? Only one discretionary approval/design review process is proposed for all new two story homes or additions ? The proposed trigger (12 feet in height and 20 feet in length walls) for visual relief measures is still relatively long, tall and bulky two-story elements ? Homes with less than 45% second floor to ground floor ratio would have to go through the same discretionary process as homes exceeding the 45 % second floor ratio ? More discretionary review for all two-story homes is required by staff, which translates into more review time and cost for home owners ? Notification of neighbors required for alI two-story homes ? The Director of Community Development approves all two-story homes but has the ability to refer projects to Planning Commission, if deemed appropriate FISCAL ANALYSIS: Staff is projecting that it'll take approximately 5 hours of additional staf# time to review homes triggering the more intensive development review process (Two-tier process - homes with second floor over 45%; Single-tier process -all two-story homes). At $100 per hour (Director and planning staff), we estimate that it'll cost an additional $500 to cover the staff review time. Staff recommends that the Council adopt an increase of the Rl two-story application fee accordingly at the Council's next fee assessment review. PUBLIC NOTICING: Per Council direction, citywide postcards (Exhibit F) were mailed out, informing Cupertino citizens of the City Council consideration on amending the R1 Ordinance. The original postcard for the Planning Commission hearing did not include language on the potential changes to the second floor setback surcharge or wall exposure rules to allow greater design flexibility. The appropriate language has been included in the second postcard. The City Attorney indicates that is legally sufficient public noticing. Lf the Council feels you need additional discussion and review, you could elect to refer it back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation relating to the second floor surcharge. COUNCIL OPTIONS: The Council has the following options if it decides to proceed with the R1 Ordinance Amendment: 1. Adopt the Two-Tier option (staff proposal) • The Council should direct staff to include an item at the next Council Fee Assessment review to increase the Two-Story application cost by $500 for homes exceeding 45% second to ground floor ratio • The Council may evaluate the performance of the ordinance amendment after a year, at which tyime the Council may decide other ordinance options (such as Single-Tier option) and/or direct any other necessary ordinance adjustments; or 11 -4 MCA-2008-03 R1 Ordir~arrv February I7, 2009. Page 5 2. Adopt the Councilrnember Single-Tier option • Staff recommends that the Council consider adding the following changes: a. Amend the trigger for visual reli'.ef measures to walls exceeding 10 feet tall and 15 feet in length b. Apply the proposed two-story design guidelines/ principles (Exhibit B) to all two-story homes c. Include language to allow the Director of Community Development to waive the requirement of visual relief measures when deemed appropriate d. Direct staff to include an item at the next Council Fee Assessment review to increase the RI Two-Story application cost by $500 to any two-story proposal 3. If the Council is not satisfied with either of the above options, you could elect to retain the existing ordinance provisions. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Revie e b . Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development Ap oved by: David W. Knapp ` City Manager Enclosures: Exhibit A: Tabular Comparison of Existing Ordinance, Two-tier proposal and Single-tier proposal Exhibit B: Draft Design Guidelines Exhibit C: City Council Staff Report with attachments, October 2I, 2008 Exhibit D: Draft Ordinance (not recommended by PL~r.r.ing Commission) Exhibit E: Email communication from the public including photographs Exhibit F: Citywide post card -5 EXHIBIT A COMPARISON OF EXIST"IIVG ORDINANCE, TWO-TIER PROPOSAL St SINGLE-TIER PROPOSAL urrent Ordi.,a.,ce o-tier proposal Single-tier proposal otal FAR -Section % Unchanged Unchanged 9.28.060B 1 ..a story to 1a~ story ratio - 5°~ dd: If greater than 45%, Eliminate 45%. Apply design Section 19.28.060B (2) then apply new design 'nciples to aIZ new two- rinciples story homes or two-story additions. Second story setbacks - feet total with 10 Unchanged Unchanged ection 19.28.060E (I) 8i (2) oot mir,;mum econd story setback O feet Iiminate for houses with Unchanged urcharge -Section ,.a floor to 2~t floor ratio > 9.28.060D 3 45% econd story wall heights O°~ of the Iiminate for homes with Change: Any wall exceeding Section 19.28.060G(3) erinzeter of second na floor to 2st floor ratio > 12 feet in height, and 20 feet tory shall have 5% in length shall incorporate all height less principles and visual relief than 6 feet echniques. Applicability of new O S, only to two story YES, to all new two story roposed design omes with more than 45°~ owes and new two-story principles na story to 1~ story. additions. Cosy 2,142 $2,142 for 5 45°,6 2ra floor to O change proposed. Staff 1~ floor ratio. $2,642 for > recommendation to increase 5°,6 2nd floor to 1st floor fees to $2,642 for aII homes. atio. MCA-2008-03 February 17, 2009 R 1 ORDINANCH UPDATr1 ~ ~ - g CITY OF CIJPERTINO EXfl~blf B TWO STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES DRAFT INTRODUCTION - - The City of Cupertino has a variety of neighborhoods developed over a period of decades. In recent years, many >4 4 rivo story homes have been constructed in Cupertino. How- a r` ever, the regulations have resulted in the construction of a ~ similar style of home in the City. i .F The following design principles encourage greater design Ip;~; , . ~ ~ ~ - a, ~ _ variety and greater flexibility.Homeowners and developers are allowed to exceed 45% second story to first floor ratio ~ifien they offset the building massing with designs that en- _ compass higher quality architectural features and materials. ~ - v - Prominent cnti} - 1=first Hour n~uY tea. c - Varied roof heights - Symo~etrical windo~~s DESIGN PRINCIPLES These design principles help integrate new homes and addi- tions to existing homes into Cupertino's neighborhoods. ~ They provide a framework for the discretionary review and ~ -r approval process. Where possible, additional details and y - - examples have been provided. Conditions not covered by L'"yr:~ ~ tit these examples will be evaluated on a case-by-cases basis. , ~s. a ~ ~ i- v~- F . Z. PROVIDE AN IDENTIFIABLE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Homes are designed by mixing elements from comparable ,r themes. [t is best to work with your designer and identify - one theme to carry out around the entire house. For most Strong titer rlcuu~ r<u,,, - Au,hemic de~aii~ architectural styles, these include: - I~~aterials variety - Simple forms - Prominent entries that are in scale with the house forn7 and size. - Window sizes, patterns, and details that are well - scaled to the house facades. _ - Wide roof overhangs that reduce the visual bulk of _ - tvvo-story structures. - - - Architectural details that add human scale and ~ r visual interest to the structure. The following pictures illustrate the importance of having a - ~ _ single identifiable style in successfully designed traditional I - = and meditterranean homes. Additional resources for infor- _ ~ oration on home styles are listed in the side bar on page 3. ~ - - • A', ui ~d ruol- lurms \~-ell ~3elined enu-~~ - Architect w-al details - One-story form 7 7 - 7 ~'~17~OJ PAGE C~ rv uF Cc: reanao Tw'o STORV )ZESIDE!.TIiL UESICih i'i41 bC'IPLES I)R.4FT _ _ T-... X ~ ~ s ~ ~ IG.'~;,,:~w^ :gas .may" r~.# ~ , _ E, i r is _ , r t CP R - _ - Bl: - .'r.+n ~:inrnl porch 1-i rst floor rcruf-r:~~c - Simple forms Prominem Iv:~rch Simple roof forms - Organized winiluc+. Varied frrnn all hlanaa - Recce ced '_a+raee i ~ , } _ ~ . y::~• ~ . • 1'r<,mfn~°nt porch ~irn;~!~ r, c I t,>~-n - ~ !..='I _~~°1 fn,n[ mass IZ-cussed ~araee • ~i;-;il~ir huilcling forms - A'~~,,: ,.i .,ri-~_~ First Ilnor root Rrrm Architectural detail ~q t~. z x_ I- q 1€ ~ :N Y . ,Y - tae °r ,}.fir ? ~ ~tet!!1l11 Illitii-.'• :iilll uui { _ - - - - - __s.-- - ' 1 - Simple huildin~' forms Large porch Simple building form 1 ..:~F: ~ ,:cl? Limited Boni bulk - Organized windo~ti's ~i-n hl~ n'of R': m ~ Sn,iin~ ~ Y _ 1 1 ' L. = . y ~ , . , _ . 3yC f~~ ~ _ . ~ - r-- .h - _ F2 rc ~.I ~,a~a~•c - Front facade depth r..I ~~I \\-i,ic• rer,., 1~„~ rlia~..~s • .Architectural detail Varied height and bulk I2 rcc-~.rd gu ra~~r - Prominc nl entry 1 1 - 8 Z/17/O9 PAGE 2 I 0 1r oav Fh~s~uc-<nv. Urs~c,~c ~'iu ~c-mi rc IJR>fi railings. Provide both top and bottom rails with the 2. DESIGN FEATURES, PROPORTIONS AND DETAILS TO bottom rail raised above the porch floor level. BE CONSISTENT WITH ARCHITECTURAT- STYLE Vertical balusters should be appropriate to the - For assistance in understanding architectural styles architectural style. Some are quite simple while others and details, refer to the sources in the side bar on the may have special shapes. right and on page 6. Note: All porches are expected to be usable and have a minimum depth of 6 feet. 2.1 Provide architectural detail consistent with the architectural style of the house and the 2.3 Use window sizes and patterns consistent neighhorhood with the architectural style - Each architectural style has developed with its own Each architectural style has a typical pattern of windows unique details. Their use will ensure a consistency of that should be respected. The bullet points below address scale and feeling of authenticity. some of the common problems often seen today. - Use decorative elements and details that are typical Avoid overly large windows: F_xcept for modern of the architecri~ral style selected. E.g. use Craftsman design styles, windows should make up only a small Style details on a Craftsman Style home and not a percentage of the wall area. Ranch Style home. - Window proportions: that are consistent with the - Avoid ornate details in neighborhoods where the architectural style should be used. Most architectural houses are simple and modest in their use of architec_ style windows are vertical in proportion. tural detailing. - Group windows: in combinations of two or more. - Select ~s~all and trim materials that are suitable to Use grouped windows where they are typical of the the architectural style selected. architectural style. - Wood window trim is highly desirable for both wood siding and stucco srivctures. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE These principles are not intended to establish or dictate a - For projecting trim around windows and doors in specific style. While a wide range of architectural styles is stucco walls, avoid rough textured stucco over foam acceptable, there is an expectation that any specific style trim. It often has the look of cake icing, and looses the selected will be carried out with an integrity offonns and crispness of the trim fom~s. A better selection is high details that are consistent with that style. density foam that can be painted or covered with a The following resources may be useful to homeowners, smooth stucco finish. builders, and design professionals in understanding the - Avoid Heavy textured roof materials (e.g., concrete special qualities of specific house styles. tiles) on architectural styles that would have typically - A Field Guide to American Homes used composition shingle roofing. Virginia 8c Lee McAlester Alfi-ed A. Knopf 2000 2.2 Ensure porches and entries are proportional - The Abrams Guide to American House Styles and appropriate to architectural style Wilkin Morgan - Select columns that are traditional to the architec- Harry N. Abrams, Inc 2004 tural style of the house. Take care in selecting columns - House Styles in America with an appropriate width to height ratio for the style. Jatnes C. Massey • Except for a very few styles, the columns should Penguin Studio 1996 have appropriate caps and bases with proportions typi- Celebrating the American Home cal of the style. Joam~e Kellar Bouknight - Provide a well proportioned beam between the col- The Taunton Press 2005 umn caps and the roof. Size and detail the beam so that - The Distinctive Home, A Vision of Timeless Design it looks like a convincing structural member. It should Jeremiah Eck be visible both from inside and outside of the porch. The Taumon Press 2005 - Railings should generally be constructed of wood. Meditterranean style homes with predominantly stucco and stone exteriors may have metal or precast stone ~ t _ g P wce 3 2/ ] 7/09 CRV ClF (_'L VFRT P'O TW'O STORY RESIDESTIAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES DR4FT - Relate &c Align: the location of windows on second 3. FACADE ARTICULATION floors to those on the first floor, if possible. Placement 3.1 Take special care in the design of two-story should not appear haphazard. structures I Ifese principles offer ways to mitigate the bulk of larger - ~ ~ ?.c a - I,~,mes in smaller scale neighborhoods and the impact ;'g'a's ° _ _ ~r~ ~.~t-t~i~o-story tall walls on adjacent neighbors and the prf? ~ Some techniques are illustrated below and on the t.~Il,~~~ ing pages. These include: ' a n ax.~ , [N>~ ~ a Second floor setbacks SIC>S_7 - u - Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes Pop outs _ - say windows Grouped windo" s - Chimneys - Wide overhangs with projecting brackets 2.4 Detail materials installation with traditional Juliet balconies design authenticity to architecural style Belly bands • Treat openings in ~~'alls as though they were con- Window boxes and pot shelves structed of the traditional material for the style. For Landscaped trellises and lattices example, provide substantial wall space above arches in - stucco and stone walls. Traditionally, wall space above Projecting window trim the arch would have been necessary to structurally span Materials and color changes the opening, and to make the space too small is incon_ Inset balconies sistent with the architectural style. Applied decorative features • Treat synthetic stone as one would desig„ with real Recessed garage doors stone (e.g., normal coursing for load-bearing walls with Recessed windows significant returns at windows and corners to avoid a Window trim pasted-on look). - Tall trees to break up vie~~s of long walls - Openings in walls faced with stone, real or syn- Second floor thetic, should have defined lintels or headers above the setbacks opening except in Mission or Spanish Eclectic styles. r' ~ Lintels or headers may be stone, brick or wood as suits I r the style of the house. R'6 `ia - c _ eay - Make materials and color changes at inside corners window rather than outside corners to avoid a pasted on look. v~ Im grin - pop out r~ fYmF_r.;;~ A.. s..¦ R Welli ~ w - ~ J Insole 1'ES fnslde Substantial "_1 ~(~aa~~eb 1~ Chimne ~ ~~root overhang Outside _ Irate-ial I I Outside Y~- ~1~ ~r color _ ~-.cs~~T't~~ty-_ Change materials Not at and colors at outside ~ _ _ inside corners corners I i -Porch _ Vertical - - - - wall Y _ - - plane ~ ~ _~f change ~ - x` r. a_a 2/ 17,'09 P_acE -7 C n ~ co- C~t r~r-yet i.u IA~o Si orz~ Ite tint :ter>f_ Ur-acs PF;f>r~irres Ufc~rT Architectural peep -4~ d F'f„~l .Inset hc.ICOny recessed ~ ~ Architectural detail +-;,~er_ fig. - 1 ¦e % " ~ x~ window ~ _ ~~I }r ~ R 4?i~ee.`er~.a ~ ~ ~ - Juliet ~ Y°i 'balcony _ - t Bray v.indow ~ Port ti Horirr-u~tal plun~_, _ Recessed and n:are~rials clung,, garage doors ,'~~c. I-~!fectur al detail - Architectural detail _ _ k _ _ _ _ t r ~ ~ ~ t 'lest iv!!+ ~ ~ ? .1. - - lu f ~a,essed ' t Horizontal M~., r ~s ~ ' 'f~ 'r and vertical _ ~ te'a'-"~`~ - - dov:s r,---~ _ wall plane ~l] Prominent _ !p,`. Materials { ~ offsets entry change _ - .:-idow trim - - rc f ec ura detail - ~ Recessed windows +r Substantial i ~ ~ :-y" - and architectural detail ~ - ~ ~ ~r. roof overhan ~ ~-~i~. r.,... 4e", Vertical ^6 a' `i r ~ ~ 'I wall ~ a L ~ ~ Set back a - plane - ~T - Materials mange _ garage ~ change - +'~,~,aN and belly band _ Arc hrlactur,~l detail Architectural lr-~ ~ t ~ x c _ _ _ detail and Large ~ t~ - window trim .a!y roof overhsug y r ~I~~" Pot R!M !Rt ~ nt r _ ~ ~ m"' Fi 1*~ ~ shalt ft~ ~inl _ _ - - ~ _ ~ i i P - Belly `.band i l ~ -Trim Belly 7 P? ~ P s ! ~ a~• ~ y - . band . 7 0 ~ Chimney .i, Porch b ~ r. f.n aterials change fi-ft PAGE $ ] 7109 Crrr of CL-PLlcr c~u ~rK'O STDRY [ZESID)=tiT1-4L t7ES1GN PRIti CIPLES DR4FT 3.2 Provide a defined entry for each house 3.3 Avoid complex forms not consistent with the • Covered porches are strongly encouraged- Es- architectural style pecially in neighborhoods with a predominance of Traditional architectural styles usually have relatively one-story homes, a porch with a roof at the first floor simple floor plans and roof forms (See examples on pages will help to integrate the new, taller house into its 4 and 5). surroundings. Develop plans and elevations together. Avoid lame foT-mal entries. Thee ill conflict Avoid complex floor plans that require complicated ~~ith_ inti>rnrtl cntric_ Iil:~ thg_onc holo~~. building masses and rooffonns. Complex plans signifi- _ candy increase the cost of construction. - Avoid com licated building forms because the ~c ~ _ - , P a Y - ~~'--r - conflict with sinple fornTS like below. z ~ P.r - vh IN _ . ~ y -gym --.r 'xr, a°i . _ ~ .„C ~ 4 tiW. t. ~..'1 ~ _ a y__ err -r`•>t P^=.. - _ - _ _ ~~.~~--..rr {?yg~ Z _ t~ s,.. s _ _ - .r.-r _ TRADITIONAL DETAILS - ~ ~<y~~~ Architectural details will be expected to _ _ follow traditional standards. Three refer- ~ - ence resources that can help are the fol- ` lowing: Traditional Construction Patterns: De- 3.G Provide consistency in window types, sizes and sign 8c Detail Rules of Thumb details Stephen A- Mouzon Avoid the use of widely varied window types and McGraw-Hill 2004 sizes- The repetition of a limited number of window Get YOLIt- House Right: Architectural types and sizes will help give the house visual unity. Elements to Use and Avoid - Divided lights (i.e., larger window panes broken Marianne Cusato, Ben Pentreath, Rich- up into smaller pieces) are common in many traditional and Sammons, and Leon Krier home styles. Use either vertical or square proportions Sterling Publishing 2008 for the smaller window elements. Be consistent in the Architectural Graphic Standards for proportions (i.e., the ratio of the horizontal to the verti- Residential Construction: The Archi_ cal dimension) of the smaller panes. Avoid snap in flat tect's and Builder's Guide to Design grids to simulate divided lights. Use either true divided Planning and Construction Details lights or one of the newer simulated divided life win- (Ramsey/Sleeper Architectural Graphic dow systems that have dimensional nwntins on both Standards Series) the exterior and interior of the glass. Use consistently The American Institute of Architects for windows on all sides of the house. John Wiley 8c Sons 2003 - 12 2/17/09 P.4ce 6 J-~R 1' OF C' 14-Ia I'~~; l-v., 9rnriRe si~,r: ~~~v [Jrc~~;~!'r: r.uYi ec C~a.>ri 5. HIGH QLJALiTV MATERIAi_S 5.1 Use high quality materials Traditional materials, such as wood and stone, are desirable, and strongly encouraged. If this is not possible, ~i ' use synthetic materials that are often hard to tell from the , r'°: ~ authentic ones at a significantly lower cost. True Divided Lite ~ ~ Simulated Divided 5.2 Select materials compatible with the Window Lite Window neighborhood 3.7 Use care in the location, size and details for Wall and roof materials should be selected with bay windows compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Use • Avoid very large bay windows that compete with materials or combination of materials drawn from the entry as the focal point of the house. nearby homes this helps to adapt newer, larger homes - Bay windows should be designed with a base ele- into existing neighborhoods. meat to the ground or with supporting brackets at the - Avoid concrete file or other heavily textured roof- base for first floor windows. Second floor bay windows ing that is out of character and scale with other nearby should have substantial wood trim at its base. Support- homes. ing corbels or brackets are encouraged. Sloped roofs should be used and covered ~~'ith a material that match- eS the rOOf material Or with nlcta 1. OTHER ITEMS TO CONSIDER ABOUT ARTICULATION Avoid using wall materials between - 6.1 Balconies the individual o~tte~ent root windows of the bay matcriat ~ Avoid large second floor decks supported on tall, narrow columns. window unless the window is large. ~i~6 Balcony railings should be designed as discussed Generally, bay win- ~'``{-G ~ ~3 for porch railings. doves look best when t-~ v?ood jan,r>>. 6.2 Brackets the windows are sous ar,d n~:. close together and Brackets at roof overhangs, balconies and bay separated by wood ~ ! - _ ~E windows should be designed to extend to roof fascia, _jambs that match 11„ j - _ balcony edge, or projecting bay window or slightly be- - wood sills and heads yond. Avoid stub brackets that do not appear substantial as shown in the strong base enough to support the element above. example. ~ support 4. DESIGN WITH ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY ON ALL SIDES OF THE HOLiSE Use materials and details from the front elevation <e.g., window trim, exposed roof rafrers, stone or brick bases, and similar details) on all facades. Avoid "false front" architecture with attractive street facades andstripped down facades facing neigh- bors. t ~ - t 3 PAGE 7 ~~17/09 1 Exhibit C City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 - (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 C O P E RT I H O Community Development Department Summary i Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: October 21, 2008 Application: MCA-2008-03 Applicant: City of Cupertino - Property Owner: Various j Property Location: City-wide i Summary: Consider a Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family Rl Ordinance (section 19.28.060) regazding 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 Rl lot or changing the required second story setbacks. The Ordinance amendment will also include minor language clarifications relating to gardening activities and miscellaneous wording charges to improve the readability of the document, Application No. MCA-2008-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide. I RECOMMENDATION 'Fhe Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny: • MCA-2008-03, citing .the need for a more comprehensive design review process for two story homes. The City Council may consider the following alternatives: 1. Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and initiate a review of the. Rl Ordinance including but not-limited to topics on the ratio of 2«~ floor area to 1st floor area, the total 45% floor area ratio and the overall Rl design review standards/process; or it-ia MCA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance October 21, 2008 Page 2 2. Adopt the staff recommended ordinance framework and direct staff to work with the City Architectural Consultant and return in a month to present final ordinance details for consideration. BACKGROUND: On May- 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission work program to include a limited review of the R-1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to th.e first floor building area. The intent is to allow greater design flexibility to property owners. The Council directed the Planning Commission to present recommendations on ordinance options to the City Council.by Qctober 2008. On Juiy 8, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Rl ~~rdinance amendment. The Commission directed staff to provide a focused ordinance framework with specific list of principles and guidelines that will address Cupertino's residential development needs. On September 9, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed design review framework, and recommended denial to the City Council, citing the need for a more comprehensive design review process for t,avo story homes to address overall massing, design and review process. DISCUSSION: The currently 45% second story floor area ratio has resulted in a "wedding cake" style of architecture that is slowing becoming the predominate style of new two-story homes or additions in many neighborhoods. By creating a process that allows homeowners to increase the second floor ratio, new architectural opportunities become available. Staff believes that achieving architectural diversity does not require ii2creasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or changing the minimum setback requirements. Through appropriate design review and specific enhanced design principles, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45% second floor area limit in exchange for higher design quality and broader range of architecture. In addition, the proposed process is voluntary, only app Licable to those wishing to increase their second floor area above 45%. Homes that are designed to meet the existing Rl Ordinance would only be subject to the current Rl Ordinance standards. Please refer to the attached August 26, 2003 Planning Commission staff report for the detailed staff proposal ~~-~s MCA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance October 21, 2008 Page 3 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission voted 4-1 (Miller voting no) to 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 are ratio and the 2na floor to 1st floor ratio. Primary concerns of the Planning Commission are as follows: ¦ Massive and visually intrusive homes will result from increasing the 2':a floor ratio to potentially 100% of the yse floor (especially on small Zots). ¦ Not enough process or detail specified to achieve the desired architectural quality and diversely. ¦ Evaluation should also include the total floor area ratio and a more comprehensive desigsrreview process. ¦ Clear expectation of the design requirements and review time should be provided. Please refer to the attached September 9, 2008 and July 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting muzutes for the detailed discussion. Staff Comments/Recommendation Massive and visually intrusive homes: In most cases, having 100% 2na floor area to 1st floor area ratio is impractical and mathematically challenging due to the physical constraints resulting from typical lot sizes, minimum setbacks, and functional living space requirements on the 1st floor. Those lots that can accommodate between 75-100% 2~~d. floor to 1st floor ratio would have to substantially reduce their building footprints to not exceed the total floor area of 45% (see illustration # below). Consequently, residences would be oriented further away from adjacent properties, creating more outdoor space/buffer and lessen visual intrusions. The illustrations below are example building footprints and setbacks on two typical Cupertino lot sizes (5,000 and 7,000 square feet) intended to compare building massing and relationship to adjoining properties between a typical 45% 2na floor to a 100% 2na floor. ~~-~s MCA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance October 21, 2008 Page 4 ~~y ~ F- y, ~y YI ~I Ri 1E1 + ~ I I I I ~ ~ I 1 i ; I ! i ' i ~ 1 ~ I ~ ~ ~ I _ I ~a PCeT - ' 1.. zf.FtcP ' 1 1 + I 1 1 i ~ ~ t I 1 I f ~ 1 1 ' i I I ~ i w 1 i ~ , 11 I I I I i.. I 1 i ~ I I - j I I I I 7 - ~ ~ - 1 f 1 1 ~ I I I ~ I 1 i t __...._-lam ~S.FEEF ~ ~ ..._.?@.>=tar r- - I - ----1 - - r- - s - 1- - ~ i ~ I 1 1 I I i 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 - ~ 1 i 1 I Tw..•: 1 1 I F>C~, r~~ I 1 . i - - ~ i I ~,~SN~i LE~+FJJQ' ---.--PRpP~tTY U7.W" FRdlI~tTY U Rt6 ----Y14d1 H6GA S94Yif~CkS ,..-.-~KWlftiaK1.~.f*tT~K'XS G~s-a ~~IPSac e>FST. j Yif~{laa~°L z~v+F,e.. aar F.+¦t> ~E Lot Size: 5,000 Square Feet Lot Dimensions: 50 feet X 100 feet MCA-2008-03 - Rl Ordinance October 21, 2008 Page 5 1 1 ~1 fi~wc rl `21 of c3r.~- x~ i r 1 ' r 1 I I I ! ~ - E I i I i I I __1-i. - _.i ]Fr lrS~ 1 1 I Fs:~ 1 y+o - _._6.. i - _ I I 25 FE.fT ~ i I 1 I I i i.. 1 , ~ I, i I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I ku ~ i 1 1 1 I i K I 1 ~ I I ! ~ ~ ~ I 4 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 ~d+F 6f7 .....---3'- 1 2P t~C ES I ~_-T-' - r.__.__ _ ~I 1 ' ~ 1 t I 1 ' I I ! I 1 t 1} ~F~'''~7 _ _ I 1 i 1 PT.aNT , 1 f L~i8~7~ 1 1 , 1~iwtargch „eTA.~creC - ~ MJ>utse~rn SL~TSACC£ Hrs gkFi a.ABtE slukh.a - ~ }{.,r F}u.:cbn3E ~€•a eovo~ z•~TLrt+C r~ale'~, C'i~"g ~~'Few~ F,•,tz°, - ...-r is - ~ za t-r, s xz_s~ Lot Size: 7,000 Square Feet Lot Dimeneions_ 70 feet X 100 feet Council Option: If the Council finds merit in the proposed ordinance framework, the Council may elect to cap the maximum 211 floor building area to' lst floor building area ratio at 100% or less- Additional process and details needed to achieve architectural diversity: The intent of the new design review process for homes exceedi>lzg 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio is to provide greater design flexibility. Therefore any new design standard must provide adequate flexibility to facilitate a variety of potential design concepts. The staff proposed ordinance framework includes specific design ~~-~s MCA-2008-03 - R 1 Ordinance October 21, 2008 Page 6 principles and visual relief techniques. These principles and techniques are not intended to establish or dictate a specific style or mass but would rather provide assistance to applicants to understand various methods for minimizing visual mass. Please refer to the attached August 26, 2008 Planning Commission staff report for additional details on the proposed design principles and visual relief techniques. Council Option: The Council can direct additional review process or details if necessary. Additional evaluation of the total floor area ratio and amore comprehensive design review process: As mentioned previously, staff believes thz~t achieving architectural diversify does not require changing the maximum 45% total buildung floor area ratio. By creating a process that allows applicants to increase the second floor ratio, new architectural opportunities become available. Staff believes the proposed design principles and review requirements would offer an alternative and streamlined process for homeowners and design professionals. Council Option: The City Council can initiate a more comprehensive residential design review process/guidelines similar to Los Gatos and Los Alto, if warranted. Other Related Minor Ordinance Changes Setback surcharge and 50% second floor exposed wall requirement Aside from the proposed design principles and techniques, staff suggests that homes exceeding the 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio would also be exempt from the second floor 10 feet setback sur~~harge requirement. In addition, the 50% second floor wall exposure requirement would be revised to include the proposed visual relief measures discussed in the previous section of the staff report. Other miscellaneous changes Staff is recommending- additional language clarifications be made relating gardening activities allowed in the Rl district and minor wording change to improve readability of the general Rl Ordinance. Please see attached redline ordinance XXX for additional details. -~s MCA-2008-03 - Rl Ordinance October 21, 2008 Paoe 7 COL3NCIL OPTIOhIS: The City Council may consider the following options: 1. Do not authorize any change to the R1 Ordinance. 2. Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and initiate a review of the Rl Ordinance including but not limited to topics on the ratio of 2n~ floor area to lst floor area, the total 45% floor area ratio and the overall R1 design review standards /process. Note: This option will add significant time and cost to the process. The City would have 3. Adopt the staff recommended ordinance framework and direct. staff to work with the City Architectural Consultant and return in a month to present final ordinance details for consideration. Submi d by: Approved by: C~~a~ Stev Piasecki David W. Knapp Director, Community Development City Manager Attachments Exhibit A: Proposed Ordinance Recommendations Exhibit B: Existing Ordinance Exhibit C: Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments, August 26, 2008 (postponed September 9, 2008) Exhibit D: Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes, September 9, 2008 Exhibit E: Plarin;ng Commission Meeting Draft Minutes, July 8, 2008 ii -so Exhibit A CHAPTER 19.25: SI:I~TGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1) ZONES _ Section 19.28.010 Purposes. 19.28.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.28.030 Permitted uses. 19.28.040 Conditional uses. 19.28.050 Development regulations (site). 19.28.060 Development regulations (building). 19.28.070 Landscape requirements. 19.28.080 Permitted yard 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-(R 7-a). 19.28.140 Interpretation by the Planning; Director. 19.28.010 Purposes. R-1 single-family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods; B. Ensure provision of tight, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential pazcels; 1 1 - 21 _ C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community; (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord: 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R-1 single-family residence district other than in conformance -with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.030 Permitted Uses. The following uses ~'_.~~e 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 aad 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_ ' I F. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; G. Small-family day care home; H. The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept on the site; I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards; ii -22 7. Lazge-family day cafe 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 caze home. The Director of Corruiiunity 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: L 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 aone-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of this chapter, provided that the Planning Coiiiiiiission .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 caze facilities that fall into the following categories: 1 1 - 23 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 depaztment 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 (Site). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R-1 zoning symbol. Examples aze as follows: Zoning Symbol Number Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet R 1 5 5,000 R 1 6 6,000 R 1 7.5 7,500 R 1 10 10,000 R 1 20 20,000 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection A(1) of this section, but not less than five thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that aII other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled. B. Lot Width_ The minimum lot width '~.2 is sixty feet measured at the front- yard setback line, except in the R1-5 district where the minimum lot width is fifty feet. ii -za C. Development on Properties with Hillside Characteristics. L Buildings proposed on properties generally located south of Linda Vista Drive, south and west of Santa Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Tena Bella Drive and north of Lindy Lane (see map below) zoned R1-20 tha¢ have an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent a are developed in accordance with the following site development standards: a. Site Grading. i. All site grading awe 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 azeas, driveway and all other areas requiring grading, but does not include basements. The graded area +-'-moo is limited to the building pad area to the greatest extent possible. Grading quantities for multiple driveways s1~~73e 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 developrrient_ A maximum_of two thousand square feet of flat yard area, excluding driveways, ma_y be graded. ii. AII cut and fill areas r'-o are rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping which meets the. requirements in Section 19.~O.OSOG. iii_ A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and the City Engineer, ~a11-submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen out and fill slopes. iv. If the flat Yazd area (excluding driveways) exceeds 2,000 square feet or the cut plus fill of the site exceeds -2,500 cubic yards, the applicant Abe is required to obtain a Site and Architectural approval from the Planning Commission. 1 1 - 25 b. Floor Area. i_ -The maximum floor area ratio s~ral~-be is forty-fve 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 azea 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 1.9.40). 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 a 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 tra~zspazency) shall be unrestricted except that such fencing over three feet in height may not be constivcted 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 ii -zs five hundred square feet of development, including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a slope of thirty percent or greater. D. An application for building permits filed and accepted by the Community Development Department (fees paid and permit number issued) on or before October 2, 2007 may proceed with application processing under ordinances in effect at that time. (Ord. 2011, 2007; Ord. 2000, 2007; Ord. 1954, (paxt), 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. L.ot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage e is forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches and other similar features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls. B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective of the: floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR. shall be used in conjunction with the residential development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the project is cempatible with the surrounding neighborhood. L The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot is forty-five percent_ 2. The maximum floor area of a second story s13;~a is forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is greater.. 3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have the mass and bulk of a two-story house and s13,all~a 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 generaIly 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 tie is reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately 11-27 larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights; b: The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c. There shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut. d. No more than fifty percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of garage area. e. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the second story. f_ The current pattern of side setback and 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 gazages should be set back more. j. All second story roofs should have at least cone-foot overhang. D. Setback-First Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback ~ is a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two 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 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_ ~i -za a. With a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090; the rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yazd is not Iess 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 waIl 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 iin~e of asingle-family dwelling. 3. Surchazge. A setback distance equal to ten feet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section. F. Basements. 1. The number, size and volume of lightvvells 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 Iightvvell retaining wall ~e is five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a light~~ell retaining wall ~'-~a is ten feet. 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwe11.2.005 S-4 ii -zs 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. Atwenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G{2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peals 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 19.28.1 10 D. 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height ~e is fourteen feet measured from finished wade to top of the plate_ 5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be Timited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by affixing an i designation to the R1 zoning district. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear. yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is not [o require complete visual protection but to address privacy i~-so . 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 s-kt~ll-be is fifteen feet. 3. The minimum rear-yard setback sbe is twenty feet L Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or ac~:ive solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Any solaz 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. 1560, § 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- operable windows are not required to provide privacy protection planning. B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two-story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied by a privacy planting plan which identifies the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs_ 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 11 - 31 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 fo 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 waiver this front-yaid 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 alI 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, CPart). 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 1 - 32 Exhibit B - - 19~s.olo C13Ai'TER 19.28: SINGLE-FA:N~,Y RRRmLr1~71ZAL (Ri) ZONES Section I9.28.010 Purposes. A. Single-family use; ' - 19.28.020 Applicability of regulations. B. A second dwelling unit conforming 4o the 19.28.030 Permitted uses, provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19.28.040 Conditional uses. 19.82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a 19.28.050 Development regulations (site). conditional use permit; 19.28.000 Development regulations (buildmg). C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily 19.28.070 Landscape requirements. incidental to permitted uses and otherwise confiorming with 19.28.080 Permitted yard encroach**+P++±Q, the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; 19.28.090 Minor residential permit. D. Flume occupations in accordance with the 19.28.100 Two-story residential permit. provisions of Chapter 19.92; 19.28.110 Exceptions. E. Fforticulture, gardening, and growing of food 19.28.120 Development regulations-Eichler products for consumption by occupants of the site; (Rl-e). P. Residential care facility that is licensed by the 19.28.130 Development regulations-(R I-a). appropriate State, County agency or departmem with six or 19.28.140 Interpretation by the Planning less residents, not including the provider, provider family or Director, staff; ' - C3. Small-family day care home; Fi. The keeping of a maximum of four adult 19.28.010 Purposes. household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs R-1 single-family residence districts are intended to or cats may be kept on the site; create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility dweIIings in order to: services to the neighborhood but excluding business oftices, A. Enhance the identity of resid~tial neighborhoods; construction. or storage yards, maintenance facilities, yr B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable corporation yards; level of privacy to individual residential parcels; J. Large-family day care homes, which meet the C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.1D0 and which are of stroctures within residential neighborhoods; at least three hundred feet from any other liirge-family day D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting care home. The Director of Community Development or in the community; (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, his/her designee shall a~**+]nlsuatively approve lazge day (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000 Ord. 1834, (part), care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and 1999; Ord. 1601, Bxh. A (part), 1992) proximity requirements; 1~ Congregate residence with ten or less residents. 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 2688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally (part), 1994; Ord. 1601, F ch. A (part), 1992) altered or enlarged in ffi R-1 single-family residence district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter 19.28_040 Conditional Uses_ and other applicable provisions of this Lit1e. (Ord. 1954, The following uses maybe conditionally allowed in the - (part), 2005; Ord. 1560, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 2834, (part), R-1 single-family residence district, subject to the issuance I999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) of a conditional use permit: A. issued by the Director of Community 19.28.030 Permitted Uses.. ~ Developmem: The following uses shall be permitted in the R-1 single- 1. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established - - family residence district:. by Chapter 19.124; - 29 2005 S-4 ~ ~ - 33 19.28.040 Cupertino -Zoning 30 - 2. Large-family day care home, which otherwise 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R-1 conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; Zoning Symbol Number Minimum Lot Area in - 3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar Square Feet design features that require variations from setbacks upon a determination by the Director that such design feature or Rl 5 5000 features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, Rl 6 6,000 intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding Rl 7.5 7,500 area; 4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional RI ~ 10 10,000 use permit pursuant Lo Chapter. 19.84; Rl 2A 20,000 5. Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by B. Issued by the P1affiing Commission: subsection A(1) of this section, but not less than five 1, Two-story structwes in an area designated fora thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building one-story limitation pursuam to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of sites, provided that alI other applicable requirements of this this chapter, provided that the Pla*+n;**g Commission title are Fulfilled, determines that the structure or structures will not result in B. Lot Width. The minunum lot width shall be sixty privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or feet measured at the front-yard setback line, except in the other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; Rl-5 district where the m;.,;.,,upp lot width ie fifty Feet. 2. Group care activities with greater than six C. Development on Properties with Hillside persons; Characteristics. 3. lessidential care facilities that fall into the 1. Buildings proposed on properties generally following categories: located south of Linda Vista Drive, south and west of Santa a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive and the State, County agency or department and has six or less north of Lindy Lane (see map-below) zoned R1-20 that have residents, not including the providers, provider family or an average slope equal to or greater ffian fifteen percent staff; shall be developed in accordance with Cite following site - b. • Facility that has the appropriate State, County development standards: agency or department license and seven or greater residents, ;r-- not including -the provider family or staff, is a m;,,;..,unt distance of five hundred feet from fire property boundary of another residential care facility; c, Facility That is not required to obtain a license by _ the State, County agency or deparr.,.Pnt 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 . _ i=t from the bomtdary of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard - - ~ ` azea per occupant. (Oid. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord, 1860, § 1 - - - (part), 200D; Ord. 1834. (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part). 1998; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618; (part), 1993; Ord.- 1601, Bxh. A (part), 1992) a. Site Grading. i. All site grading shall be limited to a cumulative 19_28.050 Development Regulations (Site). total of two thousand Sve hundred cubic yazds, cut plus fill. A, Lot Area Zoning Designations. The two thousand five hundred cubic yards includes grading - for building pad, yard areas, driveway. and all other areas- 2008 S-IS . - - '11 - 34 30A Single-Family IF:esldential (Ri) Zones 19.28.050 requiring grading, but does not include basements. The ii. Open fencing (composed of materials which result graded area shall be limited to the building pad area to the in a minimum of seventy-flue percent visual transparency) greatest extent possible. Grading quantities for multiple shall be unrestricted except that such fencing over three feet driveways shall Ue divided equally among the participativl; in height may not be constructed within the front yard lots, e.g., two lots sharing a driveway will divide the setback. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) driveway grading quantity in half. The divided share will be f. Tree Protection. Up to two protected trees with • chazged against the grading quantity allowed for that lot a diameter less than 18 inches may be removed to development. A maximum of two thousand square feet of accommodate a building pad subject to approval of the flat yard area, excluding driveways, may be graded. Director of Community Development. Removal of ii. All cut and fill areas shall be rounded to folIovv protected trees exceeding I S 'inches or removal of more than the natural contours and planted with landscaping whicl!t two protected trees requires approval of a tree removal meets the requirements in Section 19.40.OSOG. permit by the Planning Commission in accordance with the iii. A licensed landscape architect shall revievv Tree Ordinance. grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and the 2. No structure or improvements shall occur on City Engineer, shall submit a plan to prevent soil erosion slopes of thirty percent or greater unless an exception is and to screen out and fil[ slopes. granted in accordance with Section 19.40.140, unless no iv. If the flat yard area (excluding. driveways) more than five hundred square feet of development, exceeds 2,000 square feet or the cut plus fill of the site including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the applicant shall be required to slope of thirty percent or greater. obtain a Site and ArchiEectural approval from the Pla*•*~+*+g D. An application for building permits filed and Commission. accepted by the Community Development Department (fees b. Floor Area. paid and permit number issued) on or before October 2, i. The maximum floor area ratio shall-be forty-five 2007 may proceed with application processing under percent of the net lot area for development proposed on the ordinances in effect at that time. (Ord. 201 i, 2007; Ord. existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to cr 2000, 2007; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), less than 1096 slope, of any lot. 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2002; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Formula.: A = 0.45 B: where A = maximum Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, § 1 (par[), 1993; Ord. allowable house size and B =net lot area. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) ii. Buildings or additions located off of the flat pad exceedmg slopes of 1096 and producing floor area exceeding 19.28.060 Development Regulation$ (Buildinp~. 4,500 square feet of total house size, require approval frown A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lat coverage shall the Planning Commission. in accordance with Chaptex be forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five 19.134 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs, iii. Additions within an existing building envelope atc patios, porches and other similar features not substantially - permitted provided that the torsi FAR of the existing .enclosed by exterior walls. building and addition does not exceed 45 96. 8. Floor Area Ratio. The objective bf the floor area c. Second Floor Area and Balcony. The second ratio-(FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for squaze floor and balcony review process shall be consistent with tt.e footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the requirements from the Residential Hillside Zoning District residential development standards and guidelines in this (Chapter 19.40). The amount of second floor area is not ordinance in deYnrr~ning whether the mass and scale of the limited provided the total floor azea does not exceed tt,e project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. allowed floor-area ratio. d. Retairting Wall Screening. Rrta~g 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 shall be limited to a five thousand square foot site area (excluding the principal building) . 2008 5-15 - tt -35 31 Single-Family Residential (Etl) Zones 19.28.060 1. The maximum IIoor area ratio of all structures on a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-yard setback a lot shall be forty-five percent. on the street side- of the tot is twelve feet. The other side 2. The maximum floor area of a second story shall yard setback shall be no less than flue feet. be forty-five percent of the existing or proposed tSrst story b. For interior lots in the Rl-5 district, the side yard floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is setbacks are five feet on both sides. . greater. c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the 3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, setback shall be consistent for_all side yards between the measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have front property line and the rear property line. the mass and bulls of a two-story house and shall be counted 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is as floor area. - twenty feet. a. If the house is a two-story house, this area will a. With a Mirror Residential Permit, subject to count as second story floor area; otherwise, the area will Section 19.28.090, the rear setback may be reduced to ten count as first floor area. feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less C. Design Guidelines. than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front 1. Any new two-story house, or second-story .setback line. addition to an existing house, shall be ge~rally consistent 4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an RI with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a Director of Community Development shall review the street property line. project and shall determine that the following items are met a . For projects with three-car garages oriented to the prior to design approval: public right-of--way, the wall plane of the third space shall a. The mass and bulk of the design sha12 be be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood the other two spaces. pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately E. Setback-Second Story. larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern 1. From and Rcar Yards. The minimum front and in terms of building; forms, roof pitches; cave heights, ridge rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. heights, and entry feature heights; 2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rawer than shall be twenty flue feet, except that no second-story side high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; setback may be less than ten feet. c. There shall not be athree-car wide driveway curb a, In the case of a flag tot, the minimum setback is cut. ~ twenty feet from any property lip. d. No more than fifty percent of the front elevation b. In the case of a corner lot, a minimum of twelve of a house should consist of garage area. feet from a street side property Iine and twenty feet from - e. Long, unarticulated,.exposed second sDOry walls any rear property line of a single-family dwelling. should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet the second story. shall be added in whole or in a~ combination to the front f. The current pattern of side setback and garage ~ and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section. orientation in the ~ighborhood should be mal*+*At*~e~: F. Basements. g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural 1. The member, size and vohtme of lightwells and elements should be aligned with one anther vertically and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required horizontally and symmetrical in mtmber, size and by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and ' placement. ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house h. Porches are encouraged. ~ with a b_ asement, one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide i. Living area should be closer to the street, while and up m ten feet long. garages should be .set back more. 2. No part of a lightwell retainug wall may be j. Ali second story roofs should have at least cone- located within a required setback area, except as follows: foot overhang. a: The minimum side setback for a lightwell D. Setback-Prst Story. retaining wall shall be five feet; 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is b. The minimum rear setback for a llghtwell twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the retaining wall shall be ten feet. setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there- 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street are no more titan two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring shall be screened by landscaping. side by side. 4. Railings for ligh[wells shall. be no higher than 2. Side Yard. The combination of the two side yard three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent . setbacks shat] be fifteen feet, except that no side yard to the lightwell. setback may be less than five feet. 2005 S-4 1 1 - 37 19.28.060 Cupertino - Zoning 32 5. The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell 2. The minimum side-yard setback shaII be fifteen - retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the feet. most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the 3. The minimum rear-yard setback shall be twenty Director of Community Development. feet. G. Height. I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions 1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any provided in this chapter may be varied fora structure pri~ipal dwelling in an Rl zone shall not exceed twemy- utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antem~ae or no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or other appurtenances, adjoining property owners. Any solar structure Wat requires 2. Building Envelope (One Story). variation from the setback or height restrictions of this a. The maximum exterior wall height and building chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor height on single~siory structures and single-story sections of Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090. two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. by: - 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, $ 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, 1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 $ 1, 1998; measured at the property lip; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord_ 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 2. Atwenty-five-degree roof line angle projected 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, imvard at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection Bxh. A (part), 1992) - G(2)(a)(1) of this section_ b. Notwithstanding the ln,il~ting envelope iII 19.28.070 Landscape Requirements. subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of bulk of new two-story homes and additions, tree and/or seventeen feet to tl~ peak of the roof as measured from shrub planting is required. The intent of this section is to natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential provide substantial screening within three years of the Permit. planting. 3. Second Story Walt Heights. Fifty percent of the A. Applicability. This requirement shall apply to new total perimeter length of second story walls shall trot have two-story homes, second-story decks, two-story additions, exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a or modifications to the exi~*t~ second-story decks or minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story existing windows on existing two-story homes that increase roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be -privacy impacts on neighboring residents. Skylights, structural and shall be oft a minimum of four feet from windows wish sills snore than five feet above the finished the first story exterior wall plane, second floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers up a. The Director of Community Development may to six Peet above the finished second floor, and obscured, approve an exception to this regulation based on the findurgs non-operable windows are not required to provide privacy in Section 19.28.110 D. protection planning. 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two- feature height shall be fourteen feet. story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied 5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council by a privacy planting plan which identifies the location, may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) or shrubs. by atl=ixing an °i" designation to the Rl zoning district. 1. New trees or shzuba shall be required on the H. Second Story Decks. Ail new or expanded second applicant's property to screen views from second-story story decks with views into neighboring residential side or windows. The area where planting is required is bounded by rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject a thirty-degree angle on each side window jamb. The trees to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of or shrubs .shall be planted prior to issuance of a final adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requireme~ is occupancy permit. not to require complete visual protection but to address a. New tree or shrubs are not required to replace privacy protection to the greatest extent while stIIl allowing existing trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified the construction-and use of an outdoor deck. This section Arborist or Licenses Landscape Architect verifies that the applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other existing trees/shnibs have the characterlsties of privacy similar unenclosed features. planting species, subject to approval by the Director or 1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three Community Development. feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling. 2005 S-4 11 - 38 33 Shagle-Family Realdentlal (RI) Zones 29.28.070 b. Affected property owner(s) may choose to allow 3. The extension of amy wall plane of a first-story privacy planting on their own property. In such cases, the addition is not permitted to be within three feet of any applicant must plant the privacy screening prior m issuance property line. of a building permit. 4. Only one such extension shall be permitted for the 2. Waiver. These privacy mitigation measures may life of such building. be modified in a~ way with a signed waiver statement from 5. This- section applies to the first story only and the affected property owner. Modifications can include sha[I not be construed to allow the furtiter extension of an changes to the number of shrubs or trees, Weir species or encroachment by any building, which is the result. of the location. granting of a variance or exception, eiWer before or after C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicams for new such property become part of We City. two-story homes and two-story additions must ptani a tree in B. Architectural featares (not including patio covers) front of new second stories in the front yard setback area. may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding The tree shall be 24 inch-box or larger, with a minimum three feet, provided that 'no architectures[ feature or height of six feet. The Director of Community Development combination thereof, wheWer a portion of a principal or can waiver this front yard tree if Were is a conflict with auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any existing mature tree canopies on-site or in the public right- property line. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), of-way. 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; D. Species List. The Planning Division shall Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part),. 1999; Ord. maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), i 992) The list shall include allowed plant species, minimum size of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and 19.28.090 Minor Residential Permits. planting distance between trees. Projects Wat require a Minor Residential Permit shall E. Covenant. The property owner shall record a be reviewed in accordance wiW this section. The purpose of covenant wiW We Santa Clara County Recorders Office that this process is to provide affected neighbors wiW an requires the retention of ail privacy planting, or use of opportunity to comment on new development that could have existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a significant impacts on Weir property or the neighborhood as final building inspection from the Building Division. This a whole. regulation does not apply to situations descn'bed in A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete subsection B(1)(b) of this section. application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all F. MaintPnp*Y-e. The required plants -shall be owners of record of real properly (as shown in the last tax maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes assessment toll) that are adjacent to We subject property, irrigation, fertilization and pr+~ning as necessary to yield a including properties across a public or. private street. The growW rate expected for a particular species. notice shall invite public comment by a determined action G. Replacement. Where required planting is removed date and shall ituclude a copy of We development plans, or dies it must be replaced within thirty days wiW privacy ,eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it B. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Community comments, We Director of Community Development shall Development. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) approve, conditionally approve, or deny We application. The permit can be approved only upon making all of the 19.28.080 Permitted Yard Encroachments. following findings: A. Where a building legally constructed according to 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino existing yard and setback regulations at We time of General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning construction, encroaches upon present required yards and ordinances and the purposes of this title. setbacks, one encroaching side yard setback may be 2. The granting of We permit will not result in a extended along its existing txtilding lines if We addition condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or receives a Miter Residential Permit and conforms to We improvements in We vicinity, and will not be detrimental to following: 'the public healW, safety or welfare. 1. The extension or addition may not further 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and encroach into any required setback and We height of •We design with We general neighborhood. existing non-conforming wall a>id the extended wall may not 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties be increased. have been reasonably mitigated. 2. The maximum lengW of We extension is fifteen feet. 2005 S-4 ' 1 1 - 39 19.28.090 Cupertlno -Zoning 34 C. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning d. A deadline for the submission of .public Commission, applicant and am+ member of the public that comments, which shall be at least fourteen days after the. commented on the project shall be notified of the action by date the notice is posted; first class mail or electronic mail. Any itterested party may e. A black and white orthographic rendering of the appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the front of the house, at least Eleven inches by seventeen inches Planning -Commission will make the fatal action on the in size_ The City shall approve the illustration or renderutg appeal, prior to posting. D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Permit. •Uniess B . Notice of Application (Level I>7. Upon receipt of a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class and control number issued within one year of the Minor mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in Residential Permit approval, said approval shall become miII the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred and void unless a longer time period was specifically feet of the subject property. The notice shall invite public proscribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that comment by a determined action date and shall include a the building permit expires for any reason, the Minor copy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen Residential Permit shall become null and void. The Director inches in size. of Community Development may grant none-year extension 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public without a public notice if an application -for a Mimr notice consistent with subsection A(1) of this section, except Modification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before that a colored perspective rendering shall be required instead the expiration date and substantive justification for the of a black and white orthographic rendering. extension is provided. C. Story Poles. Story poles are required for any B. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Two-Story Residential Permit. Director of Community Development a Minor Residential D. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public Permit can be processed concurrently with other comments, the Director of Conurmnity Development shall discretionary applications.(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The perttait can be approved only upon [Waking all of the 19.28.100 Two-Story Rc~sldentlal Permit, following findings: Two-story additions or two-story new homes require a 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino Two-Story Residential Permit in _ accordance with this General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning section. Two-story projects with a floor area ratio under ordinance and the purposes of this title. 35% shall require a Level 1 Two-Story Residential Permit, 2.- The granting of the permit will not result i11 a while a two-story project with a floor area ratio over 35 % condition that is detrimental or injurious to. property or shall require aLevel IITwo-Story Residential Permit. improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to A. Notice of Application (Level I). Upon receipt of the public health, safety or welfare. a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in design with the general neighborhood. the last tax assessment tole that are adjacent Lo the subject 4. Adverse visual impact§ on adjoining properties - property, including properties across a public or private have been reasonably mitigated. street. The notice shall invite public comment by a S. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning determined .action date and shall include a copy of the Commission, applicant and any member of the public that development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in co++~+*+P^ted on the project shall be notified of the action by _ size. first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the notice in the: front yard of the subject site that is clearly P1A++?~l*±g Commission will make the final action on the visible from the public street. -The notice shall be a appeal. weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide F. Bxpiration of a Two-story Permit. Uriless a fnmly attached to a five-foot tall post. The notice shall building permit is Fled and accepted by the City (fees paid remain in place until an action has been taken on the artd control number issued) within one year of the Two- application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall Story Permit approval, said approval shall become null and contain the following: void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed a. The exact address of the property, if known, or by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building the location of the property, if the address is not ]mown, permit expires for any reason, the Two-Story Permit shall b. A brief description of the proposed project, the become null and void. The Director of Community content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; Development may grant a one-year extension, without a- c. City contact information for public inquiries; 2005 S~ 1 1 - 40 35 Single-Famlly Residential (Rl) Zoa~es 19_28.100 ` public notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to c_ The proposed , exception will not result in the Two-story Permit is filed before the expiration date and significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. substantive justification for the extension is provided. 2, Issued by the Design Review Committee. The G_ Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Design Review Committee may grant exceptions from the Director of Community Development, a Two-story Permit prescriptive design regulations described in Section can be processed concurrently with other discretionary 19.28.060, except 19.28,060 G(4) and Section 19.28.130 applications. (Ord. I954, (part), 2005) upon making all of the following findings: a. ..The literal enforcement of this chapter will result 19.28.110 L~ceptions. in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent chapter. of this chapter result from the strict application of the b. The proposed development will not be injurious provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19.28.060, to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental 19.28.070 and 19.28.120 may be granted as provided in this to the public safety, health and welfare. section. c. The .exception to be granted is one that will A. Notice of Application. Upon receiptofacomplete require the least modification of the prescribed design application, the Community Development Department shall regulation a~ the minimum variance that will accomplish set a time and place for a public hearing before the Design the purpose. Review Committee and send a notice by first class mail to d. The proposed exception will not result in all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last significant visas! iatpact as viewed from abutting properties. tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) subject property. Properties. that are adjacent to the subject site, including those across a pubtic or private street, shall 19.25.120 Development Regulations-Eichler receive a reduced scale copy of the plan set with the public (Rl-e). notice, Rl-esingle-family residence °Eichlerdistricta^ protect B. Decision, After closing the public hearing, the a consistent architectural form through the establishment of decision-maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or district site development regulations. Regulations found in deny the application based on the findings in Lhfs section. the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties Any interested party can appeal the decision pursuant to zoned R1-e. In the event of a conflict between other Chapter 19.136. regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall C. Expiration of an Exception. Unless a building .prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude permit ie fiIed and accepted by the City (fees paid and a harmonious two-story home or second story addition. control number issued) within one year of the Exception A. Setback-First Story. approval, said approval shall become null and void anless a 1, The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet. Ionger time period was specifically prescribed by the B. Building Design Requirements. conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit ] . Entry features facing the street shall be integrated expires for any reason, the Exception shall become null and with the roof line of the house. void_ The Director of Community Development may grant 2. The maximum roof slope shall bethree-to-twelve a one-year extension, without a public notice, if an (rise over run). application for a Minor Modification to the Bxception is 3, Wood or other siding material located on walls filed before the expiration dale and substantive justification facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall for the extension is provided, incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart_ D. Findings for Approval. 4. The building design shall incorporate straight 1 _ Issued by the Director of Community architectural lines, rather than curved lines. Development. The Director of Community Development 5. Section 29.28.060 G<4) shall 'be considered a may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulation guideline in the Rl-e district. described in Section 19.28.060 G(4) ispoa making all of the 6. The first floor shall be m more than twelve following fmdirlg8: inches above the existing grade. a. The project fulfllIs the intent of Ute visible 7. Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards shall second-story wall height regulation in that the number of not exceed rime feet in height measured from the top of the _ two-story wall planes and the amount of visible second story floor to the top of the wall plate. wall area is reduced to the maximum extent possible. C. Privacy Protection Requirements_ b. The except to ~be granted is one that will require I. Side and Rear Yard Facing Second Floor the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and Windows. In addition to other privacy protection the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. requirements iII Section 19.28.070, the following is required for atl second story windows: 2006 S-8 Repl. t7-41 19.28.120 Cupertino -Zoning 36 a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height more than forty percent of the front yard setback-area may of six feet above the second floor; or be"covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or b. Obscure glass to a height of six feet above the asphalt_ second floor; or H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum building height on single-story structures and single-story above the second floor. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. sections of two-story structures must fit into a building 1868, (part), 2~1; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000) envelope defined by: a. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from 19.28.130 Development Regulations-(Rl-a). natural grade and located ten feet from property lines; Rl-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural b. A twenty-five degree roof line angle projected setting um neighborhoods with large lots- Regulations found inwazd at the twelve-foot high line referenced in subsection in the other sections of this chapter shall apply m properties H(2)(1) of this section. zoned Rl-a. "In the event of a conflict between other I. Variation from the Rl and Rl-a regulations shall regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall require a Variance p+~*~~a*+t to Chapter 19.124 of_ the prevail. Cupertino Municipal Code in the Rl-a district. A. I.ot Area Zoning Designations. The mittitnum lot Design Review. All two-story development shall size is ten thousand square feet. require discretionary review based on Section 19.28.100, B. Lot Width. The minimiml lot width shall be except that the Design Review Committee shall approve or seventy-five feet measured at the front-yard setback line, deny the project at a public hearing based on the findings in C. Second Story Area. A second floor shall be no subsection TI(1) of this section. - more than forty percent of the first floor, except as follows: K. Design Guidelines. The guidelines in this section 1. A second floor may be at least seven hundred shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family square feet in area. Residential Design Guidelines. In cases where there may be 2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one conflict between the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall thousand one hundred square feet to area. take precedence. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall D. Setback -First Story. be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that 1. Front Xazd. The minimum horn yard setback is there are no adverse impacts from fire proposed project. thirty feet. 1. Second-story windawa." Windows on the side 2. Side Yazd. The minimum side yard setback is ten elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six feet, feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear "yard setback is "louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor or twenty feet. should have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate S. Setback -Second Story. intrusion into a neighbor's privacy. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is 2_ All second story wall heights greater than six thirty feet. feet, as measured from tbe second story finished floor, 2. Side Yazd. The combined side yard setbacks shall should have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four be thirty-five feet, with a minimum of fifteen feet. feet, with a minimum four-foci depth and ten-foot width. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. forty feet,. 3. Section 19.28.060 G(4) shall be considered" a 4. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.000 13(3) guideline in the Rl-a district. does not apply in this district. - 4. Garages. The maximum width of a garage on the F. Second-story Regulations. front elevation should be twenty-five feet, which will 1. Second story decks shall conform to the second- accommodate atwo-car garage. Additional garage spaces story building setbacks, and may be located on the front and should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a rear only. detached accessory structure at the rear of the property. 2. The second-story shall not cantilever over afirst- L. Permitted Yard Encroachments. _ story wall plane. 1. Where a principal building legally constructed 3. The front-facing wall plane(s) of the second-story according to existing yard and setback regulations at the must be offset a minimum of three feet from the £ust-story time of construction encroaches, upon present required wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a two- yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended story wall plane on the front elevation. along its existing building line. G. Front Yard Paving. No more than fifty percent of a. The extension or add";lion may not further the front yard setback area may be covered with a encroach into a~ required setback and the height of the combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. Tlo existing non-conforming wa12 and the exte~ed wall may not - be increased. 2005 S-4 - t t - az 37 Single-Family Res~identlal (Rl) Zones 19.28.130 b. In no.case shall any wall plane of a first-story 2. Landscaping plans for two-story developtent addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. shall include specific mitigations for impacts from mass, c. This section does not apply to attached accessory bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28.070 structures such as attached carports. of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: d. This section applies to the first story only and a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an from the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the encroachment by any building, which is the result of the spread noted on the City list. granting of a variattce or exception, either before or after b. Privacy hoes shall have a mitumum height of such property become part of the City, twelve feet at the time of planting. 2. Architectural features (not including patio covers) c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding views from second-story windows across the street to three feet, provided that no architectural feature or neighboring homes are partially mitigated. combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet m air on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing property Iate. conflict with existing mature trees. 3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are N. Design Review Findings. encouraged in this zone. When viewed from the street, a 1. Pilings. The Design Review Connnittee may poach should appear proportionately greater in width than in approve a design review applicatign for two-story height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a development only upon making alt of the findings below: proportionately greater height.~han its width. Use of this a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino yard encroachment provision shall require the approval of General Plan and Titie 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. the Direcmr of Community Development. b. The granting of t#tis permit will not result in a. Posts. Vertical structural supports; such as posts, detrimental or injurious conditions to property or for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety required front setback. Structural supports must be designed or welfare. such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive. c. The project is generally compatible with the b. Columns. The use of large cohmuts or pillars i$ established pattern of building forms, building materials and discouraged. designs of homes in the neighborhood. c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are d. ~ The project is consistent with the City's single- allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback family residential design guidelines a~ the guidelines in this area. chapter and any. inconsistencies have been found to not result d. Eave Height. The save height for a front porch in impacts on neighbors. should not be signi#"icantly taller than the save height of e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the e. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing maximum extent possible. that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fete (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) elements. f. The porch platform and roof overhang may 19.28.140 Interpretation lay the Planning encroach £ive feet into the required front setback. Director. M: Landscaping. In Rl zones, the Director of Community Development 1. Lamiscaping plans shall be required for all shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is the regulations anti provisions of thischapter consistent with to beaatify the property and to achieve partial screening of the legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an building forms from the street and adjacent properties. interpretation of the chapter by the Director of Community Specific measures are not prescribed. Generally, the Deve?optnent may petition the Planning Commission in landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice writing for review of the interpretation. (Ord. 1954, (part), with vines on fences. 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (past), ZO00; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 2005 S-4 1 1 - 43 38 SinEIe-Family Res[dentlal (R-1) Zones [Next page is page 43] ' 11-44 39 Single-Family 8~ealdential-(R-i) Zonea 19.28.250 19.28.150 Appendix B-Release of Privacy Protection Meas~ea. Singlo-Family Residential Ordinance Ordinanco 19.28 (Single-Family) regaires ti~at after Sepoerober 21, 1998,-all new two-story additions or homes be rem to complete privacy protection measures. Staff may grant a modification or deletion to this requirement if the adjacent affected property ow~rs sign a release agreeing to modii:yr or delete the requirement. • - - - - - 1 1 - 45 19.28.150 Cupertino - Zoain@ 40 Date Property Location Address: I agree to waive or modify the privacy protection measures required of the Singlo-Family Residential Ordinance as follows: Property Owner. _ Address: Prone: Signariu-e: (Ord. 1860. § 1 (part). 2000; Ord. 1834. (part). 1999) 1 1 - 46 41 SinYl~FamRy Rasialentisl B-i) zoa>PS 19.2s.16o 19.28.160 Agpentiiz C Privacy ]Protection Plantfaai; AfIIdavit. Porpose. To a~tare the decision-anakers sand a~ighboas that t~ privacy protection plaatin,g has been installed accordiaeg to the Planting Plan. Validation. An Internationally Certi£ed Arborist or Liceaaod Landscape Architect shall certify the design sand accuracy of the privacy grotectioa planting. A roduced eleven by seventeen copy of the approved planting plan shall be attached. Sabanittal of this foam shall be required prior to final inspixKion of the resideaace. Planting Certification I certify that the privacy pantectioa plaatiaag sand irrigation as installed at: addarss sud:at is consistent in design. height and location with the iandscapepiantiag sand irrigation plsaas drawn by dated (attached). Nam Title Professional License # Data (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord_ 1860, ~ 1 (part). 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) 11-47 84- LL i' I - ~ I t _a -I good pLicc~eg M _ ' • - Q~r ~ - ~ - N?oP~.M • - " ~ ~ Wt'Jl : . less ~ - _ j •uoA~6A~.W uo~s~?ui ICa~d otauv .os .Z u~~ Zti ~Z ' n~ 09T'SZ'GT Exhibit C CITY OF CLTPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: MCA-2008-03 Agenda Date: September 9, 2008 Applicant: -City of Cupertino Property Owner. Various Property Location: Citywide ITEM SUMMARY: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements DISCUSSION T"his item was continued from the AugList 26, 200$ Planning Conznzission hearing. Please refer to the attached August 26~ staff report for the detailed analysis. Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm Attachments Exhibit A - August 26, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments- - ii-as CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'T` REPORT FORM Application: MCA-2008-03 Agenda Date: August 26, 2008 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: Citywide Item Summary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements RECOMMENDATION 1. Review the draft ordinance framework and provide comments or direction to Staff; or 2. Recommend that the City Council adopt the R-1 Ordinance amendment regarding the first floor to second floor ratio requirements. _ BACKGROUND On May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission work program to include a limited review of the R-1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The intent is to allow greater design flexibility to property owners. The Council directed the Planning Commission to present recommendations on ordinance options to the City Council by October 2008. Staff believes through a focused design review process, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio thereby permitting greater architectural diversity. On July 8, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed R1 Ordinance amendment. The Commission directed staff to provide a focused ordinance framework with specific list of principles and guidelines that will address Cuperfino's residential development needs. DISCUSSION Planning Commission Concern • The lack of the prescriptive nature of the new design review process. Staff Response: The intent of the new design review process for homes exceeding 45 second floor to first floor building area ratio is to provide greater design flexibility. Therefore any new design standards must prozride adequate flexibility to facilitate a variety of potential design concepts. The proposed ordinance language has been revised to provide additional specificity (see attached Exhibit A). The proposed design review process is voluntary, only applicable to those wishing to increase 1 1 - 50 MCA-2008-03 - Rl Ordinance August 26, 2008 Page 2 their second floor area above 45%. Homes that are designed to meet the existing R? Ordinance would only be subject to the current R1 Ordinance standards. • The new guidelines may encourage "box" style homes with uninteresting 2-story wall planes. Staff Response: Applicants will be required to have an identifiable architectural style. Specific visual relief measures or elements will be required to ensure that 2-story wall planes are broken up and treated. In addition, high quality and variation in details and materials will 'be required. • Currently, the R1 Exception process allows applicants to propose greater second floor areas, why create a new process. Staff Response: The current exception process does not provide any specific standards and/or visual relief techniques to treat 2-story wall planes, or unarticulated walls to ensure architecttural integrity. Also, the exception process is costly and intimidating for average :property owners. Design Principles Staff believes that to facilitate greater architectural diversity does not require increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or changing the required second story setbacks. The goal is through appropriate design review and the application of enhanced design principles, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45 second floor area Iimit provided that that they are designed appropriately for the lot, the neighborhood, and the overall design of the structure. Staff. recommends that the Director of Community Development may grant approval to a second floor to ground floor ratio greater than 45% provided that all of the followings design principles are met: 1. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided; 2. Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style selected; 3. Materials shall be of high quality; 4. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure; 5. Visual relief shall be provided for two-story walls; 6. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale; 7. The design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance. The Director's decision may be appealed to the Design Review Committee or elevated to the Design Review Committee if needed. 1~ -51 MCA-2008-03 - Rl Ordinance August 26; 2008 Page 3 VisucZl Relief Techniques By allowing second floors to potentially be larger than 45% of the ground floor to facilitate other design options, staff recommends that the following visual relief options for two story walls be added to the Ordinance: ? Extended or wrap around porches ? Pop outs and bay windows ? Material and color changes ? Wide overhangs with projecting brackets ? Juliet balconies ? Window boxes and pot shelves •S Landscaped trellises and lattices Or other similar architectural features deemed to be appropriate by the Direct of Community Development Other Related Minor Ordinance Changes Homes exceeding the 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio would also be exempted from the second floor 10 feet setback surcharge requirement. In addition, the 50% second floor wall exposure requirement would be revised to include the proposed visual relief measures discussed in the previous section of the staff report. CONCLUSION If the Planning Commission finds merit in the proposed ordinance framework then Staff will work with the City Architectural Consultant to enhance the document with additional graphics and illustrations. The Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review the final draft before making its formal recommendation to the City Council. Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner -~-5? Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme Attachments Exhibit A - Draft R2 Ordinance Framework Regarding Homes Exceeding 45% Second Floor to First Floor Ratio Exhibit B - July 8, 2008 Planning Commission R1 Ordinance Staff Report and Exhibits ii -sz Ex~tebit A City of Cupertino Draft R1 Ordinance Framework Regarding Homes Exceeding 45% Second Floor to First Floor Ratio INTRODUCTION The design principles listed in this document were created to assist property owners, developers, and city staff in working together to retain and enhance the special qualities of Cupertino's neighborhoods. They are intended to allow greater flexibility of architectural styles, and assist in developing good design practices and solutions. The principles apply to all new or remodeled two-story residences with second floor building areas greater than 45% compared with the first floor area. Traditional Architecture in Cupertino: The City of Cupertino has a variety of neighborhood architectural styles developed over many decades. Similar style homes, such as Ranch Domes clustered throughout Cupertino, Eichler homes in the Fairgrove neighborhood, and the' Monta Vista bungalows, were often built in relatively large groupings. Despite the diversity between these styles, they are small in scale and relatively informal Problem Statement: One recent trend in new or remodeled homes is the demand for significantly larger than older existing homes. Because of the current 45% second story floor area ratio requirement in the Single-Family Residential Ordinance, a "wedding cake° style of architecture is slowly becoming the predominate style for new or remodeled two-:story homes. However, through appropriate focused design review, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio thereby permitting greater desiign flexibility. Design Review Process: To provide greater flexibility of design, an applicant may increase their second floor area and second floor wall exposure by applying additional design principles and by participating in additional architectural review. The Director of Community Development may grant approval of these projects if the following design principles are met: Desican Principles: 1. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided; 2. Design features, proportions and details shalt be consistent with the architectural style selected; 3. Materials shall be of high quality; 4. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure; 5. Visual relief shall be provided for two-story walls. 6. Ensure appropriate building mass and sc~~le; 7. The design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance. Visual Relief Techniques: Apply visual relief options for two story wails- Recommended techniques include: ? Extended or wrap around porches ? Pop outs and bay windows ? Material and color changes ? Wide overhangs with projecting brackets ? Juliet balconies ? Window boxes and pot shelves ? Landscaped trellises and lattices ? Or other similar architectural features deemed to be appropriate by the Direct of Community Development 11 - 53 Exhibit B CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: MCA-2008-03 Agenda Date: July 8, 2008 Applicant: City of Cuperti-no . Property Owner: Various Property Location: Citywide Item Summary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council adopt the R-1 Ordinance amendment regarding the first floor to second floor ratio requirements BACKGROUND O~1 May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Corrunission work program to include a limited review of the R-1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to the first floor building area_ first floor to second floor ratio requirement. The Council directed the Planning Comm;ssion to present recommendations on ordinance options to the City Council by October 2008. The Council direction limited the amendment to only consider if the current second floor to first floor ratio should be adjusted. The Council directed that this review would not consider changing the setback requirements or -the allowable overall building floor area ratio. The concern is that the 45% second story to first floor ratio requirement inadvertently encourages homeowners to increase the size of the first floor to ensure the second floor proportion is large enough. to accommodate the desired number of bedrooms. Also, the current second floor to ground floor ratio results in a repetitive style of "wedding cake" architecture making it difficult to design other traditional styles of architecture such as :`Victorian ' or "Queen Anne." The following sections of the staff report will discussion ordinance options to adjust the allowed second to ground floor ratio to allow greater architectural diversify. A citywide postcard notice of the pubic hearuzg was mailed out to Cupertino residents inviting them to participate in the discussion (see attachedj. DISCUSSION Existing Ordinance The existing Rl Ordinance was updated in January 2005. One of the major changes was to increase the 2nd floor to ground floor ratio from 35% to 45%. The intent was to allow enough space on the 2nd story to accommodate three bedrooms while controlling the overall mass and scale. Since the 2005 ordinance amendment, very few public ~i -sa MCA-~;_ :~3-03 - Rl ordin.W.;e July 8, 2008 Page 2 concerns have been expressed about the allowable second floor building space. Rather, there has been an increase of concerns regarding the limitation of architectural flexibility due to the second floor to ground floor ratio. Wedding Cake Style of Architecture The current 45% second story floor area ratio has resulted in a "wedding calve" style of architecture that is slowing beco~-*»ng the predominate style of new two-story homes or additions i1Z many neighborhoods. Although exterior design elements, such as corbels, wainscoting, and window treatments, are provided to suggest an architectural style, the overall "wedding cake" style is the same from house to house. 'The images below are examples of the existing R1 Ordinance "wedding cake" style architecture: e.: j _ - s<:= - N.. .v.: - f - ~y. -AY "u3 ,5 ~ . v+a= F - : fi ;gym g' z. ',.~~~~~.',''~-la~~h r x ^ ysy ~ s ~as~'x: ~ % ~k ~ a h'~~^~u +~xrVa br~~bs~ ~y s a "'r ~ T Y. . - - Many residents attempt to personalize their home with design elements representing traditional architecture, however the final result is greatly limited by the existing second floor area restriction_ This is especially the case on smaller lots under 6,000 square feet where the width of the lot is already restricts design options. 1 1 - 55 MCA-~.w8-03 - R1 ordina:~ce July 8, 2008 Page 3 Traditional Architecture Traditional architecture, such as Victorian, Queen Anise, Farmhouse, Colonial Revival, Italian Renaissance, typically have the majority of the second story walls aligned with the ground floor wa1Ls• Second story walls may even cantilever over portions of the ground floor wall to emphasize a certain architectural element or material change, What is important to the Traditional architectural is the attention and emphasis given to quality architectural tzeatments and exterior embellishments to help visually minimize what would otherwise be unarticulated walls or boxy forms. The following are some .styles of architecture that may be difficult to design under the current Rl Ordinance: i. . v- - .x .R `"ice .s: ~t ~ --e _ - .:.5.~ i c =s - _ s , ~ ` y. d sw _ T' ~s y ~2Y Lf 5 J yft ~ Wiz: s~ W7aen Design Regulations Are Not Applied to Two-Story Honzes Two-story "box" forms can be articulated in a way that mj_nimi~es the mass. However, unregulated two-story homes are often sterile in design and visually imposing. Without design review, attempts to minimise the mass and scale (as seen in the following image) may-not always be appropriate, and may not always achieve the intended goal. 1 1 - 56 MCA-21;J8-03 - R1 ordinance July 8, 2008 Page 4 e~~- I ,i Example of aNon-Regulated Two-Story Residence. Example Design GuzdeZines From Other Comns:unities The neighboring communities of Los Gato:> and Los Altos have accommodated greater architectural variety, while meeting the community's privacy and compatibility needs by requiring a higher level of architectural integrity in their projects. Excessive mass of a residence is not determined by the second story to first story FAR, but by the perception that the size and mass of the house is too large for the size of the property_ The goal is to have the home designed to fit the lot, and then apply elements that assist in reducing the perception of bulk. The City of Los Altos includes the following list of ways to reduce the perception of bulk in their residential design guidelines. `I hey are ssimmarized below: • Use of more than one material on yin elevation is appropriate to break up the vertical mass of the house. Sometimes an accent material such as a low horizontal band of brick or stone wish stucco or wood siding. • Soften the elevation with the use of architectural elements (porches, bays, overhangs, trellises), aizd detail (molding, trim, brackets, etc.) • Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. For example, painting the triaizgular area in a gable end one color and using a shade (or color) lighter or darker below. • Provide some .variation in large expanses of wall and roof planes. For example, cantilever the second floor over the first floor. • Use horizontal elements to soften vertical ones in an elevatior~. A chaizge of direction in siding or adding moldings in stucco can achieve this. • In some cases, a simplification of e:hapes and materials will reduce bulk. For example, too many different materials and changes. in types of windows add complexity of the facade. • Minimize use of tall or two-story-high design elements. This would include two-story entry ways, turrets, ect. • .Use visually heavy materials spazingly, pazticularly on two story designs_ Use stone or brick as an accent material or wainscot on an elevation. ~ ~ 57 - MCA-2~,S8-03 - R1 ordina.ice July 8, 2008 Paje 5 • Choose landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk_ This should not be a substitute for good design however. • Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible. • Use roof forms that reduce bulk (low to medium pitch, minimum number of hips and valleys. • Avoid massive, tall chimneys. Locate them either on an internal wall or centered on a gable end when possible. The following is some architectural techniques used by Town of Los Gatos to provide visual relief for two story walls: - • Horizontal belly bands • Pop outs and bay windows • Material and color changes • Chimneys • Wide overhangs with projecting brackets • Juliet balconies Window boxes and pot shelves • Landscaped trellises aizd lattices AiI or some of the above methods may be applied to a new or remodeled residence (see images below). u.ILAI~~''~ ~'~?~~~t3?7~BS ~ ~ : i ~ s Ld~.rr~~~~~Phsta.. kw4, ~i i 2-:_ W •x - _ ' W4'..e_ 4 a u.M1 4 ~ - s i ~ . ~5 ".^.F `T~s ~r ` . a .r-=~,~ , Decorative Metal Work ~ ,x t~ ~ F , . 1 1 - 58 MCA-2008-03 -Rl ordinance July 8, 2008 Page 6 Dee Overhan With Brackets 4 A . F ~ ~ - - - 3... Landscaped Tre! is _ ~ , .r; 3 , z` , f ~~"i- Ynr:,.. TeA' Ewe Reco~a2mended C~rdi~zance Solution Staff believes that achieving architectural diversity does not require increasing or decreasing. the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or changing the required second story setbacks. The goal is through appropriate design review and the application of enhanced design principles,. homes may ~be allowed to exceed the 45% second floor area limit provided that that they are designed appropriately for the lot, the neighborhood, and the overall design of the structure. Staff recommends that if an applicant wis]zes to increase the second story FAR above 45%, then a discretionary staff level desi~;rn review be incorporated into the process with notification to the adjacent neighbors. Additional architectural principles would be upheld, while maintaining the existing goals of symmetry, proportion- and balance. The Director of Community Development may grant approval to a second floor to ground floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the followings .design principles and tecluziques are met: ? Ensure appropriate architectural interest and comt~atibilitY with neighborhood design theme and character. ~ Add visual interest to the elevation with the use of architectural elements {i_e_, porches, bays, overhangs, trellises; moldings, trim, wood sidings, brackets or metal work). i~ -ss MCA-2008-03 - RI ordinance July 8, 2008 Page 7 ? Ensure appropriate building; mass and scale. ~ Avoid monumental scaled forms (e.g. towers, turrets and tall entry features) that contrast with the neighborhood architectural forms. ~ Avoid cave lines and roof ridges that are substantially taller than the adjacent houses. ~ Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass of the house. ~ Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible. ~ Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass (i.e, wainscot, wood siding, belly bands). ~ Use visually heavy materials sparingly (balustrades or stone on second floor) _ ~ At least 25% of all two story wall planes should be treated with architectural features to provide visual relief and architectural interest (include but not be limited to stone, brick, alternative siding materials, balconies, porch elements, long roof eaves, window boxes, pot shelves; cantilever features, trellises, corbels, trims, metal work, other features deemed appropriate). ~ Use landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. ~ Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. ? Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure (maintain synlmetry, proportion and balance). ~ Avoid overly complex architectural elements and/or roof features. ~ Line up architectural features and elements both vertically and horizontally (i.e., roofs or windows). The Director's decision may be appealed to the Design Review Committee. Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~_~ Attachments Exhibit A - Citywide postcard titled, "Limited Review of the Single Fancily Residential (R 1) Ordinance". Exhibit B - Draft Model Ordinance Exhibit C - Highlights for the Los Altos Design Guidelines Exhibit D - Highlights from the Los Gatos Design Guidelines. *Note: City of Cupertino Architectural Consultant, Larry Cannon, assisted in the development of the Los Gatos Design Guidelines. ~i -so CITY OF C~'PERTIN~' EXHIBIT A Try 3 't z' :UPEitTINO On May 13, 2008 the City Council initloted a limited review of the Single Family Rasidentlal (R1) Ordinance, regarding the allowed ratio of second floor building urea compared t~~ the first floor building area Section 19.28.060. The current R1 Ordinance limits the size of the second floor to no me>re than 45% of the first floor- Tha revised ordinance will . CORSider ad~ttsting the allowed ratio to allow greeter archifacte.aral diversity, ExEt will not consider increasing or decreasing the tote! allowed building area on an R1 lot or changing the required second story setbacks. .The total allowed building area and the second story setback relcltionshir~ to nelahborind- pror~erties will not chonae. The Planning Commission Es holding a public hearing to receive public input and consider ordinance options on the allowable ratio of the second story on the following data and time: MCA-2008-03 Tuesday, July 8, 2008, of 6:45 p.m. Cupertino Community Half, 10350 Torre Avenue The current R1 Ordinance can be viewed on the City's werbsite at v~ww.cuuertino.ore/R7. For additional information about this section of the ordinance you-may contact Leslie Gross with the Cupertino Planning Department of (408) 777-- 1356 or e-mail any comments to lesliPa~Qcuuertino.oro. If you ore unable to attend the public hearing, an online webcast of the hearing is available at uwsv?.cur~ertino.orc~iRl. Also, please check the City's website for follow-up information regarding the Planning Commission and City Council hearing schedules. Please note the agerrcfcs is sub/sct to ctlonga, so you may wont to contact thg Pionni.ng L3eportmsnt prior to fhe meeting dote to verily tfsot the item is sfi/! on the agendv_ i~-si IXHIBIT B ® Development Regulations (Building). A_ Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches and other similar features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls. B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective. of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the residential development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determining whether the mass.and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. L The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot shall be forty-five percent. 2. The maximum floor area of a second story shall be forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is greater. 3 The Director of Community Development may grant approval to a second floor to around floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the follo~a>inas design principles and techniques are n~er. a Ensure appropriate architectural interest and compatibility with neighborhood - design theme and character.- i. Add visual interest to the elevation with the use of architectural elements (i.e._ porches bays overhangs trellises_ moldings. trim. wood sidings. brackets or metal work). b Ensure-appropriate buildins mass and scale. i Avoid monumental scaled formes (e. g. to«>ers, turrets and tall entry features) that contrast with the neighborhood architectural forn~s_ ii Avoid cave lines acid roof ridges that are substantially taller than the adiacent houses_ iii Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass of the house. iv Keep second floor exterior «>all heights as low as possible. v U,e more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass (i.e, wainscot ~x>ood siding. belly bandsl. vi Use visually heavy materials sparingly (balustrades or stone on second floor). vii At ]east 2~% of all t~a~o story wall planes should be treated with architectural features to provide visual relief and architectural interest (include but not be linuted to stone brick alternative siding materials balconies. porch elements. long roof eaveG window bo5ces pot shelves. cantileve-r features_ trellises. corbels trinZS metal work. other features deemed appropriate). viii Use landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. ix Use color chances to help visually break u~the elevation. c Design ~a>ith architectural integrity on all sides of the structure (maintain svnunetry_ proportion and balance). i Avoid overly complex architectural elements and/or roof features. ii Line u~architectural features and elements both vertically and horizontally (i e.. roofs or ~~c>indows). ~i -s2 interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from the floor to the top i of the roof-rafters, have the mass and bulk of a two-story house and shall be counted as floor azea_ a. Zf the house is a two-story house, this area will count as second story floor azea; otherwise, the area will count as first floor are:a. 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 • itenvs are met prior to design approval= a. The mass and bulls of the design shall be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights; b. -The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c_ There shall not be a three-caz wide driveway curb cut. d. No more than fifty percent of the front 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. £ The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. g. When possible, doors, windows and azchitectural elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and placement. h. Porches are encouraged. ~ " i. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. j. All second story roofs should have at least aone-foot overhang. D. Setback-First Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that-for a curved driveway the setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the t~roo side yard setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard setback-may be less than five feet. a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-yard setback on the street side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side yard setback shall be no less than five feet. b. For interior Iots 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 Iess than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line: 1 1 - 63 4. Garage. The front face of a gazage in an R1 district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a street property line. a For projects with-three-caz gazages oriented to the public right-of--way, the wall plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of the other two spaces. E. Setback-Second Story. 1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five-feet. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except that no second-story side setback may be less thazi ten feet_ a. In the case of a flag Iot, the minimum setback is twenty feet from any property line_ b. In the case of a comer tot, a minimum of twelve feet from a street side property line and twenty feet front any rear property line of asingle-family dwelling_ 3. Surcharge_ A setback distance equal to ten feet shall be added in -whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section. F. Basements. 1. The number, size and volume of lightweIls 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 Iong. Z. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area, except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be fve feet; b. 'The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet. 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwe11.2005 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 shaII 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 Iine from natural grade measured at the property line; 2. Atwenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)<1) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential Permit. -sa 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 shah 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 Endings in Section 19.28.1 IO D. 4_ Entry Feature Height. 'The maximum entry feature height shall be fourteen feet. 5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by affixing an i designation to the R1 zoning district. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similar unenclosed features. 1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling. 2. The minimum side-yazd setback shall be fifteen feet. 3. The minimum rear-yard setback shat [ be twenty feet. I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord_ 1834, .(part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord_ 1637, (part), i993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992} 1 1 - 65 Exhibit C City of Los Altos ~ cam.. t~ ~s Elements in Scale i 1 1 'i i ~ - s t r e e t ~ ' bact 1 ine-, Less lrt>Qact I Diverse House Types 8 Setbactcs Single-Family Residential New Homes Remodels „_66 1- Residpn~aI D ci tfn ('uideline~ 1.0 INTR'ODUC'TION These guidelines were developed after an extensive community-wide look at the values _ and expectations that neighborhoods have for the housing that surrounds them_ The purpose of this handbook is not meant to promote a specific type of design nor to establish a rigid set of guidelines_ Instead, it is meant to guide the homeowner, architect, developer and builder in planning and executing a successful design _of new and remodeled single-family dwellings. This handbook will also serve as a guide for the City, Council, Planning Commission and City staff in the design review process. Often, newly built homes have more complex plan and building forms than existing houses_ This fact, along with stylistic and size issues, has reinforced perceptions of newer homes as being very different from older houses. The design policies and implementation techniques in this handbook are not meant to discourage individual designs_ Rather, they set forth the implementation of the fuidings that must be made for design review applications, serve as a basis on which decision- making bodies may base their design-review decisions, and assist in developing consistency in the approval process from rieighborhood to neighborhood across the city. The primary purpose is to guide propert~~ owners toward successful solutions to their needs and to maintain the existing positive physical qualities and character of the residential neighborhoods of Los Altos. These guidelines implement the goals and policies of the General Plan_ 'They also identify the Endings from the Los Altos Municipal Code which must be followed to gain approval of a project. Los Altos requires design review on all ressidentiai construction. The majority of design review is performed by PIanaing Department staff_ Applications for-two-story construction or unusual architectural design are heard by the Architectural and Site Control Committee (ASS), a subcommittee of the Planning Commission_ The functions of the A&S Committee are delineated in the: Los Altos Municipal Code. From a historical perspective, the character of neighborhoods in Los Altos relates back to the incorporation of the city in 1952_ Decisions made at that time encouraged arural-like atmosphere. thus, Los Altos developed with spacious quarter acre lots, minimal use of curbs and gutters, extensive use of landscaping and large trees, openness of front yards to the street, and the relatively low profile and height of residences. Prior to the City's incorporation, housing had developed more in continuity with surrounding communities: thus, there are areas of town that have smaller lots, and the zoning regulations distinguish between these smaller lots and larger lots in terms of setbacks, height, etc. These design guidelines, however, apply to lots of aII size:s_ -s~ gesidential Decitn +id Iin c Although most of the housing stock was developed during the 1950's and a predominant style is the "ranch", there is a vast diversity of design and style within Los Altos. Today, demands for housing are far different than they were at our incorporation. As a result, housing styles and home size have changed dramatically. Whereas, earlier there was an emphasis on "low profile", now there is a tendency to "build out" a lot VPhereas, before there was an emphasis on designing from the exterior inward now there is a tendency to design from the interior outward. At times this results in home designs that appear to overwhelm neighboring homes either in mass or complexity of design. To monitor such changes, the City Council first amended the zoning regulations to lower height and to establish daylight planes and floor area to Iot area ratios_ After working with these new regulations for a period of time, it became evident that development standards alone are not sufficient to address such impacts as privacy invasion and change to neighborhood character. Thus, the next step involved the adoption of requirements for design review of all new homes and remodels. These guidelines have been developed with the expectation that their use will encourage creativity that will result in a high level of residential- design quality It is recognized that guidelines do not encompass the full range of possibilities for excellence. For this reason. variation from these guidelines will be considered when compensated by a related improvement which contributes to the excellence of the project To use these guidelines, please refer to the Table of Contents. Chapter 1 is the Introduction, and Chapter 2 explains the intent of the guidelines as well as the design review process. Chapter 3 presents information on how design is viewed in relation to the design review process_ Chapter 4 presents the basic philosophy of these guidelines and provides general guidance in meeting the findings required for design approval_ Chapter 5 explains procedures and includes the basic `do's and don'ts" for design approval. There are three appendices: Appendix A presents the goals and policies from the General Plan that are applicable to these guidelines; Appendix B is a GIossary of Terms: and Appendix C provides a basic primer on Architectural Styles, and can assist you in identifying the style of your home_ We wish you well on your project! -se ResidPntiaI Deci~n C' yid lin c _ R 4_O DESIGN GUIDF.~ 7NF~ pHILOSOPIIY This chapter defines the philosophy of Los Altos with regard to how housing should - develop within our neighborhoods. This chapter is general in nature and reflects the - major concerns of neighborhood compatibility and site punning, including the relationship of your property to adjacent pr~~perties. The next chapter goes into greater detail regarding the do's and don'ts for all ne~v construction and remodels. These guidelines were developed from the t~elief that there can be a balance between_ the desires of the community to achieve neighborhood compatibility in house design and individuals' rights to build their "dream home". There is a need to be sensitive in crucial areas that govern the relationship of a home to its surroundings, e.g. existing homes, public streets, open spaces, privacy invasio~i, eta These guidelines are not intended to prescribe a specific style, nor to limit deveIop~ment to one story in height 4.Z NEIGHBORHOOD CO1~~ATIBILTIY Before starting the design process, you should understand the character of your neighborhood and the impact your proje~~t will have on the neighborhood. Not all neighborhoods have clearly defined boundaries or character. Often, the boundaries of a neighborhood are delineated by arterial streets, topography and other non-architectural features_ Neighborhood character within a subdivision may be a result of private CC8cR's (Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions). These CCBzR's may contain restrictions on height, size, setbacks, and other design issues. Review your title report to see if there are any CC8zR's that may apply to your project Even though enforcement of CCBcR's is a private civil matter, you will need to acknowledge on your design application whether your project follows all CC8cR's. When the applicant indicates that a project deviates from the CCBcIZ's, the neighbors will be notified. Neighborhoods in our community fall into one of the following groups: consistent, diverse and transitional_ Following is a discussion regarding each of these types of neighborhoods. One of the considerations for a project is the compatibility it has within the neighborhood. A project determined to be inconsistent with the neighborhood will not necessarily be denied. It may be that ;mitigation will be required in order for the project to be approved_ CONSISTENT CHARACTER NEIGI<~ORHOODS: These neighborhoods have a similar style and character to the homes and streetscape. This does not mean that the homes are exactly alike, just that they share similar ii -ss s. 9 RpciriPr~rial 11 characteristics of style, house type, setbacks, aad streetscape character. ~Sajor renovation or new construction projects in these neighborhoods require more design sensitivity to the neighborhood than other neighborhood types when they depart from the neighborhood character. fiousa i - _ ~ t ~ Gs~VB (i~},( s ~ ~ - ~ Consistent Setbacks Consistent Heights/Massing • Ia consistent character neighborhoods, good ateighbor design has design elements, material, and scale found withia the neighborhood aad sizes that are not sigaificaatly larger than other homes in the neighborhood. The emphasis should be on designs that "fit in" and lessen abrupt changes_ • Approval of as inconsistent design will require mid skating design measures to lessen the neighborhood impact. iViitigation may include change in size, increased setbacks, Iarge trees or other landscape materials for screening and other changes in design to reduce impacts. The goal of mitigation is to soften the differences between the new construction and the existing homes. two- story entry r''-d9~ ~-ig~ eau lire ~ _ Leas Oesirabla Desirable Consistent Ctsaracter Neighborhood: Remodels 8. Additions DIVERSE CI3ARAG"I'ER NEIGIiBORHOODS: In contrast, diverse character neighborhoods contain a variety of architectural styles and may have a varying streetscape as well_ This can result from homes which were built in different eras or by_individuai homeowner/developers, or be a result of a neighborhood in transition_ -moo esidentiii Desi *id lin _L_ - - ~ s t r e e t r„{~ hEigFrt L~a.cE•c /irte e~.~ llr~. m - _ ® - - Ranch Bungalow Spanish Diverse House Types & Sett~acks Diverse Styles andfor Sizes • Ia a diverse charactez• neighborhood, good neighbor design bas its own design integrity while incorporating some design elements and materials found in the neighborhood. desi • Mitigataoa for items slsch as size aad bulk may be used for some gis depending on the relationship of a home to its neighbors. TRANSITIONAL. CI3ARACTER NEIGHBORILOODS: Transitional character neighborhoods are those that are in the process of changing their character and identity.. Major changes include two-story additions in a one-story neighborhood, Large homes in a neighborhood of small homes,-and many upgraded homes in a neighborhood of older, smaller designs. • In a transitional character neighborhood, a good neighbor design reduces the abrupt changes that re::uIt from juxtaposing radically different designs or sizes of structaxres; proposed projects should not se# the erti-eme and should be designed to soften the transition. Significant deviations could be cause for ruitigad on. turrex -~rui9e 1~-ig~tt~ 3 Gtr" ~rar•}e- tort htmn~y~~ ea~.e [v1~ -i Not Daslrabla Dosirabia Transitional Character Neigh'borfiood: Remodels & Additions 4..2 SITE PIANNING Integration of your home with the site is an important aspect to good design. How your home is sited on its lot in relation to your ;neighbors, the placement of the garage atrd'~ I~esidenriai D ai n +id lin c 1 ~ 6.4 DESIGTT TO NiII~TIMIZE BULK One of the biggest issues (other than privacy invasion) raised by residents concerning additions or new homes is that they are too massive or bulky, which may result in homes that stand out from the rest of the neighborhood. Part of this perception is due to the size and mass of the house compared to the size of the property Usually, the perception is that the home is too big for the lot A home should be designed to fit the lot and surroundings and with internal design integrity_ Then, the elements you have chosen must lend themselves to reducing the perception of bulk. ° r~ ~r~ m sty m ~ i o ~ ifl ® - ® 5~ Z~®.,, ch,w.ncy ~wastca. S sror~-~w~ s ~,g, Less Impact / Most Impact ~ There are many ways to reduce the perception of bulls Some of these include: • Use of more than one material on as elevation is appropriate to break up the vertical mass of the house. Sometimes as accent material such as a low horizontal band of brick or stone with stucco or wood siding above can be appropriate. However, too many elements can add to the appearance of bulk; good design must achieve balance. • Soften the elevation with the use of architectural elements (porches, bays, overhangs. trellises) and detail (moldings, trim, brackets, etc.). Be careful not to overdo, though. • Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. For example, painting the triangle area in ,a gable end one color and using a shade (or color) lighter or darker below. • Provide some variation in large expanses of wall and roof planes_ For example, cantilever the second floor over the first floor. 1 1 - 72 17 ~ 7?e id ntial P cull yid lin a • Use horizontal elements to soften vertical ones in an elevation_ A change of direction in siding or adding moldings in stucco can achieve this. • In some cases, a simplification of shapes and materials will reduce bulk. For example, too many different materials and changes in types of windows add to the complexity of the facade. • Minimize use of tall or tw+o-Story-hlgh de3lga elements_ This would include two-story entry ways, turrets, etc. • Use visually heavy materials sparingly, particularly on two-story designs. Use stone or brick as an accent n-Material or as a wainscot on an elevation. • Choose landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bullL This should not be a substitute for good design, however. • Keep second floor exterior wall heights as Iow as possible. • Use roof forms that rede:ce bulk (low to medium pitch, minimum number of hips and valleys). • Avoid massive, tall chimneys. Locate them either on an internal wall or centered on a gable end when possible. • Design the house from th.e "outside-in". Houses designed from the ".insiderout° rather than the reverse tend t~~ look lumpy and lack a clear overall design. This often adds to the perception of excessive buiic_ • Lower the height of a two-story house below 27 feet maximum to mitigate other design issues. - Keep in mind that overdoing anything can result in added bulk_ 5.5 IANDSCAPING Natural features, such as mature trees, roclc outcroppings, and other landscape elements should be retained: quite often they can serve as design inspiration. • Designs should take - advantage of natural features found on site. Natural features include mature trees ~ = and other landscape materials (hedges, tailI - shrubs), rock outcroppings, and creeks. ~,r?~: tr ' Design around existing landscape featur~3s ~ - - ~ ~ ~ Exhibit ~ ~ ~iyri ~ ~ any y~.~ ~ u M ~ _y .~y i4 t ~ r '?5 *41 r ~ ~ r- T _s - _ Fg..e r EEE(EE II<<ffi w x~ C.s,•At~av7 - ~ nor s+. ,..g - ~ ~ 1'~ ~ a~t x,., i i f x> 'a a ^M,f`a h~§3 i~,~~'k "k:...~.trmE.a::`;.Ai s. - ~ , `gin., h ~ .I ~ - . . _r _ _ o r!`"~ - ~ . ~ - M. , _ C - - _ F.-.. s. - n 4 . ~ u F - s. _ n _ _ _ - .m . ae _ - r W r ~ Y~dP93°'~s~vx3~ ~ ~ zw"` :a s 3 ~~YUR3~4~ - ~ ' s- yry~~f,~'ya T`"_'~~ _~z ~;-~rJ.-.^-^~ - ~ Town of Los Gatos CONTENTS CONTENTS - 7 INTRODUCTION App[icability ........._.5 Relationship to other plans .................................................6 Purpose ....................•--------------------------...---........---.............6 - Setting ..............................•-----•---•--......---•-•-••--•-------...........7 Community Expectations .................................................10 Historic Preservation _...1 O How to Read Your Neighborhood ....................................1 l _ Genera[ Design Principles ..........l1 Maximum Floor Area Ratio ..........12 Design Review Process .....................................................12 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS General Neighborhood Design Principles ........13 Street Presence....°.---------•---------•-~°---°----° 14 - - Form and Mass 1 5 Garages 1 8 Site Development°--.-.° ...................°..._.,.._..........:._.-'-_..20 3 BUILDING DESIGN General Building Design Principles 21 Architectural Style......'...' _..............22 Height/Bulk/Scale 23 Garages 25 - Roofs 2 7 Entries 29 Windows 3 O fvlaterials--•----•-------------° 3 2 AdditionslAccessory Buildings/Secondary Units ...............33 - Architectural Detail ........................................•-.°-----•---_..34 - - Privacy and Solar Access 3 5 Sustainable Design •.-.--...._37 4 HISTORIC RESOURCES Application/Enforcement .39 - Historic Preservation 39 . Approval Process for Historic Resource Alterations 41 Historic Districts 43 . .Building C{assifications 43 Deniolitions 43 Pre-1941 Structures._.-_..._-.°--..._.•.... 46 Protected Exterior Elements 46 Restoration/Rehabilitation/Reconstruction 47 Additions and O utbuildings...._ 54 - New Construction 5 5 - Noncontributing Structures _ 56 S GLOSSARY Definitions 58 APPENDICES Appendix A- - - How to Read Your Neighborhood Workbook Appendix B Historic Districts Appendix C Cellar Policy Appendix D _ . - Sustainable Design Appendix E Historic Resources Status Codes 1 1 - 75 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 3 Town of Los Gatos ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TOWN COUNCIL Bazbara Spector ll~yor Mike Wasserman Vice 11~Iayor Steve Glickman Diane McNutt Joe Pirzynski PLANNING COMMISSION Joanne Talesfore Chair D. Michael Dane Vsce Chair John Bourgeois Philip Micciche Thomas O'Donnell Stephen M. Rice I~4azico Sayoc GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE John Bourgeois Planning Commiuion Tom O'Donnell Planning Commission Joanne Talesfore Planning Canzmirsion Joe Pirzynski Town Council Barbara Spector Town COH7YR! - Barbara Cardillo Community Services Conrmzrrion Mazda Jensen Public Aepresentatsve Jane Ogle Publsc Keprerentaiive Margaret Smith Bzirlners I?rpreserztaiive HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Kendra Burch Chair Len Pacheco Vice-Chair Bob Cowan Philip Micciche Marico SaS>oc TOWN STAFF Greg Larson Town Managez- Pamela Jacobs Arrsstant Toum 11?onager Orry Korb Town A#orrzey Bud Lortz Community Development Director Rand3> Tsuda Asssstant Consnrzrnity Dez~elo~iment Director Sandy Baily Assoaate Planner Larry Cannon Town Architect/Cannon Dessgn Group -76 4 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 Town of Los Catos BUILDING ~ES1GN 3 BUILQING ©ESIGN Homes in Los Gatos come in many forms, sizes and architectural NEW HOMES SHOULD BE ADAPTED styles. "This diversity> is one of the features that contributes to the TO THE SCALE OFTHESURROUNDING Town's unique identity Older Victorian Style homes, Spa~iish Edec- NEIGHBORHOOD tic St}=le homes and new interpretations of Craftsman S~_yle homes tK/hile some larger new homes often occupy the same street front One-story Suburban Rauch _ may be acceptable in established Style homes may occupy one street of a larger neighborhood wl-rile neighborhoods, they a=ill be e~;pected newer two-story contemporar3=homes may occur around the comer to be de_¢igned to mitigate their v=isual or down the street While this juxtaposition might seem harsh if size and bulk. Three examples are repeated in a new communit3; the large amounts of mature land- shown below seeping and the evolution of the Town's neighborhoods over a long period of time have allowed the communit-~> to comfortably absorb this diversity of home sizes and styles. _ Perhaps more than these mitigating factors, the self-restraint of ,•'4"~,, ~:a~ r~ ~ residents and the mutual res ect of one ne'phbor for tl-ie next has ~ i~ p b 4Nl. C i'~~i.JG~ contributed to neighborhoods with a great deal of visual unity and similarity in scale. While architectural styles often vary considerably ' ' r- f~ rJ ~ .Y ixs any individual neighborhood, few homes stand out in marked contrast to the predominant size and bulk of their surroundings. The intent of these guidelines is to set forth soiree of the coinnion sense techniques that have been employed ov=er the years to achieve this strong sense of community. _-f-Y~...~ . 3.1 GENERAL BUILDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES The foIlowixig principles have been used as touchstones for the ~--t.- development of these design guidelines for home additions and - new houses. In the event that the specific guidelines do not clearly address a given condition, these general principles, alor.:g with the - ~ Basic Design Principles on page 11 should be consulted for direc- * t ~ ; tion. The following principles will be used by the Town staff and =~"r~ Planning Commission/Town Council when evaluating projects, and when considering the acceptability of unique proposals that vary from the specific guidelin~s- ~ Selected architectural styles shall be compaxibie with - • ~ - the surrotuzding neighborhood. ' i Design features, proportions and details shstll be con- sistent with the architectural style selected. _ t w ~ 0 Materials and design details shall be suitable to the v _ ' neighborhood and consistently used on all sides of { the house and any accessory structures. _ e Garages shall be subservient to entries and ground flooc living spacea_ b ~ The use of renewable energy resources for heating, " cW - cooling and lighting should be masritn+zed. ® Projects should be designed to conserve energy and t"~ v: _ water. . 0 Materials should be used to reduce the consumption of nonrenewable resources and that improve air uali 'I 1 - 77 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 21 Town of Los Gatos BUILQING QESIGN 3 wrw Haaesa Ne~lghboresoa0 StyFe 3.2 ARCI-i1TECTURAL STYLE t~ ~ ~s ;z~~` A r~~< 3.2.7 Select an architectural style with sensitivity to the i,.~- ` ' surrounding neighborhood - - NSa - Styles with front facade eaves at the first floor lei*el will be ~ ~4 3„ easier to adapt to predominantly one story neighborhoods ~ than steles with two stor}; unbroken front facades. _ _ ~ Styles with ~~-ariations in the plane of the front facade wall Y ~ _ _ may fit more comfortably in neighborhoods with smaller houses or with smaller banding masses close to the street Example of the poor selection of a large and forma/ architectural style for the small scale Avoid selecting an architectural style which typically has and informal style neighborhood roof pitches that are substantially different from others in - ~ icw^ s ~±.a the nearby neighborhood. - _ ~ 3_2.2 Design for architectural integrity W y ~ ,~f In general, it is best to select a clear and distinctive archi- tectural style rather than utilizing generic design elements - or miming elements from different architectural styles. Building massing, roof pitches, materials, window types and proportions, design features (e.g., roof dormers), and other architectural features should be consistent with the naditions of the selected style_ This style would have been more compatible ~ Carry wall materials, window types and azdiitectural details with the neighborhood shown above around all sides of the house. Avoid side and rear elevations that are markedly different From the front elevation. . ~ Develop floor plans that allow the location and size of windows to match the selected azchitectural style. For ex- ample, some styles emphasize the placement of windows in a symmetrical relationship to the entr}% F ~ ~ i-_ y. r _ ~ ~ _ _ .,v ~ _ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ _ ._3 ~ _ i _ y - .=T- .~x~: Continuation of front facade materials and Some architectural styles require simple detailing onto other walls gives this Los Gatos shapes and forma! symmetry of the doors and residence good design integrity windows • ii -~s Residential Design Guidelines 22 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 Town of Los Gatos ~ - BUIL~ING DESIGN 3 3.3 HEIGHT/BUlIUSCALE - 3.3.7 pevelop the house plans and elevations together ` --~'"'i ` Avoid complex floor plans that require complicated building mass and roof forms. ' Jffi ` Work witlvn the traditional forms of the architectural style ~ ~ selected_ Unless the architectural st}=Ie selected clearly sup- ~ - - ports substaatial complexit}; generally keep building mass- - , eat ing and roof forms simple as is the norm for traditional - - architecture_ Avoid overly complex second floor plans and ` A~*oid complex second floor plans and roof forms if that roof shapes like this example is not die norm for the neighborhood. _ _ 3.3.2 Height and bulk at front and side setbacks i;,. . - - = _ - ` Two story houses may not be appropriate for every neigh- k~. ~ gp ~ 'Yi boyhood. For neighborhoods dominated by one story homes, an effort should be made to limit the house to one story in height or to accommodate second floor space within • the roof form as is common in the Craftsman Style_ ` When utilizing a cellar or extended foundation wall, avoid- = y set-ring the first floor height at an elevation above grade that ~ - _ would be significantly different than those of tine adjacent ~ houses. Some elevation of [he first floor level may Cellars are defined as an enclosed area shat does nat extend be acceptable and/or required in some more than 4feetabove the existing orfcnishedgrzde, and are neighborhoods not counted in the Floor Urea Ratio calcislatioas, by Town _ Councilpolicy. However, ifanypartofa cellarls.zbovegrade, it shall be considered in analyzing the bulk anal mass of the - - - structure, even if itlsnotirzcludedintheFl~I2. ~7~ezntentset - l forth in the General Plan is °to provide hidden sc1 uarefootage d ,t. in-lieu ofvisible mass° In the spirit of that intent, applications with cellar space - . will be carefully evaluated to ensure that substicntial e$orts _ ` have been made to reduce visible mass to ensure conzpatibildiy with the sire's immediate neighborhood. For text ofthe Cellar - ' u Policy, seel~ppendix C ` Avoid eave lines and roof ridge lines that are substantially Substantially elevated first floors like this may taller than the adjacent houses not be acceptable in neighborhoods where ` Give special attention to adapting to the height and massing they do not currently exist of adjacent homes_ Avoid tall, unbroken front f cades when other nearby homes have more azticulated front facades with horizontal wall plane changes ' In neighborhoods with small homes, try to place more of the floor area on the first floor with less area or. the second floor. -7s Res"sdential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 2008 23. ' ' Town of Los Gatos BUILDING t~ESiGN 3 - ` s a w s n do d o~ w s Take care in the placement of second floor masses. Unless the architectural style traditionally-has the second Boor front r~ _ ~ ~ . ~ wall at or near the first floor wall, set the second floor bads - from the front facade a minimum of 5 feet. LL - - The design of two story homes constructed adjacent to one story houses should include techniques to minimize their n,~ visual impact and provide transitions in scale. Some techniques include: ~~+emi - Entry'-~ projecting. Garage - Step down to one story elements near the side set- Avoid too many building elements competing badds for attention - Prop*ide substantial side setbacks for the entire house - - Provide substantial second floor side setbacks _ ~ `F'A- V " i~ I t I + f - Use hip roofs at the sides rather than gables Avoid monumental scaled forms (e_g_, towers or turrets) - that contrast with the neighborhood architectural forms_ • Avoid bay windows and other features that compete with the entry as the home's focal point Avoid the use of too many active building forms added to ~ the mass of the building. An excessive use of roof forms is a common problem= Avoid too many roof forms that overly complicate the design 3.3.3 Provide visual relief for two story walls Some techniques include: Belly bands (see photo below left) Pop outs and bay windows ' Material and color changes ~ Chimne}~s • ~/ide overhangs with projecting brackets J~Ilet BaECOrifBS Juliet balconies (see photo below left) 1, ~r - Window boxes and of shelves _ T_~... _ T.andscaped trellises and lattices _ ~T . _ - T Decp overhang wl[ki brackets - f , tl - mod- I _ Idateriai amt cWar ohangrti " ,e r Wrsod Bell Bands ~ ;ti ~ This Craftsman Style s `F" ~ house indude_s ' ,~~~G~'~-.~'~ w ._.4 several features to dissanry animneyr mitigate the visual - - ~ ' ` hei ht of the side ~P- _ x..._ ~ g Prajcaling wtAdaw pop Out wall - Other two story wall mitigation techniques ii -ao Residential Design Guidelines 24 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 Town of Los Gatos BUIl~ING IDESIGN 3 ~i 3_4 GARAGES r s 3_4."i Limit the rominence of ara es P g g • Avoid designs that allow the garage to dornitiate the street facade_ • Limit the garage vc~dth to a maximum of 50 percent of the -total facade width_ ~ • Set garages back froxa the front facade. , Avoid designs that allow the garage to sb ~ ~r dominate the street facade like this one does _ z~a u n. E - ti ~f e, ~ cam...-_-L~D•~` 4 =Y - 1 _ _ aa,- - ~a , - - - ~_4 E Limiting the width of garages and setting them ` back from the front facade can minimize their visual impact r.-~. • Recess garage doors as much as possible from the garage Recess garage doors from the facade as much facade. as possible • Consider adding trellises with landscaping over gs:rage doors to soften their visual appearance_ • Integrate the garage into the house forms in a rrxanner that de-emphasizes the garage doors. ' ~~"Q~n Pi l ~ _ _ y 3 ~ T p i 3. ~5$ __.F _ _j: ~:.u- 1 ~ . ~ y Nn ~ _ 5 R _ n~ E 5,t yy: rot..zii~ s~ ~ Tt v 3 - - . , Use windows and landscaped trellises over °a~;. garage doors to softeh their appearance ~iY ~ 4 ~ tj 2 f T'~F'.J4 '4CL V-' Divided garage opening with high qualify wood doors and a roof form with dormer integrated into the main house helps minimize the visual impact of this garage ~~-a~ Residential Design Guidelines 25 Public Review Draft February 7, 2008 Town of Los Gatos BUILUWG DESIGN 3 3.4.2 Minimize the visual impact of larger garages 2 car side tooled garsgp Three car garages may not be appropriate in most neighborhoods. \X/here larger garages are customary and appropriate, steps should • ¢r~ : still be taken to minimize their visual impact on the house and - streetscape. Some techniques include: ~ - - Using side loaded or split apart garages where possible • Accommodating additional cars in tandem spaces (see diagram on page 19) - t oar iraxR loaded garage ` Separating the garage doors Separating garages can reduce [heir visual Breaking up driveway paving with landscaping and/or impacts in some cases special paving x ' ~ 3.4.3 Integrate garage doors into the design with _ appropriate details , ~ - Windows in garage doors are encouraged. .w~. r~ Wood doors are encouraged. - ~ Use wood trim similar to the house windows , ~:F _ - - - Si w.. ssgE . ~ _ Utilizing individual doors helps to reduce the ~a~""'^"'•.. ~ visual impact of multi-car garages ~ 4 {r; _ . r I~ e-. ua > z _ n' ~ ry ..i W~' - p3fyr~'i ~+jF - f ~ry µ sS. 1 Avoid wide driveways, as shown above, in Garage door windows and trim in this Los Gatos house are favor of adding landscaping as below closely related to the rest of the facade Y ~ I - SK Residential Design Guidelines 26 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 Town of Los Gatos ~ - BUIr_~ING ~ES1GN 3 3.5 ROOFS u ~ y - 3_5.1 Unify roof pitches r,~'~ Utilize the same slope for all primary roofs. - i Roof slopes for porches may be lower than the primary roof slope, depending on the architectural styie~ ` Dormer roof slopes -may sometimes be steep~_r than the primary roo£ slope, depending on the architectural style 3.5.2 Avoid excessive roof form complexity Most architectura! styles maintain a uniformity ` Avoid multiple floor plan pop outs that produce multiple of roof pitch roof gables. Where roof eave variation is desired, consider s vertical wall e~:tensions aad dormer roofs, as shown in the example below ( I i0r II l i ~ _ t'_, a _ - a - fi r - . - , r . . _ _ - ~,r--,~- ~~s"~; Some architectural styles have a different roof ~ pitch for attached porches ex3` - n k S . . y.i. -Sr _ t~- Yh r'~ N~E ~ _ This is a good example of roof eave variation without excessive complexity 3.5.3 Relate roof overhangs to the architectural) style and to the surrounding neighborhood • Some architectural styles (e.g, Mission and Spanish F-r)ectic} often come in small and large overhang versions. In those circumstances, tailor the roof overhangs to the general character of the surrounding homes- - 3 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 27 ' ' ~ Town of Los Gatos BUILDING DESIGN 3 - 3.5.4 Design dormers with atEention to the architectural style and the neighborhood 1~~~ i3z . , ~x ' ~ Avoid dormer sizes that are out of scale with the roof and '3t ~K e contrary to traditional designs. `t ' Gable dormers, singe or an aggregate of multiple dormers, _ _ „r should rarely exceed 50 percent of the width of the roof. ~ ~ Shed dormers can be wider_ _ _ 7 Avoid large gable dormers that dominate the , roof - ua~ - - _ ~•4~~ r r 1 _ - -tom "v=~-a~-~~m~n•~-v°~~'-~a~----_s-'s"4'--r - - , _ f _ y, ~ ~ 'T'.Y _ ~ t _ ~ ff115- f y Ys. R !n favor of smaller gab/e dormers _ _ - r.~ n , Y - ~ ~ ~ 3, 4~trr e. r.. + ~fif~s~l=~; Two Los Gatos homes with well scaled s {'~ly~,„~~m~4~` _ ~,G~1 dormers appropriate to their architectural ' r« ,fr`Y,`fi Styles . _ET..p..__C' T ~TT=ZZ t / 'T T P~ rl T'~t.-T~ ~ _ y 1 Or use a shed dormer Residential Design Guidelines 28 Public Review Drag February 7, 2008 Town of Los Gatos BURNING UESIGN 3 3.6 ENTRIES HOME ENTRY TYPES COMMON iN 3.6.1 Provide a clear expression of entry LOS GATOS ` Orient the entx-y to the street front It should be visible from , the sheet. + 7~~~',n jet, . ~ ai F l ` Provide a separate walkway from the sidewalk to -the entry if vim- - that is the con-~mon pattern for adjacent and nearby homes. , Avoid using the driveway as the wall.-way to the entry unless - that is the norm for the neighborhood. In cases where the - ~ driveway is used, consider the use of modulaor pagers or decorative banding. ~ ~I 3.6.2 Design home entries with sensitivity to the ~i,;•~(i(I ,Itflhl' i''I ~ Illallif l! 111 1all,lilial !II architectural style _ a,~.~~,,,4„„ Most architectural styles ha~ne a distinctively uiuque entry projecting porch type- A~=oid using an entry type that is not part of the style. Por ez:ample, avoid using projecting entries, especially those 4 t~~- ` } ~ ~ s with an save line higher than the first floor roof, for Ranch +f , Style houses or in Ranch Style neighborhoods. _ ` ` t - 3.6.3 Design entries with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood ` Avoid large- and formal entries unless that is the norm for _ - ~ ~ ' nearby houses. It is often best to start the design consid- ~ ~ i 1 i~~` II i'~ a^ eration a>fth an entry type (e_g , projecting or under save _ - porch) that is similar to nearby homes. ` Houses on corner lots should consider using porches that Entry under roof wrap around from the front to the side elevation, as shown save -with or -e~.-~. below This can assist in reducing the visual hei€•ht of taller without porch side walls, and in enli«ening the side street frontage- _ -s-: Projecting entry - ~ ;p - - x - a s' n a-. ~ ,m. ~ ~ ~ 3.6.4 Entry details are encouraged ~ ` Entry col.,n,r,s, railing, steps, and }.iglus are just a few ele- ments that can be used to add individuality to a house- F' Inset entry kw, - 'I - 5 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 29 Town of Los Gatos BUIl~lNG ~ESlGN 3 3.7 WINDOWS I 3.7.1 Arrange windows in patterns and groupings consistent _ \ with the architectural style and surrounding 'yam ~ neighborhood - ~ _ Many architectural styles -has=e individual. windows that are _ grouped into patterns of two, three or more windows. Be conscious of tkus fact, and. o a n+>e the windows to comple- i~~~: ment the style. Group windows in a manner that is traditional 3.7.2 Match window types and proportions to the for the architecturalstyle architectural style and to the surrounding neighborhood rx"°^~-~ Select window types to complement the st}=le of the house. ~ Each architectural style generally has one or two ac=indow types that are traditional to the style_ Double hung windows, . for example, are common features of Victorian and Crafts- man Styles while casement windows are seen frequently in _ _ _ Mission and Spanish Eclectic styles. 1~ Most architectural st3des feature windows that ha~~ either vertical or squaze proportions. At=oid horizontal window - proportions unless the style (e.g., Modern or Ranch Style) : is clearly supporti~=e of that shape. Horizontal groupings i ~ of s=ertical and square windows are one means of providing I ~~jj ! v=isual balance to a facade design. I_icnit the number of different window types and propor- Most architectural styles have tions to enhance the visual unity of the house design. vertically proportioned windows • I4'or second floor additions to existing homes, match the gh~~ alf®~ windows on the original first floor.- arsd stz~e matched - Match the size and sha e of window shutters to the sha e " t0 the windows p p " ~ and size of the windows. Shutters that are large enough to ~ € _ _ ~ cover the windows, if closed, should be the goal Hinges C'r~l'ed ~ on shutters to allow their closure are desirable_ Avoid very w~brrdows - and doors ~ nazrow shutters that are clearly not wide enough to cover the window opening. 3.7.3 Match window materials to the architectural style _ ~ and to the surrounding neighborhood • tWood windows are common in Los Gatos. Wood is still ' - the desired choice for styles that traditionally used u=ood. f However, today there are some window materials, such as Windows ~n~th some depth from ~'itiyl clad wood windows that are not noticeably different -the frame to the g/ass are desirable from wood at a short distance. They may be used if their visual appearance matches wood_ Generally, avoid metal windows. Thep map be considered acceptable for a Modern Style house, but would be strongly discouraged for all other styles. Residential Design Guidelines 30 Public Review Draft February 2008 Town of Los Gatos BUI~~ING DESIGN 3 3.7.4 design the windows with atEention to ma1`ching the pro}ecf~g head 37+f traditional details of the architecEural style and ~ ~ ~ • Most architectural st}=les -except Mission, Spanish Eclectic _ - or Modern -should have wood trim around the windows" _ J _ The trim width should be matched to the style, but in gen- - ~ eral, should not be less than 3 1 /2 inches wide. Head trim - _ depth should be equal to or wider than the jamb casing, buY - not less than one-sixth of the opening width. • Projecting window sills and heads are strongly encouraged unless the architectural style would not normally have those ~ features" # - - _ .ti_. • Wood trim is also encouraged on stucco houses unless the ~ window frames are recessed at least 6 inches from the out- ' side face of the wall. The use of stucco cow=erect foam trim " is strongly discouraged. Most architectural styles will be complemented by wood trim at • Divided lights (i.e", larger window panes broken up into the jambs, heads and sills smaller pieces) are common in many home styles found in Los Gatos. Use either ~=ertical or square proportions for the smaller window elements" Be consistent in the proportions (i. e., the ratio of the horizontal to the vertical dimension) of the smaller panes. Do not use snap in flat grids to simu- - late divided lights. Use either true divided lights or one of ~ ~r the nev:=er window systems that have dLiiensional niuntins iyr~ v on both the exterior and interior of the lass alo with a „k r y Y g n$ Oi!lMen[ roof ~ , - spacer muntin between the panes of glass. Usrs consistently material for windows on all sides of the house. ~ 3.7.5 Special window shapes and styles should be used sparingly _ _ Avoid Estate Home Si~~le windows (e.g., tall arched windows) Wood }ambs, sills and heads in neighborhoods where the homes are snore modest and _ - - informal in character. - ~ { ~ - R • Bay windows should be designed with a base element to the ground or with supporting brackets at the base. Sloped roofs _ should be used and covered with a material that matches Stsong base support the roof material or ovith metal. At=oid using wall materials Use bay windows sparingly and bettc=een the indi~•idual urindows of the bay window unless detail them as an integral part of the window is large. Genera113; bay windows look best when the design the windows are close together and separated by wood jambs that match wood sills and heads as shown in the example to the right. Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February "F, 2008 3~ Town of Los Gatos BUfL~ING ~ES[GN 3 ARCHITECTURAL COPPER 3_8 MATERIALS The use of Architectural Copper is generally discouraged because of its 3.8_7 Use high quality materials potential to contribute pollution to Use materials and miles of materials that are consistent surface waters and the San Francisco ovith the architectural style selected_ Bay through urban runof£ Industrial, Traditional materials, such as wood-and stone, are most municipal and some other users are desirable, and strongly encouraged. However, the cost of reduired to follow regulations and materials and labor for many building components have obtain permits .for discharge under led to the development of synthetic materials that are the Envirorunental Protection Agen- often hard to tell £roin the authentic ones. If any of these cy's National Pollutant Discharge substitutes are selected, they must pass the test of looking Elimination System (NPDES) penrut like the authentic material at a distance of 3 feet if used on program, which controls mater pollu- the first floor and 10 feet if used on the second floor. lion by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of Avoid rough te~.-tured stucco in favor of a smooth sand the United States. firaish. Although individual homes that are Composition roof shingles map be acceptable in lieu of v connected to a municipal system, wood shakes However, shingles should be selected with use a septic system, or do not hay>e a texture that is similar to other houses in dze neighbor- a surface discharge do not need an hood_ NPDES permit, the potential for water contamination from copper 3_8_2 Select materials that are sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood is of concern to all Bay Area com- munities. One way of fitting a new house into an existing neighbor- The major uses of ardutectural cop- hood -especially if the new house is bigger than many of per in residential construction are the others around it - is to use materials drawn from the roofs, gutters, and copper-treated. surrounduig neighborhood. An all stucco house might composite shingles. - seem out of character in an all wood neighborhood, but the predominant use of wood siding with some elements of stucco can often work. tX~here stone accents (e.g., chini- net's) are common in a neighborhood, the use of stone at the wall base and elsewhere can assist in making the new home seem better connected to its surroundings. When using a mix of materials, avoid using too many materi- ah -two or at most three are enough. Avoid an even split of materials (i. e., 50/50) on the facades. It is best to have one material as the dominant surface with the second material playing a lesser role. The use of a two-third to one-third ratio is a good place to start 2P3 stucco 1!3 wood wall surface wall surface ~ ` ' E;;-- SmaN s~ona ~'I -88 Residential Design Guidelines 32 Public Review Draft February 1, 2fl08 Town of i_os Gatos _ BUILDING DESIGN 3~ 3.8.3 Use traditional detailing • Treat openings in walls as though they were constructed of ' the traditional material for the style. For exatz~ple, be sure to provide substantial wall space above arches in stucco and ' stone waIls. Traditionall}; wall space above the arch would ' have been necessary to structurally span the: opening, and ~Ofe Lintels to make the space too small is inconsistent with the archi- rectural style. • Openings in walls faced vcrith stone, real or synthetic, should _ have defined lintels above the opening except in Mission or - Spanish Eclectic styles. Lintels nlay be stone, brit); or ~z=ood as suits the st31e of the house- s Treat synthetic materials as though they mere authentic. For ea:ample, select synthetic stone patterns that place the - individual stones in a horizontal plane as they ~x>ould have - been in a load beazing masonry wall. .®r. _ Select roof materials that are consistent with the traditional Wood - architectural style (e_g., avoid concrete roof tiles on a Crafts- Lintel " man Style houses) 3.8.4 Materials changes ~ _ • Make materials and color changes at inside corners rather _ = than outside corners to a~=oid a pasted on loon .i4- wear-~. >ns7dc YE3 JMrsNYe _ Jpp1e~ t-T=¢ Use stone- or wood lintels over ~senac:.m M~~ F openings in stone walls Change tttaleri0/s Nat at a.nd cWoca as outside inaidc cgar~i~cs corners 3.9 AUDITIONS/ACCESSORYBUILUINGS/SEC'ON~ARY - ' UNITS .';ti ' ~ - ' rr.;. Follow the provisions set forth in Guideliine 4.9 on - page 52. - w- - _ ~ 1~ g~ `y' i 3 sy Y': f niy gaga s'h+te, form, materials 'and details match prsmary house ~ _ _ Additions, accessory buildings and secondary units should match the form, architectural style, and details of the original house t~ -ss Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 7, 2008 33 Town of Los Gatos BUlL~lNG DESIGN 3 3_l0 ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL tirr~4r I,~.. 3_l0_7 Porches and Entries Select coh~*>-+*>c that are traditional to the architectural style of the house_ Take care in selecting coh~*nnc with an ap- propriate width to height ratio for die st}•le_ Except for a very few styles, dze columns should have appropriate caps and bases with proportions typical of the style. n~.. t Pro~~ide a well proportioned beam between the column caps i`-_ - and the roof. Size and detail the beam so drat it Iooks like Provtee Daam a convincing structurah member. It should be visible both bs><ween columns ~ - from inside and outside of the porch_ A common problem e"~ r`~' ~""e is to malt-e this element of the porch too small or to face it u>ith a material (e.g., siding) that would not carry the weight Porch beam example with good above if it were structural. For most architectural st}>Ies, depth and details molding and trim will divide the beam vertical?}> into three major elements of varying height 1 ~l.p...-.-"~"''".,,J• ~ Rail' ~ should generally be constructed of wood unless the - specific architectural style allows for metal or stone. Provide sue-- ~r bodes top and bottom rails with the bottom rail raised above ' ~ the porch floor level. > Vertical balusters should be appropriate to die architectural ete - ~ ~ style_ Some are quite simple while others may have special [j` '13t; N~:.t ~ T shapes. - ,x Take care in designing porch stairs_ 'They generally should . ~ ,y> . ax _ ~ = : - match die porch Boor (e.g., wood) or the sidewalk mateual Some architectural styles suggest simple if other than concrete (e_g., bock). columns and railings Not~• Allporches are expected to be arable and have a anlnimxm depth of 6 feet orp»eferably morr. T` ?c` 3.7 O_2 Balconies T'; ~ ~~1', i~ Avoid balconies that project more than 3 feet from the face of the boil ~ - ; ' ding unless they are typical of the architectural • Pro~~ide supporting brackets or beams that are large enough $ to dearly appear to provide structural support for the bal- - ~ -an-~ cony. ~l_ ~ ` Railings should be designed as discussed abo~re for porch •~a:~ rail' a .For longer rail' ~ ,intermediate posts with caps While others require much more refined and bases should be used to break the railing into smaller details irzcrements_ 3.10.3 Brackets Brackets at roof overhangs, balconies and bay windows should be designed to extend to fascia/balcon}~ edge/pro- jectingbay front or slighd}> beyond. Avoid stub brackets that do not appear substantial enough to support the element above_ ~ ~ _ gp - Residential Design Guidelines 34 Public Review Draft February 7, 2008 Town of Los Gatos BUlL~lNG DESIGN 3 3_10.4 Chimneys E ExEsting • Chunneys should extend to ground level. Avoid canti]evers Fear imo ana dory above the ground. ~ house - Chimney materials, size, shape and height should be appro- priate to the architectural st} le and to the scale of the house. Avoid undersized chimneys that are too narrow and too low - Add chimneys for gas fireplaces when the azchitecrural style would normally feature cl-umneys_ t l r - Provide chimney caps that are interesting and appropriate to the architectural style. Avoid second floor masses in locations that would block sun access to adjacent homes 3.10.5 Roof flashing and vents • Paint flashing and vents to match the color of the roof. 3.7 0.6 Skylights - First, consider the use of roof dormers or clerestories - - instead of sls-ylightS. _~`'~-.,,,ti;:-^----s Use flat profile skylights rather than domed models. ~ - { r Select glazing to avoid the feeling of roof beacons or lan- ~ ~ ~~~~f ; ' terns that are highly visible from the street or n~=ighboring properties. Avoid placing windows in locations that would look into adjacent neighbors' windows or alive private yard spaces 3.7 i PRIVACY AND SOAR ACCESS 3.11.'1 Minimize shadow impacts on adjacent properties - Locate strucrures to minimize blocking sun access to lip>- ing spaces and actin>elp used outdoor areas on adjacent homes. 3.77.2 Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences - Windows should be placed to minimize ~>iews into the living spaces and yard spaces near neighboring homes. - then iuindows are needed and desired in side building a>alls, they should be modest in size and not directl•~> opposite windows on adjacent homes. - Where possible, second floor wudows that might intrude on adjacent property pri~>acy should have sill hei;~hts above eye level or have Frosted or textured glass to reduce ~>isual exposure. - Bay windows should be avoided on side walls where they would intrude on adjacent residents' privacy - Second floor balconies and decks should be used only when _ they do not intrude on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. 11-91 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft i=ebruary 7, 2008 35 Town of Los Gatos BLJIL~ING DESIGN 3 l _ . _ 'r~ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ As a general rule, balconies and decks that are more than j ~ f ~ ,~Oo ! two feet above grade should try to ma;n{~n a distance of j ~l ~ _ ~ ten feet from side property lines and twenty feet from rear ~ Wmdo"ws ~ property lines when the adjacent use is single family resi- j ~ - dentist. t i When allowed, the design of railings should be tailored to ~ u' the privacy concerns of neighbors (e.g, balcony or deck ~ sides overlooking adjacent a>itidows or actively used yard ~ space should be solid in form). Open railings should only ~ \ be used where privacy concerns are miri9rrial. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ . ~ . _ , . ~1,_ . ; - Landscaping map be used to mitigate privacy concerns Place landscaping in the shaded areas shown so long as the landscaping does not deny solar access to on [he diagram above to mitigate privacy living spaces and actin>ely used }>ard areas of neighbo~irig intrusions on adjacent homes hoizies_ • Landscaping used For ptn>acy screening pui-poses, should be of sufficient size and of an appropriate species to provide _ - _ use dec6daous tree such privacy ~zrithin a tcvo year time frame. Screen w'sps from Trees should be to>en four inch box size. hot summer sun _ t} - f c Shrubs used to promote privac}> should be fifteen gallon in size and six feet minimum height at planting. As a general rule, privacy landscaping should be placed with 4""~~~ ~ acone-of-vision defined by a thirty degree angle from the ! side a>indow jambs of second story windows. Use Landscaping to minimize energy usage 3.l l .3 Design and plan for energy efficiency • Design to minimi>.~ energy costs by selecting and locating landscaping and windows to block hot summer sun expo- sure and allow winter sun exposure. 3.7 7.4 Solar Panels ` Locate solar panels so drat they are inconspicuous from die public right-of-a>a}~ • Align solar panel faces with that of the underlying roof .slope. Avoid panels with slopes that are different than that of the roof • Integrate the design of panels into the design of the roo£ Avoid stacked-on appearance. 3.l 7 _S Minimize exterior lighting impacts on neighbors ` All exterior light fixtures should utilize shields to ensure that light is directed to the ground surface and does not spill light onto neighboring parcels or produce glare a=hen seen from nearby homes. ` Decorative residential light fixtures should be chosen rather than strictly utilitarian security lighting fixtures. 1 1 - 92 Residential Design Guidelines 36 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 Town of Los Gatos ~ " BUI~~lNG DESIGN 3 3_12 SUSTAINAB<_E DESIGN Susrai.nability and ttie conservation of natural resources are impor- tant issues to Los Gatos residents. Sustainability refers to the use of natural resources in a manner that ensures their continued a~=ailability to future generations- - The TovTn beBeeves that historic preservation is the most sensitive path to sustainabilit}; but recognizes that this is not alwa~~+s possible, and that an emphasis on g~ een huilding can be an effective means of - promoting the conservation of natural resources. The term green b~ssldsng is often used to relate sustainability to development Green building addresses a broad range of techr~iques to reduce the consumption of natural resources during construction and over the lifetime of a home. These include designing structures to be energy and water efficient, utilizing building materials that reduce resource consumption and improve indoor air qua]itp, and saki ~ maxtiiuin advantage of renewable energy resources. The Green Building Strategies and Materials in Appendix D contain design strategies that maximize the use of renewable energy resources for heating, cooling and lighting, additionalstrategies that conserve energy and water, a list of building materials that reduce the consumption of nonrenewable resources and improc=e air ~~al- it}; and a list of various sources for "green building" information and their v~eb sites. Residential Desib Guidelines Public Review Draft February Z, 2008 CITY OF CUPERTINO 1d3d0 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTI'Y DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Agenda-Date: May 13, 2008 Item Summary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements RECOMMENDATION: Discuss this item, then note and file this report. BACKGROUND: On Tuesday May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission work program to include a review of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirement. The Council directed that the Planning Conunission wrap up your work in September and present the recommendation to the City Council in October 2008. ' DISCUSSION: The Council direction limited the amendment to considering if the second floor to first floor ratio should be changed. The Commission is not authorized to evaluate changing second story setbacks or other elements of the ordinance such as the overall floor area ratio. Council members voiced concern that the 45% second floor to first floor ratio inadvertently encourages homeowners to increase the size of the first. floor to ensure the second floor proportion is large enough to accommodate the desixed number of bedrooms. Also, concern was expressed that the current formula results in a repetitive style of "wedding cake ' architecture. For example a "Victorian" or "Queen Anne" style of architecture is difficult to design with the current role. Staff anticipates that the Commission will need to address the amount of exposed second floor. wall plane as this rule directly relates to the issue of potentially allowing the first and second floor walls to align. The Commission will need to assess if some alten~ate method of breaking up the wall plane should be considered such as awning or trellis elements. Finally,- the Commission may need to consider alternate review procedures for applicants taking advantage of any amendments. Staff will send out acity-wide mailer and attempt to provide articles in the Cupertino Scene aizd on the web site to keep the public informed of this review. Staff anticipates the item will be ready for the Planr,;ng Commission in July 2008. In.the meantime staff will evaluate if this change will potentially delay any other work program items. ~ Submitted by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmez~-t_..e ii -sa Exf~ibit B CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI'T'Y DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: MCA-2008-03 Agenda Date: July 8, 2008 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: Citywide Item Summary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council adopt ttLe R-1 Ordinance amendment regarding the first floor to second floor ratio requirement:a BACKGROUND On May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission work program to include a limited review of -the R-1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to i:he first floor building area. first floor to second floor -ratio requirement. The Cowncil directed the Planning Commission to present recommendations on ordinance options to the City Council by October 2008_ The Council direction limited the amendment to only consider if the current second floor to first floor ratio should be adjusted_ The Council directed that this review would not consider changing the setback requirements or the allowable overall building floor azea ratio. The concern is that the 45% second story to first floor ratio requirement inadvertently encourages homeowners to increase the size of the first floor to ensure the second floor proportion is large enough to accommodate the desired number of bedrooms. Also, the current second floor to ground floor ratio results in a repetitive style of "wedding cake" architecture making it difficult to design other traditional styles of azchitecture such as :'Victorian ' or "Queen Anne." 'The following sections of the staff report will discussion ordinance options to adjust the allowed second to ground floor ratio to allow greater architectural diversity. A citywide postcard notice of the pubic hearing was mailed out to Cupertino residents inviting them to participate in the discussion (see attached)_ DISCUSSION Existing Ordinance The existing Rl Ordinance was updated iut January 2005. One of the major changes was to increase the 2nd floor to ground floor ratio from 35% to 45%. The intent was to allow enough space on the 2nd story to accommodate three bedrooms while controlling the overall mass and scale. Since the 2005 ordinance amendment, very few public ii -ss MCA-2008-03-R1 ordinance July 8, 2008 Page 2 concerns have been expressed about the allowable second floor building space. Rather, there has been an increase of concerns regarding the limitation of architectural flexibility due to the second floor to ground floor ratio. Wedding Cake Style of Architecture The current 45% second story floor area ratio has resulted in a "wedding cake" style of architecture that is slowing becoming the predominate style of new two-story homes or additions in many neighborhoods. Although exterior design elements, such as corbels, wainscoting, and window treatments, are provided to suggest an architectural style, the overall "wedding cake" style is the same from house to house. The images below are examples of the existing Rl Ordinance "wedding cake" style architecture: f r_ ~ ~ w ~ - , c , ~ F~~ j ' _ - i Many residents attempt to personalize their home with design elements representing traditional architecture, however the final result is greatly limited by the existing second floor area restriction. This is especially the case on smaller lots under 6,000 square feet where the width of the lot is already restricts design options_ ii -ss MCA-2008-03 - RI ordinance Tuly 8, 2008 Page 3 Traditional Architecture Traditional architecture, such as Victorian, Queen Anne, Farmhouse, Colonial Revival, Italian Renaissance, typically have the majority of the second story walls aligned with the ground floor wa1Ls. Second story walls may even cantilever over portions of the ground floor wall to emphasize a certain architectural element or material change, What is important to the traditional archi#ecttiral is the attention and emphasis given to quality architectural treatments and exterior embellishments to help visually minim;tee what would otherwise be unazticulated walls or boxy forms. The following are some .styles of architectL re that may be difficult to design under the current Rl Ordinance: y_ °9: %J L % rt{. ~ _ n . .-c_ _ 4~ i i.. c ' fi-' 4 When Design Regulations Are Not Applied to Two-Story Homes Two-story "box" forms can be articulated v-~ a way that minimizes the mass. However,. unregulated two-story homes are often sterile in design and visually imposing. Without design review, attempts to T.-+in;mize the mass and scale (as seen in the following image) may not always be appropriate, and may not always achieve the intended goal. it-s~ MCA-2008-03 - Rl ordinance 7uly 8, 2008 Page 4 K^ E 3°' k F /4TH Example of aNon-Regulated Two-Story Residence. Example Design Guidelines From Other Communities The neighboring communities of Los Gatos and Los Altos have accommodated greater architectural variety, while meeting the community's privacy and compatibility needs by requiring a higher level of architectural integrity in their projects. Excessive mass of a residence is not determined by the second story to first story FAR, but by the perception that the size and mass of the house is too large for the size of the property. The goal is to have the home designed to fit the lot, and then apply elements that assist in reducing the perception of bulk. The City of Los Altos includes the following list of ways to reduce the perception of bulk in their residential design guidelines. They are summarized below: • Use of more than one material on an elevation is appropriate to break up the vertical mass of the house. Sometimes an accent material such as a low horizontal band of brick or stone with stucco or wood siding. • Soften the elevation with the use of architectural elements (porches, bays, overhangs, trellises), and detail (molding, trim, brackets, etc_) • Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. For example, painting the triangular area in a gable end one color and using a shade (or color) lighter or darker below. • Provide some variation in large expanses of wall and roof planes. For example, cantilever the second floor over the first floor. • Use horizontal elements to soften vertical ones in an elevation. A change of direction in siding or adding moldings in stucco can achieve this. • In some cases, a simplification of shapes and materials will reduce bulk. For example, too many different materials and changes in .types of windows add complexity of the facade. • Minimize use of tall or two-story-high design elements. This would include two-story entry ways, turrets, ect. • Use visually heavy materials sparingly, particularly on two story designs. Use stone or brick as an accent material or wainscot on an elevation. ii -ss - MCA-2008-03 - R1 ordinance Jnly 8, 2008 Page 5 • Choose landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. This should not be a substitute for good design however. • Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible. • Use roof forme that reduce bulk (low to medium pitch, minimum number of hips and valleys_ • -Avoid massive, tall chimneys. Locate them either on an internal wall or centered on a gable end when possible_ The following is some architectural techniques used by Town of Los Gatos to provide visual relief for two story walls: • Horizontal belly bands • Pop outs and bay windows • Material and color changes • Chimneys • Wide overhangs with projecting brackets • Juliet balconies Window boxes and pot shelves • Landscaped trellises and lattices All or some of the above methods may be applied to a new or remodeled residence (see images below)_ Jutet Bal~one~s _ r,. 4 i _ ~ - T ~ max... "I~V"ooc~ well E3ands - - " ` °TF Decorative Metal Work s-_ ii -ss MCA-2008-03 - Rl ordinance July 8, 2008 Page 6 Dee Overhan With Brackets t x`ks.i~ , - I e t~~` _.-~-.::Lan scape Tre is Recommended Ordinance Solution Staff believes that achieving architectural diversity does not require increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl Iot or changing the required second story setbacks. The goal is through appropriate design review and the application of enhanced design principles, homes may ~be allowed to exceed fine 45% second floor area limit provided that that they are designed appropriately for the lot, the neighborhood, and the overall design of the structure. Staff recommends that if an applicant wishes to increase the second story FAR above 45%, then a discretionary staff level design review be incorporated into the process with notification to the adjacent neighbors. Additional architectural principles would be upheld, while maintaining the existing goals of symmetry, proportion and balance. The Director of Community Development may grant approval to a second floor to ground floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the followings design principles and techniques are met: ? Ensure appropriate architectural interest and compatibility with neighborhood design theme and character. ~ Add visual interest to the elevation with the use of architectural elements (i.e., porches, bays, overhangs, trellises, moldings, trine, wood sidings, brackets or metal work). i i - ~ 00 MCA-2008-03 - Rl ordinance July 8, 2008 Page 7 •3 Ensure apnrot~riate building mass and scale_ ~ Avoid monumental scaled forms (e.g. towers, turrets and tall entry features) that contrast with the neighborhood architectural forms. ~ Avoid cave lines and roof ridges that are substantiaily taller than the . adjacent houses. ~ Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass of the house_ ~ Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible_ ~ Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass {i.e, wainscot, wood siding, belly bands). ~ Use visually heavy materials >paringly (balustrades or stone on second floor). ~ At least 25% of all two story wall planes should be treated with. architectural features to provide visual relief and architectural interest (include but not be limited to stone, brick, alternative siding materials, balconies, porch elements, long roof eaves, window boxes, pot shelves; cantilever features, trellises, corbels, trims, metal work, other features deemed appropriate). ~ Use landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. ~ Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. ? Design with architectural integrity o:n all sides of the structure (maintain symmetrv. provortion and balance}. ~ Avoid overly complex architectural elements and/or roof features: ~ Line up architectural features and elements both vertically and horizontally (i.e., roofs or windows). The Director's decision may be appealed to the Design Review Committee. Prepared by: Leslie Gross, .Assistant Planner c---. Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm # Attachments Exhibit A - Citywide postcard titled, "Lvnited Review of the Single Family Residential (R 1) Ordinance". Exhibit B - Draft Model Ordinance Exhibit C - Highlights for the Los Altos L?esign Guidelines Exhibit D - Highlights from the Los Gatos Design Guidelines. 'Note: City of Cupertino Architectural Consultant, Larry Cannon, assisted in the development of the Los Gatos Design Guidelines. ~i -~o~ -CITY OF CUPERTINC' EXHfBlT A e :'9 ,r ~;y 7U PERTINO On Mvy 13, 2008 the City Council initiated v limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1~ Ordinance, regarding the allowed ratio of second floor building area compared to the first floor building area Section 19.28.060. The current R1 Ordinance limits the size of the second floor to no more than 45% of fills first floor. The revised ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to callow greater architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an R7 lot or changing the required second story setbacks. .The total allowed buiidlna area and the second story setback relationshir~ to nefahborina orooerties will not changes The Planning Commission is holding a public hearing to receive public input and consider ordinance options on the allowable ratio of fibs second story on the following date and time: MCA-2008-03 Tuesday, July 8, 2008, at 6:45 p.m. Cupertino Community Hall, 70350 Torre Avenue The current R1 Ordinance can be viewed on the City's website at www.cuoertino.ora/R1 . For additional information about this section of the ordinance you may contact Leslie Gross with the Cupertino Planning Department at <408) 777- 1356 or a-mail any comments to IesliegC~cuoertino.ora. If you are unable to attend the public hearing, an online webcvst of the hearing is avvilvble at www.cupertino.ora/R1. Also, please check the City's website for follow-up information regarding the Planning Commission and City Council hearing schedules. Please note the agenda is subject to thongs, so you may wont to contact the Planning apartment prior to the meeting dote to verify that the item is still on the ogsndo_ i~-ioz IXHIBIT B ® Development Regulations (Building). A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be~forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches and other similar features not substantially .enclosed by exterior walls. B_ Floor Area Ratio_ The objective. of the: floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for squaze footage. The FAR. shall be used in conjunction with the residential development standards and guideluies in this ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surro_ unding neighborhood. 1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot shall be forty-five percent. 2. .The maximum floor area of a second story shall be forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty squaze feet, whichever is greater. 3_ The Director of Conununity Development may errant approval to a second floor to ground floor ratio greater than 45%provided that the followings design principles and techniques are met: a. Ensure appropriate architectural interest and.compatibility with neighborhood design theme and character. i. Add visual interest to the elevation with the use of architectural elements Ci.e.. porches, bays, overhangs, trellises moldings. trim. wood sidings. brackets or metal work)_ b. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale. i_ Avoid monumental scaled formes ("e_g_ towers. turrets and tall entry features) that contrast with the neighborhood azchitectural forms. ii. Avoid eave lines and roof rid eg s that are substantially taller than the adjacent houses. iii. Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass of the house. iv. Keep second floor exterior wall-heights as low as possible. v. Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass (i.e, wainscot. waod siding. belly bands) vi. Use visually heavy materials spari~~ ly (balustrades or stone on second floor). - vii_ At least 25% of ail two story wall planes should be treated with architectural features to provide visual relief at~d architectural interest (include but not be limited to stone. brick. alternative sidine materials. balconies, porch elements. long roof eaves, window boxes. mot shelves. cantilever features, trellises, corbels. trims, metal work_ other features deemed appropriate). viii. Use landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. ix. Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. c. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure (maintain symmetry proportion and balance)_ i. Avoid overly complex architectural elements and/or roof features. ii. Line up architectural features and elements both vertical.) and horizontal) (i.e.. roofs or windows). 11 - 1O& 4-~. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have the mass and bulk of a two-story house and shall be counted as floor area. a. If the house is a two-story house, this area will count as second story floor 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 shall be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, cave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights; b. The design shalLuse vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c. There shall not be athree-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. - i. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. j. All second story roofs should have at least aone-foot overhang. D. Setback-First Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side 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 Iot is twelve feet. The other side yard setback shall be no less than five feet. b. For interior lots in the R1-5 district, the side yard setbacks are five feet on both sides. c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the front property line and the rear property line. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. a. With a Miaor 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. ii-~oa 4. Garage. The front face of a gazage in an Ri 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 wail plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wail plane of the other two spaces. E_ Setback-Second Story. 1. Front and Rear Yazds. The minimum :front and rear setbacks aze twenty-five feet. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the sicEe 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 lire of asingle-family dwelling. 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet shaIl be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard setbacl~: requirements specified in this section. F. Basements_ 1. The number, size and volume of Iightwells 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 abasement,-one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide and up to ten feet Long. 2_ No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback azea, except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet; b_ The minimum reaz setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet_ 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 4. Railings for Iightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the Iightwe1L2005 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 R 1 zone shall not exceed twenty-eight feet, not including fireplace ch_i_mneys, antennae or other appurtenances. 2. Building Envelope (One Story). a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: 1 _ A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; 2. Atwenty-five-degree roof Line angle projected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential Permit. 11 - 105 3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from the first story exterior wall plane. a_ The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.110 D. 4. Entry Feature Height_ The maximum entry feature height shall be fourteen feet. 5. Areas Restricted to One Story_ The City 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 file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is not to require- complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similar unenclosed features. ' 1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling. 2. The minimum side-yard setback shall be fifteen feet.- 3. The minimum rear-yard setback shall be twenty feet. - L Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solaz easements or adjoining property owners. Any solaz 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) 11 - 106 Exhibit C City of L,os Altos ~ tti.,r. ~ ~ 4 Elements in Scale i I i i 5 t r c e ~ ~ barx ~ ~ ' i _ - L Less Impact Diverse House Types 8 Setbacks Single-Family Residential New l-iomes Remodels „_,o~ ~ R sidpr?riai it ~ r- 1.0 INTRO DUCTiON These guidelines were developed after an extensive community-wide 3ook at the values and expectations that neighborhoods have for the housing that surrounds them. The purpose of this handbook is not meant to promote a specific type of design nor to establish a rigid set of guidelines. Instead, it is meant to guide the homeowner, architect, developer and builder in planning and executing a successful design of new and remodeled single-family dweIlings_ This handbook will also serve as a guide for the City Council, Planning Commission and City staff in the design review process_ Often, newly built homes have more complex plan and building forms than existing houses_ This fact, along with stylistic and size issues, has reinforced perceptions of newer homes as being very different from older houses. The design policies and implementation techniques in this handbook are not meant to discourage individual designs_ Rather, they, set forth the implementation of the findings that must be made for design review applications. serve as a basis on which decision- making bodies may base their design-review decisions. and assist in developing consistency in the approval process from neighborhood to neighborhood across the city. The primary purpose is to guide property owners toward successful solutions to their needs and to maintain the existing positive physical qualities and character of the residential neighborhoods of Los Altos. These guidelines implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. They also identify the findings from the Los Altos Municipal Code which must be followed to gain approval of a project. Los Altos requires design review on ail residential construction. The majority of design review is performed by Planning Department staff. Applications for two-story construction or unusual architectural design are heard by the Architectural and Site Control Committee (A.BcS), a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. The functions of the AScS Co:nmittee are delineated in the Los Altos Municipal Code_ From a historical perspective, the character of neighborhoods in Los Altos relates back to the incorporation of the city in 1952_ Decisions made at that time encouraged arural-like atmosphere. Thus, Los Altos developed with spacious quarter acre lots, minimal use of curbs and gutters, extensive use of landscaping and large trees, openness of fi-ont yards to the street. and the relatively low profile and height of residences_ Prior to the City's incorporation, housing had developed more in continuity with surrounding co:rununities; thus. there are areas of town that have sn~alIer cots, and the zoning regulations distinguish between these smaller lots and Iarger lots in terms of setbacks, height, etc These design guidelines, however, apply to lots of al! sizes_ i~-ios Residential D Riu.. G,*id lin c 2 Although most of the housing stock was developed during the 1950's and a predominant style is the "ranch°, there is a vast diversir,~ of design and style within Los Altos. Today, demands for housing are far different than. they were at our incorporation. As a result, housing styles and home size have changed dramatically. `Vhereas, earlier there was an emphasis on °Iow profile", now there is a tendency to °build out" a lot Whereas, before there was an emphasis on designing from the exterior inward now there is a tendeacyr to design from the interior outward. At times this results in home designs that appear to overwhelm neighboring homes either in mass or complexity of design. To monitor such changes, the City Council first amended the zoning regulations to lower height and to establish daylight planes and i3oor area to lot area ratios. After working with these new regulations for a period of time, it became evident that development standards alone are not sufficient to address such impacts as privacy invasion and change to neighborhood cha~~ter. Thus, the next step involved the adoption of requirements for design review of all new homes and remodels. These guidelines have been developed with the expectation that their use will encourage creativity that will result in a high level of residential design quality. It is recognized that guidelines do not encompass the full range of possibilities for excellence. For this reason, variation from these guidelines will be considered when compensated by a related improvement which contributes to the excellence of the project. To use these guidelines, please refer t~~ the Table of Contents. Chapter 1 is the Introduction, and Chapter 2 explains the iintent of the guidelines as Weil as the design review process. Chapter 3 presents information on how design is viewed in relation to the design review process. Chapter 4 present: the basic philosophy of these guidelines and provides general guidance in meeting the findings required for design approval. Chapter 5 explains procedures and includes the basic `do's and dan'is" for design approval There are three appendices: Appendix A presents the goals and policies from the General Plan that are applicable to these guidelines; Appendix B is a GIossary of Terms: and Appendix C provides a basic primer on Architectural Styles, and can assist you in identifying the style of your home_ Vve wish you well on your project! ii-ios Besisiendal Deci¢n ('Lideline~ ~ 4_O DESIGN GUIDELINES PIZILOSOPI3Y - This chapter defines the philosophy of i,os Altos with regard to how housing should develop within our neighborhoods. This chapter. is general in nature and reflects the major concerns of neighborhood compatibility and site planning, including the relationship of your property to adjacent properties_ The next chapter goes into greater detail regarding the do's and don'ts for alI new construction and remodels. These guidelines were developed fi om the belief that there can be a balance between the desires of the community to achieve neighborhood compatibility in house design and individuals' rights to build their "dream home". There is a need to be sensitive in crucial areas that govern the relationship of a home to its surroundings, e_g. existing homes, public streets, open spaces, privacy invasion, etc. These guidelines are not intended to prescribe a specific style, nor to limit development to one story in height. 4.1 NEIGHBORIi00D COIV~ATIBILI'IY Before starting the design process, you should understand the character of your neighborhood and the impact your project will have on the neighborhood. Not all neighborhoods have clearly defined boundaries or character_ Often, the boundaries of a neighborhood are delineated by arterial streets, topography and other non-architectural features_ Neighborhood character within a subdivision may be a result of private CCBcR's (Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions). These CC8cR's may contain restrictions on height, size, setbacks, and other design issues. Review your tide report to see if there are any CCBcR's that may apply to your project. Even though enforcement of CC&R's is a private civil matter, you will need to acknowledge on your design application whether your project follows all CC8cR's. When the applicant indicates that a project deviates from the CCBcR's, the neighbors will be notified_ Neighborhoods in our community fall into one of the following groups: consistent, diverse and transitional. Following is a d"sscussion regarding each of these types of neighborhoods. One of the considerations for a project is the compatibility it has within the neighborhood. A project determined to be inconsistent with the neighborhood will not necessarily be denied. It may be that mitigation wi21 be retluired in order for the project to be approved. CONSISTENT CHLII2AC'I'ER NEIGI~ORIi00DSa These neighborhoods have a similar style and character to the homes and streetscape. This does not mean that the homes are exactly alike, just that they share similar i~ -~~o 9 Rpcid ntial D cign ,id Iin a characteristics of style, house type, setbacks. and streecscape character. 1~lajor renovation or new construction projects in these. neighborhoods require more design sensitivity to the neighborhood than other neighborhood types when they depart from the neighborhood character_ i ~ I itocis~ i _ _ _ s t t- e e t rr.dg~ Ft~tght a.cl Irrsc~ eave lix~ -1 ~ ~ j ~ - Consistent Setbacks Consistent Heights/Massing • Ia consistent character neighborhoods, good neighbor design has design elements, material, and scale Found within the n~ghborhood and sizes that are not significantly larger than other homes in the tzeighborhood_ `Ihe emphasis should he on designs that "Ft in" :and lessen abrupt changes. • Approval of as inconsi::teat design will require mitigating design measures to lessen the neighborhood impact. Mitigation may include change in size, increased setbacks, Large trees or other landscape materials for screening and other changes in design to reduce impacts. The goal of mitigation is to soften the differences between the new construction and the existing homes. tw,o st.or-y Ctirr~, ridy~ Itr.~t~ eavG itrtG , tam - - - m - - . Laas Dasirabte D•slrabte Consistent Character Neight~orhood_ Remodels 8. Additions DIVERSE CHAR.AC'TER 1~TEIGFIBORI300DS: In contrast, diverse character neighborhoods contain a variety of architectural styles and may have a varying streetscape as well. Thus can result from homes which were built in different eras or by individuai homeowner/developers, or be a result of a neighborhood in ttansition_ Rpgidenti Z 7)nc~gn (quid lin a IO s -t r e e t -1 ~9~ eaare {true - Ranch Bungabw Spanish - Diverse House Types & Setbacks Diverse Styles and/or Sizes • In a diverse character neighborhood, good neighbor desi has its own design integrity while incorporating some design elements and materials found in the neighborhood_ • Mitigation for items such as size and bulls may be used for some designs depending on the relationship of a home to its neighbors. TRANSITIONAL CHARACTER NEIGHBORHOODS. Transitional character neighborhoods are those that are in the process of changing their character and identity. Major changes include two-story additions in a one-story neighborhood, large homes in a neighborhood of small homes, and many upgraded homes in a neighborhood of older, smaller designs_ • In a transitional character neighborhood, a good neighbor design reduces the abrupt changes that result mom jwrtaposing radically different designs or sizes of structures; Proposed projects should not set the extreme and should be designed to soften the transition. Significant deviations could be cause for mitigation_ turret}~~~,,.,,~,~ r~e 3 C~ZT' cjacac.]e- ~toK ' _-"""Y'~ ~P.4~:B ~i.ri,~, . i ~ - tVof fDas(rabla Dosirabla Transitional Character Neighborhood. Remodels 8. Additions 4_2 SITE PLANN~TG Integration of your home with the site is an im rtant as home is sited on its lot in relation to pO pest to good design_ How your your neighbors, the placement of the garage~~a~2 Residential D sigT+ G +id lin c j g 5.4 DESIGN TO MININIIZE BULK One of the biggest issues (other than privacy invasion) raised by residents concerning additions or new homes is that they are too massive or bulky, which may result in homes that stand out from the rest of the neighborhood_ Part of this perception is due to the size and :mass of the house compared to the size of the property. Usually, the perception is that the home is too big for the lot. A home should be designed to fit the lot ;and surroundings and with internal design integrity_ Then, the elements you have chosen must lend themselves to reducing the perception of bulk. (nr.,uL ch~.,,ey ~,ds ~ ~ mm m ~tc+M.kw a xay fwh s Less Impact ~MOSt impact ~ There are many ways to reduce the perception of bulls Some of these include: • Use of more than one material on as elevation is appropriate to break up the vertical mass of the house.. Sometimes as accent material such as a low horizontal band of brick or stone with stucco or wood siding above can be appropriate. However, too many elements can add to the appearance of bulk; good design must achieve balance_ • Soften the elevation with th.e use of architectural elements (porches. bays, overhangs, trellises) and detail (moldings. trim, brackets, etc.). Be careful not to overdo, though. • Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. For example, painting the triangle area in a gable end one color and using a shade (or color) tighter or darker below. • Provide some variation in Iarge expanses of wall and roof planes_ For example, cantilever the second floor over the first floor. 11 - 113 -lam R cid ntial ilP~+.~+ ,id l:n • Use horizontal eIemenYS to soften vertical ones in an elevation. A change of direction in siding or adding moldings in stucco can achieve this_ • In some cases, a simplification of shapes and materials will reduce bulk. For example, too many different materials and changes in types of windows add to the complexity of the facade. • Minimize use of tail or two-story-high design elements. This would include two-story entry ways, turrets, etc_ • Use visually heavy materials sparingly, particularly on two-story designs_ Use stone or brick as an accent material or as a wainscot on an elevation. • Choose landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. This should not be a substitute for good design, however. • Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible. • Use roof forms that reduce bulk (low to medium pitch. minimum number of hips and valleys). • Avoid massive, tall chimneys. Locate them either on an internal wail or centered on a gable end when possible. • Design the house from the "outside-ia". Houses designed from the "inside-out" rather than the reverse tend to look lumpy -and lack a clear overall design. This often adds to the perception of excessive bulls • Lower the height of a two-story house below 2? feet maximum to mitigate other design issues. Keep in mind that overdoing anything can result in added bulk. S.5 ZANDSCAPING Natural features, such as mature trees, rock outcroppings, and other landscape elements should be retained; quite often they can serve as design inspiration. • Designs should take - advantage of natural features found on site. Natural features include mature trees ~ - -t• and other landscape materials (hedges, tall r--' shrubs), rock outcroppings, and creeks. Ny,ri?"'~. Desi n around existi ~ _ ~ ~ _ g ng landscape features ~ _ a ~ i WL J N <.-X-'~ cvr v Y da tv~ rli ~ ~ 4 y l ~ - Wr 4 F R 1 ~J~ I~ ~~r y n~ i 9~ C~ - _ T - ,o- ~ m - ~ ~.-1--~ _ . u> _'~:1a A 3 ~ - ~ ` ' ~ w>e--~. ' ~ y ~ ~~xr _ .q r~~ .~~v ~ rte= Y_~ m2hL ~ _~lrc _ . h,«~ ~ o'er ~ Y-~r- ~ , r ~ III J ~ r ~5 v° ~1P~ _ X s~ m S - _ _ _ , e ,.f 3. S 3 Yi~ `l'. I - r-0_ of . @, _ , _ _ ~ - a - E 9E r.~ !4' 4~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ n gl e and Two Fa m ~ t y Residential Design - C:uidelines _ _ - ' @ - Town of Los Gatos _ _ 6 ~1~ ~ ~ - Put~lic Kevic~r Draft _ _ - - Prt~ruar~ 1, 2008 ~ ~ Town of Los Gatos - CONTENTS CONTENTS l INTRODUCTION Applicability..-• ......................._:-..........._...._.:........_.___.._.....5 Relationship to other plans .................................................6 Purpose .............................................................................6 Setting ............................................................................7 Community Expectations .............................°..............-_..10 - Historic Preservation ........................................................10 How to Read Your Neighborhood ....................................11 General Design Princip[es ................................................1l Maximum Floor Area Ratio ..............................................l 2 ' Design Review Process .....................................................72 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS ~ General Neighborhood Design Principles ........................13 Street Presence 1 4- Form and Mass 1 5 Garages 1 8 - Site Development 20 3 BUILDING DESIGN _ General Building Design Principles .......................:..........21 Architectural Style---------------------------°-........-----•--.............22 Height/Bulk/Scale 23 Garages 25 - - - Roofs 2 7 Entries 29 _ Windows 30 Materials 3 2 Additions/Accessory Buildings/Secondary Units ...............33 Architectural Detait ...........................•---.-.............-----__...34 " Privacy and Solar Access 3 5 Sustainable Design 37 4 HISTORIC RESOURCES Application/Enforcement 39 - _ Historic Preservation 39 Approval Process for Historic Resource Alterations 41 Historic Districts 43 Building Ctassifications 43 Demolitions 43 Pre-"1941 Structures 46 Protected Exterior Elements ............................................46 _ Restoration/Rehabilitation/Reconstruction ............47 Additions and Outbuildings 54 New Construction 55 Noncontributing Structu res 56 S GLOSSARY Definitions-------------------------------------------------------........-----. 58 APPENDICES Appendix A - - How to Read Your Neighborhood Workbook '`~PPendix B - - Historic Districts Append'a C Cellar Policy Appendex D - Sustainable Design _ Append'a E . • Historic Resources Status Codes Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 3 Town of Los Gatos ACKNOVVLE~GMFNTS TOWN COUNCIL Barbara Spector Rlayor Mike VC~assern~ati Vice 11~layor Steve Gliclmian Diane McNutt Joe Pirzynski PLANNING COMMISSION Joanne Talesfore Chair D. Michael I<~ane Vfce Chair ' John Bourgeois Philip Micciche 'Thomas O'DDonnell Stephen M. Rice Marico Sayoc GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE John Bourgeois Planning Commission Tom O'Donnell Planning Commissson Joanne Talesfore Planning Commission Joe Pirzynski Town Council Barbara Spector Town Council Barbara Cardillo Community Services Commission Marcia Jensen Public Representative Jane Ogle Public Repreientaiive Margaret Srnith Business Representative HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Kendra Burch Chair Len Pacheco Vzce-Chazr Bob Cowan Philip Micciclte ' Marico Sayoc TOWN STAFF Greg Larson Town Manager ' Pamela Jacobs Assistant Town Manager Orry Korb Town Attorney Bud Lortz Community Development Director Randy Tsuda Assistant Community Development Director Sandy Baily Associate Planner Larry Cannon - Town Architect/Cannon Design Group 4 Residential Design Guidelines F•ublic Review Draft February 2008 Town of Los Gatos ~ , BUILL7ING DESIGN 3 BUILDING DESIGN Homes in Los Gatos come in many forms, sizes and architectural NEW HOMES SHOULD BE ADAPTED styles. This diversity is one of the features that contributes to the TO THE SCALE OE THE SURROUNDING Town's unique identity. Older Victorian Style homes, Spanish Eclec- NEIGHBORHOOD tic Style homes and new intesQretations of Craftsman Style homes While some larger new homes ofren occupy the same street front. One-story Suburban Ranch may be acceptable in established Style homes may occupy one street of a larger neighborhood while rieighborhoods,;theywillbe expected newer two-story contemporary homes may occur around the corner to be designed to mitigate their visual or doom the street While this juxtaposition irught seem harsh if size and bulls Three examples are repeated in a new communit3; the large amounts of mature land- shown below soaping and the evolution of the Town's neighborhoods over a long period of time have allowed the community to comfortably absorb this diversity of home sizes and styles. Perhaps more than these mitigating factors, the self-restraint of 1 residents and the mutual respect of one neigl-ibor for the next has ~t" ~,;5 ,i I' contributed to neighborhoods with a great deal of visual unity and - u similarity in scale. While architectural styles often unary considerably = ~ ~s*R~~~,~, ~,F in any individual neighborhood, few homes stand out in mazked contrast to the predominant size and bulk of their surroundings. The intent of these guidelines is to set forth some of the common sense techniques that have been employed over the years to achieve this strong sense of community - 3.7 GENERAL BUILDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES The following principles have been used as touchstones for the Y, development of these design guidelines for home additions and " z~~" new houses. In the event that the specific guidelines do not clearly - address a given condition, these general principles, along with the ~p ` Se: Basic Design Principles on page 11 should be consulted for direc- ~ tion. The following principles will be used by the Town staff and Plann;ng Commission/Town Council when evaluating projects, and - ' - E ' when considering the acceptability of unique proposals that vary from the specific guidelines. ~ Selected architectural styles shall be compatible with = _ the surrounding neighborhood_ ~ Design features, proportions and details shall be con- sistent with the architectural style selected. ,4 "/K 'y? ~ AaN5 ~ Materials and design details shall be suitable to the ~ ' neighborhood and consistently used on all sides of -4.. the house and any accessory structures. - ~ .Garages shall be subservient to entries and ground ~ e floor living spaces. ~ The use of renewable energy resources for heating, s~ cooling and lighting should be ma rcvied. ~ Projects should be designed to conserve energy and wafer. , .,,r ~ Materials should be used to reduce the consumption of nonrenewable resources and that improve air uali Residential design Guidelines 27 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 _ Town of Los Gatos BUILDING DESIGN 3 New Hauaa Nelgtnbarhaed S1Yle 3.2 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE 3.2.1 Select an architectural style with sensitivity to the _ ~ surrounding neighborhood _ ~ Styles with front facade eaves at the first floor level will be easier to adapt to predominantly one story neighborhoods than styles with two stor}; unbroken front facades • Styles with variations in the plane of the front facade wall r.._ ~ _ may fit more comfortably in neighborhoods with smaller houses of with smaller building masses close to the street Example of the poor selection of a large and formal architectural style for Lhe small scale Avoid selecting an architectural style which typically has and informal style neighborhood roof pitches that are substantially different from others in r the nearby neighborhood. 3.2.2 Ues,ign for architectural integrity ~ ~ In general, it is best to select a clear and distinctive archi- ! _ tectural style rather than utilizing generic design elements or n~is;ing elements from different architectural styles. • Building massing, roof pitches, materials, window types and proportions, design features (e_g, roof dormers), and other architectural features should be consistent with the traditions of the selected style_ " Carry wall materials, window types and architectural details This style would have been more compatible with the neighborhood shown above around all sides of the house. Avoid side and rear elevations that aze markedly different from the front elevation. • Develop floor plans that allow the location and size of windows to match the selected architectural st}>le. For eg- aml~le, some styles emphasize the placement of windows in a symmetrical relationship to the entr}~• ~'ili - - _ II to 1 _ 7 •-v- ~3_..R f A v n ..~...v ? • b Continuation of front facade materials and Some architectural styles require simple detailing onto other walls gives this Los Gatos sha~~es and formal symmetry of the doors and residence good design integrity windows Residential Design Guidelines 22 Public Review Draft February Z, 2008 Town of Los Gatos BUILDING ~ESiGN 3 3_3 HEIGHT/BULK/SCALE 3.3.7 develop the house plans and elevations together ' Avoid complex floor plans that require complicated building ~ ~ _ mass and roof forms. ~ f _ ' Work within the traditional forms of the architectural style ~ ~ t4 selected. Unless the architectural style selected clearly sup- . - _ ports substantial complexity, generally keep buIIding mass- ~Ttr~w 3 ing and roof forms simple as is the norm for traditional azchitecture_ Avoid overly complex second floor plans and • A~roid complex second floor plans and roof forms if that roof shapes like this example is not the norm for the neighborhood. 3.3.2 Height and bulk at front and side setbacks _ - - • `Fwo story houses map not be appropriate for every neigh- borhood° For neighborhoods dominated by one story homes, an effort should be made to limit the house to one _ story in height or to accommodate second floor space within - the roof form as is common in the Craftsman Style. ' When utilizing a cellar or extended foundation wall, avoid setting the first floor height at an elevation above grade that would be significa.sitly different than those of the adjacent _ ~ • e. houses. Some elevation of the first floor level may Cellars are defined as an enclosed area thin does nos extend be acceptable and/or required in some more than 4feetabove the existingorfznishedgrade, and are neighborhoods not counted in the Floor area Ratio calculations, by Town Councilpolicy.However,ifanypartafacelhcrisabovegrade, it shall be considered in analyzing the bulk and mass of the d structure, even ifit is not included in the Ff1R. The intent set forth sn the GeszeralPlan is to provide hidden squarefootage d in-lieu of visible mass.' In the spirit of that intent; applications with cellar space will be carefully evaluated to ensure that substantial e~orts have been made to reduce visible mass to ensure compatibility wish she site's immediate neighborhood Fortext ofihe Cellar Policy, see.4ppendsx C. ' Avoid eave lines and roof ridge lines that aze substantially Substantially elevated first floors like this may taller than the adjacent houses. not be acceptable in neighborhoods where ' Give special attention to adapting to the height and massing they do not currently exist of adjacent homes. Avoid tall, unbroken front facades when other nearby homes have more articulated front facades with horizontal wall plane changes. ' In neighborhoods -with small homes, try to place more of the floor azea on the first floor with less area on the second floor. Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 23 Town of Los Gatos BU1LUlNG ~ES[GN 3 s a W 1 n d o w • Take care in the placement of second floor masses. Unless ~ _ t the .architectural style traditionally has the second floor front ? wall at or near the first floor wall, set the second floor back - ~ from the front facade a minimum of 5 feet ~ The: design of two story homes constructed adjacent to one story houses should include techniques to minimi>e their ~>isLal impact and provide transitions in scale_ ' Some techniques include: ~J.-~.:=-T~-~-' Entry r Proie~tl~9 Caea - Step down to one story elements near the side set- Avoid too many building elements competing backs for attention - Provide substantial side setbacks for the entire house - Provide substantial second floor side setbacks - Use hip roofs at the sides rather than gables - Avoid monumental scaled forms (e_g., towers or turrets) that- contrast with the neighborhood architectural forms. • Avoid bay windows and other features that compete with r~' the entry as the home's focal point. • Avoid the use of too many active building forms added to ~ < . the mass of the building An excessive use of roof forms ~ is a common problem: Avoid too many roof forms that overly complicate the design 3.3.3 Provide visual relief for two story walls Sorne techniques include: • Beliy bands (see photo below left) ' Pop outs and bay windows • Material and color changes • Chimneys • Wide overhangs with projecting brackets JuIlet Balconies Juliet balconies (see photo below left) ' Window boxes and pot shelves aa` gym- Yb Landscaped trellises and lattices Deep overhaisy with brackats - - . - t@tisl flan _ Ma end total c wr - ~ ~ ~ 'K• FJ - - - Wood Bell Bends This Craftsman Style - house includes - . several features to Nteson+y chimney mitigate the visual _ height of the side Pro]ect9t'ag wrEitida~w pop aut _ _ _ :M;~ _ wall A Other two story wall mitigation techniques i~ a~~ 24 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 Town of Los Gatos =i BUIL~iNG ~ESiGN 3 3.4 GARAGES 3.4.7 Limit the prominence of garages • Avoid designs that allow the garage to dominate the street facade. • Limit the garage width to a marirnum of 50 percent of the total facade width. ~ ~-~'v~` • Set gazages back from the front facade. , w ~ .r,._ _ Avoid designs that allow the garage to dominate the street facade like this one does 1~ r _~a ~ z_; Limiting the width of garages and setting them back from the front facade can minimize their visual impact ` Recess garage doors as much as possible from the garage Recess garage doors from the facade as much facade. as possible • Consider adding trellises with landscaping over garage doors to soften their visual appearance. ` Sntegrate the garage into the house forms in a manner that de~mphasizes the garage doors. p . ~~~x ~ r.. ~ ..5 s:¢' ~L s~~ . Use windows and landscaped trellises over _ garage doors to soften their appearance ,.h~`- Divided garage opening with highry quality wood doors and a roof form with dormer integrated into the main house helps minimize the visual impact of this garage Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 25 Town of Los Gatos BUIL~fNG DESIGN 3 3.4_2 Minimize the visual impact of larger garages ~u $luQ load 9~9a Three car garages may not be appropriate in most neighborhoods. Where larger garages are customary and appropriate, steps should Q still be taken to minimize their visual impact on the house and ~ streetscape_ Some techniques include= - - Using side loaded or split apart garages where possible • Accommodating additional cars in tandem spaces {see diagram on page 19) y car frwat load garage • Separating the garage doors Separating garages can reduce their visual Breaking up driveway paving with landscaping and/or impacts in some cases special paving per.,.:. - ~ - t - 3.4.3 Integrate garage doors into the design with ~ x appropriate details " f Windows in garage doors are encouraged. ~ ~ Wood doors are encouraged. } ~ ~ • Use wood trim similar to the house windows ~~r _ _ Utilizing individual doors helps to reduce the ' 4 visual impact of multi-car garages _ a. a~..._ _ ~ J. 5 G y` fi ~ F Avoid wide driveways, as shown above, in Garage door windows and trim in this Los Gatos house are favor of adding landscaping as below closely related to the rest of the facade , F ~ we; ~ i ~ _ . Residential Design Guidelines 26 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 Town of Los Gatos ~ _ BUILDING DESIGN 3 3_S ROOFS - I~? 3.S.1 Unify roof pitches - • Utilize the same slope for all primary roofs. ~ Roof slopes for porches may be lower than the primary roof slope, depending on the architectural style. • Dormer roof slopes may sometimes be steeper than the primary roof slope, depending on the architectural style. -3.5.2 Avoid excessive roof form complexity Most architectural styles maintain a uniformity ` Avoid multiple floor plan pop outs that produce multiple of roof pitch roof gables. Where roof cave variation is desired, consider vertical wall extensions and dormer roofs, as shown in the example below ~ v ~Y } ~y roe: ~ < ~ ~ - Y _ - .s--~._ _ I - L i y~~ ..3 Some architectural styles have a different roof pitch for attached porches - I~ f ~ This is a good example of roof cave variation without excessive complexity 3.5.3 Relate roof overhangs to the architectural style and to fhe surrounding neighborhood ' Some architectural styles (e_g., Mission and Spanish Eclecric) often come in small and large overhang versions. In those circumstances, tailor the roof overhangs to ,the general character of the surrounding homes. Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 27 ' Town of Los Gatos BUIL~ENG DESIGN 3 . 3.5.4 Design dormers with attention to the architectural g ~i: .ry",~. "-,,,r-.. i ~`.r~w _i i :r 4.~?.'" S le and the nei boyhood fi '~'k,~tx ~~4~yr~~~5 ~;i • Avoid dormer sizes that are out of scale with the roof and aY a ~ ~i ,~:n# s~5 contrary to traditional designs_ - zs.r-s~ -t ~ ~ = • G-able dormers, single or an aggregate of multiple dormers, should rarely exceed 50 percent of the width of the roof. r ~ ' ~ ~ k Shed dormers can be wider_ ~ ! F t 1 f i_ _ f.. - _ W.. Avoid large gable dormers that dominate the roof i; E~ r ~ t ~ P.'rd~>x y°+ ~ i^F t t ~ ~ ~-1; -=ca~"~,Jr ~tf+'1 ~y~3~'.:~ t: `Zt! e 4 s F +w~d ~ ; ski x ~ a ~ ~ ~ t I ~4 In favor of smaller gable dormers -s~+. , r ` _~~a _ Two Los Gatos homes with well scaled dorm=rs appropriate to their architectural - _ - styles _ --,r-- ~ _ r- - ~ ~ .y ~ i ~ ~ y _J ~ : f_ Or use a shed dormer ~J Residential Design Guidelines 28 Public Review Draft February 'F , 2008 Town of Los Gatos ~ _ BU11_~ING ©ESIGN 3 3.6 ENT121ES FIOMEENTRY'fYPE5 COMMON IN 3.6.7 Provide a clear expression of entry LOS GAT'OS Orient the entry to the street front. It should be visible from the street. Provide a separate walkway from the sidewalk to the entry if - that is the common pattern for adjacent and nearby homes. - Avoid using the driveway as the walkway to the entry unless - - - that is the norm for the neighborhood. In cases where the - driveway is used, consider the use of modular pavers or decorative banding j.' 3.6.2 Design home entries with sensitivity to the fltll lllillf#, , architectural style ~ , ~~~i~i llllltlllfl! 111 lllliiilll{i~ll .._...,.~++~l~aaa ,:x,.x.~yaaaua~t~i cairn aaaaLfaf.f Ua~ • Most architectural styles have a distinctively unique entry Projecting porch type. Avoid using an entry type that is not part of the style. _ For example, avoid using projecting eatries, especially those r with an cave line higher than the first floor roof, for Ranch ~ "s S le houses or in Ranch S le nei hborhoods. t}' tY b' _ _ 3.6.3 Design entries with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood • Avoid large and formal entries a,nless that is the norm for , nearby houses It is often best to start the design consid- ~ eration with an entry type ~e.g., projecting or under eave 1 porch) that is similar to nearby homes. • Houses on corner lots should consider using porches that Entry under roof _ wrap around £rom the front to the side elevation, as shown eave -with or c- , below This can assist in reducing the visual height of taller without porch side walls, and in enlivening the side street frontage. _ tom. ~ ~ . Projecting entry - . _ • 3.6.4 Entry details are encouraged • Entry coh~**+ns, railing, steps, and lights are just a few ele- ments that can be used to add individuality to a house. ~ _ Inset entry Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 2008 29 Town of Los Gatos BUILDING DESIGN 3 ` 3.7 wlrinows 11 ~ 3.7_l Arrange windows in patterns and groupings consistent with the architectural style and surrounding neighborhood _ f~ ` Many architectural styles have individual windows that are _ grouped into patterns of two, three or more windows. Be conscious of this fact, and organize the windows to comple- i~ ment the style. imp.. at rs traditional 3.7.2 Match window types and proportions to the Grou windows in a ~ nner thJ for the architectural s !e architectural style and to the surrounding c r ,w , . - neighborhood i~~i ' a~+- "r Seler_t window types to complement the style of the house. IA~ Each architectural style generally has one or two window types that are traditional to the style. Double hung windows, for example, are common features of Victorian and Crafts- . man Styles while casement windows are seen frequently in Mission and Spanish Eclectic styles. s Most architectztral styles feature windows that have either ~rertical or square proportions. Avoid horizontal window - prof~ortions unless the style (e.g., Modern or Ranch Style) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ is clearly supportive of that shape. Horizontal groupings of v~_rtical and square windows are one means of providing visual balance to a facade design. ` Limit the number of different window types and propor- Most architectural styles have tion;; to enhance the visual unity of the house design. vertically proportioned windows For second floor additions to existing homes, match the Shutle~r ~hepe - _ windows on the original first floor. arrd size matched Mat~1-i the size and shape of window shutters to the shape to tine wRndows ' a~ and size of the windows. Shutters that are large enough to _ cover the windows, if closed, should be the goal. Hinges ~''rq't`~ on shutters to allow their closure are desirable. Avoid very windows and d~oorm ~ narrow shutters that are clearly not wide enough to cover the window opening. ,r~~ 3_7.3 Match window materials to the architectural style and to the surrounding neighborhood Wood windows are common in Los Gatos. Wood is still j • the desired choice for styles that traditionally used wood. However, today there are some window materials, such as vinyl clad wood windows that are not noticeably different Windows with some depth from front wood at a short distance They map be used if their -the frame to the glass are desirable visual appearance matches wood. Generally, a~noid metal windows. They may be considered acceptable for a Modern Style house, but would be strongly discouraged for all other st}~les 30 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 2008 Town of Los Gatos BURUING ~ESlGN 3 3.7.4. Design the windows with attention to matching the Projaattng bass St§ tnan traditional details of the architectural style ana stn trim mtn. tNm • Most architectural styles -except Mission, Spanish Eclectic I ~ or Modern -should have wood trim around the windows f ~ ' The trim width should be matched to the st}de, but in gen- ! I eral, should not be less than 3 1 /2 inches wide. Head trim depth should be equal to or wider than the jamb casing, but not less than one-sixth of the opening width. Projecting window sills and heads are strongly encouraged # - unless the architectural style would not normally ham>e those features. ,r • Wood trim is also encouraged on stucco houses unless the window frames aze recessed at least 6 inches from the out- - side face of the waII_ The use of stucco coy>ered foam trim is strongly discouraged. Most architectural styles will be complemented by wood trim at • Divided lights (i.e., larger window panes broken up into- the jambs, heads and sills smaller pieces) are common in many home styles found in Los Gatos. Use either ~=eracat or square proportions for the smaller window elements. Be consistent in the proportions (i.e., the ratio of the horizontal to the vertical-dimension) of the smaller panes Do not use snap in flat grids to simu- late divided lights. Use either true divided lights or one of the newer window systems that have dimensional muntins vi ' on both the exterior and interior of the glass along with a ptttefent'roat iti ~p~~ r,€ spacer muntin between the panes of glass. Use consistently mate~rta~ for windows on all sides of the house. tJr ~ sir+" 3.7.5 Special window shapes and styles should be used s part ngiy • Avoid Estate Home .S' le windows e_ tall arched windows wood l~~' < ) stns and t in neighborhoods where the homes are more modest and - informal in character. , Bay windows should be designed with a base element to the ~ ' % ground or with supporting brackets at the base. Sloped roofs should be used and coveted with a material that matches _ Strong base the roof material or with rnetaL Avoid using wall materials between the individual windows of the bay window unless Use bay windows sparingly and detail them as an integral part of the window is large. Generally, bay windows look best when the design the windows arc close together and separated by wood jambs that match wood sills and heads as shown in the example to the right. Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 7, 2008 31 Town of Los Gatos BUILDING UESIGN 3 ARCHITECTURAL:COPPER, 3.8 MA'I~EI2lALS The' use of Architectural Copper is generallg discouraged because of its 3.8.7 Use high quality materials potential to contribute pollution to Use materials and mixes of materials that are consistent surface waters and-:the San Francisco with the architectural style selected. Bay through urban runoff Industrial, Traditional materials, such as wood and stone, are most municipal and some other users-are desirable, and strongly encouraged. However, the cost of required to follow regulations and mateaials and labor for many building components have obtain permits for discharge under led ro the development of synthetic materials that are the Environmental Protection Agen- often hard to tell from the authentic ones. If any of these cy's National Pollutant bischarge substitutes are selected, they must pass the test of looking P.limiriation System (NPDES) permit like the authentic material at a distance of 3 feet if used on program, which controls water pollu- the first floor and 1 O feet if used on the second floor. uon;by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of Avoid rough textured stucco in favor of a smooth sand the United: States. fi~s1'' Although individual homes that aze Composition roof shingles may be acceptable in lieu of connectedao a municipal sgstem, wood shakes. However, shingles should be selected with use. a septic system, or do not have a te~aure that is similar to other houses in the neighbor- a surface discharge. do not need: an hood. NPDES permit, the potential for water contamination from. copper 3.8_2 Select materials that are sensitive to the surrounding is of concern to all Bag Area com- neighborhood munities. One way of fitting a new house into an existing neighbor- The -major uses of architectural cop- hood -especially if the new house is bigger than many of per in residential construction; aze the others around it - is to use materials drawn from the roofs, gutters, and copper-treated surrounding neighborhood. An all stucco house might composite shingles: seem out of character in an all wood neighborhood, but the predominant use of wood siding with some elements of stucco can often work. t~ilhere stone accents (e.g., chitzi- negs) are common in a neighborhood, the use of stone at the -wall base and elsewhere can assist in making the new home seem better connected to its surroundings. • When using a mix of materials, avoid using too many materi- als -two or at most three are enough. Avoid an even split of materials (i. e_, 50/50) on the facades. It is best to have one material as the dominant surface with the second material playing a lesser role_ The use of a two-third to one-third ratio is a good place to start. 2f3 stucco ~l3 wood wall swrface wall surface ~g - - -x...Ym.,~ - Sma11 stone l7aSE• - - inn 32 Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 7, 2008 Town of Los Gatos BUIl~ING DESIGN 3 3_8.3 Use traditional detailing • Treat openings in walls as though they were constructed of ' the traditional material for the style_ For eYa*+~ple, be sure to provide substantial wall space above arches in stucco and stone walls. Traditiona]ly, wall space above the arch would have been necessary to_structurally span the opening, and l.lntels to make the space too small is inconsistent with the archi- tectural style. • Openings in walls faced with stone, real or synthetic, should have defined lintels above the opening except in Mtssion or Spanish Eclectic styles. Lintels map be stone, brick or wood as suits the st}~le of the house_ Treat synthetic materials as though they were authentic. For example, select synthetic stone patterns that place the indisTidual stones in a horizontal plane as they would have been in a load bearing masonry wall. ~ ' ' ` Select roof materials that are consistent with the traditional yy~ architectural style (e.g., avoid concrete roof tiles on a Crafts- man Style house. 3.8.4 Materials changes - • Make materals and color changes at inside corners rather than outside corners to avoid a pasted on look_ +F wai^? 6vstQe YES fnHfOe _ i''~"P"1ad i-~ Use stone or wood lintels over `3rgi"°° r~ ~ ~ °r""~' openings in stone walls Change rt5aterials Not at ahd wlors al ou(sFde &~s3de corners co/rrers- ` l 3.9 ADDITIONS/ACCESSORY BUILDINGS/SECONDARY w UNITS ~ ~ "ter Follow the provisions set forth in Guideline 4.9 on ~ ~ rte"=i _ ~ , page 52. - a¦ ~ ~ ~ t} Garage style, town, materials . i' ` ~ and details match Isrimary house ' Additions, accessory buildings and secondary units should match the form, architecture! style, and details of the original house Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 2008 33 Town of Los Gatos BIJR~ING DESIGN 3 3.70 ARCHITECTURAL ~ETAiL ~e~~~, ~ . - ~Y. 3.7 O.i Por~ct~es and Entries • Select cola,-.,,,s that-are traditional to the architectural style of the house. Take care in selecting columns with an ap- proptiate width to height ratio for the style. Except fora , very few styles, the columns should ha~*e appropriate caps and bases with proportions typical of the style. ~ Pro~ride a well proportioned beam between the column caps yi and the roo£ Size and detail the beam so that it looks like Prov[de beam` a convincing structural member. It should be visible both deeween ca[umns frogs inside and outside of the porch. A common problem .and roh save is to make this element of the porch too small or to face it with a material (e.g., siding) that would not carry the weight Porch beam example with good abo•ae if it were structural. For most architectural styles, depth and details molding and trim will divide the beam vertically into three y\ ~tbv ~ ~ ~ i major elements of varying height. E Railings should generally be constructed of wood unless the ~ - ' specific architectural style allows for metal or stone. Provide botls top and bottom rails with the bottom rail raised above the porch floor level. + Verlica] balusters should be appropriate to the architectural style:. Some are quite simple wlvle others may have special ~ ~ ; ~ i shapes. _ °i Tak~_ care in desigivng porch stairs. They generally should - match the porch floor (e.g, wood) or the sidewalk material Some architectural styles suggest simple if o 3-ser than concrete (e.g_, brick). columns and railings Note: Allporcber are expected to be ur¢bte and bane a minimum depth of ' Gfeet orprefera6ly more. 3.10_2 Balr_onies Avoid balconies that project more than 3 feet from tlse face . _ wr" of the building unless they are typical of the architectural _ r = ~ style. Provide supporting brackets or beams tlsat are large enough to clearly appear to provide structural support for the bal- con•~ ~ , _ - Railings should be designed as discussed above for porch .:-;r, railvsgs. For longer railings, intermediate posts with caps While others require much more refined and bases should be used to break the railing into smaller details increments. 3.70.3 Brackets • $rackets at roof overhangs, balconies and bay windows should be designed to extend to fascia/balcony edge/pro- jectingbay front or slightly beyond. Avoid stub brackets that do not appear substantial enough to support the element above. _ Residential design Guidelines 34 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 Town of Los Gatos ~ ' BUILDING DESIGN 3 3.10.4 Chimneys L Existing ` Chimneys should extend to ground level Avoid cantilevers Mew tyro one story above the ground. ~ ; _ ksome house ` Chimney materials, size, shape and height should be appro- priate to the architectural style and to the scale of the house. A~noid undersized clumnl *mneys that aze too narrow and too low. Add chimneys for gas fireplaces when the architectural style would normally feature chimneys. ` Provide chimney caps that are interesting and appropriate to the architectural style. Avoid second floor masses in locations that would block sun access to adjacent homes 3.70.5 Roof flashing and vents ` Paint flashing and vents to match the color of the roof. 3_10.6 Skylights • Fist, consider the use of roof dormers or clerestories --__ti_ti`` 1" instead of skylig~rs - _ _ _ _ • Use flat profile skylights rather than domed models. ' l~~ • Select glazing to avoid the feeling of roof beacons or lan- i terns that are highly visible from the street or neighboring properties. Avoid placing windows in locations that would look into adjacent neighbors' windows or active private yard spaces 3.71 PRIVACY AND SOLAR ACCESS 3.7 7 _1 Minimize shadow impacts on adjacent properties ` Locate structures to minimize blocking sun access to liv- ing spaces and actin*ely used outdoor areas on adjacent homes. 3_77.2 Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences ` Windows should be placed to minimize views into the living spaces and yard spaces near neighboring homes. ' When windows are needed and desired in side building walls, they should be modest in size and not directly opposite windows on adjacent homes. ` Where possible, second floor windows that might intrude on adjacent property privacy should have sill heights above eye level or have frosted or textured glass to reduce visual exposure. ` Bay windows should be avoided on side walls where they would intrude on adjacent residents' privacy ` Second floor balconies and decks should be used only when they do not intrude on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. Residential Design Guidelines Pubic Review Draft February 1 , 2008 35 Town of Los Gatos BUILDING DESIGN 3 _ _ . _ _ As a general rule, balconies and decks that are more than ~ ~ two feet above grade should try to maintain a distance of ~ ~ ~ ~~SUo 1 ten feet from side property lines and twenty feet from rear f Windows 1' ~ property lines when the adjacent use is single family resi- ~ denrial Y ' rp t When allowed, the design of railings should be tailored to the privacy concerns of neighbors (e.g., balcony or deck t , ~ side:s overlooks ~ adjacent wisidows or actively used yard i~ t ~ ~ spa~~e should be solid in form). Open rails should only ~ i ~ be Wised where privacy concems are minimal. ~ Landscaping may be used to mitigate privacy concerns Place landscaping in the shaded areas shown so tong as the landscaping does not deny solar access to on the diagram above to mitigate privacy living spaces and actively used Yazd areas of neighboring intrusions on adjacent homes homes. • Ian dscaping used for privacy screening purposes, should be of sufficient size and of an appropriate species to provide such privacy within a two year time frame. Use deciduous ruse io screen waits from Trees should betwenty-four inch box size. hot summer sun : Shrubs used to promote privacy should be fifteen gaIlon in size and six feet minimum height at planting. As :t general rule, privacy landscaping should be placed with a ccine-of-vision defined by a thirty degree angle from the side window jambs of second story windows. tJse landscaping to minimize energy usage 3.7 1.3 Deeign and plan for energy efficiency • De:;ign to minimize energy costs by selecting and locating landscaping and windows to block hot summer sun expo- sure and allow winter sun exposure. 3.17.4 Solar Panels • Locate solar panels so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of--way. • Ali€m solar panel faces with that of the underlying roof slope. Avoid panels with slopes that are different than that of the roof. • Integrate the design of panels into the design of the roo£ Avoid atacked-on appearance. 3.11.5 Minimize exterior lighting impacts on neighbors • All exterior light fixtures should utilize shields to ensure that light is directed to the ground surface and does not spill light onto neighboring parcels or produce glare when seen from nearby homes. • De~:orative residential light fii.-tures should be chosen rather thact strictly utilitarian security lighting fixtures. 11 133 Residential Design Guidelines 36 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 Town of Los Gatos ~ . BUILDING DESIGN 3 3.7 2 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN Sustainability and the conservation of natural resources are impor- tant issues to L.os Gatos residents_ Susr~inability refers to the use of natural resources in a manner that ensures their continued a~*ailability to future generations_ The Town believes that historic preservation is the most sensitive path to sustainability, but recognizes that this is not always possible, and that an emphasis on green building can be an effective means of - - promoting the conservation of natural resources. The term green building is often used to relate sustainability to de~~elopment Green building addresses a broad range of techniques to reduce the consumption of natural resources during construction and over the lifetime of a home. These include designing structures to be energy and water efficient, utilizing building materials that reduce resource consumption and improve indoor air quality, and taking maximum advantage of renewable energy resources The Green Building Strategies and Materials in Appendix D contain desiga strategies that maximize the use of renewable energy resources for heating, cooling and lighting, additional strategies that conserve energy and water, a list of building materials that reduce the consumption of nonrenewable resources and improve air qual- ity, and a list of various sources for "green building" information and their web sites. - Residential Design Guidelines Public Review Draft February 7, 2008 37 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELO7?MENT REPORT FORM Agenda-Date: May 13, 2008 Item Summary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements RECOMMENDATION: Discuss this item, then note and file this report. BACKGROUND: On Tuesday May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission work program to include a review of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirement. The Council directed that the Planning Comm;ssion wrap up your work in September and present the recommendation to the City Council in October 2008. ' DISCUSSION: The Council direction limited the amendment to considering if the second floor to first floor ratio should be changed.. The Commission is not authoriied to evaluate changing second story setbacks or other elements of the ordinance such as the overall floor area ratio. Council members voiced concern that the 45% second floor to first floor ratio inadvertently encourages homeowners to increase the size of the first. flocir to ensure the second floor proportion is Large enough to accommodate the desired number of bedrooms. Also, concern was expressed that the current formula results in a repetitive style of "wedding cake" architecture. For example a "Victorian" or "Queen Anne ' style of architecfizre is difficult to design with the current rule. Staff anticipates that the Commission will need to address the amount of exposed second floor wall plane as this rule directly relates to the issue of potentially allowing the first and second floor wails to align. The C_ omm;GSion will needl to assess if some alternate method of breaking up the wall plane should be considered such as awning or trellis elements. Finally, the Commission may need to consider alternate rep?iew procedures for applicants taking advantage of any amendments. Staff will seizd out achy-wide mailer and attempt to provide articles in the Cupertino Scene and on the web site to keep the public informed of this review. Staff anticipates the item will be ready for the Planning Commission in July 2008_ In.the meantime staff will evaluate if this change will potentially delay any other work program items. Submitted byc Steve Piasecki, Director of Con~ununity Developmen~~-t..,i 11 -.'135 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 September 9, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • Concun•ed with Com. Brophy's position; and said that since th FXI1~b~ Council commu ated this and it was communicated tot app business to reduce o ange the fee structure. Howe ,she nd _ the project would not be a roved today had that rip. en agreed to; they would have required less density, more open spat, within the proje~t~itself, and more amenities. She agreed that it should be passed onto the City 6 until. Com. Kaneda: j • Said he also agreed with Com. Brophy, anci_had no further comment. Com. Rose and Chair Mille3:'~~ • Said they both agreed with previous comments. Motion: Mo by Com. Brophy, second by Com. K\\\an , to forward Application 008-04 to the City Council without recommen ion. (Vote: 5-0.O) OLD BUSINESS 2. MCA-2008-03 Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family Rl Ordinance City of Cupertino (Section 19.28A60) regarding the allowed ratio of the second Citywide Location floor building area compared to the fnst floor building area. The Revised Ordnance will"consider adjusting the allowed ratio to facilitate greater architectural diversity, but will not- consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an R1 lot or changing the required second story setbacks. Continued from the August 26, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled. Gary Chao, Senior Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • On May 6, 2008, the City Council as part of their 2007-08 work program directed staff to look at review of the Rl ordinance specifically regarding the second floor to ground floor ratio. The direction was to have the Planning Commission review and provide recommendations back to the Council by Oct. 2008. hz 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 Co*~**>;ssion 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. 7n 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. • hz 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 11 - 136 Cupertino Planning Commission September 9, 2008 architects wanting to go through this voluntairy 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 exceF~tion process does not currently have any specific provisions that allow us to ensure visual relel~se 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 fr:3mework: 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. 7n 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 too highlight are the second floor to ground floor ratio; we are suggesting that be allowed to exceeded. Also in conjunction with that rule, we aze proposing that the second floor setback surchazge 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 aze expected to be larl~er; 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 away to address that rule or satisfy that 50% rule. . • Said there doing this because the existing Rl 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 aze 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 oi' 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. 11 -'137 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 September 9, 2008 • Other related minor ordinance changes that the Planning Co*n*++ission 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 Imow the ordinance is pretty prescriptive. As long as the color is not out of whack with the neighborhood, most likely it is an approval; that is what it is designed to do. It is the prescriptive nature in the Rl ordinance. With this new voluntary process for people wanting to exceed the 45%, what we are saying is, that in exchange to allow people to have a larger second floor, we are suggesting additional - design principles which were outlined already earlier that are not covered by the current Rl 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 Piaseclsi: • 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? - - 1 1 - '138 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, highier 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 I:o 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 azticulate 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 braking 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 recommend<<tion 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 malting 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 11 - 139 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 September 9, 2008 • being compatible with the neighborhood. It is a good thing to allow different flavors of style homes in a neighborhood. Chair Miller: • Said there may be an inconsistency with the existing wording of the ordinance. Steve Piaseclci: • I think what staff is saying is that the problem you are describing, doesn't go away with this. The fact that we are asking people when they bring their building in, tell us what it is, tell us what it is, what is this animal you are trying to construct, and if it is Calif. Ranch fine, if it is Craftsman fine. But your point is well taken, you are still going to get potentially the azgument 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. Chair Miller: • Referred to No. 7 of the design principles "the design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance", and said that it was already in the ordnance, and he was concerned with that. He illustrated a book by Dahlen Group, a renowned architect who shows lots of good and tasteful examples of symmetry and asymmetry. Said he always had a problem with the issue of lining . up all the doors and windows as it doesn't always make good architectural design to do that. Steve Piasecld: • 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. - 11 - 140 Cupertino Planning Commission 9' September 9, 2008 • You could take No. 7 and say as a rule that you shouldn't strive for this, that some variations are acceptable, but they need to be done tastefully. Com. Kaneda: • This modification only applies when people are proposing to go over 45% on the second floor. (.Stafj`r Yes; if they exceed the 4S% ratio) If they stay under, it is the current rule. I would suggest we think about is if we are going to do this, let's do it or not do it; not write this arbitrary. You get to some arbitrary 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 ge# built. • In most cases I like diversity; it is race 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 items 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, Com**.~ssion or Council goes through in masking 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 try 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 azchitects 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 azchitects who are usually looking to do good designs, they look at these rules; these aze 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. 11 - 141 Cupertino Planning Commission 1 O September 9, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • )n 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 properly Iooking 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 Iiterally 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 Rl-5 areas; there may be some special provisions to get at what you are talking about, ensuring that the mass is not excessive. Steve Piasecldi: • Said if you have a 5,000 square foot lot, 50 by 100, the 45% overall floor area ratio limits you to a 2,250 square feet home. Already you have a smaller house. The setback requirements of 1 O and 15 on the side yards force that house into the center of the lot as they would on a larger lot. You are getting 1 125 square feet, let's say you want 100% on the ground floor and on the second floor. You have the setbacks of 10 and 15, you are at 1125, you have to provide adornments and trellises or something to break up that building mass. Proportionally everything stays about the same and it doesn't really matter; you can argue that the position of the setbacks doesn't change as you get smaller. You have a greater obligation in terms of the relative size of your lot compared to a 10,000 square foot lot. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that was the argument made when they changed the Rl 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 Piaseclci: • 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 aught look. ' Com. Rose: • The way this has been approached, it sounds tike 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 11 - 142 Cupertino Planning Commission 1 .l 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 Piasecld: • 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 malting 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 a# 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 Piasecld: • Said that Page 2-8 shows a Mediterranean or Spanish home with a gable. Ile said the ordinance was designed to please the neighbor. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Requested that all speakers given the same amount of speaker time, whether a resident or an architect. Said that the method of giving 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 hom+s 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 avvay from monster homes. It is going to become neighbor to neighbor as it was in the pre-9Us 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 Iikely 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 tale 2,400 squaze 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 corning 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 1~ity 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's box and it would happen all the way across the city. • Eight years and nobody believed building codes could change; Rl 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 11 - 143 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 anymore 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 Iots 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%, Iower than 50% ]seep 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 i i - i as 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 weill designed one with two story, about 800 squaze feet. • That piece of architecture is well done plus they have an architectural review by not only the' Planning Commission but also outside consuiltant. 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 ordinanc<: became very prescriptive and it was costly and took too much time. Tom TotYgh, Cupertino resident: • Said he wanted to share his experience of ttie 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 i_he 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 wa:: 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 fnancials 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 Piasecld: • 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 oi- 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 11 - 145 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 fiom a construction standpoint, but it requires builders to use much more material and it is environmentally not the best way to design. 'T'here 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 ~i-ias Cupertino Planning Commission 1 `_i 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 tYie Rl 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 lazger 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 anew 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 aII 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 ow• decision boiled right down to the bare bones of that ordinance, and so if the bare bones of ghat 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 Eandscaping 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 aze 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 horses, 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. i i - ia~ 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 mos# 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 azchitecture through some process; but I guess given the -other clauses within the Rl ordinance, I just don't feel comfortable that the gains would be worth it. • At this stage, I will likely vote No- Vice Chair Giefer: • It seems to me that everyone who has spoken so far is in favor of promoting our architectural diversity wi#h in Cupertino; the problem is, how do we do it; plus protect the neighbor's privacy as well as the person who is building the proposed home. • I agree that the proposal before us does not solve the key issue that I hear from people in neighborhoods, which is the new home is invasive, it is #oo 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. • >n 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 no# 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- s 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 11 -'148 Cupertino Plarming Commission 17 September 9, 2008 necessarily by reducing the overall floor to arc:a ratio but by instilling stricter setbacks. Before 1999, they didn't have any first floor to seco~.nd floor ratio, and in 1999 they made it 35% of th4e first floor. There was some discussion ab~~ut 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 Imow 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 a,nd 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 tt~e 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 lazger on the first story. • The next thing that went through my mind vvas listening to Com. Kaneda's comment which was a good one, and that is that if we are €;oing 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 arc 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 ~;ase; 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 11 - '149 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 Piasecl~i: • 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 beaz 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 aze 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 diff-icult 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 Rl 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 aze, 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 11 - 150 Cupertino Planning Commission 1 q 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 #o 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 ase not at liberty to do that unless we ask Council is they would want to reconsider that particuls~r 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 Y~enefits, given the stress on the community and unhappiness between neighbors, will not outv~reigh 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 Rl because there are other things in 11 - 151 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 Iazge diversity of architecture; do they have a similaz Architectural Review Boazd 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 abetter use of their time is to focus on what is the right response to Council. Do we want to send this back to them and say No, it doesn't work, we want to add an Architectural Review for all second stories to try to promote architectural diversity, because that seems to work in neighboring communities wherc 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. ii -is2 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 maj ority 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 Corn. Brophy say that he is hesitant on sending a recormnendation 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 i£ there was any reason for them to asl: 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 he<<ring 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 con-emitting 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 1:hey not go forward with the change to the first floor second first floor ratio unless at the very leas# 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. Srophy'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. 11 - 153 Cupertino Planning Commission 22 September 9, 2008 Chair Miller: • We both know that opening up the Rl 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 Rl 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 Rl 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 farst 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 Rl 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 Rl, FAR and second story ratio. Com. Kaneda: • Said he felt they were talking about three things; the requirements of the Rl FAR, the requirements of the Rl 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 RI ; it is prescriptive, and you can do just about what you want. ii-isa 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 standpe~int. Steve Piaseclci: • The flip side of what we are talking about is iust 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 secoi~d 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". Corn. Brophy: • Said he thought there was a good case to be made for being clear that is what they wanted to look at. Once again, if they say No, it would 1>e a dead subj ect and move on. Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Vice Chair Giefer, that the Planning Commission does not recommend tlhe 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 !:econd floor to first floor ratio. (Vote: 41-0; Chair Miller No) NEW SINESS• None REPORT O THE l'LANNIN COMMISSIO:nT Environmental R 'ew Com ttee: No mee~zng. Housing Commission: o meeting. Ma or's Monthl Meetin 't ommissioners: No report. Economic Development ommittee: No meeting. 11 - 155 Cupertino Planning Commission 23 July 2008 Vice Clair Giefer. • One because it is not specifically stated here; and as we are IXH~B~ E and other p kfggs, we are going to have abutting uses to one ano that wherever po le, we are not chopping up par ots ingresslegress between varied ownership. For ple, if for any reason xose tsowl had parking access that abutted u the Sand Hi operty, and there were two different parking lots, I would want one to be able tra both of ffiose land ownership parking lots and not have any baYriers separa ' o parking lots; so I would lr7ce it to be specifically stated that "all parking Iota :accessible een the different ownership groups." Said she agreed with amendin to allow for the protec ' of residential It is between. the commerciaVreta' aces; residential I agree should be tested, so I am not including that, but for your mmercial parking, anybody should be able k anywhere where they can fmd a space. She said because it is under multiple ownership, s ould like it to be very obvious that that is the expectation. Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Com. Kaneda, to recommend approval of the Master Plao as amended. (Vote: S-0.O) Chair Miller declared a recess. 4. MCA-2008-03 Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family Rl Ordinance City of Cupertino (Section 19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second Citywide Location floor building area compared to the £rrst floor building area_ The Revised Ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to facilitate greater architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or degreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or changing the required second story setbacks. Conirrsuedfrom the May l3, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the stafY report: - • Reviewed the background of the application for discussion of the Rl 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 Rl and the current regulations • Relative to Ure 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 alsq 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, mea_*+±*+g 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 R7 Ordinance limits diversity of architecture. As part of the la§t Rl 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 11 -'156 Cupertino Planning Commission ~:4 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, ibut the focus should be on allowing people some flexibility of the redo 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 tts the dominant. architechire 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 restricdo(hi 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 Plaaner: • 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 fording 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, -a Ensure appropriate building mass and scale; Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the stricture (maintain symmetry, proportion and balance). • It preserves the existing 45% Wile, but if one: wishes to exceed that, we could facilitate that process in exchange for better architecture and more diversity. The principles aro 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 thing:; already touched upon. The decision of the Director may be appealed w the Design Review Committee. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt the Rl Ordinance amendment as proposed with the provision to also cover the 50'/° maximum second story wall exposure rule. Chair Miller: • Asked staff to review the process and the Type of review that goes on today for two story residences in Cupertino. Gary Chao: • All two stories are discretionary review; it is staff level approval; however, we would advertise 11 - 157 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 bo be posted in front of the project situ 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 Committeo. • The process for s second story greater than 45% is the same as what is being done now; it has bcen noticed already. It will be treated at star' level with neighborhood notification. Staff is suggesting that the decision of the Director can be appealed to the DRC. Presently there are no design guidelines or instructions how to treat some of the plain facades that may be prevalent in a more traditional architectural style. • Staff is suggesting that there be a special process and review process for that purpose with detailed guidelines for people wishing to exceed their second floor ratio. Vice Chair Giefer: • Recalled than when the Rl was reviewed, she and Com. Miller were the only two Commissioners still serving who were part of the process; the Committee determined that they wanted it to be as prescriptive as possible to eliminate the necessity of design guidelines and to incorporate as many of those features direcxly into the RI . Steve Piaseckl: • 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 tare 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 ekes 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 &nm architects or local home builders relative to 'the proposed changes? Gary Chao: • Said they have spoken to several Local architects who have done work in town and they all agree that if you were to tweak the second floor 45% ratio without tweaking the 50% rule, it is not going to work. Many of them admit what we have now; they have their system down in terms of satisfying their clients needs, and at the same time designing something that is acceptable to staff However, they do recognize the fact that it is pretty much it; everything is going to look Iike 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 lets to be objectionable. I was wondering if that was a problem. People get unhappy if you want to build something that is di$'erent from what the neighbors i~-i5s Cupertino Planning Commission 26 3uly 8, 2008 have; and I was wondering whether or not we are opening up a new can of worms hero, Gary CHao: • We have heard that before as well. That is vvhy 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 tot 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 Piaseclci: • Said it was important to note that what is beirig suggested is if you want to go in this direction, you need to replace ii with something like thi::. 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 c;[ear that the policy is to be skeptical of exception requests, especially for those homes that ar+e a1: 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 sutomaticapy not allowed. Gary Chao: • There is a process for that; it would be an R 1 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 Piaasecld: • 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 dais house? 11 -'159 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'/e 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 waU 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 soma vertical wall on the same elevation and some roof being used to serve as that cover Cons. 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 wore 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 mako 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 tho process. He said even though ho liked the concept, how would it be done in real Life? Steve Piasecld: • 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 aro con•ect, and the communities that exerciso this level of design review, it can be torture. • For the rocord, staff' did not bring this forward, but we are trying to give you a method that will be between the two extremes, and the only one we can think of is we have a higher expectation of design, the proof is in the pudding, talk to your neighbors, bring it to the DRC or staff first, and if it looks like some of the pictures shown, we are likely going to approve it and anyone can appeal it If it is anything significantly less than that, then we are not going to approve it will go to the DRC, and you are likely going to have a fight with your neighbors. The biggest rub here is people spend a lot of money designing houses, and they don't want to get too far down the line before they know that they have a winner. It can be 1 O% or I S% 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 Pissocki: • Said them 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. i~-iso Cupertino Planning Commission 28 July 8, 2008 Com_ Kaneda: • Said he was concerned about matching the ;predo**~inR.,t 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, Meditenanean style, developer-looking California suburban homes which are now locked int?o that, and all the homcs in that neighborhood theoretically have to match that style. Steve Piaseclci: ' • Said it was an excellent point, and said it was oi~'ered 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; he~wever, it is extremely difficult to get the super majority to agree. Com_ Rose: • Asked questions how many homes one tom d~~wn and rebuilt per year, single family tgwo story residences; (sta„~resporrded aborEt SO; major remodels with removal of a large portion of the house would be between 100-ISO per year.) • Are a lot of builders building less than they are allowed to based on their lot ratios and second floor ratios; is there a trend toward people being more concerned about a certain style of home or are they prioritizing how much house they can get on the lot based o» 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 heatinEr, people complain about why they can't build a bigger house, but most of the houses coming %n are coaxed out. What we are hearing is people saying they wished they could have done something different; you aro designing my house for • me; the home owner doesn't have a lot of flexibility, but doing as prescribed. Corn. 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 appliques and features that one could incorprn-ate into it that will address the concern. He said ' that many of thc Mediterranean homes in Ctpertino are not true to form. The genuine style have a lot of recessed windows, canYilivers, atYactive materials that go into the design. • He said that indirectly the design is locked in when a plan set is spprnved, 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 Piatteclci: • Said that people max out to the 45% overall iioor area ratio; if the house sells and sells again ~ ~ - tat 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 MiIIer 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 them 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 ~°*+r+ot 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 io 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 itt 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 branch, 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 required an imposed setback from the fast plane. The existing house doesn't have sheer walls, or a foundation suflicient 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 Gritiln, Rancho Rinconada resident: • She questioned why they were reopening the R1 ordinance; it is completely difl'ereat 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 R2; we are basically reopening the entire thing. • She exprossed concero about the monster homes and creating big boxes, and Rancho it-isz Cupertino Planning Commission 30 July 8, 2008 Rinconada is going to have to have a special zoning, Rl-R, just lake Fairgrove, the Eichler community. We have lots that are less than 5,000 square feet, my house is 800 sq. 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 sheet 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 cooks 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 ]citchen and backyard. The reason why we have Ri today; if we are going down this road, let's reopen the entire thing; I have spent hours and hours in this pity in these meetings discus.:ing 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 coda. Let's do i~ I<:t's have every possible little building restriction; let's limit the colors to six colons like you do with the Victorian in Los Gatos. hz my neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada we need second story setbacks, we need neighbors' privacy to maintain our lovely wedding cake .homes and some of our old Rancho homes. Matt ICamkar, Cupertino r~ideat: • 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 tho 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 homebuiIder has a choice between the property on our side of the border vs. San Jose that goes to Cupertino schools, they wo~ild chose the San Jose side and take the city of the opportunity to gel 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% role. Denais Liu, Capertino resident: • I am a developer and curnsntiy working with Fin architect to design a new house in Cupertino area and I just found out ii is very difficult with the 45% law; my architect said it was impossible to build a two story house with theee bedrooms oa the same floor. As you know most of the family in this area that still have more than one child, so with this 45% tole, you can only build a maximum of two rooms on ithe same floor: We have foroed the family to separate the children on a different floor, which creates a difficulty for some of the families. I work with maay realtors in this area and they t,~ld me that they are all facing this problem; the young family moving into the area really like the education system in Cupertino-and Gave 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: • Said he was in favor of eliminating the 45% hale. It is another example of efforts to reduce 11 - 163 cope,-rir,o Planning coinmissior, s l ~ July s, zoos good architectural design to mathematical formulas; and it will fail every time. • Relative to the 50% rule, he said he hoped they were tallung about the wall plane issue, not just changing the FAIT; upstairs to .5. (Stca,,~said the 5036 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 elm'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. Seems Mlttal, 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 ar+e 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 difl"icult to bring up those objections because they are not quantitative; they era qualitative. It is easy 'to enforce numbers but ditl•'icult to enforce something subjective. I think if there were graphic design guidelines and if the Rl code said that neighbors' concerns regarding view, sunlight, privacy; because there are options how you design upper stories; you have to keep the context in mind; you have to see what is going on in the neighboring houses; you can't just completely ignore it and say that you meet your numbers, so I have met the design criteria and I will sail through. • Said she had no objection to the inct+ease, 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. Seems Mfttal: • Said that the Rl 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 Moor 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 it-ts4 Cupertino Planning Commission 32 July 8, 2008 home which is referred to as the wedding ct~lce style, and it is not allowing people to design and build other styles of homes. • I wish I could feel co~dent 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 :cquire:ment 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 oppoutunity to build as big as you can, you do. Staff validated that poiirt 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 forgers that the builder and the staff aces going to be working in sync to use architectural features to min.m.~p the bulk of that house_ 1 just don't feel comfortable with that much gray area when it comes to new deveaopmem. • What stag 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 diflicult to say a house has to have a friendly presence to the; street. I think everyone could have a digere;nY - idea of what that means, so although I Iike 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 Rl, we should be looking at the much bigg~ar picture than what we ate 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 dexided otherwise. Given that theoretically it has always boon-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 m 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 op 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 duce 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 flue 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 stag in conflict with the property owners quite a bit of the time, and property owners w6 frequently heard that they ware delayed by staff, so when I think about putting the design guidelines which when we approved the Rl, which I don't think I voted for the current Rl, when we did approve that ss a body, the majcsr 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~~vhat we are hearing today as well. ii-iss 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 R! policy. I think that we are not directed to review the 50% wall ratio aQd so if we ane going to go back to Council and say yes let's do this and we recommend further review of the 50%, there are a lot of other things I would rather review • in the Rl than the 50% wall ratio and the change to the first second story ratio. I think there are a lei more compelling things we should look at in the Rl. When we moved forward on the last R1 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 desiga 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 io be part of that neighborhood, you are not going to disrupt the neighborhood; you will improve your property because it will via a via improve the neighborhood, but our Rl doesn't really care about the neighborhood; it cares about the rights of the incoming property owner to come in and build whatever they want to build, and if it is an attractive building, I support it_ I think we need to do that. If it is a spec home that is being built as cheaply as can and as large as possible, then I think it aeeds greater scrutiny. • If we were going to move forward on the R1, 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. Coin. 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, aad 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 m 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 lei 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 teIIing you it dcesn'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 lVliller: • I have never been in favor of limiting the second story, for many of the reasons that the speakers have addressed. • Matt Kamkar discussed the fact that you gel more green space and you have less runoff to deal i~-ass Cupertino Planning Commission a4 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 them 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 vertices[ 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 building:;. 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 bc; 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 sae 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 difTerent the area looks great. Willow Glen's resale values are up ther.+e 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 neight~orhood compatibility, some people take it to the point of what I call neighborhood conformity. Every house has to look the same; and vve have had people come up and argue in neighborhoods where most of the neighborhood was ranch houses built after World War II and argued that it has to be a ranch house in the World War II style and I just don't agree with that. I don't think that adds to the character of Cupertino_ • The other issue that staff' brought up as anothrr 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 Commission,~rs 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. >f 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 PIanning Commission to review, would that be acceptable. ~~-~s~ Cupertino Planning Commission 35 July 8, 2008 Com_ Kaneda: • Said it would be acceptable if staff presented a specific sat of guidelines for further review. Com. Roae: • Said the examples everyone is giving of this new plan are homes that people aren't wanting to build in Cupertino, and I don't think it is a matter of not being able to because as pointed out, there is an avenue to build any kind of home you want; you just have to get an exception and the process that we are looking at would include additional DRC review anyway. • I am wondering if we should list some certain design styles, because I would be comfortable with that. My concern because what I see is a predominant Mediterranean style home and I see it where there were not second floor ratios that were built 1O 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 ss 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 Iike 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. Clair 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 io 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 arc 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 -isa Cupertino Planning Commission 36 July 8, 2008 happening. My feeling is that before we jump into something like this, there nceds 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 ffiem to da is, you don't want to talk t,o 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 wiil 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 anymom; we fixed that when we changed the ordinance 3 years ago. Coro. 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 ffic ordinance, the community has to get . together and make ffieir neighborhood a single story only neighborhood like Fairgrove. 7f the ordinance allows it, it is very rare ffiat you are going to get a situation in which the DRC or this body is going to oveRUrn 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 alI a very bad thing, but it is a big ffinng and it is something that needs to be thought about and if we are really trying to have houses tike Gary put on here, which I am not really seeing unless you go out to Rancho. If wo re:aIIy want ffiat 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. Coro. 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 followe~9 the ordinance. Coro. Rowe: • 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 difl'er+ent details for each type of house we are going to get; but I think the re:slity is, is what people really want to bciild 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? (Sta•,(9''said it was ZOO%) • Has stall' evaluated the conflicting language of the proposed modifications to the ordinance based on the rest of the language in the Rl, because you are giving different directions. Steve ]Piasecla: _ • Clarified you could even go more than 100% if you take out the 45% rule, second floor to fast floor. You have two distinctive processes in tlhe ordinance; that is why you lost the conflict. You can follow tho old rules or you can come in and follow the new rules in which case you ii -iss Cupertino Planning Commission 37 Jnly 8, 2008 are goumg 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 carne 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 li7ce 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 R2; there is so much passion that goes into it; we heard it the last time we went through this; everybody has an interest in Rl. It couldn't hurt to wait 4 to 6 weeks and let us take a shot to drill down on some of the questions and issues to see i£ we can fmd better language that will provide better levels of comfort. Vice Chair Giefer. • Said she did not feel it accomplished the goal; I think we are going to have a lot of unintended consequences of this because we are taking a quick swag at this; which is what I think it is; let's just take the dial and move it over here now and wait 5 years, and see what is billed to the city. I don't think we can do that. Steve Piasecki: • Asked if the concern was that they would end up with stucco boxes with concrete roofs with appliqu8s and a few treIIises. Vice Chair Giefer. • The public is going to feel as though we are back to the pro-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 boen 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 wero saying; and would rather try to address the problem than not address it, and Council has not given them the latitude to open the entire Rl, so it is what it is and there is a consensus for letting stag'give it a try. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda to let staff take aaother look at ft; to iaclude some language about strong discouragement of ezcepdoas to second story setbacks regairemeats for any changes. Steve Piaseclri: ~ 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. ~~-~~o Cupertino Planning Commission :38 July 8, 2008 Second: Corn. Kaaeda Com. Kaneda: • Dces 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 Piasecld: • That is what the other cities are doing. T7ye 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 Rl 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 stafFdoes-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 refene it, so it wouldn't take a lot of time from any individual architect to do that_ Steve Piasecld: • 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.) 5. Discpss\\ion of the pre-review optioa for the development pro ta. Steve Plasecl~ resented the staff report: • Said that the cil sent it back to the Planning fission asking' that they expand the noticing and look ome other options, spcxifi y the oae seen in So. Vallco that in the cases of some larger de menu, perhaps so a sort of expanded community review process is appropriate; otherwise tak other look all the options for early review. We have given you the verbatim transcript whic as make it clearer exactly what is intended. This is one given the lateness of the hour, we make a greater outreach and with more notice, we could get more developers top cipate. Keith Murphy: • Said the proposal battling as to what its real be twill be; I understand the idea of talking with dev opera about future applications they may t to bring in front of the city and how may the community might feel about that or how eels about chat. I have a real problem it sets up the city for a lot of legail problems, would lik a city attorney's input, and if feels it will be more of a problem for the city or is it rea ing to solve the pro ms that we think it is. Is the city attorney going to be part of this p s to be able to monitor some of these meetings and see if the}~ really are going in the right d' which the Planning Commission and City Council would like them to; or are they going to be more of a ii -iii Exhibit ~ ORDINANCE NO. 09-20XX TILE CITY COUNCIL. OF TI-IE CTF'Y OF CUPERTINO DOES I-IEREBY 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. 19.28A20 Applicability of regulations. 19.28.030 Permitted uses. 19.28.040 Conditional uses. 19.28A50 Development regulations (site)_ 19.28.060 Development regulations (building). 19.28.070 Landscape requirements. 19.28.080 Permitted yard encroachments. 19.28.090 Minor residential permit. 19.28.100 Two-story residential permit. 19.28.110 Exceptions. 19.28.120 Development regulations-Eichler (R1-e)_ 19.28.130 Development regulations-(R1-a). 19.28.140 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.010 Purposes_ R-1 single-family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods; B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable IeveI of privacy to individual residential parcels; i i - ns 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), i 992) 19.28_020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R-1 single-family residence district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord_ 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh_ A (part), 1992) 19.28.030 Permitted Uses. The following uses sl~ll-be are permitted in the R-1 single-family residence district. A. Single-family use; S_ A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19.82, except for those seco~id 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 th~~ provisions of Chapter 19.92; E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products, •a~rc~ F_ Residential care facility that is licensed b;y 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; L 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 firom 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; 11 - 173 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 [he 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 vaziations 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 aone-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 2. Group care activities with greater than six persons; 3. Residential care facilities that fall into the following categories: a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider family or staff; b. Facility that has the appropriate State, County agency or department license and seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential caze facility; 11 -'174 4. Congregate residence with eleven or miore 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 reaz yard area par occupant. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord_ 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand squaze feet} following the R-1 zoning symbol. Examples are ass follows: Zoning Symbol Number Minimum Lot p.rea in Square Feet R1 5 5,000 R 1 6 6,000 R 1 7.5 7,500 R 1 1 O 10,000 R1 20 20,000 2_ Lots, which contain less azea than required by subsection A(1) of this section, but not Less than five thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title aze fulfi led. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width sl~Fl~a is sixty feet measured at the front-yard setback line, except in the Rl-5 district where the minimum Iot 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 f I he are developed in accordance with the foilowin€; site development standards: i~-ins _¢yaz~. 1'.< ~m~ Y ~ F r f„ ~ -~~r y s~° r4. d ~ _ -a NAT . x_53• a. Site Grading_ i_ All site grading ~e ~e 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 :'~~bc are~ivided equaliy among the participating lots, e_g., two lots sharing a driveway will divide the driveway grading quantity in haI£ 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. AlI cut and fill areas ~e are rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping which meets the requirements in Section 19.40.OSOG. iii_ A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and the City Engineer, submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen out and fill slopes. iv_ If the flat yard area (excluding driveways) exceeds 2,000 square feet or the cut plus fill of the site exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the applicant sl3a~l~a 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 Co**~**~;ssion in accordance with Chapter 19.134 of the Cupertino Municipal Code_ ~~-~~s 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 se<:ond 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 linnited 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 ~kafl-be 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 t~o 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 removals 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 ands 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 e]Ffect at that time_ (Ord. 2011, 200'7; 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 tot coverage ~a 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 . ~~-n~ (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 shall-lia is forty-five percent. I 2. The maximum floor area of a second story °'~~e is forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is greater. 3. The Director of Communitv Development ma~grant approval to a second floor to first floor ratio erecter than 45% provided that the following design princi-pies are met. These design principles are further explained in the "City of Cupertino Two Storv Design Principles" document. a. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided; b. Design features. proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style selected: c. Visual relief shall be provided: The following visual relief techniques shall be provided if appropriate for the style of the residence: 1. Second floor setbacks or horizontal and vertical wall plane changes 2. Pop outs and bay windows 3. Material and color changes 4. Wide overhangs with projecting brackets 5. Juliet balconies and inset balconies 6_ Window boxes and pot shelves 7. Landscaped trellises and lattices 8. Belly bands and window trim - 9. Extended or wrap around porches 10. Recessed doors and windows 11. Or other similar architectural/landscaping features deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Communitv Development d. Materials shall be of high qualityi e. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale: £ Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure: ii-ins g. The design shall reflect svnunetrv, proportion and balance. 4. The Director of Community Developnent may elevate projects exceeding the 45% second floor to ground floor ratio to the Design Review Committee for_review if deemed appropriate_ ~ 5. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have the mass and bulk of a two-story house and °'~~a 'tee are counted as floor area. a. If the house is a two-story house, this are~i 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-famiay residential guidelines. The Director of Conmiunity 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 e_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 l:~uilding 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 shaII not be a three-car wide drivev?ay 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. i_ Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more_ j. All second story roofs should have at ]east cone-foot overhang. D. Setback-First Story_ 1. Front Yard_ The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback °s..~~ is a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two -~~s 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 Iot is twelve feet. The other side yazd 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. Reaz 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 Iot 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~econd Story. 1. Front and Reaz Yazds. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. 2. Side Yazd. The combination of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except that no second-story side setback may be less than ten feet. a. In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is twenty feet from any property line. b. In the case of a comer lot, a minimum of twelve feet from a street side property line and twenty feet from any rear property line of asingle-family dwelling. 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section. F. Basements. 1. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house with a basement, one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide and up to ten feet long. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback ~~-~ao area, except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightweIl retaining wall ~ is five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwela retaining wall ~ is ten feet. 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public ~:treet shall be screened by landscaping. 4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwe11.2005 S-4 5. The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the Director of Community Development. G. Height. 1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R1 zone shall not exceed twenty-eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances. 2. Building Envelope (One Story). a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: 1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; 2. Atwenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peals 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 ~'~~e is fourteen feet measured front 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 ~ ~ - tai designation to the R 1 zoning district. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similar unenclosed features. L 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 i s twenty feet. I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord_ 1834, (part), 1999: Ord_ 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh_ A (part), 1992) 19.28.070 Landscape Requirements. To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and 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 ~'-~e are required on the applicant's property to screen views from second-story windows. The area where planting is required is bounded by athirty-degree angle on each side window jamb. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. ~ ~ - 182 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 t~~ 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 owne:r. Modifications can include changes to the number of shrubs or trees, their species or locatio:n_ C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new two-story homes and two-story additions must plant a tree in front of new second stories in the front yard setback area. The tree shall be 24 inch-box or lazger, with a minimum height of six feet. The Director of Community Development can waives 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 shalll maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs. The list s~~includes allowed plant species, minimum size of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and planting dist~cnce 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 tike tree(s) being replaced, unless it is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Community Development. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.080 Permitted Yard Encroachments. A. Where a building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction, encroaches upon present required yards and setbacks, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building lines if the addition receives a Minor Residential Permit and conforms: to the following: 1. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback and the height of the existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. 2. The maximum length of the extension is fifteen feet. 11 - 183 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 she is permitted for the life of such building. I 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. 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 malting all of the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. 2_ The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 3_ The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood_ 4_ Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. C. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action by fast 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. ~~-isa 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 cone-yeaz a:xtension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development a Minor Residential Permit can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications.(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28_100 Two-Story Residential Permiit_ Two-story additions or two-story new homes require aTwo-Story Residential Permit in accordance with this section_ Two-story projects with a floor area ratio under 35% shall require a Level ITwo-Story Residential Permit, while atwo-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 ~~f real property (as shown in the Iast 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 shaII 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 knovrn, 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 after the date the notice is posted; e_ A black and white orthographic rendering of the front of the house, at least eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting. B_ Notice of Application (Level 11~. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the subject property_ The notice shall invite ~~-ass 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 aone-year extension, without a public notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to the Two-Story Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided_ G. Concurrent Applications_ At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, a Two-Story Permit can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28_110 Exceptions. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19.28.060, 19.28.070 and 19.28.120 may be granted as provided in this section_ A_ Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Community ii-ass Development Department shall set a time and pla~~e 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 ~.vithin 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 justificafion 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 of visible second story wall area is reduced to the maximum extent possible_ b_ The except to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. c_ The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. . 2. Issued by the Design Review Committee. The Design Review Committee may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulations described in Section 19.28.060, except 19.28.060 G(4) and Section 19.28.130 upon making all of the following findings= a. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. b. The proposed development will not be 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 ii-i8~ abutting properties. (Ord_ 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.120 Development Regulations-Eicliler (Rl-e)_ Rl-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 ~,,~o-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) a is considered a guideline in the R1-e district. I 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. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000) ii-iss 19_28.130 Development Regulations-(Rl-a). R1-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots_ Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned R1-a. In the event of a conflict between other regulations vi 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 13e 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 squaze feet in azea_ 2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one thousand one hundred squaze feet in azea. 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. Reaz Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is forty feet. 4. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.060 E(3) does not apply in this district. F. Second-story Regulations. 1. Second story decks shall conform to the second-story building setbacks, and may be located on the front and rear only. 2. The second-story shall not cantilever over afirst-story wall plane. 3. The front-facing wali plane(s) of the second-story must be offset a minimum of three feet from the first-story wall plane(s). The intent o.F this regulation is to avoid atwo-story wall plane on the front elevation. ~~-gas 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. 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) email--lie is considered a guideline in the R1-a district_ I 4_ Garages. The maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be twenty- five feet, which will accommodate atwo-car garage. Additional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a detached accessory structure at the rear of the property. L. Permitted Yard Sncroachments_ 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. 11 - 190 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 yazd a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that n~~ architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliazy structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. 3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches aze 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 proportionate y greater height than its width. Use of this yazd 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. L.ow, open fencing for porches axe allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback area. d. Eave Height. The cave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the. neighborhood. e. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback_ M. Landscaping. 1. Landscaping plans ~'~'_.~c are required fir 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 i~-isi 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 azborist citing conflict with existing mature trees_ N_ Design Review Findings. 1. Findings. The Design Review Comm;ttee 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 welfaze_ 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 Rl zones, the Director of Community Development shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of thischapter consistent with the legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation of the chapter by the Director of Community Development may petition the Planning Commission in writing for review of the interpretation_ (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord_ 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh_ A (part), 1992) ~ ~ - ~ s2 Exhibit E Piu Ghosh From: Traci Caton on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 8:47 AM To: Gary Chao; Steve Piasecki; Piu Ghosh Subject: i=w: R-1 Residential City Council discussion FYI Original Message----- From: Robert Kirby [mailto:Robert.Kirby@comcast_nett Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 7:53 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: R-1 Residential City Council discussion = recently received the Cupertino city mailing on this topic. Have council members who have received political contributions from donors connected with the home construction and/or re~a1 estate industries recused themselves Prom the discussions, for conflict of interest? Thank Yyu. Robert Kirby, Ph.D 915 Ferngrove Dr Cupertino, CA 95014 408-255-0180 1 11 -'193 Page 1 of 1 Piu Ghosh From: Caroline Chen [chiiluh@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 3:07 PM To: Piu Ghosh Subject. comments on associated 2nd floor setback surcharge/exposed wall rule Hello, I am a working architect who has designed single family homes for many years and recently built a 2 story home in Cupertino for myself. I heard you are reviewing the current Rl ordinance, so here's just my 2 cents. The current zoning about the '2nd floor exposed wall rule' is a major reason for the City's lacking of architectural diversity. (Some of my architect friends even joked about why they will never build their home in Cupertino.) I strongly encourage you to re-examine the daylight plane concept that many other cities have enjoyed. A daylight plane is very efficient in limiting the massing of a building. Plus, it is much more 'visual' about the requirements and therefore easier for the communication and review process. Best regards, Chii-Luh Chen Architect 21 151 Hazelbrook Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 (650) 996-0622 -~sa 2/ 10/2009 Page 1 of 1 Piu Ghosh From: P Butler [pbutler973@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 12:54 PM To: Piu Ghosh Cc: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly Sandoval; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Subject: R1 ordinance We are unable to attend your meetings because they run to late at night. Good decisions often are better if people are fresh and alert. Our concern as Cupertino residents since 1964 is the size of the houses being built in neighborhoods with smaller existing homes. We live on Pennington Lane and have a monster home with extended roof in the back being built currently after tearing down a smaller home on the site. Neighbors called to complain to the planning commission but were put off that there was nothing that could be done. Do the residents have any input at alt to what the City rules are? It seems that we are at your mercy and you do not live in our neighborhoods. It is very frustrating to be a supporting Cupertino resident for so long and be run over by the City of Cupertino rules. It would be more appropriate to put the size of homes to a citizen's vote or a general election rather than a hearing and council vote that often goes to 1 AM when most residents cannot attend. }'a.c.cL fr.T~'-yu,Pi 13 wtZer- ii -iss 2/10/2009 Page 1 of 1 Piu Ghosh From: Christine Solorio [csolorio1 @gmail.coml Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:22 AM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: Re: Limited Review of the Single Family Residential Ordinance Hello, Here are the photos of beautiful homes on Talisman Drive in Sunnyvale. I love the European look. Yet, as you can see the second floor is like 80% of the first floor. On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Piu Ghosh <PiuG ~,cupertino.org> wrote: Christine, 's would be more than happy to receive any inputs from the public including examples of what people would like to build. Regards, Piu -----Original Message----- From: Christine Solorio [mailto:csoloriolCilgmail.coml Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:42 AM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: Limited Review of the Single Family REsidential Ordinance Hello Piu Ghosh, I am a resident in Cupertino and am against the current ration of first and second floor rule. There was a neighborhood house in Sunnyvale that I loved the style but it didn't meet Cupertino's 45% second story: l st story rule. I would like to see this ratio done away with or increased significantly. If I send you a picture of how a beautiful house, would you consider it as input from the Cupertino Community? Please let me know. s 11 - '196 2/10/2009 e' t _ _ ~ $ y K.. ~ '1 1 _ ~ ~ ~ i YK M ~t ~ ~ A v J.'~. `ti s+ F"'XJ _ i i t ~ ' ~ _ ~ - - ~ - ..::sue' ~ i ` t ' Y F.a~ 'h° i , 1 _ ~ ~i r Ft~ y ~ L _ _ ~~s- - _~ti~'MY H ~ a9 u...~ n~ ~ x 11 - 197 A [ ~J}J} q Y 1 f b ' . _ JC - - _ ~~s w ~ ' _ I _ _ iT ~ :~~P fy J.T~ _ _ _ F is ~i~~~~~ T 1 ~ . ~ 1 _ ~ 3 ?F } , ~ ~ ~ S ~ . . P 4 Sr `M ~ _ t... y'qy~~ ~q ~.n ~T. ~iOS.w~.'e~faea~.(3J'.._u. Y. Rr~. ~ n _ _ _ ~ n1 ~lu~~v _4 a: me a ~y~ 1 1 4 v . . 3 vy. ~ v ~ ~..rr ~ . ' ~ t e 2 r, ~ Y 1 1 e ~ Y X117 a t~ r~ ab k m~ '"y rr,krx~~~4 tea.' ~ ~f~ `.y +t~° ~ ~ i~S'~4 ~'~t~Gr ''~.wtxh£`~"~2~"`„y(+~ C 11 - 198 ~ ~...1: ~ ~ - . ,..n - ~ R P+. 1 ` 'PN~'s v ~ I ~L; y t ~ . - r - Z ~ _ 111 _ i Y ~ ~t Y 44 y l 'Ie ~ ~\~S~f Lam' ~ ' ~ 5_,~ ~T "T~,~~ ~ A:,._ < e ~ ` r ~ `.#1t gip„`' _ - ' r. ai. ~_~'t. \ ~ - _Y~...:. I \ Y \ ~4: mLL~~.4m ?1 r ~ - ."s ~w. 1 -:tee _ _ _ 11 - 199 Exhibit F • ~ - • D o .hr s On May 13, 2008, the City Council initiated n limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1} Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of second floor building area compared to the first floor building area (Section 19.28.060). The current R1 Ordinance limits the size of the second floor to no more than 45% of the first floor. The revised ordinance will consider adjusting the a//owed ratio and associated 2'd f/oar setback surcharge/¢xposed wall ru/e to allow greater architectural diversity_ The revised ordinance will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an R1 lot_ The total building area and the minimum required second story setback relationship with neighboring properties wit! not change. The preliminary ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 8/September 9, 2008 and by City Council on October 21, 2008. The City Council is holding n second public hearing to receive additional public input and consider draft ordinance options on the allowable rn#io of the second story. The current R1 Ordinance can be viewed on the City's website nt www.cupertino.org/R1. For additional information, you may contact Piu fhosh with the Cupertino Planning Department at (408) 777-3277 or a-mail any comments to piucr@cupertino.org. ~ AJso, p/ease check the City's website prior to the pub/ic hearing for updated information in the event of any changes. P/ease a/so note that there envy be additionv/ meetings on this subject. P/ease contact the P/anniny Department for • • fo/!ow-up information regarding hearing schedules. ~ i -zoo C:C ~l~~la9 ~ ::I~PER'~ING _ }CUPER7 May 6, 2008 -City Council amen~,~ed the 2007/ 08 work program: 1. Limited review of the R1 Ordinance RE: Ratio of the second floor building area compared to tree first floor building area. ~ 2. Present recommendations ors ordinance options to the City Council by October 2008. ,4 . P. • July 8, 2008 -Commission directed staff to provide: - Focused ordinance framew~~rk with specific list of principles and guidelines. • September 9, 2008 -Commission recommended denial: - Need a more comprehensive design review process. - Process needs to address massing, design and review. • October 21, 2008 -City Council directed staff to: - Prepare a comparative study of existing ordinance, staff's proposal and the council ali:ernative option - Draft design Guidelines r r. ~C P • 2na floor to 1St floor ratio greater than 45%, if design principles incorporated • For 2na floor to 1St floor ratio > 45 eliminate: - 50% second floor wall exposure requirement - Second story setback surcharge • Two-tier design review standard: - One set of rules for homes with >45% 2na floor to 1St floor - Different set of rules for <=45% 2na floor to 1St floor homes • Recommend fee for > 45 % 2na floor to 1St floor homes be increased by $500 to $2,642 M~r~ P • All two-story homes to incorporate design principles • Remove 50 % second story wall exposure rule for all two-story homes • Add trigger for visual relief techniques • Single-tier design review process - Same process for all new two-story homes • Fee for all homes recommended to be increased by $500 to $2,642. Two-tier Single-tier Second story setbacks Eliminate surcharge if 2nd 10' surcharge floor to 15~ floor > 45% Second story wall Eliminate rul~a if 2nd floor Change: trigger visual heights to 15t floor > X65% relief for walls more than 12 feet in height and 20 feet in length Applicability of design Only to homf~s with 2nd Applicable to all new principles floor to 15f floor > 45% two-story homes Cost $2,642 for homes with 2nd Staff recommends floor to 15t floor > 45% $2,642 for all homes $2,142 for homes 45% _ .a . ~ : . - ;7Y' ~c~P • Envisioned to provide more direction and clarity to designers anc~ home owners • Draft enclosed with report • Council may direct staff to make changes and bring back a second draft P • Adopt the staff recommended two-tier process & design guidelines document - Direct staff to include an item at the next Council Fee Assessment review to increase the application fee for homes > 45% 2nd floor to 1St floor ratio, or • Adopt the single-tier process - Staff recommends the following: • Amend the trigger for visual relief measures to walls exceeding 10 feet in height and 15 feet in length • Include language to allow Director of Community Development to waive requirement of visual relief measures when deemed appropriate • Direct staff to include an item at the next Fee Assessment review to increase the application fee • Ado t the desi 'defines document ~l~P