Loading...
Packet.pdf Ubcmf!pg!Dpoufout Bhfoeb3 esbgu!njovuft!702503122 esbgu!njovuft5 mjnjufe!sfwjfx!pg!uif!Tjohmf!Gbnjmz!Sftjefoujbm!)S2*!\[pof Tubgg!Sfqpsu25 2/!Esbgu!Sftpmvujpo37 3/!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!Tvcdpnnjuuff!sfqpsu!po qspdftt!jnqspwfnfout38 4/!Mjnjufe!S2!sfwjfx!rvftujpoobjsf!gspn!uif!Nbz!35- 3122!xpsltipq42 5/!Ubmmz!pg!xpsltipq!buufoeff!sftqpotft!po!uif!mjnjufe S2!sfwjfx!iboepvu45 6/!Dpnnfout!boe!rvftujpot!gspn!uif!mjnjufe!S2!sfwjfx xpsltipq!ejtdvttjpo!po!Nbz!35-!312248 7/!Qspqptfe!S2!Psejobodf!ufyu!bnfoenfout!gps sfbebcjmjuz!boe!dpotjtufodz49 8/!Sfwjtfe!Uxp!Tupsz!Eftjho!Qsjodjqmft84 9/!Beejujpobm!jogpsnbujpo!po!uxp.tupsz!eftjho!sfwjfx- opujdjoh-!tupsz!qpmft-!boe!S2.310tjohmf.gbnjmz!sftjefoujbm mput8: :/!Nbq!pg!tmpqfe!tjohmf.gbnjmz!sftjefoujbm!mput95 21/!Fyjtujoh!Hfofsbm!Qmbo!qpmjdjft!sfmbufe!up efwmfpqnfou!po!tmpqfe!mput96 22/!Nfnp!gspn!Dpuupo-!Tijsft-!boe!Bttpdjbuft sfhbsejoh!hfpufdiojdbm!dpotusbjout!pg!tmpqfe!tjohmf. gbnjmz!sftjefoujbm!mput98 23/!Fyjtujoh!SIT!gfodjoh!sfrvjsfnfout:1 2 AGENDA CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Community Hall Tuesday, June 28, 2011 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Subject: draft minutes 6/14/2011 1. Recommended Action: approve draft minutes Page: 2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING 2. Subject: limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1) Zone Recommended Action: approval or denial of MCA-2011-03 and EA-2011-50 Description: Application: MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: citywide Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential (R1) Zones, for a limited review of the requirements for sloped single-family lots, the two-story design review process, public noticing and story poles Tentative City Council meeting date: August 2, 2011 Page: 14 OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 3 Tuesday, June 28, 2011 Page -2 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Commissioners Economic Development Committee Meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADJOURNMENT If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Department after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours. For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda, planning@cupertino.org. contact the Planning Department at (408) 777-3308 or 4 CITY OFCUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45P.M. June 14, 2011 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting ofJune 14, 2011was called to orderat 6:45 p.m. inthe Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca.,by Chairperson Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present:Chairperson:Winnie Lee Vice Chairperson:Marty Miller Commissioner:Paul Brophy Commissioner: Clinton Brownley Commissioner:Don Sun Staff present: City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung AssistantPlanner: George Schroeder Assistant Planner: Piu Ghosh APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1.Minutes ofMay 10, 2011 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION:Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Sun, and carried 4-0-1, Chair Lee abstained; to approve the May 10, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as presented. 2.Minutes of May 24, 2011 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION:Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Vice Chair Miller, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve the May 24, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:None CONSENT CALENDAR:None Chair Lee moved the agenda to Item 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.U-2011-06Use Permit to allow 50% office use where 25% is allowed Kenneth Frangadakisat an existing center located in a P(CG) zone (DeAnza ProfessionalCenter) Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. 10601 S. DeAnza Blvd 5 Cupertino Planning Commission2June 14, 2011 George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: Reviewed the application for a Use Permit to allow up to 50% office uses where 25% is allowed at an existing commercial center in DeAnza Professional Center, as outlined n the staff report. No physical building or site modifications are proposed. He reviewed the previous site approvals which were not built. Staff supports the proposal toallow more office, since the building was originally constructed to allow more office uses than currently allowed. Conditions recommended include reducing tenant spaces in building frontage for active commercial use; lot line adjustment to merge the two parcels parking lot and main parcel into one in accordance with city policy; parking analysis for every change of use; and screen rooftop equipment along DeAnza and other minor site improvements. Staff recommends approval in accordance with the draft resolution. Staff answered Commissioners’ questions relative to the application. Kenneth Frangadakis, Applicant: Said he would prefer it to be 100%; it is not a shopping center, but an office building since he purchased it. Said over the years he has been denied tenants and it is difficult to restrict different types of offices. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. As there was no one present who wished tospeak, the public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Miller: Asked if the Commission had the flexibility to increase the percentage higher than 50%. Gary Chao: Said the Planning Commission could do anything they wanted. He referred to Attachment 4, which provided information on how they reached the conclusion, the comfort level of supporting 50%. Presently there are only two vacant spaces; assuming both those spaces are going to go in as professional office, which means they will have a fully occupied center, that would still work with the 50% ratio. Staff felt that given the past history of approval, and other implications to consider, it would set a precedent for allowing a higher ratio. It would have to apply the same logic to other type properties and given the fact that if they fill with professional offices, that would still operate under the 50% rule, which staff felt was reasonable and consistent with the priordecisions. If the Commission wants to discuss it and feels there are reasons to go beyond that, it is something the Commission can consider. Vice Chair Miller: Not sure it is setting a precedent because it was originallydesigned as an office building and it doesn’t fit; where the intention from the start was to have some other use in there; this was designed as a 100% office and it looks that way; it is not conducive to the public going in there.Said he would have parking out front that was easy to access if they were going to design it another way. Itis reasonable to say that since that was the use that it was intended for and originally approved,thatit is appropriate to let them continue to use it that way. Gary Chao: Said staff cares about thefrontage morethan anything else; there have been discussions about itwhen the Heart of the City came up even though this is not Heart of the City, but the South DeAnza area is a core retail area. Said it was critical that the frontage tenants be more active, which is why the commercial/office idea came about. He suggested that the Commission make sure the frontage tenants are more active oriented as commercial/office or commercial. 6 Cupertino Planning Commission3June 14, 2011 Com.Brophy: Said that looking at the list of tenants, he had difficulty understanding the difference between a general commercial tenant and professional office tenant or the difference between an 800 square foot legal office and an 800 square foot insuranceoffice. Gary Chao: Said the ordinance defines those uses; there is a lot of flexibility; all those other uses are allowed and they are not considered professional offices. Chair Lee: Said she disagreed, and felt that in many cases, the professional office was a higher quality building, with an overhang, more detail in the landscaping, a separate entry to escort patients out. In a commercial district, there will be retail, with some travel agencies and similar businesses. Said she agreed with staff that the professional office is different; medical/dental and tax accountant or lawyer is different than real estate or travel agency; it is two separate things. She said she felt the building was set up more for general commercial. Said she did not feel it should be increased to 50%; it is not one size fits all, in this situation it looks right, 10% to 25% general commercial seems reasonable. It is important to have a balance of general commercial, a commercial district is needed. There are about 50,000 cars that go down DeAnza Boulevard; there are definitely commercial works on DeAnza Boulevard; this building is not retail, but there still are a lot of possibilities for general commercial. Said it was important to keep part of the general commercial and not completely turn everything over to professional or office. The applicant has been able to rent a majority to some general commercial, it is mostly rented out. Gary Chao: Said they were experiencing a high demand for commercial offices in town, including tutoring andspecialized classes; if you keep it at 50% you are allowing for these types, what we see as more appropriate facilities to accommodate these commercial offices; personal service uses, dance classes, etc. You are preserving at least50%ensuringthat there is space for them, and there is a lot of demand, not just professional offices. Com. Sun: Said he agreed with the analysis; there are differences between professional and general commercial uses. He questioned what would happen if they turn25% to 50% or 25% to 100% based on the commercial building owner; he knows how to use his property for his best interest, and then the regulation may be changed for the purpose of the entire community. Gary Chao: Said the Commission could consider raising the percentage, they went through two rounds of prior requests where they got approvals for it to be 100% office. In that regard there are justifications to loosen that requirement. Recommended that the Commission be clear on the findings; he felt they would look at it differently if it was a mixed use plaza in the same zoning district. He understood that they are acknowledging that the facility itself is built not to facilitate successful retail therefore they want to give them the flexibility of going to 100% office. Said he agreed with that justification; but to think about it in terms of carving out a percentage for those uses that are actually struggling to find spaces as well, because there may be a demand for office,and if all the officesgo init leaves little space for the tutoring classes and dance classes to be able to find a place. It is up to the Commission to strike a balance, staff fees that 50/50 is a good balance; in this case it is set up more as aprofessional office complex. 7 Cupertino Planning Commission4June 14, 2011 Vice Chair Miller: Said his issue was that if the building and site was initially designed for a specific use, he would have difficulty saying years later that the applicant is going to have to change the uses that the building was put to. If it was originally designed and approved as buildings for multiple uses, that is one thing; but when it is specifically designed and being used for a single use or certain category uses, it is difficult to make a determination after many years that we are now going to change how the buildingis going to be used, even thoughthe building may not be designed for those other uses. He said that is why he did not see it setting a precedent or creating issues for other applications coming in, and he felt it was reasonable to allow the applicant the flexibility that he has always had with thebuilding. Com. Brownley: Said that he agreed that the owner hada good understandingboth from having owned the building for a long time and understanding how tomake the best use of the space. He agreed that they should enable thatflexibilityespecially if it was developed that way in the first place. Com. Brophy: Said one possibility is to allow 100% but consider the staff recommendation on excluding the spaces that face directly onto DeAnza Boulevard, approximately85%. Given the design of the structure, it is noteasily suited on the interior spaces for many general commercial uses. Com. Brownley: Said he liked the idea; looking at the building next door that shares the parking lot, it looks like it is being renovated and will have doors facing DeAnza and there will also be adjacent properties with that same look and feel, so it would fit within that sidewalk section. Com. Brophy: Suggested phrasingit to exclude that the front spaces107, 108, 208, 209 be reserved for uses permitted under the general commercial ordinance; staff can clean up the language on the final document. Gary Chao: If that is the direction, he suggested avoiding using number of tenant spaces because that changessometimes; either square footage, or the fact that the tenant spaces that have footage along DeAnza, are good references for consideration. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Sun, and carried 4-1-0, Chair Lee voted No; to approve Application U-2011-06 with the change to permit office uses for most of the center except for the offices that front on DeAnza Boulevard. The agenda was moved back to Item 3. 3.U-2011-05, ASA-2011-06,Use Permit for four, two-story single family dwellings on EXC-2011-06, TM-2011-010.30 acres;Architectural and Site approval for four,two- Chris Weaver (Habitat forstory single family dwellings; Parking Exception toallow Humanity)a parking ratio of 2 stalls per dwelling, in lieu ofthe Cleo Avenuerequired 2.8 stalls, garage and open) per dwelling,for a small lot family residential project; TentativeSubdivision Map to subdivide 0.30 acres into 4lots and a commonarea lot for a single family residential development.Postponed from May24, 2011 Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council date: July 5, 2011 8 Cupertino Planning Commission5June 14, 2011 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: Reviewed the application from Habitat for Humanity for Tentative Map, Use Permit, Architectural and Site Approval and Parking Exception, for construction of four single-family residences on 0.30 acres, as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the background of the application and the project site data.Staff feels that there will not be a significant economic impact from the project; and feels it will improve the neighborhood as presently the area is in a state of blight. Staff answered questions relative to the project. Chris Weaver, Director of Development, Habitat for Humanity, Silicon Valley: Answered questions relative to the maintenance agreement between home owners and Habitat for Humanity and explained the selection process for potential home owners.Preference is given to current Cupertino residents, they must provide 500 sweat equity hours of labor in building the home; and they must fulfill requirements similar to those of regular mortgage applicants, and have a good credit rating and the ability to manage the mortgage payments. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: Said she felt the potential homeowners should be entitled to the same Cupertino parking standards of 2.8 spaces, not the modified 2 spaces. Chris Weaver: Said Habitat for Humanity would provide the full 2.8 spaces per unit if possible; however, the space for the project is limited. She noted that Habitat for Humanity’s regulations permit 2 persons per bedroom, and the proposed units are 2 bedroom units; therefore only 4 people would be permitted in each unit and 2 spaces per unit is adequate. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Brownley, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve Application U-2011-05, ASA-2011-06,EXC-2011-06, TM-2011-01, per the model resolution. 5.U-2010-02, TR-2011-09Use Permit to allow a new daycare facility at an existing Tony Chen (Yunjian Zou/office building.Tree Removal Permit to allow theremoval O-Mei Academy)and replacement of 3 trees in conjunction with parkinglot 10070 Imperial Ave.and landscaping improvements at a new daycare facility. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: Reviewed the applicationfor Use Permit for a daycare center and tree removal permit for removal and replacement of three trees, on Imperial Avenue, as outlined in the staff report. The proposed site is located in an area with general commercial uses, condos, single family housing and automotive repair uses; the playground does not abut the residential area. The existing business operates as a martial arts academy and a dance studio, which will be expanded to operate a day care/after school program serving up to 40 children. The business currently operates as a heritage school which is not subject to State Depa0rtment of Social Services regulations. The site is currently accessed by one existing non-conforming 16-foot wide driveway entrance from Imperial Avenue. Staff is requiring the applicant to widen the driveway to 22 feet to allow for safer passage of ingress and egress vehicles; existing power poles and cable utility box must be removed in order to facilitate the widening of the driveway. Staff supports the project and recommends Planning Commission approval of the application 9 Cupertino Planning Commission6June 14, 2011 in accordance with the draft resolutions. Staff answered questions regarding parking, drop off/pick up of children, and removal of utility poles. Yunjian Zou, Applicant: Said he was proud to offer the services and daycare services to Cupertino. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Michael Trotter, Cupertino resident: Supports the project. Said his son attends O-Mei Academy and his family also takes other classes offered by the Academy. He complimented the Academy on its high standards and curriculum. Shirley Long, Cupertino resident: Opposed to project. Said the business has changed the environment of their street without the after school program; and she had concerns about safety,noise level, traffic, and parking. She said she also felt it would have a negative impact on the property values on their street. Although the school offers parking in the back, during the after school hours, no parents like to go to the back, they park on the street and kids are walking out on the street freely. She said she wanted to address her concerns about safety. Relative to the report on noise, she said there were many issues that needed to be addressed, and information corrected. It should address compound noise level; currentlythe program has an afterschool program, add 40 children, typically Cupertino offersadditional classes and attendance is more than what the report says. Address the 15 minute outdoor break for each group; holidays offer all day program; a four month period has programs all day long; address traffic control. Surjit (no last name given): Ownsproperty across the streetfrom the academy; parents drop children off and don’t supervise their crossing the street which raises safety concerns. Noise level with more children is higher; concerned about parking. Said she thought daycare licenses were not approved when next to an auto repair shop; said she was told her property was multi-use commercial and residential. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: Cupertino has many new daycare facilities going in;the siteis appropriate for a daycare center; the owner seems very responsible; martial artsis a good cultural experience for children; good ideato extend driveway to 22 feet. She expressed concern about the railroad track in the back of the property and the safety concerns for the children; would fencing be provided? Also concerned about Imperial Avenue running into Stevens Creek Boulevard where there is no traffic light. Charles Chan, Cupertino resident: Supports the project. Said he has assisted with translation services at the academy. He has visited the facilities for a couple of years and has not seen any cars speeding in the area, and not experienced any traffic concerns or issues with excessive noise. The utility pole should be the responsibility ofPG&E and not the property owner to pay the cost of removal, He said in his opinion the academy beautifies the neighborhood and if safety issues arise, Mr. Zou will act in a responsible manner to address them. : Cupertino Planning Commission7June 14, 2011 Yongolong Liu: Said his childrenhave benefited from the programs offered at the Academy. Said he appreciated its services and felt it was an important part of the community. Brenda Liu: Said she was a resident of San Bruno and teaches classes at the academy three times a week. She complimented Mr. Zou on his high caliber of expertise. She said that every business runs into obstacles and particularly in a school area, there are neighbors with frustrations and concerns. She said they would work to improve on complaints from neighbors. She felt the cost of removing the utility pole should not be the property owner’s responsibility. Hui Zhang, Cupertino resident: As a parent of a child in the daycare, said she understands the concerns of the neighborhood on parking andsafety. Said that parking was not a big issue, most of the students are after school hours. Options to help mitigate any concerns could include hiring people to monitor the parking. The school is an important part of the community, it creates a good environment for the children,and provides excellent programs. SharonChan, Cupertino resident: Supports the application. Said her daughterstake tai chi lessons at the academy, and was grateful for Mr. Zou’s instruction and dedication as a teacher and coach. She said that she was not concerned about safety near the academy as traffic moved slowly in the area; sometimes her children ride their bikes to the academy and she does not feel they are in danger. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Com. Brophy: Relative to outdoor play area times, he asked how it would be handled administratively if they wantedto change the time in the future. Gary Chao: Said that if the hours of outdoor play or number of children are increased, staff would have to use some discretion because of some noise implications; and it would have to be presented at a public hearing. If the change is within the scope of what they are presenting, and there is no significantimpact, the Director can make the minor modification. Vice Chair Miller: Is staff concerned abouttraffic flow; it lookslike there is potential for problems which is that no one will pull in and use that drop off;they will just continue to drop off at neighboring sites. Gary Chao: Said he was not aware of existing traffic concerns at the site or in front; he felt the project will enhance the interface, which is the reason for recommending widening the driveway to 22 feet. Remind everyone that currently thereare 9 parking stalls in the back parking lot, which will be enhanced to 13. Thereis also onstreet parking available for the patrons to use. He said he did not foresee any problems. Vice Chair Miller: Suggested opening up on the south side; take parking stalls7and 8 and make access to the neighboringlot so people can be one way inand one way out; or at least give people a separate egress. 21 Cupertino Planning Commission8June 14, 2011 Gary Chao: Said it was a potentialoptionfor them to consider; in order to make that happen, it would require that the property owner provide a consent of reciprocal access agreement, usually standard for projects where the applicant is required to provide consent to theiradjacent property owner;the flip side is that the other party would have to also provide an access easement.There is a slight potential grade differential, but given that could be resolved, the hindrance would be securing the access easement from the adjacent property owner. Vice Chair Miller: Relative to the issue of some children being dropped off across the street from the academy and running across the street; it may work at the current level, but if adding a significant number of additional children, he said he would like to know there is some way of addressing it, similar to what has been done in the past during drop off and pick up hours. The school would have to provide a traffic monitor or someone to make sure that the parents are doing what is expected of them which is to facilitate the drop off and pick up.(Staff noted that it is included in the condition that a staff member from the daycare center is to facilitate safe drop off and pick up or assist with the traffic navigation) Relative to the utility pole removal, if the pole is not high voltage, the owner has options; there are rules that state below a certain level of voltage, you can use a private party to removethe pole. It is worth checking into since the private party fee may be lower than the PG&E fee to remove the utility pole. Gary Chao: Staff can coordinate with Public Works and PG&E and draft a condition to mention that applicant will work with staff to explore alternativeoptions of either relocating or removal of the utilitypole. Ultimatelythe rule is what the rules are, so staff will help the applicant explore that with PG&E. Com. Brophy: Said he walks past the academy twice weeklyand doesnot perceive any traffic problems; the traffic moves slowly and there are not a largenumber of cars at any one time, Said he did not feel that a condition was necessary; however the property owner should inform his clients not to park on the properties across the street, which would help alleviate the concern and unhappiness of the residents across the street from the academy. The noise level is not an issue; and there are many satisfied customers of the academy who look forward to the expansion of offerings from the academy. Com. Sun: Welcomed the academy to Cupertino. Relative to the safety issue, he encouraged the applicant to take the responsibility to make sure his clients don’t infringe upon neighbors’privacy. Chair Lee: Concurred with Commissioners’ comments and said it was important to educate the parents and encourage them to use the back area for parking. Gary Chao: Pointedoutthat Condition 6, already requiresa drop off/pick up plan, and aside from delineating the stalls with proper signage, safety features, theplan shall delineate general pedestrian vehicular safety guidelines for parents. The language is included to emphasize that to the applicant they need to prescribeaneducational plan, if not guidelines, perhaps part of the agreement they have to sign with parents agreeing to comply with those guidelines for them to review as part of their orientation. 22 Cupertino Planning Commission9June 14, 2011 Vice Chair Miller: Asked if they could add that staff will explore a reciprocal easement agreement. Com. Brophy: It appears thatby removing that pole and expandingit from 16 to 22 feet, the applicanthas reached a reasonable solution, 16 feet is rather tight and would discourage people. He said he would be hesitant to hold up the project dependanton the whims of an adjoining property owner. Vice Chair Miller: Said he wasn’t suggesting that it be a requirement, but merely have staff look into it. If the applicant has to deal with PG&E on the pole removal, it could be a year before it is taken care of as PG&E moves slowly. Suggested that the project be allowed to move forward with the understanding that the pole could be removed when PG&E gets to the project. Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second byCom. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Application U-2010-02, TR-2011-09per recommendations. Chair Lee declared a recess. 6.DP-2011-01, ASA-2011-08,Development Permit application for two new, 2,697 sq. ft. TM-2011-02,two-story single family residences; ArchitecturalandSite Terry Brown (Robert Adzich)Approval application for two new 2,697 sq. ft. two-story 10216 & 10232 Orange Ave.single family residences; Tentative Parcel Mapapplication to subdivide a 0.28 acre parcel into two parcels of 6,000 square feet each. Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: Reviewed the application for Development Permit application for two 2,697 sq. ft. two-story single family homes, Architectural and Site Approval application and Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a .28 acre parcel into twoparcels of 6,000 sq. ft. each, as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application. Terry Brown, representing Robert Adzich, Property Owner: Said that the demolition of the properties will commence as soon as possible, with constructionof the two units to follow. In response to a recent email complaint received about the plumbing on a previous project he was responsible for, he said he was not aware of the complaint until yesterday. He said that the home was in a developmenthe was responsible for, built by Jim Sisk and the home is over 20 years old, and thesender has owned the home for 5 years, and was the third owner of the home. He expressed regret that someone was dissatisfied with work they assumed he had done; and he called them the previous evening and invited them to meet with him show him what was wrong. He said he was willing to repair anything he did and stands behind his work;but reiterated that he had not been aware of a problem until the previous evening. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Tom Adamo, Property Owner of 10206 Orange Avenue, adjacent to project property: Supported application in general. Did not see any resolution aboututility poles; they are in the middle of the road; once this is constructed and the sidewalks are pulled back and there is a dedication, there will be a pole in 23 Cupertino Planning Commission10June 14, 2011 the line of sight of any cars. What is the city’s position on the poles; is it responsibility of the city or PG&E. Asked if there was a requirement for fencing on the property lines of the project; Expressed concern about the long construction hours, particularly the weekend hours, and asked that consideration be given to reducing the weekend hours. Asked if street lightingwould be incorporated into the project; said it impacted the neighborhood particularlyat his site next door. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Piu Ghosh responded to Mr. Adamo’s questions: Any poles in the right of way along the frontage of this particular property, Public Works will work to get those pulled back, where it will underground utilities to the homes; The city does not require fences along property lines; it is at the pleasure of the property owner. Regulations regarding fences areavailable on the city’s websites; 6 foot fences are allowed without a building permit at the property line behind the building setback line; Construction hours are dictated by the noise ordinance; they are in the resolution to clarify for the contractor and applicant. Street lighting … page 107, should be installed and approved by the city engineer; Public Works will look to see if a light will be required; if one is required, the applicant is responsible for putting it in along the frontage. Gary Chao: Said that the conditions require street lighting; it does have provisions to prevent glare, and other forms of visual interference. Public Works has standards which the property owner must adhere to. Motion:Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approveApplicationD P-2011-01, ASA-2011-08 and TM-2011-02 per the model resolution. OLD BUSINESS:None NEWBUSINESS:None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE:Meeting scheduled for this week. HOUSING COMMISSION:No meeting. MAYOR’S MONTHLY MEETING:No meeting. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:No meeting. 7.REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:Written report. Adjournment:The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled forJune 28, 2011 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted:__/s/Elizabeth Ellis___________________ Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary 24 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777--planning@cupertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 Agenda Date: June 28, 2011 Application: MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Citywide APPLICATION SUMMARY: Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential Zones, for a limited review of the requirements for sloped single-family residential lots, the two-story design review process, public noticing and story poles. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1.Recommend to the City Council, amendments to Chapter 19.28, Single-Family Residential Zones related to: Two-story design review process Public noticing requirements Story pole requirements Standards for lots with slopes Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take straw votes for each of these items before combining them into a final recommendation for the Council. BACKGROUND On February 15, 2011, when reviewing the City’s Development Permit Process Review project, the City Council initiated a limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1) Ordinance related to the two- story design review process, public noticing, and story poles based on comments provided by the Planning Commission subcommittee on February 14, 2011 (Attachment 2). On April 6, 2010, the Council had approved the review of standards of lots sloped between 15% and 30% in the Single-Family Residential (R1) zone as part of the FY 2010-11 work program. Since both projects required a review of the Single-Family Residential (R1) zone, the two projects have been combined. Community Workshop A citywide community workshop was held to get comments from residents, builders and architects. On May 17, 2011, citywide notices were mailed out to property owners, builders and architects to announce the community workshop on May 24, 2011. Fifteen residents and developers/architects, as well as all five Planning Commissioners attended the workshop. The workshop provided the attendees information 25 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 on the key topics being reviewed and the opportunity to discuss ordinance options in order to streamline the development process. Workshop attendees were also asked to fill out a questionnaire (Attachment 3) on the potential ordinance amendment options and provide comments. See Attachment 4 for a tally of the attendee responses and comments and Attachment 5 for a summary of comments and questions from the workshop discussion. Improving Readability, Consistency, and Effectiveness In order to improve consistency between past ordinance revisions and improve readability of the existing ordinance, staff has revised the ordinance (Attachment 6) to: Implement the use of tables to reduce repetition and optimize readability. The Sign Ordinance is an example of where this was done. The existing Two-Story Design Principles, which are an appendix to the ordinance, have been revised to make them more user-friendly (see Attachment 7) Staff would like to note that the reformatted version does not include any amendments to the ordinance. It merely reformats it into a more user-friendly document. DISCUSSION Single-Family Ordinance History The Single-Family Residential Ordinance was enacted in 1971 and has undergone a number of changes in recent years. Here are some key points related to the ordinance amendments being discussed in this report (for greater detail regarding the ordinance amendments, see Attachment 8): Beginning in 1999, the City initiated a two-story design review process and noticing procedures for single-family residential planning projects; Also beginning in 1999, the City applied Residential Hillside (RHS) standards to single-family residential lots with slopes 30% or greater; In 2007, the City revised the ordinance to only apply select hillside standards to 18 sloped single- family residential lots in a specific geographical area Since 2005, story poles have been required for all two-story projects Options for Ordinance Amendments Based on experience with the single-family residential review process, analysis, public comments received during the public workshop as well as previous comments at the Development Permit Process workshops, staff has put together options for each of the four issues under consideration. Each section includes a brief discussion of the options; advantages and disadvantages of each; public comments received; and other pertinent policy implications. It should be noted that keeping the current ordinance is provided as an option in all the discussions. As noted earlier, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take straw votes on each section prior to making a final recommendation to the City Council. Comparison with Neighboring Communities Staff also looked at similar processes in six neighboring communities. These communities include Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Los Gatos, Palo Alto and San Jose. These communities were chosen because they all have a mix of commercial and residential zones as opposed to communities whose only focus is residential development. Each section below also has a discussion of how other communities approach the review process. 26 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 CityTwo-Story Noticing Noticing Story Poles Maximum Total Design Radius Materials FAR Review San JoseNo ---- --45%, up to 65% with planning approval Santa Clara No ---- --45% Sunnyvale Yes 200 feetMailed notice, --45% or 3,600 site sign square feet, whichever is more restrictive; or more with public hearing Palo Alto Yes Adjacent Mailed notice, --45% site sign Los GatosYesAdjacent and MailednoticeBasedon lot across the size, generally street 35-40% Mountain View No ---- --Basedon lot size, generally 40-50% I.Single-Family Residential Two-Story Design Review Currently, all two-story projects require planning applications and are reviewed at staff level for conformance to the Single-Family Residential Ordinance development standards and two-story guidelines through a two-story planning permit. Each project is also assessed to ensure a reasonable level of visual compatibility with the neighborhood. Projects with second to first floor ratios of 45% or less have less restrictive requirements while projects with second to first floor ratios greater than 45% require compliance with more stringent two-story design principles as well as the City Architectural Consultant review. All two-story projects require neighbor notification with a two-week public comment period. There is a two-week appeal period after the Community Development Director’s decision is made. Design Review Discussion Based on experience with single-family residential design review, the two issues that appear to be of greatest concern to neighbors are visual impacts related to larger second stories and privacy impacts of second story windows and balconies. Experience with the design review process shows that neighbors are most concerned when homes are proposed with larger second stories (above 45% second to first story ratio) than with those that propose smaller second stories. Second story windows that are proposed close to neighboring homes also typically generate comments from neighbors. When second story windows have larger side setbacks (15 feet and greater), there is more space to plant privacy planting and address privacy issues. A review of neighboring communities shows that about half of them do not require design review of two-story homes, while the other half do. Most of the public comments received at the workshops appeared to be mixed with a larger percentage of the public favoring the current process. However, if the Commission wishes to focus on issues that typically appear to be of most concern to the public, the following recommendations and options could 27 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 be considered. Options for Design Review: 1.Require design review only for: a.Homes with second stories larger than 45% of the first story; and/or homes that propose second story windows with less than a 15-foot setback from the property line (windows with sill heights of greater than five feet from the finished second floor; obscured, non-openable windows; windows with permanent, exterior louvers up to six feet above the finished floor; and/or skylights would not be required to go through a review). All other two-story projects would not be required to submit a planning application or notify the neighbors. They could apply directly for a building permit but would be reviewed at this stage to ensure that they complied with the design standards and guidelines in the ordinance. 2.Remove review process entirely – under this option, there would be no design review or public notification and applicants would directly apply for a building permit. 3.Keep existing design review requirements for all two-story permits. Note: Under the current ordinance, Minor Residential Permits are required for: Second story decks with views into the side and/or rear yards of neighboring properties Extensions of non-conforming one-story building wall lines; one-story additions encroaching no more than 10 feet into the rear setback One-story projects with a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space projecting outside the building envelope with a wall height of 17 feet, 1 inch to 20 feet. Passive or active solar structures that require variation from the setback or height restrictions If Options 1or 2 were to be adopted, then minor one-story projects would have more stringent review than a two-story project with second to first story ratios less than or equal to 45%. While staff is not suggesting amending this, we thought this was an issue the Planning Commission might want to consider. Pros of Design Review Ensures that a project is architecturally consistent. Ensures that the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Opportunity for public notification, comments, and appeals. Cons of Design Review Prolongs the approval process for applicants. Additional time means more cost to the applicants. Occasionally issues brought up by a neighbor for one project may not be the same as a neighbor for another project. Some applicants feel that this is not consistent for each project. Does not allow a large variety in design - staff believes that with the ordinance now allowing larger second stories there is ample room for varied designs. Public Comments from the workshop 57% of attendees felt the existing process should remain. 71% of workshop attendees opposed eliminating design review but keeping public noticing. 79% of workshop attendees opposed removing design review altogether. Mixed comments related to how the existing process is too complex with minimal public benefit and how the existing process works well and should not be changed. 28 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 Other considerations While overall, the planning review time and process are shortened by eliminating the design review and the two-story planning application, staff will still be required to work with the applicants at the building permit stage to ensure full project compliance with the development standards and two-story design guidelines prescribed by the Single-Family Residential Ordinance. Consequently, building permit plan check time and cost for two-story homes will likely increase by about 35%. This will still result in a net reduction in cost for two-story homes that do not have to submit a planning application. II.Public Noticing Noticing Radius Every single-family residential planning permit currently requires public noticing. Two-Story Permits for homes over 35% total floor area ratio (FAR) and/or Exception projects require 300-foot noticing. Two-Story Permits for homes under 35% total FAR and/or Minor Residential Permit projects require adjacent and across the street noticing. An estimate of the typical number of property owners that are notified within 300 feet of a project are as follows: Projects in R1-5 and R1-6 zone (5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots) - 50-65 property owners Projects in R1-7.5 zone (7,500 square foot lots) - 45-50 property owners Projects in R1-10 zone (10,000 square foot lots) - 40-45 property owners Projects in R1-20 zone (20,000 square foot lots) - 30 property owners Typically, five to eight property owners are notified in adjacent/across the street noticing. Noticing Materials Mailed notices are sent for every project. Eleven by 17-inch plan sets are sent for all Two-Story Permit and Minor Residential Permit projects. For Exception projects, plan sets are sent to adjacent property owners only. Notice boards or site signs, which contain the pertinent project information as well as a color perspective or black and white elevation, are required for all Two-Story Permit projects and remain onsite during the two-week notice period and two-week appeal period. Noticing Discussion Currently, there appears to be an inconsistency with thresholds for design review and noticing. While design review is required for all two-story homes, there is a higher threshold for homes with larger two stories (over 45% of second story to first story ratio). However, the noticing requirements are for projects with a total FAR of over 35%. Total FAR appears to be less of a concern than the size of the second story and privacy issues. For example, there is currently no planning permit review for large one-story homes (up to 45% FAR) and we don’t typically get complaints about such homes. In order to address which projects should get additional noticing (i.e. focusing on primary community concern of larger two stories), it would be more appropriate to relate noticing requirements to issues that appear to be of greatest concern to the public, i.e. larger second stories and windows on the second story, as discussed in the previous section. Regarding the radius of noticing, a typical planning application requires mailing notices and plan sets to about 40-65 neighbors. Staff typically only gets comments from people who are directly adjacent to the project or those who live across the street from a project. The current process already requires site signs with a color perspective or black and white elevation of the project to be posted at the site. In comparing requirements for other cities, two out of the three cities that have design review only require noticing of adjacent neighbors and those who live across the street. In addition, none of the reviewed cities mail plan sets. 29 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 Public comments at the workshop were mostly in favor of keeping the existing process. However, if the Planning Commission wishes to focus noticing on neighbors who typically express concerns, reduced noticing could be considered since the site sign would continue to inform all neighbors who could possibly be affected by the project. Noticing Options 1.Radius - a.Require only adjacent and across the street noticing for all projects. b.Require 300-foot noticing for projects with greater than 45% second story to first story ratio and/or projects that propose second story windows closer than 15 feet from the property line. All other projects requiring review will have adjacent and across the street noticing. c.Keep existing radius requirements. 2.Plan sets - a.Send site plan and elevations to adjacent and across the street neighbors and require a site sign. b.No plan sets sent and only require a site sign. c.Keep plan set mailing requirements. It should be noted that for projects where the planning process is eliminated entirely, there will be no notification requirements. Pros of noticing Neighbors get to review, comment, and have relevant concerns addressed on a project Cons of noticing Cost and time associated with the notification process (notification costs are typically between $100 and $150). Some applicants have expressed concerns of having plan sets sent to 60 neighbors since they can now see the entire layout of the interior of their home. Most questions to staff are from people who cannot read architectural plans and need additional help. Notifying and sending plan sets to 40-65 neighbors is not necessary since most comments come from those who are adjacent and live across the street. There may be more efficient ways of notifying the neighborhood (i.e. site sign and project information). Applicants note that the process is not consistent from one project to the other since neighbor complaints vary. Public comments from the workshop 85% of workshop attendees felt that that keeping the 300-foot noticing radius was appropriate. 85% of attendees disagreed with changing all noticing requirements to only adjacent and across the street. 62% of workshop attendees felt that the existing process was appropriate. 69% of workshop attendees disagreed with only notifying adjacent neighbors. 77% disagreed with only having a site sign and mailed notices only. Some felt that the noticing radius should be increased. III.Story Poles Story poles are currently required for all two-story projects, even for minor additions. They are required to be in place for the two-week public comment period and two-week appeal period. They are required to be installed by a licensed contractor and certified by a contractor, architect, or engineer to ensure 2: MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 accuracy. Story Pole Discussion The installation of story poles generally ranges from $1,500-$4,000 depending on the complexity of the project and surveying requirements. Most applicants have commented that story pole requirements are costly and damage roofs of existing homes (if the applicant later decides not to build). While story poles do announce a project, comments received by staff indicate that they do not provide an accurate reflection of the architecture of the proposed homes. In fact, when staff receives comments from the public, they tend to be complaints that the story poles do not accurately depict the future design of a home. A majority of the public felt that story pole requirements were not necessary. However, some did indicate that it helped announce a project in the neighborhood. The site sign requirement does that as well. A review of other jurisdictions showed that only one out of the three cities that require design review of second-story homes require story poles. A color perspective on the site sign would provide a more accurate depiction of the design of a home. If the Planning Commission wishes to focus on requirements that best depict the design of a home, it may wish to consider removing the story pole requirements and requiring a color perspective or a three- dimensional photo simulation on the site sign instead. Story Pole Options 1.Remove the requirement for story poles and: a.Require a color perspective on the site sign; or b.Require a three-dimensional photo simulation on the site sign. 2.Keep existing story pole and site sign requirements. Pros of story poles Would announce the project and provide neighbors with a sense of the siting and maximum height of the project. Cons of story poles Does not give an accurate depiction of what the house will look like. Creates safety concerns to neighboring properties or people on-site during inclement weather and applicants have to bear the burden of the additional costs to reinstall them. Additional cost to applicants without a commensurate benefit. Installation materials may be wasted after they are removed from the site. If the project is not a full rebuild, the installation of story poles may damage existing roofs and structures creating more cost to repair. Public comments 58% of workshop attendees did not want to keep the existing requirements. 66% of attendees did not want to give an option of story poles or three-dimensional photo- simulation. Some felt that the three-dimensional photo-simulations provide a better visual resource than story poles. Mixed comments related to those who felt they were valuable to the existing neighborhood while others felt that they did not properly serve their purpose. 31 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 IV.Standards for Sloped Single-Family Lots The requirements for lots with slopes between 15% and 30% has been discussed and amended several times. See Attachment 8 for additional details on these requirements. The current requirements for sloped lots were approved in 2007. Eighteen sloped single-family residential lots 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, have additional requirements ranging from grading limitations to special fencing requirements. These lots were selected mainly because they were perceived to be larger lots with hillside characteristics. It should be noted that the ordinance currently addresses development on slopes of over 30% by requiring additional review through a Hillside Exception; similar to what is required for lots in the Residential Hillside (RHS) zone, Chapter 19.40. As part of this project, the Council wanted to review whether special requirements should apply to all single-family residential lots with slopes of between 15% and 30% (the 18 lots mentioned above would be included). Analysis Through an analysis of the City’s Geographical Information System (GIS) digital elevation model, staff identified a total of 389 lots with slopes between 15 to 30%, including the 18 sloped single-family residential lots previously mentioned (see the map on Attachment 9). Staff reviewed the sites with the City’s Consulting Geologist to verify the slopes, categorize the lots, and assess which geologic/geotechnical and physical characteristics were of concern. Based on this analysis, the 389 lots have been characterized into two types—toe-of-hill lots and embankment/flood plain lots. There are 184 toe-of-hill lots and 205 embankment lots. Generally, toe-of- hill lots slope up towards the hillside at the rear of their property while embankment lots slope down towards a creek or other feature to the rear of their property. There are essentially two major concerns related to development on sloped single-family residential lots—structural safety and visual/aesthetics. Structural safety is addressed for all projects by the Planning, Building, and Public Works Departments during building permit plan review and inspections. Soils/geotechnical reports are required for all hillside development in the building plan review phase. In addition, geologic and/or geotechnical reports with peer review are required for development within geohazard zones. The ordinance and subsequent planning process helps to address visual, aesthetic, and grading impacts – all of which are noted in our General Plan Policies 2-48, 2-52, 5-10 through 5-12, and 5- 19 through 5-23 (Attachment 10). In order to determine which regulations would be appropriate to address these issues, staff looked at the following items: 1.At what point does slope become a concern? 2.Are any other geological characteristics a concern? 3.Which regulations should be applied to sloped lots in order to reduce visual, aesthetic and environmental impacts? The following discussion highlights the analysis and recommendations related to the above issues. Slopes and Setback Standards The City’s Consulting Geologist felt that slope starts becoming an issue when homes are built on slopes of 20% or greater (see Attachment 11). Staff additionally notes that building on existing flat pads (as long as the geologic/geotechnical issues are addressed) is not a concern. 32 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 About 259 lots in the City have slopes of between 20% and 30%. Of those, 112 are toe-of-hill lots and 147 are embankment lots. Regarding setbacks, the Geologist felt that it would be best to keep a 25-foot setback from slopes of 20% and greater. He noted however, that for some lots, it would make building difficult and that geological and/or geotechnical review would be able to take care of structural issues. He did note that any visual/aesthetic concerns could be addressed by requiring additional review for excessive grading. Grading Under the current ordinance, grading for the 18 sloped single-family residential lots is limited to 2,500 cubic yards. Grading above 2,500 cubic yards requires Planning Commission review and is consistent with the Residential Hillside (RHS) ordinance. The intent is to avoid excessive grading as well as the resulting visual impacts of homes on lots with natural slopes. Based on a discussion with the City Geologist and staff engineers in the Public Works and Building Departments, staff notes that the 2,500 cubic yard limit is adequate for most single-family homes. A large truck can carry up to 10 cubic yards; therefore, 2,500 cubic yards would equal 500 round trip truck trips. Staff believes that any additional grading should require additional review to limit grading and visual impacts. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Second Story Requirements The current ordinance allows the 18 sloped single-family residential lots to build up to 45% total FAR on the flat portion of the lot. However, homes larger than 4,500 square feet and located off the flat pad require Planning Commission review. The 259 lots sloped between 20%-30% range from a size of 4,950 to 74,812 square feet, or 1.71 acres. Only about two lots are over an acre. Applying a single house size limitation does not appear to be appropriate to address visual impacts on lots of such varying sizes. A more appropriate criterion to address visual impacts would be the FAR, which would vary based on the size of the lot. Based on this, staff recommends additional Planning Commission review for homes with over 35% FAR. While a house size on larger lots is quite large, staff notes that there are only two lots over an acre, most of which have been already recently developed. Also, the screening and setback opportunities offered by the larger lot would likely be adequate to address visual or privacy issues. Second story and balcony requirements for the 18 sloped single-family residential lotsare currently consistent with the Residential Hillside zone, which does not have a specified review process for second stories and balconies. The RHS Ordinance does not limit the size of second stories, and at the time of the 2007 ordinance amendments for the 18 sloped single-family lots, second stories in the other R1-zoned properties were limited to 45% second story to first story ratio. The current Single-Family Residential Ordinance does not have that limitation any more, provided that there is additional review and the design criteria are being met. As noted above, the special requirements referring to RHS zones have only applied to the 18 specified sloped single-family residential lots and not to other sloped single-family residential lots. Staff therefore believes that the Single-Family Residential Ordinance requirements would be adequate and should apply to all sloped lots between 20% and 30%. Fencing Requirements Fencing requirements for the 18 sloped single-family residential lots are similar to those in the RHS zone. The requirements have a limitation on the amount of yard area that can be fenced with solid board fencing and also encourages open fencing in order to preserve views to the hillsides. Many of the sloped lots in the City are smaller and do not share the same characteristics as the hillside properties that are currently under these regulations. Therefore, staff recommends that only fences that are widely visible to public view and create visual impacts on the look and feel of an area (for example, blocks public views to 33 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 the western hills or an open space preserve) be required to maintain the special fencing requirements. This is consistent with General Plan Policy 2-53. All other sloped lots would have fencing requirements similar to lots in the Single-Family Residential zone (no restrictions on fence material). Based on the discussion above, staff is recommending consideration of the following options. Staff additionally notes that the recommendations are generally in keeping with the majority opinions of the public at the workshop. Options for Sloped Single-Family Residential Lots 1.Slopes – Require additional review for homes built on lots with slopes of between 20% and 30%. Buildings on existing pads with slopes lower than 20% should not require additional review. 2.Grading – Continue to require Planning Commission review for projects that propose grading of over 2, 500 cubic yards. 3.FAR and Second Story requirements – Keep the same as for other Single-Family Residential lots. However, homes with an FAR of greater than 35% would require Planning Commission review. Staff believes that additional review for increased grading and FAR will address issues related to visual and environmental impacts. 4.Fencing requirements – Same as for other Single-Family Residential lots. However, fences that are widely to public view andcreate visual impacts on the look and feel of an area (for example, blocks public views to the western hills or an open space preserve) be would have fencing requirements similar to that in the RHS zone Section 19.40.080A.2. and B. (limited solid board fencing, unlimited open fencing- see Attachment 12). 5.Tree removal and retaining wall requirements – Remove current requirements for the allowance of certain protected tree removals and retaining wall screening. Staff believes that the tree removal requirements should be the same as for other Single-Family Residential lots. The Protected Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14.18) currently protects species of a certain diameter such as Oaks, Deodar Cedars, and Bay Laurels; and trees that were required to be protected as part of an earlier approval. Also, staff believes that all retaining walls (regardless of the district they are built in) should be screened with landscaping to reduce visual impacts. Staff will review placing this requirement elsewhere in the zoning ordinance to apply to all retaining walls. 6.Building and roof forms; and Exterior color requirements – These two regulations from the RHS Ordinance (section 19.40.070) should be carried over to assist in reducing visual and aesthetic impacts and help house designs blend with the natural surroundings. 7.Keep existing requirements in either of the above categories. Pros Grading restrictions would allow additional review in order to reduce visual and aesthetic impacts. Would allow the public and Planning Commission to ensure that excess grading is done properly from a visual and environmental standpoint. As noted earlier, a large truck can carry up to 10 cubic yards, and 2,500 cubic yards would equal 500 round trip truck trips. FAR limitations would reduce potential visual impacts of buildings on slopes. Staff notes that additional review for increased grading and design review would address this issue. Permitting larger second stories would allow for more varied designs. Larger second stories on sloped lots would allow buildings to fit into the natural slope and reduce excessive grading. Open fencing requirements would reduce the potential visual impacts associated with solid board fencing on highly visible upslope portions of lots. 34 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 Cons Setbacks from slopes could potentially make certain lots difficult to build on – Geologic/geotechnical requirements would make it safe and grading limitations would address visual impacts. Additional review for increased grading would delay the review process for applicants. Larger second stories could create greater visual impacts. Staff notes that design review for large second stories (above 45% second to first floor ratio) would address this issue. Public comments 42% of the workshop attendees felt that there should be setback standards from steep slopes. 67% of the workshop attendees felt that there should be additional review for buildings built on slopes as opposed to flat pads. 50% of the workshop attendees felt that there should be higher review for grading beyond the existing quantity limits. 58% of the workshop attendees felt that there should not be additional FAR restrictions. 50% of the workshop attendees felt that second floor area should be limited to 45% or more with additional architectural review criteria required for second stories that are larger. This is the case in the current R1 ordinance, particularly if design review for larger second stories is preserved. 50% of the workshop attendees felt that there should be open fencing requirements for lots near hillsides. Environmental Assessment On June 16, 2011, the Environmental Review Committee recommended that a negative declaration from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) be adopted since none of the potential ordinance amendment options wouldhavesignificantadverse environmental impacts.The Negative Declaration will be brought to the City Council for approval along with the ordinance amendments. Next Steps The Planning Commission comments and recommendations will be forwarded to City Council in August for consideration of potential ordinance amendments. Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: /s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Draft Resolution Attachment 2 Planning Commission Subcommittee report on process improvements Attachment 3 Limited R1 review questionnaire from the May 24, 2011 workshop Attachment 4 Tally of workshop attendee responses on the limited R1 review handout Attachment 5 Comments and questions from the limited R1 review workshop discussion on May 24, 2011 35 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 Attachment 6 Proposed R1 ordinance text amendments for readability and consistency Attachment 7 Revised Two-Story Design Principles for projects with second to first floor ratios greater than 45% Attachment 8 Additional information on two-story design review, noticing, story poles, and R1- 20/single-family residential sloped lots Attachment 9 Map of sloped single-family residential lots Attachment 10 Existing General Plan policies related to development on sloped lots Attachment 11 Memo from Cotton, Shires, and Associates regarding geotechnical constraints of sloped single-family residential lots Attachment 12 Existing RHS fencing requirements G:\\Planning\\PDREPORT\\pc MCA reports\\2011\\MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05.doc 36 MCA-2011-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 19.28, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, TO IMPROVE READABILITY AND CONSISTENCY, THE TWO-STORY DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS, PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENTS, STORY POLE REQUIREMENTS, AND STANDARDS FOR SLOPED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENITAL LOTS The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Cupertino Municipal Code as shown below: 1.Readability and consistency improvements. 2.Two-story design review process. 3.Public noticing requirements. 4.Story pole requirements. 5.Standards for sloped single-family residential lots. PASSED AND APPROVED this 28th day of June 2011, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair Director of Community Development Planning Commission 37 38 39 3: 41 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance ReviewWorkshop May 24, 2011 Two Story Design Review Objective:Evaluate whether the R1 Two-Story Design Review process should be streamlined. 1.second to first story ratio: Keep existing process – Two-Story Permit, City staff design review,and noticing Yes No No design review, but keep the Two-Story Permit and Two-story house with design review public noticing process Yes No No design review (apply for building permit) Yes No 2.> – Keep existing process- Two-Story Permit, City staff design review, architectural consultant review, and noticing Yes No Two-story house without design review Keep existing process but simplifydesign principlesby illustrating examples of common architectural styles Yes No No design review,but keep Two-Story Permit and public noticing process Yes No No design review (apply for building permit) Yes No >45% 2nd to 1st fl.ratio with design review Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 42 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance ReviewWorkshop May 24, 2011 Noticing Objective:Evaluate noticing area and materialfor R1 projects. 1.Noticing radius: Keep existing radii of 300’ (for 2-story and Exceptions) Yes No Adjacent only and across the street Yes No Notice board for two-story house 2.Noticing material: Keep existing process of mailing notices and 11” x 17” plan sets Yes No Send notices and only site plan and elevations to adjacent property owners and across the street Yes No Send notices only and have onsite notice board Yes No No mailed notice, only onsite notice board Yes No Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Story Poles Objective: Evaluate whether story poles should be required. 1.Keep the existing requirementsto install story poles for all two-story projects Yes No 2.Remove the requirements Yes No Story poles for new two-story home 3.Option of story poles or 3D photo simulation Yes No Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 43 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance ReviewWorkshop May 24, 2011 R1-20/R1 Sloped Lots Objective: Evaluate whether there should be different standards for R1-20 lots and R1 sloped lots. 1. apply to all R1-zoned lots with slopes 389 affected lots—categorized as “Toe of Hill” and Embankment/Flood Plain Lot Yes No 2.Development near Steep Slopes-Should there be setback standards for development near slopes Yes No 3.Building off Flat Pad- Should building off the flat pad require Yes No Grading- Currently, projects with grading quantities Toe of Hill lot cubic yards require Planning Commission review and a maximum of 2,000 sq. ft. area is allowed to be graded for the building pad. Should additional grading continue to require Yes No FAR Restrictions-Should there be different FAR restrictions Yes No nd 6.Second Floor Area- Should 2Floor Area follow existing R1- View downslope of R1-20 lots Yes No 7.Fencing- Should there be openfencing requirements for lots that abut RHS-zoned properties (similar to R1-20), i.e. toe of Yes No Comments: __________________________________________________________ View of R1-20 lots from valley floor 44 Tally of May 24, 2011 workshop attendee responses on the limited R1 review handout Two Story Design Review 1.second to first story ratio: Keep existing process – Two-Story Permit, City staff design review, and noticing 8 (57%) Yes 6 (43%) No No design review, but keep the Two-Story Permit and public noticing process 4 (29%) Yes 10 (71%) No No design review (apply for building permit) 3 (21%) Yes 11 (79%) No 2.> – Keep existing process- Two-Story Permit, City staff design review, architectural consultant review, and noticing 8 (57%) Yes 6 (43%) No Keep existing process but simplify design principles by illustrating examples of common architectural styles 5 (36%) Yes 9 (64%) No No design review, but keep Two-Story Permit and public noticing process 3 (21%) Yes 11 (79%) No No design review (apply for building permit) 3 (21%) Yes 11 (79%) No Comments: I believe if a project is satisfying the guidelines, then the staff can approve without any further review There should not be any design regulations except for setbacks. We should bring more different designs into the City instead. All residential homes look similar. Each house should look unique. Design review process needed. Please leave everything the way it is. The process works very well now and doesn’t need to be changed. Neighbors with small lots are at risk if the R1 Ordinance for two-story design review process is changed. Small lot neighborhoods are at risk if story poles are eliminated. Small lots are at risk if neighborhood noticing is eliminated. No option is perfect, all need to modify. Need review, but need to simplify. Please keep the existing rules. Keep the existing standards and review. Use common sense when reviewing architectural style. Noticing *one questionnaire was not filled out for this section 1.Noticing radius: Keep existing radii of 300’ (for 2-story and Exceptions) 11 (85%) Yes 2 (15%) No Adjacent only and across the street 2 (15%) Yes 11 (85%) No 45 2.Noticing material: Keep existing process of mailing notices and 11” x 17” plan sets 8 (62%) Yes 5 (38%) No Send notices and only site plan and elevations to adjacent property owners and across the street 4 (31%) Yes 9 (69%) No Send notices only and have onsite notice board 3 (23%) Yes 10 (77%) No No mailed notice, only onsite notice board 1 (8%) Yes 12 (92%) No Comments: Larger radius than 300 feet would be good. Use the website for all details. Keep the existing noticing procedures. Existing process wastes paper and plans should be available online. Story Poles *two questionnaires were not filled out for this section 1.Keep the existing requirements to install story poles for all two-story projects 5 (42%) Yes 7 (58%) No 2.Remove the requirements 6 (50%) Yes 6 (50%) No 3.Option of story poles or 3D photo simulation 4 (33%) Yes 8 (66%) No Comments: Must have a 3D photosimulation and with a street elevation between neighbor Maybe add the 3D photosimulation to story poles for window placement, etc. Please leave story poles alone. They work well now. It would be great to add the 3D photosimulation along with the story poles. Use technology to its fullest- 3D photosimulation Story poles do not properly indicate or describe the true situation and style of the project. Also cost of installation is expensive. R1-20/R1 Sloped Lots *two questionnaires were not filled out for this section 1.-zoned lots with slopes 5 (42%) Yes 5 (42%) No 2 (16%) No Response 2.Development near Steep Slopes- Should there be setback standards for development near slopes 5 (42%) Yes 4 (33%) No 3 (25%) No Response 3.Building off Flat Pad- Should buildi 46 8 (67%) Yes 4 (33%) No Grading- and a maximum of 2,000 sq. ft. area is allowed to be graded for the building pad. Should additional grading 5 (42%) Yes 6 (50%) No 1 (8%) No Response FAR Restrictions- 4 (33%) Yes 7 (58%) No 1 (8%) No Response nd 6.Second Floor Area- Should 2Floor Area follow existing R1- 5 (42%) Unlimited 6 (50%) Limited 1 (8%) No Response 7.Fencing- Should there be open fencing requirements for lots that abut RHS-zoned properties (similar to R1- 6 (50%) Yes 5 (42%) No 1 (8%) No Response Comments: Don’t change anything. Please keep things the way they are. We have gone over these issues many times. Let’s keep what we have. Do not change the rules that people have spent so much time on before. Do not re-invent the wheel. 47 Comments and Questions from Limited R1 Review Workshop Discussion on May 24, 2011 General Comments R1 rules don’t apply to all lots Leave the existing R1 Ordinance the way it is Upon annexation, residents were promised that Cupertino would have codes to prevent larger homes Cupertino website a good resource and should have more resources and plan sets available to the public R1 should not be relaxed Don’t build homes that adversely impact street trees Questions Whose voices carry weight? Residents? Architects? Two-Story Design Review Comments Cupertino needs to improve upon 2-story design review to make it less complex; currently it is difficult to read. The process/regulations should be like Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Woodside. Questions Whose aesthetics are we designing to? Aesthetics- who is the judge? What is the process for challenging those decisions? Noticing Comments Existing process of send plan sets and notices works well Noticing radius should be greater than 300 feet 2 weeks does not seem like a long enough notice period Story Poles Comments Homeowners who erect story poles end up damaging roofs regardless whether they build or not Story poles needed on hillside lots Story poles are onerous. They look too boxy, the wind blows them down, and they don’t work in most cases. Feel that 3D perspectives are much better. Story poles have been a benefit to neighbors. They work well in small neighborhoods and provide good visual estimation of what a house will look like. Story poles let people know exactly what they are getting. Story poles and 3D photosims should be required, with a minimum of story poles Should remove story poles—waste of money and time and do not tell the story Story poles are a great visual cue to a new project, lets neighbors know what house will look like Sloped Single-Family Residential Lots Questions How does slope percentage translate to slope degree? Is there a City database on the slope of lots? 48 le for detached dwellings in order to: 49 a). - (R1 – FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1) ZONES - e) Development Regulations - Story Residential Permit. - rmits Required. family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitab - .28.100 Landscape Requirements. 19.28.080 Development Regulations19.28.090 Two Story Design Guidelines1919.28.110 Permitted Yard Encroachments.19.28.120 Minor Residential Permits.19.28.130 Two 19.28.010 Purposes.19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations.19.28.030 Pe19.28.040 Zoning Districts Established.19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site).19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building).19.28.070 Eicher (R119.28.140 Exceptions.19.28.150 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 1 single - R CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE 19.28.010 Purposes. A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods; 1, r enlarged rt), 1992) 99; Ord. 160 ; Family Residential District. - Chapter 19.124 4: family day care home, which structures within residential neighborhoods; - e does not meet the criteria for a in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable Issued by the Director of Community Temporary uses, subject to Large Conditional A.Development:1.regulations established by 2.otherwispermitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health Uses , intensity setting in the community. - of this title; Chapter 19.82 and Conditional Uses. R1 Ordinance family residence district other than - dwelling unit conforming Chapter 19.80 family use; - 1 single - Reformatted Single Accessory facilities and uses A second Draft B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale ofD. Reinforce the predominantly low(Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, §1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 19Exh. 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 oin an Rprovisions of this title. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, §1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (pa 19.28.030 Permitted Table 19.28.030 sets forth the Permitted and Conditional uses in the Single Permitted A.B.to the provisions, standards and procedures described in except for those second dwelling units requiring a conditional use permit;C.customarily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with the provisions of G(6) of this atures that 51 story limitation - 19.28.060 of this title. ; story structures in an area - o Issued by the Planning Commission: Buildings or structures which Second dwelling units which require Home occupations requiring a TwGroup care activities with greater Conditional and Safety Code;3.incorporate solar design ferequire 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.a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.845.conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92B.1.designated for a onepursuant to Section 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.than six persons; Uses ; Chapter 19.92 rdening, and growing R1 Ordinance family day care home; - Reformatted The keeping of a maximum of four Home occupations in accordance Small Horticulture, ga Residential care facility that is Utility facilities essential to provision Draft Permitted D.with the provisions of E.of food products.F.licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff;G.H.adult household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept on the site;I.of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or 52 staff, is a minimum eet from the property the providers, provider Facility that has the Facility that is not required to b.c. Residential care facilities that fall into Facility that is not required to obtain a Congregate residence with eleven or Conditional 3.the following categories:a.license by the State, County agency or department and has six or less residents, not includingfamily or staff;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 fboundary of another residential care facility;obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; 4.more residents, which is a minimum Uses - The Director of parking and R1 Ordinance and which are at least family day care homes, which - Reformatted Congregate residence with ten or less Large Draft Permitted corporation yards;J.meet the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100three hundred feet from any other largefamily day care home.Community Development or his/her designee shall administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with theproximity requirements;K.residents; . Approval authority AdminAdmin.Admin.DRC permit Story Permit) - Discretionaryrequired prior to building permit application NoneMinor Residential PermitResidential Design Review (Two five square - a zone - quirements 53 existing side in the R1 nce of one thousand feet from the Conditional distaboundary of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventyfeet of usable rear yard area per occupant. Uses art), 2005; Ord. 1860, §1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1688, §3 , and/or second story deck alcony with views into neighboring discretionary planning permits required for development in the R1 zone. story home - story home the - R1 Ordinance new two , 0 sets forth 4 .0 olar easements or adjoining property owners 8 0 Permits Required. 4 Reformatted Transitional housing and supportive story addition or new twostory addition story project that does not require exception or variance from the restory project with building area that encroaches no more than 10 feet into the story project with an extension of no more than 15 feet along one story project with a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space projecting -- Draft Permitted L.housing. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (p(part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.0 Table 19.2 ---- Type of Project Oneof this ordinanceOnerequired rear yard setbackOneyard nonconforming building wall lineOneoutside the building envelope with a wall height of 17 feet, 1 inch to 20 feetNew or expanded second story deck or bresidential side or rear yardsAny active or passive solar structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter, provided that provided that no such structure shall infringe upon sTwoTwo Approval authority PCAdmin.DRCPCPCAdmin. inimum lot area \[minimum lot area - symbol\] permit 10,000 square foot m - Discretionaryrequired prior to building permit application Use PermitArchitectural and Site ApprovalExceptionExceptionVarianceHillside ExceptionDirector’s Minor Modification (not to exceed 18 feet high) rea corresponds to the number (multiplied by 1,000 square feet) ht Rural Characteristics - 54 minimum lot area corresponds to the number (multiplied by 1,000 \[ exceeding slopes of inimum lot a \] han five (5) feet into M - or the cut plus fill of the no more t . (excluding driveways) 20 zone located off the flat pad 20 zone where proposed grading exceeds 2,000 -- Zoning Definition Single Family Residential DistrictSingle Family Residential District Restricted to One Storycorresponds to the number (multiplied by 1,000 square feet) preceding the ‘i’ Single Family Residential Eichler District square feet) preceding the ‘e’ symbolSingle Family Residential District with Semi zoning district with an “i” suffix 30% (area greater than 500 square feet) a zone - R1 Ordinance orch platform and roof overhang roject in the R1 Zoning Districts Established 0 story project in the R1story pstory project requesting an exception from sections 19.28.060, 19.28.070, story project requesting a variance from section 19.28.130 for the building pad area 5 ---- Reformatted XXiXea ---- story project in an R1story project requesting an exception from the second story wall heig and producing floor area exceeding 4,500 of total house size -- Draft 19.28.0 Table 19.28.050 sets forth the zoning districts established. Zoning Designation R1R1R1R1 a zone - Type of Project TwoOne or two10% One or twosquare feet site exceeds 2,500 cubic ardsTworegulationOne or twoand/or 19.28.120One or twoDevelopment on Slopes > Encroachment of a porch post no more than two (2) feet into the front setback in an R1Encroachment of a pthe front setback in an R1 a - R1 10,00075 -- Xe - R1 the number x1,000See Chapter 16.28 (Fence Ordinance) Family Residential District. - , except that need section 55 this ) 0 4 (composed of - 5,000 square foot site - ) 0 cubic yards maximumsquare feet (Projects section 19.28.0 olid board 20 - R1 20,0002,500(Projects that exceed additional approval per 19.28.042,000exceed this need additional approval per 1. S area (excluding principal building)2. Open fencing materials which result in a minimum of 75% visual transparency) unrestrictedthat such fencing over 3 feet in height may not be constructed , 6, 7.5, 8, 10 -- - R1etc.the numberx1,00060 R1 Ordinance 5 - ,000 R1 550See Chapter 16.28 (Fence Ordinance) 0 Development Regulations (Site). 6 1, 2 1 Reformatted (in , Draft 19.28.0 Table 19.28.060 sets forth the site development regulations in the Single at the , uilding Minimum Total (in Minimum B . Fencing . et lot area (in . ot width (in 1 A. nsquare feet)B. lfeetfront setback line)C. Maximum site grading cubic yards, cut plus fill)2pad areaexcluding driveways square feet)D a - R1 -- Xe - R1 rees 56 faced block, - materials ed into the site design to the the front yard setback 20 - Up to two protected trees with a evelopment. . No specimen size trees may be R1 withinRetaining walls in excess of 5 feet shall be screened with landscape materials or faced with decorative materials such as splitriver rock, or similarsubject to the approval of the Director of Community Development1removed without a permit as provided for in the Protected Tree Ordinance, Chapter 14.18 of this code. Native trees should be integratgreatest extent possible.2. diameter less than 18 inches may be removed to accommodate a building pad subject to approval of the Director of Community D 3. Removal of protected texceeding 18 inches or removal of more than two protected trees require approval of a tree removal permit by the Planning Commission in accordance with the Protected Tree Ordinance. , 6, 7.5, 8, 10 -- - R1etc. R1 Ordinance 5 - R1 Reformatted s Draft E. Retaining wall screeningF. Tree s for of the landscaping section 19.28.030 a - per R1 Landscaping plans are required for all additions or new homes. The purposeis to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms from the street and adjacent properties. Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences. Xe - R1 57 20 - R1 ng for the building pad, yard areas, driveway, and all other areas requiring grading, but does , ounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping that meets the following equally among the participating lots, e.g. two lots sharing a driveway will divide the driveway sion and to screen cut and fill slopes. 6, 7.5, 8, 10 - R1etc. R1 Ordinance 5 - contain less area than required by its zoning designation, but not less than 5,000 square feet, may nevertheless be used : to prevent soil ero R1 Limited to 500 square feet. Development greater than 500 square feet requires a Hillside Exception See Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and City Engineer, submit a A plan Reformatted i. All cut and fill areas shall be r Lots, which The 2,500 cubic yards includes gradi Draft 1 as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled. 2 not include basements. The graded area is limited to the building pad area to the greatest extent possible. Grading quantitiemultiple driveways are dividedgrading quantity in half. The divided share will be charged against the grading quantity allowed for that lot development. 3 requirements . evelopment . GDon slopes 30%HLandscaping of this code. Chapter 14.15 additional review per which were denuded by prior month period from occupancy. All - lopes Ordinance, e part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. gs or additions off the flat pad and arren s 20 - 45% of the net lot area for development proposed Buildin isting building and addition does not exceed R1 1.on the existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to or less than 10% slope, of any lot. 2. producing floor area exceeding 4,500 square feet of total house size require section 19.28.030 3. Additions within an existing building envelope are permitted provided that the total FAR of the ex Family Residential District. - , etc. 58 7.5, 8, 10 - 6, R1 - lations in the Single tree planting plan for the site which will screen grading areas, and residential R1 shall meet the requirements as established in the Landscap s 5 by walls on at least three (3) sides - 45% of the net lot area. An additional 5% is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches, and other similar features not enclosed . post a bond, cash, or other security to ensure installation within an 18 R1 1. 2. on45% of the net lot area R1 Ordinance licensed landscape architect shall prepare a 0 Development Regulations (Building). A structures, to the greatest possible extent, as well as to reintroduce trees on bagricultural activitiesLandscape improvementLandscape improvements shall be installed prior to final occupancy unless such installation is impracticable, in which case, the applicant shallsuch landscape areas shall be properly maintained. 7 Reformatted ii. iv. iii. Draft (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 2011, 2007; Ord. 2000, 2007; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, § 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)19.28.0 Table 19.28.070 sets forth the building development regu A. Maximum lot coverageB. Maximum floor area ratio and provided total FAR does not . 20 - R1 45%.None established, exceed 45% , etc. Appendix 59 area will count as first floor area. ; 7.5, 8, 10 - this 6, R1 - floor area house, this area will count as second story floor area; R1 re; and story story house, - - counted as the second floor to first floor ratio - selected; ciples" are attached hereto as double and incorporated herein by this reference. be An identifiable architectural style shall be provided; Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style Visual relief deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development shall be provided; Materials shall be of high quality; Ensure appropriate building mass and scale; Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structuThe design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance. The "City of Cupertino Two Story Design PrinA a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h. 5 - 45% of the existing or proposed first floor area, or The Director of Community Development may Shall If the house is a two .. R1 1. 750 square feet, whichever is greater. 2. grant approval to greater than 45% provided that the following design principles are met: 12 3. If the house is a one > R1 Ordinance floor st to 1 with heights nd Reformatted Draft C. Maximum floor area ratio, 2D. Interior areas (measured from the floor to the top of roof rafters) 16 feet if, after the , 0 m the front setback section 19.28.13 20 - side by side. shall be less than 10 feet) R1 shall occur , etc. 5: 7.5, 8, 10 - (no side yard setback 6, R1 - with a Minor Residential Permit, subject to , R1 15 feet combined (no side yard setback shall be less than 5 feet) car garages oriented to the public right of way, the wall plane of the third space - two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the front property o more than two (2) 15 foot setbacks . N be reduced to 10 feet 5 feet but not less than 20 feet from the rear property line of an adjacent single family dwelling - May 20 feet feet . . R1 20 feet15 feet.For projects with threeshall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet from the wall plane of the other two (2) spaces.5 feet 512 feeta b25 feet 25 feet combined (no side yard setback shall be less than 10 feet)25 feet combined side yard setback 10 reduction, the useable rear yard is not less than 20 times the lot width as measured froline. R1 Ordinance car garage For lots that have more than - lot - e Minimum setbackSide entering garage with curved drivewayThreInterior SideStreet Side orner lot orner nterior lot Reformatted Interior LotInterior Side IRear yardC C . a.b.c.a.b.a. 1. Front yarda4. 3. 3. 1. Front yard2. Side yarda. Draft E. Minimum first floor setbacks 2. Side yard line and rear property line F. Minimum second floor setbacks cept 20 - R1 , etc. 61 shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwell 7.5, 8, 10 - 0 for permits required. second floor to first floor ratios greater than 45%. 6, R1 - with R1 story house with a basement, one lightwell may be up to 10 feet wide and 10 - homes to the basement and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the See section 19.28.04 . added in whole or any combination to the second floor front and/or side yard setback from any property line oes not apply 5 feet - Must be 10 feet D hall be the minimum required by the California Building Code for egress, light, and ventilation, ex . S28 feet R1 12 feet20 feet 25a b.requirements. c. 15 feet20 feet that in the case of a singlefeet long.5 feet10 feetMaximum height of 3 feet. The fence Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping.The perimeter of most effective root barrier measures as determined by the Director of Community Development. Limited to one story(not to exceed 18 feet) gs R1 Ordinance charge s econd story deck setbacks sur s lot ear yard ide yard R S oot barrier uilding lag etback Reformatted . Street Sidevolume of lightwells SR FB b. a . Lightwell railin. Lightwell . b. 5. Rear yard6. 1. Side yard2. Rear yardBasement2. Minimum setback for lightwell retaining wall345 4. 1. Number, size, and screeningmeasures1. 2. Zoning Districts Minimum s Draft I. G. H. Maximum height feet for story - ; and ; 0 on to this regulation based on the story structures and single - ope defined by: 20 - R1 e end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a building envel ial Permit subject to section 19.28.13 t , etc. , a gabl 62 7.5, 8, 10 homes with second floor to first floor ratios greater than 45%. - plate to and shall be offset a minimum of four (4) feet from the first story exterior to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to 20 6, R1 - top of feet R1 er length of the second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater building envelope story structures must fit into the ; - 25 degree roof line angle projected inward at the 10 foot high line referenced above ; and hall have a minimum two (2) foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story 5 - This regulation does not apply A S 50% of the total perimet The overlap shall be structural Defined by a 10 foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line . . Notwithstanding the . The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single R1 asections of twoi. ii b a. than six (6) feet b. e. The Director of Community Development may approve an exceptifindings in section 19.28.140.14 feet from natural grade to The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residen maximum wall height of 17with a Minor Residential Permit. wall c. wall plane. d. R1 Ordinance building “i” suffix * Reformatted with envelopeexposed wall heightsheight . Entry feature . First floor . Second story 5 34 . Solar Design Draft I g district ), 1993; Ord. story home or second story - a, or 750 square feet, whichever is greater. hall be provided; overhangs, patios, porches, and other similar e district. - to preclude a harmonious two 63 ), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, Visual relief deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development shall be provided; Materials shall be of high quality; Ensure appropriate building mass and scale; Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure; and The design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance. An identifiable architectural style sDesign features, proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style selected; d.e.f. a.b.c.g. Xe - 45% of the net lot area. An additional 5% is allowed for roof 45% of the existing or proposed first floor areThe Director of Community Development may grant approval to the second floor to first ), 1992) R1 1. 2. features not enclosed by walls on at least three (3) sides45% of the net lot area1. 2. floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the following design principles are met: st to 1 nd e) Development Regulations - R1 Ordinance family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural form through the establishment of district site - 0 Eicher (R1 . 8 Reformatted e single - Pertains to all buildings in a designated area as prescribed by the City Council by affixing the designation “i” to the zonin - Draft *symbol (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part(part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part 19.28.0 R1development regulations. Nothing in these regulations is intended addition. Table 19.28.080 sets forth the building development regulations in the R1 A. Maximum lot coverageB. Maximum floor area ratio C. Maximum floor area ratio, 2floor and counted as - yard setback -- double must not be less than 20 feet from and shall be and nt as second story floor area; 25 feet combined side Second floor25 feet25 feet combined (no side yard setback shall be less than 10 feet)12 feet 10 feet the rear property line of an adjacent single family dwelling20 feet 25 feet area will count as first floor area. 64 car garages oriented story house, this area will cou story house, this - - two (2) 15 foot --- the wall plane of the occur side by side. ; shall . The "City of Cupertino Two Story Design Principles" are attached hereto as an Appendix and incorporated herein by this reference. easured from the floor to the top of the roof rafters, h. Xe feet - M20 feet R1 1. floor area 2. If the house is a two 3. If the house is a oneFirst floor20 feet15 feet. No more than setbacks For projects with threeto the public right of way, the wall plane of the third space shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet from other two (2) spaces.15 feet combined (no side yard setback shall be less than 5 feet)125 feeta. > 16 feet R1 Ordinance Garage riveway car Side - orner lot Minimum setbackSide entering garage with curved dThreeInterior Lot Street lag lot C Reformatted ii. Interior Side i. . F . Rear yard b. a.b.c.a. c 1. Front yard2. Side yard3 Draft D. Interior areas with heights E. Minimum setbacks ll be the 15 feet20 feet by landscaping. feet Setback distance added in whole or any 10 This regulation does not apply for homes a. b.combination to the second floor front and/or side yard setback requirements. c. second floor to first floor ratios greater than 45%. section With a Minor , story house with a basement, one lightwell may be up to 10 feet 65 - - if, after the reduction, the useable s ity Development. , be reduced to 10 feet ay Xe - M The number, size, and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors sha R1 b.-- minimum required by the California Building Code for egress, light, and ventilation, except that in the case of a singlewide and 10 feet long.5 feet10 feet3 feet and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwellLightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened 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 Commun Residential Permit, subject to 19.28.120rear yard is not less than 20 times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. retaining wall ction 19.28.030 for permits required.root See se - R1 Ordinance (suggest changes as in table above) e yard Side yardRear yard ear yard ightwell retaining wall Sid Reformatted R L . . Surcharge setback. Lightwell railings. Lightwell landscaping a.b. 41. Number, size, and volume of 2. Minimum setback for lightwellb345. lightwellsbarrier measures a. . Basements . Second Story Decks Draft 5F ; ; and story structures and - vided in this chapter may be varied for a structure ; story structures must fit into the building envelope defined by: - 66 ; and ns of two story wall ector of Community Development may approve an exception to this regulation story sectio - 25 degree roof line angle projected inward at the 10 foot high line referenced above 10 foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line hall have a minimum two (2) foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against Xe - A 50% of the total perimeter length of the second story walls shall not have exposed wall The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four (4) feet from the first A . R1 28 feeta. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on singlesinglei. ii b. Notwithstanding the building envelope, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of 17 feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to 20 feet with a Minor Residential Permit. a. heights greater than six (6) feet b. Sthe second c. story exterior wall plane. d. This regulation does not apply for homes with second floor to first floor ratios greater than 45%. e. The Dirbased on the findings in section 19.28.140.See Two Story Design Guidelines, Section 19.28.090The setback and height restrictions proutilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners.Integrated with the roofline of the house the street (suggest changes as in Table above) R1 Ordinance building envelope ory exposed wall Reformatted heights 1. Total building height2. First floor 3. Second st4. Entry feature height 1. Entry features facing . Solar Design . Maximum height . Building design requirements Draft G HI - double and shall be except as follows: overhangs, patios, porches, and other a district. story house, this area will count as second story floor area; - - ; 67 in height, measured from the top of the floor to the top of the wall floor area A second floor may be at least 750 square feet in area 1 % of the existing or proposed first floor area, easured from the floor to the top of the roof rafters, a - a. b. In no case shall a second floor be more than 1,000 square feet in area 45% of the net lot area. An additional 5% is allowed for roofM R1 1. 2. similar features not enclosed on by walls on at least three (3) sides45% of the net lot area1. 401. counted as2. If the house is a twoand rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots. - Xe - 2 R1 3:12 (rise over run)Shall incorporate vertical grooves, up to 6 inches apartThe building design shall incorporate straight architectural lines, rather than curved linesNo more than 12 inches above the existing gradeShall not exceed 9 feet plate a). - floor t s (R1 – to 1 nd einforce the semi > 16 feet R1 Ordinance are intended to r Development Regulations lding design 0 9 Reformatted public street (not including the garage door) a districts 2. Maximum roof slope3. Wood siding on walls facing a 4. Bui5. First floor elevation6. Exterior walls adjacent to side - Draft yards (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, §1 (part), 2000)19.28.0 R1 Table 19.28.090 sets forth the building development regulations in the R1 A. Maximum lot coverageB. Maximum total floor area ratio (including all structures and floors on the lot)C. Maximum floor area ratio, 2D. Interior areas with heights - roperty line of an s first floor area. combined side yard setback story wall plane feet Second floor 30 feet35 feet combined (no side yard setback shall be less than 15 feet)2512 feet10 feet and must not be less than 20 feet from the rear padjacent single family dwelling20 feet from any property line40 feet area will count a front elevation.pervious surfaces. - car garages story house, this - two (2) 15 foot - ide by side. - 68 occur s facing wall plane(s) of the second story must be offset a minimum of - shall 1 a - R1 3. If the house is a oneFirst floor 30 feet15 feet. No more than setbacks For projects with threeoriented to the public right of way, the wall plane of the third space shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet from the wall plane of the other two (2) spaces. 10 feet both sides 12 feet5 feet20 feetThe second story shall not cantilever over a firstThe frontthree (3) feet from the first story wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a two story wall plane on the 1. No more than 50% of the front yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi R1 Ordinance Car Garage floor wall plane - ior lot st facing wall plane(s) Street sideInterior side - orner lot to 1 nter Minimum setbackSide entering garage with curved drivewayThreeIC lag lot nd i. Reformatted ii. . Rear yard a.b.c.a.b. 1. Front yard2. Side Yard31. 22. Front c .F . Front Yard Paving . Second story design regulations Draft E. Minimum setbacks (measured from property line) F G story - t into the foot high line referenced 2 story house with a basement, - and located 10 feet from property ; story structures must fi - ; and ll himneys, antennae, or other appurtenances) story sections of two - e basement and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated ce such as concrete or asphalt. 69 tilation, except that in the case of a single foot high vertical line from natural grade 2 25 degree roof line angle projected inward at the 1 1 1 a hall have a minimum two (2) foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof - A 50% of the total perimeter length of the second story walls shall not have . R1 2. No more than 40% of the front yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surfaThe number, size, and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the California Building Code for egress, light, and venone lightwell may be up to 10 feet wide and 10 feet long.5 feet10 feet3 feet and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwellLightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping.The perimeter of thand/or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures as determined by the Director of Community Development.28 feeta. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on singlestructures and singlebuilding envelope defined by:i. Alines; and iiabove a. exposed wall heights greater than six (6) feetb. Sagainst the second story wa root barrier sed wall heights R1 Ordinance building envelope ightwell retaining wall Side Yard Reformatted Rear yard L . measures . Lightwell railings. Lightwell landscaping. ab. 1. Number, size, and volume of lightwells2. Minimum setbacks for lightwell retaining walls3451. Total building height3. Second story expo 2. First floor . Basements . Maximum height (measured from natural grade, not including fireplace c Draft H I . able family T - 19.50 in aces apter with the adopted single . ghborhood pattern in terms of building of the Cupertino Municipal Code in 28.140. 19.124 2 a - R1 1 Xe - R1 fringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. 6: 1 a - The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four (4) feet 20 . The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to this - R1 c. from the first story exterior wall plane.dregulation based on the findings in section 19.See Two Story Design Guidelines, Section 19.28.09015 feet20 feetThe 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 in R1 , etc.; story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent - uired. 6, 7.5, 8, 10 - a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter - R1 and R1 Design Guidelines R1 Ordinance e met prior to design approval: 5 Notwithstanding the above, a request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, - ar story house, or second R1 The mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction should not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neiforms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heightsThe design should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior sp - Two Story below a district. - Reformatted 100 4. Entry feature height1. Side yard2. Rear yard . Solar Design . Second story deck minimum setbacks (measured from property line and may only be located on the front and rear of the house) Variation from the R1 Draft JSee section 19.28.030 for permits reqK 1 the R1when the strict application of the provisions in this section, act as a barrier to fair housing opportunities, pursuant to Ch (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)19.28. Any new tworesidential guidelines. The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the items19.28.100 Neighborhood A. Compatibility and ProportionalityB. Higher volume nd e provided wide porches are encouraged btrusive or massive story elements in the neighborhood - 2 a - Traditional, open R1 1. Maximum of 25 feet 2. Additional garage spaces should bthrough the use of a tandem garage or a detached accessory structure at the rear of the propertya. b. When viewed from the street, a porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in heightStructural supports must be designed such that the appearance is not oThe use of large columns or pillars is discouragedThe eave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single 1 Xe - y greater height than its width) R1 71 al elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally 20 - R1 - , etc.; car wide driveway curb cut - 6, 7.5, 8, 10 - R1 an entry element, which has a proportionatel R1 Ordinance 5 - R1 There should not be a threeNo more than 50% of the front elevation of a house should consist of garage areaLong, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the secostoryThe current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintainedWhen possible, doors, windows and architecturand symmetrical in number, size and placement. Porches are encouraged Reformatted (A porch differs from es Draft porch . Eave height 1. Front 3. Columns4 2. Posts Exposed interior spacesC. Curb cutD. Garage width on front elevationE.second story wallsF. Side setback and garage orientation patternG. Window, door, and architectural element alignmentH. Porches height all offsets at least every 24 . Xe zone - 2 a - R1 Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements1. Should be fixed and obscured to a height of six (6) feet above the second floor; 2. Should have permanent exterior louvers to aof six (6) feet above the second floor; or3. Should have sill heights of five (5) feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy1. Should have building wfeet, with a minimum four (4) foot depth and 10 foot width. 2. The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. 1 Xe story homes in the R1 - - R1 14 feet from natural grade to plate 72 foot overhang - his Section shall take precedence. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be 20 - R1 , etc.; Fairgrove Neighborhood for two - 6, 7.5, 8, 10 ndbook - R1 R1 Ordinance 5 - R1 Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. All second story roofs should have at least a one guidelines shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines. In cases where there a - Reformatted R1 The Refer to the Eichler Design Ha Draft 1 2 may be conflict between the two sets of guidelines, tconsidered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. . Detailing 5 of overhang. Entry feature . Second story I. Garage setback to living areaJ. Second story roK. Second story windows on the side elevationsLwall heights greater than six (6) feet from finish floorMheight - . below degree angle on each - irty Table 19.28.110 story windows across the street are g distance between trees. nd story additions, modifications to - ; ounded by a th floor second story decks, two - story additions, modifications to the existing second o meet the requirements in - t a above the - R1 Placed to where views from 2partially mitigated. eet story homes that increase privacy impacts on neighboring story homes and additions, tree and/or shrub planting is f - - 73 shall be accompanied by a planting plan which identifies the story decks, two - story homes, second - new two story homes - mes, second : windows on existing two story ho bscure glass to a height of 6 box or larger, with a minimum height of six (6) feet. - - new shall apply to or s , etc.; . and/ and the visual mass and bulk of new two new second stories in the front yard Table 19.28.110 openable windows - - decks 20 - requirement 6, 7.5, 8, 10 e - with permanent exterior louvers to a height of 6 feet above the second floor; s new windows on existing two estory; R1 - R1 Ordinance R1 , or 5Xe The tree shall be 24 inchIn front of setback area. -- operable windows with o The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs. The list includes allowed plant New trees and/or shrubs are required on the applicant’s property in an area b - R1R1 a.b.a. side window jambb. species, minimum size of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and plantin indows and/ SkylightsWindows with a sill height of 5 feet minimum above the finished second floor; andWhen waivers have been obtained by all affected property owners Plan. Proposals for a new two Windows with sills more than 5 feet above the finished second floorObscured, nonWNon Landscape Requirements. 0 1. These requirements shall not apply toa.b.c.d.e.f.g. 1 Reformatted 1 Planting Draft 19.28.1 To mitigate privacy impactsrequired. The intent of this section is to provide substantial screening within three years of planting.A. Applicability. Ththe existing secondresidents. B. story decks,location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs C. Planting Requirements Front yard tree Privacy . 1.2Planting ng as from the ¼ of the spread – . istics of privacy planting second story windows in (b) of this section. facing (C)(3) - 12 feet. or – trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified . floor; side and rear yard second on the City list. a - . Minimum height . Minimum setback of trees from property line front or privacy R1 d enoted above the 74 ; or feet floor second termined to be infeasible by the Director of Community Development. to issuance of a building permit. minimum above the finished second floor above the vers to a height of 6 feet feet See City list. – , etc.; height of 5 with exterior lou 20 - 6, 7.5, 8, 10 - ; R1 R1 Ordinance R1 indows , 5Xe -- Affected property owner(s) may choose to allow privacy planting on their own property. In such cases, the applicant must New trees or shrubs are not required to replace existing The trees and/or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit.The privacy mitigation measures may be modified in any way with a signed waiver statement from the affected property . Minimum height R1R1 c.da. Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect verifies that the existing trees/shrubs have the characterspecies, subject to approval by the Director or Community Development b. plant the privacy screening prior c. owner. Modifications can include changes to the number of shrubs or trees, their species or locationThe property owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office that requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a final building inspection Building Division. This regulation does not apply to situations described in subsection The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruninecessary to yield a growth rate expected for a particular species.Where required planting is removed or dies it must be replaced within thirty days with privacy tree(s) of similar size as thetree(s) being replaced, unless it is de bscure glass to a height of 6 Cover w Have a window sill O A, B. C. Xe zone: - Reformatted In addition to the privacy planting requirements, the following is required for all Draft 1 the R1 (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) CovenantReplacement Waivers Maintenance . 34. 5. 6. , ion 2 See sect . t. . See section 19.28.040 for permit requirements. . et into the required front setback 1 Family Residential district. - story addition is not permitted to be within three (3) feet of - 75 the extended wall may not be increased. n is permitted for the life of such building. along its existing building lines if the addition receives a Minor Residential conforming wall and ive (5) feet into the required front setback - existing nonany property line. an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the granting of a variance or exceptioneither before or after such property become part of the City. llowed to encroach two (2) feet into the required front setback area . This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of . Only one such extensio . The maximum length of the extension is 15 feet. . The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback and the height of the . This section does not apply to attached accessory structures such as attached carports. . The extension of any wall plane of a first Posts for porches are allowed to encroach two (2) fe 1. 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 extendedPermit and conforms to the following: ab c d2 3a. May extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feeb. No architectural feature, or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or accessory structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. 19.28.040 for permit requirements.AMay encroach fAs allowed by Chapter 19.80, Accessory Structures a - a R1 Ordinance a zone - 0 Permitted Yard Encroachments. conforming Wall 2 - Reformatted .28.1 NonPlane for structures not located withinprominent ridgeline site line . Architectural Features 19 Draft Table 19.28.120 sets forth the permitted yard encroachments in the Single Permitted Yard Encroachments A. Extension of a Legal BC. Porch post in the R1zoneD. Low, open fencing for porches in the R1E. Porch platform and roof overhangF. Accessory Structures ss is to affected y or welfare. 000; Ord. 1834, fic plans, zoning and shall include a copy of the Family Residential district. 92) - at could have significant impacts on their inches in size. 17 76 inches by 11 Permits Director of Community Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the he Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all The notice shall invite public comment by a determined action date T The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. djacent to the subject property, including properties across a public or private street . The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property . The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable speci . Minor Residential 1. owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) 2.development plans, ATwo weeks1. application. The permit can be approved only upon making all of the following findings: aordinances and the purposes of this title. bor improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safet c a properties - a zone - R1 - n set non R1 Ordinance and pla Minor Residential Permits. 0 3 Reformatted (including attached patio covers) Does not apply in the R1Does not apply to Draft 12 (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2(part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 19 19.28.1 Projects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall be reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of this proceprovide affected neighbors with an opportunity to comment on new development thproperty or the neighborhood as a whole. Table 19.28.130 sets forth the requirements for Minor Residential Permits in the Single . Decision/findings . Public comment period A. Written noticeB. Mailing radiusCD can be story - story project with a floor - ance with this section. Two year extension without a public notice if - Family Residential district. - cant and any member of the public that commented on Story Residential Permit, while a two - 77 iled and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) Story Residential Permit in accord Modification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before the expiration - Permits Story Residential Permits in the Single - Story Residential Permit. - Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. Two weeksUnless a building permit is fIn the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Minor Residential Permit shall . Minor Residential d The City Council, Planning Commission, applithe project shall be notified of the action by first class mail or electronic mail1. Planning Commission1. 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 2.become null and void.The Director of Community Development may grant a onean application for a Minordate and substantive justification for the extension is providedAt the discretion of the Director of Community Development a Minor Residential Permit processed concurrently with other discretionary applications story new homes require a Two - R1 Ordinance Story Residential Permit. - 8.140 sets forth the requirements for Two 0 Two 4 Reformatted story additions or two - Two Draft (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)19.28.1 projects with a floor area ratio under 35% shall require a Level I Twoarea ratio over 35% shall require a Level II TwoTable 19.2 Expiration . Appeal Authority . Notice of action . Appeal Period . Extension. Concurrent Applications EFGH.IJ a - owners of record of Story Permit in the R1 - affected feet wide firmly attached to a Twozone 1. The Design Review Committee may approve a (3) if the address is not known. > e. The City shall approve the otal FAR e at least fourteen days after the date the notice t (for Level I projects) or color perspective inches in siz with 17 feet tall and three (2) d action date and shall include a copy of the development Permit feet of the subject property inches by 300 Story 11 - ithin 78 Two35% (Level II)W , at least <35% pprove, conditionally approve, or deny the a projects) - otal FAR t inches in size. 17 with Permit (for Level II and R1 inches by foot tall post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the 11 Story - (5) The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, A brief description of the proposed project, the content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City;City contact information for public inquiries;A deadline for the submission of public comments, which shall bis posted; Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all The notice shall invite public comment by a determineThe applicant shall install a public notice in the front yard of the subject site that is clearly visible from the public After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of djacent to the subject property, ve a.b.c.d. Two(Level I)1. real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll)2. plans, Aincluding properties across a public or private street1. street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least twofiappeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: A black and white orthographic rendering of the front of the houserenderingillustration or rendering prior to posting.RequiredTwo weeks1. Community Development shall a R1 Ordinance notice and notice Reformatted Draft A. Written plan setB. Mailing radiusC. PostedD. Story polesE. Public comment periodE. Decision/findings n a ’s - blic ns of of the Cupertino family residential oject is generally - making all of the findings Story Permit in the R1 -story development only - The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials, and desighomes in the neighborhoodThe prcompatible with the Citysingledesign guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 Municipal Code The granting of this permit will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions to the property or improvements ithe vicinity, or to the puhealth, safety, or welfare Twozone design review application for twouponbelow: a.b. c. d. > otal FAR t with Permit Story - ses of this title. 79 Two35% (Level II) <35% otal FAR s harmonious in scale and design with the general t with Permit Story - he proposed project i Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably . The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or . The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable Two(Level I)application. The permit can be approved only upon making all of the following findings: aspecific plans, zoning ordinance and the purpobinjurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. c. Tneighborhood. d. mitigated. R1 Ordinance Reformatted Draft a - tigated to the maximum Story Permit in the R1 - been found to not result in impacts on neighbors Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have been miextent possible Twozone e. > Story Permit shall become null and void. - otal FAR Story Permit can be processed concurrently t - id and control number issued) within one year 19.136 with ore the expiration date and substantive justification for year extension, without a public notice, if an application - Permit Story - 7: es for any reason, the Two Two35% (Level II) Story Permit is filed bef - <35% tions. otal FAR t with Permit Story Permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was - Story - Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paIn the event that the building permit expir Two(Level I)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 mail1. Two weeks 2. Planning Commission1. of the Twospecifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. 2. The Director of Community Development may grant a onefor a Minor Modification to the Twothe extension is provided. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, a Twowith other discretionary applica R1 Ordinance Reformatted Draft (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) Appeal Period F. Notice of ActionG. H. Appeal AuthorityI. ExpirationJ. ExtensionK. Concurrent Applications 1 ) 4 ( H inches in 0 l area is de a copy of 7 17 s hereof, affected 19.28.0 inches by 11 story wall planes and the - story wall height regulation in that the - eceipt of a complete application, a notice ation described in Section The project fulfills the intent of the visible secondnumber of twoamount of visible second story walreduced to the maximum extent possible. Upon rThe notice shall invite public comment by a The Director of Community Development may Director of Community Development Exceptions 1. shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll)2. determined action date and shall inclusize. Two weeks1. grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regul a. the development plans, upon making all of the following findings: 0 , 9 0 1 7 f real Family Residential district. - copy of the 19.28.0 81 - and Section may be granted as provided in this section. ) 4 0 development will not be ( bed in Section 19.28.0 1 11 inch by 17 inch 0 H n 7 descri 19.28.1 19.28.0 and The proposed The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. 080 Upon receipt of a complete application, the Properties that are adjacent to the subject site, The Design Review Committee may grant Design Review Committee Exceptions 1. Community Development Department shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the Design Review Committee and send a notice by first class mail to all owners of record oproperty (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) 2.including those across a public or private street, shall receive aplan set with the public notice. 300 feet1. exceptions from the prescriptive design regulations except upon making all of the following findings: a.b. .28. 19 , 0 7 19.28.0 R1 Ordinance 0 Exceptions. 5 Reformatted 1 Draft 19.28.A. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisionexceptions to section Table 19.28.150 sets forth the requirements for Exceptions in the Single . Written notice and plan set AB. Mailing radiusC. Public comment periodD. Decision/findings 1 result in shall become null and can be processed 19.136 Exception electronic mail year extension without a public notice if filed before the expiration date and - is 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. The proposed exception will notsignificant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. Director of Community Development Exceptions b. c. Exception tions 1 he and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer 82 tor of Community Development, an Exception Exception the building permit expires for any reason, the injurious to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and tminimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter Unless a building permit is filedIn the event that Design Review Committee Exceptions c. d.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 or1. Two weeks 2. Planning Commission1. within one year of the time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval 2. void.The Director of Community Development may grant a onean application for a Minor Modification to the substantive justification for the extension is providedAt the discretion of the Direcconcurrently with other discretionary applica R1 Ordinance Reformatted Draft Appeal Period E. Notice of actionF. G. Appeal AuthorityH. ExpirationI. ExtensionJ. Concurrent Applications ter by the rsuant to 83 e empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and Planning Commission in writing for review of the interpretation. , a request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a requirements of this section R1 Ordinance . 19.50 0 Interpretation by the Planning Director. Reformatted 15 Notwithstanding the Draft 1 disability, when the strict application of the provisions in this chapter, act as a barrier to fair housing opportunities, puChapter (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)19.28.In R1 zones, the Director of Community Development shall bprovisions of this chapter consistent with the legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation of the chapDirector of Community Development may petition the ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ƒ ƒ ‰ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ 84 85 86 87 88 89 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance ReviewWorkshop May 24, 2011 Additional Information on Two Story Design Review Background: Prior to 1999, the City did not require design review for two-story projects. In September 1999, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance for prescriptive regulations related to two-story wall heights and entry feature heights. In April 2000, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to shift two-story design review to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for homes with total floor area ratios > 35% FAR. In February 2001, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to include two-story design guidelines. Two-story proposals not generally consistent were deferred to the DRC. In May 2005, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to include additional two-story design guidelines for regular R1 and R1-a zones and defer design review to City staff for all two-story projects (except in the R1-a zone which are reviewed by the DRC) not requesting exceptions. In April 2009, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to allow City staff to consider second to first floor ratios greater than 45% provided that certain design principles are met. Detailed examples of the design principles were included as an appendix to the ordinance. Existing Two-Story Design Review Process: Residential Design Review (Two-Story Permit) planning approval by City staff o Second to first floor ratio >45% projects require review by City’s architectural advisor Two-story projects in R1-a zone require approval from the DRC Existing Design Guidelines/Principles: ndstndst 2 to 1 2 to 1 floor Second stories in R1-a Architectural Style -- Provide an identifiable -- architectural style Consistency with Style Design features, -- proportions, and details -- shall be consistent with the architectural style Architectural Integrity Design with architectural -- integrity on all sides of -- the structure Visual Relief Visual relief deemed to -- be appropriate by the -- City shall be provided Exterior Materials -- High qualitymaterials -- Symmetry, Proportion, Shall reflect symmetry, and Balance -- proportion, and balance -- Mass and Bulk/Scale The mass and bulk, and Ensure appropriate mass The mass and bulk, and scale of the design should and scale scale of the design should be reasonably compatible be reasonably compatible 1 8: City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance ReviewWorkshop May 24, 2011 ndstndst 2 to 1 2 to 1 floor Second stories in R1-a with the predominant with the predominant neighborhood pattern in neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry ridge heights, and entry feature heights feature heights Entry Feature Height E ntry features should not --be higher than 14’ from natural grade to top of plate Porches Porches are encouraged Interior Space Volume The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls Curb Cut There shall not be a 3-car wide driveway curb cut Garage Width on Front No more than 50% of the front elevation should Max. width of 2-car Elevation consist of garage area garage is 25’ Additional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem or rear detached garage Garage Setback to Living area should be closer to the street while garages should be setback more Living Area Side Setback and Garage The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood Orientation Pattern should be maintained. Second Story Walls Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls All second story wall should be avoided heights >6’, as measured nd from the 2story finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every 24’, with a minimum 4’ depth and 10’ width Second-story windows Windows on the side should be fixed and: Obscured to a height nd of 6’ above the 2fl. -- Should have permanent exterior louvers to a height of nd 6’ above the 2 fl. Or should have sill Window, door, Doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned with one another architectural alignment vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size, and placement. Roof Eave Overhang All second story roofs should have at least a one-foot overhang Additional Information on Noticing Background for Two-Story and R1 Exception Projects: 91 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance ReviewWorkshop May 24, 2011 Prior to 1999, the City did not have noticing procedures for two-story and R1 exception projects. In September 1999, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to require written noticing to property owners adjacent to and across the street from two-story and R1 exception projects. In February 2001, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to require written noticing to owners within 300 feet of two-story and R1 exception projects. In May 2005, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to require notice boards in front of the property and 11”x17” plans to be mailed to affected property owners for all two-story projects. In addition, separate noticing radius and notice board requirements were created for two-story projects with <35% FAR (Level I) and projects with >35% FAR (Level II). Existing Requirements for R1 Projects: Two-Story Two-Story Minor R1 Exception Projects with Projects with Residential Projects Total FAR Total FAR Projects (Level I) (Level II) Mailed Notice and11” x 17” YesYesYes Yes, but plans plan set only sent to property owners adjacent to and across the street from the project Mailing radiusTo property To property To property To property owners adjacent to owners within owners adjacent owners within and across the 300’ of the project to and across the 300’ of the street from the street from the project project project 2’x3’x5’weatherproof notice Exact address of Exact address of board content the property, the property, description of the description of the project, City project, City contact contact information for information for public inquiries, public inquiries, --- deadline for deadline for submission of submission of public comments, public comments, and an 11” x 17” and an 11” x 17” black and white color perspective orthographic rendering of the rendering of the front of the front of the house. house. Two Week Comment Period YesYesYes No Two Week Appeal Period YesYesYes Yes 92 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance ReviewWorkshop May 24, 2011 Additional Information on Story Poles Background: In May 2005, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to require story poles for all two-story projects. Existing Requirements: Story poles are required for all two-story projects (the City also requiresa black & white or color perspective on the notice board). o 2 foot high plastic snow fencing is required where the roof meets the wall and along roof ridges. o Required to be in place when through 2-week public comment period and through 2-week appeal period. o Required to installed by a licensed contractor and certified by a contractor, architect, or engineer. Other cities that require story poles-Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills Additional Information on R1-20/R1 Sloped Lots Background: Prior to 1993, the City had limited policies and guidelines regulating properties located in the hillside area. The General Plan of 1993 incorporated more extensive development standards intended to minimize negative impacts on hillside resources. In that same year, the Residential Hillside (RHS) Zoning District was revised with a set of comprehensive hillside development regulations. In September 1999, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance applying hillside standards to buildings proposed on portions of R1 lots with slopes of 30% or greater.Existing R1-20 lots shown in shaded area In February 2005, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance applying hillside standards to R1 lots with an average slope of 15% of greater. In May 2007, the City Council approved amendments tothe R1 Ordinance applying hillside standards to R1 lots located west of the 10% hillside slope line as defined in the General Plan, in addition to lots with an average slope of 15% or greater. In October 2007, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to only apply select hillside standards to R1 lots in a specific geographic area at the toe of the Cupertino hillside (R1-20). 93 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance ReviewWorkshop May 24, 2011 Existing Standards for sloped lots zoned R1-20: R1-20 standards Grading Limited to 2,000 s.f. pad area, 2,500 cubic yards, cut plus fill. Additional grading requires Planning Commission (PC) approval. All cut and fill areas are required to be rounded to follow natural contours and planted with landscaping that meets RHS requirements. A licensed landscape architect is required to submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and screen out cut and fill slopes. Floor area ratio Limited to 45% of the flat pad portion, buildings located off flat pad require PC approval nd 2Floor Area Unlimited provided total FAR is not exceeded nd 2Floor and Balcony No separate process Review Process Retaining walls >5’ required to be screened or faced with decorative materials Fencing Open fencing unlimited, provided not higher than 3’ in front yard; solid board fencing limited to a 5,000 s.f. site area (excluding house). Protected Tree Removal Up to 2 protected trees allowed to be removed for the building pad. Additional removals require PC approval nd Other Standards in the Other development standards in R1 apply except for FAR restrictions and 2Floor R1 Ordinance Area 94 Existing General Plan Policies related to Development on Sloped Lots Policy 2-48: Hillside Development Standards Establish building and development standards for the hillsides that ensure hillside protection. Strategies: 1. Ordinance Regulations and Development Approvals. Apply ordinance regulations and development approvals that limit development on ridgelines, hazardous geological areas and steep slopes. Control colors and materials, and minimize the illumination of outdoor lighting. Reduce visible building mass through such means as stepping structures down the hillside, following the natural contours, and limiting the height and mass of the wall plane facing the valley floor. Policy 2-52: Rural Improvement Standards in Hillside Areas Require rural improvement standards in hillside areas to preserve the rural character of the hillsides. Strategies: 1. Mass Grading in New Construction. Follow natural land contour and avoid mass grading in new construction, especially in flood hazard or hillside areas. Grading large, flat areas shall be avoided. 2. Retaining Significant Trees. Retain significant specimen trees, especially when they grow in groves or clusters, and integrate them into the developed site. The Montebello foothills at the south and west boundaries of the valley floor are a scenic backdrop to the City, adding to its sense of scale and variety of color. It’s impossible to guarantee an unobstructed view of the hills from any vantage point, but people should be able to see the foothills from public gathering places. Policy 5-10: Landscaping Near Natural Vegetation Emphasize drought tolerant and pest resistant native and non-invasive, nonnative, drought tolerant plants and ground covers when landscaping properties near natural vegetation, particularly for control of erosion from disturbance to the natural terrain. Policy 5-11: Natural Area Protection Preserve and enhance the existing natural vegetation, landscape features and open space when new development is proposed. Strategy Native Plants. Encourage drought tolerant native and drought tolerant, noninvasive, non-native plants and trees, and minimize lawn area in the hillsides. Policy 5-12: Hillside Property Fencing Confine fencing on hillside property to the area around a building, rather than around an entire site, to allow for migration of wild animals. Policy 5-19: Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems Require that site design respect the natural topography and drainages to the extent practicable to reduce the amount of grading necessary and limit disturbance to natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by development including roads, highways, and bridges. 96 Policy 5-20: Reduction of Impervious Surfaces Minimize storm water flow and erosion impacts resulting from development. Strategies 1. Change City codes to include a formula regulating how much paved surface is allowable on each lot. This would include driveways and patios installed at the time of building or remodeling. 2. Encourage the use of non-impervious materials for walkways and driveways. If used in a City or quasi-public area, mobility and access for handicapped should always take precedent. 3. Minimize impervious surface areas, minimizing directly-connected impervious surfaces, maximizing onsite infiltration and using on-site retaining facilities. 4. Encourage volunteer organizations to help restore and clean the creek beds. Policy 5-21: Pollution and Flow Impacts Prior to making land use decisions, estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from projected future development to avoid surface and groundwater quality impacts. Strategy Best Management Practices. Require incorporation of structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and flows. Policy 5-22: Compact Development Away from Sensitive Areas Where such measures do not conflict with other municipal purposes or goals, encourage, via zoning ordinances, compact development located away from creeks, wetlands, and other sensitive areas. Policy 5-23: Conformance with Watershed-Based Planning and Zoning Encourage development projects to follow watershed-based planning and zoning by examining the project in the context of the entire watershed area. 97 98 99 9: Existing RHS Fence Requirements 19.40.080 Fencing. All provisions of this section may be deviated from upon an exception granted by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 19.40.140. All fences in an RHS zoning district shall be governed by the following regulations: A. Solid board fencing shall: 1. Not be limited on lots of less than thirty thousand square feet net area; 2. Be limited to a five thousand square foot area (excluding the principal building) for lots exceeding thirty thousand square feet in net lot area. B. 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) :1