Loading...
PC 11-27-00CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 File # Scan Date /tol- ~9-o,~- O c..) Retention Review Date( AMENDED MINUTES OF TI~E REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I~ELD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2000 SALUTE TO TgIE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Corr, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Hams Doyle Staffpresent: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Vera Gil, Senior Planner; Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 1, 2000 Special Meeting Chair Harris noted discrepancies in the minutes and requested that the November 1 stminutes be continued to the next meeting. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to postpone the approval of the November 1st special Planning Commission meeting minutes to the December 11 meeting Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 November 13, 2000 Regular Meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2000 regular Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted receipt of a letter from Mrs. Khan relative to Application 05-DIR-00. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Location: 06-DIR-00 Michael Heckrotte 21975 through 22079 McClellan Road Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 27, 2000 said they were not at the end of their life span, which is why staffis not recommending removal of the trees. Staffrecommends the use ofbiobarrier on the problem trees. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Gay Fischer, Vista Gardens Homeowners Association, said that she was disappointed in the staff recommendation. She said that previous unsuccessful attempts were made to have the application approved, and there were photos of root damage that occurred many years ago. She said there were community concerns that the trees might fall and cause damage as there was an incident a number of years ago that a tree fell during a winter storm, and it was fortunate that it fell into the street rather than onto a house. She said that she had been working on the application since July, turned the application into the city in August, and was assured that it was complete. She expressed frustration that she has been unable to meet repeated staff requests within the 48 hour deadline given, which results in the application being postponed further. She said she wanted resolution on the issue and pointed out that they were proposing a replanting plan for a25 year old development. They have cut roots in the past, and had heard ofbiobarrier just recently, but said she felt that it was not a reasonable solution since the concrete would raise up over time. She said that the manufacturer did not recommend bioharrier for existing planting. In response to Com. Kwok's question about the time period before results were experienced with biobarrier, Mr. Jung said that the literature indicated the product was activated by moisture, and as soon as the product is put in and wet down, it releases the chemical and the chemical acts to retard root growth. The recommendations also warn that when trenching, to remove the roots in the trench and not allow the roots to touch the fabric or through the fabric when it is rolled down, to enable both sides to develop properly. Mr. Jung said that there was no Heart of the City requirement for that part of Vista Drive; but it was further down on one of the side streets. The ash trees are a feature of the Stevens Creek Blvd., but not Vista Drive. He said the trees were in the public fight of way but the city arborist had not determined that they are city street trees per se. Ms. Fischer said that the trees were 5-1/2 feet from the curb, and she was told when the process started that if the trees were more than five feet from the curb, they belonged to the homeowners. Ms. Karin Meyer, 20271 Reinell Place, said that the tree in front of house No. 13 designated on the map, had roots over and under the concrete and under her foundation, as well as roots under house No. 12. She said they had to dig up their patio and dig for roots; and found roots under their foundation and also of the next door neighbor, house No. 14. She reviewed their attempts to resolve the problem with root killer and find other ways to combat the problem, but nothing offered guarantees, including the representative frombioharrier. She said they then had to replace their patio. She noted that the biobarrier might be more successful with new trees but not the size existing on their properties. She said the product was also hazardous to humans and domestic animals, and cautioned about contaminating food and water. She expressed concern that it was toxic and hazardous, and that the main water lines were next to the trees and utility lines. Ms. Meyer said that the residents liked trees and wanted to replant and have a nice complex, planting between 6 and 7 crape myrtle trees which are planted throughout Cupertino. Referred to thc tree in the rear, she said she felt it was not the only diseased tree. She said the trees were obstructing the solar system. It was noted that there were 10 trees in the pool area, as well as 3 huge redwoods on the border line and one silver dollar tree. She said they applied for the permit for removal of 5 trees because of the concern about the monterey pines, not necessarily to remove them all at once, but to be able to rectify problems if they worsened. She said that they wanted to replant in the area with trees that would not grow as large as the pine trees which takes away from the solar system. Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 27, 2000 Director's Minor Modification with referral to the Planning Commission to allow the removal of two redwood trees in the common area of a community housing project in an R-lC zone. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2000 Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 2000 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 10-EXC-00, 14-U-00, 18-EA-00 Mary Ellen Chell (Cupertino Community Services) Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Blvd. (North of new fire station) Use Permit to construct a 24 unit affordable housing apartment building and a 5,089 square foot Cupertino Community Services building on a 1.18 acre vacant lot. Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan that requires a 30 foot separation between onsite buildings. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2000 Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to postpone Application Nos. 10-EXC-00, 14-U-00 and 18-EA-00 to the December 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None Application No.: Applicant: Location: 05 -DIR-00 Visa Gardens Homeowners Association Reinell Place and Cartwright Way Director's Minor Modification with referral to the Planning Commission to remove eight trees and replace with six-seven trees at an existing planned residential development. Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2000 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to remove eight trees at an existing planned residential development, to be replaced with trees and shrubs matching the existing plantings. Staff believes there are alternatives to removal of the trees and recommends denial of the application. Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, noted the location of the ash trees and monterey pines, and said that the trees were healthier than shown in the pictures taken some time ago. He pointed out that only one of the monterey pines had an infestation of the pine bore, but that it could be treated; and that some of the monterey pine trees were showing some stress but have a shortened life span. He Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 27, 2000 The replanting phase would be a step by step phase. Ms. Meyer pointed out that it was their desire to replant the 25 year development to freshen up its appearance. Ms. S. Khan, 20252 Cartwright Way, expressed concern about the trees nearby, especially under storm conditions, since there was an ash tree in close proximity to her master bedroom and living room, and the consequences if it should come crashing down on the roof. She said that she had written a letter requesting more time to address the issue. Chair Harris questioned if staffhad comparison costs of taking out the trees and replacing them vs. pruning the roots and putting in the barriers. Mr. Jung responded that staff had not developed that information. Mr. Jung said that staff approached the two applications differently because the applicants had different reasons for removing the trees; he was told that the monterey pines were diseased; however, the arborist's report indicated they were not diseased although one did have an infestation of the bore beetle, which could be treated with pesticides. He said that an arborist or landscape contractor would recommend a cutting tree option, whereas a pesticide expert would recommend a pesticide treatment, depending on their line of expertise. Relative to the solar panels, Mr. Jung said that they were facing in the fight direction, located on the poolhouse/equipment house building, and with the location of the trees, he was not certain how they would cast shadows in the direction noted by the speakers. Ms. Meyer clarified that some of the solar panels were on the poolhouse, but the larger array was on what appeared to be a sun shade. Ms. Barbara Dixon, 20262 Cartwfight Way, discussed the location of the solar system and the jacuzzi, and noted that the pine trees were planted by the contractor before they purchased their home. She said she resided in house No. 11 and branches have broken off from the tree and fallen down in the winter time. Although the tree is not in front of her home, she said the leaves from the ash tree constantly clog the drains. Ms. Fischer said the pine trees have been topped several times, but have grown over the years. She did not know the last time they were topped as she had only been on the landscape committee for a year. She said that the tree in front of No. 12 was only 11 feet from the house. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris said that from their standpoint it was actually two applications; to remove the ash trees and replace with 6 or 7 crape myrtles and to remove the pines. The approval would be for all 5 pines, 3 immediately and 2 at their discretion. Com. Corr said that he felt they did not have enough information to reach a decision, as the arbofist's letter speaks only to the pine trees. He said he was inclined to either support staff recommendation or to grant a continuance for them to get more information about the other trees, as to whether the root barrier would work for them or something similar; but he was reluctant to remove the trees throughout Cupertino. During the winter storms, branches fall from the trees and the town would be defoliated if they tried to protect themselves from that happening. He concurred that the pine trees were messy, and was certain they were affecting the solar system, however, they were told that only one of them may be diseased with the bore beetle, while the remainder are satisfactory. Com. Corr said that he was inclined to approve the staff report or to Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 27, 2000 continue the application so that the homeowners could do a more complete job in presenting their case. Com. Kwok said he was inclined to support staff recommendation or suggest trying the root barrier for approximately three months to see if it worked. The ash trees appear to be healthy; the pine trees should be cut, trimmed or pruned in the beginning. Com. Stevens said his viewpoint was similar. He said he felt the ash trees should remain and the biobarrier tried to see if it will stop the root spread. He said that 5-1/2 feet from the walkway was a logical place for the trees, and any other tree in a similar area, except that the ash trees because they are so stately would need to be topped and thinned or problems would arise. The monterey pine is a different type of tree, not a native tree, subject to an infestation of some sort, rapid growing, and the limbs will fracture. He said the monterey pine whether they are there or not, could be thinned out or removed. Chair Harris said she had the opposite view in that she felt the ash trees should be removed because they are out of scale to the one story development. She said the photos depict the damage they have caused, and the trees look sparse and shabby, and the biobarrier should have been tried years ago. She said she felt that the 6 or 7 crape myrtle trees would look more suitable along the front of the development and they bloom all summer. Com. Hams said the pine trees looked in good shape, but needed trimming and regular pruning. She recommended trying to treat the bore beetle before removing a large pine that forms an attractive screen. She said the trees were there before the solar panels and it was likely a mistake to put the solar panels at that location since the trees were obviously going to grow. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to support staff recommendation to try the biobamers on the ash trees and trim the pine trees. Com. Stevens Chair Hams Com. Doyle Passed 3-1-0 Chair Harris clarified that she voted no because she felt there was a high cost to either project; trimming the roots of big trees is very expensive and if that is what they choose to do, it would be a double expense if in three months they would utilize the biobamer. Mr. Piasecki noted that the applicant could appeal the decision to the City Council within 14 calendar days Chair Harris suggested that if an appeal was filed, the applicant might seek out more information from the arborist especially on both types of trees and also on the costs to pursue the recommended cures. She said there were numerous ways to deal with the issue and they did not have a wealth of information. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 01-EXC-00, 03-EA-00 Chung Yeh 11837 Upland Way Hillside exception to build a 4,533 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline and on slopes greater than 30%. Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 27, 2000 Postponed from meeting of November 13, 2000 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a hillside exception to construct a 4,533 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline and on slopes greater than 30%, and to exceed 2,500 cubic yards in grading quantity. A second story deck is also required. Following the Environmental Review Committee's recommendation, the proposed location of the house was lowered ten feet. Staff recommends approval of the application; Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site plan, and noted the location of the proposed residence; explained the site and architectural design of the residence; changes made by lowering the height by ten feet by dropping the main floor to the garage level and the location of the second floor decks. Relative to the 30% slope, she reported that the city's consulting geologist recommended approval based on the geologist's report provided. Staff recommends that since the design has been changed slightly by lowering the floor level, the geologist should review the plan again to be certain he still concurs with the original recommendation, and as pointed out there was a previous approval by the Planning Commission on the site. Ms. Wordell also noted that staff felt it was a justifiable tradeoff to increase the grading quantity in order to get the house lowered into the hillside; and the decks are acceptable. Mr. Ron Dick, Architect, said that he worked closely with staff on the project, and there were three different letters meeting the geologist's requirements, and there should not be a problem with the present location of the house. He said the landowners were willing to work on the geologist's recommendations relative to the slide concerns. Com. Stevens said that the conditions included a requirement for maintaining the driveway roadway since the video indicated them breaking away. Mr. Dick acknowledged the problem, but said that it would be advantageous to take care of the problem after construction, but before final inspection, because the heavy tracks with concrete and lumber would only exacerbate the road problem. Chair Harris noted that the staff report calls for the work to be done prior to the issuance of the permit. Ms. Wordell said that if it was a valid point, it could be considered based on the geologist's agreement. Chair Hams said that if a slide issue existed, it should be resolved before the residence is constructed. Mr. Dick said that the applicant was willing to fulfill the requirement prior to construction as they did not want the issue to stop construction. Mr. Dick clarified that since the prior approval, there is a new applicant, the deck is new and the house is also not the same house previously approved. Discussion continued regarding the requirement of certification from the geologist that the driveway work has been completed. Ms. Wordell said that a condition could clarify that the certification be for work required by the geologist as well as other work. She also clarified that the geologist would review the issue related to slippage. She said the driveway needs to be sealed and the recommendation was that it would be certified by their geologists if it had been completed, but would not be re-reviewed by the city's geologist. Mr. Dick said that the recommendation by the geologist was to fill the crack in the driveway and reseal it; which would have to be done before it could be certified. He said that he did not recall any reference in the geologist's report that it was unstable. Ms. Wordell said that it was primarily Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 27, 2000 due to runoffand if the fill movement continues, then pier supported walls are suggested. She said it was a two phased approach, if the resealing was not successful, the pier-supported walls should be implemented. Com. Corr expressed concern that the first part is required to be completed before the building permit is issued and before they move ahead, since it would not be known in that period of time if it was successful or not. Typically what occurs in a driveway situation such as this is the surface gets cracked and the water gets in and begins to disturb the compactness; if it is sealed, it prevents that, and everything should remain in place. In the future, if it does not work the applicant would build the wall or attempt something more drastic. Chair Hams said she would like to see both, since once the condition becomes the permanent document, the attached report gets filed away. She suggested instituting a Condition 5a which would delineate the filling and sealing, and 5b that if downstream it does not work, the other work has to be done. Mr. Piasecki suggested that a straightforward way to refer to that is to state that work has been completed in accordance with the recommendations of the geologist's report dated April 25th which has both parts to it, and staff can be certain that when the applicant comes in for building permits, staff would get whatever guarantees needed to do any necessary follow up work. Chair Hams said that the first recommendation states prior to the issuance of building permits, and you may not know about the second problem; therefore it would have to state that based on that report of that date, the first item prior to issuance, and the second item if needed. Mr. Piasccki said that a cash bond to ensure follow through would be needed, since there is no other way after the building permit and occupancy have been released. Chair Harris said the bond could be released in two years, which has been done with other development projects. Com. Kwok pointed out that normally if you call for compaction to 90-95%, that would take care of it; however, he said he was in favor of the concept that if it did not work, a retaining wall to divert the water to drainage away fi.om the driveway would be built. Mr. Dick pointed out that the hillside presently does not have much foliage to hold the hill, but once the property is developed, the drainage ditch will be able to control the water coming down the hill. He said his client is willing to cooperate, but the condition will improve itself with the construction of the home, because it is higher than the lot below it and there is already a drainage swale. Com. Kwok said that once the applicant gets the permit fi.om the city, the Public Works Department would need some assurance that the problem will be taken care of. Mr. Dick said that he was not implying that the problem would take care of itself, but rather the developed land would help the problem as there would be a ditch that will control it, and presently there is nothing to control it. Chair Harris referred to Cotton's report on Page 5-18, where it is stated that a periodic evaluation of the driveway fill performance shall be performed and recommendations provided to promote long term stability. She said she would be willing to add that condition and have a bond posted that it be reviewed every year after the rainy season or whatever staff deems appropriate; they post a bond, and at a certain point in the future, the bond will be given back to them. Mr. Piasecki said he felt it was appropriate to hold it for no more than a two year period, which would get through 2 rainy seasons. Alternatively, it still may be needed; however, the applicant may elect to go ahead and put in the retaining wall and put in the ultimate solution, and there would be a question whether a performance bond on the maintenance would still be required. Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 27, 2000 Ms. Wordell referred to the first paragraph of Page 5-18 of the staff report, relative to the statement that the project geotechnical consultant previously recommended maintenance be performed, sealing and repaying on this section of the driveway and noting that the maintenance was never performed; and conditional recommendations for driveways support utilizing pier supported walls have been suggested if future evaluations indicate that fill movement continues. She noted that is where the two step came from. In response to Chair Hams' question regarding the applicant's preference for the bond or pier supported walls, Mr. Dick said that he preferred to go with the bond. Chair Hams opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Hams said there were several exceptions, and there were conditions needed as prescribed and listed on Pages 5-4 and 5-5; and any time there is an exception, findings have to be made that it is not injurious to property or public health and safety, no hazardous condition, etc., and that the exception requires the least modification or deviation from the development regulations. Chair Hams said there was a community benefit to the grading greater than 2,500 cubic yards in this case because the house is set into the hillside and the second story deck appears to be mitigated by landscaping in the distance. She said if findings could be made for the exceptions, the Planning Commission could approve the application. Com. Hams referred to finding No. 8, which says if the proposed development does not consist of structures that would disrupt the natural silhouette of ridgelines from our established vantage points unless this is a greater good to avoid a greater negative impact which if it were higher it would have a worse impact, and that it could not be put elsewhere and if this is a reasonable size for the structure in this location. She said she felt that people were entitled to develop their property to a reasonable extent; and the house in question was 4,500 square feet on an acre and a half. Mr. Piasecki said that he would attempt to draft the modified condition. He also suggested that in Condition No. 9 relating to the grading, that it specify the grading shall not occur during the wet season as defined in the Cupertino Municipal Code unless approved by the city engineer; which provides an additional safeguard since there is a lot of dirt being moved around. He said they did not want the hill exposed during the rainy season, which would fall under Condition 9 so that would be for Condition No. 9 and the recommended language for Condition No. 5 would be as follows: "The existing driveway is showing signs of ground movement. The applicant shall submit certification from his consulting geologist that work on the driveway has been completed in accordance with the recommendations of the City's consulting geologist's report dated April 25, 2000, prior to issuance of building permits. To ensure that future slippage or cracking does not occur, a cash bond comparable to the cost of supporting the driveway utilizing pier-supported walls shall be posted, subject to approval of the City Engineer. The bond shall be released following two wet seasons after completion of the project, (wet season shall be as defined by the Cupertino Municipal Code), upon receipt of a report from the applicant's consulting geologist that fill movement has been stabilized." Chair Hams said that she would like to see the language included relative to periodic evaluation of the driveway fill, the recommendations provided to promote long term stability; together with the language about the inspection and posting of the bond and the consequences if it should fail. She added that it should not be a period of two years since they were not going to allow development in the rainy season; it should state two rainy seasons from the completion of the property. Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 27, 2000 Mr. Piasecki noted that the two would be meshed into the records, so that it stands as the motion. Com. Kwok asked if the applicant had any problems with the modifications or changes. applicant responded no. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: The Com. Kwok moved approval of Application 1-EXC-00 with the conditions as modified by Mr. Piasecki in Condition No. 5 above and according to the recommendations by the geologist dated April 25, 2000; and to periodical evaluation to provide stability and ensure that there were no cracks; to post a bond for appropriate maintenance for 2 rainy seasons at a cost equal to the cost of putting in piers; to be held two years after the completion of the project. Also, Condition No. 9, no grading during wet seasons, as defined in the Municipal Code, unless approved by the City Engineer. Com. Corr Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Piasecki said that he wanted to ensure that it included "as defined in the Cupertino Municipal Code unless approved by the city engineer." The reason we include 'unless approved' is there can be some minor grading; they can be at the end of their grading cycle; it may not be that substantial. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 03-CA-00 Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted for the r~cord that the architect and the applicant Mr. Yeh, had worked cooperatively with the city, and went through a long process to get the building lowered and minimize some of the impacts. Com. Corr concurred, and said that they appeared before the Environmental Review Committee multiple times and worked very hard to get to the point where they could secure the approval tonight. Com. Stevens expressed concern regarding the rapid flow of water from the street when it is raining. He said the Director of Public Works, who has since retired, was looking at moving culverts and similar things. He questioned where all the downhill water would go to. It was suggested that the minutes be forwarded to the present Director of Public Works so that he would be aware of the issue. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 06-U-99(M) Call-Land Associates 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard Request to extend an approved use permit for one year for automobile vehicle storage. Postponed from Planning Commission meeting October 23, 2000 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 27, 2000 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a one year extension on an approved use permit for automobile vehicle storage, as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the one-year extension; Planning Commission decision on application is final, unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Wordell pointed out that the applicant was unable to be present at the meeting and requested that if approval was not granted or there were questions to be answered by him in order to approve it, a continuance would be requested. She said that if a decision could not be made, the Planning Commission might want to honor the applicant's request; however, they are already stretching the expiration of their prior use permit. Ms. Wordell said that the zoning was Planned Development, part of the Heart of the City. Chair Harris noted that the permit had expired three months ago. Ms. Wordell provided background history on the application to extend the use permit. She said that one of the reasons staff did not want to have it continue to roll over was that there have been talks in the past about developing the remainder of the property and the plans have not been implemented and could continue for some time. Staff does not want to prolong that kind of discussion because they feel it is not a good ultimate use for such prime property in the heart of the city. Com. Stevens commented that the last time the application was reviewed the owners of the other two properties were also present at the meeting and they could not reach a decision on what to do with all three parcels, making the future unknown at that time. He said that on Page 6-1 it says that staff can support an additional year while stating in the resolution that no further extensions will be considered, and also states if the applicant wishes to apply for continued car storage, a new pm mit would be required. Ms. Wordell said that the permit could not be extended again, the applicant would have to re- apply. Mr. Piasecki said that they need to emphasize that this is not a good long term use of the property, and that the applicant needs to decide what to do with the property. Staff is not inclined to grant a new use permit; however, the applicant has the option to ask for one. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of Application 6-U-99(M) Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 21-ASA-00 Pinn Brothers (Adobe Inn) 20328 Stevens Creek Blvd. Appeal of architectural and site approval for design details of an approved 77 room hotel. Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 2000 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Note that the action on this application is final, although any action regarding an ordinance change is subject to City Council approval. Staff presentation: Chair Harris noted that she filed the appeal and was advised by counsel that she could remain and be part of the discussion and vote since the appeal was made as a Planning Planning Commission Minutes 1 ~ November 27, 2000 Commissioner. Com. Stevens advised counsel that he was chair of the Design Review Committee (DRC) that made the decision. Vice Chair Stevens chaired the meeting during discussion of the item. Com. Hams commented that she concurred with the staff report as to approving the appeal and denying the DRC decision which will require review of the trash enclosure, the service entrance and the landscaping and attached plans; and said she would withdraw the minute order request because from the text, she did not feel it was necessary. Com. Kwok said that he understood if they chose to approve B, the entire process would return for Planning Commission approval, as it was approved at the DRC level. Mr. Jung said that the design changes made by the applicant were a result of not being able to reach agreement with the adjoining property owner (Biltmore Apa,hnents). The property manager of the apm:[ments confirmed the information in Mr. Pinn's letter that they were not interested in the pedestrian easement or having the trash facilities located on the back of their property. Com. Hams said that the other concern was that there were some issues referred to the DRC that were not in their sphere of influence. Mr. Jung confirmed that the Planning Commission was being asked tonight to either deny or approve the appeal, then move forward to review the project design changes proposed by the applicant. He reported that staff's recommendation was to approve the appeal and deny the DRC decision; and that the Planning Commission review the design modifications affecting the trash enclosure, service entry and landscaping per the attached plans and resolution. In addition, he pointed out that the Public Works Department wanted to make sure that the roof of the trash enclosure is a minimum of 11-1/2 feet tall, so that when the lid of the trash enclosure is lifted, it clears the top of the roof. Relative to the design review process changes, staff recommends that the Planning Commission monitor the design review process and at a later date evaluate whether a change in the ASA ordinance is necessary. Acting Chair Stevens summarized the two options. He said there were many changes made during the DRC meeting and the changes were not available in written form prior to the meeting; many of the changes were superficial but as a total, made significant changes. He said the trash container change was excluded since it was new. The changes were reviewed and it was recommended that staff be allowed to make the recommendations; overall the DRC did review with denial in mind at first. Pinn Brothers then explained each one verbally and staff agreed with the minor changes with the end result that it was approved; and it was also stated back then that the Biltmore Apartment owners did not want to have the entrance walkway and the trash container. He said that in concept it may be because the minutes were not available, and the problem was that they weren't ready for the design review and everything was to be done there, which he felt was a problem. Acting Chair Stevens commented that he was providing the history of what occurred because he did not want to have to look at the DRC each time because he felt it was unnecessary. He said he felt a review by the Pla~'mg Commission was appropriate because it was a combination of issues. Com. Hams concurred, and said it was an issue related to process. The application came before the Planning Commission and breezed through, and serious problems were not presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved it and then it went to the City Council Planning Commission Minutes 12 November 27, 2000 and they approved it also. It then went to the DRC and when the Planning Commission got the results of the DRC there were about 8 problems outlined that were discussed at that meeting, some of them having to do with architecture; some with other changes and others that were not in the bailiwick of the DRC at all. The Planning Commission then were presented the staff report with the problems outlined, with a comment that it was approved 2:0. Com. Hams said that if a summary similar to Table I Summary of Design Issues and Solutions had been presented with the statement from the DRC, there would not have been a problem because the Planning Commission would have known what had occurred and that the problems were resolved; however, there was no way of knowing that. She said that in those circumstances where there are some complicated substantive issues dealt with there should be a short summary that helps the reader feel comfortable with a 2:0 approval. Com. Hams said that it was important for her to make some process issues. Refemng to Pages 7- 18 and 7-19 of the staff report, those items went forward; in the last paragraph of "Background," additional items to be added to the list are included, and the applicant is seeking design direction. Generally on a new building these details are more flushed out, the idea of building a hotel is not approved at the Planning Commission level, but the hotel is, with most of the things in place, including color, materials, etc. Com. Hams said she personally felt that those items should be presented to the Planning Commission and if they are not, the Planning Commission would refer them to the DRC and have them work on them and bring them back, since the Planning Commission takes the rack. She said other issues such as the cross pedestrian access, the trash service area, and exceptions to the Stevens Creek Plan are not DRC items, but are Planning Commission items. Com. Hams said that concerns 1 and 2 from her summary were presented; and 3, major work on major projects needs to be covered by the Planning Commission; things outside the purview of the DRC should not be referred to that committee. She said that DRC functions are specific and are included in the DRC ordinance on Page 7-25 and 7-26 of the staff report, which also includes how the DRC evolved. In Section 19.134 030 items lined out were under the Planning Commission auspices, and moved to the DRC on the previous page. She also noted that the DRC does the signs, landscaping and lighting. She referred to A and B of 19.134.040 architectural and site approval, wherein it states when architectural and site review is not part of another application for a development, they make a separate application for that architectural work and the Planning Director decides if it is substantive enough for the Planning Commission, can it be approved by the Planning Director, or should it go to DRC. She said it was very specific; that is for a site review, architectural site review that is not part of another application; it is not for an architecture and site approval for a new hotel that is part and parcel with that application; there was not a separate application for architecture and site approval of something that already existed in the community. She reiterated that it was not part of the authority of the DRC to do all the basic work; it is not in the delegation of responsibility. It is very specific that they do landscaping, signs and lighting. Com. Hams said that if they wanted to refer the work to the DRC so that the Planning Commission's time was not wasted, the idea would be that they would come back to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission would assume the responsibility for the final approval. She said that was the reason she withdrew the second part because any time the Planning Commission makes a referral to the DRC as done at the last Commission meeting on a 5:0 vote, they want it to come back because they have been given the responsibility of making sure the hotel meets the community standards; not to say that the two DRC members or Planning Director would not do an excellent job, but the five Planning Commissioners are representatives of the community and the views of the corrmaunity, and that is why major work needs to be done here. She recommended that when substantive things happen at the design review level , the Planning Planning Commission Minutes 13 November 27, 2000 Commissioners receive a summary document of what occurred, which would prevent an appeal having to be filed, because having to appeal is the wrong approach. Com. Kwok said he was also part of the design review process and concurred with Chair Hams' comments. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Corr moved in reference to Application 21-ASA-00 to approve the appeal and deny the DRC decision, and also that the Planning Commission continue to monitor the design review process, and at a later date evaluate whether a change in the ASA ordinance is warranted Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Com. Harris Passed 3-0-1 Chair Hams resumed chairing the meeting. Mr. Jung noted that staff's concerns and how they were addressed were summarized in Table 1. He said staff wants to focus on the more serious design issue and one they felt that by moving the trash enclosure over to the Biltmore property would have solved everything because it removed the element they felt was not conducive to an attractive Stevens Creek Blvd. design. Unfortunately the Biltmore property owner was not receptive to the proposal, therefore the applicants had to redesign it and the change requires Planning Commission review. Mr. Jung referred to the revised development plan. He discussed the front landscape design originally proposed with the front trash enclosure, which staff objected to. Because of the underground garage, the operational needs of the garbage truck and the fact that the Public Works Department did not want garbage tracks backing out on Stevens Creek Blvd., a semi circular driveway coming east on Stevens Creek Blvd. resulted. He illustrated the landscaped areas, how the sidewalk had been marginalized as well as any part of the city landscaping, 10 feet of planting strip, 5 feet of sidewalk, and another 10 foot planting strip. He said it was undesirable because of the full improvements west of the area illustrated and along the City Center frontage along to DeAnza Blvd. He said that was the reason why staff recommended the trash enclosure be pushed back. The applicant made some modifications and found some additional ways to come up with additional landscaping and setback of the trash enclosure. He then illustrated the modified proposal with the trash enclosure still in the front, but screened with landscaping. He noted there was a solid metal gate across the front of the trash enclosure. Staff supports the modified proposal. Relative to the cross access issue, Mr. Jung said that staff had hoped that the adjoining property owner of the Biltmore Apartments (Promethius Group) would accept the cross pedestrian easement, but they felt it was not in their best interest or the interests of their tenants to have the access. He said he was optimistic that they could preserve it as an option as far as having the applicants putting a gate back there even if it is not used at the present time, but at some future point get a future property owner to accept the easement and make that pedestrian access feasible. A discussion ensued regarding the hotel access from Stevens Creek Blvd. and whether or not the driveway would be designated one way. Mr. Jung illustrated on the revised development plan the access to the garage, the access to be used for dropping hotel guests off, garbage truck entrance/exit, and exit routes. Planning Commission Minutes 14 November 27, 2000 Mr. Jung reviewed other changes including the addition of 82 parking stalls in the garage; building materials relative to the wainscoting; 6-1/2 inch window insets; bicycle racks moved from the front to the side out of public view; and a gate for the pedestrian access .would be located on the rear and space is available on the Biltmore side of the apartment where a gate can be installed to have free access between the two. He said the final landscaping plan submitted has plantings suitable for a podium style landscaping after the applicant reduced the size of plantings or stepped them down. The main entrance includes a trellis feature which matches the third level as well as the one on the west side. The secondary entrance has been downsized to the same proportion as the others. The design of the trash service area has been modified as discussed earlier. Chair Hams noted that it is not stated anywhere that access from the adjacent property to Stevens Creek will be allowed, therefore later whether or not the gate is there, it could be implied that the gate could go into the Lake Biltmore apartment area. However, it is not set forth in the conditions that they will allow people to go from that adjacent complex out to Stevens Creek, and if that is the case and is preferred, it needs tO be stated because the subsequent owner of the hotel would say it was not agreed to. If the exhibit is only going to show the gate, it is not going to show the fact that the city is requiring them to allow people to walk across the hotel property. Mr. Jung said the use permit conditions of approval state clearly that there was a grant of easement, page 7-12, and the condition on the driveway tums would be added to the architecture and site approval. Mr. Greg Pinn, Pinn Brothers, thanked staff for their help, and said he concurred with the suggestions and agreed with the appeal. As a result of the input received and reinvestigation, he said they were able to find the extra 5 feet at the front, move the building back and put the two complete rows of trees along the front, and push the trash enclosure back, all of which helped the project. He said however, that he disagreed with the pedestrian egress. The Biltmore Apartment owners found no merit in the egress, and although they were in favor of access to Stevens Creek, he felt it was not the best scenario to have the apaihnent tenants walking by the small yards provided for the hotel guests. He said it also would involve safety and security issues, and the Biltmore owners were not in favor of issuing keys for the gates to their tenants for security reasons. Mr. Pirm said that they were not in favor of the pedestrian egress, nor were the Biltmore owners or their attorneys; however, they would cooperate with the city if the city was firm on the egress being implemented. Chair Hams explained that one of the goals of the city, particularly as it becomes more dense, is to have a walkable community; and in order to give people access to Stevens Creek, the ideal time to require the gate and easement to open up the access is when the property redevelops. It is acceptable if the residents don't want the gate open at this time, however, it would be there for subsequent owners. If they don't take advantage of the opportunity available, the city would not have the easement for the future use. Mr. Piasecki added that there may be a subsequent permit request from the Biltmore owners, allowing the city to establish it both ways for both property owners at some future time, should they elect to do so. Chair Hams opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve the architectural and site approval of design details for an already approved 77 room hotel, as depicted in Application 21-ASA-00 Planning Commission Minutes 15 November 27, 2000 SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: with the addition of the traffic direction modifications as discussed; and the 11-1/2 foot clearance on the trash enclosure Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Chair Hams suggested that the modification related to the trash enclosure clearance of 11-1/2 feet be included in the approved exhibits. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 01-MCA-00, 19-EA-00 City of Cupertino Citywide Municipal Code Amendment revision Chapter 19.28 (R-1 ordinance) to decrease building mass and improve the integration of new construction into existing neighborhoods. Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2000 Tentative City Council date: January 16, 2000 Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, said the first item modified was the regulation that dealt with the design guidelines and how they would apply to the new ordinance. There are three major sections in the design guidelines section of the ordinance covering a compatible building form, roof pitches, cave heights and ridge heights and entry feature heights compatible with the neighborhood. He reviewed the design that uses vaulted ceilings instead of high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces, and some regulations on three car garages, one that the third space be set back a minimum of 2 feet from the wallplain of the other two spaces, or use of a tandem space, or that the curb cut shall not be a three car wide driveway curb cut, requiring a curb cut two car widths and would open up, so that it would reduce the amount of paving in the front yard and reduce the amount of paving in the park strip. There is also an example in the design guidelines that shows the difference between a vaulted ceiling and a high exterior wall with a horizontal ceiling. Mr. Gilli noted that the two substantial changes included the guidelines being more detailed and the removal of the two foot reduction. He said there is the addition of the pipeline material which should be included in the model ordinance. Relative to the sloped lot in the R-1 ordinance, if the slope is more than 30%, it would be reviewed in accordance with the hillside ordinance or the R-1 whichever is more restrictive. He said it is possible that it could be an R-1 if building on a slope greater than 30%, and it may need to meet the hillside ordinance, possibly requiring an exception, which would go to the Planning Commission. He said that it had not happened yet, and where it would occur is at R-1 transitions into RHS near the hillside. Chair Hams summarized that the main change was that applying the 2 feet to the single story would no longer pertain, and they would have to wait for community standards to deal with it. She said it was the amendment to the two story ordinance. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 19- EA-00 Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 16 November 27, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 01-MCA-00 Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Chair Hams moved the agenda to Item 10. 10. Report on the Community Congress Mr. Piasecki reported on the Community Congress, and noted that it was an exhilarating, upbeat effort where people had the opportunity to not only express opinions but also to learn about the community and different perceptions. He said he found it valuable and said it was a good foundation document for the General Plan update. He said there were discussion groups on housing issues and people freely expressed their ideas about the problem of teachers in particular having a difficult time affording housing in this area, and personal opinions were expressed on paying teachers higher salaries and making available housing options for entry level teachers. Chair Hams moved the agenda back to Item 9. NEW BUSINESS Acceptance of Association of the Bay Area Government Regional Housing Needs Determination. Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, reported that the committee was established and worked with ABAG to put together a simpler methodology than that which previously existed. It takes the housing growth as well as the job growth in each community based upon 2006 ABAG projections and also based upon the 1990 DOF numbers. She noted that the numbers were modified in November to take into account that the Rancho Rinconada numbers were included in the 2006 projections but not the DOF numbers, resulting in the correct numbers of 2,720. Referring to the Allocation Table on Page 9-5, the total projected need for Cupertino of 2,720, Ms. Gil said that the numbers for very low are 412 and 198 for low. She said the housing committee was presently looking at a variety of different things, and has received many requests to look at the BMR requirement again. They are embarking on looking at the manual and making changes and they may choose to recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council that the 10% be increased to 15% or something along those lines. The other alternative for the city is to concentrate on trying to bring in a larger 100% affordable housing development and try to bring those and disperse those throughout the city. Ms. Gil said that if Villa Serra redevelops at above moderate rates according to the developer, and the moderate allocation is reduced, the city will have to provide some units in that area. She said she was not certain that Villa Serra was considered moderate, but likely market rate/above moderate. Chair Hams commented that they were market rate for the type of 20 year old two story low rise older units they were. Ms. Wordell noted that they would not be in included in any ABAG numbers, and might be perceived as more moderate type development. Discussion continued wherein staff answered questions relative to the allocations. Mr. Piasecki noted that Ms. Gil was preparing the RFP to go to consultants to assist with the housing element update; and said that a lot of the strategy to be directed at these numbers will come out of that process. The update of the housing element is due about this time next year, therefore the Planning Commission Minutes 17 November 27, 2000 Planning Commission, City Council and probably a General Plan process will be reviewing what they do, how they try to achieve the 2700 units, and likely discuss increasing densities. Ms. Gil said that certification was necessary to work toward getting the housing element approved which has been the policy in the past. She noted that in Santa Clara County, only the three cities of Monte Sereno, Saratoga and Gilroy did not have certified housing elements. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to accept ABAG's Regional Housing Needs Distribution responsibilities Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted that Cupertino was one of the few cities that had them adjust the numbers from the first go around because of the Rancho Rinconada miscalculation. He commended Ms. Gil for her tenacity in working with the numbers and making sure the city was represented fairly and treated the same as other Bay Area communities. REPORT OF TglE PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Stevens reported that he commented on the tours of the quarries, and noted that there was an alternative exit from Hansen. It was considered and the alternative would have involved another ramp into 280, therefore Caltrans is the one that turned it down. Another alternative did exist and was mentioned at the meeting. The Arts Committee proposed that school art be posted on large city tracks as recognition of recycling. Com. Stevens reported that the cable TV discussed their slow response and delivery. He reported that there was a new cable system, which would result in competition for the present one. He said that a new cable system means an overlay on the city's telephone poles. Com. Stevens reported that other committees were discussing the art on the four Stevens Creek corners; the space has been allotted but no overall plan has yet been generated. Environmental Review Committee: Com. Corr said that no meeting was held. He briefly discussed that a resident called the city to establish a post office box for a homeowners association and although staff was not able to grant the request, Mr. Jung spent time explaining the justification. The resident took the time to call the city and express his appreciation for the time staff spent with him. A brief discussion ensued regarding the regulations pertaining to street addresses and post office box numbers. Housing Committee: Com. Kwok reported that he attended the meeting on November 14, but would defer his report to the next meeting. Other: Com. Kwok commented that he received the minutes of the Cupertino Sanitary District regarding the new developments that could impact the sewer; and said apparently the 12 inch line along Wolfe Road and off 280 is up to capacity now and they are recommending to increase the Planning Commission Minutes lB November 2?, 2000 capacity to 15 inch by a method called pipe bursting from a 12 to 15 inch; the cost to be shared by the developers and the customers. For any furore development along that line the developers have to pay the expenses. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: He announced that the new Parks and Recreation Director would begin her employment in January. Com. Stevens reported on a recent meeting with Public Works Director Ralph Quails and the residents of the area close to the Bollinger Bridge intersection. The outgrowth of the meeting was that Mr. Qualls would publish a tentative schedule starting with July 15th of next year working backwards to the present time, so that there would be a framework of meetings with agendas and what had been accomplished. He said the important part as far as the water district, is that the city is scheduled in 2003 for a feasibility study on the subject of the abandoned bridge and the Bollinger bridge. The city has funds and is trying to move it up to start next spring or next summer. He complimented Mr. Qualls on his follow through with the letter and the neighbors now have a schedule in hand. He said Cupertino was the only city that provided information. It was reported that the library site selectionwill be forwarded to the City Council at their next meeting. Chair Harris reminded everyone about the December 18th special meeting and social gathering afterward at her home. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Mr. Piasecki discussed briefly the article on thc passing of Measure B; and said it was significant to the city because a big portion will bc for maintenance and the city has a lot of creeks that could usc maintenance and enhancement. He also mentioned thc article by Alan Hess on thc Santana Row Project, which mentioned thc city. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to the December 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Approved as amended: December l l, 2000 Respectfully Submitted,