Loading...
PC 02-11-02CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 11, 2002 SALUTE TOT HEFLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Patnoe, Saadati, Chairperson Corr Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordelk City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Gary Chao, Assistant Planner; Carmen Lynaugh~ Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None None PUBLIC HEARING: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 17-R-01 Dennis Norton 10430 Stern Avenue Appeal of the Design Review Committee's denial of a new 2,605 square foot two-story residence with a basement on a 5,816 square foot parcel resulting in a floor area ratio of 45%. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 2002 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, noted for the record that no conflict of interest existed for Com. Auerbach, as a resident of Rancho Rinconada, because he resides outside the distance that would create a conflict. StaFf pre~q~ntatinn' The video presentation reviewed the application for an appeal of the Design Review Committee's denial of a new two story residence on Stern Avenue. The committee denied the proposed project because of the findings outlined in the staff report. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the appeal, uphold the appeal and approve a submitted plan set, or uphold the appeal and approve the model resolution with any modifications by the commissioners. The Planning Commission decision will be final unless appealed. Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, reviewed the exhibits illustrating the various elevations o1' the proposed home. He also reviewed past approved designs in Rancho Rinconada. Relative to the findings for approval, the Design Review Committee determined that the project is not consistent Planning Commission Minutes 2 February I I. 2002 with the General Plan and zoning, specifically on zoning, tbe requirement that every 24 I'oot span of second story wall have an offset; the wall on the south side of the second elevation is 30 feet with no offset; there is a finding that the project is detrimental or injurious to neighboring property. Staff does not feel it is necessarily detrimental or injurious, but other findings would have to be made also in order to approve the project. Staff and the committee agreed tbat the residence is not in scale and not harmonious with the neighborhood, and that the project is not consistent with the design guidelines, and that the project will result in significant adverse visual impacts. Because the findings for approval cannot be made, staff at the Design Review Committee recommended that the project be continued and the applicant amend the plan. The applicant wanted a final decision and if denial, to give him the option to appeal to the Planning Colnmission. Mr. Gilli answered Commissioners' questions relative to the proposed project. Mr. Dennis Norton, representing the property owner, noted his objection to Com. Auerbach's participation in the discussion, since Com. Auerbach resided only four houses away from tbc proposed prqiect. Mr. Norton said he felt there were incorrect statements in the staff report~ such as stating the applicant did not conform to the architect's and staff's recommendations. I le pointed out that there was no mention in the process of offsetting the center until it reached the DRC, nor was there anything in the design criteria about balance; and he felt they conformed to tim recommendations and had paid $700 for the review of the city's architect. 14e said if thc design criteria for the neighborhood required a single story house or wood house, they would bavc complied; they followed the design criteria, including coverage, FAR and materials. 14e reviewed the recommendations of the Cannon Design Group and noted their compliance in thc areas addressed and in accordance with what the Planning Commission approved in the past. Mr. Papken Der Torossian, owner of the property since 1974, said that a major concern was thc placement of the window that affected the privacy of his neighbor Tom Jennings. I-lc said he was agreeable to redesign of the window placement so that the neighbor's privacy was not jeopardized. He said he concurred with the city's desire to have consistent guidelines for the neigbborbood Ibr harmony within the neighborhood. Mr. Norton answered Planning Commissioners' questions and reiterated that he I'elt strongly that they conformed and were in compliance with everything approved in the past. I le reiterated that they had paid the $700 fee for the review, which did not include a recommendation I'or tile offsetting of the house, nor did staff mention it until the design review. He said he felt it was not a valid reason for denial as the project was more offset than anything approved within the last two years. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Harry Morrison, 10425 Morretti, said his home was located directly across the back I'encc from the applicant's home and he was concerned about privacy issues, as the master bedroom windows of the applicant's home look directly down into their back yard. He said at the Design Review Committee in December, there were recommended requirements for planting a row ol' Italian cypress trees along the back fence to provide a privacy screen for tbe neigbbors and tbc trees would be protected against any future owner removing them. He said Mr. Norton proposed another plan for a lattice on the back fence, but a height of 7 feet would be required to provide a privacy screening; for a total of 12 feet high fencing. He said he was not pleased witb the proposed solutions for privacy. Planning Commission Minutes 3 February I I, 2002 Mr. Gilli clarified that the maximum allowed fencing height is 8 feet from the ground to the top o1' any material. An exception would require the agreement and approval of' all affected neighbors. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. Coin. Saadati said he did not believe that the General Plan or city code specifies the setback ol'the second floor; specifically how many feet; and as long as the second floor is not lining up with thc wall of the first floor, it softens the effect to some extent. He said by shifting the building slightly over, it would expose some of the second story windows which are covered by the roof of the first floor. Also, relative to the privacy issue, he said the applicant indicated he was willing to address the privacy to modify the windows in response to the neighbor's concern. Coin. Saadati said that being able to soften the elevation to some extent with articulation in the material could have a positive effect in reducing the scale of the second story. Com. Patnoe said Mr. Jennings' comments on the design review focused on privacy and although the homeowner said Mr. Jennings was comfortable with it; without his presence, he I'elt it was difficult to have the privacy issue be one of the reasons to sway the decision one way or anothcr. Com. Patnoe said that he was inclined to support the DRC decision, but wanted to continue the discussion. Com. Chert said that a decision was rendered previously, and there have not been any changes since, and she intended on holding her position to deny the design. Com. Auerbach said that the regulation clearly states there cannot be more than a 20 toot run o1' wall without having something to break up that run. It is not something left to interpretation yet is missing from the house. He said to address the privacy measures, possibly removing the window from the north side and putting windows on the east west sides, would result in an awkward design. He said as Mr. Gilli mentioned in his opening remarks, at the conclusion o1' the DRC meeting, they wanted to continue the discussions to the next meeting to give staff a chancc to work with the applicant to resolve some of these issues. It was the applicant who asked tbr a denial in order to appeal to the Planning Commission. He said he felt the DRC worked well in that they had beard frorn the applicants, visited the neighbors, had discussions with them about the impacts on the adjacent pro, perties. He said it was evident that the building was not far enough along and required tweaking, and that could best be handled between staff and the applicant. Com. Auerbach said that he would like to see a mechanism to send the application back for discussion and return it to the DRC. Com. Patnoe suggested not taking final action, but give the applicant more time to work on thc proposal and bring it back, providing as many options as possible for the applicant. Mr. Gilli said that it was possible to continue the item and have it return to the Planning Commission; with some direction given on the aspects of the plan of concern to the Planning Commission. Chair Corr expressed concern with what seemed a sense of urgency to move toward denial of thc project, rather than continue the ongoing dialog. He said he had concerns with the privacy issues at the back as was mentioned by Mr. Morrison, and not yet hearing from Mr. Jennings. I lc said while he understood the nature of having to redesign the whole interior to balance the house, hc felt there would still be ways to soften how the house presents from all directions. He said he was Planning Commission Minutes 4 February I I, 2002 encouraged that the applicant is willing to adjust the window on the north side: and he would uphold the DRC design; but would not be opposed to continuing the item in order to continue discussions. Com. Saadati said he concurred with Chair Corr, since he felt there was an opportunity Ibr the applicant to go back and look at it, rather than rejecting the idea. He added that if the application was continued, he would like the privacy issue addressed to the satisfaction of the neighbor in tile back, and look at the materials that could work with stucco to soften the effect of the second lloor or some articulation in the elevation. In response to Com. Patnoe's question relative to Mr. Cannon's recommendation about thc garage size, Mr. Gilli said that the architectural consultant recommended that the garage be set back 12 inches from the face of the exterior wall; the applicant proposed more (18 inches). Com. Patnoe said he concurred with Com. Saadati's suggestions about addressing the privacy screening. Com. Chen said that the privacy issue and staff's concerns had to be addressed which was tile reason for the desire to continue discussion. She said she was aware that the applicant felt thc process was unfair and that he was complying in all areas, and the Planning Commission was interfering with the architectural design. Mr. Norton said he was willing to work with staff, but felt they had gone out o1' their way to conform. He said he could work with a variation of materials, and the second story off'set, althongh he felt the neighbors would not benefit. He said the ordinance was unclear to applicants relative to what they were required to do. Ms. Wordell clarified that the checklist on Page 1-I6 of the staff report outlined three areas of non conformance; second story offsets every 24 feet; transitions between buildings; wall articulations and wall heights reduced. Mr. Norton said he was unaware of the second story offsets ot' 24 I'cet until the meeting, but could make it work. He said they had addressed tile second story wall heights, but could do more if desired. Com. Auerbach said that the direction to continue included meeting tile criteria and thc issues that staffhad, including the transition; the continuity of the wall, the vertical height: privacy issues; and some materials. He said staff was asking for wood around the windows. Chair Corr summarized the issues to be addressed: privacy issues; softening the second floor' wood trim pieces; the 25 foot sidewall; and the second story setback. MOTION: SECOND: Corn. Patnoe moved to continue Application 17-R-01 Com. Saadati AMENDED MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach amended the motion to refer Application 17-R-01 back to the DRC (Com. Patnoe supported the amendment) Com. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 1 l-U-01; 16-EA-010! Bill Marci 10056 Orange Avenue Planning Commission Minutes S February 1 I, 2002 Use permit to construct a 7,912 square foot mixed use building with 4,483 square l'eet office/retail space and 3,429 square feet of residential space (2 units). Rtaff pre~entatlcm: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to replace a 1,205 square foot single family house with a 7,912 square foot mixed use building, located in a developed urban area that will be redeveloped as part of the Monta Vista planning area. The Monta Vista design guidelines provide development standards and design guidelines l'or various land uses, including mixed use residentiaI and retain commercial in the Monta Vista planning area. Details on the proposed project are outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the negative declaration and use permit application in accordancc with the revised model resolution. Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, reviewed the background of the application as set I'orth in thc staff report. The proposal includes two apartment units on the second level above thc commercial/retail floor; one apartment unit will be a 2 bedroom, 2 bath, with a one car ground level parking garage and an open parking stall in the rear of the building. The second apartment unit will be a 3 bedroom, 2 bath unit, with a two car garage. Mr. Chris Spalding, architect, said that relative to Chair Corr's concern, they could put a two Ibot wooden comp single roofing awning over the two doors. He clarified that tile office/retail space was 3,065 square feet. In response to Com. Auerbach's concern about site drainage, Mr. Spalding said that one of the conditions of approval is to mitigate in another fashion. Depending on what the soils engineer comes up with, the options include a drywell under the parking lot Ibr tile drainage to flow into, or an underground rain water retention system which takes the storm tlows and slowly pumps it into the storm drain. He said another concern was tile planting under the oak tree that is being saved. Com. Patnoe said he liked the mixed use project and the building. In response to his qucstion about occupancy, Mr. Spalding said that he planned to reside in the apartment and work in thc smaller office with his own business and an additional two persons in the office; with the remainder of the staff out in the field. He said at this time he was not certain who would occupy the other spaces. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Don Harr, 10056 Orange Avenue, expressed concern about the heavy traffic on Orange Avenue, and stated that it was a feeder street for many streets in tile neighborhood, as well as the main entrance to Blackberry Farm. He said it was over burdened now and had a heavy tral'fic backup in the afternoon because of the schools in the area and at 9 in the morning from Stevcns Creek back to Orange Avenue. This proposed change is for quadruple tile automotive traffic that ordinarily would stem from a resident lot. He said the project would not work as Orange Avenue was already burdened. He encouraged those present to go to Orange Avenue at 9 in thc morning and 3 in the afternoon to see the traffic impacts. Ms. Wordell said that the Monta Vista zoning zoned the area commercial, planned development /commercial with incidental industrial or residential, and applicants are being advised they cannot go strictly residential. Planning Commission Minutes 6 February I I~ 2002 Mr. George Adzich, 21850 Grenada Avenue, said that Mr. Hart made appropriate remarks about the traffic. He said he has lived in the area for 30 years and was familiar with the zoning: and was shocked to learn that retail/office and some apartment buildings were planned. He discussed thc blockage of Orange Avenue and the effect on the surrounding streets, noting tbat it would not be able to handle the traffic. Relative to the mixed use in the area and the comparisons shown, bc said it was critical to understand that there is notlfing similar in the area; the comparison properties are on Pasadena and Imperial; this would be tine first of its kind. The other two properties mentioned would be developed shortly. He said he did not want to limit the developers tn what they can do on a property they have purchased as that zoning, but some of the key elements to look at with a project like this is the impact on the environment. Mr. Adzich said tlmt it may start out as a good plan if the owner plans to live in the apartment, and include office space; but tine retail may bring in 5 or 50 cars per hour. Tbe environment drastically changes around the property~ and in this case the entire area has to be considered. He said that the guidelines are very sul~iectivc; and the previous application addressed issues of bare straight walls, and the proposed application is a box also. He said it was confusing to know that the city wants and he felt the project should not be approved as there were still too many issues to be addressed. Mrs. Cathy Hart, 10056 Orange Avenue, addressed the privacy issue and said tbat there is now a second story deck looking down into their minimal back yard. She said that property values on their side of the street will not be improved by having a large commercial building looming over their smaller house. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. Com. Auerbach said he felt Monta Vista has been under-served. He said he was not opposed to thc development as it is; and said that a box around other box development in an area with light industrial canneries is in keeping with the area. Monta Vista is an ideal area to try and preserve in that way and continue that building form. He expressed concern about how the city is developing the street structure, by taking an area which had narrow cozy 25 foot wide streets, and prevented people from speeding down them, and are putting in a 40 foot wide, 50 foot wide total right of way down the middle. Com. Auerbach said they were destroying Monta Vista by suburbanizing thc area which was rural and town-like. He said Orange Avenue would not work because the arca bas been seeded back to the citizens and no longer have that right of way. People cannot go to Orange Avenue, thus taking one street out of the mix to get to McClellan and putting the burdea on tbc other streets. Those decisions were made many years ago when traffic and design thinking was different, and it is time to revisit the issues and clean up the design in that area. Com. Aucrbacln read an excerpt from ~uh~rhan Nlatlnn regarding streets. He expressed frustration tbat planning progress wasn't occurring faster. He discussed the benefits of parking on the street aad recommended that the issue be revisited. Com. Chen said that traffic was a concern and there have been no traffic reviews Ibr 15 years, when only mixed use buildings were permitted in Monta Vista. She said it was a good design and although she liked to see new development in Monta Vista, she was uncomlbrtable with thc ttal'l~c issues. Ms. Wordell explained that sometimes traffic problems may be perceived problems, not real ones. She said it was her impression from being in the area several times, that thcre wasn't excessive traffic, and there is no documentation ora traffic issue for that area. Cmn. Cbcu said sbt was concerned that there was no traffic study nor any documented problems. Sbe said in thc General Plan amendment process, they were looking at making a conscious decision to lower thc Planning Commission Minutes 7 February I I, 2002 level of service even more on the main street which would irnpact the neighborbood, which was a situation she did not want to occur. She reiterated that she shared the concern about the n'aFfic issues. Com. Patnoe said that the land is zoned in a particular way and whether or not the application is approved, there will likely be a similar building in the future. When the project is approved, it should be aesthetically pleasing and have minimal impact on the neighbors. Itc said wbilc hc has served on the Planning Commission, he has voted against projects that call for additional ol'ficc space if they do not try to improve on the housing availability as well, and he felt the proposed application was doing that with increasing some additional square footage in office but also trying to improve the housing situation. He said he was aware of the traffic issues in that area. Cmn. Patnoe said that he concurred with Com. Auerbach's point on blocking of the street, and hc suggested a discussion with the neighborhood and City Council possibly about lifting that, and what that would possibly do as they move forward in the next ten years in this particular neighborhood. Com. Patnoe said he supported the application as presented, with the caveat of Chair Corr's request that staff work with the applicant regarding the doorway. Com. Saadati said lac concurred with the application and suggested modifying the entrance; and suggested tbat staff pursuc thc traffic issue and evaluate traffic calming measures if necessary for that area. Chair Corr said hc supported the application. He reviewed the language changes in the model resolution. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application 16-EA-01 Com. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application I I-U-01 including changcs in thc model resolution and additional work on the front facade and work on storm drainage Com. Chen Passed 5-0-0 Chair Corr noted that the Planning Commission decision is final, and may be appealed to tile City Council within 14 calendar days. Com. Auerbach said he wanted to see a full map when completed, illustrating what Monta Vista looks like with regard to streets. He said he has long been an advocate of some rural standard, and noted that Rnhnrhan N~rlnn has a set of guidelines for different street widths for different parts ol' the city, and its part of the General Plan and the traffic portion thereof. He said citizens should bc given a chance to revisit the Monta Vista plan after 15 years. OLD BUSINESS: 3. General Plan study session regarding the Land Use element (the preferred alternative) Chair Corr declared a brief recess. ,q~aFf pmqontntlcm' Ms. Wordell said that the preferred alternative was the sul~iect o1' thc study session, which is a preliminary approach to determining land uses and allocating development Planning Commission Minutes 8 February I 1, 2002 potential. Preferred alternatives refer to the distribution of land use types and the amount o1' development in those land use types. She stressed that the proposed direction was preliminary, with no final numbers developed. Referring to the Urban Design Overlay, Ms. Wordell said the concept was that the General Plan changes are going to look at achieving some sort of form to meet the objectives or guiding principles. She discussed the preliminary preferred alternative for commercial, office, residential, and hotel as outlined in the Land Use Development Allocation Matrix, Exhibit A. Corn. Patnoe said that he was pleased with the preferred alternatives and said he did not have anything to add. In response to Com. Saadati's request for clarification on whether there was not any commercial development in the past 10 years, Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, said there was a net increase ot' 30,000 square feet (actually built) in 10 years. Ten years ago a consultant felt at that time the city was overbuilt relative to retail development; and the city reduced its commcrcial development potential feeling assured that there would not be a large amount of construction, which proved to be true. Ms. Wordell said that in the last General Plan when there was reallocation of development potential, commercial was cut back at that time to accommodate hotel, residential and hence it was cut back before and it is still largely unspent. Some of the commercial will get reshaped into the areas desired; the downtown village will receive more, some areas will get less; areas that want to have mixed use would get less so they would have room tbr the mixed use. Mr. Jung said that the additions in retail in Cupertino have been along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Ms. Wordell clarified that mixed use was a combination of residential with non-residential. She said that the General Plan would specify areas as commercial, residential, and retail/oflicc residential. Com. Chen reiterated the importance of reviewing the larger environmental picture instead of focusing on specific areas only. Corn. Auerbach said the alternative scenario for commercial was that the square Ibotagc is concentrated at the crossroads, downtown village and Vallco. He reaffirmed that they should be considered separately. He expressed concern that allocating more space to the north DeAnza area might encourage developers to develop in that area rather than on Stevens Creek or other areas such as the downtown village; and said he was in favor of having either a citywide pool or I'ocus on the downtown village Ms. Wordell said it was possible if there were additional office development allowed there, it could usurp office development that might go downtown; although on the other hand it is diffcrcnt types of development; second story office is smaller scale; large user on north Deanza would probably be a typical R&D, hence it may be attracting a different market. Another tradcol¥ is that the concept would tie it into providing housing so that to get it, housing has to bc provided. Responding to Com. Auerbach's question, Ms. Wordell said that the concept of the downtown village plan would include retail office along the street and residential behind; and it was possible that the property owners or developers would be different. Com. Auerbach said that because the amount of work that it would take to make the downtown village a reality, developers need to be encouraged to be creative, to approach people whose lots aren't for sale and are not being redeveloped. He said he envisioned prospective developers being directed to the downtown Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 1 I, 20{}2 village when they ask where they can develop in the city, and it would be backed up by General Plan numbers. Chair Corr stated that they were successfully moving forward to get the jobs/bousing balance more in line. He concurred that North DeAnza was in good shape and not a lot of time would have to be focused on that area. He said the redevelopment of the city will start slow and will catch on, and increasing the number of residential units within a mixed use development will become more thc regular than the irregular it is today. He said he was pleased with the direction they were headed. Com. Auerbach said relative to residential, he had asked staffto look at an FAR element to make sure the residential developments aren't 2,000 square foot luxury apartments, but a good spread of units. Relative to the schedule, Com. Auerbach suggested a session on residential development with regard to the General Plan, including streets, overlay districts and house design, especially RI. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Corr reported that the ERC had not met, but is scheduled to meet Wednesday, February 13th. Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported that the committee changed its name to thc I Iousiug Commission and would be meeting on Thursday evening. Mayor's Breakfast: None held; Com. Chen said that one would be held Tuesday. Com. Pamoc said that the contents of/he Mayor's State of the City address on the Cupertino website. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No report. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. to the ['lanning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on February 25, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: March 25, 2002