Loading...
PC 10-23-00CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVEDMINUTES OF TFIE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 23, 2000. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr. Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Hams Staff present: Steven Piasecki, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Vera Gil, Senior Planner; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of October 9, 2000 Regular Meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve the October 9, 2000 as presented Com. Stevens Chair Hams Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Hams noted several written communications relative to the CCS application: Letters from J. McElhaney; Marie and Ross Quinn; Ralph Caron and Jennifer Meyer; and S. Khan. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 05-DIR-00 Vista Gardens Homeowners Association Reinell Place and Cartwright Way Director's Minor Modification with referral to Planning Commission to remove eight trees and replace with six/seven trees at an existing planned residential development. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to meeting of November 27, 2000 .. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 06-DIR-00 Michael Heckrotte 21975 through 22079 McClellan Road Director's minor modification with referral to Planning Commission to allow the removal of two redwood trees in the common area of a community housing project in an R1C zone. Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 23, 2000 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Application No.: Applicant: Location: 06-U-99 (M) Cali-Land Associates 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard Request to extend an approved use permit for one year for automobile vehicle storage. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to meeting of November 27, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to postpone Items 3, 4 and 5 to the November 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Chair Harris moved the agenda to Planning Commission Reports. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Com. Corr reported that the committee reviewed a proposal from the Evershine Group; subdivision on Orion Lane; and reviewed the Municipal Code Amendment, revising Chapter 19.28. Housing Committee: No report Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Doyle reported on the October l0th Mayor's breakfast discussion items, including the sports center; skateboard facility; Telecom's proposal to add cable to some neighborhoods; Rancho Rinconada upgrade; Library items and Fine Arts projects. Chair Hams asked that a report on recent conferences attended be given at the next meeting. Other: Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, gave a brief report and answered questions on the silent second mortgage program. She reported that the Housing Committee was addressing the teacher housing issue; redevelopment of existing apartment complexes; and BMR rental rate. Chair Harris moved the agenda back to Item 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 14-U-00, 10-EXC-00, 18-EA-00 Mary Ellen Cheil (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 anda 5,089 square foot Cupertino Community services building on a 1.18 acre vacant lot. Planning Comm/ssion Minutes 3 October 23, 2000 Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan that requires a 30 foot separation betxveen onsite buildings. Continued from meeting of October 9, 2000 Tentative City Council Date: November 20, 2000 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to construct a 24 unit affordable apartment building and a 6,500 square foot CCS building, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application, which is scheduled to be forwarded to the City Council on November 20, 2000. Referring to the site plan, Ms. Gil reviewed the proposed development She reviewed the Planning Commission concerns discussed at the September 11 Planning Commission meeting: Applicant was directed to add parking spaces to the site plan as the Planning Commission did not feel the shared parking plan was adequate. The applicant was also directed to conduct parking studies at similar affordable housing developments. Shared parking studies have been completed and DKS, the traffic consultant, visited sites and counted parking stalls, and the results are shown in the staff report on Page 2-75. The applicant was also directed to add architectural relief to certain residential elevations. Ms. Gill illustrated the layout shown at the September 11 Planning Commission and the revised layout, and also reviewed the courtyard perspective. She noted the modifications to the building elevations including extension of eaves, addition of shadowing and canopies, and changes to the windows to add greater interest on the wall plane. Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, addressed the issue of the traffic on Randy Lane, and said that he had met with some residents to discuss their concerns about the traffic from the new development on Stevens Creek Blvd. He said there was an office building with an existing right turn only and based on this type of development, he felt it was justifiable to recommend to the Planning Commission to add the same condition for a right turn only sign limiting potential neighborhood cut through traffic through Randy Lane. He noted that on Vista Drive there was concern about additional driveways that might be potential conflicts with other nearby driveways. He said it was his opinion that the traffic from the development would be minimal and create minimal conflict. However, he said there was concern about the fire station restricting parking, but he did not see it as an issue. Mr. Chong said that relative to shared parking, the applicant proposes offsite parking in the event of a meeting where they would park at a bank or different location and would walk to the office building for a meeting. There would be no deed parking and there would not be a parking arrangement or contract recording it against the property. Ms. Gil said that in the old Monta Vista area, there was some mixed development that had some office and retail as well as residential and shared parking; and in those cases, they also allowed for some onstreet parking in front of the developments. Mr. Piasecki said that the P. J. Mulligan site had a shared parking arrangement between the residential and the non residential onsite. Ms. Gil addressed the architectural consultant's concerns about materials and overhangs on certain buildings, and said that in order to address the concerns a condition of approval was added stating that those items will return for further review with the Design Review Committee, and at that time the architect would provide details illustrating the overhangs. She said the applicant did address some of those concerns; recessing some windows in the CCS building, and the architectural consultant recommended that the approvals be at the staff level. She also added that the architectural consultant was concerned that the siding material be high quality. Planning Commission Minutes ,t October ~g, 2000 There was a brief discussion about the green roof color on the fire station, specifically that the darker green color was what was agreed to, not the lighter teal color. Mr. Williams, Van Meter Williams Pollack, Architect, said that they attempted to respond to a number of the concerns, and reviewed the changes made and reviewed by Ms. Gil. He discussed the board siding and distributed large colored perspectives of the buildings, illustrating design and colors. He said they toned the colors down in response to the concern about the stronger colors. He provided details of the siding, noting that it was traditional board siding made ofcementious materials that does not expand and contract, weathers very well; and takes paint very well. He said they were attempting to use colors to break up the building to create a rhythm in articulation in the elevations particularly in the elevations of the back townhouse building. He reviewed the modifications to the elevations and the landscape plan. In response to Chair Harris' inquiry, Mr. Williams illustrated the location of the food function area where the food was checked out and loaded into recipient/'s cars. He answered questions about the parking plan, landscape plan and setbacks. Com. Corr asked for clarification on the income levels of qualified residents and whether or not the facility had the capability of being a soup kitchen. Ms. Gil showed the area where the Heart of the City Plan was included. Ms. Gil said that the qualified applicants would be of median income, and that a use permit would be needed for the facility to be used as a soup kitchen. Mr. Williams clarified that no cooking would be done on site. Ms. Mary Ellen Chell, applicant, said that the residents would be charged no more than 50% for those in the 50% of median income, and median income for a family of 4 is $87,000; one half being $42,500 for a family of 4 and in the $30s for a family of 1 of 2. Ms. Ann Silverberg, Bridge Housing Corp., said that different funding institutions define the criteria in different ways, but in general it is commonly accepted that 50% of the median as very low income; Ms. Chell clarified that the rotating shelter was offsite at various hosting congregations, and said that people would not be living in the CCS building. Mr. Williams discussed the address sign which was a requirement of the fire depadment. He said the security lighting had not been specifically addressed yet; as they wanted to have approval of the site plan first. He acknowledged that the area needed to be well lit, but said they would also be respectful of adjacent neighbors. He said they were considering precast lighting ballards for the front area and low lighting in the walking area. In response to Com. Doyle's question about recreational space allocated, Mr. Williams said they met the city requirements with balconies, private open space or patio, and the larger units had semi-private yards in the back as well as front entry porches. Mr. Williams said that the bank across the street agreed to a shared parking use for visitors to the CCS, however, he said that no title can be placed on the property for the option. Chair Hams clarified that it could not really be counted on as a gentlemen's agreement as the owner of the building is not bound to the agreement, and if the ownership should change or the bank building enlarged or moved, it is not a written agreement. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Planning Commission Minutes $ October ~, 2000 Mr. Carl Cotrell, said that he owned a unit in the Vista Gardens complex across the street from the proposed project. He said the video presentation did not truly depict the neighborhood; and that Vista Drive is a quite tree lined street, mostly residential. The complex across the street of Vista Gardens are mostly retired people; Vista Drive has a moderate amount of traffic, with a few pedestrians made up of retired people, and children on their way to school. He said if the project is approved, a very high density and somewhat commercial project is dropped well into one end of a residential area. He expressed concern along with 6 other owners about the density on the site. He said he was not concerned about the low cost housing, as it was needed in the community, but putting CCS and housing together on the site would create a nightmare of density, a lack of recreational areas for children and adults, and very inadequate parking. Mr. Cotrell said the residents of Vista Drive are concerned about noise, security and parking on Vista Drive; and that shared parking is not a proven concept particularly with the density. He said the community center building is a commercial building and he felt it should be treated like any other commercial building; with the required proper setbacks, spacing between buildings and the proper amount of offsite parking. He said he felt the community center should be located elsewhere on commercial property where there would be more parking for the business; however if it must be on the property, it could be reoriented; with the plan reversed so that the community center is on the back side of the site; with entrance from the street or Vista Drve. Mr. Cotrell said he felt the mass of the building was too high. He asked that his comments be considered in the decision making. Ms. Karin Meyer, 20271 Reinell Place, said she concurred with Mr. Cottrell's remarks and addressed addressed the numerous proposed exits and expressed concern about the increase in traffic and potential parking problems. She said she felt the CCS building would draw a lot of people to the neighborhood, and it was not a workable. Mr. Roll Meyer, 20271 Reinell Place, said that he was disappointed with the proposed complex, specifically with the CCS building, and questioned the need for a 6,000 square foot building with only 5 people working. He said he felt it would become a soup kitchen and people would then congregate in the neighborhood with shopping carts. He also expressed concern about the community room; with loud music when the neighbors would be sleeping. He said he was opposed to the CCS building. Ms. Shehnaz Khan, 20252 Cartwright Way, said that they moved to Cupertino about 2 years ago, and were aware at that time there may be some housing available for teachers, firemen, etc. She said she attended the community meetings with the architect relative to the proposed project and said she felt her concerns were not adequately responded to at the meetings. She expressed concern about the security in the neighborhood if the CCS project is built. She noted that she researched the salaries of public employees such as teacher, firemen, and police, and was informed that some starting salaries were $49,000, much higher than the salaries that Ms. Chell previously discussed. She questioned who would be residing in the complex, and how transient they would be; and said she felt that she did not feel it was a safe area for her child to be around. Ms. Khan said she had written a letter expressing her concern about the construction, design and appearance of the project; but said she was more concerned about the environment for her child and family. She said she was concerned about security, and also addressed the issue of salaries of qualified residents. Mr. Jim Nappo, Randy Lane, said he supported the proposed right turn only lane for Randy Lane. He said there was heavy traffic on Randy Lane because of the trucks servicing the furniture on the comer of Randy Lane and Stevens Creek Boulevard.. He discused an unsafe situation on Randy Plannff~g Commission Minutes 6 October ~, ~00~) Lane with the island in the street opposite the exit from the office building on the comer. Because of the trucks parking on the street, when driving up Randy Lane, motorists are forced to drive on the wrong side of the island and drive into opposing oncoming traffic. He said the combination of effects is creating an unsafe circumstance, and any more traffic on Randy Lane through the residential neighborhood will add to the already unsafe and congested condition. Mr. Chong said he was reviewing the situation, and there was a prior conditional approval for the office complex at 20195 Stevens Creek to put in the 4 foot median. He said he would consult with the Director of Community Development on whether or not it is an appropriate approach to amend or modify that condition. Mr. Chong said that the median was to prohibit the left turn out of the complex. Mr. Piasecki said that the alternatives would be addressed. Relative to an earlier concern about the potential noise, Chair Harris noted that there was a city ordinance addressing the noise level at different times of the day and explained how to address the issues. Ms. Cheil clarified the need for the 6,000 square foot CCS building. She said they had outgrown the Quinlan Community Center space and the new facility was designed to address the needs of the community. The proposed CCS facility will have private space for clients to meet with community workers, private meeting rooms, and rooms to clean food and prepare food, a food closet, and a clothing distribution area. Presently there is no room for food storage or area to provide food to the clients; the clothing is stored in 55 gallon drums and the clients have to pick from the drums which is not a dignified way to select clothing. The second story of the building will consist of staff offices, meeting room and lounge area for staff and volunteers. Com. Corr explained the qualifications for low income housing in all vocations. Ms. Quell explained the qualifications process for the residents and how often they moved. Ms. Silverberg said that the turnover was fairly low, with residents staying a long period of time. In response to Chair Hams' question about parking allocations, Mr. Williams illustrated the areas for bike parking, and also stated that they anticipated that there would be fewer cars than what was allocated for. In order to maintain the maximum amount of flexibility in the shared parking, they are not designated as one or the other. It is anticipated that the majority of the residents will be working families. Com. Stevens questioned the possibility of changing the location of the CCS building to provide more open space and remove it from the street. Mr. Williams said that relative to locating it adjacent to the street, it should be visible to the street so that people could find the building, as they provide valuable services to the entire community; and if hidden from view, a larger sign would be required, and by placing the building in the rear of the property people would be meandering around the neighborhood trying to locate the building. He said they previously presented other possible circulations to the community and the consensus was that the proposed placement was the most ideal; they did break up the buildings and broke up the scale of the development to a smaller scale overall in keeping with the community. Mr. Williams said the zoning on the property allows for 36 units, not the 24 residential units provided; and if it were a larger housing development, the scale of the CCS building would have been larger also. -- Chair Hams closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 23, 2000 A discussion ensued regarding density, wherein staff answered Planning Commissioners' questions. The issues were summarized and comments submitted: Issue Doyle Kwok Corr Stevens Harris 24 units residential Ok; Prefer more Prefer more units Good; would Like project; units like to see want 24 units more units 6506 sf office ok Excessive; Needs that much Too much; Too large; w/community 4xasbig space needs to be not enough smaller parking; reduce o/bldg Location of CCS Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok bldg Arch of Apartments Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok Arch of CCS Soften eaves Ok Facia could use Concerned; 2 Front of CCS Buildings breaking up story too Bldg much Parking Still an issue Concerned; Review after a An issue Still an issue use of CCS - need more year concerned; not enough high use/keep parking in should be parking some uses at complex agreement Quinlan temporarily Heart of City Ok Fine Ok Ok Ok Exception 30 ft exception Acceptable; Ok Ok Ok Ok improve lighting Right turn only on Ok Ok Ok Good idea; ok concemed Randy about trucks Planning Staff with PC DRC DRC PC; DRC Commission, DRC review or staff A discussion followed relative to the issues of parking and size of the CCS building. Chair Harris said she felt the building should be reduced by 1,000 square feet to 1,500 square feet. Com. Stevens felt that the square footage of the CCS building should be reduced to about 5,000 square feet. Com. Kwok said he would be receptive to reducing the office space to a maximum of 5,000 square feet and increasing the parking spaces. MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 14-U-00, 10-EXC-00 and 18-EA-00 to the November 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Planning Comm/ssion Minutes 8 October 23, .2000 Chair Hams declared a recess from 9:10 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. 6. Application No.(s): 01-MCA-00, 19-EA-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Municipal Code amendment revising Chapter 19.28(R-1 ordinance) to decrease building mass and improve the integration of new construction into existing neighborhoods. Tentative City Council Date: November 20, 2000 Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, reported that the purpose of the Municipal Code Amendment was to decrease building mass and improve the integration of new construction into neighborhoods. In June 1999, the updated R-1 Ordinance to address mass and bulk of new single family construction in the city went into effect. In July 2000, staff reviewed the R-1 Ordinance changes and found that the ordinance update adequately addressed floor area ratio and setbacks for two story developments, but a number of projects that have filed for building permits that did not require planning approval, which appeared to push the limits of wall height and cave height, therefore staff feels that those particular two sections require the most attention in improving the ordinance. The basic premise is that houses have been designed with high FAR but smaller wall planes and lower cave heights that end up being less massive than a smaller area with taller wall planes and higher eaves. Staff recommends applying the single family design guidelines to all second story projects, not just projects that go through design review; if there is a 35% FAR two story house that only needs a building permit, it would be reviewed by staff at the counter to make sure it generally conforms with the guidelines. Staff also recommends applying single story building envelope to single story sections of two story homes. Other staff recommendations relative to height andmass, result in lowering the maximum heights in the ordinance by about 2 feet; and second story setbacks would be applied at 18 feet instead of 20 feet. Staff does not recommend reducing the overall maximum height since it mostly occurs at the peak of the roof and is far from the property lines and impacts neighboring property owners less than high walls near their property lines. For privacy protection, staff recommends an amendment to the purpose section for the R-1 ordinance, to ensure provision of light, air and privacy to individual residential parcels. It also recommends that obscure, non- openable windows on the second floor be exempt from privacy protection. A letter was received by the Planning Commission requesting that staff look at applying the same type of restrictions on second story windows in Eichler districts to all of R-l; that would be a substantial change and staff has not had a chance to look at it in detail. If the Planning Commission wished to pursue that, staff would request that it not be included in said amendment and to request the council start a new ordinance amendment to address applying the Eichler privacy protection to the rest of R1. Relative to noticing, staff is recommending it be 300 feet; last significant change would be that the expiration of an approval will occur one year after the action unless a building permit is filed, Presently it states that the expiration will be one year after the approval unless construction work is beginning, which is not feasible as it takes architects and homeowners more time to go through the structural drawings and plan check process to the start of construction. Mr. Gilli clarified that the Director has the authority to provide aone year extension for the older applications, if the ordinance is amended to change the wording as discussed, since it would only affect projects that file after the ordinance is adopted. Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 23, 2000 Chair Harris COlTmaented that a pipeline was done before. Mr. Gilli said that it would provide a one year extension when construction cannot begin within a year. The provision considered by Mr. Oilli is less restrictive; and the more restrictive elements may be considered for pipelining. Staff recommends approval of the negative declaration and model ordinance 1, amended to change the purpose and address 300 foot noticing; and include a 90 day pipeline provision to be crafted and sent to the City Council. Mr. Gilli answered questions about the contents of the model ordinance. MOTION: Com. Corr moved to continue Application 01-MCA-00 and 19-EA-00 to the November 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting SECOND: Com. Kwok Com. Stevens said that he felt staff did an excellent job on the cleaning up of the ordinance. He expressed concern about the privacy issue and said it was an important issue and should be spread out to the other disciplines rather than just limiting it to the R-1. VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Chair Harris suggested covering the goal session at the November 1st special meeting. Staff suggested the December meeting. There was a brief discussion relative to the director's exception on the air conditioning units on the church property. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at. 10:30 p.m. to the special Planning Commission meeting at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, November 1, in the Creekside community park building. Re spectfully~t~bmitted, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: Novernber l3, 2000