Loading...
PC 09-11-00CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HI~LD ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 SALUTE TO Tltlg~ FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Corr, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris Doyle Staffpresent: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Vera Gil, Associate Planner; Peter Gilli, Assistant Planner; Carmen Lynangh, Public Works; Charles Kilian, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the August 14, 2000 Regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok minutes of August 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as presented Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted receipt of correspondence from Marie and Ross Quinn relative to the CCS low cost housing project; letter from C. Chiu the CCS low cost housing project, and a copy of a letter from the Cupertino National Bank to CCS relative to a shared parking agreement with the CCS project. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None None Chairperson Hams opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 03-Z-00, 06-EA-00 City of Cupertino Fairgrove Neighborhood, generally bounded by Miller Avenue, Phil Lane, Tantau Avenue and Bollinger Road Rezoning from R1-6 to R1-6e for the purpose of architectural control of Eichler homes. Continued from meeting of July 24, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 11, 2000 Tentative City Council Date: October 2, 2000 Staff presentation: Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, reviewed the background of the item, which was continued from the July 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. At the July 24th meeting, the Planning Commission indicated its support for the concept of creating an Rl-e combining district with rules that would govern the expansion of rebuilding of existing homes within the Fairgrove neighborhood. The Planning Commission requested that several changes or clarifications be incorporated into the ordinance or clarifications regarding some aspects of the ordinance, dealing with modifying the recommended language in several sections, deciding how to deal with the issue of design guidelines and discussing the solar property rights issue. He said the ordinance as structured was geared toward preserving the fundamental structural elements common to most Eichlers within the neighborhood, including a requirement for a consistent 20 foot setback; entries must be integrated with the roofline; a maximum slope of 3 and 12; vertical grooves to be incorporated into whatever siding material is used on the walls facing a public street; the homes must follow straight architectural lines; and the second story be exempt from the requirements for wall offsets. Staff suggested that the first floor grade/height be limited to 12 inches maximum above grade to ensure that new homes and additions do not tower over their neighbors. Staffis also suggesting additional modified language to indicate what should be done, rather than what should not be done. The Planning Commission discussed the issue of referencing design guidelines in the ordinance, staff is suggesting removal of the references to be replaced with the current procedure for design review within the R1 ordinance. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the reasons for preserving the architectural style of the neighborhood. It consists of 220 homes, and is a well defined neighborhood with a very distinctive architectural style, consisting essentially of lower, horizontal, fiat wall planes, and a number of other elements, including indoor/outdoor living; plenty of glass on the homes as well. He said when there is a distinctive neighborhood with a distinctive architectural style, it presents a public policy dilemma; you can either regulate the new homes and additions so that they respect the style, or not regulate them and allow incremental change out of the neighborhood. It is staWs opinion that even a well designed contemporary home which tends to be taller, with more vertical lines and highly variable wall planes, will look significantly different and tend to tower over the existing low horizontal Eichler homes. If there are no design standards, there would be an incremental change out of the neighborhood, with more or less a hodgepodge of more contemporary building styles juxtaposed next to the Eichler homes, thereby accentuating the differences in style and age from the neighborhood. Eventually the Eichlers would not be valued as part of a neighborhood with a cohesive architectural statement, but for the land that they sit on and the opportunity to tear them down and build a more contemporary home. The problem with this scenario, is it will not only lose the distinctiveness of the neighborhood, but the process of changing out the neighborhood will take decades and there will be a highly divergent architectural style eventually changing out the neighborhood over 20 or 30 years or more. Staff feels that the ordinance furthers the interest of providing a stable neighborhood for all 220 homes and still allows reasonable flexibility to update or expand the existing homes by following a few basic rules. Mr. Piasecki suggested aone year review to address the success of the ordinance in accomplishing the basic objectives. A map of the Fairgrove neighborhood was displayed for reference. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, referred to Page 2-21 addressing solar rights, specifically responding to the question of what are solar access or property rights of adjoining property owners. He said that solar rights are governed by state law and for there to be solar access, there Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 11, 2000 must be a recorded solar easement which meets certain criteria under state law. He said it might be advantageous to use the words "shall infringe upon the solar easements of adjoining property owners" which would accomplish the same thing. Chair Hams opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Debra Donde, 733 Stendahl Lane, said that up until now she was not actively involved with the issue, but said that she was opposed to the proposal and within an hour timeframe gathered 17 oppositions from 26 residents indicating that they were not all fully aware of the issue. She distributed the petition to the Planning Commission and said that the neighbors would be holding meetings to stop the action. They were adamantly opposed to the ordinance and felt they were being discriminated against; that the existing restrictions were adequate. She said she felt the Eichler design was not unique, but was the cheapest construction at the time and felt there was no reason to preserve the design. In response to Com. Corr's questions, she said that she responded to questionnaires, but they were confusing and misleading, leading to surprise from most of the people signing the petition she circulated. Mr. Arik Dondee, 733 Stendahl Lane, said that he was present at some community meetings and was opposed to the proposal. He said he was a member of the committee on preserving heritage and did not recall Eichler homes being on the preservation list; he said he did not feel theEichlers were a great American innovation or invention in architecture, and said the home was a 50s house built cheaply to provide housing for the deluge of people coming to Silicon Valley. Mr. Dondee said he felt there were adequate regulations already to regulate building and control amongst neighbors, but that he did respect others' tastes of Eichler homes. He said he felt it was outlandish interference in the freedom of homeowners to do as they wished so long as it did not harm neighbors. Mr. Gaswaran Umamaheshwar~n, 739 Stendhal Lane, said that he lived in his Eichler home for 29 years, and was uncomfortable with restrictions, and felt they may have a negative impact on the value on his property for future buyers. Mr. Robert Kirby, 915 Femgrove Drive, spoke in favor of the rezoning, and asked that consideration not be based solely on the number of speakers in opposition, but also the city sponsored ballot which was conducted in a fair and honest manner and showed that over 70% of the responding citizens in the Fairgrove neighborhood do want architectural protection. He said he felt Eichlers are unique; quality well built, homes worth protecting from eyesore construction; some have been neglected and took only a little work to restore to former greamess. Rancho has examples of how lots get clear cut, destroying mature landscaping and exposing neighbors to privacy invasion. He said property value is more than just the number of rooms; it is not simply related to that; non-chaotic neighborhoods have a nicer appearance, streetscape is extremely important; and curb appeal is important in setting property values. Mr. Kirby sai~l the issue of streetscape which the Rl-e change preserves, provides a coherent backdrop for maintaining a sense of neighborhood and community, and he urged support of the ordinance. Mrs. Mary Kirby, 915 Ferngrove, said she was a member of the Eichler integrity committee and worked diligently for 3 years to keep the residents notified of what was occurring. She said many residents like herself have many other responsibilities, yet take the time to be involved in issues of concern relative to their neighborhood. She said she supported the compromise reached that will Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 11, 2000 allow people to redesign if desired, although some homeowners wanted more restrictive restrictions. She urged the Planning Commission to approve the ordinance. Ms. Florence Chlebour, 619 Phil Court, said she was originally middle of the road when she heard the ordinance was to protect the individual's rights, but as time passed, it became almost fanatical that no changes could be made. She said she hoped what was applicable to the remainder of Cupertino would protect the Eichler neighborhood also; however, she said she was confused about the discussion this evening and questioned if the ordinance stated reasonable flexibility by following the guidelines or strict guidelines without a compromise. She expressed concern that her property values would be affected because of having severe restrictions; and she stated that her home value was just as important as the architectural structure. She questioned if Cupertino would have a policy that neighbors would have to sign off on proposed changes; Mr. Piasecki responded that the policy did not exist. Chair Harris read actual setbacks restrictions which were outlined in the attached staff report. There will be a minimum setback of 20 feet which is standard in a residential district; the entry features facing the street shall be integrated with the roofline of the house; the maximum roof slope will be 3 and 12; wood or other siding material on the wall facing the public street, not counting the garage, will have vertical grooves 6 inches apart, consistent with the Eichler look; the building design will incorporate straight architectural lines rather than curved lines; second story building offsets are not required for homes in this area; the first floor shall be no more than 12 inches above the grade; privacy protection related to side and rear yard facing second floor windows; there will be privacy protection in the regular code and it will stipulate to cover windows with louvers to a height of 6 feet above the second floor or put in obscure glass to a height of 6 feet or have a windowsill of 5 feet above the floor. Chair Hams said that a handbook developed by an architect would outline the design guidelines for the Eichler homes, and what kinds of things fit into the character of the Eichler for those wishing to remodel their home. Requirements of the law were read and the remainder would be suggestions and guidelines to be followed to try and maintain the character of the home. Following Chair Hams' remarks, Ms. Chlebour urged the Planning Commission to vote in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Helmut Jaki, 874 Brookgrove Lane, said he was opposed to the guidelines, and urged the Planning Commission not to approve the proposed amendment to the single family residential ordinance. He said he felt it was wrong to assume that only Eichler owners are concerned about backyard privacy. Traditionally, the backyad is an extension of the living space into the outside; it is not at all unique for Eichler design. He said that every homeowner shares the same concerns, and no special privacy protection should be afforded to Eichler owners that would not apply to all other single family homes. Mr. Jaki said that if they did not feel the single family ordinance was appropriate, change it, but make it applicable and mandatory to all residences' in city. He questioned why design guidelines had to be cast in an ordinance, and questioned why the Planning Commissioners did not trust the Community Development Director and the Design Review Committee with decisions about the Eichler homes, when they were trusted with decisions on compatibility of structure within a given residential neighborhood, and with the power to approve or deny exceptions to the prescriptive design regulations. He requested that the Planning Commission deny the proposed amendment. Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 11, 2000 Mrs. Nancy Burnett. 729 Stendahl Lane, said that the Eichler integrity committee had been working on the project for 4-1/2 years and had many meetings and surveys which revealed that the Fairgrove residents eared about privacy and look of their neighborhoods. She said the committee worked with staff for 2 years on proposed ordinance and suggested guidelines, as well as additional things that would be put into an advisory handbook; the guidelines would be used when someone applies for an exception process. When the proposed amendment was once again discussed and continued in July, it provided more time to meet with Mr. Piasecki to expand and clarify the ordinance where needed and to delete unnecessary language. She briefly discussed some changes to the ordinance which she supported. She thanked staff and Mr. Piasecki for their valuable insight and assistance. She pointed out that further modifications occur on a previously modified home; people purchase Eichlers because they want an Eiehler and they spent a great deal maintaining them and remodeling them. She said she felt the ordinance warranted approval, and she supported it to keep the neighborhood as it is. Mr. Udo Strasilla, 902 Brookgrove, expressed surprise at the opposition present at the meeting because the July meeting seemed nearing approval/completion. He also said he was surprised so many people said they were unaware of the issue, and pointed out that as busy as he was, he took time to attend meetings on important issues. He said he was pleased with the progress of the Rl-e updated issue, and that there was a lot of give and take involved on everyone's part in order to arrive at this stage. He showed slides of the Eiehler neighborhoods, and noted that the winter season exposes a lot of mistakes. He said he would like more privacy, and said that the second story and deck issue could be more restrictive. Mr. Strasilla said that there are neighborhood houses that destroy the sense of the Eichlers; however, he felt that the ordinance should be general for the whole of Cupertino, but Eiehlers in particular because of the glass window walls. He said he was willing to forego the deck issue to move ahead and have the Rl-e restrictions enacted, since only one block away there are bulldozers waiting to bulldoze houses to build monster homes. Mr. Strasilla said he would remain in the neighborhood only if it was preserved. Chair Harris clarified for the record that notification is given to the properties on either side, behind and touching, and across the street, which were the properties requested. Mr. Stephen Wolgast, 747 Stendahl Lane, said he moved to the neighborhood in March of 1999, seeking a home in the Cupertino school district, and liked the attractiveness of the neighborhood, partly because of the Eiehler homes and partly because of the mature foliage. He said he was involved with the Eiehler integrity committee initially as a bystander, and was uncomfortable with restrictions early in the process, since he felt many of the proposals were too restrictive, such as longer setbacks, restrictions on roof equipment, fences, paint color, etc. and because they recognized that there were many homes that did not fit the proposed guidelines or ordinances based on years of change. Mr. Wolgast said he felt the current proposal was more realistic and reduced to the more basic elements that represent all the houses, with certain exceptions. He said he supported the ordinance as it was less restrictive and allowed for expansion in ~erms of floor space as anywhere else in the city under the R1 and is adequate to preserve the essential character without much restriction in terms of remodeling or expansion. He urged the Planning Commission to support the proposed ordinance. Mr. David Gagnon; 19261 Phil Lane, said he resided on Phil Lane since 1987. He said the notification of the September 11 meeting was the .first notice he had received, although the ordinance has been discussed for some time. He said he was opposed to the wording of the restrictions, although not generally opposed to the privacy concept or trying to control the Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 11, 2000 takeover of monster homes that may affect privacy or curb appeal. He said he felt the restrictions in place adequately addressed the issue of privacy and curb appeal. He emphasized that he was specifically opposed to the language clearly designed to preserve the Eichler home and make it difficult to build some other style home if a homeowner so desired. He noted that the restrictions on roofline, entry way and siding were clearly there to make sure than an Eichler owner had to keep it an Eichler home. He said he was opposed to the strict regulations as people should be free to do what they want with their homes. He said he was not opposed to reasonable restrictions on setbacks and privacy issues; and it was reasonable to permit changing the home design from an Eichler as long as it has decent curb appeal. Mr. Gagnon asked that the Planning Commission not approve the ordinance. Mr. Anil Deora, 672 Stendahl Lane, said he appeared at the previous meeting and submitted a three page letter. He said surveys had been done by committees composed of residents; different questions with different conclusions have been made; and surveys can be tilted in one direction or another, which he said he felt occurred. He claimed that if the City Council sent out the exact wording of the proposal and asked citizens to vote for or against it, most people would oppose it. He said that he felt the committee was not doing a fair job. Mr. Deora said that Eichler did a fair job back in the 50s, but technology has changed, and fiat or angled roofs may not be appropriate for the future, and those issues were not considered. He said that the mere name Eichler does not mean integrity; nobody is opposed to privacy, and every resident wants theirs and their neighbor's privacy protected, which should be covered in the city's general rules. If they are not covered under the general rules, the city should include them and not let there be special rules only for a small population who want something different. He suggesting getting a referendum from all citizens and in the particular the area that wants rehabilitation, and if the majority agrees, bow to the majority. Mr. Theodore Levine, 706 Stendahl Lane, said that he felt balancing freedom with restrictions was part of living in a community, and although not free to do whatever one wants all the time, benefit is derived from being part of a community. He said he followed a 4 year participatory process, beginning with regular monthly neighborhood meetings announced to all the homes, and discussion started on ways to preserve an architecture that many residents developed an appreciation for. He said some wanted a lot of restrictions, some wanted very few, resulting in an ordinance which reflects a balance with relatively few restrictions. He said the ordinance has no mention of fences, paint color, paint reflectivity, garage doors, or lighting; and he was not concerned about property value, especially since his tripled in the last six years. He said he did not feel discriminated against as an Eiehler owner, and was supportive of the ordinance, as he was concerned about developers attacking Eichlers to build 'monster' homes. He concluded by stating that he hoped the process would conclude soon and asked that the Planning Commission support the ordinance. Mr. Dick Shuster, 777 Stendahl Lane, said that he attended the previous meetings and was not in favor of restrictions or the ordinance. He said that he liked the Eichler homes, but felt that restrictions should not exist prohibiting a homeowner from changing his home. He said that the Eichler homes have unique features such as heating systems in the concrete, and over time need to be replaced; designs change over 20 years and the homeowner should be permitted to make updated to his own home. He said he was opposed to the ordinance. Chair Hams closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 11, 2000 Chair Harris provided a history of the need for redevelopment stating that houses were built every way if they met the FAR requirements, until there was a community outcry against the pink palaces/large houses that did not fit in or maintain the character of the neighborhoods and made no attempt to do so, and regulations did not exist. Other cities were looked at to see what they were practicing, and those cities also looked around their community and defined separate sections of the town with certain characteristics and required in those sections those characteristics. An architectural consultant was hired to study other areas of the city and concluded that Cupertino, being a newer community had very consistent housing styles, with only two different than the standard ranch house, which were the Eichler homes and the homes in the area by Regnart School which was known as Polynesian Ranch. An ordinance was developed to protect residents, including second story requirements, decks; and a design review committee (DRC) was set up, and set offsets, put trees where windows were put in for screening; and added privacy protections and character suggestions to try and make houses fit in. Chair Hams said she felt it was successful, with entry restrictions, entry height restrictions and a DRC that meets several times month to look at houses that fall outside the box created and that left the Eichler neighborhood which is protected by all those same protections. An architect was hired to study the unique features of the Eichler homes, identify them, and the concerned members of the community established surveys to inform and talk to the neighbors. Various meetings were held and surveys taken over the years as guidelines were developed. As the ordinance was formed, the conclusion was that people did not want too many restrictions on the redevelopment of their property, they wanted their property values maintained but mostly wanted the character of their neighborhood preserved as well; there was no thought to not allowing modernization to the extent of rehabbing the properties and keeping up the quality of the neighborhood; everyone who spoke wanted the quality maintained but some of the character as well. She said the result is 4 or 5 specific requirements in a handbook that will have some suggestions of what is in an Eichler neighborhood for people that want to redevelop, and that is what is being proposed this evening. Chair Harris noted receipt of a petition from 17 persons opposed to the rezoning; however, it is unclear what they heard when signing the petition as the contents of the survey given to the 26 people are not known. She said that numerous restrictions were removed from the ordinance, residents do not want the 50s colors, and want to be able to add a second story, or to change their roofline from flat to a pitched roof, which were all considered in the final package, which is a culmination of 4 years work. Com. Stevens said he has been involved in the process for the past 4 years and also with the historical review. He said that the main issue was that the homes should be harmonious with the Eichler style. He pointed out that he previously objected to the further restrictions relative to privacy, until he became aware the entire back of the Eichler home is glass, and the restrictions set in the original R1 were considering windows. Planting of a tree or two could block a window, but if the whole back of the house is glass, this may not be feasible, which is a reason for the additional privacy requirement. He said he felt the uniqueness of the neighborhood would change and they were requesting a harmonious change. He recommended a review in 5 years, or one as recommended by staff. He said the application would be forwarded to City Council for decision, and that he supported the application as recommended by staff. Com. Corr recalled that he suggested a vote be taken on the issue at the last meeting to move forward on the application. He said that he has not been particularly sympathetic to the issue, because of the number of reasons expressed tonight such as the restrictions placed on people and its restrictiveness. He said fro.m the standpoint of a planned development, in any neighborhood where there is a planned development, there are restrictions; CC&Rs that govern everybody Planning Commission Minutes s September 11, 2000 around, to keep the focus on the design, which was the whole concept. He said he felt that the existing R1 zoning when addressing the character of a neighborhood and houses being comparable one to the other and the Eichler being so different that it probably should be restrictive, especially when looking at houses today, vs. the way they were previously. He said that he supported the ordinance. Com. Kwok addressed the ordinance change in 3 areas; first, the process, secondly, the preservation of the architectural integrity, and lastly, the process of exceptions. He said he was involved in the process for two years, and recalled when he took his first tour, how surprised and delighted he was to see the uniqueness of the area, the pride in ownership and the need to preserve the area. He commended the Eichler integrity committee for doing such a thorough job and their due diligence in getting the process to its present state. He also commended the residents who became involved in the process in the beginning and remained involved, despite how busy and hectic their lives may have been at times. He said as a democratic society, people should be involved in the process or chose not to be, but not come in at the end of a process and complain that they were not aware of what had ~anspired, or say they were too busy to take part. Com. Kwok said that it has been a long process and credited staff, the committee and the people involved. He said a lot of compromises were made as well as modifications to the requirements. Com. Kwok said the Eichler neighborhood was unique, and if someone desires to move into the unique neighborhood because of its uniqueness, they like the area, and most likely would be interested in preserving the architectural integrity of the area. He said that relative to the process which is a one year pilot, the Community Development Director will present a report a year after the ordinance is in effect. In the next 12 months interim, the ordinance allows for exceptions to the process. Com. Kwok said that he supported the ordinance amendment. Chair Hams said she supported the ordinance amendment. She said it was a fair compromise which would allow the uniqueness to remain in Cupertino and still permit rehabilitation and modernization within the constraints. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved approval of Application 6-EA-00 Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 3-Z-00, including review of the effect of the ordinance by Planning Commission in one year; staff to provide the completed design guidelines within 60 days with the intent of preparing booklet for the community members applying for permits in the zoning district by the end of the year; in Para. 19.28.120 substitute the word "easements" for the word "access or property rights" Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 3. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 13-U-00, 7-EXCo00, 15-EA-00 Pinn Brothers 19979-19999Stevens Creek Boulevard Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 11, 2000 Use permit to demolish a shopping center and construct a mixed use development; 5,600 square feet of retail, 6,000 square feet of office, and 46 units of condominiums/townhomes. Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan allowing a 15' side setback where a 20' setback is required. Continued from meeting of ~lugust 14, 2000 Tentative City Council date: October 2, 2000 Chair Harris declared a brief recess from 8:10 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Assistant Planner, reported that the application was continued from the August 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to address the concerns relative to the provision of common outdoor space, parking, and related architectural features in the commemial building. He said that the applicant increased the common outdoor space as referenced in the staff report; is working with the neighboring property owner to acquire a shared parking agreement to deal with any potential spillover which is a condition in the model resolution; and for the commercial building, there is an offset that is provided along the Stevens Creek frontage. The architectural consultant feels it meets the intent of his review letter; details have been provided of the breezeway; most of the architectural details/landscaping details will be handled at the design review committee with the architectural site approval. Mr. Gilli answered questions related to the proposed project. He said staff recommended that onstreet parking be included as outlined in the staff report to create a more comfortable walking environment along the sidewalk. He said there was presently no parking on Blaney; the traffic engineer has looked at that section and determined that onstreet parking would fit on one side of the street, and staff has proposed it only in front of the residential component, a maximum of 6 spaces. Mr. Greg Pinn, Pinn Brothers, said that he had been working on the shared parking agreement with counsels; they are aware that they are obligated to a shared ingress/egress requirement and it is now a matter of allowing some parking as well, with no problems anticipated. He noted that a common room has been added for amenities to be chosen by the HOA; added picnic areas, terraces, patios, color of the buildings has been lightened, and the architecture enhanced. Mr. Jim Yee, architect, said that the revised color board illustrated the lighter building colors. He reviewed previous design and changes, and updated materials to reflect some of the changes relative to Com. Harris's comments. He reviewed the modifications to the breezeway element of more articulation; pedestrian circulation from Stevens Creek through the project, access through the main courtyard and back out through into the other residential parking areas; finishes of the carport were modified with use ofkoolstone to give them more personality. He said three of the fountains on the plaza level were removed, one remains. He explained the changes to the revised entry way. He addressed the open space areas, illustrated the location of the proposed common space, 410 square feet to be used as a meeting room or exercise room; illustxation of east pedestrian courtyard, illustrated features of the courtyard, including seating, fountains, included second level terraces, courtyard areas, intemet access for residents, area for residents to hook up their laptops and work outdoors. Mr. Pinn said that the developer would provide an allowance to the HOA for amenities. Mr. Piasecki explained the parking backups; the onstreet parking spaces and the requirement that they enter into an agreement with the neighboring office building. Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 11, 2000 Chair Hams asked staffto address landscaping easement on Blaney, fencing and setbacks. Mr. Gilli said that in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, a requirement exists for a landscape easement 35 feet from the curb, and the author of the Specific Plan is not aware of the intent to have that easement apply to the side streets, in this case the actual setback area is provided at the residential area, but there is no requirement that it be open of any type of fencing. He said the applican? is proposing a three foot high fence, which is permissible. Mr. Gilli answered questions relative to the setbacks and proposed landscaping. Mr. Piaseeki noted that it was similar to the Stelling Road project with enclosed front yards with wrought iron decorative fencing material for a residential feeling. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Stevens expressed concern about parking. Mr. Gilli indicated that there was no parking underneath the office building, but subterranean parking under the aparhnent section, with 34 spaces being designated for business and not residents. He said that of the 57 stalls underneath the residential building, 46 are assigned to residents, 10 to retail office area and the balance would be meandering pedestrian walkways along the east side and to the center of the project for reciprocal parking with the office building. Com. Stevens said in his concept, the proposal was designed with 2 parking spaces per apartment, and on the chart on Page 3-19, it was demonstrated that 2 were more than adequate. He referred to the Judy Chen application where 3 were required. He said he anticipated a problem; however, suggested that the parking under the apartments not be permitted and have them park in the shared parking, so that underneath the apaxhnents it is all parking for the apartments, not split. Mr. Gilli proposed that with the 46 units, 46 homeowners would be assigned space, the other 10 spaces for commercial would be shared also with the residents as guest parking. Com. Stevens said the guest concept was a different concept and he might be agreeable to it. Com. Stevens also questioned if there was a designated area for unloading, such as what would be used by residents when moving into or out of a unit. Mr. Gilli said the turnover in a typical apartment complex was one year and five years for residential ownership situation, and a designated area for loading furniture, etc. was not considered. Com. Stevens said that he had driven up and down Blaney at different times of the day and was still against having parking in the front. He said that he supported the project. Chair Hams expressed concern that the proposed project was grossly underparked and said she was puzzled how the application came forth with a recommendation without a shared parking agreement with another building. Mr. Gilli addressed the requirement of 2 spaces per unit, stating that the ordinance states that multi family projects, as defined in the ordinance, have 2 parking spaces per unit (multiple families per one site). Chair Hams said they were not on one site, and would be subdivided and individually sold, with double wall construction, individually parceled and would be sold individually, known as townhomes. Mr. Gilli indicated it was an apmtment complex, structured for aparhnent complex, and designed for ownership. He reported there were past condominium projects completed with 2 parking stalls per unit. Chair Hams clarified they had been intended as rentals, and it was testified to that although they were going to be built as condominiums legally, they were not going to be subdivided and they were not going to be sold. She said they were run as Planning Commission Minutes Il September 11, 2000 aparhnent buildings, although they all may have double wall construction; they were never subdivided and the Planning Commission was informed there was no intent to subdivide them, and parking was permitted for them as apartments, not condominiums. Mr. Piasecki suggested that the solution be to specify that the reciprocal parking agreement with the office next door provide an equivalent to 3 per unit, and the retail office mix component provide that additional parking requested, which would take care of any deficit. He said that staff was comfortable with the solution since it is a mixed use development, the office staff is not present when the residences are at their peak demand; the residents are not present when the offices are at their peak demand, and similar for the commercial, resulting in an overlap with joint use. Chair Hams said that the retail and office had been blended to take it to 34 stalls from 42.3 and indicated aiming for 9. Even with the analysis of two, there are up to 126 stalls needed and providing 110. Mr. Piasecki noted that it could be specified that the overage would be expected to be made up with the office building next door; and the other point being that in the industry practice, it allows a much greater overlap than allowed for here, the 10 spaces. In some instances, 100% is allowed. He said the reciprocal parking agreement will make up any difference sought. Mr. Piasecki said that he would like to see more monitoring as the project goes in because you will get a greater comfort level as you see them actually experienced, but it is all academic until it is actually in and can be tested, with the difference made up. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Plannner, clarified that the chart for shared parking was adopted as part of the parking ordinance when revised a few years ago, and it was drawn from another city's ordinance and adopted as Cupertino's for smaller projects, where a shared parking study was not required. Mr. Gilli said that for a project on the east side of Stevens Creek, a mix of studio apartments, one bedroom and some commercial space, the numbers didn't work out because it was just retail and residential and this pertains to mixed, office, retail and restaurant. Mr. Gilli said that Condition 11 addresses the reciprocal cross access easements; Condition 12 is the shared parking agreement between this property and the neighboring office. He said that if going to three per unit, some assumptions would have to be made on when the peak demand times for the residential will be done; otherwise the parking numbers will not work. If it is assumed that residential demand is at its peak at nighttime and weekends, and that office as shown in ordinance table 19.100.40c, that office is at its peak in the daytime on weekdays, then you can make a connection that there will be enough parking available. Mr. Piasecki calculated there would be a need for 60 spaces literally, with a requirement of 3 per unit, with a minimum of 34 which the ordinance would permit for retail, totaling 138 for the residential and 34 for the office, commercial 172; 110 being provided, resulting in a delta difference of 62; with credit for 6 on-street, providing a delta of 56. He said it could be assured that the office next door empties out when the residential fills up and vice versa. It is not provided for in the ordinance, and there have been very generous overlaps of office and residential. There will be a very comfortable margin if60 are required. Chair Hams said that we would add the word "60" in Condition 12. Shared parking agreement for parking shall be submitted with the building permit for use of 60 parking spaces. She said it was not just for the employees; but for the requirements of the mixed use development because many Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 11, 2000 of the 60 would have to be residents. Mr. Piasecki suggested adding the word "residents". He said 56 was a reasonable number. Responding to Chair Harris' request, Mr. Piasecki clarified the need for street parking. He said the concept of having street parking, especially on a street like Blaney which can be busy and fast, is that the cars provide a barrier between pedestrians, the residents and the travel lanes. It is appropriate to have the cars separated from people walking along the sidewalk, separated from the children playing in a fenced corral space in the front yard, and it adds to the ambiance of the residential street. Almost every residential street has on-street parking; it serves the needs of the adjacent land use and provides that separation. He said there was onstreet parking on Blaney Avenue; it is not in front of this site, but further north on Blaney, on the south side of Stevens Creek in front of the Lake Biltmore. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application No. 15-EA-00 Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Gilli restated the exception; namely that the project requires an exception to the side setback, required to be 20 feet, but in this case staffhas requested the applicant shift the building closer to the office in order to provide more space on the Blaney side which will be in the public view; therefore the exception is necessary in order to accommodate that. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of Applications 17-EXC-00 and 13oU-00, with the addition of 60 parking spaces in Condition 12; addition of words "residents and guests; addition of Condition 36, Amenity Space, including wiring for the computers, funds to finish the common area, greenspace in the parkway; and blooming shrubs. Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Com. Stevens Passed 3-1-0 Com. Stevens requested a study of the entire Blaney area relative to onstreet parking, and said that his original objection was not with the traffic, but with the left mm into the convenience store with the trucks parked. He said that at least 50% of the time, there is a traffic jam waiting, and with more cars, it will get bigger. He said that the issue should be resolved. Mr. Piasecki commented, that the addition of the parking on Blaney Avenue would not alter that relationship which is perceived as a problem across the street, it will only provide another option for guests and residents at the development. He noted that the applications would be presented to the City Council on October 2nd. 4. Application No.(s): Applicant: ~ Location: 1 l-U-00, 09-EXC-00 Nextel Communications (Cupertino High School) 10100 Finch Avenue Planning Commission Minutes 13 September 11, 2000 Use permit and height exception to replace an existing light standard at a high school stadium with a light standard/antenna and replace an existing snack shack with a snack shack/Nextel shelter. The antenna would be located at about 67 feet on the pole where 55 feet in height is the maximum. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from meeting of August 14, 2000 Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to replace the existing stadium light standard with a thicker pole, the attachment of three 8 foot tall panel antennae mounted on the pole at a height of about 67 feet, and the replacement of the existing snack shack and communications equipment shelter in the same structure; located at Cupertino High School (CHS) on Finch Avenue. Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, referred to the site plan, and reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the attached staff report. He illustrated the location of the high school athletic field and the proposed light standard, antenna and snack shack. He also illustrated pictures depicting the completion of the proposed project. He noted that the Fremont Union High School District has been successful in leasing out light standards at other high schools in their school district, to provide antenna sites for the carriers, and to diversify their income sources for the high schools. Mr. Jung also illustrated photo simulations of some other mounts at other schools in other districts. He discussed the landscape screening alternatives considered by staff for the CHS antenna site and noted that it was not feasible to add landscaping around the existing pole as it is a high traffic area between the bleachers and the concession stand covered in asphalt, which would not lend itself to vegetation. Additional landscaping in the area of the baseball diamond were not recommended, although the school district was not opposed to tree planting where there was similar vegetation in another area. Mr. Jung explained the replacement of the existing snack shack, which would increase the size and allow for storage of communication equipment. In response to concerns from the applicant about location of snack shack in close proximity to storage, school district personnel indicated that they did not cook/grill in the snack shack, but used only microwave ovens and heating devices. Results of radio frequency emissions testing indicated that the levels were well below federal safety standards at both the ground level as well as the elevated levels for the bleachers. Mr. Jung indicated that there would be a requirement for a 5 year expiration date from the effective date of the permit. Staff recommends approval of both the height exception and use permit for the site. The representative from Nextel Communications said that they were proposing to rebuild the snack shack similar in architecture to the existing snack shack, and double the size to accommodate a communications equipment storage area for Nextel and a snack shack for the high school. He said the only emissions would be from the antennae at the 67 foot height. Mr. Dane Ericksen, Hammett & Edison, Inc., reported that the reports of the study of the emission standards at a 65 foot height for the proposed facility indicated that the maximum ground level was .16% of the federal standard, which was approximately 500 times below what the standard allows. He answered Planning Commissioners' questions relative to safety issues in conjunction with the emission standards at the school site. The applicant also indicated that sweep tests were performed at the site and information could be provided on the subject site. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Planning Commission Minutes 14 September 11, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Applications 1 l-U-00 and 9-EXC-00 Com. Corr Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 5. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 14-U-00, 18-EA-00 Mary Ellen Cheil (Cupertino Community Services) Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Blvd. (north of new fire station) Use permit to construct a 24 unit affordable housing apartment building and a 6,089 square foot Cupertino Community Services building on a 1.18 acre vacant lot. Tentative City Council Date: October 16, 2000 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to construct a 24 unit affordable housing apartment building and a 6,000 square foot Cupertino Community Services (CCS) building on Vista Drive. The background of the CCS program was briefly reviewed, as outlined in the attached staff report. The item is tentative scheduled to be presented to City Council on October 16th; staff recommends that following discussion at the present meeting, to continue the item to the special September 27th Planning Commission meeting. Com. Corr stated that he was currently President of CCS, which is a voluntary position. The City Attorney clarified that because the position has no financial interest and no financial gain, a conflict of interest did not exist for Com. Corr. Ms. Wordell referred to the site plan and provided an outline of the proposed application, as outlined in the staff report. She noted that the architectural consultant Larry Cannon, had concerns about the roof overhangs, scale of the CCS building, and the treatment of shed roofs over the entries and balconies. A minor landscaping change is also being recommended. Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, reviewed the Traffic Operations Analysis; DKS Associates; Summarized Trip Generation; Traffic Operations; reviewed Table 1, Signalized Intersections LOSD Thresholds; Table 2, Intersection LOS Summary; Critical Traffic Movements Summary; Table 7, Projected Design Queues Under Each Condition; Parking Operations; and Tables 4a and 4b, Weekend and Weekday Shared Parking Analyses. He summarized that the proposed project would generate 21 peak hour trips during the a.m. hour, and 22 peak hour trips during the p.m. hours. The LOS during a.m. peak hour will be B+ and LOS B during the p.m. peak hour. Mr. Chong stated that the main concern was the significant impact on parking, as the proposed parking spaces number 47, and the city ordinance requires 72, resulting in a deficit of 25 parking spaces. He noted that a possible remedy could be a shared parking agreement with an adjacent neighbor. Ms. Wordell discussed the shared parking concept, pointing out that the night time shared parking onsite might present a problem, as it indicated one person using the office at night; therefore there would have to be a shared parking agreement for offsite parking for night time meetings to work. She said that staff was supportive of the shared parking agreement, using the offsite agreement as a backup and the possibility of availability of onsite parking as a backup. The Planning Commission could also review the parking in the future if there is a problem. Planning Commission Minutes 15 September 11, 2000 Ms. Wordell explained the need for an exception existed because the Heart of the City Plan requires a 30 foot separation for buildings onsite and the purpose of that was to reduce mass, but given that the site is small and there are other objectives to provide affordable housing, and the distances will be perceived internally and not externally. She pointed out the need for a continuance existed since the exception was not originally noticed with the use permit. Com. Kwok expressed concern about the inconsistencies in applying the same criteria for the two projects presented to the Planning Commission relative to shared parking. Ms. Wordell explained the differences in the two projects. She noted that one application was for affordable housing project, and some analysis of similar projects was done and it was found the automobile use was down; and also there is a smaller percentage of 2 bedroom units. Ms. Mary Ellen Chell, Cupertino Community Services, said that CCS provides services critical to the Cupertino community since 1973, in the areas of providing food, utility assistance, clothing, and housing services to needy residents of Cupertino. She said that CCS has been housed in many locations and had outgrown its present site at the Quinlan Community Center facilities. She explained that the proposed project of 24 units was the next step in the continuum of care to provide affordable, permanent housing to low income families. In response to a concern from a neighbor about parking spaces, Ms. Chell said that CCS employed 5 persons from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., volunteers dropping off food from the community from 8 a.m. until 9:30 a.m., one or two volunteers in the food closet at any given time putting food away and distributing it to clients. She also explained that the residents had a community room available for their use, and the all purpose room was used for CCS Board meetings. Ms. Chell said that the homeless shelters were provided by 12 various churches throughout the community that offered food and shelter on their sites.. She explained the makeup of the persons using the services of the shelters in the community. Mr. Rick Williams, Van Meeter Williams Pollack, explained the proposed buildings model and answered questions relative to building design, parking, and building activities. He pointed out that meetings were held in the community and design modifications were made at various stages in response to community input on the design of the project. There was a brief discussion about the use of pear trees in the landscape design. Chair Harris expressed concern about the lack of overhang on the buildings, and asked what mitigation could be used to prevent starkness. Mr. Williams said that overhangs were not provided because of the design of the complex, and since the buildings are close together it was felt that the detail be provided in the porches and balconies and the building design was kept simple from a form standpoint without the overhangs. They were not a cost saving measure, but a design consideration. He said that the overhangs could be increased. Chair Harris ~ilso expressed concern about certain areas of the building that appeared stark, and suggested that mitigation be considered to improve the starkness. Mr. Williams said that consideration could be given to extending out the gable fagade and maintaining the roof overhang in certain locations to mitigate the starkness. Mr. Williams said that he felt parking was adequate for the complex. He said that part of the efficiency layout was predicated on considering the shared parking, which was located a reasonable distance from the complex at the bank and was a safe environment. Ms. Chell said that Planning Commission Minutes 15 September 11, 2000 Ms. Wordell explained the need for an exception existed because the Heart of the City Plan requires a 30 foot separation for buildings onsite and the purpose of that was to reduce mass, but given that the site is small and there are other objectives to provide affordable housing, and the distances will be perceived internally and not externally. She pointed out the need for a continuance existed since the exception was not originally noticed with the use permit. Com. Kwok expressed concern about the inconsistencies in applying the same criteria for the two projects presented to the Planning Commission relative to shared parking. Ms. Wordell explained the differences in the two projects. She noted that one application was for affordable housing project, and some analysis of similar projects was done and it was found the automobile use was down; and also there is a smaller pementage of 2 bedroom units. Ms. Mary Ellen Cheil, Cupertino Community Services, said that CCS provides services critical to the Cupertino community since 1973, in the areas of providing food, utility assistance, clothing, and housing services to needy residents of Cupertino. She said that CCS has been housed in many locations and had outgrown its present site at the Quinlan Community Center facilities. She explained that the proposed project of 24 units was the next step in the continuum of care to provide affordable, permanent housing to low income families. In response to a concern fi.om a neighbor about parking spaces, Ms. Cheil said that CCS employed 5 persons fi'om 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., volunteers dropping off food from the community fi.om 8 a.m. until 9:30 a.m., one or two volunteers in the food closet at any given time putting food away and distributing it to clients. She also explained that the residents had a community room available for their use, and the all purpose room was used for CCS Board meetings. Ms. Cheil said that the homeless shelters were provided by 12 various churches throughout the community that offered food and shelter on their sites. She explained the makeup of the persons using the services of the shelters in the community. Mr. Rick Williams, Van Meeter Williams Pollack, explained the proposed buildings model and answered questions relative to building design, parking, and building activities. He pointed out that meetings were held in the community and design modifications were made at various stages in response to community input on the design of the project. There was a brief discussion about the use of pear trees in the landscape design. Chair Hams expressed concern about the lack of overhang on the buildings, and asked what mitigation could be used to prevent starkness. Mr. Williams said that overhangs were not provided because of the design of the complex, and since the buildings are close together it was felt that the detail be provided in the porches and balconies and the building design was kept simple from a form standpoint without the overhangs. They were not a cost saving measure, but a design consideration. He said that the overhangs could be increased. Chair Harris also expressed concern about certain areas of the building that appeared stark, and suggested that mitigation be considered to improve the starkness. Mr. Williams said that consideration could be given to extending out the gable facade and maintaining the roof overhang in certain locations to mitigate the starkness. Mr. Williams said that he felt parking was adequate for the complex. He said that part of the efficiency layout was predicated on considering the shared parking, which was located a reasonable distance fi.om the complex at the bank and was a safe environment. Ms. Chell said that Planning Commission Minutes ~6 September 11, 2000 meeting attendees would be notified of the location of the shared parking. She noted that many CCS clients carpooled or used public transportation, therefore parking would not be an issue. Also, many clients were return clients and would be aware of the parking location after their first visit. Ms. Wordell explained how the 72 parking space requirements was arrived at. She said that the CCS building was parked at one space per 285, and the apa,hnents two per unit, 48 for the apartments and remainder for office. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Ronald Jacoby, 20182 Joseph Circle, and president of Joseph Park HOA bordering on the north of the proposed project, said that they recognized the need for affordable housing in the Cupertino community, and respected the wishes of CCS to build the project at the selected location. He said he and many community members had been involved with the project and attended the community meetings and recognized that some of their input was taken into consideration. He expressed concern about the density of the project, which he said was the most dense building constructed on the street, lacks open space, and will have a negative impact on parking. He said he was also concerned about early morning construction hours and asked the Planning Commission to address those issues. Com. Kwok said he liked the project and it would provide affordable housing for the community. He said he was also concerned about parking, and requested the architect work to provide more parking spaces. He said it was a worthwhile project and was supportive of the project. Com. Stevens said he was in favor of the project; and said the density issue could be handled. The apartments are suitable; the CCS building having their parking requirements added to the parking of the apathnents is presenting a complication, and the CCS building group can use offsite parking and may even be directed to do so, and that should change the numbers to be more favorable. As presented, the deficiency in parking is of concern. Com. Stevens said he was in favor of the overall project. Com. Corr did not comment on the application. Chair Hamls said they needed to look at the parking on this particular project more closely than others, as the approval was for all future uses of the building, not just CCS's present use. She said since it would not happen immediately, she considered the 13 people who are typically there vs. the 20 people that were counted because if using 6,089 there will be a need for 20 parking spaces for that office building. She said she was not counting any spaces for the 756 for two reasons. First, if there is a community room, it is already counted in with the people and should not be counted twice. Secondly, she said she felt they should give up the 756 feet of community space to use for parking. She said that it was not common practice to provide community space for a24 unit building. Chair Hams said she felt there should be one car per one bedroom unit and two cars for 2 bedroom units, which is 12 and 12, making 36; 25% of that for guest parking it 34, which results in 44 and 12 (57). If47 is proposed, it is underparked by 10 spaces. She said that she did not feel that it was practical to park across the street and down the block, although it was feasible for the board members to park there. Employees could also be instructed to park there which would still leave 5 spaces short. Chair Hams said that she did not want it to appear that the CCS Planning Commission Minutes 17 September 1 l, 2000 building was receiving special attention because I provided affordable housing. She said the parking needed to be dealt with in a rational way. Mr. Williams clarified that the area for the community room was not solely a room for the residents' use, but included shared laundry facilities, a resident manager's office and a small storage facility for the office. Chair Harris noted that a 24 unit apartment complex would not normally have a 24 hour manager. She reiterated that it was a useful project, but noted that it needed to be a good neighbor and needs to not cause parking issues and traffic issues in the neighborhood. Ms. Wordell asked that if the shared parking analysis shows that residents are not using the parking lot during the day, was it taken into account. Chair Hams said she would like to see what is going on at the Swensen project down the street. Mr. Piasecki said that the concern was noted, and will work it out with architect. Ms. Ann Silverberg, Bridge Housing Corporation, provided information on similar projects relative to the parking issue. Chair Harris said that factual data was needed relative to the parking issue. Com. Stevens noted that comments on the overhangs and wall mitigations should be included in the direction to the applicant. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 14-U-00 and 18-EA-00 to the September 27th Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor's Breakfast: Chair Harris noted that the Mayor's breakfast was scheduled for September 12. Environmental Review Committee: Com. Corr reported that the committee scheduled to meet this week; last meeting was postponed. Chair Harris commented that it should be required that follow up test results be given to the Planning Commissioners on antennae Chair Harris commented on problems experienced with the microphones during the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes ~s September 11, 2000 REPORT OF Tm~, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Pias¢cki briefly reported on the appeal relative to the shopping center on Homestead and Blaney, concerning externally illuminated signs and raised planters next to the Wash enclosure. Ms. Wordell presented a brief status report on the two quames, and discussed potential dates for tours of the quarries. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. to the Special Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2000, 6:45 p.m. Approved as presented: September 27, 2000 Respectfully Submitted, Eliza~h Ellis Recording Secretary