Loading...
PC 05-08-00CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 8, 2000 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Staff present: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 24, 2000 regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve the April 24, 2000 Planning Commission minutes as presented Corn Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Minutes of March 22, 2000 Design Review Subcommittee meeting MOTION: Com. Stevens moved to approve the March 22, 2000 Design Review Subcommittee minutes as presented SECOND: Chair Harris VOTE: Passed 2~0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: Later in the meeting, Chair Harris noted receipt of written communication relative to the development of the apartments at the four comers area, and the request that residents from the triangle parcel be included in the use of the swim pool and amphitheater use. Com. Kwok noted receipt of an invitation to the San Jose Home Depot grand opening on May 11th. Chair Harris' requested that staff forward event invitations to the commissioners' homes as soon as they are received so that they can be calendared. Chair Harris also noted receipt of a card from Esther Grant opposing the Andronico's market in place of the Oaks Theaters. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 2-U-00, 4-EA-00 Johnson Lyman Architects 21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use Permit for the demolition of a cinema and retail space and the construction of a new 32,160 square foot market and cooking school (Andronico's) at an existing shopping center. Continued from meeting of April 10, 2000 Request continuance to meeting of May 22. 2000 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 6-U-00, 2-GPA-99, 3-EXC-00, 9-EA-00 Cupertino City Center Land Lot 1, Tract 953, comer of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 8, 2000 Use permit to construct a 205 unit, 293,137 square foot multi-family residential building and 7,000 square foot of retail space on vacant parcel (Stevens Creek Blvd. At City Center) Various exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan which may include allowing an apartment use, maximum eight of building and side and rear setbacks. General Plan amendment to exceed the allowed height of 75 feet and to penetrate the 1:1 setback ratio from Stevens Creek Blvd. Continued from meeting of ~4pri124, 2000 Request continuance to meeting of May 22, 2000 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 5-U-00, 4-EXC-00, 2-GPA-99, 8-EA-00 Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group Lot 6, Tract 7953, Cupertino City Center Use permit to construct a new 217 room, 130,580 square foot hotel, restaurant and bar on a semi-vacant parcel and operate 24 hours. General Plan amendment to exceed the allowed height of 75 feet. Heart of the City specific plan exception to exceed the 49 foot height limit and allow hotel use. Continued from meeting of ~4pri124, 2000 Request continuance to meeting of May 22, 2000 10. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 7-U-00, 2-EXC-00, 10-EA-00 Rodney Bergman 10200 Miller Avenue Use permit to construct new garages and carports, modify landscaping and convert non-living space to nine new studios/apadments at an existing apartment complex (Fountainbleu). Fence exception to locate an electronic security gate at Sorenson Avenue Continued from meeting of ~4pri124, 2000 Request removal from calendar MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Con: moved to postpone Items 4, 5 and 6 to the May 22, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to remove Application 7-U-00, 2-EXC-00 and 10-EA-00 from the calendar Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 .... ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Bob Garten, 21344 Dexter Drive, Cupertino, addressed the Planning Commission regarding his concern about abandoned shopping carts throughout the Cupertino community. He said he would not be able to attend the meeting for the next presentation of the Andronico's application and wished to discuss the issues of abandoned shopping carts in Cupertino and the pemeived aesthetic pollution of the back areas of some markets. He illustrated various pictures of abandoned shopping carts throughout the city, and said that he had more available if needed. He said he felt the approval of the Andronico's application would only - exacerbate the problem of the abandoned shopping carts, and in particular the proposed crosswalk near the approved grocery store would also make the cart problem worse as the pedestrians would tend to leave the carts in the area. Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 8, 2000 Mr. Bob Schwenke, commented that a Safeway store in San Francisco utilized magnetic locks to keep the carts on the store premises. He explained that the magnetic strip would not allow the carts to go past a certain area, such as the perimeter of the store or parking lot, which would save the grocery store owner money also. He also pointed out that there were other methods used to retrieve the grocery carts; although it was apparent from the photos shown that they were currently not successful for the Cupertino area. Chair Harris requested that staff provide a followup report on the issue relating to Mr. Garten's concerns about the abandoned shopping carts and the perceived aesthetic pollution of the back areas of the supermarkets in Cupertino. CONSENT CALENDAR Application No.: . 2-DIR-00 Applicant: Apple Computer Location: Infinite Loop Referred to the Planning Commission of a Director's approval of a minor modification to exchange amenity space areas (365 sq. ft.) in an existing office complex. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwokmovedapproval ofApplication 2-DIR-00 ofthe Consent Calendar. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING 7. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 4-Z-00, 11-EA-00 Ker-Chung Liou & Lih-Yn Chen 21095 Grenola Drive Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented a brief outline of the application to prezone a single family residential lot to Pre-RI-10. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, also answered Commissioners' questions relating to the application. The applicant was not present. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Mr. Jung clarified that the annexation was necessary because the applicant was interested in developing the property, and the development of the property was proceeding ahead of the city's efforts to annex the entire area. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 4-Z-00 and 1 I-EA-00 Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 16-U-98, 43-EA-98 Adzich Properties 10216 Pasadena Avenue Use permit to demolish an existing house and construct four single-family detached residences on a net 12,480 square foot lot. Prezoning of a single family residential lot to Pre-R 1-10 Tentative City Council hearing date June 5, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 8, 2000 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 2000, (due to time constraints, was heard last on 11/8/99.) Mr. George Adzich, 21850 Granada, Cupertino, referred to a matrix which summarized the discussion and Planning Commission direction fi.om the previous meeting. He reviewed the background of the area which began as a cottage community of small homes on large lots. He said that because of technoingieal changes, the area had seen many changes which included the addition of commercial buildings and various types of housing to accommodate the growing community. Mr. Adzich said that his objective was to develop the property to its fullest potential in consideration of the developers and City of Cupertino; improve the look of the neighborhood and set a high standard for other projects in the area. He noted that he was not asking for rezoning. He explained that the project would be a family project, not outside developer. He clarified that the project was a four unit planned development, ideal for a starter home or a small family. He discussed the proposed setbacks, FAR of .63, (actual living space FAR of .49); parking of 2 full spaces in garage area, and one offsite concealed parking space per unit. Mr. Adzich then illustrated a comparison chart of neighboring developments (3) relative to density, FAR, front setback, parking and bedrooms. He discussed the proposed front landscaping, use of pavers, concrete, and stamped concrete. He noted that the design style of the homes was small town cottage look, strong street appeal, with mixed use of brick and wood, multiple roof lines and breaks in structure, open courtyard for community look, and doors with a raised look. Mr. Adzich discussed the Monta Vista guidelines, privacy issues, minimal impacts, proposal of 4 units vs. 3 units as suggested by the Commission; elevation drawings, and house design. Responding to Chair Harris's questions, Mr. Adzich illustrated the use of guest parking, the residents' parking, and how the rear units accessed parking. Mr. Bob Sehwenke, project designer, discussed the parking, and turnaround space. He also responded to Chair Harris' question that it was the preference of the applicant to use stucco rather than the gingerbread siding recommended, from a maintenance standpoint as well as their choice of architecture. Chair Harris said that it was noted in the staff report that Cupertino had a /uling that does not allow converting multi family projects to single family projects if the vacancy rate is less than 5%. She expressed surprise that there was not a tentative map for 4 individual for sale units. Mr. Adzich said that it had been previously discussed, and he felt that if they applied for that type of approval and didn't have the approval to go for four, a lot of time would have been wasted to get 4 when it would be 3. He said that the guidelines were different for a planned residential development, and it was the logical first step to address getting the Planning Comtuission's buyin to move forward. Mr. Adzich said that it was not his intent to bypass any steps. Ms. Wordell said that it was done in other applications, and-if approved, a condition could be included stating that these are subject to a subsequent submittal of a subdivision map so that the intent is clear that it would be subdivided property. She clarified that if passed in any form, the applicant would not be precluded from filing a tentative map under the city rules stating that rental housing is being converted. Mr. Adzich and Mr. Schwencke answered questions regarding the proposed setbacks. Staff presentation: Mr. Jung discussed staff's rationale for the recommendation for denial of the application. He discussed setbacks of the proposed homes as set forth in the staff report. He summarized the Planning Commission's directives from the November meeting, calling for three units, four if the directives were met; 18 to 20 foot front setback from the property line; the project should approach a single family development standard because the proposal was a single family development; side setbacks of 5 and 10 feet; staff assumption of 20 feet for rear setback; FAR of .55 vs. the proposed .63 including garages; Monta Vista guidelines of wood siding for architecture vs. applicant's proposed use of textured stucco; applicant has proposed minimal detailing on elevations; 3.5 parking spaces onsite per unit; and use of more Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 8, 2000 landscaping around buildings to avoid an all-concrete appearance. He said that staff was recommending denial based on the direction to the applicant, on the FAR, the architecture, parking, landscaping, and concem about rear setback. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Dean Sayre, Stevens Canyon Road, complimented the developer on the presentation. He said he previously addressed the affordable housing oxymoron, and said that he felt it would not happen, as it had been attempted previously many times; and homes that started in the $6,000 to $8,000 range were now in the $400,000 range. He said he felt the present policy was self defeating, and provided an example of a saltbox house which recently sold for $800,000 and would be bulldozed so that they could put multiple dwellings on the site. He said that the applicants were being urged to put more housing on the properties, and said that the examples of the Monta Vista homes were not the larger new homes, but the older, down graded homes. Mr. Sayre said he felt there was no guarantee that the properties would be utilized by moderate income families; as people 'from out of the area would be competing for the homes, which would only create more traffic problems for Cupertino. Relative to the parking, he said that it was difficult to enforce residents using the garages to park their cars, which creates more cars parked on the street. If the cars in the proposed development are not parked in the garages, it would be difficult for the residents on the opposite side to get in and out. He said that over the years, residents of Monta Vista have had to fight to keep from having a regional dump and Daly City type density housing in their community. He said if apartments are built, the area cannot be considered country. The area residents want to continue to upgrade the area, not continue the development that would not be considered or permitted next to city hall. He said he would prefer a single family home, or a flag lot with two units. Mr. BruceWenniger, 10298 Mann Drive, said that he lived in Cupertino for 36 years, and chose Cupertino because he wanted more space between he and his neighbors than would have been afforded in other cities such as Palo Alto or San Jose. He said he agreed with the staff recommendation for denial of the application, as it is too many houses on too little land, and is not compatible with the neighborhood, nor is it an upgrade. He suggested two single family residences or a duplex for the property, not to exceed .45 FAR. He said the developer would not make as much profit with only two units, and it is the residents that are left with the traffic congestion and mistakes of the developers once the project is sold. He commended the recommendation for denial of the application; and said he wanted to be proud of Cupertino and the Monta Vista area, and did not want to see an abundance of houses on postage size lots. Ms. Ann Anger, resident, read her letter into the record. "I would like to give reasons why we in Cupertino do not agree with the developer's plat; for this property which is zoned for 6,000 feet of resident housing; in this case the problem is again the zoning. We in Monta Vista Homeowners Association worked for more than 30 years to get rid of this hodgepodge development;junk cars left on the street, dirt on the road. We in Monta Vista have had to take many abuses from the City of Cupertino when it comes to development; ever since the city incorporated in 1955 they tried to use Monta~Vista as a dumping ground for the most undesirable development." She said this is what the developer is taking about - the undesirable places. "There was the city approval in 1987 of light industry zoned of about 22 acres around the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, and between McClellan Road and Stevens Creek near the beautiful DeAnza College that the taxpayers spent $20 million to build. We had to fight to get junk cars removed from the street or lots; we had to fight those who were dumping garbage; we recently had to fight approval of the Commission of a shop with apartments on top on Imperial Avenue. As a result of our request in 1964, the grand jury recommended adoption of the 1964 uniform building codes." Ms. Anger provided background on Monta Vista, stating that she has been involved since 1945 when her parents purchased the property she now resides on. She said people in Monta Vista have always been very proud of Monta Vista, and gave the city Blackberry Farm, the Blackberry Farm golf course and swim club and the Marianist Center. She said the Citizens Goals Committee was formed in 1970; the most important goal of the committee was to get the unified zoning and building codes. Since then they formed a committee in 1980 and 1990, and were ready for another one. She said that the Monta Vista residents try hard to preserve the beauty and history of Monta Vista and she felt they should get their own historical society since Cupertino Historical Society has never Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 8, 2000 come forward to help preserve Monta Vista. She said that she would prefer that the proposed lot be divided into two lots and work toward upgrading Monta Vista. She said she was opposed to flag lots as the families would be isolated from the mainstream of the neighborhood. In response to Chair Harris's question about price range of the proposed development, Mr. Adzich said at this time, it was impossible to estimate the sales range, and noted that they would probably not be completed and ready for sale for about 2 years. He said he did not feel that it was Iow income housing and felt that some of the points mentioned by others were not relevant. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Com. Doyle said he would prefer 3 units, 4 units if the directives could be met; front setbacks should be compared to the more modem parcels; side setbacks of 9 or I0 feet setbacks; for rear setbacks, he would prefer to have a yard; .55 FAR may be somewhat arbitrary; architectural guidelines to be more reflective of what is there today than modem, proposal is suitable; parking of 3.5; landscaping needs to be balanced because the area has many trees, therefore more landscaping is required for the front of the parcel. He summarized that he felt the previous directives applied, softened in the Monta Vista guidelines area with a different rear setback design. Com. Kwok said that he still felt the front setback of 20 feet was appropriate; side setback was appropriate; he expressed concern about the rear setbacks; FAR of .55 should be reduced; Monta Vista architectural guidelines should be strictly adhered to, preferred wood siding; 3.5 parking spaces per unit, need for adequate parking inside; landscaping should be more balanced; 3 units more appropriate with two in the front and one in the rear with ample rear setback. He said if the issues were not addressed, he would support staff's recom, mendation for denial of the application. Com. Corr said that he felt it was an unsettling project; 4 units appeared suitable with the lot; front setbacks should line up with what is present on the street, such as the 15 feet; side setbacks are appropriate; 5 foot rear yard setbacks has the concrete wall with industrial zoning behind the property. He said the units have a side yard in the comer of the lot; he was not concerned about the .63 FAR vs..55 as it appears to fit on the lot; expressed concern about the side yard elevations. He said he felt the Monta Vista guidelines do not apply to the property; he would prefer not to have high stucco walls and would prefer it broken up in some way; there is some interest in the garage and building offset. He said parking was an issue, and if one of the residents is parked in his/her driveway, the resident across the way is locked in because of the way it is lined up. He said the plan indicates trees in the back, front and side. He said he did not feel Monta Vista was a dumping ground. He expressed frustration with the project and the level of satisfaction with the project. Com. Stevens said that he would prefer only two large homes on the site; however with the price of property and homes, things have changed and the need should be addressed. He said he did not feel Monta Vista was a dumping ground, and found other areas identical to the-.planned development within a block of the building. He said a four plex would be suitable for the property; however, rental property is not what is wanted for that area. He said the privacy issues were well addressed as the windows were facing the court; rear windows on the side of the property were high and not visible; tour units fit on the property and is the most appropriate for the neighborhood concept; front setbacks of 15 feet are suitable and match the neighbors; side setbacks provide private area; logistics of parking is a problem, 3 parking spaces is suitable; landscaping details can be worked out; FAR .63 fits. He said overall he felt everything was close for a private ownership. Chair Harris said that she agreed with Com. Corr that it was not settled because it is not the right plan. She said that she preferred to have more than 2 units, that it would be a for sale alternative, offered for less than the larger units available in Cupertino, but not Iow cost housing. She said that a previous developer offered a fourplex that looked like a house, and she suggested an attached dwelling with 3 units in the center of the lot. She said she felt it was not appropriate to place the project 5 feet from the back lot; also when pushing the FAR to .63, the side setback should not be pushed to 5; there should be some parts in excess of what is Planning Commission Minutes ? May 8, 2000 allowed to allow a balanced project in the end to serve the needs. She said that she felt 3 onsite parking spaces were suitable as the guests could park on the street; if there were 3 units attached it would allow for more outdoor area and landscaping. She said the Monta Vista guidelines were appropriate guidelines to follow to upgrade the quality of the homes and not base it alone on what costs the least to develop, as the community profits from the character of the neighborhood. She said that she was opposed to the specific proposal; but preferred residential, and not industrial or office in the neighborhood. Mr. Adzich said he felt the issues of concern were clarified from the previous meeting and asked for a ruling on the application. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com Doyle moved to approve Application 43-EA-98 Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: Com Doyle moved accept staff's recommendation to deny Application 16-U-98 SECOND: Com. Kwok NOES: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed (Application Denied) 4-1-0 Chair Harris noted that the applicant had 14 calendar days to file an appeal with City Council Application No.: Applicant: Location: 8-U-00 Pacific Coast Farmers Market 10123 No. Wolfe Road Use permit for a Farmer's Market in the no~dawest parking lot of Vallco Shopping Center, 9:00 a.m. to: l:00 p.m. May through October. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Mr. Jung reviewed the application for a use permit for an outdoor farmers market in Vallco Shopping Center on Fridays, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., May through October, as set forth in the attached staff report. He said that conditions of approval were listed in the model resolution. The Community Development Director will have the ability to approve cooking vendors after review by the Fire Department. No portable generators or acoustical or amplified entertainment will be permitted on the premises, because of the proximity to the single family homes. Set up and take down time will also be added to the hours of operation. Trash containers will be provided and maintained by the vendors and clean up performed by the end of the day; portable restrooms provided; and booths/stands to be set up within the parking stall area, keeping the driveway aisles clear for pedestrian use and emergency vehicles. Chair Harris requested that the wording "applicanf' be changed to "operator" and also the addition of the wording "significantly disturbs" residential neighbors; and set up and clean up time to be designated. Staff answered questions relating to the application. Mr. John Silvera, Pacific Coast Farmers Market Association, said that 1-1/2 additional hours would be required time for setup to accommodate the farmers and vendors. He said the location of the market was suitable and they would work with the community to be good neighbors. He said he has worked with Vallco extensively to come up with a successful marketing plan for the event, and would be working with city staff also on a signage program. He added that the Association operated the Town and Country Certified Farmers Market in San Jose from 1991 until recently. He addressed the condition relative to the use of portable restrooms and asked that the Director of Community Development have the ability to increase or decrease the requirement since there were restrooms available in TGI Fridays and Macys. There was consensus that the word "increase" be changed to "change" relative to the Director's authority. Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 8, 2000 Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 8-U-00, to include the following conditions: change hours for setup and cleanup, 1-1/2 hours before 9:00 a.m. for setup, I hour after 1:00 p.m. for teardown; discretion of the Director of Community Development on number of portable restrooms required; wording changes from "applicant" to "operator," addition of wording "significantly disturbs," and that trucks not be permitted from 8:45 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. except for emergency reasons Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 11. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 1-TM-00 Ronald Bennett & Barbara Valdez 10440 So. Blaney Avenue Tentative Map to subdivide a .43 ace parcel into two lots in an R-1.5 zoning district. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staffpresentation: Mr. Jung reviewed the application for a tentative map to subdivide a .43 acre parcel into two lots in an R-1-7.5 zoning district, as outlined in the attached staffreport. Mr. Ron Bennett, applicant, referred to the issue of the redwood tree; and asked that language be included that if the arborist determines that the tree is diseased, the applicant be permitted to replant another tree in its place. He also asked that a bond not be required. Mr. Jung said he did not object to the language change, but noted that an appropriate replacement tree should be designated. Chair Harris read the recommended changes to Item 2 of the resolution into the record: "An arborist's report is required to ascertain potential health of the redwood tree grouping. If healthy, a bond in the amount of $10,000. If the redwood tree must be removed for health purposes, a 36-inch box specimen redwood tree will be planted as a replacement." Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, clarified that the applicant would be required to pay a park fee on both parcels, in accordance with the ordinance on subdivision. If one of the lots is labeled a remainder lot; if it is labeled the remainder lot on the tract map, it defers the payment of the park fee until the lot that is the remainder gets sold or redevelopment occurs. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application I-TM-00 with modifications regarding tree protection to be included Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 --~ OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS 12. Determination of Capital Improvement program consistency with the General Plan. Ms. Lynaugh reported on the Public Works projects that were completed in the 1998-99 fiscal year and those that remained, as outlined in the attached staff report. Discussion ensued regarding the elements of the Capital Improvement Program, wherein Ms. Lynaugh answered questions. Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 8, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved that the findings indicate the Five Year Capital Improvement Program conforms with the General Plan Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 1. Chair Harris discussed the possibility of scheduling a special meeting on May 24'h at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Room A, first floor. 2. Planning Commissioners were asked to provide their summer schedule to Ms. Wordell to assist in scheduling meetings. 3. Chair Harris noted that the City Council was not canceling its second meeting in August. There was consensus that the Planning Commission cancel their second August meeting as has been previous practice. 4. Attendance at May 15 City Council Workshop regarding Santa Barbara Grill - Com. Stevens said that he would attend the workshop. 5. Environmental Review Committee: Com. Con' reported that at the recent meeting, the Capital Improvement Program was reviewed. 6. Housing Committee: Com Kwok reported on his attendance at the recent Housing Committee meeting. The CCS affordable housing project was discussed; he reported that there was support for the project; however, some neighbors expressed concern for the project. Com. Con' noted that the affordable housing project was not Iow income housing and said the community needed to be better informed about the project. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Ms. Wordell reported omher attendance and Mr. Piasecki's attendance at the recent APA meeting in New York. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:11 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on May 22, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, ~,lpproved as presented: May 22, 2000