Loading...
PC 02-28-00CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING O F TH E PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 28, 2000 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Staff present: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris Steve Piasecki, Director of Com~nunity Development; Ciddy Wordcll, City Planner; Michele Rodriguez, Planner 11; Vera Gl I, Associate Planner: R. Chang, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 31, 2000 Special Planning Commission meeling Minutes of the February 5, 2000 Special Planning Commission meeting Minutes of the February 14, 2000 Regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve the minutes oi: the January 3 February 14, 2000 Planning Commission meetings as presented Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: Nolle CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 24-ASA-00 David Nelson ~'or Hewlett-Packard 19091, 19111, 19447 Pruneridge Avenue Architectural review of improvements to tile parking lot and landscaping fin' an cxisli% office/industrial campus site MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 24-ASA-00 oI' thc Consent Calendar Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Planning Colmnission Minutes 2 February 28, 2000 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 3-ASA-00 O'Brien Group 10451 Sierra Street Architectural review ora new 5,438 square foot single £mnily residence (Oak Valley) Continued from Planning Commission meeting qf February 14, 2000 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Application No.: Applicant: Location: 4-ASA-00 O'Brien Group 22160 Canyon Oak Way Architectural review ora new 4,700 square foot single family residence (Oak Valley) Continued.from Planning Commission meeting q]'February 14. 2000 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Items 3 and 4 were discussed together. Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed tile applications to construct a 5,438 sqnarc foot single family residence and a 4,700 square foot single fhmily residence in thc ()ak Valley development. Staff and the Planning Commission are concerned with the possible overuse o[' stucco in this development; a condition of approval in tile Oak Valley design guidelines slates Ihal manufactured material such as stucco should be used sparingly and should not dominale thc overall 1oo~ of tile development. Stat'frs interpretation is that stucco homes should bc limited It) 50% of the overall homes, with a maximmn of 10 stucco homes in neighborhood; lo dale ti)crc are 5 proposed for stucco and 4 for wood. A decision if reached will be considered final tmlcss an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed tile use of stucco and wood in ueighborhoods I, 3 and 4. Com. Doyle reviewed the history of the prior discussions on tile use of stucco and wood in thc development. He said that the proposal presented had 5 different versions o1' homes and each version had 5 to 7 differeut themes, and one of tile themes in each versiou was a primary sltlcco unit. More diversity of building materials was desired and it was recmnmended thai stucco bc used on only 20% to 25% of the homes, not 50%. Chair H~lrris concurred ti)al Iht cxpcclaliou was that a lower percentage of stucco be used, not the 50% range. Mr. Steve Zales, said that the approval was granted approximately two years ago, and what ~vas being built was in line with the expectations. There were 31 different elewttions apprnvcd by the Planning Commission and City Council, 20 or 21 of those elevations being stncco clew~iions, lie reported that additional wood elevations were proposed by the applicant to meet the rcquircmcnl of the Planning Commission and City Council recommendations for more wood elew~tinns. SlaIT felt that it was more stucco than they were comfortable with and prior to gcttiug It/ Planning Commission or City Council hearings, they suggested that there be limits placed stucco homes, which resnlted in 3 categories; 70% category which was prel'crred, 20% calcgi)ry and a 10% category approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. at that time there ~vere no specific plans for the bigger lots in neighborhoods 2 and 3 and Ihcrc w~ls no further language clarifying if those neighborhoods should have more or less slucco Ihan Planning Commission Minutes ] Fclm;ary 2,'t, 2000 neighborhoods 1 and 4; and they proceeded based on the belief that a reasonable imerprulalitm o1' the approval in terms of stucco vs. wood is that a similar condition would apply. Ilo said lhal Iht conditions that were approved and the intent they operated tinder all along is that a similar ratio would apply. Mr. Zales said that he felt the neighborhood looked good and it is not an economic consideration: it has been their wish to have traditional historic architectural styles, bul Ihcre simply arc more traditional architectural styles going back to the 20s, 30s in Calif. that are stucco. They proposed colonial homes which staffdid not support; therelbre there was a limilcd palcllc oF wood hmncs use and they were concerned about too much repetition. He said it was Ihcir goal It/ have a diversity of designs that were attractive and if the Planning Commisskm l'clt they wcrc uol accomplishing that, it was an important issue to discuss. The percentages arc guidelines scl Iwo years ago which they intended to abide by, and he expressed hope that thc gnidclincs would get stricter. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to spcuk. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Coin. Doyle said the quality was good and was in line with what was proposed. I Ic snid hc I'cll they should proceed with the project, although he recalled a differeut mix was rccolnmcndcd, htll he felt it was too late to change. Com. Kwok said he would prefer a more balanced approach, and recommended more balance iu wood in neighborhoods 2 and 4, especially in high elevation areas. He said he would prefer more wood than stucco. Com. Corr concurred that the proposal and original approval of elevations were dill'cron), and said he was comfortable confirming the existing ratios to proceed. Com. Stevens said that the homes would appear stark with all wood or stucco, but wcrc well presented. He added that the neighborhood would initially appear barren without landscaping and trees; however, he felt they should continue with the present plan. Chair Harris said she was in favor of the Design Review Colmnittee's recommendation to approve the applications. She clarified that the condition of appro~zal was not specific, and each one woultl have to be presented for design review and be supported by staff. She recommended that thc applicant meet with staffsince staff felt 50%, not 57%, for stucco was appropriate. Com. Kwok said that he supported staff's recommendation, but recommended more wood Ibr future proposals. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Applications 3-ASA-00 and 4-ASA-00 Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING 5. Application No.(s): 16~U-99, 13-EA-99 Planning Commission Minutes 4 I~'ebruary 28, 2000 Applicant: Location: Stanley Wang 10060 So. Stelling Road, 10051 Bianchi Way Use Permit to demolish three single family dwellings and construct eight townhomes lolaling 17,112 square on a 23,170 square foot lot Continued from January 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Tentative City Council hearing date (?/'March 6. 2000 Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed tile application to demolish two single family homes and construct eight townllomes. At a previous Planning Commission rattling, Iht applicant was directed to decrease the density, lower the mass and create a belier transilion between the adjacent Iow density residential development and the applicant's proposed development. In spite of meeting with staff on three occasions, the applicant submillcd another version of his site plan without reducing the density. Changes are noted in the stuff' rcporl. Slal'f recommends denial of the proposed applicatiom as they believe thc applicanl did nol follow comments and directions to comply. A recommendation if reached will bc for~vardcd lo thc Cily Council on March 6th. Ms. Vera Gil, Planner Il, reviewed tile background of the application aud slafFs rccoulnlcndalion and concerns as outlined in the staff report. She pointed out that consultant Larry Cunnon reviewed the elevations and felt strongly that the development was too intense for thc parcel si×c and still had concerns relative to the proposal. The consultant felt that the architcclurc did nol go far enough in making them look like individual units; and it looks like one largo building, and Iht side elevatigns don't have a lot of articulation. She illustrated tile elevations of thc proposed plan. Chair Harris noted that a fax was received fi'om the applicant delineating thc w~rious changes made and how they tried to respond to the suggestions made. Mr. Stanley Wang, applicant, reviewed Exhibit I which illustrated a sumnlary of his commcms the January I0, 2000 Planning Conlmission meeting and indicated how he complied xvilh directions and suggestions for changes from the Planning Commissioners a! that meeting. reviewed Exhibit 2 which illustrated his responses to the consultant's colnnlclllS relative h~ roof design, landscape and double cai' garages. He noted that the height of thc building was reduced to 2 story, and from 33 feet high to 25.5 feet high; Building A FAR was rcduccd: change to a fl'ont elevation for tile unit facing Stelling Road; all units now have private back yards, more landscape area provided, fi'om 32% to 40%; paving area._c_ut down with a new design plan; mom privacy provided with tile 4 foot high precast concrete wall planted with vines, and addili{m entry island. Tandem parking was provided to eliminate consultant's COllCcr~l abOtll impact car garages. Mr. Wang answered questions regarding tile parking, landscaping, setbacks, rcduclion of mill sizes, architectural details and building materials. Mr. Raymond Chang, Traffic Engineer, explained that the bus stop would have to bc rclocatcd subject to the VTA approval and site plan review, because access is being taken where linc prcscnl bus stop is located. Chair Harris opened tile meeting ['or public input; there was no one prcscnl who wished Io spcal,. Plamfing Commission Minutes 5 February 28.21)00 Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris summarized the issues: In I3vol' of tile pro. ject as presented? Arc specific modifications needed? Willing to grant 20 lbot exception or make statement that much less can bc built on the parcel? neighborhood character; privacy impacts; 4 ['oot concrete wall; clcvalions; target density; material board; and tandem parking. Com. Stevens said he felt a modification was not necessary in that the layout improvcd Iral'l~c wise; there should be no 20 foot side exception; neighborhood character: transition parcel, yes; however, half of the four units are looking into the backyard of the RI next door and Ihcrc arc plenty of windows. Some mitigation should be imposed, but a 15 l'oot backyard sizc is a very small back yard. Relative to the four foot concrete wall, he said he ['elt it should be lower than four feet; elevation, tile back is too stark, if viewed as transition, the elevation on ibc back toward tbe RI residence is appropriate; density is appropriate, housing is needed. Hc said Ibc slncco material was appropriate; however, he expressed concern about the possibility ol' a red tool' and pink palaces. He said his major bangup was tandem parking, and felt it would be a problem. Com. Corr said he was surprised to see so much change presented since they were cxpccliug modifications to the previous proposal, and received all entire remake o1' thc project, iulroducing more concerns and questions. He said that in addressing tbe height and massivcncss o1' linc project, it could have been adjusted without turning the entire development sideways, which creates the privacy problem and tbe massive stark wall. There may be a break hori×outally on Iht wall but tile vertical lines merely show there is a separation of unit; it is not an architccturul piece, but a big solid wall facing the small house next door. He expressed coucern about tile side sclback exception, ~ince it is not known what is occurring with the next unit, and tile concept ol' having Iht setbacks is that the ability to put something appropriate in the adjacent lots is built iu. I Ic said hc preferred not to grant an exception since it was unknown what would be next door. I Ic col~currcd in terms of the character of the units being a transition parcel. The privacy impacts wcrc addressed earlier, and he felt there is not enough mitigation for that. He said he did not I'ccl linc need for a concrete wall. Com. Corr said he felt the original elevations were more iutercsling Ihan those presently proposed; density was appropriate; he supported the need I'or more housing in thc comrnunity, but felt it could be accomplished in a more stylish manner. Relative Io iht malcriats, he said he concurred in terms of the red roof, and expressed concern about everything looking Ibc same, rather than having some character to it. He said he agreed with Com. Stevens that Iht tandem parking issue was not feasible; however, he said that he agreed with Chair I larris thai Iht applicant's prdposal still met the requiremeuts Coin. Kwok said he was in favor of the project with some minor modifications, since Ihc applicanl modified tile plan based on tile directions given. The plan is an improved plan in lcrms ol' iral'lic, parking is improved, mass is reduced and also the elevations. Relative to the 20 Ibot soft,ack exception, he questioned if tile project would exist if the exception was m)t granlcd, and was informed that the project would not exist if the exception was not granted. I lc said tile ouly way lo meet the exceptions is to reduce tile density of the house which is already being reduced; Ihcrcl'~)rc under the circumstances, there is no cboice but to grant the exception, which hc said hc was reluctant to do. Com. Kwok said that since it was a transition parcel, and given thc situutiou, Ibc developer bas tried to come up with 3 different proposals, and granting Iht cxccplion was preferable to accepting the height. Relative to neighborhood character, thc transition parccl is a good start. He said he was optimistic that screening would help mitigate the privacy impacls on Iht back yard; concrete wall not needed; elevation is appropriate; density was reduced' staff lo xwu'k Planning Commission Minutes ~ February 28, 2000 with the architect ou materials satisfactory to staff. Com. Kwok said hc agreed thai tandem parkiug was inconvenient, but he did not object to it; the remaiader el: thc parking Iol could bc restricted for visitor parking only. He said he felt the desiga, particnlarly ia I'ronl, could bc improved with some minor architecture. Overall, he said he was in Ihw~r el'Ibc pro joel. Com. Doyle said he was in 'favor of building something oa tile vacant 1OI, but thc ctml]gm'alitm needs to be modified; it is a transition parcel; no side setback cxccplions. Rclalivc It) neighborhood character, Com. Doyle said he felt the concept of a row house was nol consislcnl with tile surroundings or what was proposed at this time. He said to address tile privacy impacls and visual intrusion on the adjoiuing properties, it should be handled like lhe lypical RI mechanism; the 4 foot concrete wall needs to be sol'tened as it isolates the sile I'ronl at[joining properties or the bus enclosure out in fi'ont, and he l'elt it was aot intended Io have a stark wall viewed up and down the main thoroughfare, as they are so obvious. The elew~tions el' Iht back tile sites are stark and need to be broken tip; density of zoning is a target o1'8 It/35, wilh ~ move h) understanding the specific needs of' that location. He recalled Ihat dh'cclion was given Ih:il transition should be in the .45 to .55 types FARs and those were some o1' Ihe ones soon in olhcr proposals and developments thought to be transitional, aot fi'om mu[li slory lypc Iransilitm single family to other uses. He suggested that the guidelines should bc looked al. Com. suggested all improved material board. The warehouse is stucco aud it aeeds lo blend wilh Ibc adjoining properties. He said that tandem parking woulcl create an unworkable situalitm, and hc questioned whether it would be setting a precedent with one car garages. [lc COllCludcd Ihal hc was not in favor of the project as presently configured. Chair Harri~s said she was ill favor of the project and said that tile applicant shonld be permillcd Io develop tile property. She recounted their prior applications [bt the propcl'ly and said I[l;ll tile\' submitted modifications in response to direction fi'om the Planning Conlmission. She said lhct'~' was a General Plau desiguation of ten to twenty units, with a specific plan designation o1' cilhcr commercial, office or 8 to 35 units; this is I Iaud is tit tile lower cad ol~thc range: and she said she felt they did a lot of good work. The property is well articulated and has lrclliscs. She said she felt tile wall should be 3 feet high, and it was a trausition parcel, which was approprialc I'or Iht area. Relative to the comment about a row house, Chair l-larris said she wtmJd agree il' il I'accd Stelling, but apparently just the end of it is seen fi'om Stelling. therelbre it is not row housing. She said she felt there was iuterest along the wallplain as seen fi'om the side; the ,:n'lJct~lalion in thc building could be dealt with by trim; colors are tastefi~l and appropriate. Relative Io thc c×ccpliom she said normally they try to meet the setbacks, but she felt in this case that the exception i& hcing used to keep the applicant fi'om tile full and appropriaLe_~se o1' thc properly and Ibc c×ccpti~m should be granted. Chair Harris said that Cupertino needed housing, alld low~lJlolncs ilrovidc a medinm that is lacking, and she was supportive of the pro, ject for a wa'lely el' rcasolls. Discussion contiuued about tile directiou to be given to tile applicaat. Com. Corr said that hc was open to a change to the exceptions, but was concerued about the priw~cy issue and thc sim'lq back wall. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com, Stevens moved to approve Application 3 I-EA-99 Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 16-EA-99 ~vi0~ the modil'ications Ik)r articulation of south wall, Plaa A, to be approved by stall' or returned al Iht ncxl ?lanning Commission Minutes 7 IVchmm'y 28, 2000 meeting, and to have mitigation of privacy similar to the R I shmdard acccplcd by staff', including landscaping requirements, and screening; and iucorporaling in Ihis approval A1 through 5 of the exception process tbr development standards for the Heart of the City. Chair Harris reviewed the findings for the exception and read them into the record: "Thai Ihc literal enforcement of the provisions of this title will result in restrictions und consistcm wilh linc spirit and intent of this title, and that the granting of the exception will not result in a coudition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, and that thc exception 1o bc granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulatious in Ibc m iuimnm variance that it will accomplish this purpose." The amended motion was accepted by consensus. SECOND: Com. Kwok NOES: Coms. Corr and Doyle VOTE: Passed 3-2-0 OTHER BUSINESS Chair Harris recognized Kellyn Yamada of the City Channel ~br her many years o1' dedicaled service to the City. She thanked Kellyn tbr her many years of highly professional service and wished her success in her future endeavors. Application No.(s): Applicaut: Location: Amend Municipal Code regarding review ofsilagle family residential applications City of Cupertino Citywide Amend the Municipal Code to shift all family residential review to resklential dcsign review committee and to discuss the Planning Commission Subcommittees Continued from Planning Commission meeting OJ',]tlnUtlry 31, 2000 Tentative City Council hearing date qf March 20, 2000 Chair Harris reviewed the summary of the proposal ['or the Design Review Committee as oullincd in the staff report ..... MOTION: SECOND: Com. Kwok moved approval of the Amendlnent to the Municipal Code to shill all single family residential review to the Resideutial Design Review ('ommitlcc, to make the changes incorporated Com. Corr In response to Com. Stevens'questions, there was a brief discussion relative to linc conlClll of Sections 2.32.070 and 2.90.40. Ms. Rodrigues clarified that the last two lincs wcrc dclclcd since the previous wording allowed that subcommittee to have decision authority, and Iht) no hmgcr ~vould have decision authority, but ~vould have recommendation authority lo the Phmuing Commission. Chair Harris suggested wording change and said that the language should bc mtu'c clear, because the items would still have to go hack to the Planning Commission . Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 28, 2(}00 In response to Com. Stevens' question, Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorncy, said Ihal thc City ordinance gives tile anthority to the Planning Commission to appoinl Ibc members ol' thc, ir subcommittee and since the vice chair is automatically one o1: the members, thc I'lmmmg Commission has taken away the appointment by the City Council o~' tile membcrs, bcciltlsc an automatic member has been created. She said that staffclarified it carel'ully in all Iht poiuts. The motion was amended to read: "the comlnittee sJlalJ make reconlmendalitms lo Iht commission on matters pertaining to tile design of a prqject and review design i~cms Ihm may bc rclbrrcd by the Planning Commission to the subcommittee }bt review and Ihrthcr commcnt." VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Development Intensity Manual City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of amendments to the Development Intensity Manual Tentative City Council hearing date o./'March 20, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to remove the Development Intensity Manual item fi'om Ibc calendar until such time that another study session is scheduled. Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 OLD BusINEss: None NEW BUSINESS Vallco Redevelopment Area receipt of Redevelopment Plan and Draft I';nvimnmcuml hnpact Report - no action reqnired. Chair Harris noted that tile redevelopment plan and draft EIR had been received publicly ami officially. Ms. Wordell said that there was Ilo further staff commeut, aud rcqucstcd thai Iht Planning Commissioners keep the documents until the redevelopment plan comes back ou thc 27th for actual review, and the EIR at a later date. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Residential Design Review Committee: Com. Doyle reported that one application was apprt~ved with modification. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Chair I larris thanked the director for the excellent director's report. There was a brief discussion of the upcoming tour ofthehigh deusity residcntal projects. April 2000, at 10:30 a.m. was selected as the date fbr the tour of three sites and lhe Villa ,',;cra Apartments. Staff was urged to provide accurate time schedules aud meeting places I'~r public.