Loading...
PC 01-24-00CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408)777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TH Iq PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 24, 2000 ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to nominate Com. Harris as Chairperson I'or Iht year 2000 Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 Newly nominated Chair Harris chaired the remainder of the meeting. MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to nominate Coin. Stevens as Vice Chairpm'son fin' the year 2000 Com. Kwok Com. Stevens Passed 4-0- I Chair Harris recommended that discussion of the Environnlental l*,cvicw Commiucc representative and Housing Committee representative take place later in the meeting. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Harris, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Doyle Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordcll, City Planner; Michelle Rodriguez, Planner II; Pete Gilli, Pkmncr l, Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The approval of tile minutes of tile January 10,2000 regular Planning Commission meeting was postponed until the January 31 st meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted receipt of the invitation lo thc Commissioner's dinner oil February 4, 2000. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: 2. Application No.(s): 21-ASA-99, 14-EXC-99 Applicant: Hossain Khaziri (Beacon Service Station) Planning Commission Minutes 2 Jmnlary 24.2o00 Location: 10002 DeAnza Blvd. (N. E. Corner of I)cAn×a and Slovens Creel< Blvd.) Sign exception for two groLmd signs and architectural review of all proposed sitma,.,c. Planning Commission decision final unless apl~ealed Request continuance to meeting r?f February 14, 2000 Application No.: Applicant: Location: l I-EXC-99 Apple Computer I Infinite Loop, Bldg. 2 Height exception to exceed tile allowed antenna height in accordance wilh Chaplcr 19. 108 of Cupertino Municipal Code Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request removal from calendar Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-U-07 (14-EA-97, 4-Z-97, 7-TM-99, 32-EA-99) Hossain Khaziri 22020 Holnestead Road (and Maxine) Use Permit to demolish a vacant service station and construct 7 single-family residences. To rezone a .96 acre parcel from Planned Development (general commercial) to Phmncd Development (residential) Tentative m~ap to subdivide a .96 acre parcel into eight lots (seven residential parcels and one street) Tentative City Council meeting February 7, 2000 Request removal from calendar Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 16-U-98, 43-EA-98 Adzich Properties 10216 Pasadena Avenue Use Permit to demolish an existing house and construct lbur single-lhmily crsidcnccs (approximately 2,220 to 2,500 square feet) on a 12,4980 sqnare ~bot (net) lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request removal from calendar MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 21-ASA-99, 14-EXC-99 to thc February 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle Illoved to remove Items 3, 5 and 7 f'l'Olll tile calendar Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None 4. Application No.: 13-U-97(M) Planning Commission Minutes 3 ,lanuary 24, 2000 Applicant: Location: Sunnyview Lutheran Home 22445 Cupertino Road Modification of the roof materials and paint colors of an approved addition. Planning Commission decision final unless approved ConlinuedJ~om January lO, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Doyle was excused from discussion of the application as lie resides in close proximity to the project. Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application lo change lhe materials and paint colors of an approved addition to the Sunnyview Lutheran Ilomc. 'l'hc applicant is requesting to use a composite roof shingle, which is the same material used adjacent buildings, and is in fact installed, although the l)lanning CommJss;t n previously approved the wood shake shingles. Applicant also desires to keep tile exlerior pi' the new building an ivory sbade; however, staff recommends that the side fiicing the street remain as a beige ~tmc. Staff recommends approval of the composite rool: shingles and the ivory color I't)r Ibc cxlcri~r ' sides of the buildings not visible from tile street. A decision, il~ reached, will be considered iinal unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. In response to Com. Corr's question, Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, explained Ihal recommended that tbe ivory color paint on tile building should not I:ace thc street, since most ~1' the building is a darker shade and it would tone down the visibility pi'thc building ['rolll the public. Sbe said it was preferable that the building be all tbe darker color, however thc remainder o1' thc building wds ah'eady painted ti lighter color and it would create a hardship on thc owner. Chair Harris asked the applicant why the building was painted a different color dian Ibc apprt)vcd color palette for the site, and why composition shingles were used when iht shake shingles wcrc previously approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Ron Zielske, applicant, said that when they mixed the paint I'or thc stucco fin' Ibc new addition, it resulted in a lighter sbade than the color that ah'eady existed in Ihe three wings t)l' home. Subsequently the applicant amid interior design.er decided to paint the manor in Ibc lighlcr shade, and the city specified that the darker color be maintained l:or the fi'phi, which is thc colin' it has been since 86. Mr. Zielske explained that it was their intention to use composi6on shingle, however, the architect incorrectly indicated shake at the o~¢~t and the error was llt)t nolicctl. Cbair Harris opened tile meeting for public input; there was no {me prcscnl wh~ wished t~* Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris said that she was opposed to the application, since she I'cll that composiliol~ were inferior; and the Planning Commissiou had approved shake, and thc other wing had shake roof already. She said she also objected to work being completed and thc applicant rcqucsling approval after the ['act with the hope that the Planning Commission would bc inllucnccd the money was already spent and work done, although the initial approw~l was I'or dil'fcrenl work. Com. Stevens said that relative to the shake vs. composition tool; the shake roo[' has a stlpcrior appearance, however, it is not as fireproof as composition shingle, lie said because pi' thc sal'cly factor, he supported the composition shingles, l-le said he pret'erred thc lighter and lm~rc chccrl'ul Planning Commission Minntes 4 January 24, 2000 colors, especially for a residential care home, although the darker color toned down Iht visibility of the facility from the road. He said lie supported the ivory color all the way out, however, hc was not opposed to keeping the existing color if that was the applicanffs choice. Com. Kwok said that staff recommendation relative to the paint color was acceptable. Com. Corr also said that it was acceptable. Chair Harris said that it was a high density project that had to exist within a communily, and she was in favor of staff's recommendation. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 13-U-97 (Mi as modified Com. Stevens Chair Harris Com. Doyle Passed 3-1-0 Com. Doyle returned to the meeting. Application No.: Applicant: Location: Amend Municipal Code regarding review of single faro i ly residential applications City of Cupertino Citywide Amend the: Municipal Code to shift all family residential review to residential design review committee and to discuss the Planning Commission Subcommittees Continued from Planning Commission meeting q/'./amtary 10. 2000 Request continuance to meeting of January 24, 2000 Staff Presentation: Ms. Michelle Rodriguez, Planner 11, said that tile two issues for discussitm included the simplification of the design review process and the interpretation as rcqnestcd by Iht Residential Design Review Committee. She reviewed the composition of the Rcsidcntial I)csign Review Committee (RDRC) and tile Design Review Subcon~mittee (DRS) and thc functions and responsibilities of each as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff proposc~; a merging of Iht two committees into one committee as the number of applications received since II~e inceplion of the committees was significantly lower than anticipated. The purpose ol"the one conmlillcc wonld be to simplify the design review process, clarify the ~J-~ of stall; and reduce Iht number o1' monthly meetings for the Planning Commission and staff. Ms. Rodriguez reviewed the Design Review Decision Tree matrix which outlined Iht proposcd role and fimctions of the Planning Director, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. She explained the proposed reconfiguration of the committee, and clarified thc R-I Ordinance as outlined in the staff report. Staff recomnlends that the two committees be merged into one comnlittcc; remove Ibc architectural advisor and Planning Director fi'oln a decision-making role, and appoinl one additional Planning Commissioner to the new committee; that the Planning Commission agree lhal the new committee should be the final authority on functions outlined in the matrix rcvicwcd; and Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 24, 2(1(10 direct staff to return within one year with a status report on the committee fnnclions ami ils performance. Ms. Rodriguez answered questions relative to the fimctions of tile two prcscnl comlnillccs and thc proposed combined committee. Chair Harris requested that a member of the present RDRC discuss thc process, limclincs, and benefit of the architectural advisor. Com. Doyle said that it was a working meeting, tile applicams typically bronght in their multiple pages or'drawings and intbrmation and thc I'mnily wonld review it with tile committee. He said the process per application wu'led from one hour for a porch, to I- 1/2 to 2 honrs for homes. He questioned what the committee was attempting to accomplish since the process became very tedious and time consuming. Com. Doyle said Ihat hc I'cll il' Ihc architect had a recommendation for a change that is required fi'om !tim, hc should bc prcscn! Io discuss it. Chair Harris opened tile meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to spcak. Chair Harris summarized the issues: (I) Whether or not to combine thc Iwo conunilt'cc.s: (2) Whether to take tile houses from the diocese requiring individual review because ihcy arc in a PI) and move them to the cornmittee and keep the other committee, or move thosc :u-chilcclural review items back to the Planning Commission since there aren't that many: (3) Will Ibc archilccl do tile work ahead of time so that the RDRC would have a more finished product whcn they met? (4) What is the feeling about staff's recommendation on the design rcvicw itscll': following be addressed: tile front that faces the right o1' way, look at all linu' clcw~fions rclalivc design, Ioo1~ at the relationship of the property to the other properties. Chair Harris noted that a 2:0 decision at the review committee could become a 3:2 al thc board il' it went to the Planning Commission. She said that having that be the final authority un cvcrylhing was a big shit'ting of the work of the Planning Commission, especially il' it was thc Iinal approval for modifications that the Director was not comfortable doing himselE Com. Stevens said tile concept of combining the two committees was appropriatc; however, hc felt that the approval should be recomrnendation for the consent calendar rather than approwd in all cases; the Planning Commission should accept those as a consent item but nol I'or approwfi in its entirety. He said that the Planning Director's position is the staff's recommcndalionl which is either approval or denial. Com. Stevens said he felt it s!)_o~uld be identical I'or the architccl as thc architect is the most important person, especially relative to residential, aud hc prcfcrred that Iht architect be present at the meeting in order to answer questions, and his revicw should hc provided. He said that relative to the architecture vs. FAR combination, they arc intertwined and all four sides should be reviewed in all cases, not just isolated situations. Thc rcvicw would bc thc same review that would be given in the Planning Commission. Relative to presence ol' ;i tlUOl'Ulll, Com. Stevens said that he felt it should be if a representative or alternate were prcscnl would hc adequate, not both. Relative to workload, he recommended three applications pcr mccling; over three would go to the Planning Commission. Com. Kwok said that he was not opposed to the merger of tile two committees; however, hc expressed concern about the length of tile meetings and recommended a maxinlulll o[' Iwo ilclns per meeting. He said there were merits on two Planning Co~nmissioners being involvcd in thc decision making process, but it should not exclude feedback from the architectural advisor. I Ic Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 said, as suggested, that he WOLdd prefer it on an as-needed basis if there were any items Ihal were recommendations for cbanges, the advisor shonld be there to give the pros and cons and why thc recommendations are changed. Relative to No. 3, he expressed concern about giving Ihe committee tile final approval, since tile Commission is charged with tile decision making dccisitm process about any exceptional cases, and if necessa,-y, there should be a consensus, discussion~ and input from all commissioners, rather than put tile burden on tile two commissioners. I Ic concurred that it could be put on tile consent calendar. Relative to the timeline for a status rcporl, be suggested six months and return i the workload is too heavy. Com. Doyle said that the ~nerger of two committees was appropriate; but limit Iho meetings Itl three items per month. He expressed concern that there may be too many items. I lc saki he was in favor of tile changes in tile voting membership as tile Planning Commissioners make Iht decisions that are supposed to reflect the decisions of tile City Council and commtmily; and thc Director and the architect are the staff people who are the experts who craft the dec/sion. I Ic said final decisions, unless appealed was a suitable start, but consent calendar mighl bc mt~rc appropriate, ~vith flexibility being the key; architectural advisor should be in attendance. Mr. Piasecki commented on tile workload, stating that one of the precepts of the concept is Ihal Iht architectural advisor's input would be available to the applicant much earlier in tile process and they would be able to adjust the plans and resolve issues early on with the cxpeclation of bringing fewer issues to tile committee. He said it should shorten the amount of time spent reviewing each application in detail and hopefidly have more ora consensus between the architectural advisor ami the applicant. Com. Corr ~aid he was not opposed to Items I and 2 as it fits in with what has been discusscd. I Ic said he was not in fhvor of final authority being given to tile 2 commissioners 011 Iht commiUee, but that the recommendation be presented on tile consent caleadar et' tile Planning Commission agenda. He expressed concern about getting involvecl in designing houses, which is nt~l their role. He said they should be looking at the design of all four elevations, and itl Icrms o1' Iht FAR, it is written in tile codes. Com. Gert said that he was not opposed to a one year commiltce rcporl, because if a backlog occtlrs, riley could request something sooner. I-lc suggcslcd not Inert limn three applications per meeting, noting that two were preferable. Chair Harris said she feared it was too much work tbr tile committee and would likc lo sec report in six months showing how many hours each meeting took and how many issues came forward and what the categories were. She said that she was supportive of Ibc co~isolidalion il' went forward on tile consent calendar, to reduce tile w°~r~'J'oad of tile I)lanning Commission, not shift the responsibilities to two of the commissioners. She said she was in favor of taking the houses in the planned developments and adding to that committee il' it is not a burden: if il is burden then it should come back to tile Planning Commission to do the architccturals,'which tit) not take long. Chair Harris said she concurred with the Planning Director's rccommcndalion thai tile architect get involved ahead of time, and work with the applicant's architect and stal'l' so Ihal il is presented to the committee as a more finished product. She said she was not in favor of the word "denial" as she felt two people with different views was not a denial, but a diffcrcnl view, and the vote in itself is a vote to bring it to the Planning Commission. She reco~llalcndcd Ihat Iht language state that a 1:1 vote is a vote to bring it before the committee, not a vote to deny. Chair 1 larris said she I'cll tile workload of 3 applications per meeting was overbearing, and that 2 to 3 was more reasonable, with staff deciding what time it would take, with a 2 hour maximmn. Planning Commission Minutes 7 .hmtmry 24, 2000 A discussion ensued regarding tile committee membership. Chair Harris said thai bce:mst of her duties as Chairperson of tile Planning Commission, she could nol serve on Iht commillcc. Nile concurred with staff's recommendation that it be a task of the Vice Chair. Com. Stevens said he felt there should be continuity with the two Planning Commissioners serving on Iht commiltee, one being the Vice Chair, an experienced commissioner. Chair Hm'ris noted Ihat thc appoinlmcnls were made through the year 2000. She recommended Com. Doyle fill thc seat because he has served on it for six months and was already appointed to do that work through Ihe year 2000. Com. Stevens would also serve on the committee. Chair Harris recommended that the item be continued to tile .lanuary 31sI meeling lo enable stalT to bring tile actual wording in the ordinance. She summarized that thc rccommcndalioa is Io consolidate the two committees to not have final review rest with that comnliltce hul rather bring the items forward for consent calendar if the vote was 2:0; if the vote was 1:1 it WOllld como lo the Planning Commission as a regular item; that the architect and the Phuming Director bc advisory capacities aud do their work in advance, and be present if necessary; that Iht archilccluro be considered on all four sides, and in relation to the a~}acent properties; and Ihe size also bc reviewed in light of what is around it and how it fits in. Relative to workload, make sure il is 2- 1/2 hours maximum, 2 meetings per month; and if in excess, it needs to be part of thc Planning Commission review or needs to be presented to the commi~ee. Com. Doyle questioned tile design size issue, and whether it was tile intent of tile commitlce lo do a design compatibility, review of tile homes t¥om an architectural standpoinl, or is il Itl u~akc sure that the size: of the project and way it is executed is ham~onious witla th~ neighborhood. ('hair Harris said most of the commissionrtd said they wanted the architectu,'e reviewed in light of thc surroundings which includes not only size issue but also compatibility. Following discussion, there was consensus that a six month review period was approprialc relative to the issue of workload. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to contiuue the amendment of tile municipal code lo tile January 31,2000 Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 There was a discussion about the representatives to tile E;~-xTironmental Review Commiltcc and tile Housing Committee. Chair Harris noted thatComs. Doyle aud Stevens would be on lhc l)csitm Committee; in ligbt of that, Com. Stevens would give up the Enviromnental Review Committee and Com. Corr said he would transfer, to the Housing Committee; Com. Kwok has agreed to lake on the Housing Committee and Com. Corr has agreed to take on tile Environmental Rcvic~v Committee. Relative to the alternates, Com. Stevens said he would like to remain tls an allcrnatc on the ERC; Com. Corr said he would be alternate to the Housing Committee, and Com. Kwok would serve as an alternate on the Design Revietv Committee. Discussion of thc ncxl lwo special meetings ensued. Chair Harris reminded all present of tile January 31st meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m. There will also be a special meeting on Saturday, February 5th from I0 a.m. mllil 12 m~on. Meeting for the development intensity manual- prior to the Feb. 28th meeting; Feb. 28th mccling to start at 6:00 to 7:00; regular meeting begins at 7:15 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes u .lal~uary 24, 2¢)0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Coin. Doyle reported ou thc last breakfast which focused on the progress of tile new library. He also discussed thc Mayor's breakfast schedule, wbicb is held tile second Tuesday of each month; tile next one scheduled for Feb. 8tb and location moved to Hobey's from 7:15 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.. There was a discussion rotation of attendance at the breakfast; Coin. Doyle will serve as 'thc dcsignalcd altcrualc. Attendauce at the meetings is scbednled as I:ollows: Com. Stevens - Feb: Com. Kwok March: Com. Doyle - April; Coin. Corr- May; and Cbair Harris - June. Coin. Doyle said the mayor asked that the Chair or'the commissions come to the City Council on a semi annual or quarterly basis witb a State of the Commission's address. Com. Corr reported tbat tile Housing Comlnittee elected their officers at the last meeting. Chair Harris noted that she would appear at the April 3rd and Novcmbcr 6III City t'{mncil meetings to present a short report on the Planning Commission. Chair I larris rioted IJ~tal Ihcrc was a list of all committees that tile City Council members serve REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki remiuded all present of the Commissioners' Dimmer on Friday, February 4th al thc ()uinJan ('clllcr. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Nolle ADJOURNMENT: The meetiug adjourned at 8:26 p.m. to the Special Planniug Commission meeting at 6 p.m. on Monday, Jannary 3 I, 2000. I>,espect £ully Submitted, Recordil3g~Secretary Approved as presented: February 14, 2000