Loading...
PC 02-22-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 To~e Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Staff present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Corr, Harris, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Doyle Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileeu Murray, Assistant City Attorney Minutes of the January 25, 1999 regular Planning Commission meeting: Com. Harris noted that Chairperson Doyle was not absent as noted at the beginning of the meeting. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve the minutes of the January 25, 1999 Planning Commission meeting as amended. Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Doyle noted a faxed memorandum dated February 21, 1999 from John Drexler relative to Item 8. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 32-ASA-98 Keith Royster Architects (Woodworks) 19875 Stevens Creek Blvd. Architectural review ora proposed remodel ofa faq:ade for an existing commercial building. 5. Application Nos: Applicant: Location: Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 1999 16-U-98, 43-EA-98 Adzich Properties 10216 Pasadena Avenue Use permit to demolish an existing house and construct four single-family residences (approximately 2,220 to 2,500 sq. ft.) on a 12,480 sq. ft. (net) lot. Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 22, 1999 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 1999 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Amendments to Newsrack Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of amendments to Chapter 10.21 (Newsrack Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to require modular newsracks. Tentative City Council hearing date: March 15, 1999 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 1999 10. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 17-U-S0(M) Glenoaks Park Villas Association Homestead Road and Sweet Oak Street Modification of a landscape plan to remove and replace trees in an existing residential development. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 1999 11. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 2-GPA-98, 28-EA-98, Fence Ordinance Amendment City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of amendment to General Plan policies 2-33 and 6-17 regarding discouraging electronic security gates. Consideration of amendment to Chapter 16.28 regarding prohibition ol' security gates in non-single family residential parcels. Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to postpone Items 4, 5, and 10 to the March 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to postpone Items 7 and I 1 to the March 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 2. Application No.: 2-U-72(M) Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 22, 1999 Applicant: Location: Northpoint 10880 Northpoint Way Modification of a landscape plan to remove and replace trees in an existing residential development Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Application No.: Applicant: Location: 1-ASA-99 Big Guy, Inc. Lot 4, Neighborhood 2, Oak Valley Architectural and site approval to construct a 5,229 sq. ft. residence on a 30,661 sq. ft. lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Chair Doyle explained the process for approval of the Consent Calendar. MOTION: SECOND: Com. Harris moved to approve Items 2 and 3 of the Consent Calendar. Com. Corr Assistant City Attorney Eileen Murray requested that Item 3 be removed from the Consent Calendar for brief discussion of the item. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Harris amended the motion to approve Item 2 only of the Consent Caleudar Com. Corr Com. Stevens Passed 4-1-0 Com. Stevens noted that the model resolution stated "requirements" and only one requiremcntwas listed. Ms. Murray noted that at Com. Kwok's request, the general counsel's office determined il' there was a conflict of interest for him, because at one point in the past, he submitted a bid on property in the Oak Valley subdivision, not with this developer or this particular lot. It was noted for thc record that it was determined that no conflict of interest existed as Com. Kwok had no financial interest in the property. MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Item 3 of the Consent Calendar Com. Stevens Com. Kwok Passed 4-0-1 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 29-U-85(M) Stanley Wang (First Baptist Church of Cupertino) 10525 Miller Avenue Use permit modification to relocate an existing parsonage and demolish and rebuild a detached garage at an existing church. Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 22, 1999 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit modification to relocate the existing parsonage so that development of a 10 lot single-family residential subdivision could be built, and also to demolish and rebuild a detached garage at the First Baptist Church of Cupertino. Staff recommends approval of the relocation of the parsonage and thc construction of a new garage. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered linal unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, pointed out that the applicant may want to remove the rear pomh oftbe parsonage, and stated that it did not affect the overall design ol' thc house. Com. Harris recalled that the original plan was not to separately parcel the lot lbr the parsouagc and that the lot would be part of the chumh pamel, which was the reason lbr not assessing a requirement for one out often houses to be a BMR unit. She said that it appeared to be creating a separate lot for the house, moving it and upgrading it to todayYs standards, which would make il a 10-lot subdivision. Mr. Cowan clarified that the site plan line was in error; and it was a 9-lot subdivision, with tl)c house lot being amalgamated with the church site. He suggested that it be noted in the approved conditions, with a side note for a finding that it is a part of the overall church site, not a separate pamel. The applicant was not present. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Stevens recommended that the comment on the 9 or I0 lot size should be clarified. Com. Harris requested an amendment to the resolution, Section 111, Approved Exhibits: "Lot 4" removed; add "except that the rear porch may be removed" and addition of: "This lot is uot to be separately parceled and is to be combined with the church parcel." MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 29-U-85(M) including the suggested amendment to the model resolution Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 11-Z-97, 8-EA-98 Amendment to R-I Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Scope of work for design guidelines for R-I Ordinance Continued from Planning Commission meeting of .lanuary 25, 1999 Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan explained that the status report was Pha~e Ill to determine il'there were individual neighborhoods which had special designs that warrant special design controls: and to address some generic issues about streetscape and the orientation of internal flag lots aud comcr Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 22. 1909 lots. He reported that staff had met with the Fairgrove neighbors who expressed inlcrcsl itl proceeding with special controls for their neighborhood. He said that staffattempted to notil'y Iht residents in the area of Bubb Road and Rainbow Drive, yet received a fairly Iow respousc I'rom a written survey. Staffwill continue with special outreach and if interest is shown, will schcdnlc a meeting with them also. Staff is requesting that the item be continued to March 22, 1999 and asked that the Planning Commission reaffirm the Phase Ill work, to determine if staff is ou track. He clarified the process that staffwill ask the residents in Cupertino to report if their neighborhood has some particular merit for being singled out for special protection in terms of architectural form, materials, and style. Com. Stevens said that the five statements in the staff report were correct, stating that they were looking for unique areas that the residents want to maintain, which wonld be up to thc people themselves; however, a three stage process existed. The first stage was the privacy issnc which was addressed. The second stage consisted of addressing the concern of the appearance o1' massive homes and how they fit into the existing neighborhoods. He expressed concern that il was not being addressed, and questioned where it would be covered. Com. Stevens reiterated that it was important that the proposed house fit within its surroundings. He referred to Iht advertisement materials for the homes built on the diocese property which state that there am different styles of homes within the neighborhood which result in a cohesive neighborhood. Mr. Cowan reported that the Planning Commission forwarded an ordinance to the City Conncil that was designed to reduce the mass and provide a more harmonious scale. The Conncil recommended starting at .35 FAR with the ability to file an ASA or exception application lo go beyond the .35 FAR, which would provide an opportunity not only to get involved in size, hot also design. If the Council follows through, there could be a threshold of .35 FAR, the two story houses would go before a review; below .35 FAR there is no additional review. He said that thc Council was interested in more design harmony, and that more time was needed to present additional material to the Council in support that .45 FAR was too high and that some ol' the design recommendations already endorsed aren't adequate. Presently, the Plauning Commission's recommendation to Council was really designed to control massing and not necessarily the design harmony. Com. Harris said that she understood the City Council passed the .35 FAR and design review, or that they were going to seriously look at it; approved a maximum 35% second floor with 65% first floor; approved the reduction in FAR for spaces in the house over 15 feet; reduced the l'ronl entrances down to 15 feet; and the side offsets. She pointed out that all would help to make thc houses fit in together, varying with the second story, which is different than allowing stucco in a neighborhood that previously had siding, which has not been dealt with. Mr. Cowan said that it would be dealt with in the present phase. She also suggested discussing what items should bc addressed on March 22nd. Mr. Cowan explained that the purpose of the neighborhood meetings was to bring back some recommendations from the residents to the Planning Commission, build consensus Ibr the approach, and if there is a pallette of styles, the architectural advisor would develop guidelines that would be brought to the Planning Commission and Council. He said the concept was to zone it to an R1-E for Eichler, which would result in an overlay zone on that property. Planning Commission Minutes , 6 February 22, 19q9 Com. Harris said that she requested a tour to see the Eichler neighborhood and the l'olyncsian Ranch homes before making decisions, and requested staff to set a time to tour the different neighborhoods before March 22nd. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Gordon Frolich, resident of the Polynesian Ranch neighborhood, said that he was opposed tn the proposed ordinance in fear that the city would find a way to put restrictions on the owners that they feel they do not need and want. He said when he served on the ASAC committee, thc main issue was the sign ordinance, and amongst ASAC, the Planning Commission and the City Council etc., they managed to "burn down the barn to roast the pig" and he feared that happening. I le said that of the 94 homes in the Polynesian Ranch neighborhood, l0 to 12 have been modilied with a second story, and in his opinion, the vast majority have the architectural appeal of a two slory army barracks. He noted that some of the houses were modified before the city enacted Ihu ordinance for second floor setbacks. He said that he felt only 2 of the modified homes were architecturally pleasing. Mr. Frolieh said that the biggest roadblock in preservation of architecture is the roof lines, which are the big roof overhangs. He pointed out that heavy shake or cedar shake roofs are no longer permitted; therefore the houses that have been re-rnofed will appear different from the houses with the original roofs. He reported that the home values had increased by 20 times in the last 35 years, and presented original sales brnchurcs for the development for the commissioners to review. He said that only 20 homes remain with their original exterior appearance. Mr. Frnlich expressed his willingness to be the contact person the neighborhood in working with staff, and offered to take the Planning Commission on a tour of the neighborhood. Chair Doyle closed the public hearing. Relative to a citgwide design control, Com. Kwok said that he felt the Planning Commission should not micromanage the neighborhood; but let the residents decide what they want, il' thc compatibility is there. Com. Kwok said pride of ownership played an important part, and Iherc should be harmony within the neighborhood. He said he felt it was not the Planning Commission's responsibility to control and dictate what type of style as long as it is in conformance with the requirements. Com. Con' concurred with Com. Kwok, and said that compatibility within the neighborhood was important, since someone may wish to build a smaller house that doesn't fit into the surroundings of the neighborhood. As a result, someone would have to make the decision whether or not thc house is compatible with its surroundings. Com. Stevens clarified that the design control should be community-wide, but ncighborhood driven control. Later in the discussion, he said that he felt there would not be many problems with people wanting to change their home in one particular area, but potential problems occur when thc house is purchased for reconstruction and resale only, and the contractor will maximize thc honsc as cheaply as possible and sell it. When the purchaser is going to live in the home, they generally try to be compatible with the neighborhood because they have to live there. Com. Harris concurred, but said the decision maker is the individual investor, not the - neighborhood. She briefly reviewed Palo Alto's design standards. She said that il' the FAR Planning Commission Minutes 7 February22,1909 remained at 35%, she did not feel that citywide standards were necessary, and design review criteria for over 35% would be addressed. Chair Doyle said that it was setting a bad precedent to make sure that every neighboring honsc is a reflection of the surrounding neighbor, which is not how communities have evolved. He said it sends the message that people cannot build a house that would meet their own requirements and needs. He said there were exceptions, but he felt the idea of inflicting that on each house and every street in the community was not appropriate. Chair Doyle said that lie was opposed lo helping design the homes in detail, but felt the concept of the envelope, trying to minimize thc intrusion that the new homes put on the homes around them is important and is one to ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to enjoy their property. He summarized that 3 commissioners were supportive of the concept of design control being part of the proposal put forward. Com. Harris said that if it is 35%, it should be written broadly for that amount. She said that Cupertino had more heterogeneous neighborhoods than were defined in the survey, and she the problem was in the older areas since the newer areas tend to be homogeneous even though thc houses are different. Com. Corr said he was opposed to architectural review and trying to design every house. I lc said he concurred with Com. Stevens relative to what the envelope is. Mr. Cowan suggested forwarding a minute order to the Council if consensus could be reached. Relative to percentage FAR for design control, Com. Harris said that Council's plan o1' 35% or higher was appropriate; Corns. Corr and Kwok concurred. Com. Stevens said that he prelbrred sliding scale; however, was leaning toward a pementage. Chair Doyle said that lie preferred thc sliding scale, and suggested a minute order be forwarded to Council. Streetscape issue: Com. Harris said that she understood the streetscape issue would be addressed in Phase III, including what the city currently does and what they plan to do in the futura. She commented that the slides shown by the architect were of neighborhoods that had plenty of beautiful trees, and the neighbors did not complain about the houses because of the att~ct o1' the trees. She questioned if the 10% included the annexed areas as it seemed to be low. Mr. Cowan said that it was 10% of the total sidewalks in the community. Com. Harris suggested a stall' proposal on streetscape as a mitigation for large house developments in the redeveloped areas; mid questioned if it included the annexed areas and proposed annexed areas, and if monolithic, docs the city still have street tree easement rights, because she felt trees could be used for mitigation. She also recommended consistent trees by neighborhood. Mr. Cowen clarified that it was staff's intent to come back with a proposal to review the current streetscape program and come back with a proposal. Com. Stevens said he wanted to know what the actual Public Works' plan was. Com. Corr said he felt it did not matter what percentage was monolithic; and he did not fi:el that the trees should all be the same species. Planning Commission Minutes g February 22, 1999 Com. Kwok said he was not opposed to different trees, and would prefer not to have tile same trees in one neighborhood. He said he was supportive of the variety of 8 types o1' trees being presented. Mr. Cowan noted that it was important to have the same scale of trees planted in a neighborhood. He said there would be a master list for each neighborhood. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Harris forwarded a minute order stating that tile Planning Commission would support a threshold of 35% design guidelines; however, design review for above that, with no citywide architectural guidelines below that Com. Kwok Chair Doyle Passed 4- 1-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Application II-Z-97, 8-EA-97 1o the Mamh 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, at which time a further continuance date will be set for a tour of the neighborhoods Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 2-EA-99 Amendments to 19.56 (General Commercial) City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of amendments to the general commemial ordinance related to approval conditional uses by the Director of Community Development Tentative City Council hearing date: March 15, 1999 Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, explained that the two proposed changes were to remove the specialty food stores comprising more than 50% ora building or center to be a strictly permitted use, since staff feels there is no distinction between the kinds of uses for a specialty food store and others; and change three conditional uses approved by the Plmming Commission to conditional uses approved by the director. The three conditional uses are specialized schools, retail/service kiosks, and unenclosed display of merchandise tbr snuffler stores. Staff clarified the definitions of the three uses. A discussion ensued relative to tile present and past practices regarding the three uses, as outlined in the attached staff report. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Specialty foods: Com. Harris said she was supportive of the specialty foods; all others but Chair Doyle concurred. Later in the discussion, Com. Kwok said he was concerned with specialty food stores that may emit strong odors to the area. Chair Doyle said he was not supportive el' specialty foods because they tend to be high traffic generators, and traffic is the driver of most of the design development and other restrictions within the community. Planning Commission Minutes 9 February; 22, I()~)() Specialty schools: Com. Stevens said parking was his main concern, but it' parking was trader control he had no objections to vocational schools. Coms. Corr and Kwok concurred. Com. Harris said that originally they were restricted because the city didn't want to take tip sales lax generating spaces with non-sales tax generating spaces, and questioned if under the rules, thc Director could deny the specialty school because specialty schools already occupied 50% hi' the center, which was designated a retail center, and the city would not receive any sales tax rcvenuc from the schools. Mr. Cowan responded that the director could not deny the school, and clarified where that comes into play is the use of office space, where there is a 25% limitation on office space fur that reason, and the general retail character of the center is not broken up. Com. Harris suggested Ihat perhaps it should be stated somewhere that the director could deny it based on the fact, that once at 50%. il is part of the retail allocation, which is determined to be sales tax generated. Chair Doyle agreed with Com. Harris and said that there should be some level of control; there is a threshold that for retail or any building constructed in a commercial district over 6,000 sq. I'1., it has to go to the Planning Commission. Com. Harris said she felt the threshold should be one-hall' of the center, and anything in excess, should be reviewed; and the City Council would decide il' they want the retail centers to convert to specialized schools. She said she was supportive o1' 50%. Chair Doyle said he would support the 50% rule (floor space) for retail centers. Relative to retail services, kiosks, Com. Harris said she was supportive if they were landscaped. Com. Corr concurred; Com. Stevens said he was supportive with that provision. Chair Doyle said he was opposed to the drive-through kiosks because of the traffic issue. He said he I'elt it was moving in the wrong direction, that it was stated in the General Plan that they did not want those in the city, and do not want to be a car oriented business community, but a retail center, and this application changes the entire perspective. Com. Harris said that she felt it was a safety issue, stating that she would prefer to drive through at night rather than get out of her ear; and that it also revives the center to have more traffic broughl to it. She pointed out that kiosks bring people to the center for a short amount of time, and Ibr a long period of time because of unreasonable restrictions, no one could use the centers because ol' the high parking restrictions. Chair Doyle said it was a balancing act, that it brought more people to the center, which was important, however, only bringing them for ten seconds to buy something ['or 50 cents compounded the traffic problem and the centers that would probably have these types of activities are the ones with the highest traffic loads; hence it is sending the wrong message not to worry about the traffic. He said if it was a safety issue, it could be reviewed to address the areas that needed additional lighting; but in his opinion if the object was to let a person drive through instead of getting out of their car, he was opposed to it. Com. Harris said that could be one interpretation of the message, but another is that they waist more activity in the center, it doesn't increase the parking load in the center, and there are many safety issues involved. Displays of merchandise in front of stores for smaller retail centers: Com. Harris said she would like to maintain the control, probably two per year; and remove it from the list. Coms. Corr, Stevens, Kwok concurred. Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 22, 1999 Chair Doyle summarized that relative to specialty schools, when the schools occupy in excess of 50% of the retail center, it would require the director's review; with a note to City Council on thc sales tax implications. Retail and service kiosks: need to make sure there is a landscape requirement associated with those. Relative to Com. Kwok's concern about the possibility of odor problems from lbod being displayed outside, Com. Harris said she was willing to move forward and deal with the probleln as a nuisance if it surfaced MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 2-EA-99 as discussed Com. Corr Chair. Doyle Passed 4-1-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the amendmeuts to commemial ordinance as discussed Com. Kwok Chair Doyle Passed 4-1-0 19.56 general OLD BUSINESS 12. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 11-Z-98, 14-U-98, 31-EA-98 PMG Properties (Lake Biltmore) 10159 South Blaney Rezone an existing apartment complex from R-3 to P(RES); Use permit to re-landscape aud construct new garages and 24 new apartments. Report to City Council on the lake portion of a comprehensive landscape plan of an approved usc permit at an existing apartment complex. Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the item, which consists of the applicant's report regarding the lakes at the complex; the Planning Commission will review the report as well as minor changes to an already approved site plan. Existing lakes take up a significant portion of the complex, and the applicant originally requested permission to replace them with water fountains. Many of the complex residents objected to having the lakes removed, which has in part prompted the applicant to keep the lakes. However, two lakes will be shortened in order to accommodate two new buildings. In addition, a minor change was made to thc alrc:~dy approved site plan. Four new buildings which were originally proposed to be attached to already existing buildings will now be detached; the detaching will not impact additional trees. New landscaping is proposed between the existing and proposed buildings. Staffrecommends approval of retaining, but shortening two of the remaining lakes, plus approval of the detached buildings. A report will be forwarded to City Council March 1. Mr. Cowan briefly reported on the retention of the lakes and additional separation oi-'the buildings. He said that the City Council felt the lakes should be retained, but that the applicaut should work further with the residents. Planning Commission Minutes II February 22. 100o Mr. J. Moss, Pegasus Development Co., reported that the changes relative to the buildiug separation were fire code related, and for aesthetic reasons. He said by creating a4 hour llre wall separation between the single story units that were attached on the former plan to the cxisling buildings, the four hour fire wall would come up all the way up to the roofline and wonld not bc aesthetically pleasing. Also, with attached buildings, many of the windows would have had to be removed, and with the proposed separation of buildings, natural light will come into the bnildiug both on the first and second floors. Mr. Moss discussed the impact of the new units on the existing lakes, noting that there was an overlap between the new buildings and the existing lake in Ihose two locations. Discussion ensued regarding the width of the corridors between the two buildings and placcmenl of windows, wherein Mr. Moss and Mr. Cowan answered questions. Mr. Moss pointed out the areas where fencing was being proposed as a safety measure. He said that the updated landscape plan illustrated the proposed landscaping plan. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; no one was present who wished to speak. Com. Harris said that she was pleased about the decision to retain the lakes. She expressed concern regarding the 5 foot width of the corridor relative to safety issues. Mr. Cowan noted that there would be a requirement for safety lighting. Chair Doyle concurred with Com. Harris relative to the safety issue and said he would sopport secondary lighting. Com. Harris suggested that staff put it in the areas where there are m~rrow corridors on the site, with less than 10 feet of space. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Con' moved to approve the minute order on Application 14-U-98 with Iht addition of security lighting Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Harris suggested that the meeting minutes be included as part of the Consent Calendar for approval. She asked that staff review and prepare a staff report on the Chevron station at Stevens Creek and DeAnza Blvd., as there appeared to be an excess, of signs. She pointed out that canopy lights were extremely brash to the right of way, and that the canopy appeared to be highcr than what was approved by the Planning Commission. Com. Corr reported that he would attend the March 11 Housing Committee meeting. He also thanked staff for providing the Initial Study Source List. Mr. Cowan said that he and Chair Doyle would discuss the scheduling of a workshop for thc new Planning Commissioners at their next meeting.