Loading...
PC 04-12-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 12, 1999 SALUTE TO TI-IE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Kwok, Stevens; Chairperson Doyle Commissioners absent: Harris Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner Il; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the March 22, 1999 regular Planning Commission meeting, and the March 29, 1999 Special Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve the minutes of the March 8, 1999 regular Planning Commission meeting and the March 29, 1999 special Planning Commission meeting as presented Com. Kwok Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 VVRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: There were no written communications noted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 32-ASA-98 Keith Royster Architects (Woodworks 875 Stevens Creek Boulevard Architectural review of a proposed remodel ofa fagade for an existing commercial building. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 1999 Continued from meeting of March 22, 1999 Request removal from calendar Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 13-U-98, 29-EA-98 Hamid Abtahi 10121 Foothill Blvd. Planning Commission Minutes April 12, It)qq Use 13ermit to convert the auto repair portion ora service station to a convenience store. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from December 14, 1998 Request removal from calendar Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 16-U-98,43-EA-98 Adzich Properties 10216 Pasadena Use permit to demolish an existing house and construct four single-f'amily (approximately) 2,220 to 2,500 square feet) on a 12,480 square foot (net) lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 1999 residences Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 3-U-99, 6-EA-99 Integrated Operations (Happy Days Child Development Center) 10115 Saich Way Use Permit to demolish a car wash facility and construct a 6,434 sq. ft. day care center. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to meeting of April 26, 1999 10. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 4-U-99, 7-EA-99 Roman Catholic Bishop/Gate of Heaven Cemetery 22555 Cristo Rey Drive Use Permit to construct a new mausoleum consisting of 942 crypts Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of ~tpri126, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to continue Items 5, 9, 10 and 14 to the April 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting and remove Items 2 and 4 from the calendar Com. Corr Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 3-ASA-99 Armadillo Willy's (John Berwald) 10100 DeAnza Blvd. Architectural and site approval for exterior color changes and minor architectural and site modifications for a restaurant model. Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for architectural and site approval for exterior color changes, new awning, new entry fixtures, new windows on the north elevation, and modified landscaping and sidewalk configuration. Staff recommends approval, except for the request to paint a portion of the building a dark brick color because of' the strong visual impact it would create by its location and already being out of character with the Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 12, 1999 surrounding City Center development. Staff also recommends that the applicant submit a precise landscaping plan showing all the landscaping that would meet Cupertino's Heart of' thc City design requirements for the area. A Planning Commission decision will be regarded as final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, distributed photos of other Armadillo Willy's sites, which illustrated their standard restaurant color. Relative to landscaping, she noted that the drawing ol~ the parking lot area was conceptual, and said staff was requesting a more detailed plan, as well tls landscaping and the sidewalk on DeAnza Boulevard. Ms. Wordell pointed out that thc landscaping should match the Heart of the City Plan, which includes a landscaping strip, sidewalk and more lawn, and at present it is a monolithic sidewalk. She said that although it is not a requirement because it is not new square footage and triggers those kinds of' improvements, staff felt it would be a welcome addition to that area of the City Center. Mr. Steven Paul, representing Armadillo Willy's, said that they had been negotiating with the property owner since May 1994, but did not enter into a lease agreement uatil October 1998. lie said they submitted plans to the city for a complete premises remodel including structural remodcl of the fagade of the building, but were discouraged because of the time it would take to approve such a major remodel. He agreed the current building was an eyesore. He noted tbat they obtained an interior permit, and are maintaining its use, not adding square footage. Mr. Paul reported that the four items proposed for change were the glass block because it is an outdated feature; addition of awnings to soften the structure; change the paint color and add exterior lighting fixtures. He noted that the trade color is a BBQ red, and indicated the other locations with the same color. He said he felt they could not honor staff's request to delay occupancy until tbey submitted a final landscape plan, because they were only three weeks away from opening the restaurant. He expressed willingness to work with staff, produce a bond, and fiaish the conceptual plans which were presented, but asked that there be no further delays, as the process should not have taken seven months. In response to Com. Stevens' question if there were any major objections to staWs proposed landscaping, Mr. Paul said that adhering to the Heart of the City landscaping plan would not be difficult if the entire application was approved; but said it presented a time lag. He noted that the only requirement under the conditions of approval were to bring back the landscaping that Sirens let die, which they would do if the application was not granted. He said that he felt it would help improve the building immensely and was willing to work with staff. Ms. Wordell said that staff could work with a bond; and noted that the condition requires approval, not installation, and was willing to work with the applicant in that area. She said that tile applicant was interested in tying the sidewalk and new turf area in with approval of tile trade brick color. Com. Stevens said that he was attempting to assist with the applicant's timeline. Mr. Paul clarified that the color of the building in question would match their other restaurants at different locations. He said that it would not be cost effective to repaint their other restaurants with a lighter shade, and would prefer to leave the building the color it presently is, if that was the feeling of the planning commissioners. Mr. Paul said that in order to accommodate staWs recommendation, the back 2/3 of the building would be painted a lighter color which was similar to the existing Cupertino City Center sites, and the front 1/3 would be the trade brick color. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 12, 1999 Com. Stevens expressed concern that the trade color would make tire building appear even smaller because of the size of the surrounding buildings; however, because it is air old building and thc entire building would not be the darker color, and over time the sun would change it slightly, he was not opposed to the color. He said that the new awning was more important than the color the building; the new entry light fixtures were suitable; and clear glass on the windows on thc noah elevation was more appropriate than the glass brick. He said that the additional landscaping would be desirable, however, could not be enforced because it was not a requirement. Com. Stevens said that he recommended approval of the application. Mr. Cowan clarified that the applicant offered to install the streetscape if' the trade color is approved. Com. Kwok, said that he was not opposed to the trade color as it was a traditional company trademark; the awning, sidewalk and landscaping were also suitable. Com. Corr said that he felt the trade color was appropriate, and commented that the building should be emphasized because of its location. He said the proposal for the landscaping was appropriate. Chair Doyle said that he felt the trade color was acceptable although darker than they would prel'er to have for the building; however, the building is situated by itself and needs to be successfl~l. I le said that in the past they have not forced companies to change the color schemes of their Iogos, therefore a precedent should not be set. Com. Doyle said that the landscaping plan was appropriate, and suggested that the resolution contain a timeline on the plan. Ms. Wordell suggested a $5,000 bond to assure that the plan is submitted, with a condition that installation be completed within three months after plan approval. The applicant agreed that thc bond and timeline was appropriate. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 3-ASA-99 with modifications to the model resolution, No. 2, indicating that the proposed color shall be as proposed by applicant; and No. 3, landscaping and sidewalk modifications, that the applicant will provide a $5,000 bond to ensure that a precise landscaping and sidewalk plan shall be submitted; and that the landscaping shall be completed within 3 months from staff approval Com. Kwok Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 10-EA-98 Residential Design Review Committee City of Cupertino Citywide Establishmen{~ of a residential design review committee and residential design guidelines Tentative City Council Hearing Date: April 19, 1999 Staff presentation: Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner 11, explained that the discussion wnuld include the creation of the residential design review committee and the proposed design guidelines that the committee would review. She reported that time was spent on Phase 2 of the modification to the single family residential ordinance to address the reduction of building bulk tbr new two stories in a single family residential zoning district RI which are those properties typically on the valley floor. The end result was that the City Council approved significant changes to the RI Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 19q9 zoning district and required discretionary review for all new two story additions or new homes in an RI zoning district that exceeds a 35% floor area ratio. Ms. Wordell discussed the composition of tile Residential Design Review Committee and its function as outlined in the staff report. She said that staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposed committee text provided, recommend approval for adoption to the City Council and consider nominating a committee member from the Planning Commission so that thc City Council can affirm that appointment when it considers the ordinance. She reported that the second item for discussion is the design guidelines, which would be the basis from 'which the ncw committee would be reviewing two story additions or new two story homes. The draft guidelines are outlined in the staff report. Staff is asking that they be reviewed and it' there are additional topics to be included in the outline; staff return at the next meeting with the completion ot' those guidelines, including graphics. Com. Stevens pointed out that Item 7 was related to Item 6, and stated that he felt tile order was reversed, but said they could be solved at once. He said there are guidelines within the guidelines submitted for what was being reviewed that are contingent on what was covered in tile next item. He expressed concern about the order, but said he was willing to discuss them together. Chair Doyle said he preferred to proceed with the first one, and not dwell on tile guidelines unless there are exceptions that need to be brought out. He said in the ordinance they were rather generic in their content, and in the R1, the intent is to be more specific in certain areas. He said they were addressing the concept relative to two specific areas. Com. Corr said it was his understanding the purpose for the new ordinance was to look at two story homes in the R1 area to see to which degree they fit within a neighborhood. However, looking at the powers and functions of the committee, it appeared that this group is the one that is going to give the approval for a two story home in an RI neighborhood. Ms. Bjurman said they had no discretionary review at all, unless they are requesting an exception to the RI zoning district, they are exempt. In response to Com. Kwok's question about the duration of the committee position, Mr. Cowan said that it would potentially be a duration of 2 years, although he preferred a 4 year term since it takes a considerable amount of time to learn and most cities have 4 year terms. He said that a2 year term was being suggested in the ordinance, and as the Planning Commissioners were directly affected, each may have a different concept of time commitment. Ms. Bjurman referred to a table illustrating the meeting schedule of tile various committees and discussed the meeting times. Discussion ensued regarding the composition of the Design Review Committee, and potential meeting times, wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Stevens referred to discussion on driveways, Page 6-16 of the staff report. He said that hc was more concerned about whether it was a three car garage in a single story established neighborhood, rather than how wide the driveway is. He said a ruling exists for ~ninimum parking for the residents and that there be two car garages and two spaces to park cars in the driveway or some place other than the street, excluding Monta Vista. He noted that the guidelines would preclude this and he did not support, them. He said he felt it was an outdated concept, and Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 12, 1999 suggested that that area either be removed or a three car garage concept be added. Referring to Item D - Eichler Neighborhood, Com. Stevens stated that if an area is identified, whetber it be Eichler or Fairgrove, the RI-1 groups when established should be considered as part of'the review process in that each one of them has a specific interest. He said it should also apply whether it is an architectural style or not, and should be included as one ordinance only. In response to Chair Doyle's request for staff feedback, Ms. Bjurman reported that in tile next phase, City Council approved a budget for consultant Mark Srebnik to conduct specific Eicblcr guidelines for the Eichler neighborhood, including specific rooflines, specific 'windows, and design styles. Com. Stevens said he did not feel a city hired architect to describe what an Eicbler should look like was an interesting concept; however, he felt the Fairgrove bomeowners, who were Eicblcr owners, had opinions that fit into their neighborhood and were likely more knowledgeable about the Eichler design than the city. Ms. Bjurman discussed staff's involvement with the Fairgrove neigbborhood and the Fairgrove subcommittee, which included a series of presentations between the two groups, neigbborbood surveys clearly defining the types and levels of controls the residents wanted, and an explanation of the zoning. He said the residents were essentially designing their own guidelines with Mr. Srebnik and were the leaders in this area. Com. Stevens recommended that Item D-Eichler be removed from the initial discussion, pending the next item for discussion, which is the Fairgrove, Eichler neighborhood. He said he felt there should not be a specific Eichler, but rather have a specific neighborhood involvement. Discussion continued relative to the Eichler designated neighborhood. There was consensus that Item D related to two story and should be removed from the guidelines to be administered independently. Relative to Page 6-24 of the staff report, Chair Doyle expressed concern that thc wording relative to hipped roofs was too specific. Mr. Mark Srebnik, consulting architect, explained that the guidelines were meant to be a first draft at the broad brush concepts for what the design guidelines might be and were in no way meant to be the final guidelines. He noted that the blank areas were merely to create placebolders lbr additional information or illustrations to be developed once direction of the guidelines is known. Relative to Com. Stevens' concern about driveways and garage design, he noted that thc guidelines addressed the general direction of garage placement, and said there was no intent to restrict per se where the garage could be located. Com. Stevens responded that it was not the placement of the garages, but the width and length of the driveway, and the design for a three car garage. Com. Kwok recommended that the blank areas be completed, and suggested tile use of tile btdlet format for information. Com. Corr commented that the guidelines contained verbiage that needed to be explained in common language, and expressed concern about promoting sameness rather than individual expression. He also suggested including a reference or issue in the particular text, so that the reader does not have to refer to another area or section when reading about an isstte. Later in the Planning Commission Minutes 'J April 12, 1909 discussion, he concurred with Mr. Cowan that a check sheet should be included for tbe committee and staff, using bulleted format for brevity. Mr. Srebnik explained that Section 2 included the concept that people are within aneighborhood context for an individual house, that their house fits within a larger picture, a comrntmity, or neighborhood. The site planning and streetscape issues deal with more definition of how a neighborhood is defined, or a street has its own character and then the actual architectnre itselF. He said once the neighborhood issues are addressed, it then has to be addressed how to fit one's own house in, creating a good design for Cupertino. Com. Kwok said that he felt the purpose of the guideline was to tell tbe applicauts what the community is looking for; rather than make a reference and have the reader look at the ordinance to find what it is. This would be a simplified version to the ordinance to state what they are looking for, stating the basic guidelines and if more specifics are needed, the ordinance would have to be researched. Mr. Srebnik concurred that it would be acceptable to make specific references, state the specific section. He noted that the intent was that to give a reference that there were other issues they would have to deal with and check out and put them on notice that it is only part of the picture. Referring to Com. Corr's comment about the terminology, he added that illustrations conld be used so that a person who doesn't know the different types of roofs, etc., would bare an arrow to the specific terms to familiarize themselves with the different elements Mr. Cowan clarified that over time, handouts would be produced that summarized the verbose documents and reduce the information to a single page containing the key ordinance requirements, to allow the interested party to walk away with a knowledge of the setbacks, tbe height, etc., all the basic fundamentals. He added that it was important to have a check sheet for the committee and staff. Chair Doyle summarized that in preparation for the next meeting, the content should be studied in more detail. Input has been given and it needs to be finalized at the next meeting. Mr. Cowau reported that the first week of June was the goal for beginning the process. Discussion relative to the committee nominations will take place at the next meeting because of Com. Harris' absence. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to forward a recommendation that City Council adopt the attached ordinance creating the Residential Design Review Committee; with January as the selection date for the permanent committee, and the first year to be a one year term due to the possibility of a conflict of term limitation; and that there be an alternate established Com. Corr Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 Com. Stevens recommended that the Planning Commission continue the Review and Design Guidelines as modified and commented on, with emphasis that there should be a purpose and scope stated in the beginning, rather than in each particular segment, all other details to be given in bullets or specific form; already heard comments on driveways and unless there are any other comments, proceed and come back. Staffwill return in two weeks with the amendments. Planning Commission Minutes s April 12, 1990 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z-97, 8-EA-98 Amendment to RI Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Single Family Residential ordinance regarding building mass, setbacks and height. Discussion of design guidelines for unique neighborhoods. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 1999 Staff presentation: Ms. Bjurman reported that staff was directed to conduct a citywide architectural survey to identify neighborhoods with unique architectural style; and out o1' that survey they identified the Fairgrove and Stoneson Development neighborhoods. The result was that the Planning Commission directed staff to do a citywide notice to get feedback l¥om thc large public about whether they felt they lived in neighborhoods that bad unique architectural styles not addressed in the survey. The three items will be reported on in the meeting. Staff fccls the responses received and the citywide design guidelines in combination with the discretionary review approved by City Council adequately address the concerns expressed. She noted that thc concerns expressed related to the mass of new two story buildings being constructed in their mostly single story neighborhood. Relative to the polynesian ranch neighborhood, staff included on previous meetings the letters received from that neighborhood which were similar to the citywide responses, and l'eel that no further action is necessary in those neighborhoods, primarily because of lack of interest from the residents in that neighborhood. Secondly, because the responses received also related to new two story buildings being massive, staff felt that the citywide guidelines addressed those issues along with the discretionary review. Ms. Bjurman said that a neighborhood meeting was held with the Eichler residents and staff also met on numerous occasions with the subcommittee and a budget has been allocated for Mr. Srebnik to conduct Eichler specific design guidelines. Com. Stevens complimented staffon the information, and said that after the tour, he lbnnd it to be very applicable. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public comment. Ms. Diana Piedmont, said that she wanted to speak on Item 8; however, her commeuts were also applicable to Item 7, such as the size of houses, setbacks. Chair Doyle said that her comments would be more applicable to Item 8 and would call upoll her during Item 8. There were no additional persons wishing to speak on Item 7. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved that the status report be accepted and staff proceed with their work Com. Corr Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 8. Application No.(s): 2-TM-99 Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999 Applicant: Location: Allen & Cindy Hsu 22360 Santa Paula Avenue Tentative map to subdivide a 30,060 (gross) square foot parcel into two lots of 14,280 sq. ft. each Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to subdivide an existing 30,060 sq. ft. parcel into two parcels. Plans also include demolition of the existing borne and shed located on the southeast portion of the parcel. Staff recommends approval of the application: the decision of the Planning Commission, if reached, wilI be considered final unless an appeal is filcd within 14 calendar days. Ms. Wordell noted that letters were received expressing concern about the size of houses. Sbt pointed out that subdivisions don't control houses other than planned developments, but since the city has just adopted the new ordinance relative to controlling residential development, some of the concerns about the larger homes and the photo distributed with the handout, the intent is to diminish those impacts in different ways. She reported that the other point in the letter related to sidewalks and the petition signers not wanting sidewalks in the area. Ms. Wordell noted tbat sidewalks are required and said that public works staffwould provide more background. Mr. Cowan said that the area involved was formerly subdivided in 1917 with a flag lot situation, therefore there were two lots on that property at one time. Ms. Wordell clarified that the new buildings would fall under the new RI requirements, unless the applicant applied for a building permit prior to June 3rd. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Diane Piedmont, said that it was her understanding that the new ordinance on house size bad not been approved. Chair Doyle clarified that the first three steps of the ordinance bad already been approved by the City Council and the details on architecture were presently being worked on. Ms. Wordel[ explained that if the applicant submitted tbe building permit by June 3rd, they would not be affected by anything except the window alignment and the privacy protection lbr landscaping. All the new second story offsets would not be in affect until June 3rd. Ms. Piedmont expressed concern about the possibility of a large home being constructed jnst 5 feet from her back fence if the application is approved. She expressed concern abont the size of the home at 10554 San Leandro Avenue, noting that the front of the house was raised 2 feet above her driveway and the back raised 3 to 5 feet above her back yard, towering over bet bonse. She said it also went to the maximum 5 feet setback on each side, with a sidewalk tbat stops 1-1/2 feet above her driveway. She said that her neighbor built a shed in bis backyard the size of the Monta Vista houses, built 5 feet off her side fence, and 5 feet off her back fence. She pointed out that further down the street, there was a huge house built 5 feet off her neighbor's fence, which towers over their backyard. She said that she spoke to 11 of her neigbbors and they were all upset about the size of the homes built in the neighborhood, and expressed their concerns about building two homes on the parcel. Ms. Piedmont said that she was opposed to the parcel being divided into two parcels, because it' anyone puts a house with the old regulations in that part of the lot, a monster house would appear behind her, 5 feet off her fence, matching the monster house in front of bet and tbey would Planning Commission Minutes April become like a small ant in New York City surrounded by skyscrapers. She said if approved to be divided into two, she wanted the new sizes, and moved forward because she did not want her back yard ruined like her front yard. She urged the Planning Commissioners to visit the house on 10554 San Leandro, which exemplifies what is tile worst of what is going on in tile neighborhood, and said that 11 other people feel the same way. Chair Doyle asked that the address be put in a future agenda packets. Chair Doyle said that many of the points she discussed were items they were trying to address in the ordinance, and what was being acted upon today was approving the splitting of the parcel and the timeline for them to get the rest of the approvals done through all the different organizations in the city. He said he was not sure if June 3rd was a realistic date for completioa of the entire proposal. Ms. Wordell clarified that the complete application must be submitted by the applicant by June 3rd to go under the old rules. Mr. Jim Chen, project engineer, said that after they submitted the drawing, they agreed to submit another plan, to follow the Planning Department's request, and had an amhitect who designed tile house footprint, with a 10 foot setback from lot 64. He indicated on the site plan where thc proposed house was located. In response to Chair Doyle's question about relation of elevation to adjoining properties, Mr. Chen said that the adjoining properties were higher, and noted there would be an 18 inch retaining wall on the back, next to lot 73. He said his proposal was to move the houses forward, and the two story home would be 10 feet from the fence. Relative to the sidewalk issue, he said that the owner would prefer no sidewalk, but that it was a city requirement, and they were illustrated on the tentative map. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Edward Hutchins, resident on Santa Paula, said he had a flag lot across tile street from the proposed house. He said he felt the sidewalks did not serve a useful purpose, and acted as a dike during the rains, noting that his driveway flooded because of a berm in front of his neighbor's property, which prevented the water from flowing down the street. He said he was not opposed to the large homes, especially in that particular area, because no two homes were alike, aud he felt it was the most organic neighborhood in Cupertino. He said he was not opposed to unusual, unique homes; as long as someone was willing to reside in them. Mr. Hutchins said there were no sidewalks or curbs on Santa Paula, primarily because the area was subdivided long ago, and an enormous number of the people owned large lots and could not afford the improvements each time the city came in with an improvement project. He said he felt the sidewalks, curbs and gutters detract from the character of the neighborhood. Chair Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, explained that curbs and gutters were required for drainage, and also for street sweeping and nonpoint source. Because of AB1600, the city caa no longer do deferred types of agreements and has to require it because of a subdivision or development. The policy on sidewalks is that they are put in on 'safe to school' routes, since this is a direct to Foothill with a fairly high volume of traffic and there are children from that area using the street to walk. She noted that the school district and city traffic department worked together to come up with areas where there are high volumes of traffic and a gathering of children out to major streets to get to schools. P~anning Commiss{on ~{nutes I I A~ri~ J l, lqO0 Chair Doyle summarized the issues as drainage, 18 inch retaining wall in rear of property, sidewalk issue, and curbs and gutters. Com. Stevens said that the application was for the subdivision of the lot into two lots in thc configuration shown. In reviewing the site map provided, there are 9 flag lots surrounding this particular property. Com. Stevens expressed concern that the shape of the lot should be considered in that it is being made 200 ft. deep and 76 ft. wide which precludes the statement tbat the house can be long and slender and extend into the privacy of the neighbor's flag lot behind. He said because there are so many flag lots, including across the street, he preferred that it be made into a flag lot so that any building would match the surrounding buildings. Com. Kwok said he was not opposed to the subdivision, and altbough lie doubted the sidewalk at first, since it is a safety issue, it should be included. He said curbs and gutters were fairly standard, and he supported the subdivision. Com. Corr questioned whether there was a prior discussion about creating more flag lots. Mr. Cowan said that there was a general policy not to encourage flag lots, except in areas where they already exist. Chair Doyle said the curbs and gutters were appropriate, he was not in favor of sidewalks; he supported Com. Stevens' idea about flag lot arrangement, because it does alleviate some ol' thc problems. Com. Stevens recommended a continuance to allow for an evaluation of the structure. He said he felt that dividing the lots was viable; however, he did not support the form. He noted that the applicant heard the comments, and he felt that if it were divided and two new hotels were recommended, there would be a problem with no way to back out. Chair Doyle said that lie concurred with Com. Stevens; however, since a 70 foot wide lot was being created in a non- typical neighborhood, most of the lots are fairly broad faced, and it would be more consistent to have the lots face the same way on Santa Paula. Com. Kwok suggested deferring a decision for another two weeks and questioned if it would delay the applicant's timely submission of the application, since there was a deadline date in order to meet the old requirements. Mr. Chen said that he did not object to the flag lot subdivision, and he felt lie could submit drawings in two weeks. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 2-TM-99 to the April 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 Items 11, 12 and 13 were considered together. 11. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 1-Z-99, 5-EA-99 Sophia Huang 20697 Garden Gate Drive Plannlng Commission Minutes ~?- April /2, Iqqq To prezone a .24 acre parcel to pre RI-i0 Tentative City Council hearing date May 3, 1999 12. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 2-Z-99, 8-EA-99 Lisa Lei Wang 20819 Green Leaf To prezone a .23 acre parcel to pre Ri-10 Tentative City Council hearing date May 3, 1999 13. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 3-Z-99, 9-EA-99 Hui Min Li 10627 No. Stelling To prezone a .22 acre parcel to pre RI-10 Tentative City Council hearing date May 3, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed Items 11, 12 and 13 which were three similar separate requests to prezone property located in the Santa Clara County pocket area known as Garden Gate over to the City of Cupertino. Staff recommends that the properties be prezoned to RI-10 or single family residential with a minimum square foot size of 10,000 square feet. All three property owners plan to annex their Garden Gate area properties into Cupertino, demolish the existing homes and build new single family homes. It was noted that the first parcel owned by Ms. Huang on Garden Gate Drive, also has new development in the area. Ms. Huang plans to build a 4,187 square foot home on the parcel. The second parcel owned by Ms. Wang on Green Leaf Drive, also has new development in the area. Ms. Wang plans to build a 4,500 square ~'oot home on the property in place of the existing home. The third parcel is owned by H. Li on No. Stelling Road, and the owner plans to construct a 4,300 square foot home in place of the existing home. Staff recommends approval of all three applications; a decision will be forwarded to the May 3 City Council meeting. Ms. Wordell reviewed the background of the previous City Council direction related to annexations, which was to address it as an area and bring it in similarly to Rancho Rinconada; however, the strong leadership shown in the Rancho area was n,ot apparent in the Garden Gate area. City Council has stated that individual parcels could be admitted as long as they were contiguous. She said that from past meetings and the map shown, there have been a uumber individual annexations. Some of the house size issues are still in people's minds, particularly related to the size ora house that someone is going to build. The houses would be under the RI ordinance and the deadline, and depending on the submittal, would fall either under the old or under the new R1 ordinance. The applicants were not present. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Vicky Cooper, Stelling Road, asked for a clarification on prezoning. Ms. Wordell clarified the term prezoning. She said that the prezoning was to RI-10, specifically single l'amily Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 12, 1999 residential, 10,000 square foot lot size; and when annexed, would be subject to the RI ordinance, making it a two step procedure. Mr. Cowan said that the new ordinance has changed and he has talked with the county about going back to the Board to get the ordinance tightened filrther to be more reflective of Cupertino's ordinance. Chair Doyle said that the building requirements within the City of Cupertino are somewhat more restrictive than the County generally applies; therefore there is probably more control over thc size of the houses built on those parcels in Cupertino than parcels located in the county. He said it was not universal, but a general rule; and there tends to be an advantage to being within the community. He said the Planning Commission would be prezoning these, and they would be under the RI requirements for Cupertino, which is an advantage or disadvantage of the process. Chair Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Stevens questioned why the approval was a piecemeal process, and noted that approving one house at a time would potentially stretch the process out for about five years. He added that he supported the project. Mr. Cowan agreed that it was a piecemeal process, and noted that it was not the desire of the City Council to create the swiss cheese affect that occurred in Monta Vista. He said that staff would work with the Garden Gate neighbors regarding annexation, and noted that a strong core belief was needed in the neighborhood in order for it to be successful. Mr. Cowan said it was important that the county ordinances be in sync with the city, and noted that the county was in favor of annexation. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve the negative declaration on Application 5-EA-99 and approval of Application 1-Z-99 Com. Corr Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve the negative declaration on Application 8-EA-99 and approval of Application 2-Z-99 Com. Corr Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve the negative declaration on Application 9-EA-99 and approval of Application 3-Z-99 Com. Corr Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Plannlng Commission Minutes 14 April 12, 1999 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Stevens reported on his recent attendance at a Santa Clara Valley Water District special board meeting to review the scope o~' advisory committee meetings. Com. Corr requested a copy of the list of agencies under the CVBG. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan reported that there was a welcoming celebration for the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood at the Sedgwick School on April 17. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. to the regular Plauning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on April 26, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as amended: April 26, 1999