Loading...
PC 09-27-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avemle Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TH E PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Doyle Commissioners absent: Harris Staff present: Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the September 13, 1999 regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None Com. Kwok moved to approve the minutes of September 13, 1999 Planniag Commission meeting gs presented Com. Stevens Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 7-EXC-99, 22-EA-99 Brian O'Grady 10645 Cordova Road (Lot C) Hillside Exception to construct a new 3,199 square foot residence on an existing lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting ora ugust 9. 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of October 11, 1999 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 8-EXC-99, 23-EA-99 Brian O'Grady 10645 Cordova Road (Lot A) Hillside Exception to construct a new 2,869 square foot residence on an existing lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of August 9. 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of October 11. 1999 Planniog Commission Minutes 2 Scl, tembcr 27. It)t)~) Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 9-EXC-99, 24-EA-99 Brian O'Grady 10645 Cordov.a Road (Lot B) Hillside Exception to construct a new 3,133 square foot residence on an existing lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of September 13. 1999 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to postpone Items 5, 6 and 7 to the October I I, 1999 Plaunil~g Commission meeting Com. Stevens Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 2. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 14-ASA-99 Whole Foods Market 20830 Stevens Creek Boulevard Architectural review to place a rnural on the north exterior wall of an existing Ibod market. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed MOTION: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 14-ASA-99 of the Consent Calendar SECOND: Com. Corr ABSENT: Com. Harris VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Item 3 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 8-U-99, 21-EA-99 HOK Architects 20330 Torre Avenue (for Symantec Corporation) Use Permit to construct a 1,750 sq. ft. addition (Learning Center) to an existing office building. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 13. 1999 The applicant clarified that the wording relating to non profit uses was included iu tim conditions. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was 110 one present who wished m speak MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: Com. Corr moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 12-EA-99 of the Consent Calendar Com. Stevens Com. Harris Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 27, 19~)9 VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr to approve Application 8-U-99 of the Consent Calendar Com. Stevens Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING 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 four single4hmily residcuces (approximately 2,220 to 2,500 square feet) on a 12,480 square i'bot (net) lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1999 Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reviewed tile application as o. otlincd in tile attacbed staffreport, noting that on August 9tb, tile item was continued to allow staff to work with the applicant on the redesign of the item. He reported on the recent site visits to tbeMonta Vista area and the Sunnyvale area. Staff recommends that the application be continued to a fnturc meeting to allow review of the changes for a decision to be rendered. Mr. Bob Schwenke, representing the applicant, answered qnestions relating to the iwoposcd. setbacks. Cbair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished Itl spc~lk. Tile outstanding issues were sammarized: (1) Wbat should tile fnture density of the area be: (2) What is tbe character of tbe neighborhood going to be (at least one manifestation is Ibc Monla Vista guidelines; (3) What are the community needs; what options are available Ibr childrcu to play; (4) FAR of the development vs. tbose around it (fourptexes, duet buildings); {5) Parking relationship; (6) Setbacks; (7) FAR; and (8) Whether to use existing zoning criteria as a model. Mr. Jtlng summarized staff discussions, which included tile appropriate density for area: Ibc appropriate look for tbe area; sbould the Monta Vista guidelines be extended to a larger area slill called Monta Vista; identification of public park areas and their location; setbacks in Iht neigbborhood; the FAR for tile neighborhood; parking requirements; and zoning criteria to bc used. Mr. Jung clarified that tile lot was located in an unincorporated area, and il' it was lo be redeveloped, it would need to be annexed. Com. Stevens said that he felt the density was appropriate, noting that Cupertino did not have anything in between a condo, apartment and single family type situation. He said Mouta Vista should be considered a model. He said that it was evident from the tour that when something is redeveloped and done in a continuous manner, it looks attractive and new: but without overall standards a variety of units, such as fourplexes and single family housiug would result in one area. Com. Stevens said that he felt it was Cupertino's obligation itl setting up a city, to consider building parks. He said that 15 foot setbacks were more appropriate than 20 feet because ot~ Ibc Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 27, high density; and tile FAR of tile neighborhood should be consistent. Relative to parking requirements, Com. Stevens said he felt 3, or 2 covered and one optional were appropriate I'or Ibc neighborhood, and would increase the borne values for the ueigbborhood. I lc said that ×oning criteria was between a condo and a duplex type concept. Com. Kwok expressed concern about setbacks because it would reflect tile character ol' thc neighborhood; said be was not too concerned about the deficiency of parks in tile neighborhood, because giving up the space would be reflected in the cost of the buildings. I lowcvcr, fin' lillurc larger developments, he said be would like parks included. He said he would pret'er parking iu the back rather than facing the front; more parking would be a plus but would again be rellected in the cost of the buildings. Relative to zoning criteria, Com. Kwok said R3 may not be tile most suitable way; and said that the Monta Vista guidelines were tile most appropriate Ibr the neighborhood. Com. Corr said he concurred with what was presented be[ore; identification o1' park areas was non existent; some yard space exists in the back yards of the attached buildings l'or small children Io play, but there was non existent play area in the detached buildings. He said he prel'erred thc garage fronts facing the inside rather than the street. Relative to the Monta Vista guidelines, he said perpetuating a pattern was favorable to having individual development hodge pcVdge. Chair Doyle said relative to appropriate density, they were looking at a transition J'rom the higher density at Stevens Creek to McClellan Road, which should probably lower density, lie said il should be understood what the Monta Vista plan says, and understand the adjoining properties tBr continuity and consistency. Chair Doyle suggested that Parks and Recreatiou addrcss thc identification of park areas, to provide an opinion or some options as to location ol'parks, lie sakt he felt the setbacks of the neighborbood should be similar to ones on tile more ctu'rc~lt developments of the last 10 years. Tile FAR should reflect that of the last few years, lie said Ihal he did not have a good reference on parking requirements; however, would prel'er higher onsilc parking. Chair Doyle said that the R3 zoning criteria appeared to be appropriate, however, some of the elements of the R1 should be considered relative to visual impact on tile ac[joining neighbors. Mr. Jung said staff ]lad attempted to apply an RI standard even though it was ou a much smaller lot. He said that yard space would be sacrificed for privacy landscaping, which is a traduoff Ihccd with smaller lot development. He pointed out that the architect attempted to design to the best of his ability to meet the RI standards. Mr. Schwenke referred to the Monta Vista design guidelines and pointed out tile sctbuck requirements adhered to. He noted that once staff has the opportunity to review tim stafl' report, there would be an opportunity to work together on a compromise to make tile prqjecl work. I lc pointed out the restrictions automatically placed by having tile garages iutemalizcd, aud thc additional guest parking. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 16-U-98 and 43-EA-98 to Ihe October 25, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0