Loading...
PC 01-12-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF ~ REGULAR MEETI/~G OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IIELD ON JANUARY 12, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Stevens, (Chairperson Harris arrived at 6:47 p.m.) Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Vera Gil, Planner II; Michele Bjurman, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney Approval of the minutes was tabled until later in the meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: · Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 25-U-96 and 37-EA-96 Deke Hunter Northeast Comer of DeAnza Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. Use Permit to demolish an abandoned service station and three retail or office buildings, and construct a 4-story, 113,200 sq. ft. retail/office building, with one level of underground parking. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COLrNCIL HEARING DATE: January 20, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to remove Application Nos. 25-U-96 and 37-EA-96 from the agenda. Com. Mahoney Chair Harris Passed 4-0-0 APPROVAL OF MI/WtJTES: Minutes of the December 8, 1997 regular meeting: Chair Harris noted the following corrections to the December 8 minutes: On last page in the Report of the Director of Community Development, "general plan" should read "housing element of their general plan. " Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 12, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the December 12 Planning Commission minutes as amended. Com. Austin Coms. Doyle and Stevens Passed 3-0-2 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No. Applicant: Location: 8-U-74 (Mod.) Cathay Bank 10480 S. DeAnza Blvd. Use Permit Modification of landscaping at an existing bank to remove and replace trees. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 1997 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for landscaping modifications to remove and replace trees at an existing bank. At the November 24, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, when the application was first presented, the Planning Commissioners recommended trimming the root system rather than removal of all nine trees, and if trimming was not a viable solution, replace the trees with an evergreen species. The arborist's recommendation was to replace the trees with 24" boxedpaper bark trees. Staff recommends approval of the application. A determination if reached by the Planning Commission will be considered the City's final decision unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Ian Geddes, arborist, explained that the 24" box tree was recommended as it was an industry standard, and the 36" box tree in that species was very expensive and not widely available. He said also that the restricted area in which to plant does not give the trees a good start as there would not be a lot of space for root development. In response to Com. Stevens' concern about the surface watering system for the trees, Mr. Geddes said that it is a recurring problem that would not likely occur with a different type of tree. He said that the life span of 25 years of a parking lot tree was reasonable. He said that widening the planting strip would not give sufficient remaining root to have a completely safe tree, and roots would still have to be cut. Mr. David Lee, Cathay Bank, said that he appreciated the need for the greenscape, but his concern was the ability to replace the trees with some trees that will quickly mature and provide a similar kind of greenscape that is there without negatively impacting the parking availability. He said if they were to widen the dirt space of the parking, it would have to encroach on his side of the property, and they are trying to accommodate the tree replacement so that it meets the needs of both the neighbors and the bank; recognizing that it is in fact in the east side of the structure. That Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 12, 1998 owner is going to be resurfacing her portion of the parking lot as a combination of this project so that her impacted macadam loss would be replaced at the same time. He said if they put in a larger greenspace there it would impact not only their parking lots but the neighboring parking lot and they did not have access to the entire strip of the greenspace. Part of the planting of the new trees would put in some root barriers so that it would propagate the roots further into the ground rather than more on the surface area to help mitigate from future parking lot issues. He said he would discuss the installation of a cement foot barrier with the neighbor. He said that a root barrier would be installed on both sides. Mr. Geddes said that root barrier installation has proven beneficial during plaming for new trees but not for mature trees once root cutting is done, and then put the barriers in. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding suitable replacement trees. Relative to the reason for the choice of trees, Mr. Lee said that he was looking for a tree that was non-evasive, would not be litter prone and was open to a variety of 24 inch-sized trees. Mr. Geddes recommended Cork Oak as it was good rootwise, quick to establish, is evergreen and a relatively maintenance free tree. Com. Mahoney said that staff's recommendation of the 24 inch flax tree was appropriate. Com. Doyle said the larger tree, the better; he felt the flax was not an attractive species; and he preferred the cork oak tree. Com. Austin said she preferred a 36 inch box cork oak tree; and following Mr. Geddes' statement later in the meeting, said that the 24 inch box cork oak was suitable. Chair Harris said that you would then have to consider enlarging the area and it might change the parking ratio or the availability of parking. Mr. Lee said that the parking is based on a straight-in parking system, and if changed to a wider greenstrip, the entire parking lot would have to be redone, which would result in angled parking, which may impact the parking ratio for the entire area. Mr. Geddes explained that a 36 inch box tree weighs approximately 1300 lbs., and a 24 inch box tree about 500 to 600 lbs., and the smaller tree is generally better to establish. He said that he would recommend cork oak. Com. Stevens said that he was not opposed to the 24 inch box tree, but was concerned with the problem being revisited in about 10 years because of the parking lot on the other side. Cathay Bank has done very well and their damage is minimal because of cracks in the cement, but the other side is wide open, and if the other side is not protected, another person will come in with the same problem. He recommended that they look at it. He said he regretted that the trees would be removed all at once; and because he did not have knowledge about the tree, would accept the arborist's recommendation. Chair Harris said that she preferred showy flowers in the spring and favored the flax paperbark tree. She said she felt it was acceptable to expect to replant the parking lot trees every 25 years. She said her only concern was the shedding of the bark, but felt it was a tradeoff for the flowers. Mr. Geddes suggesting plaming a mixture of the flax paperbark and cork oak. Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 12, 1991] MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 8-U-74 according to the model resolution, specifying planting a mixture of 24 inch box flax paperbark and cork oak as per arborist's recommendation. Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: I I-ASA-97 Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects (McWhorters) 20558 Stevens Creek Blvd. Facade renovation in an existing shopping center (Crossroads). Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to renovate the facade of the former Service Merchandise store in the Crossroads Center, which is the new location of McWhorters Stationery. The facade changes and colors were outlined in the attached staff report. In order that the renovated store comply with the Heart of the City Specific Plan guidelines, the firm of Freedman, Tung & Bottomley recommended changes to the base articulation, entrance sign, entrance awning, surface-mounted lighting and conceptual future exterior elevations. Their recommendations were outlined in the staff report. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, distributed a material color board. Referring to the overhead site plan and elevation she discussed the proposed changes. Relative to the entrance awning suggested by Freedman, Tung & Bottomley, Ms. Wordell noted that the applicant chooses not to include an awning, and staff feels that the awning is not necessary because the entrance area does already overhang there which offers protection for customers, and it is also well set off. Mr. Henry Ruhnke, architect, thanked staff for their assistance on the project. He explained the reason for not including the entrance awning, stating it was a highlighted feature, and the pitched roof portion was a unique element in front of the building. He said if the awning was carried across the pitched roof would be lost that is created at the center of the building. Ms. Wordell noted that the sign program would have to be amended, a sign exception needed and would be presented separately. Mr. Tom .Smith, McWhorters Stationers, said that the store has been a viable part of the community since 1976 and he was excited about moving into larger quarters which would allow for expansion and to bring other products and services to the store and community. He said he was not concerned about the parking. Mr. Smith said he was not aware of any unresolved concerns about the building architecture. He requested Planning Commissiners' input on the exterior colors. He said that he did have concerns about the sign and would return with a sign exception as a separate application. Referring to the color board, Mr. Ruhnke discussed the proposed colors; the darker color (gray) being the base color, the center color would be the main body color; and noted that there was a tile band between the two colors. The top of the building would use the white trim; the cornice of the building white. In response to Com. Doyle's questions, Mr. Smith noted that Mail Boxes Etc. would be part of McWhorters, with a separate entrance. Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 12, 199g explained that the application was for architectural site control and the only issue was design, not use. He said that the uses were allowed in commercial zones as a matter of right. Ms. Wordell explained that a sign exception would have to be applied for to cover a separate Mail Boxes Etc. sign. As there were no others who wished to speak, Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Com. Austin said that she concurred with staff's recommendation for approval of the application. Com. Doyle said the colors were appropriate; but that he would prefer a more distinctive appearance for the Heart of the City; but would not oppose it. He said for consistency across the development, it should be part of the entire plan down to Starbucks. Com. Mahoney said it was a major step in the right direction and colors would tie in with others in the center. Com. Stevens said that he did not oppose it; however found it difficult to envision the future appearance and not just present McWhorters, and would therefore accept what was presented. He expressed concern about the side door between Starbucks and questioned whether it was for through traffic or a non- public entrance. Com. Stevens said that aside from his concerns, he concurred with staff's recommendation. Ms. Wordell said that the side door he questioned was a fire exit. In response to Com. Austin's concern about the proposed planters, the architect said they would work with staffon the recommendations. Com. Austin requested that a condition be included relative to staff approving the planters. Com. Doyle requested that the SheriWs department review the plans and address the safety issue of the corridor. Chair Harris said she felt the gabled roof was an improvement over the five gables which had an old fashioned appearance. She said she liked the outdoor seating, the awnings, and the colors were appropriate. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 11-ASA-97 per the model resolution with the addition of the planters and the security issue Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s) Applicant: Location: 12-U-97 and 37-EA-97 Monica Sun 10928 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use Permit to demolish an existing retail building and construct a 3,769 sq. ft. retail and 6,208 sq. ft. residential (4 units), mixed-use building, and an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to development requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 2, 1998 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 1997 Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish the existing retail building and construct a 3,769 sq. ft. retail and 6,208 sq. ft. residential (4 units) mixed-used building, and an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific plan related to development requirements. The parcel is located at the southwest comer of Bret Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. within Santa Clara County jurisdiction, which will require annexation into the city of Cupertino. Freedman, Tung & Bottomley has evaluated the project based on Heart of the City guidelines. The application, if approved, will require three significant changes to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, site area, setbacks and common private outdoor area. The video presentation Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 12, 1998 explained the modifications to the site area, building location (setbacks) and common/private outdoor area, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff has reviewed the project and supports the concept of a mixed-use project on the site; however, it will require Heart of the City Specific Plan modifications. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of the project design and asked for Planning Commission direction related to the architecture. Staff will work with the applicant on the architecture and return with the application at a future meeting. The application is recommended to be continued. Ms. Michele Bjurman, Planner II, summarized that the issues were whether a mixed-use project is appropriate at this site given the one acre limitation; deviation to the setbacks; building location, and architectural design. She said that the alternatives that the architect worked with were outlined in the staff report. Mr. Charles Chang, Archiforum, architect, explained that the development involves two standard merged lots facing Stevens Creek Blvd., with the building footprint almost identical to the existing building. He said that they studied the current uses of the neighborhood and the traffic pattern, and moved the building further from the backyard neighbor to create a quiet landscaping barrier; and also eliminated the existing side yardgoackyard vandal problems which exist. He pointed out that there were no windows directly facing the back neighbors, yet all living areas receive abundant sunlight. He said one important goal is to create a friendly relaxed atmosphere for retail and residential units. He said that it will be an attractive building to serve the neighborhood and enhance the city image, and that they felt the design accomplishes the best use of the property. Mr. Cowan said the primary objective was for the Planning Commission to decide if mixed use is valuable, is it a good option, where is the best site; how should the building be sited if it is to be a mixed use, and how it is treated? Do you treat it through an exception process or do you amend the plan to have more flexibility in terms of the design guidelines? Ms. Bjurman discussed the four alternative site layouts and answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Chang explained that the final scheme was started from the outside, designing the building in; and the character of the neighborhood was also carefully considered. He said that in order for the parking lot to be successful, for retail purposes it had to have front parking to attract customers. He added that the lot could be developed as a retail or office use which would enhance the quality of ground, traffic. He pointed out that the final scheme was the most appropriate one for the maximum result. Mr. Cowan said the issue from staff's point of view involved some tradeoffs; the final scheme would not be desirable if it was known that in the long term the adjoining property, which is part of the Heart of the City Plan is going m always remain single family, because there are some high wall plains next to the single family, and perhaps the middle of the lot building scheme seemed to work best from that point o~view. He said the retail patrons park both in front and back and that option is not aesthetically pleasing; the real issue is how you treat the property to the south. Mr. Cowan pointed out that if this project goes into two lot depth, it would likely be single family or an apartment in the future and that is the dilemma for this fragmented pattern of development seen along that section of Stevens Creek Blvd. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 12, 1998 Mr. Alvin De Ridder, 19146 Anne Lane, Cupertino, said that the existing building is shabby; the original building was two fiat topped homes; a two bedroom, l bath, single garage; and the other 3 bedroom, one bath with a single garage. Someone took the two properties, filled in the space between the houses and made some retail establishment out of it, which totals about 3,300 sq. ft. for the existing building. He said the proposed plan would increase the footprint of the building on the lot, which is about 2/5 of an acre, which is well below the one acre minimum. He said that in order to accommodate the 10,000 sq. ft. building, it would have to be a three story building which is not appropriate for the neighborhood. He said he did not feel Cupertino was ready for a development similar to the Food Villa one, which had two story residential atop commercial. Mr. DeRidder asked if the proposal met the requirements of the Americans for Disability Act which requires elevator service for the handicapped in a two story building. He expressed concem about the parking requirements for residential and commercial. He said there were a lot of issues to address and stressed the density issue, trying to cram a lot into a small piece of property that doesn't fit with the Cupertino neighborhood, and looks like we are trying to copy something from a foreign country. He said he was opposed to it and felt if more neighbors were aware of it, they would be opposed to it also. Ms. Bjurman pointed out that the proposed building height to the top of the entrance tower was 34 feet; to the top of the physical roofline 28 feet. Relative to the ADA requirements, Mr. Chang said that the project had 4 units and was below the elevator requirement. He said that if it was required for one unit, he would comply. Ms. Azi Pillow, owner of Alterations Express, resident of 10010 Bret Av., spoke in favor of the proposed project; said that the present building is ugly and that the youth congregate in the back comer of the building and smoke, break windows; and create a very unsafe atmosphere at night. She said that particular part of Cupertino is ugly and something needs to be done. She said the proposal was a good idea, and would improve the site and neighborhood and she was in favor of it. Mr. C. T. Cheng, property owner of 10038 and 10052 Judy Avenue, said he was in favor of the project, as the present site was an eyesore. He said that the area was deserving of the development and the proposal would beautify the area. He said that he was considering developing his properties to provide more high density residential units for the residents of Cupertino. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris summarized the issues: whether or not to allow mixed-use at this site; feeling about the building location considering the 4 alternatives. The architecture can be discussed later if the project is approved. Com. Doyle said that relative to the mixed-use and the lower density areas, the heights of the buildings have to be scaled pack or there are some very serious cutbacks in the setbacks, which creates problems with adjoining properties; and exceptions have to be made to the Heart of the City Plan. He said he felt that a building of this height should not be allowed for mixed use on less than a one acre parcel; if a lower building was considered, potentially it could be done on less than one acre. Building location is a function of the setbacks and the heights, and if the options can be worked out that it is not too high, too close to a side or to a comer of a property and still get the Stevens Creek Blvd. setbacks, he said it would be an appropriate use. He said that the Stevens Creek Plan was the plan for the entire Heart of the City with all these requirements on it and was Planning Commission Minutes S January i2, 1998 studied in great detail, and should stay in action. He said on specific sites you are going to have different issues and this one doesn't play well with the Heart of the City as is currently configured. Com. Doyle said he felt the need to stay with the Heart of the City requirements and see what kind of proposal you can put on this site vs. seeing what the use wants, then trying to package the Heart of the City to match it. Com. Austin said that she felt the mixed use issue was appropriate; it was in the General Plan and she was in favor of it. She said she felt there could be an exception since this is a PD and it is a good idea, and she was in favor of amending the plan for this specific exception. She said there was adequate parking; Plan 4 with the housing in the back and the housing park on the site and most of it in the front was a good alternative. Com. Austin said she would like to see all recommendations made by Freedman, Tung & Bottomley instituted and the architect work with the consultant and staff. She said if they addressed the architectural issues, she was in favor of the mixed use and building location as is. Com. Mahoney said that conceptually he was in favor of mixed used; however, he said he felt it would not work in this case. The bottom line is that mixed-use by definition is going to give a 3 story building and in this case it is going to be small. He said he was not happy with the previous mixed use that was approved and its end result. He said he was not certain if it would be successful; and expressed concern about cramming all the units into one small space; having only 4 parking spaces, and once the action is taken, locking it in for the site forever. He said he was leaning away from mixed-use. Com. Stevens said he was in favor of the mixed-use concept, especially ~vith residential behind and commercial in front. He said that although he agreed with the concept, the scale is too large for the lot. He said he had a major concern with the parking allowance of 2 cars per unit, and half the parking being out in front. People will park in the street, not in the from which will create a problem. Also there is a statement that there will be a 10 foot fence behind the residential and for this particular property; the fence will block any sun from the back yards 3 months of the year because the fence is on the south side. He questioned how it became a 10 foot fence. He concluded that the project was too ambitious for the site size. Chair Harris said that the mixed-use project is an improvement for that section of town; the 91 foot setback from Stevens Creek Blvd. was appropriate, and if correct she could approve the 3rd story. She.expressed concern that there is not enough parking for residential units which needs to be in the back, not in front. She said that she did not like the 2nd or 3rd story outdoor patio areas, and if it was necessary to sacrifice hallway or bedroom size, interior amenities are important. She noted that it was an urban type unit and would rather see the outdoor common area enlarged. She said that in order to provide that parking and that additional common area, there has to be a smaller building footprint. Chair Harris said she would approve the mixed use; make the exception; and would like to see an exception process parcel by parcel. She said that she was not in favor of having the item guide the whole future use of the Stevens Creek plan and turn it all into guidelines. Relative to the design, she said that the consultant is familiar with Cupertino's rules and she felt many of the items they recommended are critical. Chair Harris summarized that there were three commissioners in favor of the mixed-use and three in favor of the location, Com. Stevens and she felt the location was appropriate but mass too great. Residential parking should be separated and increased. She suggested a continuance of the item as Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 12, 1998 there were enough people who approved the concept and enough have approved the site. There was a lengthy discussion regarding Schemes 3 and 4, relative to which scheme was the most appropriate for the proposed project. Mr. Cowan said that on the procedure for review, the change to the Heart of the City Plan, there were three options discussed: (a) change the actual standards contained within the Heart of the City Plan for the proposed plan and all future applications; (b) creating an exception process; (c) change the standards to guidelines. Com. Doyle said that he was in favor of option (a); Com. Mahoney option (c); Com. Stevens option (b); Chair Harris and Com. Austin option (b). MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Application Nos. 12-U-97 and 37-EA-97 to February 9, 1997 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Chair Harris declared a recess from 8:50 p.m. to 9:07 p.m. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 13-U-97 and 38-EA-97 Sunny View Lutheran Home 22445 Cupertino Road Use Permit to construct 24,355 sq. ft. of additional living units and support services, as well as remodeling of an existing assisted living facility. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Com. Doyle excused himself from discussion of the item as he resides within 300 feet of the proposed project. Staff presemation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct 25,936 sq. ft. of additional living units, below grade parking and support services for Sunny View Lutheran Home. The additional units will include a wing of 33 additional units of assisting living and a new dining/activity room. The expansion plans were originally outlined for the Planning Commission in 1997. The application also includes a request to remodel the assisted living facility located at the front entrance. Five trees and some turf landscape mounds will need to be removed in order to construct the new addition. Staff recommends approval of the project, and a determination, if made will be considered the final decision and not forwarded to City Council unless appealed. Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, explained corrections to the staff report. She noted that the total square footage should read 25,936 sq. ft. which included the sunroom and the second floor addition to Building 7 square footage. She noted that the FAR and lot coverage was not mentioned in the summary portion of the report and the FAR should read 50% and lot coverage for the parcel 30%. She said that the 30% was maximum, as there were carports included in the total square footage. Referring to Page 5-8 of the staff report, Ms. Gil explained that the building coverage should read 30%. Discussion continued regarding incorrect figures in the project description, wherein Ms. Gil Planning Commission Minutes I0 January 12, 1998 indicated that the corrected numbers and calculations would be reflected on the corrected document and a copy available with the next meeting packet. Ms. Gil discussed the visual impact to the residents for the two four-plexes and noted that there is a condition of approval to plant five new trees to screen the second story addition. Mr. Ron Zielske, President and CEO of Sunny View Lutheran Home, said that the addition allows the home to further service the needs of the community in terms of those who need assisted living level. He explained that the remodeling and addition would allow the assisted living to be in one location and provide for a new secured Alzheimer's' specialty unit, as well as provide areas for offices, therapy, rehabilitation, and activity centers. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. J. Stoeckenius, 22386 Cupertino Road, said that he was not opposed to the project overall. He requested that during construction a condition be added that no construction material be stored overnight along Cupertino Road, and that the emergency entrance be used for construction access. He. also requested that the actvity hours in the physical therapy and exercise area be limited to 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday, so that there would not be any late night or early morning activity. Mr. Zielske answered questions relative to the location of the physical therapy areas, activity areas and dining room. He explained that the emergency exit off Foothill would be used for trucks, equipment and building supplies and the parking area could be used to store equipment. He said construction is scheduled to begin July 1 with completion of the new units by January 1 and completion of the rehab by Mamh. In response to staff's concern regarding outpatient therapy numbers, Mr. Zielske said that the maximum number of patients in therapy at one time would be 6 to 8. Mr. Cowan said that the primary purpose of the facility was for inpatient use, and asked for an estimate of the number of outpatients on a daily basis visiting the facility for therapy. Mr. Zielske said that at this early date he was unable to provide an estimate of the number of outpatients per da3'. Concern was expressed by a neighbor about the number of daily van trips that would occur to transfer outpatients back and forth from the facility. There was consensus that Condition 5 be added to specify that the intent of the remodeled therapy space is for Sunny View residents; however a maximum of 20 outpatients per day can be accommodated. Chair Hari2is closed the public hearing. Com. Mahoney said that a request for a condition for not storing the construction equipment on the sheet was appropriate; however, he did not feel a restriction on operating hours for the therapy rooms was necessary. Com. Stevens said that there were several other alternatives for equipment storage other than the street, and he felt the suggestion to build a parking lot in the back for storage was a reasonable one. He ,questioned why it was specified that it be the final addition to the facility. Chair Harris responded that the facility was already at a 50% coverage. Staff clarified their concern that the applicant may be considering another addition or using up some of their landscaping, which is considered an amenity for the residents. Ms. Wordell suggested that the language be added to indicate that the intent of the approval was toward no further expansion. Planning Commission Minutes l~ January 12, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to grant a negative declaration on Application 38-EA-97 Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve application I3-U-97 per the model resolution, as amended with inclusion of Condition 5, and Condition No. 6 relative to storage of construction equipment/materials. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 A public hearing to consider procedural changes to Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal code (zoning code) regarding the application of the Architectural Site Control process for various zoning districts. Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan explained that the City has used the ASA process for 25 years, the last 5 without the enabling legislation in the ordinance. When the general code was codified, the Architectural and Site Control Committee was eliminated as well as the enabling legislation for the process. He said that the ordinances are procedural in nature and are in support of environmental objectives. Mr. Cowan reported that as part of the ordinance, a mandatory ten day notice must be given to the people directly adjoining. Chair Harris recommended that a portion of the wording from the purpose (19.134.010) be made part of the findings on Page 6-6, as "(e) Proper attention to the design, shape, color, materials, landscaping, and other qualitative elements related to the design of developments, thereby creating a positive and memorable image of Cupertino." Later in the meeting, Com. Doyle suggested adding the word "landscaping" to the above sentence in both instances. Chair Harris also requested the word "or" be inserted after "redevelopment" on line 4 of 19.134.020. Relative to 19.134.040, Chair Harris requested that the thirty day time limit be changed to 60 days to agendize the application. Relative to 19.134.050, Chair Harris requested that the wording on line 4 in parentheses be changed to read: "(including the property across the street and the two abutting properties to that)." Relative to 19.134.080, Chair Harris suggested that the word "or" be used instead of "and" in line A (2) (b) and explained the reasons for the suggestion. Chair Harris suggested that Section 19.134.090, B, second last line, "bank" should read "land"; "continuous activity" should read "continuous construction;" Item C, third line, "one-year limit" should read "two-year limit ". MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved that the ordinances as amended, be forwarded to City Council Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS 7. Annual General Plan Review and review of 1998 Work Program - Traffic TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 20, 1998 CONTINUED FROM PLANNlNG COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes t2 January 12, 1998 Staff presentatiorl: Chair Harris commented that in the last year, 8 out of 15 sites have considerably more traffic and asked staff to clarify. Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, reviewed the 1996 and 1997 LOS data and answered Commissioners' questions. He noted that TRAFFIX and CAPSSI software were utilized to analyze the signalized intersections. Com. Doyle requested a followup report on what happened at Bollinger/DeAnza Blvd. and Wolfe/280 northbound ramp and Bollinger/Miller. Mr. Chong said that staff was working with CalTrans to modify the northbound ramp on Wolfe/280 to reduce the congestion. It was suggested that when the LOS reaches D+ or E, a review should be done and action taken. Com. Doyle requested a recap of the situations at the D+ intersections and what mitigations were possible at the next Planning Commission meeting. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COM1VIISSION: Chair Harris welcomed new Planning Commissioner Jerry Stevens and said she was looking forward to working with him. She complimented him on his leadership of the Historical Commission. Chair Harris reminded the Planning Commissioners to let Mr. Cowan know about conference attendance on March 5-7; and to respond about the February 6 Commissioners' dinner. Chair Harris reported that Ms. Wordell prepared a draft work program and if any items are misrepresented as to their category, please let Ms. Wordell know. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMM-IJNITY DEVELOPMENT: Reminder about the special Planning Commission on February 4 at 6 p.m. at the retreat center. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting on January 26, 1998 at 6:45 p.m. Approved as presented: January 26, 1998 Respectfully Submitted,