Loading...
PC 02-09-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 To~e Avenue Cupeaino, CA 95014 (408)777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF ~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 9, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Harris, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin. Com. Doyle arrived at 6:50 p.m.) Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Dana Allen, Planning Intern; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 26, 1998 regular meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the January 26, 1998 Planning Commission minutes as presented Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Lgcation: 12-U-97 and 37-EA-97 Monica Sun 19028 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 in the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to development requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 2, 1998 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 1998 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO MARCH 23, 1998 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 14-U-97 Ji-Mei-Chen 10580 John Way To construct a second story addition to an existing residence Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 9, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO MARCH 23, 1998 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 15-U-97 and 40-EA-97 Robert, Steven, Ronald & Marvin Jacob 19160 Stevens Creek Boulevard To construct an 11,137 sq. ft., 10 unit apartment building and demolish an existing single family residence including amendments to the Heart of the City Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 2, 1998 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO FEBRUARY 23, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve postponement of Items 4 and 5 to the March 23, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, and Item 6 to the February 23, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None Com. Doyle arrived.. CONSENT CALENDAR: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.. Applicant: Location: 15-U-96 (M) SNK Realty Group 19609 Pruneridge Avenue Director's referral of a minor modification to modify elevations of an apartment complex and recreation building. Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the overheads of the Building Type 1 Proposed Front Elevation and illustrated the changes, including modifying the upper balcony/patio area from open space patio area to solid living space; added entry features; decrease in patio size; and change of end patios to wall planes. Referring to Building Type 2, she reported that the changes were similar, but with different balconies at the top. She said that staff felt entry features were an improvement. Ms. Wordell said that in response to staff concerns about the front elevation, the applicant had made improvements. Mr. Stuart Gruendl, SNK Realty, illustrated the architectural renderings, and reported that since their application over two years ago, they had received in excess of 12 separate approvals relative to the application. He reported that the hotel condition had been released after dealing in good faith throughout the entire project, a result of putting $1 million in the hotel condition. He said that the Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 9, 1998 foundation footing was ready for pouring; and was hopeful of receiving building permits subject to the minor modification and approval Mr. Gruendl noted that the buildings were smaller and the units more sophisticated. He explained that the net overall change was averaging 4 sq. ft. per unit; approximately 800 sq. ft. reduction in overall size; resulting in some units slightly larger in overall living area, and the 2 bedroom units slightly smaller. Referring to the overhead of Building Type 1, he illustrated the modifications, including shifting the balcony to the short side and creating a living retreat area and an arch in the balcony. Com. Harris referred to areas on Building Type 1 and asked that, in response to staff concerns, had the applicant considered using some of the elements such as the coved look to the top of the windows, or a faux railing across the windows which would result in it not looking so solid and plain. Mr. Gruendl illustrated areas of modification relative to the railings and arch, which he said increased project costs, while creating some additional interests. He also illustrated where more windows were introduced which he said created multiple planes opposed to a flatter plane. Mr. Gruendl illustrated the areas where he felt staff's concerns were addressed in the elevation. Mr. Gruendl indicated that the artist's conception did not illustrate the scuppers. He explained that the drains had a scupper extending away from the face of the balcony. Com. Stevens expressed concern that water would still drain in a waterfall effect to the apartments below. Mr. Gruendl noted that they were enclosed balconies and stated that they would not take in much water. A brief discussion ensued regarding the clubhouse, wherein Chair Austin noted that the front elevation was the only one visible. Mr. Gruendl illustrated the elevation which was originally depicted on the approved use permit, and recalled that when the Planning Commission approved the interior floor plan for the clubhouse, it did not include an elevation because it was not required at the time. He said that the present elevation was a result of the prior approval and included more windows, several popouts, several different planes and flatter pitch. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one who wished to speak. There was consensus from all Planning Commissioners that the modifications to the apartment complex and recreation building were appropriate. MOTION: SECONI)i VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 15-Uo96 in accordance with the model resolution and drawings Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 15-TM-89 (M) Katy Wu 19985 Hall Court To remove a protected tree. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to remove three mature cedar trees from the back yard of 19985 Hall Court in order to install a cement patio. It was noted that in 1989 the three trees as well as a redwood tree situated along the back fence were documented by Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 9, 1998 the City of Cupertino as trees to be protected. A certified arborist now recommends retention of two of the three trees, and removal of the leaning cedar tree. The applicant believes that the cement from the proposed patio would damage the root system and that because of the angle of growth of the tree, the tree could potentially break in the future. The applicant also believes that the square wells surrounding each tree pose a danger to small children. Staff recommends removal of the leaning cedar tree and retention of the two cedar trees, and believes there are other options to building a cement patio, and eliminate potential harm to the trees and small children. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered f'mal and will not be forwarded to City Council, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Katy Wu, applicant, said that originally a drainage problem existed and the back yard had to be raised 3 feet above the original plane, which is the mason the retaining walls around the trees were necessary. She said that the roots of the trees would be damaged ifa cement patio was put in. She also noted that during the recent heavy rains, the tree wells flooded. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Stevens said that he felt an alternative should be looked at if the trees were protected to begin with, and he did not feel the trees should be removed as the situation was evident before. Com. Mahoney said he concurred with staff's recommendation that the one tree be removed and the two others be retained. He pointed out that a drain could be installed. He concluded that the retention of the trees was a part of the original tree protection and was a known condition. Com. Harris said that she felt either the staff recommendation or keeping all three threes was appropriate; and that the third tree provided the neighbors some protection. She suggested a raised deck with the three tree wells with rockery as an alternative. Com. Com. Doyle proposed to keep the redwood tree and the three other trees and consider another alternative for the cement patio. Com. Austin said she agreed with the majority that all three trees should be protected and other alternatives and the drainage problem should be addressed. She said she was not in favor of cutting any of the trees. MOTION: SECOND} VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to deny Application 15-TM-89 (M), based on the findings that the trees were previously protected and are still in healthy condition; and other alternative methods to enable the property owner to utilize the space effectively should be addressed Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Mr. Cowan said that the applicant had 14 calendar days to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. He noted that in the future if them is storm damage to one of the trees, and if the arborist judges that there has been storm damage to the trees, the option of tree removal can be utilized. Application No.: Applicant: Location: I-ASA-98 All West Property Services 19479 Rosemarie Place To add 90 square feet, remodel the facade, and renovate the landscaping at an existing apartment. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 9, 1998 Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the addition of 90 sq. ft. to the first and second story facade of the 4 unit apartment complex and to renovate the landscaping. It was noted that the applicant proposes to replace the front-facing exterior with horizontal wood siding and cobblestone veneer, and carports located at the back of the complex will be converted to individual garages. Landscaping improvements include front yard planting of a combination of trees, shrubs and groan&over. Applicant requests to remove two silk oak trees located in the front. Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes with the following conditions: that the applicant use the same colors used on the front of the building for the garage doors and remainder of the building; install new mailer receptacles consistent with postmaster policies; that the lawn area be reduced to 25% of the improvement area and that the groundcover be increased accordingly; and that the applicant's plan calling for removal of a street tree and repairing of the curb not be included with this particular application. Removing the street tree as well as curb repair does not qualify for this review of architectural and site modifications only. In response to Com. Harris' question about inclusion of Condition 5, Mr. Cowan clarified that it was to specify that the plans state one thing and it is important to make sure that the owner understands that the street trees are not part of the application. The city, not private property owners, will deal with the situation. Com. Harris requested that Condition 4, wording be changed to "acceptable to staff and the Postmaster." Relative to the concern that the residents use the garages for storage only, Mr. Cowan said that because of the deficiency of parking; a roll up door may be required, but no other conditions about garage usage exist; however, an ordinance does exist requiting garages. He said that it would be difficult to monitor garage use, and he felt it would be an incentive to keep the garage clear because of the street parking deficiency. Com. Harris requested that "to be approved by staff" be added to the end of sentence 1 of Condition 2, Landscape Review. Mr. Hal Blevans, landscape architect, clarified that the silk oak trees were not of the oak family, and were good for initial screening, but once they were a certain size and other trees were in front, the silk tre. es are usually removed. He said that their roots are very aggressive and at the surface. He reported that the current owner purchased the property within the last four months and Mr. Blevans said that he recommended the sidewalks be replaced as they were buckled. He added that the silk oak trees are a hazard uplifting the concrete as it had already been replaced l-l/2 years ago, and they were also out of the scale with the building. Com. Stevens distributed photos of the silk oak trees. Relative to the staff recommendations, Mr. Blevans said that he could meet the xeriscape conditions; however, he would like to have more concrete patio in front which is more of a landing place for the entrance to the homes, and reduce the sod in that matter. He said that he did not concur with smfftheory that the turf had to be only of the softscape area. Mr. Cowan clarified that relative to the water budget, there was an ordinance still in effect written during the drought period; and if the applicant could maintain the water budget with more tuff area, it would be acceptable; however the requirement has been to attempt to cut back the amount of turf. He noted that even with the heavy rains, it was still a good concept to conserve water. Com. Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 9, 1998 Harris clarified her understanding was that with the reduction of the 25% of the improvement area and expansion of groundcover; in the end there would be the same amount of soft space; more concrete was not being added. In response to Com. Stevens comment about the dreadful condition of the back driveway, Mr. Blevans said that they planned on adding more gravel to the back driveway. Relative to lighting in the back area, Mr. Cowan said that there was no legal requirement for a landlord to make sure there is adequate safety lighting for the tenants, and there were not standards per se in the zoning code to address the issue. He said if it was a building code issue, it would be addressed at the building code level. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved approval of Application 1-ASA-98 according to the model resolution with the 2 changes in Condition 2 and Condition 4. Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 8-U-95 Byers Properties/Whole Food Market 20830 Stevens Creek Blvd. To construct a 552. sq. ft. addition for a baler room and an entry at an existing food market. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to add a 552 sq. ft. baler room, an entry enclosure, and windscreen at the exit doors, as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application. A brief discussion ensued regarding the proposed changes, wherein Ms. Wordell answered Commissioners' questions. The applicant was not present. There was no one present who wished to speak relative to the item. MOTION; SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 8-U-95(M) Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 11-U-93 (M) (41-EA-97) Linda Evans Fitness Center 21271 Stevens Creek Blvd. To expand an existing fitness center by 3,600 sq. fl. into an existing shopping center (The Oaks). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentatioll: The video presentation reviewed the application to expand the existing fitness center by 3,600 sq. ft., as outlined in the attached staff report. The expansion will accommodate larger locker facilities, changing rooms, larger child care room, additional exemise equipment and Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 9, 1998 a larger aerobics floor. Staff feels there will be a sufficient number of parking spaces available after the expansion. According to a parking analysis, a deficit of 24 parking spaces will result if the fitness center's peak demand for spaces is added to that of the shopping center's peak demand. However, it should be noted that the calculation is based on a worst-case scenario. Additional parking space demand in reality falls well below the parking supply now available. Other than the parking issue, one other planning related issue exists, namely the conversion of the once retail tenant spaces at the Oaks Shopping Center over to a fitness center use which is non-retail. Staff does not believe this is a significant change and adds that patrons of the fitness center might be inclined to visit other shops as well as utilize service within the Oaks. Staff recommends approval of this application, and approval or denial from the Planning Commission will be regarded as final, and will not be forwarded to the City Council, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Robert Lyman, architect, said that the peak usage time is between 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Thursday, whereas the peak for the entire enter is Fridays at about 8 p.m., which is not a peak day for the fitness center. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Austin summarized issues as 24 space parking deficit and conversion from retail to non- retail. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Ms. Wordell explained that the calculation was on a shared parking basis, and not strictly by square footage. She said it was based on the previous parking study which was demand study. A brief discussion followed regarding the parking issue. Com. Doyle expressed concern with the primary issue of parking, noting that the number of restaurants and other uses in the center were restricted because of the parking issue. He pointed out that when it returns next, it should be addressed either as a DeAnza Boulevard parking issue or some other way to assure parking spaces, because of the deficit in the present model. Mr. Cowan stated that staffwas concerned about converting too much retail to office. He said that the owner is permitted to use 25% of the total floor area as a matter of right. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Negative Declaration on Application 41-EA-97 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 11-U-93(M) according to the model resolution Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 9. Appointment of Planning Commissions to the Cupertino Housing Committee There was a brief discussion about the makeup of the committee and the frequency of meetings. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to reappoint Com. Mahoney to serve on the Housing Committee Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 9, 1998 NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Stevens discussed a recent newspaper photo which illustrated the flood status in the Cupertino area, and pointed out that the area from DeAnza Boulevard to Calabazas Creek was a floodplain with a 20 foot difference between DeAnza Boulevard and Calabazas Creek, and that the water was flowing to the creek, not from the creek. Com. Doyle reported that during the recent rains, there was so much rain in the area of Stevens Canyon Road out to East Palm that the manhole covers blew off and the entire area was flooded. He added that as a result of the increased development over a period of time, the runoff increased, and questioned if there was a plan or requirement to increase the capacity in those areas. Com. Doyle pointed out that just 5 minutes more rain in that area, would have necessitated evacuation of part of the Sunnyview place as the water pools in that area, and the area had to be sandbagged. Mr. Cowan said that it relates, to the storm system and how it is designed for a ten year storm and the creeks themselves are designed for a 100-year event. He suggested that a one hour workshop be scheduled before a future Planning Commission meeting to discuss the topic with Mr. Viskovich. Com. Harris discussed the action taken at the January 12 meeting relative to changes to the municipal code applicable to the architectural and site approval process, and questioned if it was significantly changing the public's ability to react to new issues in their areas. Mr. Cowan responded that there was no requirement in the architectural site application to notify people, but staff was, as a courtesy, notifying people that they felt might be detrimentally affected by an application. He said that the City Attorney felt the practice of notifying the public should be formalized and is recommending that the adjoining residents be notified as well. He said that the concept of the architectural site control or other types of applications would be to attempt to assess the relative importance of that application, addressing if it affects a broad area of the community or just the adjoining properties that are most likely affected. Mr. Cowan noted that staffwill respond to questions about the formation of the architectural site committee at the February 23 meeting. Com. Harris concluded that she did not want to limit the public's ability to respond. REPORT OF ~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNIIY DEVELOPMENT: Relative to Item 3 on the report of the Director of Community Development, Mr. Cowan clarified that there was an environmental group that championed the cause and was trying to get support. City Council merely commented that it was a good idea. Com. Harris commended staff for their work on the annexation process. There was a brief discussion regarding the possible Rancho Rinconada annexation, wherein Mr. Cowan answered questions and reported that he had met with the steering committee. He also reported that the area had experienced flooding from the recent heavy rains. Com. Stevens commented that he felt the group was knowledgeable of the area and suggested that staff meet with them to exchange ideas. Mr. Cowan said that he was not comfortable recommending R1-5, and noted the issue would be brought to the February 23 meeting.