Loading...
PC 02-23-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408)777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 SALUTETO THEFLAG ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Com. Stevens, Mahoney? Doyle. Chairwoman Austin (Com. Harris arrived at 6:50 p.m.) Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner: Michele Bjurman, Planner II; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Carmen L~vnaugh. Public Works; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 3/linutes of the February 9, 1998 regular meeting: Chair Austin requested that the minutes be corrected to reflect "Cha.3voman Austin" under roll call, in lieu of "Chairperson Harris". MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve the February 9, 1998 plarmmg Commission mmutes as amended Com. Stevens Com. Hams Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted correspondence fi.om A. Nambar and Mrs. Wetlesen relative to Item 5 and R. pasan relative to the Cupemno Courier article on recent Storms. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 15-U-97 and 40-EA-97 Robert, Steven, Ronald & Marvin Jakob 19160 Stevens Creek Boulevard To construct an 11,137 sq. t~., 10 unit apartment building and demolish an existing single family residence including amendments to the Heart of the City Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEB. 9, 1998 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO MARCH 23, 1998 TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: APRIL 20, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 23, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application No. 15-U-97 and 40-EA-97 to the March 23, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Doyle Com. Hams Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Location: I-EXC-98 Town Center Associates 10320-10430 So. DeAnza Boulevard Sign exception to allow a ground sign. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application lbr a sign exception to replace one of three ground signs at the Town Center complex with a larger sign to replace the existing one in that location. It was noted that if the request was merely a change of face, an exception would not be required; however, the proposed replacement sign is larger than the existing sign. Staff recommends demal of the application for the third sign replacement. Ms. Raelene Williams, Artsigns, representing the owners of Cupertino Town Center. said that the center was actually composed of 4 parcels, and functions as an enti ,ty together, but could function separately. She said that because of an interpretation of the word site, it was necessary to apply for the variance because the code entitles a site to only 2 ground signs, and that the interpretation necessitated a request for the replacement of that third ground sign with a new sign. She added that if interpreted differently, in that there are 4 different parcels, an exception would not be necessary because they were requesting their entitlement in the current code which is 2 ground signs per parcel. She asked that the Planning Commission look specifically at the site if interpreted as that, or the group of parcels according to the documentation. Ms. Williams pointed out that the site has 19 buildings, encompassing many businesses, being the largest multi-tenant property in Cupertino, fi'onting on 4 streets. She requested that the deteriorated sign be replaced with a sign containing the tenants' addresses. Ms. Williams then answered questions regarding the location of the signs, and said she felt a visibility problem existed within the site for the multi-tenants. Com. Stevens noted that all the buildings had signs hanging from the eaves and said the signage along the fi.om of DeAnza Boulevard was quite dense. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Michael Anmian. President, Centmy Medallion Corp.. Cupertino, expressed concern about the sign issues. He said the plans illustrated consisted of 13 acres, 150,000 sq. ft., 4 parcels, and noted that the annual taxes generated by the property were approximately $153,000. He said that the proposed sign was a monument sign on DeAnza Boulevartk and said that the Town Center is recognized as a major center of business in Cupertino. Mr. Amnian pointed out that there are many Planning Commission Minutes 3 February. 23. 1998 professional offices in the center, such as title companies, attorneys, and doctors. He recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed sign, which fits in with the criteria for Cupertino and does not override anything existing on DeAnza Boulevard. In response to Com. Hams' question. Ms. Wordell stated that there were currently no signs at the complex with addresses on the signs and said the proposed sign would provide them. Mr. Amman said that he was not opposed to reducing the sign by 3" to bring it into code. Ms. Susan Stanton, properly manager at Tom Center~ said that there were 9 enlxances to Town Center, and 4 different street addresses. She noted that the sign staff is recommending be removed is the sign most dominant in the center, namely Town Center Lane; and if it was removed, no one would know the street was Town Center Lane. She said that as the property manager, she was in daily contact with people looking for tenants that aren't there, but are located in Sunn.vvale Town Center; and there are constant complaints fiom the tenants asking when more signage will be put up, because their clients cannot locate them. She said they presently have to identify themselves in relation to Cathay Bank or Wells Fargo Bank; and feel by displa34ng the addresses, people will be able to readily locate their place of business. Mr. Charles Hansen, co-owner of Centmy Medallion Corp., added that on a daily basis, people come into his office looking for the Library, or doctors offices. He said that on a daily basis he is confionted with clients of other businesses trying to find offices because the buildings are not clearly identified with addresses. He concluded that the current proposed sign is needed for the address and pointed out that the present sign is inconspicuous. Ms. Lee Cieski, co-owner of Cupertino Town Center, said that the same signs fiom 1977 still exist, with no addresses. She said that currently no address signs exist and the clients rely mainly on word of mouth to locate offices. She said they worked hard on the proposed sign design to make it attractive. She requested that a favorable decision be reached. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. Ms. Wordell stated that the original use permit approval was one use pemUt for the enth-e complex. Com. Hams commended staWs enfomement of the sign ordinance: however, she said she disagreed in this particular instance, which is why the exception process exists. She said she was a firm believer in the sign ordinance but it was intended for more individual properties than this mega- property with at least three fiontages. She said there were three signs and by getting rid of the old tattered 1977 sign with a modem sign with addresses, which is a new requirement, she felt it was an enhancement. She added that the Town Center Lane sign was necessary, as a directional sign because it indicates Town Center Lane which is difficult to find, and has the addresses with businesses on it. She said for those reasons she felt it should be approved, with a 3 inch reduction to bring it in line with codes. Com. Mahoney said he preferred the proposed sign with addresses, but placed in a perpendicular position; remove Sign W and consider a sign on Tone if the applicant requested one. Com. Stevens concurred. Com. Doyle said that he agreed with Com. Mahoney but was not opposed to Com. Hams' suggestion. Chair Austin said she was in favor of the signs, noting that it was confusing to locate businesses without the address sign; and reducing the size by 3 inches brought it into compliance. Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 23, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application I-EXE-98 with the modification that the si[ms be reduced by 3 inches: which will result in a legal noncontbrming set of signs for the complex. Com. Hams Com. Stevens Passed 4-1-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 4-EXC-98 George Hellerich 19960 Stevens Creek Boulevard Sign exception to allow a ground sign. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERNIINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to install a monument sign to replace the two existing wall signs on the fl'ontage of the property located at 19960 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Staffrecommends denial of the application as it feels the two existing wall. signs provide adequate vi4bility for the business. The plamung Commission's decision will be considered final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. George Helletich, Mina-Tree Signs. representing Charles Schwab, said that the applicant feels the need for the monument sign because of the competition of the monument signs on each side of the building, lessening the visibility of the wall signs. He said with the proposed monument sign, the 18 inch wall signs would be replaced with 6 inch letters on the monument sign. Mr. Ken Hoffinan, Hoffinan Revocable Trust, said that he felt the request was in compliance with the codes regarding the footage; that Charles Schwab was a nationally known tenant, and filled a large community need. He said that the building is set so far back that it is obscured by the Shell building, and the Pizzeria Uno sign. He spoke in favor of the monument sign as it would help with the traffic so that the clients could see the location of the building rather than have to make U roms to get to the building. Mr. Hoffinan said that Schwab spent a lot of money to fix up the building. and felt they would make the sign a tasteful sign. Com. Mahoney said that he was in favor of the proposed sign and he felt it would present less clutter than what was presently there. Com. Stevens said he was in favor of the proposed sign as it presemed an address. Com. Hams said she was opposed to the application because it was a single site, and was visible with the current signage. She pointed out that there was an existing ordinance that should be enfomed. Com. Doyle said that he was in favor of enfoming the existing sign ordinance. Chair Austin said that she was in favor of the proposed sign. Mr. Cowan commented that before a vote be taken, to make certain the sign is placed in a location consistent with the Stevens Creek Boulevard Conceptual Plan, Condition 2. Section 3. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 4-EXC-98 with the condition that the monument sign confunn to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Conceptual Plan Com. Stevens Corns. Doyle and Harris Passed 3-2-0 Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 23, 1998 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 2ASA-98 Honeywell Measurex One Results Way Consideration of an ASA (architectural and site approval) application to constxuct a 43,000+/- square foot office/industrial building on the Honeywell Measurex site located at One Results Way. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Reconunended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to consU-uct a 43,000 sq. ft. office building on a 24 acre site at One Results Way. The proposed building will be similar in scale to the existing buildings within Honeywell Measurex. Based on Cupertino's General Plan document, determining future growth based on a .33 FAR, an additional 20,000 sq. fl. of expansion is allocated to Honeywell Measurex. The applicant has submitted charts and maps indicating amenity spaces within existing buildings. This application also mvotves a request to evaluate the square footage of these existing amenity spaces which are areas such as break rooms, patios, fimess center, cafeteria, deck space, breezeways, etc., to deterraine whether they could be discounted f~om the companies office/industrial use. The discounting would flee up additional square footage for future expansion. Issues surrounding traffic generated fi'om the new building, Traffic Engineer, Raymond Chong, does not feel that traffic generated by employees in the new building will increase the peak flows. This greatest proportion of new traffic trips will begin at Results Way as employees exit northbound along Babb Road to gain access to the Highway 85 and Freeway 280. However, staff notes that a secondary access to Honeywell Measurex fi'om Imperial Avenue could be considered if an unacceptable level of congeSnon does arise at the intersection of Bubb Road and Results Way or Bubb Road and McClellan Road. Staff will provide additional comments relating to the building's proposed design and how the company's cun-ent shipping and receiving operation may affect noise or decibel levels. Staff recommends approval of a Negative Declaration; and recommends that the size and scope of the project merits a final review by the City Council. Mr. Cowan reviewed the proposed expansion of the Honeywell Measurex facilities, including the expansion of the landscape design. He reported that the noise study indicated that because of the low fxequency of truck traffic, the noise volume would not exceed the noise standm'ds of 60 dba; however, if exceeded, there is a proposed condition requiring the expansion of the existing sotmdwall. Mr. Cowan reviewed the traffic issues and architecture as outlined in the attached staff report. He noted that the proposed building would replace some surface pa~king spaces, with a net increase of approximately 30 to 40 additional spaces over and above what now exists, based on current ratios. Referring to the project smnma~, Mr. Cowan answered questions relative to the genend building specifications. Mr. Joe Stasi, Facilities Manager. Honeywell Measure~ reported that the proposal is to build a world class facility m be used as aa integration center for systems produced. He pointed out that the building choice in its stature is that a clear span without posts was needed because the scanners that are produced have been increasing in size and are more difficult to move around. He said the facility is to allow the customers to come in and test the systems. Mr. Stasi explained that the integration center was two story, 37,000 sq. ff., which conformed to the remainder of the site. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. Planning Commission M/nutes 6 February 23, 1998 Ms. Marie Akin-Griffith, Seville Properties, expressed concern about the potential Waffle problem. In response to her question about additional employees, Mr. Stasi said that the additional building would not add more employees, but that present employees would be moved to the center. She questioned if the land would be built out; Mr. Cowan responded that there was a chart in the conditions of approval; another 48,000 sq. ff. of additional space would be allowed and the remaining acreage that is still lefl there. In response to Ms. Akin43riffith's question if it could be used for Measurex and/or housing IVlr. Cowan responded that the General Plan allowed all Industrial areas in town the option of either industrial space or housing; or in some cases both together. He said a future developer could seek application for housing in lieu of Industrial growth. Ms. Akin- Crdffith recommended that if they Increased Measurex In the future with more employees; they consider PUD housing so that their employees could live in close proximity to their jobs, which is a practice that employers in Silicon Valley aren't utilizing. Com. Harris expressed concern about the potential net Increase in people if in the future some oftbe sites were sold oft Mr. Cowan said that it may not apply to this particular building but there was planned parking and traffic based upon the typical buildouts. He noted that Measurex Honeywell actually manufactures very large machines and testing equipment, so they have a lower floor space per person than typical; and if they were to leave two years fi.om now, another user at different ratios would have to be anticipated. Chair Austin closed the public Input portion of the meeting. Chair Austin noted that when the buildings were approved, they were approved with the requirement of parking according to the size of the building therefore the use o£the building was not si~tmificant; and no more would be allotted relative to people or parking spaces. In response to Com. Doyle's question relative to the number of trips allocated, Mr. Chong said that during the a.m. peak hour, it would be roughly 54 trips; during the p.m. peak hour, 46 p.m. peak hour lrips. He noted that In 1994, a LOS analysis Indicated that McClellan and Bubb was operating at 12)+ for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Mr. Cowan said that the application, given the magnitude of the proposal, should be forwarded to City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation. He pointed out that it was a rare situation; all of the Bubb Road properties and Measurex were conventionally zoned light Industrial, and never changed to planned Development. He said the City Attorney is of the opinion that this property in the future should be zoned to PD to be consistent. Mr. Cowan noted that notices were sent out to the neighbors about experiencing noise, but that he had not talked to the individual residents. Com. Stevens questioned why a second access or driveway could not be recommended now because of the bottleneck at Results Way. Chair Austin s,mmarized the issues as amenity space, the question whether there is a need for houffmg there instead of the Industrial development; and whether ~'affic is really a problem. In response to Com. Doyle's concern about noise restrictions, Mr. Cowan said that they have to comply with the noise standards, which are 50 dba at night, and 60 dba in the daytime, except for 5 minutes during any 2 hour period, when it can go up to 75 dba. Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 23, 1998 Com. Hams said that staff's recommendation on amenity space had to be considered because it was different from the applicant and was it consistem with what was being done elsewhere. A lengthy discussion followed regarding amenity space. Com. Hams said she was in favor of the staff recommendation for the items they delineated and said she felt a decision was needed about classrooms. She said she felt they were structural because they look like offices and the loading dock. not the part that is a patio cover, but the functional part of the bulld'mg, should be counted. Com. Mahoney said he concurred with the staff report relative to amenity space; could go either way on the classrooms; but did not consider the loading dock as part of the buikgmg. Com. Doyle said he concurred with staff on amenity space: would not include classrooms as amenity space; and the loading dock was acceptable. Com. Stevens said that classrooms, not amemties were fine; the loading dock either way is acceptable as it is outside; would like to see the access considered to be open, or at least what problems it might cause now or later, preferably present; limited use l~)r a non-track, for employees. Chair Austin said she would like to see the access road opened up and suggested that it be discussed at a later time. Mx. Stasi discussed the rationale for the amenity space. He said that the classrooms listed are used for employee naming classes, such as self-improvement, ESL, math: and stay empty most of the time unless used for those classes. He said the customer and employee center was used for the cafeteria: the exhibition area is used to display the product for people to view, such as a demonstration center. The reception area in Building 9 is a large lobby and could be used as an atrium; staff uses the lobby to determine the location of the classes. Discussion continued about amemty space, wherein Mx. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, explained that relative to the amenity space approved with the HP application, it did not include the conference rooms, even though they were available for the general public use in the evenings. Mr. Cowan said that they were not discounting any conference rooms in this particular proposal. Com. Doyle suggested following the staff recommendation, removing the classrooms and the demo space completely. He said he would be amenable to floor 1, Bldg. 9 as being amemty spacegclassrooms. Com. Hams concurred. Com. Stevens said he was nymg to comprehend consistency and did not know how to apply it. and would refer to the experts. Com. Mahoney said that from a consistency point he felt it was the fight thing to do. Chair Austin said that she concurred with staff recommendation; Com. Doyle said that the only difference between what he thought and Com. Hams thought are the two classrooms on first level; he would put those as amenity space. Com. Doyle said that he felt the allocation of amenity space to the sites should be frozen specifically to these sites, because if they start parceling it off and you take one site by itself, its amenity space level will be very high; they still have 48,000 sq. 1~. available. Mx. Cowan said that he would delete the system demonsn-afion center and all the other classroom spaces with the exception of A, B and C on level 1, plus the staff recommendation with the remainder. Chair Austin recommended that the landscaping plan return: Mr. Cowan noted that it was included as a condition~ together with the detailed architecture. Mr. Cowan said that the recommendation on txaffic was to wait until a problem surfaces, otherwise hearings have to be held. Com. Hams said that a problem akeady existed each morning at McClellan Road. and many people have complained about it on an ongoing basis: and it was put back on the school's shoulders. She pointed out that another 56 trips will now be added, and she felt it was an issue. Com. Mahoney said that the problem only existed/hr 15 minutes each day and he did not consider it an issue. Com. Doyle and Chair Austin said that they did not feel it was an issue. Planning Commission Minutes s February 23, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application No. 1-EA-98 Com. Doyle Com. Hams Passed 4-I-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 2-ASA-98 according to the model resolution, w/th the amended definition of amenity space; to include a condition that the lift truck siren would not exceed the standards, day or evening Com. Mshoney Com. Hams Passed 4-1-0 The Planning Commission's recommendation will be presented to City Council on March 2. Chair Austin declared a recess from 8:35 to 8:50 p.m. OLD BUSINESS ,. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z-97 and 8-EA-98 Amendment to RI Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Amendment to the Single Family Residential ordinance regarding building mass, setback and height. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended ~: Ms. Michele Bjurman, Planner II, reported that the single family ordinance was previously discussed at the January 26 meeting, and staff was directed to remm with more information on the design, con~-olling building size, and building form. The issues are outlined in the attached staff report. Chair AuStin commended Ms. Bjurman on the excellent staffreport. Sta:ffrecommendations as set forth in the staff report include: Planning Commission select a sliding scale FAR fi.om .45 down to .375, similar or identical to Palo Alto. Relative to attic definition, Com. Harris questioned if it was staff's intent to deal with the issue of pirated-in finished space; that it could never be finished then; if it would then exceed the FAR for that site. Mr. Bjurman said staff was concerned about conversion to livable areas. Com. Hams questioned how they would know in a ministerial approval that they could never develop that space. Ms. Bjurman reported that it would be through the building plan check process, where staff would look at the plans themselves, but the ordinance itself would outline what would be included or excluded in FAR; it would say excluded and the definition of that would be provided that it not be habitable, which essentially means that it cannot be greater than 80 sq. ft. in area and no gxeater than 7 ~. 6 inches, which deems it uninhabitable. Ms. Bjurman reviewed the overhead graphics illustrating the City of Palo Alto and City of Los Altos daylight plane for main and accessory structures. She explained the differences and how they would relate to Cupertino, ifa similar requirement was adopted. Ms. Bjurman said that staff suggested that Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 23, 1998 in may of the future adopted actions by the Planning comrmssion, that they support the concept of a pipeline clause to address the homeowners who have been working steadily with architects in developing new construction plans or additional constructional plans; therefore drawings submitted to the building department prior to the enactment of the ordinance, the plans would be considered under the existing single family regulations instead of the newly adopted ones. Com. Harris expressed concern if there would be a building start requirement of 6 months, and questioned if there would be any restrictions on having to build that original plan or if they could totally change it; throw out any plan and two years later come back and say they have this pipeline plan and now want a totally different one. She referred to an RHS house which was almost 3 years old and had been extended several times, when the applicant came in with a totally new plan and new owner, didn't resemble the original plan, but qualified as a pipeline. Ms. Bjurman said that once the building permit is issued, they have to be under continuous construction or their building permit becomes void and therefore their window period goes away and they have to construct or design under the new ordinance provisions. She said that the difference between that and what is being considered now is that the RHS ordinance has an exception process built in and that has its own timeframe of two years with the possibility of a one year extension. She said that the proposal is that under some circumstances you may want m consider an exception clause but now you are talking about a building Ferrmt if somebody, has filed for a building penmt. Mr. Cowan noted that a building permit can remain active as long as there is some inspection activity within a 180 day pun/od, therefore it is possible to extend a project for a long period of time. Com. Hams said that if the pipeline is utilized, staffshould consider how it should be. Chair Austin opened the public hearing. Ms. Elizabeth Barkley, 11076 Lindn Vista Drive, addressed concerns about the pipeline issue, and said she was pleased to see the pipeline recommendation, but would urgently request the Planning Commission to consider expanding the definition. She said she understood Com. Hams's concern on the other end, but expressed concern about the t~ont end of the pipeline. She reviewed the current definition, and reminded the Planning Commission what it required for residents to apply for a building permit, including 6 sets of plans, 2 of which must be wet signed; 2 sets of tire 24 calculations; 2 sets of structural calculations; 3 copies ora soils report, 6 sets ofimprovemeut plans along with the $460 deposit. She said she checked with the building deparunent to see if there is a way to submit or file something as a place holder. She said their concerns were speaking fi.om their own perspective as they have been in the planning process for over a year but we wouldn't qualify under the pipeline clause. She said they spent 6 months interviewing architects, another 6 months looking at real estate and the last several months working with an architect developing floor plans, approving elevation sites, working with soils engineers, civil engineers, loan application process, property assessment; all activities in good faith under the existing ordinance; and would be upset if, at this point, because they did not ftc the building permit request, had to go back now and redo that work because of a new ordinance. She summarized that their issue would be to expand the pipeline clause to include people in the pipeline existing prior to the actual filing for a building permit, which in her perspective, is at the end of a very extensive process. Ms. Jmae Hindman, Femgrove Drive, said that the neighborhood association had written a letter which was in the agenda packet; and were happy to see the issues addressed because the association has the same concerns about the very large houses being constructed in their neighborhood. She said that the Eichler homes were originally single story, modest in size, and many of the homes are in the original condition with some second stories added. She reported on the results of a survey sent out to 220 Eichler homeowners, with a 60% response rote: 80% of the respondents indicated concern Planning Commission M/nutes ~o February 23, 1998 about their privacy ifa second story was added to their neighbor's home: 77% indicated they would like the existing look and feel of the Eichler neighborhood maintained; 71% said they were concerned about growth and development in the neighborhood; 64% indicated they would like to be notified if a neighbor planned to expand or remodel their home. Ms. Hindman pointed out that the large pink palaces being built in the neighborhood were a stark conU'ast m the original concept of the Eichler home, which was earth tone homes, with lots of glass to bring nature in. She said they were not opposed to second story homes per se, but felt there needs to be some resla'ictions on the size and bulk of the new homes. Relative to the dayhght plane, she said it appeared to be a good idea, although it is not clear about the size and shapes of roofs to be built. Ms. Hardman said they had concerns about privacy with the new large homes being built. Mr. Fort-Chert Lee, 20917 Favgo Drive, said that he lived in Cupertino for 12 years, and questioned if the change in Cupertino city building restriction was necessmy. He said he felt it was not needed because the current codes are reslrictive compared to other cities. He said the newcomers to · Cupertino are hard working, dedicated families who move to Cupertino to have their children educated in the excellent schools, with the hope that in the future their children can be brought up in a free, generous environment such as the Cupertino commamity. Because of that the pmperty'values increase as well as the property taxes. With increased property taxes, the schools are able to purchase supplies, and hire excellent teachers; and the city. can provide street improvements, neighborhood parks and recreational facilities. He said the residents are able to enjoy the improvements because of their conU'ibutions, and questioned if it was fair to restrict the homeowners from improving their homes, if the design was obsolete; and said he felt they should have the option to make changes to match their stares and their children's expectations. He recommended that the Planning Commission make decisions that will benefit the current residents' needs and the future generafion's needs. Mrs. Fran Lee, 20917 Favgo Drive, clarified information relative to complaints about her job site. She said that the property mentioned on Rainbow was not her property, she was merely the contractor hired by the homeowner to help them finish their drem~ home. Relative to the problem of rats, she illustrated the documents which explained the requirements for wx.nin inspection when demolishing property. She said that she possessed a certificate of inspection which indicated the Rainbow property was free and clear of rats. She said for the other side of the property where they are remodeling, it was her understanding they did not need a vermin inspection. Mis. Lee said that she did not know the origin of the rat and was certain they were not from the Rainbow property. She apologized for the problems that the project was causing. She said the other issue related to why people want to demolish their old house and build a new home. She cited an example of her home 5 years ago when she lived in a single story 1,300 sq. ft. home next to a 4,000 sq. ft. home, 3 stories high. She said the large home did not invade her privacy, but the smaller home next to hers did, as she could hear her next door neighbor suormg each night. She invited residents to visit the Rainbow project. Ma'. Ken Ramsey, 22714 Alcalde Rd., said that he has lived in his home 12 years and was considering remodeling or building a new home as his home is only 875 sq. ft. He expressed concern about the proposed building limitations: mainly the reduction in ratio of square footage to lot size that is allowed. He expressed concern about the design and style standards; and noted that he liked to have his own design and ideas and not necessarily, be so similar, that the neighborhood takes on the appearance of a tract home umt. He said he was also concerned that the limitations could cause a reduction in the property values; and he would support increased setbacks for 2 story homes and also some ,type of one of the daylight plane models. Planning Comr~ssion Minutes ~ February 23, 1998 Ms. Samantha Van Epps, John Way, said that her street now had RI-I single story zoning and thanked the Planning ConUmssion and City Council for listening to their input. She said she appreciated the Planning Commission's and City Council's efforts to change the current building codes; however, the changes implemented still would not preserve the integrity of the older single story neighborhoods which their neighborhood did not feel were obsolete. She said there was not a two story, house that could be built that would not impact the surrounding neighbors in a single story neighborhood, therefore the only solution would be to grant RI-I zoning to all single story neighborhoods in Cupertino. She said that single story neighborhoods took very nice and ordinary which is what they are meant to be; and she urged residents of the single story neighborhoods who want their neighborhoods to stay single story to let the city know their feelings. She concluded that it would be sad if the whole issue came down to money. Mr. Larry Mattheakis, 20612 Sunrise Drive, said he was in favor of the proposed ordinance change. He said he also agreed with the staffreport about reduction of the FAR. He said he felt most people moving to Cupertino are doing so because of the community, excellent schools, propen~ values, and not just because they feel they could build monster homes. He said that looking at other commumties within the area that have more stringent building codes than Cupernno would have if this proposed ordinance passed, their properly values are higher; therefore there is not a direct relationship between the size of the homes in the commuuity and the property values; other things factored into that. He said tha~ he was considering installing solar panels in his single story home in the future, and questioned the impact on his home if a 2 story home was built next to his and blocked out the snnlight fi.om reaching the solar panels. He said he was hopeful that the planning Commission would address that issue also. Mr. John Mracelc 10295 Mira Vista Road, said that he was considering solar panels also and wanted to preclude some of the actual blocking of some of those panels. He referred to a Property Rights Alert fxom a property rights advocate which addresses property values and states that Sunnyvale and San Jose have a 50% limit, yet the staff report states that Palo Alto and Los Altos have much righter restrictions. He said he would rather have the property values of Palo Alto and Los Altos than San Jose and Sunnyvale. Mr. Mracek said that the home behind him in Monte Vista was a tear down; and what was built in place was a one story, 3,000 sq. ff., home which did not block his view and fit in very well with the neighborhood, which was a positive surprise. He said it was a builder who built the home and he chose not to build a two story home merely for return value; and the reason they didn't was they lived next door to the house they were building; they wanted to protect their view and privacy. He suggested that the Planning Commission take as an ag~essive stance as possible in terms of restriction and remember the feedback the City Council directed based on the citizen's' desire to see things scaled down in the city to preserve the quality of life. Mr. Tony Wade, resident, said that the previous speakers snmmed it up, especially the single story advocates. He moved into the area because of the look and feel and the history connection. He said he was not opposed to people building their dream home, but he had a backyard garden which he has spent years on and would be opposed to a two story home with a large window peering into his yard. He said that it was a privacy issue and would not want to live there anymore with a two story behind him. Mr. Marc Auerbaclt 18860 Banshart Ave., representing the Rancho Pocket Annexation Committee, said that they previously indicated they would come to a position on whether prezonmg should occur before changes to Cupertino's own RI zoning, and they now endomed that move. He said they would like the city to move with prezonmg of the Rancho area, and were trusting and willing to live under the changes that the city makes to its own RI zoning as Rancho comes in. He said that relative to pipelining, the reason the city is considering the changes, is because the houses are too Planning Commission Minutes ~2 February 23, 1998 big, and he said it was odd to let a few big homes in under the wire. He said in the Rancho area, there is a push m get plans in under the wire fi-om a change from the current county zoning to more Cupertino-like zoning, and they would hope the same thing occurred in Cupertino. With regard to Rancho in particular, the committee would like to see some accommodation of not pipelining the current county standards into Cupertino. Relative to the comment made about people's expectations moving into Cupertino, he said it cuts both ways; they. may have come with the expectation that they could build much larger homes, but probably the majority of people came in with the expectation that the neighborhood would evolve slowly over time. He said he felt the expectation of neighborhood feelings should be maintained, and he echoed the opinion that contrary to popular belief, size is not related to value. Mr. Orland Lamon, 20613 Scofield Drive, said that his home was 50 years old and he did not believe that it was obsolete, and has spent a lot of money making improvements to the home and landscaping. He said he echoed previous comments about moving into the Cupertino neighborhood because of the look. feel and history of the area. He said he was in favor of preserving the neighborhoods with one story homes. He expressed concern with his own home, and said he would respect the privacy of his neighbors, and that monster homes mean a loss of privacy. Mr. Jim Lepetich, 20570 Scofield Drive, expressed concern about the number of two story homes being built in predominantly single story neighborhoods. He noted that there were some two story homes built on Sunrise Drive that do not blend in with the architectural style of the neighborhood. He said he was circulating a petition on Scofield Drive seeking the RI-I designation; and if passed the ordinance may protect the homes on Scofield. but does not help if the homes behind are two story buildings violating privacy and blocking views. He said he endorsed the Planning Commassion's re'view of the R1 requirements and hoped they would give due consideration to the current concerns of other homeowners in the immediate vicinity of any proposed two story residences. He also thanked the staff of the planning department and building department for their cooperation and emergency services. Ms. Marie Akm-Cmffith, Seville Properties, said that she had not experienced potential homebuyers' concerns relative to whether or not they could add a second story or have a two story or another home bloc&lng their view. She questioned if anyone present had a choice of a new home or the home they presently resided in, would they chose to stay in their present home over the new home; four indicated they would. She said that she was a member of the cross culture consortium: and many families desire two story homes because they have parents living with them, who take care of their small children. Also the possibility of expanding a home is a desirous commodity to homabuyers. Ms. Akin-Griffith said that if the building mslrictions are raised in Cupertino, she felt property values would drop between $50,000 and $100,000. She said that builders are b ,uymg the more affordable priced lots and building homes on them which is increasing the property values in Cupertino. She said it was not fair to compare Cupertino to Palo Alto as Palo Alto was more adult living, and Los Altos lots are larger. She said to be reasonable; America was made so we could all work together, understand the cultures, the different people and how they want to live. When restricting en~e meets to one story homes, she questioned what the resale value will be when donating them to one's children, will they be able to sell them? She summarized by asking that if the ordinance is going to be passed, that the city disclose to the majority of the 18,000 residents of Cupertino that their property, values will be influenced. She said from 18,000 residents, only 40 people expressed concern. Chair Austin said that the meeting was publicly noticed~ in the newspaper, and on public access television. planning Commission Minutes ia Februa 23, 1998 Mr. Voyle McFarland, 10567 John Way, said that the Planning Commission will have a difficult time rewriting the ordinance, as there are those who wish to profit and then leave; and those who buy, bulldoze, build and bail. He said that is a concern of most of the people who are in favor of this ordinance. He said he didn't want his house to look exactly like someone else's, and people want their individuality to show through. He said almost all neighbors on the slxeet have added onto their homes, but not added up, but in ways that do not intrude on the view, or the sun. He said he was in favor of the shadow plane, and hoped that the lowest one would be selected so the hills could still be seen. He said it was possible to accommodate children and elderly parents in a single story home, which is enlarged laterally. Mr. McFarland said that property values are more than just money, and had to do with the nature of the community which does not have a dollar amount attached to it. The present code does call for compatibility with the character of the neighborhood; and there should be a way to deal with the result of when it is ignored and people go ahead and build. Ms. Jimai Chen, 10580 John Way, said that she still had not moved into her home although her I-zone permit was approved last September, but she has not been able to build her home because of the urgency ordinance passage. She said that she is making a house payment on a home she is not able to move into. She expressed frustxation and concern about the problems encountered bemuse of the zoning. Ms. Linda Roy, resident, said they had built their own home and was not concerned in the immediate futme about her own situation, and would not build and bail; however, she expressed concern about the future values of their property and what she saw as the old-timers vs. the newcomers in the city. She said her experience with the newcomers had been positive; some are immigrants, are hardworking, and actively participate in the schools, are open to friendships and in many cases are the ones that want to live in or build the larger homes. She expressed concem with the FAR reduction, because she said she felt the FAR reduction will hurt property values and limit people in terms ofwhnt they can do. She said she understood not wanting large boxy homes, but said there are ways to limit the way a house looks, the appearance of the house, without actually reducing its size. She said reducing the size negatively impacts peoples' options and what they can do with their home, and also hims the property values; whereas if more focus was on the appearance of the house, it may be more productive. Relative to the privacy issue, Ms. Roy discussed the issue of homeowners planting pine trees in their yard which in turn effects all the other neighbors' homes in the immediate vicimty, with lack of sun, pine needles dropping on their property and preventing vegetation g~owth. She said she felt this was more of a privacy infringnmen~, yet nothing was done about it; and it was not just the houses blocking the sun. She noted that Campbell and Cupertino had over 20% increases in prices, and they both have the 45% FAR. Ms. Roy said that she felt it was unfair for neighbors to say that other neighbors cannot build a two story house and people shouldn't be paranoid about neighbors possibly looking into their yards fi, om the second story. She summarized that people should be allowed as much freedom to build the kinds of homes that are going to satisfy their needs now and in the future, and look to the future more than the past because the tales will be around for a long time. Ms. Rebecca Elliot[ Public Affairs Director for San Jose Real Estate Boar& conunended the Planning Department staff on their cooperation. She said she hoped they would continue to have the oppommity to work together on this; it was apparent that it was a very emotional and divisive issue and there is common ground that can be reached through negotiation and discussion of concerns, and working toward a compromise that will make everybody at least be able to live with what is presented to the City Council. She said there are things that are tree about design structure, FAR, and concerns that the other side issued as well about lack of privacy that have to be considered and Planning Commission Minutes 14 February 23, 1998 discussed. Ms. Elliott concluded that she was hopeful that all would be given the opportunity before March 23 to sit down with staffand tW to forge a beneficial public document. Ms. Lacy Centrell, resident, said that she resided in an older home, but had planned for some time to build a new home. She expressed concern about homing for her grandchildren because of the scarcity and high cost of housing. She said that now more families were deciding to live closer together because of the high cost of homing and they wanted to help each other out. She said that the city should recognize the trend of more families moving into Cupertino, and that the city building roles should accommodate the future needs of its residents. Many people want and need large homes for their families and the need should be respected. Mr. Jean-Claude Roy, resident, said that he lived in Cupertino and also owned a small house in the unincorporated part of Monte Vista. He said that he may want to build a larger home on the Monte Vista property to meet his future retirement needs. He expressed concern that the city may restrict what he can do with his property in the future; the existing land regulations are fair and reasonable as they stand; and many of the Monte Vista residents do not want to be annexed into the city because he city building requirements are fighter than those of the county. He said future restrictions, especially a,5 applied to smaller parcels of land, may prohibit reasonable use of the land in the future, which would affect either the size of the home he could build for himself or furore resale value of the property. Mr. Roy said that he had a petition circulated over a two day period, which states that "the undersigned residents oppose more restrictive residential building rules which could interfere with our basic property fights, reduce property values, or increase remodeling costs." He said that the petition contained 95 signatures t~om Cupertino residents. Chair Austin closed the public hearing. Mx. Cowan clarified that the goal of the discussion was to receive additional direction from the planning Commissioners so that an ordinance could be prepared with some options for consideranon on March 23. Chair Austin ~lmmarized that staffhas presented several options for consideration in the staff report. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding floor area ratio averaging and sliding scale. Com. Doyle questioned the theoretical basis for pursuing the issue, and if the intention was to rem'ict the size of homes or reduce intrmion onto other properties. Com. Mahoney noted that it originated becaus~ community members and Planning Commissioners were concerned that large homes didn't fit into certain neighborhoodS. Com. Hams pointed out that there had not been any consternation in the community where there are large houses on large lots, or even where there are single sto~ homes on large lots and the development is on the ground floor. She said the issue had arisen where people are changing the character and some feel that it is a property value issue and the need for expansion and other people feel it is an inmasion and a change in the character of the neighborhood. Chair Austin clarified by reviewing the background; the Planning Commission reviewed the single family ordinance and agreed that the existing single family regulations results in houses which appear large as compared to existing homes; the Planning Commission agreed to avoid discretionary review of future new homes or additions and directed staff to provide more inibrmation on the subjects in the staffreport. A discussion followed regarding design control, wherein Chair Austin and Com. Doyle said that they did not favor design control; Com. Mahoney said that it could be done; and Com. Stevens said he was concerned with privacy and bulkiness of the homes and how the homes were compatible with the neighborhood. Com. Doyle said that the community can provide input before the next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes ts Febma~ 23, 1998 The issue of controlling building size was discussed with options to keep it status quo with the same FAR, do the FAR averaging in the neighborhoods, or use the sliding scale. Com. Mahoney questioned if you do the fight thing with setbacks and daylight plane, does the FAR take care of itself. He said that if the issue is impact, light, or privacy you should always t~ to address the issue directly, not indirectly. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding floor area ratio, comparing averaging vs. sliding scale FAR. Com. Stevens said that he felt the issue was the intrusion of the new home on the overall community. He considered privacy, roof slant, not the FAR, and was interested in the daylight plane and overall comparability, but not necessarily look alikes. Following a lengthy discussion relative to daylight plane, there was consensus in favor of daylight plane. Com. Doyle said that staff was asked to return with examples of what it would look like on a typical property, showing what kind of home could be considered based on the Los Altos and Palo Alto model. Com. Hams said that first story exterior wall height was part of the daylight plane concept; and statT would return with daylight planes at 15 feet instead of 20 feet, and the group could provide direction on it if they felt strongly. Com. Doyle requested clarification on the definition of design control. Com. Hams said that if design control was an issue, it should be addressed, looked at and discarded or adopted. The Planning Commissioners briefly discussed the floor area ratio, first-stow exterior wall height, inclusion of stairwells, attic, definition of interior, and building volume. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Application 11-Z-97 and 8-EA-98 Amendment to RI Ordinance to the April 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Applicutton No.(s): Applicant: Location: Review of Architectural and Site Approval Process City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of establishing a Planning Commission Subcommittee for Architectural and Site Approval review. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: To be det~,,,ined The concept of the subcommittee of the Planning Commission for the design review process for planned developments and use penmts was discussed. The purpose of the subcommittee is to: (1) Reduce Planning Commission workload by simplifying its design review responsibilities and diverting minor applications form the commission public hearing agenda, while maintaining a design review function; and (2) Incorporate professional architectural advice where it adds value to the design review process. The structure of the subcommittee, meeting format, and noticing procedures, were discussed. planning Commission Minutes 16 February 23, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Item 6 to the March 23, 1998 planning Commission meeting Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: There was a brief discussion regarding the scheduling of upcoming agenda items and the possibility of scheduling a special meeting on March 18 or March 19 to handle the Little Angels Preschool item and the Garden Gate prezomng item. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING: Com. Hams discussed the February 18 Cupertino Courier article relative to the approval of the home in Inspiration Heights, and the recent mudslide. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to the regular meeting on March 9, 1998 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted. Eli~heth Ellis Recording Secreta~ Approved as presented: March 9, 1998