PC 03-23-98CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408)777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998
SALUTETOTHEFLAG
ROLL CALL
comrarssioners present:
Harris Mahoney, Stevens, ChaU'Woman Austin
Commtssioners absent:
Doyle, Harris
Staff present:
Robert Cowam Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner: Vera Gil, Planner II; R ~aymond Chong, Traffic Engineer;
Eileen Murray, Deputy City, Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes qf the March 9, 1998 regular meeting:
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Stevens moved to approve the March 9, 1998 Planning Commission
minutes as presented
Com. Mahoney
Corns. Doyle and Hams
Passed 3-0-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted written commumcations fxom Thomas
Keaton and Marc Aunsbach.
POSTPONEMENTSfREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Application No.
Applicant:
Location:
12-U-97 and 37-EA-97
Monica Sun
19028 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Use Permit to demolish an existing retail bmlding 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 in development requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 1998
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: APRIL 20, 1998
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 27, 1998
Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 23, 1998
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
15 -U-97 AND 40-EA-97
Robert. Steven. Ronald & Marvin Jakob
19160 Stevens Creek Blvd.
To construct an 11,137 sq. Ii. 10 umt 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 FEBRUARY 9, 1998
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: APRIL 20, 1998
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLAN2qlNG COMMISSION MEETING OF APR/L 27, 1998
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to continue Items 2 and 3 m the April 27, 1998 Planning
cormmssion meeting
Com. Stevens
Corns. Hams and Doyle
Passed 3-0-0
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None
Chair Austin requested that staff research to fred an ordinance on diseased trees and their removal.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Application No.(s)
Applicant:
Location:
23-U-96(M)
Stevens Creek Associates (Target)
20745 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Director's modification, with referral to Planning ComnUssion to modify the Use Permit by addmg
1,500 sq. fi. to the existing building; deleting 6,180 sq. fi. of proposed garden center space,
converting 2,000 sq. fi. of garden center space to an alcove and making minor architectural changes.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to make minor architectural
changes and add 1,500 sq. ti. to the Target store on Stevens Creek Blvd. In order to accommodate
the store's needs and budge~ the following modifications are needed: add 1,500 sq. ft. at northwest
side of the building; delete proposed 3,690 sq. Ii. expansion to the garden center; convert 2,000 sq.
Ii. of existing garden center into an alcove for display of garden related merchandise; keep existing
garden center elevation with signage and fence color changes: and remove the original tile behind the
Target sign at the new front facade. Staff recommends approval of the application, and feels that
there will be a sufficient number of parking spaces within the center following the expansion. The
planning comrmssion's decision will be considered final and not forwarded to the City Council
unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days.
Ms. Vera Gik Planner II, referred to the site plan and elevations~ and illustrated the location of the
proposed expansion, garden center and alcove, and answered Commissioners' questions.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 1998
Mr. Barry Watkins, Stevens Creek Cupertmo Associates, briefly reviewed the proposed expansion of
the store and answered ComXmssioners' questions. Ms. Oil pointed out that as pan of the original
Use Permit, the applicant will return with an ASA application to change the colors of the remaining
center to blend in with the Target colors. Mr. Watldns said that the applicant hoped to be under
construction in July and have the expansion portion (Phase I) completed by October 31 so that the
new warehouse could be used for the Christmas season; and the interior remodel would be done in
January of 1999.
Chair Austin said that staff had expressed concern about the garden center space being used for
excess storage or stock if someone else took over the ownership. She said that it was incorporated
into the conditions and Mr. Watkins said he was not opposed to it.
Com. Stevens commented that the outside rear area of the store was presently m a state of disarray
and he felt the modification was a good one.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 23-U-96, including the addition of
4 to 8 trees to the garden center parking area
Com. Stevens
Corns. Doyle and Hams
Passed 3-0-0
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
14-U-97
Ji-Mei Chen
10580 John Way
To construct a second story addition to an existing residence.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a Use Permit to conslxuct a
second story addition to an existing residence. Neighbors on John Way are opposed to the second
story addition as the street was zoned in 1997 for single story residences only. Staffmcommends
that the applicant rentm with a redesign of the second story addition in order to reduce the mass.
Staff also suggests that the proposed building materials be changed to materials more in character
with the neighborhood, namely wood siding and composition shingle roof. Staff recommends that
the application be continued; however, if the Planning Commission approves or denies the
application, the decision will be regarded as final, unless appealed within 14 calendar days.
Ms. Gil passed the material board to the Planning Commissioners, and noted that staff felt the
materials were not m character with the neighborhood and requested that the materials be changed.
Referring to the elevations, Ms. Gil illustrated the proposed second story setbacks and answered
questions.
In response to a question from Chair Austin, Ms. Gil said that Ms. Chen purchased the home prior to
the sU'eet being zoned one story residences, and the R-I ordinance provides for requests for
conditional use permits for a second story addition. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Counsel,
explained that there was an exception process with these findings, to grant an exception and a
conditional use permit. Mr. Robert Cowam Community Development Director, explained that in the
RI-I ordinance, it stipulates that an applicant cannot automatically get a second story addition when
it is the I designation because the zoning stipulates a single story neighborhood designated L He
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 1998
pointed out that the rules were in order to receive approval for an exception, you must make the
findings, and s~xessed the importance of making the three or four findings listed in Ms. Gil's staff
report. Chair Austin expressed concern about the exception process and the amount of time
involved to address each exception.
Com. Stevens said that the ordinance is in effect, and the application was after-the-fact, therefore the
decision is to look at the ordinance or go ahead and call the application an exception.
Ms. Ji-Mei Chert, applicant, asked the plarmmg comrmssion to consider her motivation for the
remodel of her home, based on the living needs of her family. She said that she was a single parent,
with an elderly mother and three children, and was attempting to plan the design of her home to
maximize the living comfort and need for privacy for three young students and an 80 year old
mother. Ms. Chen said that she purchased the property at the end of 1996 and planned to build a
second story addition for her chddren and herself and to acconunodate her mother on the first floor
She said that she was not aware of the regulations and her architect did not understand the process
and submitted the application on November 3 before the ordinance for single family residences was
adopted. She said that she felt she was caught in the middle of the ordinance being passed when she
purchased her home, and because of that felt she was entitled to some justice to fit the members of
her family in her home. She asked for support from the City, and thanked staff for being so
helpful. Ms. Chen said that she had already spent over $15,000 on the process.
In response to Com. Mahoney's question about staff's recommendations for changes, Ms. Chen said
that she was open to changing the materials to wood panels and changing the roof materials. She
said the most important consideration was the harmony inside the house. Ms. Chert said that she
wanted her children to attend Cupertino schools, therefore another house in another location would
not stat her needs. She said she did not want to hire an attorney to seek justice because she felt the
city would provide justice. She said she could accommodate some of the suggested changes, but the
space was needed to accommodate her needs and those of her children to have living quarters in a
second story addition. Ms. Chert explained why it was necessary for her mother to have living
quarters on the first floor away from the other members of the family.
In response to Com. Stevens' questions, Ms. Chert said that she was aware of the 'T' designation for
John Way before November.
Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input.
Ms. Mabel MacFarlane, 10567 John Way, referred to a recent newspaper article in the Courier
relative to tolerance regarding the cultural differences in Cupertino. She added that tolerance should
go both ways. She said that the issue on John Way was not old timers vs. new, or Asian vs.
Caucasiam as there are more Asians than Caucasians who have lived on John Way 8 to 10 years or
more. In June of 1997 resident homeowners circulated and signed a petition (noting that Ms. Chen
does not live on John Way) and gave favorable comments about the area of John Way and the
character of the neighborhood. She said that the petitioners showed the petition to Ms. Chen in June
and talked to her and she was opposed to it. Ms. Chert said at that time she was not sure how she
would be remodeling; and Ms. McFarlane said the neighbors understood she did need to remodel the
house. Ms. MacFarlune said that the issue is keeping John Way one story homes; there is one two-
story house on John Way and it is not discernible because it was built in such a way that the
character of the neighborhood and the houses still look the same; it can be done. She said the lots
are large enough that the addition needed could be put on one level; there could be a separate wing
entirely for her mother. The house directly across the street has 5 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and the
children are in the front of the house and the parents are in the back of the house and there is still
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 1998
room for a playground and other activi6es in her backyard. Ms. MacFarlane pointed out that with
the proposed addition, the house would be twice the size of the houses in the neighborhood: the city
code refers to size, style, shading, and the residents do not see how these plans fit into the criteria.
She said that there was a new addition going up on Kirwm at the end of their block which has houses
on either side of it, and they do not like the massiveness of the home. She asked that the Planning
Commissioners be sensitive to the desires of the homeowners who hve on John Way who want to
keep this single story ordinance as it is: both the neighbors on either side of Ji Mei's house are
Asian, and both of them said they prefer the single story; pointing out that it was not a race issue.
She concluded by thanking staff for their work.
Ms. Semantha Van Epps, 10525 John Way, said the issue was maintaining the integrity and privacy
of the homes on John Way. She said that she and Mr. Van Epps have lived on John Way for 37
years and have seen many changes; but drew the line at the request of a non-resident home owner to
build a second story addition. She said that is the reason the residents worked so hard to obtain the
single story zoning for their street; and a solid majority of the residents of the s~xect wish it to remain
single story. Ms. Van Epps pointed out that without the single story zoning for the street, there
would be a huge home going up next to them. She said the lots on John Way are large lots with
plenty of room for a large single sto~ home. She concluded that the street has been zoned for single
story homes; the issue here is not about investment and/or money or personal issues; the issue is to
maintain the integrity of the homes on John Way.
Ivlr. Joe Van Epps, 10525 John Wey, apologized beforehand if his comments seemed harsh because
he said they were based on things that have occurred before, some of which he said he felt were not
proper, and asked that the conditional use permit not be issued based on questionable special
circumstances, compassion or sympathy, because they do not fit into the equation. He said the
applicant for this conditional use permit had ample time to get plans ready and approved for
construction. The single story petition was circulated and signed by all John Way resident
homeowners by June 27, 1997. The conditional use applicant was aware at that time, she was asked
to sign the petition, and she was aware that second story consmtction might be prohibited on John
Way. The applicant had more than 4 months uno November 3 to get her plans drawn and approved
for construction. Instead of proceeding to get her plans drawn and approved, she chose to fight; and
in her words, "it was war". The City Council honored the petition and passed the RI-I designation
for John Way; the city added a conditional use clause permitting second story. He said the clause
permits second story that will not result in privacy impact, shadowing, or inmtsive noise, or odor, or
other adverse impacts to the surrounding area, which would allow a resident homeowner to make a
modest addition if the neighbom were in agreement. He said he did not feel that the use clause
would rescind the RI-I restriction and provided an applicant paid a fee and gamed the sympathy oi
the planning Commission they could build a second story addition. He said that John Way resident
owners are in agreement as shown by their petition, but they do not want second story additions. He
sn:essed that privacy and compatibility cannot be measured, but they are adversely affected by
second storys in a single story neighborhood. He said he felt the application should not be
approved; second storys by their nature result in privacy impact, shadowings and other adverse
impacts, and approval would set a precedent that the RI-I zoning is meaningless and can be
circumvented by manipulation of the conditional use peraut process. The applicant has other
options, such as building out and not up. The lots are large permitting ample living space at ground
level. Any addition will remain and be disagreeable to the residents for many years while the
applicant's lifestyle can change rapidly resulting in a short stay at that location. Mr. Van Epps said
that he had been involved in the process since early spring last year and has spent many Monday
evenings at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, and urged the Planmng
Commission to deny the request.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 23, 1998
Chair Austin closed the public hearing portion.
Com. Stevens said the City Council approved the designation and emphasized it with the urgency
document which was passed. Staff discussed modifications with the applicant to reduce the impact
of the construction and the response from the applicant has been negative. He said the owner was
aware of the designation and he saw no reason to change.
Com. Mahoney said that an exception process was created if there was a need and a design to keep
within the spirit of the neighborhood' however the application did not fall within the parameters. He
said the property had plenty of room m the back for a one story addition and he would not approve
the application.
Chair Austin said she agreed with Com. Stevens because there were other options available to the
applicant, end she was not being denied use of the property, and there is plenty of room to expand
out. She said she felt it was precedent setting, and was not in favor of the application. She said if
there is a zoning ordinance, they should stick with it.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Stevens moved to recommend denial of Application 14-U-97 and forward
it to the City Council
Chair Austin
Corns. Doyle and Harris
Passed 3-0-0
Applicant has 14 calendar days to appeal the decision to City Council.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
7-EA-98 Amendments to Chapter 19 (Zoning) of the
Cupertino Municipal Code
City of Cupertino
Citywide
An ordinance of the City of Cupertino amending the Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code for
the purpose of conforming the provisions of the Code to the requirements of State and Federal law,
conforming the provisions of the code to be consistent with present City practices, eliminating
redundant and obsolete provisions, clarifying old provisions with new language, and consolidating
and stleamlining various provisions.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 20, 1998
Chair Austin suggested that the planning Commission provide input for items which needed
clarification.
Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan provided a brief outline of the item, stating that the city attorney's
office had started its second stage of the ordinance codification, going through the ordinances in
greater detail, looking for inconsistencies and poorly drafted sections. He noted that there were
some sections that go beyond the issue of clarification which were outlined in the staff report.
Chair Austin asked for clarification on the height definition, attic space, and parking facilities. Mr.
Cowan explained that the ordinance is drafted stating that height is measured from the natural grade
and noted that the new wording would be: "unless otherwise established by a city approved grading
plan which is part of the subdivision approval." He said the new wording would go by the natural
planning Commission Minutes 7 March 23, 1998
grade unless the grading plan is approved as part of the approval for a subdivision. Mr. Cowan said
that it should state that FAR does not include parking facilities other than residential garages; parking
facilities are excluded except residential garages.
Relative to 19.28.060, Mr. Cowan clarified that "gross" FAR was removed to cover the issue of
floor area in one definition. He explained that coverage relates to the area covered by the structure
on the lot; FAR includes the first floor and subsequent floors above that. FAR is a more
encompassing term. Chair AuStin said that she preferred the 40% FAR.
Referring to Page 579, "Housing Market Area" Mr. Cowan explained that the section was moved to
the section of the condominium conversion ordinance.
IVlr. Cowan clarified that the R1-C Residential Single Family Cluster Zone ordinance had not been
used for 20 years, which has a definition of common area in it, and is being recommended the
ordinance be removed. Discussion continued regarding the proposed amendments, wherein Mr.
Cowan answered questions and clarified reasons for the amendments.
Com. Stevens requested that the term "half floor" be defined.
Referring to 19.56.060 Architectural and Site Review for New Development, Mr. Cowan said that
most property that is master planned or zoned for retail is in the PD zone: there are a few properties
still left that are conventionally zoned; therefore stuff would like to insert this section in the retails
only district that states that prior to construction of a building, you have to go through a conditional
use penmr He said that the title will be redrafted to Conditional Use Permit for New Development,
and section B be deleted as it is already covered in another section. Mr. Cowan clarified that if the
building is over 5,000 sq. it. it is forwarded to City Council. He said that the lower section contains
similar language for the professional office zone. The 10,000 sq. ft is the same threshold that is in
the PD zone, so if you had some office properties in town zoned conventionally, then you have to go
through a use permit, similar to the PD zone.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on
Application 7-EA-98
Com. Stevens
Corns. Doyle and Harris
Passed 3-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve the changes to the ordinance as outlined in the
staffreport, with the addition of the changes tO Chapters 19.56 and 19.76;
addition of the residential garage clarification; with the addition of definition of
attic: eliminate definition of half story; existing lot of record; make it consistent
about measuring the height from the natural grade except when there is a plan
Com. Stevens
Corns. Doyle and Harris
Passed 3-0-0
Mr. Cowan said staff will return relative to concerns about gross vs. net in terms of gross density.
NEW BUSINESS
Set a public hearing for consideration of an exception process to the Heart of the City
Specific Plan.
Planning commission Minutes 8 Mamh 3.3, 1998
Mr. Cowan reviewed the item as outlined in the attached staff report. He said the problem first arose
with the small lot near Bret Ave. in the Stevens Creek Blvd. planning area. The Stevens Creek Blvd.
plan did not do a very good job of addressing the needs of these smalle~ lot and typically in these
areas there is a PD zone which gives you and the applicant a lot of flexibility. That flexibility was
left out of the Specific Plan. and staff is seeking a process to consider changes in a Specific Plan for
Stevens Creek Blvd.
Chair Austin opened the meeting for the public input; there was no one present who w/shed to speak.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to set a public hearing for consideration of an exception
procedure to the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
Com. Stevens
Corns. Doyle and Harris
Passed 3-0-0
7. Discussion of joint meeting w/th City Council regarding R- 1 Ordinance changes.
Mr. Cowan discussed the need for a joint meeting w/th City Council regarding the R-1 Ordinance
changes. He pointed out that there was also a need for a subcomnnttee of the Planning Commassion
to address the technical issues; 2 members of the Planning Commission and 2 members of the City.
Council to meet with staff and some design experts in an aftemoon meeting to review some of the
technical points so that the joint meeting would be more productive. He asked the Planning
Commission to address two issues: (1) That the Planning Commission agree to some type of a
subcommittee to discuss the technical issues; and (2) Set times for the joint meeting, possibly April
27 w/th the City Council. There was consensus to authorize Chair Austin to pick two members of
the Planning Commission for a subcomnUttee to meet w/th the City Council to discuss technical
issues before the joint meeting.
Chair Austin called for a mimae order to set either April 20, April 27 or May 4 to meet w/th the City
Council for a joint meeting.
8. Schedule a follow-up meeting to the Febran~ 4 Planning Commission Workshop.
Following a brief discussion regarding a suitable date for a follow-up meelmg to the February 4
workshop, Mr. Cowan said that he would contact the consultant and other Planning Commissioners
to see if May 18 was a suitable date.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meenng adjourned at 9:10 p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting
on April 13, 1998.
Respectfully Submitted,
Recording Secretaxy
Approved as amended: April 13, 1998