Loading...
PC 05-26-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 26, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Staff present: Harris, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairperson Austin Doyle Robert Cowan, Director of Community Developlnent; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Vera Gil, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Burt Viskovich, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 22, 1998 Regular Adjourned Meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved approval of the April 22, 1998 minutes as presented Com. Stevens Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 3 -0-1 Minutes of the April 27, 1998 Regular Meeting: Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray noted the correct spelling of Mr. Stellingsma's name on Pages 8 and 9 of the minutes. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved approval of the April 27, 1998 minutes as amended Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Minutes of the May 6, 1998 Special Meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved approval of the May 6, 1998 minutes as presented Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 9,6, It)0~ Minutes of the May 11, 1998 Regular Meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved approval of the May 11, 1998 minutes as presented Com. Stevens Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 3 -0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted a letter from Attorney John Vasil, representing adjacent property owners of the Dots. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 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 to the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to development requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMiNATION: Negative Declaration Recommended CONTiNUED FROM PLANNiNG COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 27, 1998 TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETiNG DATE: MAY 6, 1998 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO JUNE 8, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to postpone Application 12-U-97 and 37-EA-97 to the June 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Com. Harris asked that Application 5-ASA-98 be removed from the Consent Calendar to review the color chart. Application No.(s) Applicant: Location: 5-ASA-98 MBH Architects (Stevens Creek Cupertino Associates) 20735 Stevens Creek Blvd. Architectural review of color modification to an existing shopping center. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMiNATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 26, Cg)g Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 36-U-85 (M) Sunnyview Lutheran Home 22445 Cupertino Road Director's minor modification with a referral to the Planning Commission for removal of a tree in accordance with Chapter 14.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 36-U-85(M) of the Consent Calendar Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented color boards wbicb illustrated tile Target colors. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 5-ASA-98 oftbe Conseut Calendar Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.(s): · Applicant: Location: 10-EXC-97 (M) Phillipe & Anne Dor Balboa Road at Com. Stevens Canyon Road ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETlNG OF MAY 11, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the Dor application to relocate a portion of Balboa Road, located off Stevens Canyon Road. While surveying the property to file the final map, the Dors discovered that the southern portion of Balboa Road would encroacb on neighboring properties and propose to relocate a section of the road over to the northeastern section ofthe subject property in order to connect to Stevens Canyon Road. Tbe applicant states that four advantages to moving the road are: (1) Increases vehicle safety by increasing visibility to motorists and cyclists; (2) The move reduces the amount of grading into the hillside, wbicb will provide milder slopes; (3) The Dors would not need to obtain easements from neighboring property owners; and (4) The move will allow them to semen a retaining wall witb landscaping, as well as reduce the wall lengths and heights. Staff recommends approval of tbe application, with the condition that the large oak tree to be removed would be replaced with two 24-inch box oak trees strategically placed to improve roadway screening. Tile Planning Commission's decision will be considered final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Planning Commlss~on Minutes 4 May 56, Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, referred to the site plan and explained the advantages of relocation o1' the road. She said that the landscape plan would be revie~ved in detail at a later date to ensure that the proposed plan is in conformance with the xerascape ordinance. Mr. Jim Jackson, representing Mr. and Mrs. Dor, pointed out that following the initial approval of the application, there have been improvements in several areas, such as reduction ia the total amount of grading previously approved; traffic visibility on Stevens Canyon Road is substantially improved; and elevation of the grade is improved. Relative to the letter from St. Nicholas Chnrch, he noted that it is not an inverse condemnation suit being filed, but a quiet title lawsuit. I le said there are some old problems in the Inspiration Heights area, such as problems with the roads, and they were attempting to clean up one of the problems with the Old Balboa Road, which is the reason the quiet title lawsuit is mentioned. Mr. Jackson noted that they had an agreement with thc church relative to sharing expenses for future roadway. Mr. Terry Brown, general contractor, pointed out that for the initial phase, the number of truckloads of dirt being removed would be reduced from 300 to 75, and phase 2 would not have any dirt from the site, and that dirt will be generated further up the hill when the other property owners develop their driveways and extend Balboa Road. Referring to overheads, Mr. Brown discussed the proposed changes to the retaining walls and answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Morrey Nelson, civil engineer, noted that the previous approval was for tile single width driveway, and the 9 foot retaining wall was associated with the ultimate width of the 24 loot wide driveway. He said for their portion of the driveway, it would only be a 6 foot high wall. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 10-EXC-97(M) accordiug to the model resolution Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 8-U-94 (Minor Amendment) Citation Homes Central DeAnza Boulevard & Via Paviso Director's minor modification with referral to Planning Commission to install an electrical gate at apartment entrance. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FYNAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to install a security gate at tile DeAnza Boulevard entrance to the Aviara apartment complex, which was previously denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Hours of operation and rationale lbr the gate are outlined in the attached staff report. Staffrecommends denial of the application as a policy in the General Plan discourages the use of private residential security gates becanse security gates isolate neighborhoods from one another, and the gates act as a barrier to emergency service Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 26, I OOg vehicles and personnel. A decision to uphold the denial or to approve the security gate will be regarded as the City's final decision, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, referred to tile site plan, and illustrated the location of an approved security gate and explained the rationale for the approval of that particular gate. He referred to the sections of the General Plan relative to security gates, and noted it discourages security gates because it isolates the neighborhoods, and slows dowu response time for emergency vehicles. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the applicant's argument was valid; the city had approved other gates in other city locations. He said that as a staff member, he adheres to the General Policy; and if the Planning commission approves the gate, the policy should be revisited. In response to a question from Chair Austin, Mr. Cowan said that security gates are considered a marketing tool to give residents a sense of security; however, most sherifffs agencies say they do not work that way, and are a sense of false security. Mr. Chung Pong lng, Citation Homes, said that the tenants of the apartment complex desire thc security gate because they want a sense of security, to regulate who goes iu and out of the complex. There is a gate on Homestead and they want one on DeAnza Boulevard. I le said that relative to the General Plan discouraging security gates because it would segregate neighborhoods, on the DeAnza Boulevard side there is no other residential neighborhnods surrounding the apartment complex; they are all commercial. He said he did not feel a gate would segregate the complex from similar neighborhoods. Referring to the design of the gate, he said they submitted a gate design in the original application and submitted it to thc lire department and traffic department for review. He said that a turnout at the gate was iucluded I'or drivers who turned into the driveway by mistake. Mr. lng said that the traffic and fire departments did not feel it was an issue on the original application. He noted that he was not requesting an exception that no one else received, but was merely trying to make the project comparable to others and be fair to the tenants to have the same sense of protectiou that other apartment dwellers have. He said that guests would ring the apartment or office for permission to enter, and that the proposed hours of operation for the gate were workable. He added that they were not concerned about traffic being stacked up on DeAnza Boulevard. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Harris said that she was in favor of the security gate, although she was concerned that DeAnza Boulevard was a busier street than other streets that have been approved lbr security gates and would get worse over time. She said she felt the automatic gates were a good idea, but that the hours of operation should be included as a condition, and should be the commute hours of 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. weekdays. Com. Harris said that she felt because the complex was readily accessible to the freeway, the security gate would fill a security need for the residents. Com. Mahoney said that he was in favor of the security gate with tile modified hoars of operation suggested by Com. Harris. He added that the General Plan needed clarification. Com. Stevens said he was initially not in favor of the security gate, but felt with the turaaround provided, it was appropriate. He complemented Com. Harris on her suggestion to expand lbo hours of operation as access was right off the freeway. He expressed concern about the amotmt of Planning Commission M~nutes 6 May 26, 1998 traffic slowing down to go into the complex and asked that the traffic department address the issue. Chair Austin said she was in favor of the security date. She empbasized the need to flue tnne the General Plan and make it distinguish between apartments, condos and homes, because tbc General Plan should be adhered to. She proposed that further study of the General Plan return to the Planning Commission in the future. Com. Harris proposed the following changes: Page 4-5, of the resolution: (I) of tbe Sectiou I Findings: After "The proposed gate at the proposed location," add: "with a requirement./hr an open gate during weekday rush hour traffic" will not be detrimental to tbe public healtb, sal~ety and general welfare;" Under Section III, Conditions, add "4. The DeAnza Boulevard security gate would be k¢[~l from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 3:30p. m. to 6.'30p. m. weekdays." MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 8-U-94 (Minor Modifications) according to the model resolutions with changes noted above to Section I of the findings and the addition of Item 4 to the conditions. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Chair Austin proposed a minute order to City Council to look at closed gate communities and fine tune the policy to distioguisb between apartments or homes, clarifying the concept on gated communities Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z-97, 8-EA-98 Amendment to R1 Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Amendment to Single Family Residential Ordinance regarding building mass, setback and bcight. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: To be determined CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 6, 1998 Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell explained that the item was continued from tbe May 6 meeting to review the request for proposal to hire an architect to complete Appendix A. Tbe scope work for the architect was outlined in the attached staff report. Com. Harris expressed concern that the requirement for the architect to complete the study in two months, may limit the choice of architects to those who were not working at tbe present time on a specific project. Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 26, I OOg Ms. Wordell said that one concern was to address the community concerns about the residences being built, so that too much time did not lapse before adoption of standards. Mr. Cowan suggested an extension to three months if a poor response was received on the I~,FP. He said that they would contact four or five people who have prepared guidelines tbr cities and specialize in that type of work. Chair Austin said she was in agreement to change it to 90 days. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Chung Seng Chen, 11566 Upland Court, said that he was attracted to Cupertino because of the excellent schools. He said that he has lived in his home 10 years and plans to rebuild his home as his children are grown up and they need a bigger home. He said that the land value is high and to build a small home on such valuable land is not reasonable; and that size restrictions on homes discourages families from moving into Cupertino. He said the city shonld try to regulate the building design so that the homes are attractive but not limit tile size of tile home, otherwise the residents are discouraged from building a new home to improve the appearancc of the city. Ms. Linda Roy, Cupertino resident, said she felt that the housing stock of a city has a lot to do with the identity of the city and who will be drawn to the city and if they are going to want to stay or not. She said it was an important issue and was pleased that the city was seeking an architect to come up with some design guidelines, as she was in favor of design review. Ms. Roy said she felt the biggest problem that the people were complaining about, was not the size of the houses, but the design of the houses and the fact they did not fit into the neighborhoods. She said thc guidelines have to be enforced in order to have them work, and in order to en~brce them, morc staff is needed or increase the building fees and hire outsiders. Ms. Roy said she preferred adding more to the building fees and hiring professional home designers to do the design review becansc they are going to be the ones who are objective and professional, and the stock of housing in thc city is something that will be around for 40 or 50 years. She concluded that the city should determine what the standards are, not what the neighbors decide on, because most residents inove on and the houses last 40 to 50 years. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved approval of Application 11-Z-97; scope as defined, work task as defined, specifying the request for an architect who can complete the work itl 2 to 3 months in order to secure the most qualified person Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved that the remainder of Application 1 I-Z-97 be continued to the June 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, and to proceed with the request for proposals and approval of budget for the architect Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes g May 26,/qqg OLD BUSINESS 7. Review date for Rl-i tour. A discussion ensued regarding proposed dates for the tour. Them was consensus that .hme 17th, 15th, 10th were the most suitable dates. Ms. Wordell said that she would contact Com. Doyle regarding his schedule. Set date for follow-up meeting with Daniel lacofano regarding Planning Commission Training There was consensus that any of the July dates indicated, with the exception of the J tlly 14th dale were suitable to meet with Mr. lacofano. Ms. Wordell noted that she would see if Com. Doyle had any conflicts. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Mahoney said he would not be able to attend the Mayor's breakfast on June 4 and would contact Com. Doyle to see if he conld attend. Com. Harris asked that they discuss the possible cancellation of the second Augnst meeting at a future meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan reported that the single family addition application would be returning to the I~lanning Commission. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8: I 0 p.m. to regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on June 8, 1998. Approved as presented: June 8, 1998 Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary