Loading...
PC 06-08-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 8, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Doyle, Mahoney, Harris, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 26, 1998 regular meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the May 26 Planning Commission minutes as presented Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted a staff memo from Ms. Wordell regarding the summary of the February workshop; a letter from Kendra Mclntyre regarding development in her neighborhood; and a memo regarding the Planning Commission process. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 6-U-98, 8-Z-90(M), 16-EA-98 Judy Chen 7359 Rainbow Drive Use Permit to demolish an existing apartment and construct an 8 unit townhouse development on a .34 acre parcel. To rezone a .34 acre parcel from P(Res 20-30) to P(Res 10-20). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 6, 1998 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO JUNE 22, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 8, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to postpone Application 6-U-98, 8-Z-90(M), 16-EA-98 to the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 6-EXC-98 SEM Amhitects, Inc. (Shane Co.) 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard Sign exception to exceed the allowed sign size in accordance with Chapter 17.24.60 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the request for the sign exception for the Shane Co. store to install two wall signs, one on the west facing wall and one on the south facing wall. They are also requesting to exceed the sign ordinance's height restriction by 3-1/2 ft. Cupertino's sign ordinance allows for one wall sign with a maximum of 1-l/2 ft. on the site in addition to the ground sign located near the Stevens Creek/Mary Avenue intersection. Staff has reviewed the request for sign exception and finds that installing one larger wall sign is warranted; however are not convinced that two wall signs are needed. Staff recommends approval of one 10 ft. by 5 ft. sign to be installed on either the west or south elevation. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site plan and illustrated the placement of the proposed signs, one on the west elevation facing the interior of the shopping center; and one sign facing Stevens Creek Boulevard on the south elevation. She noted that one ground sign already existed in front of the building; therefore staff was recommending approval of only one additional sign. The applicant was not present. There was no one from the public who wished to speak. Com. Mahoney said that in the absence of additional information, he concurred with staff's recommendation. Com. Doyle said that he felt the sign ordinance should he adhered to. The Shane Co. already has a monument sign and he questioned whether there was a need for an exception. Com. Harris said she concurred with Com. Doyle, the monument sign is quite large and will be visible in both directions and the previous tenant did not have wall signs 5 feet high, and she did not feel the need for the exception. She said she favored the sign ordinance. Com. Stevens concurred that the sign ordinance was appropriate. Chair Austin said that she concurred with Com. Mahoney, staff said that if the elevations were broken, it would make it difficult to construct a rectangular sign and believed a larger wall sign was warranted. She pointed out that the previous tenant had problems with the location, and the city wants tenants to succeed. Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to deny Application 6-EXC-98 Com. Harris Corns. Austin and Mahoney Passed 3-2-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 6-ASA-98 Honey~vell/Measurex One Results Way Architectural Review of a new 43,374 sq. ft. building, parking, and landscaping. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION F1NAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the request for approval of the final site, landscaping and amhitectural plan for building 10 as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application; the Planning Commission's determination on the application will be regarded as final, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, referred to the site plan and the architectural site plan and reviewed the proposed changes to the west elevation of the building which were explained in detail in the staff report. He reviewed the proposed changes to the landscape plan and noted that staff feels that the applicant meets the intent of the parking ordinance in terms of tree planting and is consistent with the previously approved concept for the buffer between the development and single family homes. Mr. Cowan pointed out the trees that had to be replaced and requested permission to have the trees replaced. He summarized that the application was consistent with the plans reviewed in March and noted that the changes were minor. In response to Chair Austin's question, Mr. Cowan illustrated the proposed changes in the orientation of parking spaces. He said that the overall parking supply meets the need of the building. Mr. Cowan answered questions regarding the proposed changes. Mr. John Milbum, CILI Associates, architects, Menlo Park, said that the buildings were exposed concrete. He addressed the issues relative to getting rid of the glass, not doing the fill and increasing the exterior wall height issue. Relative to the glass, he said that it was contemplated to be a concrete tilt-up structure and was a structural issue in that they needed a positive connection between the top of the wall and the edge of the roof. He said it was difficult to make that connection seismically restrained enough if they were attempting to carry the glass to the same point. He said another reason is the nature of the concrete tilt-up; there are wall joints that have to continue straight up the whole height of the wall and in the original design they tried to keep the massing and the proportions the same. He said they scored the concrete at the top of the end walls to look like glass in a sense that it is not a textured concrete; and shaded the drawings to suggest textured, exposed aggregate concrete vs. smooth concrete and textured to suggest a difference to mitigate the fact that they could not find an economical way to put that glass there. Relative to the fill, Mr. Milbum reported that at the start of the project, a civil engineer was brought on board to make some topographic studies of the site and they found that the amount of fill required to bring the grades up to the levels shown on the original plans was fairly significant. Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 8, 1998 In order to balance the sites they explored the options ofmaintaining the existing grades as much as possible. Mr. Duane Gemelke, Honeywell/Measurex, explained that the request for window knockouts was included for possible future needs, which would allow for future windows to be put in at a lower elevation. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Mahoney said that everything was suitable but he wanted to hear other input on the fill issue. He said the fill added extra expense, and would look better if people would see it; however, he was not opposed to choosing the original fill. Com. Harris said she preferred the original plan which was an attempt to make the building attractive instead of just economical; the glazing was a good feature. She said she felt the fill was appropriate, but what was being done was to ignore it, hoping that it would go away, which she felt was not functionally sound. She said the building would be in the community, longer than Honeywell or Measurex, and some attention should be shown to aesthetics. Com. Doyle said that he agreed with Com. Harris that the building was a bare shell, and tilt-ups were being done frequently, but he said he had not seen one which was not painted. He said he did not feel that the fill was absolutely necessary, and the grade should be kept as close to the adjoining properties as possible. He added that he did not like the wall plain. Com. Stevens commented that with the approved grading, the ramp would not hold up as well. He said he did not have a preference but would like to see the grade as it was originally approved, but did not object to leaving it as it existed with the natural grade. Chair Austin concluded that all were in favor of the landscaping and of the first approval and not the landfill; but keeping with the original fill; all objected to the amount of concrete in the building; and said that it was portrayed that glazing was something that could not be done. Com. Harris said that the objections were over the differences of an architectural plan that had some aesthetics vs. an architectural plan driven by economics. She said from her standpoint she would like them to go back and work on aesthetics of the building, so that it fits in nicely with the site and the community. Com. Mahoney said he agreed, but questioned if it would make a difference. Discussion ensued regarding the bland appearance of the concrete buildings. Mr. Gemelke discussed the potential use of spandrell glass in the building. Com. Mahoney said the revised grading was suitable if there was contrast material used in the two places. Com. Harris concurred. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 6-ASA-98 according to the model resolution, with the addition of glass or dark reflective glass-like material to provide contrasting architectural detail, and removal and replacement of trees on other part of the property Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC HEARING 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 MAY 26, 1998 TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 15, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the proposed application to demolish an existing retail building and construct a residential, mixed-use building, and an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to development requirements. The application was presented to the Planning Commission on January 12 and April 27 with airection to further reduce the building height and square footage; locate the trash enclosure so that the retail tenants do not have to go through the residential yard area; provide a 1:l relationship between the height of the proposed building and the existing residential building located to the south; and provide information about potential lot consolidation with the adjoining property owner located to the south. Approval of the project is recommended by staff, and staff will report findings at the meeting. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to City Council on June 15. Ms. Michele Bjurman, Planner II, reported that the proposed changes were outlined in the attached staff report. She reported that the Permit Streamlining Act requires that an application be processed, approved or denied within a specified amount of time; and explained that relative to the application, time has expired and a 90 day extension is needed to allow time to act on the application. The second item relates to the resolution in the packet, pages 3-4 and 3-5; wherein it is the intent on the application to recommend approval of an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, and as the conditions are written, specifically findings B and C, they need to come back for an application for exception. Staff suggests that if the application is approved this evening, the resolution be modified, so that the beginning orA, says essentially, an exception for design standards is approved with the following findings, the findings that are listed I through 5 and that items B and C be removed so that approval would be given this evening if the Planning Commission chooses. Mr. Thomas Liu, architect, referred to an architectural model of the project and illustrated the significant changes made to the building and floor area. He reported that the number of residential units were reduced to 3; the square footage of the residential units was reduced by approximately 1,000 sq. ft.; and the width of the building was reduced by 5 feet. Reduction in the width of the building allowed for placement of the trash enclosure and the 6 parking spaces for residents. He said that the retail square footage was reduced by approximately 220 sq. ft. Mr. Liu discussed the other proposed changes to the project and the landscape plan. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 8, 1998 A discussion ensued regarding the modifications, wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. Com. Harris said she was in favor of the project, and commended the architect on the excellent job, and said that the awnings and the trellis add greatly to the design. She said when the Stevens Creek Plan was approved, the Planning Director said it was in the abstract and would have to test it, and stated that the items that came forward over the next year or two would be those tests. She said there was an exception process, and she was willing to trade off for that. Cupertino needs housing, the city wants to support the retail community, and wants to try to do mixed-use development and this project does all those things. She said she felt something was lost by the reduction in the square footage, as there were four residential units and now there are only three; five feet of width has been gained and compact parking spaces were increased to unisize spaces. She noted also that the remaining residential units were larger and she felt that they would rent or sell for a higher price and therefore would be less accessible to the community. She said that the modified retail spaces are small. She said she preferred the previous proposal because it gave four units and functional retail space. Com. Harris said that she would approve this as the applicant is presenting it and staff is supporting it, but stated for the record that the four units were better all around for residential. Com. Stevens said that he originally objected to the project because he felt it was too ambitious and the reason for it was the adjoining property, the Heart of the City Plan included two lots behind it. He said if this concept was utilizing those lots, he agreed with Com. Harris, the larger store and four unit residential would be very applicable. He said that he concurred with reducing it down to three units because of the size of the lots available and the parking spaces for the apartments made regular size; otherwise they would be parking in the street. He said without more land, the presentation fits. Com. Mahoney concurred with Com. Stevens. Com. Doyle agreed with Com. Stevens that the project was too ambitious. He said it was started, thinking they could put a development on less than one acre pamel. He expressed concern about setting precedents; originally the goal was to have at least a I:1 setback, now there is a 36 ft. high building with a 30 ft. setback. He said he felt the proposal is very good, except they are trying to put a lot on a very small parcel. If it is to be the standard for the city, it should be stated as such, but initially said that it wouldn't be what would be done in the community. He said the architect did a good job of handling the compromises as it was a difficult challenge to put so much on this type of property in that location. Chair Austin said that she concurred with Coms. Stevens and Mahoney and agreed with Com. Harris that it is unfortunate that a unit was lost. She said she was in favor of the project. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the negative declaration on Application 37-EA-97 Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes ? June 8. 1998 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 12-U-97 per the modified model resolution, eliminating No. B, modifying No. C, and including the 90 day extension request. Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 7-U-98 Tony Wong 10067 Bianchi Way Use Permit to construct two single family homes in a Planned Development zoning district, including an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish the single family home and construct a duplex on the property on Bianchi Way. The three key issues for consideration are lot consolidation/density, and lot design and are outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application; the Planning Commission's decision will be considered final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Bjurman noted that the application was similar to the previous one discussed, in that the resolution if approved would require similar modification. She discussed a change that the Public Works Department advised her about, namely a condition of approval currently on the application that requires that the entire roadway and the entire area will become an ingress/egress easement to be essentially improved as pavement for the accessibility by the existing apartments. The Public Works Department agreed that the applicant will complete the cul de sac and that will remain as public roadway, but that all they have to have as an ingress/easement is the 4 feet completing a 24 foot driveway for access and that the remaining 16 feet will then be given back for the buildings which will then decrease the floor area ratio reflected on the front of the staff report from 49% to 44%, and also increasing the net lot area, essentially 1,000 sq. fi.. The only other issue on this application is whether the use itself is appropriate and staff struggled over this for a lot of reasons; staff does recommend approval of the application. Referring'to the plans, Com. Harris questioned how the proposal could be construed as a duplex. Ms. Bjurman defined duplex as a building containing two kitchens that would house two families living independently, and said that the connecting corridor made it a duplex. She said that the application could be considered the same as no subdivision is proposed. Mr. Tony Wong, applicant, presented a model, a rendering, and a color board for the property. He noted that the connecting corridor shown in the drawing was .not aesthetically pleasing and could be eliminated. He reported that in the PD zoning, 8 to 35 dwelling units per gross acre were allowed, and his proposal was for 2 units on approximately 1/4 acre; the FAR is less than 45%; and 3 story, 35 foot maximum height allowed under the PD zoning, and his proposal is for a 2 story, approximately 25 foot high buildings. He said that the gray slate roof tile would blend in with the neighborhood homes; and that no vertical walls face the neighbors. Mr. Wong said that he proposed to plant 24 inch box trees to shield the neighbors. He said that he would need an Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 8, 1998 exception from the required 20 foot setback to approximately 7 to 10 foot setback, and an exception for development under less than 1/4 acre since lot consolidation is not feasible. Mr. Thomas Liu, architect, said that the project was a challenge to have an architectural and site plan to fulfill the goal of the Heart of the City Plan in such a small area. He reviewed the design of the houses and illustrated how the design of the roofline reduced the massing and scale of the buildings. Mr. Liu explained the purpose of the carport attached to one of the unit~. A discussion ensued about the proposed application relative to possible lot consolidation, setbacks, floor area ratio, and exception to Heart of the City Plan, wherein Mr. Liu answered questions. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Mahoney expressed concern about the configuration of the proposal. He said he was not opposed to two homes, but two independent homes. He said that he felt the carport was just a way around the floor area ratio. Com. Stevens said that he would consider it appropriate if the density around the two homes was multi-family. Com. Doyle said he was ok with the lot consolidation, or lack thereof, density is appropriate; but questioned if the design is appropriate. He said the carport was odd. He said the two independent units would represent a higher value or a more aesthetically pleasing environment to the owners or renters; but to the neighbors, it goes back to the intrusion into other neighborhood, adjoining properties. He said in the future if someone says they want to split them in half and sell them, there will be one property that doesn't meet the R1 setbacks and one that might. He said that he did not feel the two houses together was the appropriate way to go; they should be separated, and work toward the R1 setbacks and make it look aesthetically pleasing. Com. Harris said that she liked the design; the architect has gone to great lengths to break up the wall height, bay windows, intervening roof lines at the first story, with significant number of roof cuts with window features that make the building attractive. She said it was a model for the city; but said it should not be called a duplex. Com. Harris said she did not like manipulations of any kind, and called it fraud, and said the city should not get involved in that type of action. She said there are two homes and there should not be a corridor between the garages and should not be called duplexes. She said the density could be approved as two homes on one site, unless there is some legal reason preventing it. Relative to the setback issue, there are only 8 spaces needed; there are ~vo 2-car garages and 2 spaces in front of each, which totals 8; the carport area can be living space in unit 2 and the other end of unit 2 adjacent to the apartment building could move down for living space with the same size dwelling unit. She said she preferred the two units, but was concerned with the setback issue. Chair Austin said the consolidation was not workable; two units are fine; but she agreed that the configuration is odd_ She agreed with Com. Harris's idea of eliminating the third carport and making it living space if they could move the property over, which calls for a redesign. Mr. Wong said that he would prefer a continuance of the item to allow time to modify the design. Ms. Wordell requested clarification on meeting the single family setbacks. Com. Harris said that the views she was echoing had to do with the first floor, south side. She said she did not want them to redesign the building, but only deal with the south side of building 2. Com. Doyle said Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 8, 1998 he felt they should look at it as meeting all R1 setbacks, which will be difficult; so there will have to be some flexibility. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 7-U-98 to the July 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Chair Austin declared a recess from 8:58 p.m. to 9:16 p.m. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 18-EA-98, 2-TM-98, 7-Z-98 Emily Chen Vernon Miller Charitable Remainder Unitrust II 10345 Tula Lane Tentative map to subdivide a .9 acre lot into 4 lots and rezone from RI-10 to RI-7.5 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 6, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to subdivide a .9 acre lot into 4 lots and rezone the parcel from RI-10 to R1-7.5, as outlined in the attached staff'report. Staff recommends approval of the application; however, recommends that access for the two front lots be taken from Tula Lane which would result in the two front houses being oriented toward Tula Lane. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. Ms. Emily Chen, applicant, said that the subdivision followed the pattern of the neighborhood and noted that the property has been an eyesore on Tula Lane for some time. She said that she was willing to front the houses on Tula Lane. Mr. Gordon Liu, 20871 Tula Ct., said that he was pleased that the fence would be removed and the street moved back. Ms. Kendra Mclntyre, 10328 So. Stelling Road, said that while it might be a good idea for land developm.ent, she suggested the developer be different than the one who is proposing the application. She said that her property was adjacent to the building site, and when the land was cleared, all fence posts were broken along one side of her property. Ms. Chert was informed at the time and she agreed she would have them replaced, which was on May 17, 1997. Nothing has been done, and in February 1998 the fence fell flat across the landscaping in the back yard. Again Ms. Chen was contacted, and she said she would fix the fence but not take care of the landscaping; the Mclntyres should file a claim with their insurance company. The insurance company said that it was not their problem, but was Ms. Chen's problem; the fence came down because she damaged it. Ms. Mclntyre said that they are now at a point in limbo. She said that was her first contact with Ms. Chert, the builder. Her second contact was when she started to put in the home at 10330 So. Stelling Road. The pad was put in the home within less than 10 feet from the property line; and everyone who came to measure the property line automatically assumed that the fence is the property line. When that building was surveyed in January 1998 and the markers went up, it was evident that the property line was within 8 inches to a foot outside of the fence. However, the pad went up and it is less than I0 feet from the actual property Planning Commission Minutes l0 June 8, 1998 line. She said they were aware of where the property line is and they continue to let everyone who comes into measure assume that the Mclntyre's fence is the property line. Ms. Mclntyre said that her third encounter with Ms. Chen related to the two heritage trees on the property. She said that the roots on the trees were severed vertically, less than 3 feet from the tree. When the second story addition was put up on the property, they vertically severed the branches so that there are newer branches overhanging that side of the property. She said that the branches on the giant pine tree and oak tree overhang her property. She expressed frustration that she had been dealing with the city planning office~ with codes people for months and nothing has happened. Two months ago, Cindy Wexler from the Planning Office came out, inspected the trees and agreed that the trees needed to come down, and nothing has yet happened. She said that a high probability existed that in any rainstorm or windstorm, the tree will fall on her home, and her son's bedroom is in that tree's path. Ms. Mclntyre asked that the Planning Commission consider delaying the permit to Ms. Chen or refuse the permit until the problem at the present site has been corrected. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney, said that she received copies of the letter today and will be looking into any issues that might relate to city issues; however, she said there may be civil issues between the developer and Ms. Mclntyre that would not relate to city concerns. She said that she would be responding to Ms. Mclntyre's letter. Ms. Wordell said that she visited the property and saw that the trees had been heavily trimmed, and looked one-sided. She said she asked Ms. Chen to have the arborist give a report on the health of the trees, to be sure that they weren't in jeopardy of falling because they were lopsided. The arborist wrote a report saying that the trees were healthy. She said it does not affect the current property. Ms. Chen said that she had not spoken with Ms. Mclntyre but had met with Mr. Mclntyre and their next door neighbor regarding the damage to the fence. She said they agreed to repair the fence when the grading was finished and the fence posts would be replaced; however, the rainy weather prevented the replacement of the fence posts. She said that she did not hear from the Mclntyre's or their neighbor, but heard from the Planning Department that they were concerned that the setbacks were too close to the property line. Ms. Chen said that a surveyor said that the setbacks were appropriate. She said when they were building the house, she hired a certified arborist to trim the trees. She said that the oak tree has to be saved, but the pine tree can be removed, 'but by the new homeowner. She said that she had not had any contact with the Mclntyres lately and only has had contact with the city Planning Department. Chair Austin suggested that Ms. Chen meet with the Mclntyres to resolve their problems. Ms. Chen said that she would work to resolve the problem. Ms. Murray said that her office would look into it. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to grant the Negative Declaration on Application 18-EA-98 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes II June 8, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 2-TM-98 and 7-Z-98 according the model resolution Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11oZ-98, 8-EA-98 Amendment to R1 Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Amendment to the Single Family Residential Ordinance regarding building mass, setback and height. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: To be determined CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 26, 1998 Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell reported that the item was continued from the May 6 Planning Commission meeting so that staff could provide information on property valuation and direction from the Planning Commission that staff compare the direction given at the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to the current direction of the Planning Commission. She said that the minutes from the joint meeting were included in the meeting packet. She reported that the budget for the architect position was approved by City Council and the process for filling the position will begin soon. It is suggested that the Planning Commission select two commissioners to conduct the architectural interviews and selection with staff, and City Council select two councilmembers also. Ms. Bjurman reported that staff felt that the property valuation study did not provide valid information for drawing conclusions on neighborhoods limited to single story homes. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. A discussion ensued regarding the interview process for the architectural firms. Ms. Bjurman said that staff estimated there would be five firms to interview. MOTIONi SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to nominate Donna Austin and David Doyle to be the Planning Commissioners to serve on the interview panel for the architectural firms. Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue the item to the September 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting to review the architect survey Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 8, 1998 NEW BUSINESS Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 14-U-97 Ji-Mei Chen 10580 John Way Report to Council: Use Permit to construct a second story addition to an existing residence. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 15, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application of Ms. Ji-Mei Chen to add a second story addition to an existing residence on a street rezoned to Rl-10i. The application had been denied twice by the Planning Commission and appealed to the City Council, who referred it back to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Despite efforts to reduce the further reduce the square footage of the proposed second story floor area, specifically 284 sq. ft., Mr. Cowan believes that further reduction is needed. Ms. Chen seeks further direction from the Planning Commission. A tentative City Council date is June 15, 1998. Mr. Cowan illustrated the old and new plans for the second story addition, and smd that the issue has been a real struggle for all involved. The neighbors are interested in the single story aspect of the neighborhood and Ms. Chen has needs for bedrooms on the second floor of the home. He illustrated the proposed plan for the additional living space in Ms. Chen's home. Mr. Cowan said that the quandary exists because there is no history for approval of conditional use permits in an Rl-i neighborhood. This is the first case heard by the Planning Commission involving a second story building with a conditional use permit in a single story neighborhood. Mr. Cowan has informed Ms. Chen that since the primary objective of the zone is to try to limit the volume of space in the second story, there ought to be a serious attempt to get as much space on the first level as possible and minimize the space on the upper level. He said the architecture on the proposed changes is more pleasing; however, there is still a need to get some additional space from upstairs to downstairs to comply with the intent of the single story limitation in this particular zoning district. He said that the issues are: how much space is appropriate; what is the primary intent of the Rl-i zone; and provide direction. Ms. Ji-M~i Chen, property owner, emphasized the need for upper level living space for herself and her three children and the lower level living space for her elderly mother. She said that she has attempted to follow the staff's direction for the setbacks on the north side and reduction of square footage. She explained that because of her elderly mother's living habits, the need exists for the mother's living quarters to be on a separate level from the other members of the family. Presently the family is living in a two story home with the mother living on the first floor. She said that she purchased the home on John Way in December 1996, with the plan to add a second story addition to the home. Ms. Mabel McFarland, 10567 John Way, said that when the process began, she was a 40 year resident of Cupertino, and now is a 42 year resident. She referred to the purpose stated in the City code of compatibility and scale, character of the neighborhood, identity of the residential neighborhood, as stated in 19.28.01-10, ensuring a reasonable level of compatibility and scale. She said that these were not included in the proposal and urged the Planning Commission to Planning Commission Minutes 13 June 8, 1998 honor the Rl-i zoning to honor the requests of the residents and the approval of both the Planning Commission and City Council for the Rl-i. She urged them not to destroy the character of the neighborhood. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Ms. McFarland said that it was possible to have a two story house that would meet the intent of the zoning, but not the scale of the proposed application. She said that such a house existed at the end of John Way. Ms. Samantha Van Epps, 10525 John Way, said that she was concerned with the reason for the second story addition, and questioned how long the mother would reside in the home, and then the neighborhood would be stuck with the two story home. She said there was ample room for the addition on the first level; staff does not support the addition and has denied the application. She said that without the Rl-i zoning, them would be a "pink palace" on the street. Chair Austin closed the public hearing. Com. Harris said that she felt there was ample room on the first floor for the master suite and bathroom, which would reduce the upstairs addition to approximately 400 square feet, which would meet the needs of the neighborhood and the applicant. Com. Mahoney expressed concern that the two story addition remain in scale with the remainder of the house. He said the design has improved and will not be as imposing as before. Com. Doyle said that the addition should be in scale with the remainder of the house. He said the second story should have very little impact on the visual mass from the street and the visual impacts from the neighboring homes. Com. Stevens said it was a step in the right direction, and he felt she should try to do the addition all on one floor as them is room. Chair Austin said she concurred with Com. Stevens; and she felt the property was large enough to have the addition on one floor and put locks on the doors for privacy. She said that the Rl-i designation should be adhered to. She said that she was in favor of staff's recommendation. Com. Doyle commented that he did not want to predispose that second stories would not be permitted; the intent of the Rl-i is well understood and in some cases it would allow a second story addition. Com. Harris said that she preferred the newer design; the older one was massive and gawky. She said the efforts in the second application to cut it up and have some perspective will make it seem smaller; however, she felt there was too much upstairs and not enough downstairs as there was plenty of room for the additions downstairs. Mr. Cowan said that if them is sentiment on the part of the Planning Commission to allow some degree of second story addition, the applicant would be asked if she is willing to go back and spend mole time on the design of the addition. Following a brief discussion, there were four of the five commissioners in favor of a second story addition, but that it still needs to meet the intent of the Rl-i zoning, more than the proposal submitted. Ms. Chen said that she was willing to work with the city, but asked that they also consider her family's needs. She asked for specific directions on reduction of square footage on the second floor. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 14-U-97 to the July 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 14 June 8, 1998 9. Consideration of cancellation of August 24, I998 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Wordell said that staff recommended that the cancellation be contingent on the City Council canceling their second August meeting. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved that if the City Council cancels its second meeting in August, the Planning Commission also cancel its second August meeting. Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 10. Appointment of two Planning Commissioners to a panel to select the architectural advisor to the ASA Subcommittee. Mr. Cowan explained that the City Council decided that two commissioners and two councilmembers should be on the committee to select the architectural advisor. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved that the two Planning Commissioners, Chair Austin and Com. Doyle serve on the panel to select the architectural advisor to the ASA Subcommittee Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Doyle reported on his attendance at the recent Mayor's breakfast. He said there was a suggestion that the Planning Commission be involved in the 5Cs program. He reported that there would be a Mayor's breakfast in July, but not one in August. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:I5 p.m. to the special meeting of tour of Rl-i areas, June 17, 1998, at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: June 22, 1998