Loading...
PC 08-10-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 10, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Staffpresent: Doyle, Harris, Mahoney, Stevens Chairwoman Austin Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Vera Gil, Planner II; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney Vice Chairperson Mahonoy chaired the meeting in Chairwoman Austin's absence. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the July 27, 1998 regular meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue approval of the July 27, 1998 minutes to the September 14, 1998 meeting Corn. Doyle Chair Austin Passed 4-0-0 WRITI'EN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 7-EXC-98 (21 -LA-98) Thomas Hutton 22820 San Juan Road Hillside exception to locate a 2,500 sq. ft. addition to a residence on a prominent ridgeline in accordance with Chapter 19.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from July 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1998 Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z~98, 8-EA-98 Amendment to R1 Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 10,. 1998 Amendment to the Single Family Residential Ordinance regardiing building mass, setback and height.. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of June 8, 1998 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of August 31, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Item 2 to the September 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting and Item 8 to the August 31, 1998 joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting Com. Doyle Chair Austin Passed 4-0-0 Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 5-U-98, 11-EA-9g Hossain Khaziri 10002 DeAnza Boulevard Use Permit to demolish an inactive service station and construct a new 778 square foot service station and 648 square foot car wash. Continued from Planning Commission agenda of dune 22, 1998 Request removal from calendar MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to remove Item 9 from the agenda Com. Doyle . Chaff Austin Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 11-ASA-98 O'Briea Group Cristo Rey Drive (Unit.l, Lot 12, Oak Valley Development) Architectural review of a new 5,637 square foot single family residence. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff.presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for architectural review of a 5,657 sq. ft. single family residence proposed as a Sunset Idea Home, which would be featured in Sunset Magazine and available for tours atter completion. Items for discussion include the overall design concept, lot coverage, floor area ratio, setback and height requirements which are outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval except for the garage pop-out which protrudes into the front setback. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered final and will not be forwarded to the City Council unless an appealed is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, illustxated the location of the proposed house, the side, rear and fi'ont elevations. She circulated the color rendering and color board. She noted that the observation tower element was removed, and that the lower two tower elements remained. Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 10,. 1998 Mr. Steven Zales, O'Brien Group, said that the proposed house would be the 1990s Idea House published in Sunset Magazine, built and featured by Sunset Magazine, and would be a positive contribution to the community. Mr. Zales reported that the initial plan involved a two story observation tower which created some contxoversy about whether it fell within the zoning for the area. Sunset decided to eliminate the tower in the final design, and two vertical features still remain. Relative to the garage pop-out, he said they felt it was important to have the the feature architecturally, and converting that element into a bay window would not fit with the design of the house, and would like to retain the feature as is, and proposed to have built-in cabinets below the cabinet to preclude it from being floor space to be accepted as an architectural feature. He said they were not attempting to get extra floor space, but were t~ying to have an interesting elevation, not a flat front. Ms. Courmey Compton, Sunset Magazine, said they were delighted about the project because it was designing the ranch house of the next century. She said it would be an updated ranch style home with the amenities and conveniences of tomorrow, the house for the new mellinium. The house highlights indoor/outdoor living, has an open relaxed single story floor plan, which made the ranch home the most popular form of architedcture in the west. She explained the features of the home which were outlined in the staff report. She said the Idea House and its Cupertino location would be promoted and publicized in Sunset, in the editor's colnm~ and in advertising as well as a major article in the August 1999 issue. She noted that the home would be fully furnished and landscaped to complement the environment and provide readers with ideas and products to adapt to their own homes. The house would be open to the public on weekends for 16 weeks, and the net proceeds from the open house would benefit a nonprofit organization, preferably an environmentally oriented one which suppoas the open space around Oak Valley as well as the residents of Cupertino. She said that there would also be a tour of the house on Sunset's website for 12 months. Mr. Frank Stoltz, South Coast Architects, addressed the issue of the garage pop-out. He said it was their intent to create a certain detail on the front elevation as well as the sides and the rear and for the garage itself as it projects into that setback. He said if they felt it was not considered an architectural projection, and they could locate either some type of banch seat below that window or some storage, they would include it in the design. If not, they would possibly have to consider relocating the footprint itself within the site. Mr. Stoltz said that in designing the home for Sunset magazine, they tried to create indoor/outdoor spaces and created normal courtyards as well as a dining space which shapes begin to create the elevation shown. He said a material was selected that reflected a material similar to what is used in ranch homes with the use of hardy shingle. Mr. Stoltz answered Commissioners' questions. Vice Chair Maboney opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to Com. Stevens said that he reviewed the design, but was not familiar with setback requirements; but indicated that the particular pop-out feature would be appropriate for the area for the car door opening. He said he felt it was a spectacular home, end if too far front, suggested splitting the difference by moving it back 1-1/2 feet with hardware on it. Com. Doyle said that relative to the 3 feet, it was appropriate if cantilevered. He said he did not want to have it set a precedent to make it a standard process. He said that he did not support metal roofs overall, but this one was acceptable because the percentage was so small. He expressed 4 August 10,. 1998 Planning Commission Minutes concern about the house size relative to the lot size whereas in some developments each house has 5 feet between them and 28 or 30 foot vertical and coverage is huge. In this case there is one house set by itself, with the other side open. Com. Doyle said that the vertical tower was suitable as long as they are within the height guidelines. He said that the applicant should meet the requirements or present valid reasons why they cannot. Relative to splitting the difference, he said that there is the precedent of having 1-1/2 feet inside the front eastment or the front setback, which is a problem. Com. Harris said she liked the design of the house, but not the design of the out building and the silo, which she felt was not appropriate for a home or a suitable precedent for the first house to be developed in this commanity. Relative to the pop-out, she said she felt the front setback requirements should be maintained and no precedent set as there was plenty of space on the site for the house. She pointed out that if they wanted to change it and not have it come all the way to the ground, it is a manipulation of the intent of the setback; however, she would support it, but not support having it as storage or bookshelves or any internal use. Com. Harris said she felt the community would be enhanced by the development, and overall was In favor of the application. Vice Chair Ma. honey said he felt it was a grand house although the lot size required for a single story house of that size does not fit in the next mellinium in this pan of the Bay Area~ He said he was willing to split the difference, however felt that there was not enough support for that, and recommended that staff be responsible for making the decision. Com. Harris noted that the conditions should call for staff to be the decision maker on the architectural feature of the pop-out Vice Chair Mahoney added that they did not want the proposal to be returned again, but concurred with the architect that a bay window was not suitable. He expressed concern about setting a precedent on this particular house. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 11-ASA-98 according to the model resolution with the addition that staff will be responsible for approving it as an architectural feature or moving it back. Com. Stevens Chair Austin Passed 4-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 10-EXC-98 (Parking Exception) Kanisha (Sobrato Development) 10351 Bubb Road (approximale mid-block between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road) Parking exception to allow a shared parking agreement for an existing office building. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from July 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a parking exception to - allow a 6 space parking deficit as ouffmed in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval Planning Commission Minutes August I0,. 199g of the application. The Planning Commission's decision is final and will not forwarded to the City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Wordell illustrated the location of the lot on a map and the site plan. The applicant did not speak. Vice Chair Mahoney opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Harris said she felt they should approve only a conversion of enough of the 10,000 square feet of office space to accommodate appropriate parking under the present rule system and not any more; therefore she would not support the conversion with the deficit. She said she felt the applicant should give up the patio space and implement the vanpool suggestion now. She said a consistent set of rules was needed and if good standards were not in existence, then new ones should be adopted. She reiterated that approval of the 10,000 square feet of office space should not be grained if there is not the appropriate parking. Com. Doyle said he concurred with Com. Harris. Com. Stevens said he also concurred with Com. Harris. He said he had visited the site and felt that mmovof of the patio would be a disservice to the employees. He noted that a reasonable consideration would be the one side of the wall and communicating with the neighbor to possibly gain parking spacas from them to overcome the deficit. Vice Chair Mahoney said he did not agree with the other commissioners, but felt it was their role to provide juflgment, understand specific situations and deal with the problems if they arose. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the building was fully occupied as an R&D building and several years ago part of the back space was converted to industrial storage, which created the present problem. He noted that they did not control the number of employees, but the square footage mad parking spaces, therefore other buildings that didn't do industrial conversion to industrial space for storage don't have the same problem. A representative of the applicant explained the proposed vanpool program which would address the parking space deficit. Com. Doyle said that he was not supportive of the vanpool plan. He said they were trying to maintain the current ratio as tightly as possible because past exceptions made have returned to haunt them. He said if there were valid pro, ams to substantiate that are usable in other programs, he would be supportive of them. Com. Harris said that she felt it was unreasonable to assume that a large percentage of 20% of the staff would participate in the carpool/vanpool program. The applicant's representative suggested another option of taking the conversion of the break area off the patio area which would net 3 parking spaces, leaving a 3 parking space deficit, and rounding mathematical calculations out to 300 sq. 1~. per stall, would net 900 sq. ft. that could not be converted. She said presently parking was not an issue. Com. Harris commented that it was acceptable. 6 August 10,. 199g Planning Commission Minutes Vice Chair Mahoney clarified that if the applicant chose to convert the entire thing and save the patio by potentially sharing with the next door neighbor, the item would have to be continued. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 10-EXC-98 to the September 14, 1998 planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Chair Austin Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-EXC-98 (parking exception) Taisei Construction 1074 l No. Wolfe Road (southwest comer of Wolfe Road and Prunefidge Avenue) Sign exception to exceed the allowed wall sign height in acordance with Chapter 17.24.060 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from July 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for sign exception to exceed the allowed square footage for ground signs and allowed height for wall signs, as outlined in the attached staff report. Relative to the wall signs, staff believes that the larger height is proportional to the building and is justified for the ground signs because of the distance fi.om the road and the obstruction of txees. Relative to the ground signs, staff believes that 50 sq. fi. over the allowed maximum is not justified; however, would support the 72 sq. fL for the main sign and 40.5 for the entrance sign for a total of 112.5 sq. fi. due to the obstruction of the trees. Staff recommends approval of the sign exception application; a Planning Commission decision on the application will be regarded as final and will not be forwarded to the City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Wordell illustrated the location of the proposed signs. She pointed out that staff supported the lower heights for the monument signs to minimize the degree of the exception that is required and said staffwould address relocating the monument sign at the entraaen for visibility reasons. Staff answered questions regarding other sign exception applications. Mr. David Rossi, Talsai Construction, said that the intent of the signage program was not solely to advertise the Hilton logo, but to identify the building and its usage. He said they were deviating fi.om the Hilton requirements as they preferred the Hilton verbiage on the building due to the architectural features of the building. Relative to the comer sign, he said there is not a vast amount of room for signage in the area, as that portion of the building is actually set back farther since it is part oftbe setback of the building. He noted that it was the only comer visible fi.om the offiamp from Highway 280 to Wolfe Road and the need exists to identify it from the Marriott since they share the same access road. Relative to the larger monument sign, there are options regarding the sizes, and it is recommended that the address number appear on the monument sign, Relative to the entxance sign, there is no problem approving a smaller sign. The size of the sign on Wolfe and Pruneridge is very crucial since it is very dense with trees and very difficult area. Also there is competition with the large Cupertino Village sign. Plann/ng Comm/ssion M~nutes ? August 10,. 1998 Vice Chair Mahoney opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Doyle said that he would support either the ordinance or the parody with the Maniott. If there are two monument signs, he said he would support those and the other sign needs to be within the sign regulations. Com. Harris said she supported staffs recommendation for the ground sign; however, the sign on Wolfe Road should have the address numbers on it. She said the sign ordinance specifies letter height and similar requirements, and assumed those requirements would be met. Ms. Wordell explained that the letter height pertained to tenants and had to be a minumum of 6 inches, but said it was not applicable because there were not multiple tenants. Com. Harris clarified that the issue of the monument sign part of the ordinance was a safety issue; when people were driving by they would be able to see those letters. She expressed concern that the sign being presented for approval of the exception was not the actual sign for the property, and the address was not included. Com. Harris expressed her reluctance at approving a sign when the sample shown was not the actual sign and they did not have a sample oftbe actual proposed sign. She said she would concur with staff's recommendation provided the address appears on the street side. She expressed concern about exceeding the sign ordinance for the height of the logo, and suggested 49 inches high and proportionally wide to fit their scheme. Com. Stevens said that the sign will be internally ilhtminated and because of that, he felt the 48 inch standard should be met. Relative to the wall signs, he said if they were horizontal format, they can comply with the requirements. Com. Stevens said there was no need to go with staff recommendation. Vice Chair Mahoney said he concurred with staff's recommendation, and he felt that hotels should be marked from the freeway, particularly if one is t~ying to find it in the late night hours from the lieeway. He said that the Hilton is further away than Marriott's from the freeway and relative to the height, the applicant should not be penalized because of the shape of their logo. He said he would support the height of 5 feet. Com. Doyle said without the data, he felt a precedent was being set. He said he felt they should be able to compare the issue with the previous Apple and Marriott issues which were similar. He said that a potential problem exists because the logo is a font higher. He added that Vice Chair Maboney's argument was valid; however, he did not agree. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Rossi opted for a continuance to allow time to provide more information to the Council as well as review what Marriott Courtyard has to be consistent with them. Com. Harris suggested that it would be helpful when the application was presented to return with signs with the correct names, height, etc. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 11-EXC-98 to the September 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Chair Austin Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes August10,.1998 Application No.: 14-U-97 Applicant: Ji-Mai Chen Location: 10580 John Way Report to Council: Use permit to constxuct a second story addition to an existing residence. Tentative City Council Hearing Date: September 8, 1998 Staffpresentatation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a Use Permit to consa'uct a second story addition to an existing residence. On June 8, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the application and requested that the applicant reduce the square footage of the second story. They also requested that the home be reduced to reduce the feasible mass. Despite the revisions to the proposal, the second story will be visible fi'om both the side and the rear and the home will be taller than neighboring homes. Staff feel that the modifictions meet the intent of the Rl-i findings and recommends approval of the project. The Planaing Commission's decision will be forwarded to City Council on Tuesday, September 8. Ms. Vera Gil, Planner ][I, referred to the rear elevation and illustrated that the proposed second story addition has been pushed to the rear of the home, with the appearance of a one story home fi.om the front elevation. She noted that the applicant was proposing to add 200 square feet to the garage. She said that staffdid not have revised plans from the architect. Vice Chair Mahoney said that a decision could not be made but further direction would be given to the applicant. Ms. Ji-Mei Chen, applicant, said that she attempted to reduce the mass of the second story addition by pushing the addition to the rear. She also illnstmted that higher windows were proposed for the side elevations because of needed air cireulafion within the home. Vice Chair Mahoney opened the meeting for public input. He asked that comments be limited to the current proposal as other issues had been heard before. Ms. Samantha Van Epps, 10525 John Way, said that there was confusion about the current proposal. She said it appeared that the proposal was an improvement, but the issue still at stake was that the street was zoned for single family homes and the residents wanted it to remain single story. She said that the issue was complex and the residents were getting more confused as time went on. She reported flint the neighbors were concerned about the lack of maintenance to the yard and the swim pool with stagnant water, creating health issues. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney, clarified that the 'i' zoning was not a restriction, but simply that to have a second story, a use permit is required. She said that it was not zoning John Way as a single story neighborhood. Mrs. Mable McFarland, 10567 John Way, said that she felt they were beginning to wish there wasn't such a word as "exception". She said Ms. Chert had asked for specific directions fi.om staff, and she arged them to recommend that further reduction be made by removal of the north side bedroom, which would leave Ms. Chen with a 6 bedroom house for 4 people. She said that she felt reduction of 80 square feet was not a significant amount. She said the residents would like to see the issue of the property in general addressed, as there had not been any care given to the property; the weeds exceed 5 feet in height, there has been no noticeable care of the pool, and the appearance is a sore spot on the street. Mrs. McFarland that that Ms. Chen told the neighbors that she has had to do extensive interior remodeling and this has not been started since she purchased the home in 1996. She suggested a method of cutting back would be to remove the storage shed, Plan/zing Commission Minutes 9 August 10,. 1998 which is over 40 years and was used to raise chinchillas. Ms. Chert could build a garage in the back and convert the existing garage, other people on the street have done so and still have a large backyard. She said that although she was appreciative of the work staff has done attempting to reduce the size of the house, and she appreciated Ms. Chen's changes in the materials used, the size is still another matter. Ms. Chert had said in 1997 that she had not decided how to remodel her house, yet she has come with large plans. Mrs. McFarland said that it was regrettable that Ms. Chen could not have made her addition like other people on the street by limiting it to one story or similar to the comer house that one cannot tell is a two story house. She concluded that it was regrettable that 50 residents on John Way who all voted for the Rt-i zone, have to live with the needs of one person. She urged that the Planning Commissioners listen to the Cupertino residents concerning the issue; and said that the large second story homes are not compatible with the single story homes on John Way. Mr. Joe Van Epps, 10525 John Way, said that the petition signed by the residents of John Way asked for a single story, and did not say that they wanted a special use permit issue to be involved. He expressed concern about the number of houses on the street that were candidates for demolition, and said the problem was with setting a precedent for issuing a permit for a 3,200 or 4,000 sq. ft. two story house which is too large for the neighborhood and not in harmony with the neighborhood. He encouraged the Planning Commission not to give in and approve something because they are t/red of dealing with it; but to act on what is fight for the residents of John Way and Ms. Chen. Vice Chair Maboney closed the public hearing. Com. Stevens said that he needed more information on what the right side and the back looks like. He said relative to the floor plan, he objected to the two decks which infringed upon the neighbor's privacy. To reduce the mass of the building even further, he recommended consideration of a 7 foot outside wall for the second story rather than an 8 foot wall. He said he recoLmi~0d the need and desire of the RI4 being single story; was supportive of it, but as pointed out by the Deputy City Attorney, it was an exception b~is, and he was attempting to get the best possible exception. Com. Stevens said that the video presentation illustrated the property 7 months ago and he expressed concern about the unkempt condition of the property since then, noting that it was a fire hazard. He suggested that the video presentation be updated with a current viewing of the property. Mr. Cowen noted that the new blight ordinance was in effect with a three day period and the property had been turned over to code enforcement. Com. Doyle said that the wood siding and compatibility of design with the neighborhood was an important part of the entire issue. The high side windows were appropriate; the decks are a visual intrusion to the adjoining properties and need to be mitigated. Minimum inmasion on the neighbors is a primary issue, and the visual mass fi.om the street is another; single story homes are preferred in the neighborhood. He said that if a second story addition is necessary, it should be mhnimiTed. He said it was a very painful process, but not impossible to do. Mr. Cowan asked for direction fi.om the Planning Commssioners on livable space, a smaller footprint. He said the applicant's response was to try to shift the livable space from the front side to the rear, the idea being that there is a second story againgt another second story neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes l0 August I0,. 199g Com. Stevens said that he felt Ms. Chen had made strides and the square footage upstairs was appropriate except for the decks. He said the concept of the side windows and the use of txanslucent, obscure glass windows on the side would be very effective in meeting both needs. He said he was pleased with her direction; however, he was aware of the neighborhood's desires. Com. Doyle said that reducing the mass was probably a wise decision, and reducing the bedrooms was the right direction. He said he could not visualize what it would look like fxom the other angles. He said the units that appeared to be acceptable for second story additions, did not have the same number of square feet, nor did the second story have that square footage. He indicated that the square footage involved would be a long term problem by attempting to mask it or bring it down to scale; therefore reduction in square footage would probably be the best way to meet the goals put forth. Com. Harris said although she empathized with the neighborhood's opposition to two story homes, the burden fell on the Planning Commission. She said that changes to the siding and roof to conform with the neighborhood were an improvement and she appreciated the efforts along those lines. She said she supported high windows on the ends for ventilation, over opaque windows. She noted however, that she could not approve the application because she did not know what it looked like. She said the statement that the home backs onto a two story neighborhood is not entirely true as the plat illustrates the house directly behind as one story. She said that when the application is presented again, it would be helpful to have the impact of the second story on the neighbors behind, side and on John Way. Also, because it is an architectural approval, the color, materials, and sizes need to be shown. Harris expressed concern that the size increased rather than decreased, because she felt the intent was to reduce the mass instead of increase it. She recommended a continuance to respond to those issues and present a complete package. Vice Chair Maboney said he felt they were getting closer to and end, but was disappointed that they had to go through such a painstaking process, and did not want the application to be presented again without everything being complete, and having to be continued again. He said the modifications minirniTed the impact on the street and noted that it was interesting that the two people who objected were not the next door neighbors who would be the most impacted by some of the other features. He said that he did not object to the size of the upstairs so long as it appeared appropriate. Vice Chair Mahoney said he concurred about the decks and the high windows on the end, but would not recommend removal of an upstairs bedroom if it meant pushing more out ~unt. He said that be did not feel a 3200 or 3400 sq. ft. home on a 9200 sq. ft. lot was out of tine with their direction even with the new regulations. The Planning Commissioners summarized issues to be covered when the application returned in September: decks; high windows; 7 foot walls instead of 8 foot walls; volume of upstairs addition reduced unless there is enough information to show that the impacts are mitigated. Com. Harris expressed concern that the size increased by 200 feet+ and now there is a 400 sq. ft. building on the site also. She said it was her goal to have it fit in with the neighborhood and not have a negative impact on the surrounding residents. Com. Stevens said he felt the second story had been reduced adequately, but if it could be reduced more, it would be even more beneficial. He said that he previously recommended how to reduce the height and the FAR is another situation as far as what they do on a single story. Ms. Gil said that she would request the applicant submit a set of elevations illustrating the one bedroom upstairs removed to compare against the existing elevations. Two sets of elevations would be ready for the next meeting; one without the decks and another with the room removed. Com. Harris said she would like to have the proposal come with Planning Commission Minutes ~t August I0,. 1998 the sizes of each floor, how it compares to the original proposal, what the change is, and what the FAR is. Ms. Chert pointed out that the square footage increased; the first floor is pushed all the way to the back and is is increased, not the second floor. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 14-U-97 to the September 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Chair Austin Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: t 8-U-85 (M) Bright Horizons Children's Center 10253 Portal Avenue To transfer sppnsoreship of propen'y fi:om Apple Computer, Inc. to Bright Horizons Children's Center, Inc., and to allow children other than the children of Apple employees. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staffpresentafion: The video presentation reviewed the application to transfer the sponsorship of the Apple Child Care Center fi.om Apple Computer to Bright Horizons Children's Centers Inc. and to allow the day care center to serve non-Apple employee children. Apple's de,vision to discontinue sponsorship of the child care center voided the previous Use P~dt. Staff's six recommendations for the simplications to the consoldiated use permit were reviewed, as set forth in the attached staff report on Page 6-3. Staffrecommends approval of the application; a Planning Commission decision will be regarded as final and not be forwarded to City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Cowan explained the reason for the Use Permit resWiction to Apple Computer in 1987, as outlined in the staff report on Page 6-2. Modifications to Conditions 3 and 4 of the resolution were suggested by Com. Harris. Condition 3: Deletion of the words "Phase I" in line 2; and complete deletion of the second sentence. Condition 4 was deleted entirely. Ms. Wilma Gold, Bright Horizons Children's Centers, said it was not her intention to return for a subsequent approval of a grea~er number of students than 95 or 26 staff members. Vice Chair Mahoney opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 18-U-85 (M) according to the model resolution, with suggested changes to Conditions 3 and 4 Com. Doyle Chair Austin Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 10-U-97 Chevron Products Company 10023 DeAnza Boulevard Planning Commission Minutes 12 August 10,. 1998 Use Permit modification to allow the concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages and gasoline at an approved service station, convenience stem. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Ms. Cril reviewed the application for a Use Permit modification to allow the concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages and gasoline at the service station and convenience store currently under construction. She discussed a concern Mr. William Fleig, owner of the Lion and the Lamb Bookstores had relative to the sale of' alcoholic beverages on the site. She said that the station operator is working with the SherifFs Department on a Do Not Drink and Drive campaign, and that the SherifFs Department was comfortable with the sale of the alcoholic beverages on the site, and had planned to increase patrols of the area when the convenience store opened. A discussion ensued regarding the hours of sale of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Kevin Comell, Cbewon Products Co., clarified that the license to sell alcoholic beverages was for beer and wine only. He said that Chevron feels that in both the company and dealer operated stations, they do an excellent job in setting and enforcing policy for how to control the issues of selling alcohohc beverages. He noted that the Chevron station on Homestead and DeAnza Boulevards sold alcohohc beverages since the remodel to the convenience store for 4 or 5 years, without incident. He reported that a recent survey indicated that only i% of 300 persons arrested for DUIs had consumed the alcohol in the car; and another report indicated that in interviews with 1,000 persons in the DUI program in Sonoma County, only 2% of the purchases were made fxom convenience stores located at a gas station; .8 was the percent of the persons arrested who had purchased their alcohol at those facilities. Mr. Art Zimmerman. dealer/operator, said that he met with Cotmcilmember Sandra James regarding her concerns about the sale of alcoholic beverages at the location, and also with Bob Wilson, Chief of Police for the Sheriff's Department for the area, and reported that they were working on a program to do some Don't Drink and Drive campaigns. He said he also met with Mr. Fleig, who at this time was concerned about the loitering in the strip mall area around Noah's and Starbueks. Vice Chair Mahoney opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Nancy Watson, representing Mr. Bill Fleig, said that she was also employed at the Lion and Lamb Bookstore, and they were concerned about inappropriate behavior of some people possibly drinldng alcohol around the bookstore, Noah's Bagels and Starbucks later in the evening. She also pointed out that motorhomes and campers park in the parking lot for several days at a time and although not directly related to the sale of alcohol at the convenience store, could possibly be escalated by it. Ms. Nancy Zimmerman, operator of the Chevron station, said that they had agreed with Councilmember Sandra James and the Sheriff's Depaxtment that they would not sell single serving alcohol, but only on a six or twelve pack basis. In response to Com. Harris's question about why they had an ordinance for concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages, Mr. Cowan said that it was guided by state legislation, since 1988, the idea being to have some reasonable level of control over concurrent sales. He said it was a way to still exercise control because of the connection between drinking and driving. Pl~ning Commission Minutes t~ August 10,. 199~ A brief discussion ensued regarding the laws relating to drinking alcoholic beverages in public places such as parks, parking lots, and outdoor retail establishments. Ms. Murray said that she would research the laws and report back at a future meeting. Com. Harris said that if the ordinance was written to say an establishment may be permitted to sell these concurrently if it is compatible with existing uses, she did not think it was compatible because people sitting at the patio area adjacent might want to drink a beer and if there is no control in a private parking lot of that, then it would be creating a public nuisance and that is not the intention for those that use the shopping center. She said it was not a free standing gas station to drive in, buy wine or beer on the way home, but is adjacent and would lend itself to going in there for that reason. She recommended a condition be added about the single serving and requested a response about the private parking lots, because she said that Noah's and Starbucks should have the right to to, and the suggestion be made, to post signs that no alcoholic beverages may be consumed in that area; and if it is occurring it should be policed and stopped because that is not what is desired for the community. , Com. Harris said that relative to this particuilar location selling alcohol, she did not oppose it, but because of the adjacent patio-restaurant type uses and the inclination of people, she said it was necessary to maintain some control. She said that it should specify beer and wine, no single sexving sales, and it should be assured that it would be policed in a private parking lot or not approve it. She added that she was in favor of approving it if it was not legal to sit outside Noah's consuming beer or wine; and the business owners be given the oppommity to put signs up. She said she did not have a problem with the time of sale, either until 11 p.m. or 2 a.m.; and commented that the daylight hours created more problems than the night time hours. Com. Doyle said he agreed with Com. Harris except relative to the point of the hours of sale. He said he felt the time should be more in line with 11 p.m. because if you are over at Noah's and are sitting having coffee, one may be inclined to go to the convenience store and purchase beer or wine to drink outdoors. Ms. Murray clarified that in Cupertino's ordinance Chapter 1049 on the consumption and possession of open container of intoxicating liquor in public places, it is an infraction for any person to drink or possess an open container of any intoxicating liquor upon any public street, lane, alley, parkway, public park or parking lot in the city, except as may be authorized by resolution of the City Council. Com. Stevens pointed out that if the sale is prohibited in that location, people will go down the slreet and purchase it somewhere else. He said he felt the key point were the hours of operation, and he had talked with the operators at the other Chevron station, and they found the 11 p.m. hour to be acceptable, and he recommended the 11 p.m. time for ending beer and wine sales. Com. Harris said that she would go with 11 p.m. hour if it was a consensus issue. She suggested that Condition 3 would say the sale of alcohol would be limited to beer and wine and no single serving portions may be sold; and Condition 4 would say sale of alcohol would end at 11 p.m. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application I0-U-97 (M) as modified with emended Conditions 3 and 4 Com. Hams Chair Austin Passed 4-0-0 planning Commission Minutes 14 August 10,. 1998 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: There was a discussion about scheduling items for future meeting agendas. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Harris said when she received and read the staffrepotts, she would like to have confidence that they contained strength and credibility in them, and noted that at this evening's meeting there was an approval for hotel signs, where the presenter did not know what the sign would look like and what material it was, and yet there was a recommendation for approval. She noted that Ji-Mei Chen application was not in an appropriate state to be on the agenda because staff made a recommenadtion without even seeing the rear elevations and other significam issues about the property. She said that statTs recommendation should not be given unless they have fully reviewed all the aspects of the application and then made a recommendation. It was stated by Corns. Doyle and Harris that it would be helpful to have the previous decisions before them for discussion purposes of prior meetings. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to the joint meeting with the City Council at 6 p.m. on Monday, August 31, 1998. Approved as presented: September 14, 1998 Respeeffully Submitted, Reeording Secretary