Loading...
PC 10-26-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 26, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Coms. Harris, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Com. Doyle arrived at 6:50 p.m.) Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Vera Gil, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Continued to the November 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No: Applicant: Location: 11-EXC-98 (Sign Exception) Taisei Construction 10741 N. Wolfe Road (southwest comer of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue) Sign exception to exceed the allowed wall sign height in accordance with Chapter 17.24.060 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1998 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 1998 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 11-U-98 Sam & Helen Sung 10420 S. DeAnza Boulevard Blvd., #C-8 (Town Center Professional Center) Use Permit to operate a specialized school (educational) in an existing office center. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1998 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 1998 Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director stated that there was a request to continue Item 11 to the November 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 26, 1998 11. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 12-U-98 & 26~EA-98 Hamid Ghazvini 10061 Pasadena (near Granada Avenue) Use Permit to demolish an existing residence and construct a 4,206 sq. ft. building consisting of 1,439 square feet of office/retail space and 2,767 sq. ft. of residential (3 apartments). Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 1, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Applications 11-EXC-98, 11-U-98, 12-U-98 and 26-EA-98 to the November 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Com. Harris Passed 3-1-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: .. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 2-ASA-98(M) Grosvenor International (Measurex) One Results Way Modification of architecture for Building 3 relative to the addition of second story windows. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Consent Calendar Com. Harris Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Com. Doyle arrived at the beginning of Item 3. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-U-98, 11-EA-98 (construction of new service station) Hossain Khaziri 10002 DeAnza Boulevard (northeast comer of the intersection of DeAnza & Com. Stevens Creek Boulevards) To demolish an inactive service station and construct a new 788 square foot service station and 648 square foot car wash. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 1998 Tentative City Council hearing date of November 2, 1998. Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a Use Permit for demolition of an abandoned service station to construct a new 1,230 square foot gasoline service station and a 1,021 square foot car wash. In September 1996 the City Council denied the Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 26, 1998 application although the Planning Commission had approved the application. Staff has reviewed the application applying it to the Heart of the City Specific Design Plan including zoning consistency, hazardous materials cleanup and nonpoint source pollution, noise, landscaping and site and architectural design. Staff cannot recommend approval of the Use Permit as currently proposed because of the proposed parking design. Staff feels that two of the parking stalls are poorly located and could be relocated more logically. If the Planning Commission reaches a decision, a recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council at its November 2, 1998 meeting. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reviewed the history of the application as set forth in the attached staff report. He noted that the Planning Commission have spent a great deal of time reviewing development options for the corner property, and the surrounding properties as well. He reviewed the development options considered, as outlined in the staff report on Pages 3-2 and 3-3. Mr. Michael Aminian, Century Medallion Corp., said that it had been two years since the application for the carwash and gas station was approved. He said that after learning about the easement situation, and at the request of the mayor, they worked with the neighboring properties to see if they could put a project together, and were in contract for a year with neighboring properties; but since they did not close escrow and canceled their contract, he resubmitted the application. He said they have worked for 8 months to make the project work because the comer remains in the same state as it did 10 years ago when the gas station was first shut down by Exxon Corporation. Mr. Aminian pointed out that the issue was not the easement, because the neighboring property had the opportunity to purchase the property and chose not to. He said the site has been a gas station since 1960, and the other buildings at the comer were built in 1978. The issues of car wash and noise were discussed with the Planning Commission back in November 1996 and the Planning Commission looked at that very carefully and approved the project. He said his client has been generous in working with neighboring property owners and also in cooperating with the city on every aspect of putting double row trees on Stevens Creek Boulevard, and to make and maintain the sidewalks and other issues both on DeAnza Boulevard and Stevens Creek. He said it was time to move on with the project. He explained the reason for enlarging the building and said they met with staff and the city architect and the design was approved. He noted that the parking issues would be addressed by the architect. Mr. Alex Lesetar, architect, referred to the site plan and discussed the reason for enlarging the building. He said the basic design began with the building at the apex of the comer of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard, at a 45 degree angle lining up with everything, which is why the building is symmetrical with a canopy and just lines up in the middle. He said the car wash was closer to the building and with the larger distance between the property line and the building, which was acceptable to the Planning Department because there was a lot of wasted space there, which is why the car wash building was pushed further back and the extra floor area created. He said relative to the parking issue, they could move other areas, such as the trash enclosure and create extra parking, and extend the car wash further to shield that noise from the gas station itself. If that is done, there would be 4 parking stalls. He said there is a gas station on the other side, the Chevron station at 2,050 sq. ft. and they have 5 spaces. He said with 1,200 sq. ft. of retail space, he felt 4 spaces was adequate. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 26, 1998 Mr. Ed Storm, 20725 Valley Green Drive, said that he represented the adjoining property owners who had concerns about the property. He said they were sympathetic to the fact that the property should be put to productive use, and were not pleased with its present state and condition, as it has been run down for some time and is creating a health and safety hazard, and also attracts vandalism. He said although he applauded staff for being sympathetic to the applicant, they were not the cause of the property being the square footage that it is; the easements and setbacks existed when the person acquired the property. He said he felt it presented a challenge to the owner to come up with a viable plan to fit the city's purposes and said the Planning Commission should not compromise its standards to accommodate the property owner. He said that they felt the use was over-intensified, and putting a gas station and car wash on the property was causing problems, and trying to squeeze parking spaces on the property made no sense except for two that were viable. He said a better job would result from dropping the multiple use on the property. He suggested closing off one of the driveways and using the access easement for ingress and egress into the property to design a suitable office building to complement the surrounding properties. He said it was erroneous to say that there were no other qualified uses, and no one has attempted an alternate proposal, but there are other ways to develop the property. Mr. Storm said that he understood that the car wash is a part of the zoning and is an approved use. He said that the car wash is almost 50% of the project, and to state that it is ancillary if that is the claim to the gas station is disingenuous. He expressed concern with the lack of landscaping along some of the common property lines, especially the area mentioned before where them is either a car or a trash receptacle. He added that historically gas stations and their trash bins have been less than attractive to their adjoining properties, so the idea of bringing that closer into the building itself would be positive, but to add a parking place, in effect a tandem parking place on their property line without any landscaping, again stretches the rules of what the Commission would normally approve. He said the easement area would not be adjudicated in this form, but would be in another form if this plan is approved. Mr. Storm said that he felt the City of Cupertino has spent a long time developing a set of standards for the intersection and it seems like this flies in the face of most of the standards that have been held up in other developments in this area that it is a challenge to develop a small parcel, but when one pumhases a small parcel, they are aware of that and take on those responsibilities. Referring to a comment made at a previous meeting relative to the possibility of separating the approvals, he said he felt it would set a dangerous precedent because they drive one another and must work together. He said he hoped it was not the intent of the Commission this evening. He concluded by reiterating that they were sympathetic to the challenge faced and felt it was the Commission's responsibility to hold the standard of development that any other applicant would be responsible for, and it may not be a gas station. In response to Com. Mahoney's question, Mr. Storm said that he was the owner of the easement, and if the project was approved, they would take other steps in another forum to try to resolve the property differences with the applicant. Ms. Judy Hui, 20999 Stevens Creek Blvd., said that she owned a gas station on Stevens Creek and was opposed to the proposed gas station site because there were already nine gas stations (four with car washes) within a one mile radius. She said it seemed that the gas station with repair service was an endangered species and many were closing and changing to a food mart and car wash. She said that if the city considered the proposal, perhaps they should consider it with a repair service instead of food mart and car wash. Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 26, 199g Mr. Charles Hanson, 7617 Elderwood Ct., said that he had lived in Cupertino for 30 years and was familiar with the gas station site and it was an eyesore and magnet for graffiti for the last l 0 years. He said he was aware of the applicant's efforts for the proposed site and pointed out that the other comers of the intersection housed a brick office complex with no landscaping, a very sterile looking site replacing a tom down gas station, and something similar to a grass farm. He said the applicant's efforts were exemplary and probably went beyond the minimum requirements. He mentioned other gas stations in Cupertino that have been replaced by fast food restaurants, other retail establishments and services. Mr. Hanson said that he was in the marketing business and felt competition was necessary and healthy. He noted that in Cupertino there are only two gas stations northbound on DeAnza Boulevard and putting a gas station at that location would provide the opportunity to capture some business from travelers northbound on DeAnza Boulevard. He encouraged approval of the application, and said he would like to see it become a productive property, because in the ten years Cupertino has missed out on hundreds of thousands of tax dollars. Competition is needed, many gas stations have been eliminated around town, and this is the opportunity to bring some more competition back into the arena; and most importantly the eyesore property should be replaced with an approved architectural site. Mr. Storm encouraged approval of the application. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. A brief discussion ensued regarding the canopy height and proposed hours of operation wherein Mr. Jung answered questions. Com. Harris said that she felt it was time to develop the site as it has been an eyesore for many years and a General Plan change had been made to allow it to be combined with the parcel next door and mm it into a community retail office/restaurant/recreational complex and it did not happen and now that is being built as offices and only a small parcel remains. She said she felt it was a balance to the service station across the street, and on the opposite comers with office buildings. She said the applicant has gone to a great deal of trouble to make it attractive and she was in favor of it being built. Relative to the parking, Com. Harris said she would be willing to approve it with 4 instead of 5 spaces, and made suggested parking changes. She said she approved of the project, with the 14-1/2 foot canopy. Com. Doyle said that relative to the parking, one space out front should go and he concurred with Com. Harris' comments. Relative to the design considerations, he said the trash enclosure should be hidden, and Freedman Tung & Bottomley addressed some of the height issues; make sure it is permanent looking and integrated with the building design. He said he felt the car wash was too much for the site and did not support it. The berm around the outside between Stevens Creek, DeAnza Boulevard and the property should be made as high as possible, possibly 4 feet. On the building itself, put larger overhangs for a look more in tune with the canopy. Lighting under the canopy should be indirect or not visible from off the property; canopy height as suggested by Com. Harris. He said he felt there were other potential uses for the property; however, it was likely a service station would be there. Mr. Jung explained that the current landscape plan for the Heart of the City did not take into consideration berming because the landscape strips themselves are actually only 10 feet wide and they wanted to ensure that when the trees were put down, they were about the same level. In order to mitigate the effect of the parking and the asphalt, a hedge will be planted to be a substitute for the berming itself, which should help cover up some asphalt and the vehicles seen. Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 26, 199R He said the applicant has been requested to plant more trees, which they have consented to do and together with the hedge will a more pleasing landscaping than the Chevron site. Com. Mahoney said he concurred with the previous comments; 4 parking spaces were suitable. He said he was not opposed to parking in front of the trash enclosure if it is employee parking; he was not opposed to lowering the canopy to be consistent with the one across the street; however if it is a little taller because it is thicker because of the trellis, that is appropriate. He said hedges in lieu of berming was appropriate; and he concurred with Com. Doyle about the overhang. He said he was in favor of the project. Com. Stevens said he concurred with reducing the parking down to 4 spaces because it would be advantageous to everybody; clearance appropriate as suggested by Com. Harris; hours of operation from 7 to 11 for the gas station are appropriate; however, he said he was concerned if the car wash hours were the same. He commended the architect on the design. Com. Stevens expressed concern about the traffic at the intersection during the day; however, said that the project was suitable. Chair Austin said she concurred with previous comments, and would like to see the overhang down a bit; and liked the tiles and stonework. She said she liked the idea that northbound traffic would have a gas station on the north side, as well as the southbound traffic having stations on the south side of the freeway. She said she was in favor of approving the project and suggested restriping the parking to get 4 spaces. Com. Mahoney suggested that staff address the final parking issue. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve negative declaration on Application 11 -EA-98 Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 5-U-98 per the model resolution with the following changes: the parking be reduced 4 spaces; staff would chose the best location for the 4 spaces; that the inside height of the canopy be dropped to 14-1/2 feet and the rest of the canopy stay on the same dimensions as shown; and if possible an increase in the overhang on the eaves of the building; the masonry on the standards would need to be proportionally reduced in the reduction in the height of the clearance; and that the parking stall on the front comer be removed. Com. Harris Com. Doyle Passed 4-1-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 2-GPA-98, 28-EA-98, Fence Ordinance Amendment City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of amendment to General Plan policies 2-33 and 6-17 regarding discouraging - electronic security gates. Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 26, 1998 Consideration of amendment to Chapter 16.28 regarding prohibition of security gates in non- single family residential parcels. Tentative City Council Hearing Date: November 16, 1998 Staff presemation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, said that the proposal was to amend the General Plan relating to allowing electronic security gates. The current amendment discourages them; the proposed amendment would be more in the vein of generally prohibiting them except if certain findings could be made. Referring to Exhibit A of the staff report, she said that there were 6 findings in the General Plan, developed in consultation with Captain Bob Wilson of the Sheriff's Department. In addition to the General Plan, changes related to land use element, there is also a change proposed to the public safety element that eliminates one policy that would be repetitious because it could be folded into the land use element policy and there is text being added related to security gates. In addition to the changes in the General Plan, there would be changes in the fence ordinance as well because the way that the security gates could be approved would be through a fence exception; therefore it is being stated in the fence ordinance and adding a condition of approval that the fence exception could be granted if consistent with the General Plan. The change would be more specific about under what conditions an electronic fence could be allowed rather than just discourage wording which is more difficult to interpret. In response to Com. Harris's question about whether or not the Sheriff's Department could access the apartment complexes behind the security gates in an emergency, Captain Bob Wilson, Sheriff's Department, said that currently they had standardized access with the fire department and paramedics, and manually operated gates in the event of loss of power. He said that generally they respond to the apartment complexes upon request, and absent that, they rarely will enter a gated complex just to drive around. However, he said they understand the need for security fencing and gating in some complexes. He said he did not have information that supported that it was safer to live in a gated community, as opposed to a non-gated community. He added, however, that a thief will look at the easier target. He said that nothing had changed in Cupertino in the last 5 years that made those communities an advantage over 5 years ago. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Doyle questioned the justification for making a General Plan amendment change to add electronic gates, because after much debate, it was previously decided not to permit them. Com. Mahoney said there were two reasons in the General Plan why gates were discouraged. One relates to emergency access, which issue could be minimized through standardization of codes; and the other, breaking up the neighborhood. A discussion ensued regarding the criteria for allowing electronic gates. Com. Harris suggested that "Is required to improve traffic circulation" be deleted from the criteria list. There was consensus that the only exceptions would be for large multi-family dwellings, with no exceptions for single family residences. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve negative declaration on Application 28-EA-98 Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 26, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 2-GPA-98 which amended the General Plan policy 2.33, there are some situations for large (25 units or more) multi-residential developments where electronic security gates could be allowed through a fence exception application if the development meets at least one of the criteria Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to modify Policy 6-17 as per the model resolution Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the amendment to Chapter 16.28.045 and 16.28.060 of the Municipal Code regarding security gates, adding Item 6: "If the proposed development meets the satisfaction of the Fire Department and the Sheriff's Department and if attempts to standardize the access are made" Com. Harris Com. Doyle Passed 4-1-0 Following a brief discussion, an amended motion was made. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to amend the motion to approve Application 2-GPA-98 amending General Plan policy 2.33, there are some situations for attached large (25 units or more) multi-residential developments where electronic security gates could be allowed through a fence exception application if the development meets at least one of the following criteria: Com. Harris Com. Doyle Passed 4-1-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 8-U-94(M) Citation Homes Central DeAnza Boulevard Blvd. & Via Paviso Reconsideration of an application to install an electrical gate at an apartment entrance. Tentative City Council date: November 16, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to install an electrical gate at the DeAnza entrance to the Aviary apartments complex which is a resubmission of the application submitted in May 1998. Staff recommends a reversal of the decision in anticipation of changes being made to the General Plan and fence ordinance that allow security gates to be approved in certain cases. The approval would not take effect until the effective date of the General Plan and fence ordinance amendments. Referring to the site plan, Ms. Wordell illustrated the location of the gate which was previously approved, that had some traffic circulation considerations related to Portofino and the gates that were previously approved by the Planning Commission and then appealed to the Council are Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 26, 1998 coming back to you tonight are here. One of the issues is that it is adjacent to Highway 280. Mr. Cowan pointed out that City Council did not want to approve it because the General Plan discouraged gates. The Council directed the Planning Commission to relook at the criteria for approving or disapproving gates. Mr. Pong Ng, Citation Homes, explained that the application was being resubmitted because one of the City Council members appealed the Planning Commission decision to approve the application because the General Plan language discouraged approval. He said that the location of the electronic gate had not changed since the original application. Because the General Plan language was modified, the project now fit the criteria. Mr. Ng explained that the complex name was changed from Aviara to Aviare because the name Aviara already existed in Southern California. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Harris requested that the language to the model resolution be amended to include the reason for approval being that it was located by Highway 280. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 8-U-94 per the model resolution as amended Com. Stevens Passed 5-0~0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 13-EXC-98 and 19-ASA-98 SNK Development, Inc. 19608 Prnneridge Avenue Sign Exception for an offsite and for three signs on one parcel in accordance with Chapter 17.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Architectural and site approval to approve emergency access gates, limited access gates to the apartments and modify building colors. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell explained that the application was for a sign exception on the apartment complex. She illustrated the location of the sign on the site plan and noted that the sign was actually three staggered with directional arrows, indicating the location of the Hilton, Marriott and apartments. Referring to the site plan, Ms. Wordell illustrated the emergency access gates onto Linnett Lane and the gate near the recreation center. Mr. Scott Johnson, SNK Development Inc., referred to the site plan and answered questions regarding the location and purpose of the gates. He said the signs are lit from the ground up, not back lit. He presented a color board and discussed the changes to the proposed colors. Mr. Mark Devine, HDR Architects, discussed the access and security gates, noting the location and usage of the rolling gates, emergency access gates, and electronic gates. Planning Commission Minutes l0 October 26, 1998 Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. Mr. V. McFarland, resident, said that he felt Lick Observatory would object to any lights beaming up toward the sky as it would interfere with the viewing at the observatory. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Stevens said he felt the three signs were appropriate because of the high density of the complex and the need for direction to the hotels and apartment complex. He said he did not object to the proposed colors. He said he was concerned with the amount of gates in the complex and the fact that they were locked; however, because of the density of the area, he was not opposed to them. Com. Mahoney said that he was not opposed to the signs if they were front lit; colors were appropriate; the problem being trying to control access to the garage; unless you can control access to the unit because there is automatic access to the garage from the unit, they all have to come together, and he was not opposed to it. Com. Doyle said he felt the signs should all be incorporated into one sign with directional arrows; he felt they were just three monument signs by a different name. He said it was a difficult decision relative to the gates, because there is a need for security, but where does it stop. Do you make it difficult for everyone to go in and out of the development at all given times and know that someone can break into a unit if they really want to. He said he would not reject the gate issue; however, he felt they were going in the wrong direction on the issue. He said he was concerned about the dark color of the buildings. Com. Harris said that she felt the sign would look better as three signs stepped back, with the directional arrows in the lower left quadrant instead of the sign center. She said she did not like the proposed colors and they were not acceptable and she would not approve the color change. She said that although she is in favor of security, she was opposed to the security gates. She said that security was necessary for the garage, and they needed to devise a way for the people to go into their garage and be safe; yet their goal was not to keep people from walking up on the podium and walking around. She said the only place she wanted to provide security was the underground area, and since she was not given a clear idea of how to do that, she could not support the gates. Com. Harris said at this time the only thing she could support were the signs and emergency access gates. Chair Austin said she preferred the three separate signs. She said she was in favor of the gates because she did not want people wandering around the complex. She noted that the proposed building colors were suitable. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 13-EXC-98 per the model resolution with the clarification that this is not a backlit sign but the same type as the other sign; and also with the repositioning of the arrows to the lower left hand quadrant Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-1-0 Planning Commission Minutes II October 26, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 19-ASA-98 per the model resolution with no changes Com. Stevens Corns. Doyle and Harris Passed 3-2-0 Com. Harris noted for the record that her no vote was a result of not being supportive of the gates and the building colors. Com. Doyle concurred with Com. Harris. Chair Austin declared a recess from 9:25 p.m. to 9:40 p.m. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 13-EXC-98 and 19-ASA-98 SNK Development, Inc. 19608 Pruneridge Avenue Sign exception to locate a third wall sign on the front of an existing retail store. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for Target to locate a third wall sign for the pharmacy on the front of the store located on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Staff recommends that the pharmacy sign be denied and only two signs be allowed on the front of the store; as approval would set a precedent for other retail establishments to increase the signage on their properties. The Planning Commission's decision will be regarded as final and not be forwarded to the City Council unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, referred to the site plan and illustrated the location of the existing signs and the proposed pharmacy sign. Com. Harris noted that the location of the Target sign as shown was not accurate. Mr. David Randolph, Pacific Neon Company, said that the sign would be relocated to the end of the building. He pointed out that the company name has been the same for over 50 years, and the Target signs were not neon signs. He thanked staff for their efforts in working toward a solution. Mr. Randolph noted that the store remodeling was almost complete, and as part of the remodeling, a pharmacy was being added. He said that Target feels strongly that separate signs are necessary for the garden center and the pharmacy as they operate almost as independent businesses within the store, with the garden center having a separate entrance. He added that because the pharmacy is new to California, Target is particularly anxious to identify the stores that do have pharmacies so that the store guests are aware which stores have them. Relative to the staff's feeling that it would set a precedent, he said that Target would indeed have three signs on a 380 foot long building with a separate entrance for the garden center. He said there were very few businesses which could cite similar conditions to use as a precedent. He referred to Exhibit B, and said that if the request was approved, it would still allow for significantly fewer signs on this length of building than if the building were a neighboring shopping center with typical 20 or 30 foot wide retail establishments. Mr. Randolph noted that the nearby Boston Market had a monument sign, two signs on the building and several food items of their menu listed on their awnings. Planning Commission Minutes 12 October 26, 1998 In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Randolph said he would have to confirm with the head office if they would consider having the pharmacy sign on the monument sign if it was not permitted on the building. He said it would be unprecedented in other projects for Target. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Mahoney said he was not opposed to the three signs. Com. Stevens said he was not opposed to the three signs because of the expanse of the building. However, he said he was disappointed that the pharmacy did not have a separate entrance. Com. Doyle said he supported staff's recommendation to deny the third sign, as they were aware of the ramifications and what the impacts might be. Com. Harris said that she felt the pharmacy was similar to a post office in an establishment, and that it helped the community to know of its location, and recommended they treat the pharmacy similar to the post office in the McWhorters store, and clarify that it is for this particular use only. Therefore, if the pharmacy doesn't stay in the Target store, the sign not be used for something else. She said that she felt the length of the existing garden center sign with its big arrow was significant and acceptable and said she was opposed to increasing the size of the sign, especially ifallowing another sign. She recommended keeping it the same length, but allow change in shape for the letters. Chair Austin said she concurred with Com. Harris, and felt the garden center sign was sufficient size. Mr. Randolph suggested a compromise, noting that he understood the concern about the garden center sign, but said for architectural scale purposes, it would be advantageous to have the two signs balanced. He requested that rather than have the pharmacy sign at 2 ft. 6 ins. and keep the garden center the size it is, go with the garden center sign of 24 ins. which is the same size of the current upper case letters, and the sign would be a little longer because it would be all upper case, but then reduce the pharmacy sign from 2 ft. 6 ins. to 2 ft. so that both the pharmacy sign and the garden center sign would be 2 feet all upper case letters so architecturally they would be balanced and the same style of lettering. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 12-EXC-98 per the model resolution, with the exception of moving the main sign, have two 2 foot high all cap letter signs, one for the pharmacy and one for the garden center where illustrated, and that the size of the garden center be about 24 or 25 feet long and the other similar but smaller, and that the pharmacy sign is limited to the use of the pharmacy so long as it remains on the premises Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-1-0 10. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 14-U-97 Ji-MeiChen 10580 John Way Planning Commission Minutes 13 October 26, 1998 Report to Council: Use Permit to construct a second story addition to an existing residence. Tentative City Council Hearing date: November 2, 1998 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1998 Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a Use Permit to construct a second story addition to an existing residence. It was noted that the Planning Commission was expected to render a final decision on Ms. Chen's request for the second story addition to her home in a single story residence zone. At the October 12 meeting, the Planning Commission agreed that the design concept for the two bedroom second story addition was acceptable and they would review the application one last time to ensure that the plan was free of errors. Both staff and the Planning Commission feel that the two bedroom upstairs addition now meets the intent of conditional use permit findings for the residential single story zone. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions. The application if approved will be tentatively foiwarded to the City Council November 2 meeting. Ms. Gil noted that corrections were made to the plans. Ms. Ji-Mei Chen, applicant, said that 14 months ago when the rezoning occurred and the city gave her the conditional use permit; it was her understanding that if she met the ordinance guidelines and discussed the issue with her neighbors and they came up with a final drawing, she would be permitted to proceed. However, after 14 months, the Planning Commission was planning the design of the house and she was opposed to that. She saMshe was unhappy with the design. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, asked Ms. Chen if she wanted to withdraw her application. Ms. Murray said that one of the problems is that the conditions did change during that period, therefore they were trying to bring her house into compliance and prevent it from invading the privacy of the neighbors. She said that Ms. Chen did not always meet the conditions as they occurred. Ms. Chen said that it was difficult for her to fit her children and herself in the two bedroom upstairs addition as proposed by staff. She said that she was dissatisfied with the decision and plans proposed by staff, and they did not meet her needs. She said that she had her neighbors' support letters, and she requested clarification from Ms. Murray on the course of events. Ms. Murray said that the plans for the two bedroom second story addition met the conditions put forth by the city, and told Ms. Chen to let the Commission review the plans. Mr. Cowan clarified that at the last Planning Commission meeting, the Commission said to bring back the two bedroom option only. The notion would be to have her go to City Council. He said it was actually a referral to the City Council, and pointed out that the matter had been going on for some time. He said the matter was at the City Council level, and they referred it back to the Planning Commission for a report. Com. Mahoney clarified that the only issue before the Planning Commission was the proposal for the two bedroom second story addition which was the only one that met the spirit of the ordinance, and Ms. Chen could, based upon what has transpired, either withdraw her plans or the Planning Commission could move through the process of potentially approving the application at Planning Commission Minutes 14 October 26, 1998 the meeting. He said that at the previous meeting, there were two designs presented and staff was directed to bring back the two bedroom second story addition at the next meeting. He said at the previous meeting, the drawings were incomplete. Ms. Chen said that at the end of September, she understood the Planning Commission liked the three bedroom design at the time; and at that time Mr. Cowan suggested that it be reduced by one bedroom. She said Com. Stevens questioned whether the applicam liked the proposal. She said later staff suggested the design be reduced by one bedroom and they would then consider a comparison. Com. Mahoney reiterated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to return with only the two bedroom addition. He said they heard all the pros and cons, and given the zoning and restrictions of trying to limit the mass, it was felt that the two bedroom design met the criteria. The only action was to potentially approve the two bedroom design. Ms. Chen presented the letters from her neighbors, and said that in talking with them, they were concerned about their property values and they did not want to rezone their street any more. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. Mr. V. McFarland, 10567 John Way, said he was prepared to offer congratulations for reaching a compromise, but was confused about where the proposal stood because of Ms. Chen's last request. He said he felt the two bedroom second story proposal would work and from the streetside would not have a huge impact on the neighbors. Mrs. M. McFarland, 10567 John Way, read the petition that she had circulated on John Way, stating that the residents of John Way desired to maintain the present character of their neighborhood, signed by all the current homeowners on John Way. An additional letter from the next door neighbor Peter Chan, stated the architectural look and feel are what makes their neighborhood unique and peaceful. He wrote that if a two story house is being put in the middle of their neighborhood it will totally destroy the character and uniqueness of their environment and this was sent to the building department in May 1997. In looking at the city code and under the purpose it talks about identity, and the identity of John Way is single story as was approved in the single story zoning. The neighbors desire compatibility and scale of structure and don't see that in that structure. To some the impact is adverse; Ms. McFarland said that it is possible for a three generation family to have harmony on one floor. She questioned the FAR numbers, stating that in Mamh 1998 the FAR was 36% and presently it is 41%. Ms. McFarland said that there were positive points to Ms. Chen's proposal. The roofing was compatible to the neighborhood, the front siding was suitable, with stucco on the sides, and the entry was similar to others. She said she was disappointed in the three car garage, and didn't consider it to be the hideaway Ms. Chen boasted about. She questioned if the oleander on the side would remain, and if not, there would be no plantings on either side of the house. She concluded by urging the Planning Commission to resolve the issue. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. - Chair Austin said that they needed to send a report to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes 15 October 26, 1998 Com. Harris said that she was surprised and felt the idea was to come up with something that everyone could agree upon. She said that once it is approved, it moves with the land. She said if the decision was made to allow this second story for the applicant because of the 14 month investment, that is different than allowing a property to be sold with the rights to build a second story. Com. Harris said she was willing to approve this proposal if it is what the applicant wants; but if it is not what applicant wants, she was not willing to approve one with a larger second story. Com. Doyle said he supported the proposal as presented. Relative to the plantings on the side, the privacy issue was discussed and there were some screening materials that would be required. He questioned if the new resolution applied? Com. Mahoney said the last time the item was presented, it was agreed that it needed to be sent on. It does meet the spirit of what the original zoning was, which was to take a look at it and make it fit in as much as possible. Com. Stevens said he concurred with the two bedroom proposal as presented; however, he was opposed to the three car garage. He said if it was not what the applicant wanted, the Council would have to render a decision. Chair Austin said she was not in favor of the second story addition for a number of reasons. She said she felt that Ms. Chen has ample land to expand her home on the first floor. She pointed out that the Commission had asked Ms. Chen several times to modify the plan incorporating their suggestions, and she keeps changing the plans to her own satisfaction. She recommended that the City Council not approve the application, but recommended it be sent to the City Council. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to send a report to City Council stating that after significant effort they have found a design that meets the spirit of the zoning Com. Harris Com. Stevens and Chair Austin Passed 3 -2-0 The reason for the no vote was they felt there was plenty of space to expand on the first floor and the three car garage issue. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: potential Dillard's addition to Vallco Fashion Park. There was a brief discussion about the OTHER BUSINESS: A discussion ensued regarding the rescheduling of some agenda items for future meetings.