Loading...
PC 12-14-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MlNUTES OF IHE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 14, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Staffpresent: Coms. Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin (Coms. Doyle and Harris arrived at 6:55 p.m.) Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner 1I; Vera Gil, Planner I1; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Mmxay, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the November 9, 1998 regular meeting: Com. Stevens requested the following change to Page 7, second paragraph: change "he has-stated in the staff report that he is prepared to" to read: "said that as stated in the staff report, Mr. Viskovich was prepared..." MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com, Mahoney moved to approve the November 9, 1998 Planning Comrmsston minutes as amended. Com. Stevens Corns. Doyle and Hams Passed 3 -0-0 Minutes of the November 18, 1998 Special Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the November 18, 1998 Special Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Stevens Coms. Doyle and Hams Passed 3 -0-0 Minutes of the November 23, 1998 regular meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve the November 23 Planning Commission minutes as presented Chair Austin Com. Mahoney Coms. Doyle and Hams Passed 2-0-1 Planning comnUssion Minutes 2 December 14, 1998 WRITTEN COMMUNIC,~TIONS: Chair Austin noted a letter received from Barbara Langworthy relative to the Lake Biltmore Apartments application. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, noted that the applicant for Application No. 13-U-98 and 29-EA-98 requested that the item be continued to April 12, 1999. Application No. Applicant: Location: Amendments to Newsrack Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of amendments to Cliapter 10.21 (Newsrack Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to require modular newsracks. Tentative City Council hearing date: January 4, 1999 Request continuance to January 25, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to postpone Item 6 to the January 25, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Coms. Doyle and Hams Passed 3-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 15-U-98, 35-EA-98 Union Church of Cupertino (Excelsior Education Institute) 20900 Stevens Creek Boulevard Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to January 11, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to postpone Item 9 to the January 11, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Corns. Doyle and Hams Passed 3-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 13-U-98, 29-EA-98 Hamid Abtahi 10121 Foothill Blvd. Use permit to convert the auto repair portion of a service station to a convenience store. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued from November 23, 1998. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to postpone Item 5 to the April 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Corns. Doyle and Hams Passed 3 -0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 3 December 14, 1998 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 21-ASA-96(M) and 7-U-81 (M) Symantec Northwest comer of Rodriques and Torte Avenue Amendment of Application 21-ASA-96 (Symantec CCS site) and 7-U-81 (Symantec World Headquarters site) to modify the landscaping parking lot plan to eliminate a connecting walkway between the subject sites. 3a. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 29-ASA-98 Kelly/Gordon Lot 4-4, Neighborhood 1, Oak Valley Architectural review of a new 3,862 square foot residence Planning Commission decision final unless appealed 3b. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 30-ASA-98 Kelly/Gordon Lot 4-7, Neighborhood 1, Oak Valley Architectural review of a new 3,862 square foot residence Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 31 -ASA-98 Lily Hui-Fang Lee 21621 Stevens Creek Blvd. Architectural review of a landscaping plan at an existing office building Planning Commission decisJon final unless appealed MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Consent Calendar Com. Harris Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11 -Z-98, 14-U-98, 3 I-LA-98 Lake Biltmore 10159 So. Blaney Ave. Rezone an existing apas'hnent complex from R-3 to P(RES); Use permit to re-landscape and construct new garages and 24 new apartments. Tentative City Council Hearing Date: January 4, 1999 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 1999 Staffpresentafion: The video presentation reviewed the application to rezone an existing apartment complex fi.om R-3 to P(RES), and request for use permit to re-landseape and construct new Planning ComnUssion Minutes 4 Dc.,cmb r 14, 1998 garages and 24 new apartments. Issues still to be discussed by the Planning Commission include: (1) Garage use restrictions; (2) Construction hoar limitations; (3) Remove or retain the lakes or replace with water features; (4) Difference between the current multi family residential zoning and the proposed planned development multi family residential zomng; and (5) Whether the southwest driveway entrance aisle is adequate for two way traffic flow in and out of the complex. Staff recommends approval of the application and a recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for final decision. Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner II, clarified that there were four water features proposed, and noted that the resolution should be P R-3, not P(RES). She answered questions relative to the roofing materials, tree replacement and setbacks. She noted that there was a condition of approval included regarding the potential second driveway entrance. She stated that both the Traffic Division and County Fire Department reviewed the entrance and found that the entrance could be opened, with the removal of one tree for visib/lity. Mr. John Moss, Pegasus Development, said that the proposed composition shingle roof was identical to the materials being used to re-roof the aparhnent complex with the exception of the caxports. He said that the existing carports have 3 foot setbacks, and that he felt the proposed garages were more aesthetically pleasing than carports. He said that they were supportive of the second entrance. Mr. Moss said he would address issues of concern. Relative to the lakes, he said that the proposal of 4 different water features for the site was generated at the previous Planning Commission meeting, and said that the applicant was supportive of it and included it in the plans. He said that there were several reasons for proposing to make modifications to the existing lakes, and replacing them with water features in addition to the flowering shrubs, lawns and ground cover. The first, water loss due to evaporation and leaching into the existing grounds. Secondly, the lakes are manmade and not natural, and he said they felt there were not attractive, and there were considerable quantities of chemicals required to keep the lakes fi:om turning into swamps in the form of algaecides and chlorination. He said there was also a safety issue relative to the toddlers. He said there was a significant maintenance issue associated with the existing lakes, and four or five residents in the past had called to complain about rodent problems on site. Mr. Moss said that they felt overall that the lakes were a dated amenity and the prospective residents would prefer to have more usable open space. He said that they would not consider the changes if they felt the vast majority of prospective residents and the present residents felt that the existing lakes were something they preferred to the proposal. He noted that the density of the proposed complex was below existing complexes in Cupertino. He said that construction hours were requested to be 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; they were in favor of the access issue and garage storage restrictions; rezonmg appears to allow for better flexibility not just for the applicant but for. the city as well, and the R-3 zoning is designated for small developments. He reported that the residents were notified of a recent meeting regarding an update on the project with plans and approximately 10 residents attended and the majority of the residents were supportive of the project, and 3 or 4 had concerns with the development relative to the lake issue. He added that 25 people had called in support of the project, and some showed an interest in renting the new units. He said that approximately 300 residents and 100 neighbors have expressed opinions and concerns, but opposition was the minority. Overall the project has been well received. Mr. Andy Raimondo, project architect, addressed the garage structures and residential building issues. Referring to the site plan, he reviewed the location of the proposed garages and the proposed 24 additional units and answered questions. Planning Commission Minutes 5 December 14, 1998 Mr. John Cahill, landscape architect, explained that locating the garages around the perimeter of the project would necessitate the residents living in thc interior of the project having to walk several hundred feet to their garage. He said that bringing the garages inside the project brought them into closer proximity to the dwelling units. Relative to replacement of trees, he said that they proposed to remove 7 heritage trees, I0 inch or lar~er in caliper, and arc r~placing them with nineteen 24 inch box trees. He discussed the specimen trees to be planted which were chosen to provide color throughout the various seasons. Chairperson Austin opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Barbara Langworthy, Biltmore resident, said that she felt many residents were not involved in the meetings because of language barriers or the holiday season activities, and some people don't feel comfortable opposing the plans. She said she had lived in the complex for 10 years with a high quality of life with the park-like atmosphere. She said she felt removal of the lakes and some of the tall trees would have an impact on the charm of the complex, and that the residents felt that the lakes and trees added to the ambiance of the complex. She said she felt the proposed changes would remove Cupertino fi.om being the last place people could rent an apartment in a beautiful atmosphere with ambiance and a connection to nature. Ms. Langworthy said she felt some of the other proposed changes would enhance the grounds, but felt removal of the lakes and trees would detract from the serene ambiance of the complex. She noted also that the children residing in the complex enjoyed the presence of the ducks in the area. Mr. Lonnie Montemayhor, Biltmore property manager, said that they had received positive feedback about the proposals fi.om the residents in the last two weeks. He said that because of the complex's dated amenities, they were finding it difficult to secure new rentals and remain competitive with the other Cupertino apartment complexes. He said that residents are concerned with the safety factor for small children as well as the rodent problem. He noted that the fountains would create more white noise than the lakes. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. Mr. Moss clarified that he had received feedback fi.om the residents that the proposed water features were a positive change. He said he felt the fountains were a preferred alternative to the lakes in addressing the issue of white noise. He said that the present swim pool would remain unchanged. He summarized that the changes included the replacement of 155 carports with garages; the proposed complex would be one bedroom units with central air, fireplaces, washers and dryers, vaulted ceilings, upscale in nature. He added that the interior of the existing clubhouse would also be upgraded. He then answered questions relative to the setbacks, landscape plan relative to tree retention, impact of garages, traffic flow, and construction hours and stages of construction. The issues of concern were summarized: Rezoning; garage locations; garage use; water features; construction hours and limitations; entry opening; trees; and setbacks, Com. Maboney said that the recommended zoning was suitable; proposed garage locations and restrictions for use suitable; construction hours and limitations to be 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. He said he liked the water features and suggested adding a fifth one near the pool; he was in favor of the emergency entry opening; tree replacement suitable with proposed mixed sizes and colors; setbacks were appropriate. He concluded that he supported the application. Planmng Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 Com. Stevens said he felt the rezoning was advantageous for the city and the applicant; garage locations as proposed were suitable; garage restrictions on use appropriate; aisle width appropriate as proposed; construction hours and limitations, 7:00 or 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. He said he felt at least one of the lakes should remain, and suggested an additional water feature behind the clubhouse. He said he felt the additional entry should be used for emergency only because of the potential for traffic backup if used for general use. Relative to tree replacement, Com. Stevens said that he was in favor of adding trees for color. He said that although he was not in favor of removing large trees, he tmderstood the reconfiguration and would support the removal. He concluded that setbacks were adequate provided they met city requirements. Com. Doyle said that rezoning was suitable. Relative to garage locations, he said he felt they were building too many buildings which would close off the area, and if people could be more supportive of reducing the numbers, he would support them. He said construction hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. were appropriate. He said that water elements could change, but there should be some features to replace them, because the character of Lake Biltmore was at stake. The features are being replaced with only 10 foot fountains compared to the area presently covered. He said he felt the emergency entrance should be opened up to allow flow and usage of the back area. Tree removal should be minimized; keep the specimen trees even if it meant reducing some of the density. He summarized that what was being done was adding 24 units, removing many of the larger trees, removing features, white noise from the water to be replaced by white noise from the air conditioners, no common amenity changes or additions, mostly trait based; adding garages, with the net result being a lower cost development with more units and likely higher rents. He said overall he did not see the benefit of the proposed changes. Com. Hams said she was opposed to the rezoning change, and the setback requirement should be addressed. Relative to the garage locations, she said she did not like them around the perimeter, but when it was approved it was approved with a 3 foot setback for the perimeter garages because they were open. She said she felt a 3 foot setback was not appropriate for an 8 foot high garage, and the garages would not have been approved if it was a new development. She added that with appropriate redesign, there could be garages, but not placed where there presanfly were. She said she would not vote in favor of the proposal. Relative to construction hour limitations, hours should remain as originally proposed at 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. so as not to conflict with the commuters; if Saturday construction is necessmy, 9 a.m. start time is more considerate of present residents. She said that the water features were an appropriate modem change, but suggested five. She said she was in favor of opening the entry, and if it was being used more by the outside community, address the issue again. She said the 7 or 8 large spec/men trees being removed should be replaced with 36 inch box trees at least 1/1, and also smaller colorful trees to enhance the site. Chair Austin said she was in favor of the rezoning; garage locations mixed, she agreed with 3 and 4; construction hours Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; water features to include a fifth one; the emergency entry to include language about humps in and residents only signs; setbacks and tree replacements adequate. She said she was in favor of the application. MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Negative Declaration on 31-EA-98 SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 11-Z-98 per the model resolution Com. Stevens Coms. Doyle and Hams Passed 3-2 -0 Planning Comlmssion Minutes 7 December 14, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Applications 14-U-98 according to the model resolution with the following changes: Increase water features to 5, fit~ one in the area of the swim pool; construction hour limitations changed to 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on weekdays, same weekend hours 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; emergency entrance opened up Chair Austin Corns. Stevens, Doyle and Hams Failed 2-3-0 Com. Stevens said that he felt at least one lake should remain. He said he understood that they wanted to remove the lakes because of the dirty water, and cited the high cost to maintain the lakes which was not the way it was for many years, and is a recent change. He said he felt the rodent problem was more a result of the foliage surrounding the buildings, than from the existence of the lakes. AMENDED MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 14-U-98 according to the model resolution with the following changes: Retain center lake in lieu of adding a fifth water feature; construction hour limitations changed to 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on weekdays, same weekend hours 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; emergency entrance opened up Com. Stevens Coms. Doyle and Hams Passed 3-2-0 Com. Doyle expressed his opposition and concern about the potential precedent setting with such a decision; and said it was one thing to modernize and increase the level of amenities which is a good thing; but more density and less character is not the right direction to be going. Com. Hams said her dissenting view related to the setbacks. She said she felt they should recontigure the garages to meet the setback requirement. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 39-U-85(M) New Life Church 20900 McClellan Road Modification to a Use Permit for an existing church for additional playground area. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to add additional playground area and two storage sheds to the church property. Staff suggests that the storage area be added onto the present building as use of temporary storage buildings is discouraged. Staff recommends approval of the additional playground area but not the two storage sheds. A decision will be considered final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Bjunnan referred to the site plans and reviewed the proposed modifications. She explained that staff objected to the proposed temporary storage sheds, because historically on commercial/industrial and anything other than residential, staff felt everything slmuld be contained in permanent buildings because it is not as cluttered; and sometimes the material breaks down and the buildings begin to look shabby. Planning Comrmssion Minutes 8 December 14, 1998 Pastor Tim Isabel, Pastor of New Life Church, reported that the church now served 100 worshippers on the weekend, and served 125 children and teens during the week in various programs, was financially healthy and was building on the finances that they will eventually need to build another building. He said there were plans to build another building in the future. Ms. Carol Van Buskirk, project director for the church, said that the proposed plan fulfills the needs of the church community and daycare community, but also the community of Cupertino they serve. The plan enhances and expands the present playground and also greatly improves the appearance of the unsightly portion of the property where the trailer was removed fi:om. The plan does not enlarge the ministry, merely enhances it, with the addition of shade trees, grass, some safer play equipment and new storage space. She reported that a trailer had been removed which was used for ministry and storage space. She requested the Planning Commission to reconsider the position on the storage issue and re-look at the original proposal for the storage needs. She said the existing plan calling for two storage shed areas behind the daycare allows them to be hidden from McClellan Road, the sanctuary and from the neighborhood. She said storage is a need of the church and one of the biggest issues of the church. She discussed various ways that were considered for storage and play area. Ms. Buskirk requested approval to use the two temporary storage sheds for five years in order to leave their options open for their campus development plan. She noted that an option would be to approve the playground area only which would necessitate them evaluating the cost of permanent storage sheds. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Harris said she was in favor of the proposal and suggested approval of the tempormy sheds for three years. She said the sheds need to be atWactive, similar quality, quality roof cover and would need to be maintained for appearance. Com. Doyle said that he supported the apphcation, with approval of the temporary storage sheds for one year, with staff approval of needed extensions. Com. Mahoney said he supported the application and concurred with Com. Harris relative to the storage sheds. Com. Stevens said he approved the application for the playground extension. He said relative to the temporary storage sheds, he was in favor of approval for thee to five years' usage with extensions as appropriate. Chair Austin said she was in favor of the proposal, with thee year usage of the temporary storage sheds. A brief discussion ensued regarding the conditions of approval of the temporary storage sheds. Ms. Bjurman suggested modifications to the model resolution to include conditions of approval of the temporary storage sheds. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 39-U-85(M) to include approval of the temporary storage sheds for three years; sheds to be compatible colorwise and in appearance with the adjoining buildings; be a quality product and be maintained. Findings in Section C, Page 8-3 of the staff report to be modified as discussed relative to the approval of the temporary storage sheds; Page 84, Section 3, Item 2, change to "Two storage sheds are approved for thee years and must be compatible colorwise and in appearance with the adjoining buildings, and be of quality product and be maintained." Com. Mahoney Passed 5 -0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 9 December 14, 1998 10. Application No.(s) Applicant: Location: 34-EA-98 Amendments to Accessory Structure & Tree Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of modification to Chapter 19.80 Accessory Buildings/S~xuctures and Chapter 14.18 (Heritage & Specimen Trees) related to privacy protection measures. Tentative City Council Hearing Date: January 4, 1999 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 1998 Staff presentation: Ms. Bjurman reviewed that the City Council recently adopted privacy protection measures for new two story homes or additions in the R1 zouing district; those privacy protection measures included a combination of landscape planting requirements and window alignment regulations. What staff proposes is to make amendments to the accessory building and structural ordinance and the Heritage and Specimen Tree Ordinance to address those new requirements. She said that the proposed three changes included: (1) Plant protection (2) Maintenance and (3) Penalty changes, as outlined in the staff report. Ms. Bjurman noted there were two issues for consideration. It was suggested that staff develop an exception process for new two story decks which were provided in the packet. However, staff suggests the architectural ad hoe group review the proposal for an exception to see if they come up with any alternatives not already considered. Staff also proposes that the planning comrmssion direct staff to initiate a change to the second dwelling unit ordinance so that it is clear between the second dwelling unit ordinance and the accessory ordinance that any new two story second dwelling unit be consistent with the decisions that have been made about privacy protection measures. In response to Com. Hams' question about penalty charges for tree removal, Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that the ordinance states that an ongoing infraction is an infraction for every day that it is ongoing, and charges would accumulate. Ms. Murray suggested that the wording specify that failure to replace would be the infraction and not the allowing it to die. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Discussed ensued regarding the appropriate language to be included relative to the infraction and the penalty phase. Com. Hams suggested the language under penalty 10.31 "except the removal of a tree planted for privacy and protection is considered an infraction unless it is replaced within 30 days of notification." Ms. Bjurman clarified that the resolution is provided for the Planning Commission to require an exception for a deck; staffrecommendation is that it not be adopted this evening, but send it back to the ad hoc committee for staffto return with their report. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application Declaration on the change to the tree ordinance only Com. Hams Passed 5-0-0 36-EA-98, the Negative MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the tree ordinance portion of Application l l-Z- 97 according to the model resolution, including the change to include language in Section 10.31 relative to t~ee removal. Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes lo December 14, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: provided a brief update on the Cupertino Dental group application. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: Com. Harris moved to continue remaining portion of Application 11-Z-97 to the January 25, 1999 planning Commission meeting, and staff to initiate change to the second dwelling unit Com. Mahoney Passed 5 -0-0 The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to the special adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on December 17, 1998 at 6:45 p.m. in Conference Room C. Approved as presented: January 11, 1999 Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary