Loading...
PC 03-24-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 24, 1997 SALUTETOTHEFLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Austin, Mahoney, Roberts, Chair Hams Doyle Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Minutes of the March I0, 1997 regular meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the March 10, 1997 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Roberts Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted the letter fxom Greenbelt Alliance relative to the West Valley Hillside -all Ordinance. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: None Application No.: Applicant: Location: 5-EXC-97 Lmwalle Stegner 10745 So. DeAnza Boulevard Sign exception to locate 4 tenant signs on west elevation of existing retail building, in accordance with Chapter 17.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 24, 1997 Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, explained that the sign program for the center describes the signs, and if the exception is gxanted the signs will conform to the present program for the center. She noted that the signs were not neon signs. The video presentation reviewed the application to install four tenant signs on the west side of the shopping center. Staffrecommends approval of the application for the four signs. Ms. Wordell referred to the site plan which illustrated the location of the signs at the rear of the building and stated that if the exception was approved, they would be allowed at 70% of each frontage, and the signs would be similar to those in the front of the building. The applicant was not present at the meeting. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present to wished to speak. A brief discussion ensued regarding sign size, wherein Ms. Wordell answered Commissioners' questions. Com. Roberts suggesting a condition for the 18 inch maximum size. Com. Mahoney said that if the Fast Frame sign was the same size as the others, it was appropriate. Com. Austin said she felt that signs in the rear of the building should be permitted for ease of locating the businesses. Chair Harris said that the signs in the rear of the center were appropriate, which allowed visibility for the other businesses. She said she was not in favor of the sign for Fast Frame as there was not a rear entrance, bm was in favor of the signs for the other three stores to accommodate visibility for those businesses. She said she would like assurance the signs would be uniform size, configuration, color, dimension as the signs on the front. Com. Austin concurred with Chair I-lards. Mr. Cowan suggested handling approval of the Fast Frame sign separate from the other three stores. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the three tenant signs other than Fast Frame; signs to be a maximum of 18 inches; len~mh same as front for the three tenants other than Fast Frame; if Fast Frame has a rear entrance, sign to be the same size as Cafe Wraps. Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Com. Doyle Passed 3-1-0 OLD BUSINESS 3. Status report regarding West Valley Hillsides Planning Implementation. Staff presentation: Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner, reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. She explained thai Cupertino's Planning Commission and City Council adopted some s~xategies along with Los Gatos, Monte Sereno. and Saratoga for the county lands outside of their city boundmies but within the long term growth boundmy areas. One of the four strategies was to minimize the visual impacts for the hillside lands for new Planning Commission Meeting 3 March 24, 1997 constmction. She said that action items 1, 2 and 3 were the implementation items for the County of Santa Clara to complete as part of the action on the item. Ms. Bjurman reported that Action No. 1 was the requirement for the County to require design review for development proposed on portions of the hillside visible fi.om the valley floor within the West Valley cities. Action taken to implement it was that they are going to be or have rezoned almost 8,000 acres in their hillside county lands to a -dl zoning district which will trigger design review. Action No. 2 mqmres revised existing or adopting new development standards in areas vis.~ble fi.om the valley floor within the West Valley cities. This was implemented as part of an adoption of a q:ll ordinance which occurred in December and is cunently proposed for modification. Action No. 3 is to revise the existing design guidelines applicable to areas where design review is required. This was also adopted in December in conjunction with the -all ordinance and is currently being reviewed by the County planning Commission. Ms. Bjurman reviewed Exhibit A, Comparison of Joint Hillside Agencies and Their Hillside Regulations. She said that staff supports the County approach both to the combination of prescriptive requirements as outlined in their -all proposed modifications as well as their design guideline approach if there are some modifications to those guidelines and to the procedural amendments proposed, as long as the design guidelines and the process for doing that are vigorously applied to all cases proposed in the hillsides. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission direct staff to write a letter to the County of Santa Clara Planning Commission recommenffmg two changes be made as outlined in the staffreport. Referring to the correspondence fi.om Greenbelt Alliance, Ms. Bjurman said that their suggestions had merit; however, proposed Process No. 2 would be somewhat difficult for staff to implement. Chair Hams opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Beez Jones, 10398 Heney Creek Place, Cupertino, asked the Planning Commission to support a desig~ review with guidelines. She said the landowners had been working with the Santa Clara County planning staff and the Planning Commission for a number of months, including attendance at workshops to discuss problems. She said that in reading the packets for the Cupertino Planning Commission on the hillside preservation policies, she believed that the Pl~aming Commission had not received a copy of the -dl ordinance. MS. Jones said that the homeowners wanted to protect the hillside and the ridgeline and are not asking that support be given to a greater dear~aty, to change the 10-160, but she said that the -all ordinance deprives the landowner of adequate use of their lands. She pointed out that it was 20 acres, minimurn building site in the hills and not on the flat plain vis'able from the city. With the -all ordinance, horses, stables, swim pools and vineyards are not p~naitted because the fence limit is 30 inches high; the square footage for an auxili~a~ building is 800 square feet. She said that on 20 acre parcels of land there is adequate land that would not be visible from the valley floor. She said that the Santa Clara County planners had been working during normal working hours and said there were very few requests for building sites in the hills. Ms. Jones reported the modifications the landowners have worked with staff and the Planning Commission on will provide the policies and strategies that the staff und Planning Commission desire and will also allow the landowner to use their land. She urged the Planning Commission to accept and recommend to the County design review with guidelines. Planning Commission Meeting 4 March 24, 1997 In response to a question from Com. Roberts, Ms. Jones said that the modifications recommended were to increase the size of the amdliary buildings, and the height of the fences. Ms. Bjurman summarized that Ms. Jones was asking for support of the revisions to -dl together with E,v2fibit B. She said that staff is supportive of proposed revisions to -dl provided they modify the design guidelines to strengthen the ridgeline protection. Mr. Cowan said that the primary focus was to ensure that the houses are less visible. He recommended that the landowners work with the County on fence height. Ms. Bjurman noted that the participating cities did not discuss fence height or provide direction. Mr. Clarence Stone, 16400 Bohlman Road, Saratoga, said that he represented a number of landowners in the west hillside and has been involved with the County on the issue. He pointed out that the property owners were not involved in the frrst 18 months of the process, but in the last 3 months have been actively involved with the County to mitigate some of their concems relative to the -dl ordinance. He said the group was appreciative of the staff's sensitivity to the environmental community. Mr. Stone said that there were a number of problems related to the -dl ordinance that the County was attempting to solve and the current County staff recommendation to be forwarded to the April 3 County Planning Commission was not prepared as yet. He said he felt it was premature to send an endorsement of terms of the -dl ordinance to the County when they were not yet known. He pointed out areas of Exhibit A where he felt the information was incorrect, as well as not including many details of the -dl ordinance. He said he felt the -dl ordinance was restrictive and unreasonable, stating an example of an individual with 20 acres only being able to build a house with a max/mum of 3800 square feet, noting that the garage was included. He urged the Planning Commission to postpone sending a letter to the County indicating approval of the ordinance, of which they did not have a copy. He suggested acting on the ordinance when it has been amended. Mr. Anant Agrawal, 22501 Rolling Hills Road, Cupertino, reviewed the process followed by the County, noting that he was not aware of the impact on his property until the ordinance was passed by the Planning Commission. He said that he previously supported the design review process until he was aware of the guidelines. He noted that the process excluded the property owners and was not a participative process. He urged the Planning Commission not to take action until the ordinance was reviewed. He discussed the issues of fence height and light reflectivity, noting that trying to impose a limit of 30 in the County, when Cupertino's reflecfivity was 60, was unfair. Relative to the staff recommendations on the intersections where the fidgeline could be reviewed, he questioned whether Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, or Monte Sereno used the same gnidelines. Mr. Agrawal recommended that the rules for the 41 ordinance are applied to the properties in Cupertino. Mr. Ron Crough, 5220 Leesa Ann Ct., San Jose, that the intention of the preservation strategies was to preserve the natural visual character of the hillsides. He said that according to the guidelines, a new development could not occur on less than 20 acres; last year there were 12 applications for new development for 8,000 acres processed by the County. He said that -dl ordinance as presently written is poor, as acknowledged fxom the authors following input from the homeowners, in that in its present form it extends urban use guidelines to rural guidelines, which precludes accessory buildings for farm and abmcnltural use. He said that under the -dl ordinance, residents could not rebuild what they presently have in the event of a fire or earthquake or other major catastrophe. Mr. Crough said that the matrix shown was factually inaccurate. Mr. Planning Commisff~en Meeting $ March 24, lc)C)'/ Crough explained that there were four parts to the County's attempt to implement the West Valley hillside preservation sWategies: zoning ordinance, grading ordinance, design review guidelines, and a noticing ordinance. He pointed out that he did not attend the previous meeting, but understood that the Planning Commission supported the West Valley hillside strategies, but did not understand the restrictive nature and implications supporting the text of-dl. He recommended that the Planning Commission read the text of the document, as the matrLx shown is misleading. Mr. Crough said that of the two areas, area A and area B of the 8,000 acres under consideration for the last two year, area A was in the Los Gatos sphere of influence. He pointed out that Los Gatos has had design review for 15 years and this has achieved the purpose of the West Valley hillside preservation strategies, with an experience base to draw on and no need to have the County reinvent laws with restrictive provisions causing a hardship to its residents. Mr. Crough summarized that design review will preserve the natural visual character of the hillsides and will allow the property owners to function within an urban area; and requested that if the Planmng Commission were to make a statement about the -all ordinance, they read the pages of the ordinance as written as well as the companion documents to view the entire picture; and that the incorrect summa~ sheets not be used. Ms. Joy Crough, 5220 Lessa Ann Ct., San Jose, expressed her surprise that at the previous meeting she attended, the Planning Commission was asked to act on the ordinance when very little information was provided. She said she appreciated the Planning Commission postponing a decision until more information was provided. She pointed out the inaccuracies of the malxLx and the areas that staff needed clarification on. Ms. Crough urged the Planning Commission to research the ordinance because of the unaddressed issues, and expressed concern that a decision would be made in support of the ordinance without having all the correct information and facts, considering the impacts on the residents as well as the views of the hillsides. Mr. Ed Scripps, owner of a lot on Bohlman Road, said that having a design review with guidelines would avoid litigation to decide on what the designs should be. He said he felt the ordinance was poorly written. Mr. Jim Brundt, 21965 Arrowhood Lane, Saratoga, said that he met with the County and the County does not understand the need for the planning Commission to submit a letter. The letter sent fi.om the County to the Planning Commission was an information packet and not a solicitation for a response on the -dl ordinance. He said it should be clarified with the County if they are requesting a letter fi.om the Planning Commission. Mr. Brandr said that Saratoga's position is a "hands oftT' on the County at this time because they feel it is a County problem, and because of the restrictiveness of-dl, they have backed away fi.om it. He said that the County is working on the process with more time to work with the residents on the process. Mr. Brandt addressed staff~s recommendation and stated that a clear definition of visibility would be helpful; and said that item 2 of the recommendation had serious restrictions put on homeowners. He said that he would send a letter explaining the restrictions. Mr. John Patmor, 10426 Aveuida Lane, Cupertino, said he planned to build a home in the -dl zoning district. He addressed the issue of control and said he felt that control was necessary; although he felt that it was unequal in the -all issue. He said that a numbex of the homes on his street would not be able to pass the restrictions of the -dl as they are too large. He said that under the current proposal, his neighbors would not be able to rebuild in the event of a catastrophe. He urged the Planning Commission not to respond to the recommendation of approval until more accurate information was received fxom the County. Planning Commission Meeting 6 March 24, 1997 Mr. Will Betchart, 17050 Montebello Road, Cupertino, said in general, he agreed with the West Valley hillsides preservation strategy. He said he felt the package was deficient in its scope end in the way the cities and counties have implemented it, without considering the point of view or interests of land owners, thus falling short in their obligations to exercise responsible governmental power· He said he felt the attitude has been that the landowners do not matter, and that the City of Cupertino perpetuated the attitude as much or more than any other governmental unit involved. Mr. Betchurt said he felt staff recommendation No. 2 was the latest example, stating that development on fidgelines should be prohibited unless development elsewhere on the properly would be more environmentally damaging. He said there was no consideration of the cost to the landowner for the alternative development. He said that the Planning Comrmssion could either decide to intensify and continue the adversarial relationship with the landowners, or raise the discussion to another plain to articulate a fifth goal as the residents in the hillsides work cooperatively with the city to achieve the other four goals in mutual interests as neighbors rather than adversaries. Chair Hams closed the public input portion of the meeting. In response to Com. Roberts' question about the discrepancy between the matrix and the copy of the -dl just received, Ms. Bjurman explained that staffhad reviewed Appendix A with the County of Santa Clara who cunfn-med the information was correct; and noted that the focus should be on the proposed revision to the 41 ordinance. Mr. Cowan recommended the focus be on the basic strategy and not the details of the County -dl ordinance. He said that those involved agreed to develop policies in each jurisdiction to protect the hillside backdrop, noting that the City completed its hillside ordinance three years ago, and the Cotmty is revis'mg the ordinance to accomplish that goal. He reported that it was staWs recommendation to the City Council that the general approach was appropriate with the use of guidelines. He said that the guidelines were appropriate with the exception of defining some vantage points t~om the City that would be used to evaluate the degree of visibility; and that Cupertino has strong policies on ridgeline protection, namely that unless there are environmental reasons to the contrary, the building should be offthe ridgeline. Ms. Bjurman confirmed that staff was requesting that the Planning Commission support the proposed changes in Column 2, except to look at fidgeline disruption and visibility issues, in addition to Column 2, size and accessory structure which is supported as having them not a prescriptive requirement but to be taken care of as part of the design review process. Com. Roberts said that he favored hillside development cuntrols that axe gmxilar to Cupertino's; and that he was disappointed that the house size limitation was eliminate& citing an example of the large homesites in the Saratoga hills as not well suited for the hills and obtrusive. He said much thought went into Cupertino's restriction and the currently approved 41 ordinance was no more restrictive than Cupertino's. He said he favored the two staff recommendations. Com. Roberts said that he felt there should be limits and design review of accessory structures, and size limits on houses. Com. Mahoney said that much time was spent on what the hillside zoning should be in Cupertino, and it was similar, with the exception of the larger lots, which would be where the individual design review would fall into place. He said he would recommend the same things on the ridgeline and visibility. Planning Commission Meeting 7 March 24, 1997 Chair Hams said she supported staffs recommendation to protect the ridgeline and to identify significant intersections. She said that she felt the accessory structures should be subject to design review. Ms. Bjurman clarified that anything less than 150 square feet was exempt ~om design review; between 150 to 500 square feet, an exemption can be requested; anything larger than that would be reviewed through the County's design process. Com. Austin said that she was supportive of staff's recommendation, and suggested recommenffmg to the County that they follow Cupertino's hillside guidelines for its sphere of influence. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved that maff send a letter to the County Planning Commission confirming that the -dl ord'mance is moving in the right direction with the two additional issues addressed, namely certain site locations and fidgeline protection. Com. Roberts Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Chair Hams reported that Com. Mahoney agr~ eed to serve as a representative on the Crest Award Selection Committee on April 1. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan reported that a Council appointed representative was needed on the Economic Summit, which meets on April 29, relative to economic issues involving the government and business community. There was consensus that Com. Mahoney serve as the Planning Commission representative. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned al 9:15 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 14, 1997 at 6:45 p .m. Approved: April 14, 1997 Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretmy