Loading...
PC 10-13-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 13, 1997 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Roberts, Chairperson Harris Staff present: Ciddy Wordell, City, Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Vera Gil, Planner Il; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works. Mr. Cowan was a speaker at the APA Conference and was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the September 22, 1997, regular meeting: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the September 22, 1997 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 25-U-96 and 37-EA-96 Deke Hunter Northeast corner of DeAnza Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. Use Permit to demolish an abandoned service station and three retail or office I~uildings, and construct a 4-story, 113,200 sq. ft. retail/office building, with one level of underground parking. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 20, 1997 REMOVE FROM CALENDAR MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve removal of Item 6 from tile agenda. Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted a petition received from residents of Stelling Road and Glencoe submitted relative to Items 1 and 2, stating tbat the petitioners were opposed to 'pink palaces' in the neighborhood. She also noted receipt of a report on the pocket area annexations and a report on the Historical Research Committee. Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 13, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING Items 1 and 2 were discussed together as they both related to prezoning of single family residential lots to Pre-RI-10. The video presentations for each item were viewed concurrently. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 9-Z-97 and 3 I-EA-97 Charles and Jane Hsu 10424 N. Stelling Road Prezone an existing single family residential lot to Pre-Rl ~ 10 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITer COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 3, 1997 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 10-Z-97 and 32-gA-97 Hank and Yunghwa Chang 20697 Hanford Drive Prezone an existing single family residential Iot to Pre-R1 - 10 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 3, 1997 Staff presentation: The video presentations were shown, outlining the requests from Charles and Jane Hsu to prezone a 9,375 sq. ft. pamel and part of No. Stetling Road to a Pre-RI-10 status tbr a single family home use designation; and from Hank and Yunghwa Chang to prezone a 9,940 sq. ft. single family residential property to Pre-Rl-10. It was noted that the Hsu home was already demolished, with plans to construct a single family residence. Staff recommends approval of both applications for prezoning to a Pre-RI-10 status; the recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council on November 3, I997. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reported that irrespective of whether the properties were in the city or the county, they will be rebuilt. If they are rebuilt in the city, there will be more restrictive regulations and the houses will be potentially smaller; if built in the county they could be quite large. He noted that the petitioners objected t,~ 'pink palaces' in their neighborhoods. He noted for the record that all the 'pink palaces' if in the Garden Gate area have all been developed in the county, however, some large houses built in the city might be interpreted as 'pink palaces'. added that the city does not regulate the color of single family homes, but if developed in the city, would be smaller than if built in the county. He said that the county regulations allow single family homes not more than 2 stories, but 35 feet high, compared to the city's 28 foot height maximum. In addition the county does not have a FAR so the? could fill up whatever development envelope the county prescribes for their lots within setbacks established by the county. He said the applicants are proceeding with the applications and are taking these actions because they do not want to wait for the city and county to decide about the designation of the property and who will have the regulatory authority over it. Mr. Jung said staff recommends the negative declarations on both properties. Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 13, 1997 Mr. Jung summarized the differences between the city and county relative to setbacks and FAR. He said that the county allows a taller single family residence, 35 vs. 28 I'or the city: the cotmty does not have more restrictive second story setbacks; yon can built straight up, whereas the city calls for building in a pyramid shape; the county does not have restrictions on building coverage other than what is established by the setbacks, which for Garden Gate is l0 feet on the sides, 25 feet in front and 25 feet in the rear. Com. Roberts questioned if there was any assessment of thc economic impact of the study of incorporating a strictly residential district of this size. Mr. J ting responded that staff is working on the assessment and would be provided to the City Council at their next meeting. He said it was undecided about Rancho becanse it is such a large pocket, bnt Garden Gate and Monta Vista have always been very small and probably could be absorbed by the city with very few financial impacts. In response to Chair Harris' question about restrictions on demolishing trees, Mr. Jung said that relative to the county's development regulations, they do not have any specific regnlations protecting private property trees other than what is on the street. A street tree in tile county can be removed by applying for an encroachment permit for removal. Cupertino's regnlatioas are somewhat stricter; specimen sized oak trees are protected and require tree removal permit: other types of trees in established single family areas are not protected unless it was a condition or' a tentative map or some other use approval which would not necessarily apply to the Garden Gate area. He said that Cupertino's setback regulations were 20 feet for front and rear; 5 feet on one side, and 10 feet on the other side for the first story; and for tile second story, 25 feet for the fi'ont and rear and 10 feet on either side. He said there was also a setback surcharge of an additional 15 feet applied to the second story. Mr. Jung said that the county did not bave all FAR restriction; Cupertino's was .45 FAR. The applicants for Application 9-Z-97 (31-EA-97), Charles and Jane Hsu did not wish to speak. The applicants for Application 10-Z-97 (32-EA-97), Hank and Yunghwa Chang, were not present at the meeting. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Catherine Thaler, 10116 Stern Avenue, said that she bas been involved in the stndy for the possible annexation and encouraged the Planning Commission to annex any lots for development, and to put Cupertino's restrictions onto any development. She said she felt it provided for improved architecture, and better relationships with the existing neighbors. There were no endorsers of the petition present to speak relative to the application. Mr. H. Sibley, owner of several properties in the area, said he was in favor of the annexation. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Com. Roberts said that he would like to have more information on the setbacks in tile county and the city of Cupertino. He said that he understood that a house in excess of 7,000 sq. lt. cotdd be built on a 10,000 sq. ff. lot in the county, and 4,500 to 4,700 in the city, which supports that development would be more orderly under city supervision and less expensive as well as less obtrusive, and should be in the interest of neighbors. He expressed concern about the economic impact of annexation of residential areas that pay less in the form of taxes than cost ol' thc Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 13, 1997 services. Com. Roberts said that relative to the justification, he thvored tile annexation of the two properties, even considering it as a step to something substantially larger. Com. Mahoney noted that it was included in the general plan to do this as they came up, and said that he was in favor of the annexation. Com. Doyle said that on an individual basis, he was supportive of the annexations, but overall he had to put it in context of what was trying to be accomplished in the next month or so. He said it xvas done before, and the resalt xvas that for the 1 I sites they did not want to go ahead and annex those and put the mechanisms in place that would let the whole area be annexed. He said that presently there are just two homes, and before it was I 1. Com. Doyle said that the question still has not been answered if these residents really want to be part of Cupertino; and if they do .join Cupertino, they should be positive forces in the community, and not people that have been dragged in because they were surrounded and had their ability to make a choice taken away. said he would vote against the applications based on the fact that a plan has not yet been developed or a resulting review of what this particular community wants to do. Com. Austin said she was in favor of the annexation, and felt that being annexed to the city would be beneficial. She said she agreed with Com. Roberts' and Com. Mahoney's statements. Responding to an earlier question from Com. Doyle, Mr. Jung said that for tile Hanford Drive house, which lot size was just under 10,000 sq. ft., the maximum size bouse in Cupertino would be 4,473 sq. ft., and the maximum house size in the county would be 8,729 sq. ft. For the Stelling Road 9,300 sq. ft. lot, the maximum house size in Cupertino would be 4,218 sq. ft., and tbr the county, 8,250 sq. fi. house. Chair Harris said she agreed with Com. Doyle that the house on Hanford abuts Cupertino now and she would be comfortable annexing it because the street is in Cupertino and the adjacent neighborhood is in Cupertino. She commented that relative to the house on Stelling, they actually annexed the street to get to the house, and there are houses on the street that are not in Cupertino, which results in the police and fire services for those three homes to be from different sources, which is not practical. Chair Harris said that she felt Cupertino would benefit and the residents would benefit from having the entire neighborhood annexed so that we would ali be one city. She pointed out that the group annexation saves money for the residents because they don't have to apply individually and pay the fee; however, the two applicants have agreed to pay the tee so that they can proceed with their homes. She said she felt the deciding factor are tile numbers Mr. Jung provided; and that the 8,000 sq. ft. homes on 10,000 sq. ft. homes are a very unrealistic idea, because they encroach on the privacy of the neighbors and the mass of them affects tile light and the views. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Negative Declaration on 31 -EA-97 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Negative Declaration oa 32-EA-97 Com. Roberts Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 9-Z-97 per tile model resolution Planning Commission Minutes s t)clobcr 13, 1997 SECOND: Com. Mahoney NOES: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 10-Z-97 per the model resolulion Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle 4-1-0 Passed Com. Doyle clarified that he fundamentally supported the annexation, bnt he wanted Itl ensnrc they went through tile process that was initiated the last time it arose. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 81,152 and 33-EA-97 City of Cupertino Properties adjacent to Stevens Creek Blvd. between Tantau Avenue and Stern Avenue Amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan by Ordinance to change the Specific Phm boundaries or change tile residential densities and development standards to allow single family residential development. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 3, 1997 Staff presentation: Referring to Exhibit A, Map of Current Zoning, Mr. Jung reviewed the application for amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan by ordinance to change the Specific Plan boundaries, or change the residential densities and development standards to allow single family residential development, as outlined in the attached staff report. He pointed out tltat the application was being presented because one property owner in the county applied for a demolition permit and demolished his single family house, with the intention ot' rebuilding ou tile site with a single family dwelling. When the application was referred to the Planning Department after the [louse was demolished, it was noted that they should be annexing tile property to the city of Cupertino. Unfortunately because of the Heart of tile City Specific Plan, the overall density for that area is 8 to 35 dwellings per acre, which does not contemplate a siugle family resideutial development. He said that there are no development standards for single t:amily homes iu the Ileart of the City Specific Plan, because they were not considered a part of thc privale redevelopment process that would go for Stevens Creek Blvd., which has left the property owner in a difficult situation. Referring to the street map, Mr. Jung said that staff fonud, based on a number of preliminary development proposals received, that the area is starting to turn over, in a sense that the Planning Department ,,vas receiving some preliminary proposals to look at the redevelopment of the sites. He pointed out that unfortunately for a lot size of 75 by 125 lhcrc is not much that can be done other than a single family home, and it is ton small tbr developing in any type of higher density residential or non-residential development. Mr. Jung said staff has proposed for the particular sitnation, ir they canuot get the private redevelopment of these lots, to allow property owners that are basically 150 feet away fi'om Stevens Creek Blvd., to develop as single t'amily uses, using P,I zoning standards wilh m~ architectural aud site approval process tbr the review of any nexv homes and atldilions Io lite homes. He explained that tbe reason lbr the separate design review process that Il'icy normally do Planning Commission Minutes 6 October/3~ 1997 not have for an RI zone area. is that because of the interface with the non-residential uses, staff ~vants to assure that whatever develops first, the non-residential end or the resideutial end, that it is a worthy design job that prevents privacy impacts and ensures that there is au adequate bumper between the house itself and the commercial development. Mr. Jung said he had made one other amendment to the language to exhibit A 1 in the staff report to ensure at a later date that R1 development standards were being applied, not just the height and the setbacks, but other site development regulations including FAR, lot coverage, etc., that all of those regulations would be tbr those lots to allow for development of single family standards and woald have tile R1 zoning standards applied to them. He said that while applying these development standards particularly to the portion of Stevens Creek Blvd. in the vicinity of Tantau, Judy, Bret and Stern Avenues., it is stafffs intention to come back to the Planniug Commission at a later date if this is approved and also apply it to another area in Cupertino where there is a similar development problems or pattern, which is along Bianchi Way where there arc vacant lots and older single family homes which are smaller than those tbund on Judy, Bret and Stem. He said it was not part of this application but is staffs intention if this is approved that it be applied to some of those properties as well. Staff is recommending the negative declaration and approval of the amendments to the Specific Plan. Com. Roberts said that viewing from the bottom of the PD zone boundary, the first tier is actually all residential; the next tier is parking, office, and mixed use apartment retail. He posed thc question of choosing 200 feet instead of 150 feet, which would leave the next tier tip within the domain of the intent of the general plan and would permit more flexibility itl realizing thc objectives that were conditioned in the general plan? Chair Harris questioned why the accessory uses and buildings would be exempt, as stated in the design review section of the proposed Exhibit Al. Mr. Jung responded that staff did not want to be involved in design review of items such as swim pools, toot sheds and detached garages that really cannot be construed as living space, and staff does not feel they would have the same sensitivity to privacy. Chair Harris said that when it was approved as office/residential, she visualized the ability for a residential subdivision if people accrued enough lots they coald build hoases there due to the need of residential in Cupertino: but with the rule states that it has to be 8 to 35 anits per acre, that precludes houses. Mr. Jung stated that with the 8 to 35 density applied to those lots, would have resulted in a duplex on a lot of that size. He said that with a 8 dwelling unit per acre density, you would end up with a small lot subdivision, and stated the example of Coventry which is the redevelopment of the Summerhill development, with 8 or 9 dwelling units per acre. Chair Harris said that a possibility rather than changing the boundary line would be to change the density to 5 to 35 units per acre. Mr. Jung said that it was one of the options outlined in the staff report and recommended by staff. Chair Harris stated that staff was seeking approval for 150 feet and she stressed the importance of being accurate and not guessing at the nmnbers. Mr. Jung said that all the lots shown with the red markings were 150 feet back. Com. Austin referred to Com. Roberts' comment about modifying the botlndary and qaestioncd why staff was not recommending the alternative. Mr. Jung said that Com. Roberts had suggested consideration of 200 feet instead of 150 feet deep so that these houses could not essentially redevelop the single family houses; that at some point there will be some sort of market or economic forces that would force them to eventually combine with the lots closer to Stevens Planning Commission Minutes ? October ~ ], J997 Creek Boulevard and the result would be deeper lots for redevelopment and last allow these lots to retain that flexibility. Com. Roberts explained that the logic was, about a year ago when the Planning Cormnission reviewed and approved the development at Stevens Creek and Tantau, the property turned ont to be difficult to develop in part because of the odd shape. Referring to the map, he suggested that il' the line was drawn where it is orange colored, there would be a size and dimension that would permit multi family development or commercial development, otherwise it will be too small like so many other plots in the city, and he said lie felt they shoald not get into that predicament; but try to maintain the incentive for the kiud of development that is envisioned; which is not what staff is recommending and that is why he was opposed to drawing a line where staffhas drawn it. Mr. Robert Catalano, 10053 Bret Avenue, explained that he had gone to the cot,?ty and was issued a permit to tear the house d~wn, and j,qt before approval of the building permits, they decided it had to go to the city for approval. He said lie was not informed iii the beginning that it had to go to the city. He said that if one wall was left standing, lie could have built the house; however, the county never provided that information to him. Mr. Catalano pointed out that properties surrounding his had older homes, remodeled homes and some that appeared to be new. He said it was his intent to build a single family house and there was no way to build anything other than that on that size of property. Mr. Jung illustrated which properties were located in the city and those located in the county. He said that as prop~erties came forth lbr redevelopment~ they would be annexed into the city. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Ron Walker, said that high density had new meaning when it was next door to one's home. He questioned whether others had high density next to their homes, and asked that the Planning Commission understand their feelings on this matter. He said they fought the isstte before with the affordable housing project and commercial at the corner of Tantau and Stevens Creek and in response to the neighborhood concerns, reduced the 56 to 44 units. He said the traffic department said it woaldn't impact the corner and it does; especially with the entrance and exit within 30 i'eet of the corner of Stevens Creek and Tantau. Mr. Walker said the Planning Commission conld either close their eyes to the matter before them or act xvith responsibility to the neighborhood. He said he had invested a large portion of his life in the neighborhood and cared about what happens in the future; and that lie planned on staying tbr a long time. He said the Planning Commission's decision will impact lives and the quality of life. He asked if they cared about the neighborhood and the life styles of the residents, or were they just concerned about meeting quotas for housing and density. He asked that the high density be spread over other areas instead of slamming this particular end of town. Mr. Walker said that San Jose approved a 350 unit apartment complex at Stern and Stevens Creek uext to the single fhmily dwellings, and questioned the affect on the Cupertino neighborhood, and questioned why they would want to approve more. He said it was an opportunity to show their true colors and take a stand fbr what is right for the residents, and make the right decision. He referred to the saying that you can't fight City Hall, but said hopefully you could get them to listen to serious concerus and pray that they make the right decisions. He said he was against the high density issue and building the area up with more people who can purchase the land and make apartment complexes. He concluded by stating that there is a lot of traffic in the area. ?~anning Comm, iss~,on Minutes 8 Oc[0bcr { ], { g()7 Mr. Al DeRitter, 19146 Ann Lane, said he was upset when he read tile agenda and the notice that xvas sent out xvbich announced that they were going to change tile residential densities and development standards to allow single family residential development, which he thought was RI, and then realized that they were trying to allow apartment houses. He said he liked what they were doing now better, leave alone what is there and when something comes up on an individual basis, consider it on its own merit. Mr. DeRitter read the following letter into the record: "l received your letter and map abont tile zoning area along Stevens Creek Boulevard to Tantau to Stern Avenue. It is quite a departure from the existing zoning. It means that several single fmnily homes in our neighborhood as well as tile local strip shopping center, gas station and other businesses close to Stevens Creek could be ripped out in tile future and high density would be the only tbing that would be allowed to replace them. That is according to the map on the back of the notice to the neighborhood. I can see no reason for such a move; we have a decent neighborhood and it has been a nice place to live for many years. There are many residents in the neighborhood which have lived happily there l'or over 30 years; we have been living in our house for 35 years. We do not want this change. You may call it a grand plan or anything else you want, but that does not mean that is what the people want. This plan would allow for up to 35 dwelling units per acre. The particular parcel affected by this plan is about 8 to 10 acres in size, that translates to about 280 to 350 dwelling units ii' everyone was to adhere to the upper limits that are presently set. However, we all know that developers are always seeking to obtain a variance for one thing or another and maybe later yonr successors will up the ante to 40 or 50 units per acre. I can only imagine the impact tbat it would have on Cupertino schools; where would be put an additional 500 students? San Jose has already pulled a fast one on us with their 315 unit development on Stevens Creek between Stern and Calvert. They knew that the impact would be on the Cupertino schools, not on San Jose scbools. Please ask yourself if this is a wise thing to impact our schools with anotber apartment building blitz? I would urge the Planning Commission to leave the boundaries and tbe zoning designatious as they are presently, that way if someone wants to propose a change for a specific parcel it can be judged on its own merit such as what was done for the Iow income apartment cmnplex recently built on Stevens Creek near Tantau. This will allow us to continue to have a decent neighborhood which would not be overbuilt with high density apartments." Mr. DeRitter submitted additional letters from residents unable to be present at the meeting; Carol and Carl Cady, Nadine Arms, Fred Ranches, Mr. and Mrs. David Baker, Craig and Margaret Martin. Chair Harris clarified that if no action was taken at tile Planning Commission level, they would not be able to do single family homes at all. She said what is required for this particular site is to allow single family on it, and that action has to be taken. At present the rule is 8 to 35 units per acre. Ms. Catherine Thaler, 10116 Stern Ave., referred to Exhibit B, and said that she was involved in opposition to the access on Stern Avenue for the new apartment building. She said that with the new apartment complex, there are now three San Jose apamnent conlplexes at that end o~' Cupertino; with 900 units and no parks for the residents. Sbe said she felt it was appropriate to re-allow single family homes and annex into Cupertino because some of the new homes were being built so high that there were no privacy issues. She said that she supported tile annexation and hoped the Planning Commission would reconsider changing the boundaries and considering them one by one as they come up. Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 13, 1997 Ms. Linda O'Hara, 19133 Anne Lane, said she was opposed to the project and concurred with all the issues discussed by previous speakers. She said that she had not heard about any benefits that would provide for the current residents and questioned if it xvas an investor drivea project and il' those behind the project lived in the neighborhood. Chair Harris asked Ms. O'Hara to clarify her position, stating that l~er remarks iudicated she was in favor of the proposal. Chair Harris clarified that the proposal was to allow houses on tile cross hatched areas, whereas the current law does not allow houses; it only allows medinm to high density. Ms. O'Hara clarified that she was in favor of bousiug and apologized I'or tim misunderstanding. Chair Harris explained that the Stevens Creek Plan presently allows office, commercial (retail) and residential at 8 to 35 units per acre. If you wanted a typical single family home lots in that slot, there would need to be a change to that plan and that is ~vhat staff is recommending. In response to Mr. Walker's question, Chair Harris explained that Mr. Catalano could not rebuild because the particular lot is zoned for 8 to 35 units per acre, and even though it is in tim county, now when building bouses adjacent to Cupertino, they are required to annex to the city. Discussion ensued regarding homes within Rancho Rinconada, wherein staff indicated that tile county has been referring those homes to the City of Cupertino, but because of the size, it was decided that Rancho Rinconada ,,vas not an area that the city would actively go after because of the major amounts of streets they would have to take. The city has been turning them down and they have been developing in the county. Chair Harris clarified that the Planning Commission was attempting to right an error by the county, in allowing IVlr. Calvano to rebuild the home. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris revie~ved the four proposals from staff. Mr. Jung stated that staff was not recommending changing the boundary of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area, but saying that xvithin the context of that boundary area, their position is that they are not going to apply single family residential development standards to properties to just this swath of properties 100 feet in from Stevens Creek Boulevard; it still would be in the Heart of the City Specific Plan area, but those lots in the red hash areas would be allowed to develop onder a single [-'amily residential development standards. Mr. Jung clarified the differences between the options. Com. Roberts suggested 225 feet back for option 3, rather than the staff recommendation of 150 feet back. Chair Harris noted another possibility in option l, instead of maintaining the status quo, the possibility of chauging the density to 5 to 35 for Stevens Creek Boulevard to allow single family development as well as apartment development. Chair Harris summarized the options available: change it to 5 to 35; move the boundary of the Stevens Creek Plan; change the density requirement in either of those two slots, 150 or 200 feet back; or let the redevelopment occur in the connty. Com. Mahoney said he preferred the recommendation of allowing single family, but agreed with Com. Roberts suggestion to move the line 225 feet, and also remove the review condition. Chair Harris clarified that 1.03.40 was changed to 1.03.50 (Page 3-7 of tile staff report) and 1.03.40 noxv states "Other site development regulations shall apply to lots affected by this." Planning Commission Minutes lO October I 3, 1997 Coin. Austin said that she ,,vas in favor of modifying the Specific Plan to change tile density requirements and development standards, according to the staff recommendation of 150 Ik~et, and sbe felt the Specific Plan would allow a limited amount of single Ihmily dwelliugs and is described in the resolution. She said she was in favor of the design review but would like to delete "accessory, uses, buildings are exempt." Sbe summarized tbat she was iu favor of option 3 per the model resolution. Later in the meeting, Com. Austin said she would accept the 225 Com. Doyle said that fundamentally the modification of the Heart of the City setback and design lines should not change; he said it ,.','as done inifi~l!y and said 300 feet is there for a development envelope; there are certain setbacks, heights, requirements that are all linked to that type of arrangement and if that line is changed significantly, it will create problems. He said he felt the heights should be left at the Stevens Creek setback as xvhat was originally posed; do not move the PD line in; the densities could be changed accordingly. He said he would like to grandfather uses if possible. Relative to the annexation of county property, Com. Doyle said that inside the PD boundary would be appropriate, and the community should agree with the annexation before any action is taken in those areas. Relative to the design review, he said that he thvored the standard R1 requirements. Chair Harris summarized the density change recommendations: the staffreport was not to chauge it on the frontage north of the red line; Com. Doyle proposed to change it all the way to Stevens Creek, Com. Roberts and Com. Maboney recommended south of the orange line. Com. Roberts said he was opposed to single family houses all tbe way up to Stevens Creek Boulevard and was willing to accept the lower density up to a limit where tbe orange line was drawn at 225 feet., which would make it necessary not to have architectural review. Chair Harris said she concurred with Com. Doyle; there should be houses in Cupertino; the Planning Commission just approved 1050 apartments in Cupertino and there is no ~br sale housing; she said she would like to see some housing. She said she had envisioned the ability to have subdivisions along Stevens Creek which was the concept of the mixed use. She said that she preferred zero feet back; would not change any of the specific plan line but would change the density requirement down to 5 units; or as Com. Doyle suggested, zero feet back; which would allow property owners the right to build a house, have retail or office. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Maboney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on 33-EA-97 Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 81,152 per the model resolution to have it remain in the Specific Plan area, change the density with the property line being at 225 feet per the property line, as per this exhibit, and remove tile architectural review Com. Roberts Com. Doyle and Chair Harris Passed 3-2-0 Chair Harris clarified that the decision was that properties on the south side of the orange line, below tbe orange line, can be built as residential tinder the residential roles (single family); and above it, it bas to stay in the 8 to 35 it' it is an apartment or retail or office. If it is a house, it will ?lannlng Commission Minutes l [ October [ 3,190'/ have to redevelop in conjunction with another property or as an 8 to 35 unit to the acre development, such as a duplex or triplex. In response to Mr. Walker's question, Chair Harris clarified that approval was granted for tile concept of the houses below tile orange line to develop under the single family rules, and the other properties will stay with the Stevens Creek Specific Plan; meaning that under the County rules if they remodel their house, leaving one wall up, they can develop. She suggested that technical details be confirmed with staffi Ms. Wordell noted that the Planning Commission's recommendation wonld be tbrwarded to thc City Council on November 3, 1997. Com. Doyle excused bimself from participation in discussion of Item 4 and returned discussion ofltem 5. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 36-U-85 (Mod.) Sunnyview Lutheran Home 22445 Cupertino Road Use Permit Modification to construct a 1,027 sq. ft. dining/office addition and an emergency generator at an existing senior assisted living facility. ENVIRONMENTAL DETEPdvlINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION F1NAL UNLESS APPEALED Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct a one story 1,027 square foot addition to the nursing home as outlined in the staff report. Trees and shrubbery will be removed to accommodate the addition. It was noted that an emergency generator is located on the east side and close to surrounding homes. As a condition of approval, staff has recommended that the applicant install a redwood fence and additional landscaping to screen the generator. The applicant will also supply a muffle kit to mitigate the noise levels from the generator, as well as screen the generator with a wood fence and additional landscaping. Staff' recommends approval of the application; the Planning Commission's decision will be considercd final. Ms. Vera Gil, Planner Il, referred to the Building 5 addition demolition site plan and illustrated the areas for proposed future development and remodeling on the site. At stall's request, thc applicant submitted a master plan for future development on the site. Ms. Gil explained that as a result of a noise study, it was determined that the noise levels from the emergency geuerator exceeded the maximum allowed Ievel in the evening bouts. The applicant will install the muffle kit to reduce the noise generated and bring the generator in compliance with the uoise ordinance. Ms. Gil explained that the emergency generator was tested periodically during the daytime honrs, but that in an emergency, would run during the evenings hours as well. She illustrated on thc demolition site plan the location ~vhere the noise readings were taken and registered at 58 decibels in the evening, which was in excess of the permitted 50 decibels maximum l'or the evening and daytime maximum of 60 decibels. She said that the muffle kit would reduce the noise levels at least 5 to 10 decibels. Ms. Gil pointed out that a condition of approval is that the noise level must comply with the noise ordinance and additional readings will be made to ensure that it complies with the ordinance. ?/arming Commission Minutes [2 October [3, 1997 Mr. Ron Zielske, Executive Director of Snnny View Latheran Home, said that the emergency generator was a requirement of the Office of Statewide Health Planning ~vhen the heatiug and air conditioning system of the nursing parts of the wings were upgraded. He said he was confident that the muffle kit and landscape mitigation would remedy the noise level situation and the visibility of the generator. He said that tile activity/dining room wonld provide specialized additional services for patients that need help with activities of daily living. He noted that tile oven in the area was not a service kitchen, but would be used tbr activity nsc such as making cookies and pies under supervision. In response to a question from Chair Harris, Mr. Zielske said he did not object to a condition that tile testing of the generator wonld only be during daylight hours. He said that there is a requirement to test the generator every 14 days, wifich takes about one-half hour testing time. The generator would be used in emergency situations only. Chair Harris clarified that Com. Doyle excused himself from discussion of the item becanse he lives in the immediate vicinity of the nursing home. Chair Harris opened the meeting for the public input. Mr. David Doyle, 22362 Cupertino Road, said that the emergency generator was needed as power outages have occurred in the area before. He requested that the testing hours for the generator be more restrictive so that the testing did not occur in early morning hours. He also asked that the applicant meet with the neighbors in the future when modifications to the master plan are made prior to submittal to the city. Chair Harris suggested that the testing hours be modified to I 0 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Mr. Zielske said that he was not opposed to restriction of the testing hours. He added that neighborhood meetings would be planned for input as the master plan is developed and other additions are considered. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to approve Application 36-U-85(M) according to the model resolution with the additional condition that testing of the emergency generator be restricted to Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Com. Austin Com. Doyle (excused from voting) Passed 4-0-0 Chair Harris declared a recess from 8:40 to 8:55 p.m. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 10-U-97 and 27-EA-97 Chevron Service Station 10023 DeAnza Blvd. Use Permit to demolish an existing service station and build a new one, including modifications to the site plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 13 October 13, 1997 Staff presentation: Tile video presentation reviewed the application to demolish the existing service station and construct a slew service station with convenience store, and application l'or 24 hour operation of the service station and convenience store. Site improvements to the location also include a 26 foot landscape easement along the DeAnza Blvd. side of the site, relocation of the underground gas storage tanks, and reconfiguration of the canopy. Staff recommends approval of the service station, convenience store and the 24 hour operation of both. A recommendation from the Planning Commission will be considered final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Gil outlined the primary discussion issues: (1) Importance of intersection as mentioned in the general plan and Heart of the City; (2) Design Issues; (3) Heart of the City requirements; and (4) 24 hour operation. Referring to the site plan, Ms. Gil outlined the proposed changes to the site. She also discussed the differences between the prior application for a service station on tile northeast comer of DeAnza and Stevens Creek Blvd., which was denied, and the current application. The application which was denied was an abandoned gas station and staff felt that the abandoned site could be linked with some of the commercial development in the area and redeveloped to bring it in compliance with the general plan. The present application is an existing service station and the applicant has signed a long term lease with the property owner. At this time the property owner has no plans for redeveloping the site and staff felt it was all excellent opportunity to receive thc Heart of the City Improvements in the area and also to incorporate an easement tbr public art or other urban design element in the future. Ms. Gil reviewed some suggestions from Freedman, Tung and Bottomley relative to the civic presence of the building on the street comer. The consultant suggested a base treatment of brick, which has been incorporated into the design; full brick treatment on the trash enclosure, and a clock feature in the grand entrance. Staff suggested that the clock feature be approved at the staff level rather than an architectural and site approval application. Ms. Gil pointed out that file applicant met all the consultant's requirements as listed in their recent review letter, which was included in the staff report. Relative to the 24 hour operation, Ms. Gil pointed out that the service station currently operates on a 24 hour basis. She said that the sheriffs department did not foresee any problems with the 24 hour operation in conjunction with the gas station. She reminded the Planning Commissioners of their concerns about safety and security at another gas station in Cupertino. She said that staffdoes not foresee problems with the 24 hour operation and has added conditions for security to the conditions of approval; and recommends approval of thc application. A brief discussion ensued regarding the proposed signs on the Chevron site. Ms. Gil stated that the applicant would be approaching the Planning Commission for a sign exception in the near future, and noted that the sign issue would be a separate application. Mr. Kevin Cornell, Chevron Products Company, 6001 Bollinger Canyon Dr., Sau referred to the site plan and explained that Chevron was proposing to remodel the service statiou to update the fueling process and customer services provided. He reported that tile three components to the proposal were: (1) Improve the fueling confignration to relieve congestiou problems encountered during peak hours. He illustrated the changes to the island configuration to enable customers to get to the forward positions when the rear positions are being utilized. Presently file islands are too close together to allow the movement to the front positions to occur, Planning Commission Minutes 14 October 13, 1997 and backup occurs. (2) Tbe second phase of the project is to change from auto service business to have a convenience store available to customers. He added that Chevron felt it was a more appropriate arrangement for tile particular corner location, because baying cars parked with their hoods up and various repairs happening on the site, was a detraction tbr the corner; and moving to a retail use would improve the image of the site dramatically. (3) To meet the 1998 federal underground tank requirements. The site requires updating of the existing tanks to another location to simplify the refueling process. Mr. Comell said that several adjustments have been made to the original site plans in order to accommodate tile Heart of the City Phn and the grand boulevard design for Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mr. Cornell reviewed the alternate site plan, which included tile same six h~el dispensers, but lining up with the corner building. He said that they felt that the views in from the two sides into the building, which is the featured architecture of the site, were improved with the proposed arrangement. He pointed out that in order to create enough circulation space for cars, a small piece of the landscaping strip was needed, which the guidelines did not allow tbr. Following discussions with staff, the applicant proposed the other canopy layout which stays completely within the guidelines, without making the landscape modification. He said that they were prepared to move forward with either proposal and would work with the Planning Commission's choice. Mr. Comell pointed out that one plan had 8 parking spaces and the other only had 6 parking spaces. He said that Chevron felt that 6 parking spaces was adequate, but all exception would have to be granted for only 6 spaces. Discussiou continued ~vherein Mr. Cornell answered questions relative to the landscape plan, and proposed modifications to the site. Relative to the 24 hour operation, Mr. Cornell discussed the security provision in the conditions of approval and pointed out that the Condition did not apply to the applicant's request for the 24 hour operation of the convenience store. He said that if the food mart hours were restricted, the request for the 24 hour operation of the service station would still be effect, and the transactions would be handled through a transaction door. Mr. Cornell disc ssed the security measures that Chevron implemented on their sites, noting that a security review of each site was done with the local law enforcement agencies to arrive at specific provisions for the conduct of business oa a site by site basis. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Harris summarized the issues of concern: (l) configuration of canopy; (2) height of canopy; (3) 24 hour operation of gas station: (4) 24 hour operation of food ~nart; (5) trellis/vine treatment/3 ft. setback; (6) landscaping; (7) basic design (landmark aspect for Heart of the City); and roof. Mr. Cornell displayed the colored renderings of tile front, right and left side building elevations and reviewed the landscaping plan and use of trellises. Referring to the artists rendering o1' the gas station and food mart, be explained that the justification for building such a large building on the site was in response to the consultant's direction that the building have prominence on the corner relative to the four quadrants. Com. Roberts expressed concern about the view from the southeast corner of DeAnza Boulevard, particularly from the potential park area. Referring to the site plan, Mr. Comell illustrated the view from the park and acknowledged that the service station would block part of tile view toward the mountains. Planning Commission Minutes 15 October 13, 1997 A discussion ensued regarding the building height, wherein Mr. Cornell explained that it ,.vas essentially to create a two story scale building on that corner in an attempt to match the bunk building and create a larger scale to blend in with the four corners. Relative to the trash enclosure, Mr. Cornell said that the enclosure was wrapped in tile same beige brick that is on the columns and the canopy, with painted steel doors. If parking space 3 is occupied, the trash bin would have to be wheeled out of the trash enclosnre for pickup: however, if the parking space 3 is not occupied at pickup time, the trash collection truck would drive up to the trash enclosure and pick up the bin. Chair Harris said tbat a condition of the Use Permit could require that the trash enclosure be kept closed. Mr. Cornell indicated that it xvas a Chevron requirement that the trash enclosure remain closed at all times. In response to Com. Doyle's question about decorative planters, Mr. Cornel[ said that there are planters located at each end of the fuel stations Com. Roberts said that he liked the basic design, and felt that there was too mucb landmark, and would prefer not to see a puffed up building; from the standpoint of looking out from the park and having a hill vista, and that a lower building would work better. He said tbat the artificially masked buildings were inappropriate. Com. Roberts said that lie preferred the alternative configuration of the canopy, the canopy aligned with the building, and would be willing to sacrifice 30 or 40 sq. ft. to achieve that objective. Relative to the height of the canopy, he said il' it was lowered it may obscure the view to the hills. He said as the center of the city, it is a goal to achieve a lively atmosphere, and the area was suitable for a 24 hour service station and 24 bout food mart. He said the trellis and vine treatment and 3 foot setback was a matter of bow well it would be watered and maintained, and he felt confident that Chevron would maintain the area; be suggested more floral landscaping along Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said lie was not opposed to metal roofs. Com. Austin said that she preferred the alternate configuration for the canopy; she felt tile position was more suitable, and it looked more pleasing. She said the traffic flow was appropriate and she would be willing to cut the landscape piece in order to accommodate the traffic. She said the standard height for the canopy was agreeable to her; she approved of the 24 bout service station; but felt the 24 hour food mart shonld be limited to closing at 1 I p.m. for safety reasons. Com. Austin said she felt the trellis/vine treatment with the 3 foot setback was acceptable; and she agreed that there should be more flowers/planters on the Stevens Creek side to match the other side. Relative to the landmark location, she said she felt the site was uot landmark status although it was an attractive building and site; it did not have waterfalls, or such amenities to qualify it as landmark status. She said there was a need for service stations in Cupertino. Relative to the roof, she said she did not like metal roofs. Com. Austin concluded that overall, she would be in favor of the application without the convenience store operating 24 hours a day. Com. Doyle said that relative to the configuration of the canopy, be felt tile best selection should be the one with the canopy orientation that is squared to Stevens Creek and DeAnza Blvd.; try to maximize the green buffer around it and the flow of the traffic; leave as parallel to the two main streets; the height of the canopy should be as Iow as possible; the 14-1/2 ft. would be good; the 6- I/2 foot minimized because basically there is another fence there; try to minimize the thickness the canopy; 24 hour gas station is appropriate; the convenience store should not be 24 bout operation: trellis/vine treatment: because of other establishments in that area, there are people Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 13, 1997 sitting outside and there needs to be lush and full vegetation to break the area up and the people are not looking at the back of buildings; need some greenery on the site, and suggested banging flower baskets. Relative to the landmark aspect, Com. Doyle said that you either go big and bold and turn it into a landmark or you go Iow and small and minimize the impact and try to blend it into tile surrounding area. He said in this case, he felt it was probably better to make it minimal but still try to come up with some distinctive aspects instead of putting the mooey into the vertical height, attempt to catch a theme or break up the mini mart look in t¥ont of the islands and the canopy which is difficult to accomplish, but hopefully the building itself can be done in a way that will give a theme or landmark presentation xvithout giving the vertical height. He said that he was opposed to the metal roof treatment, and felt something with more texture was needed to soften the building. Com. Mahoney said he preferred the alternate version of the canopy; the height of the canopy, the clearance could be lowered; the 24 hour operation for both service station and tbod mart is acceptable and appropriate at that intersection; 3 feet with reasonable watering should allow for an acceptable trellis screening. He said he agreed that it was an important view and because there was patio seating, would suggest adding to the landscaping on the street and other areas. Relative to the landmark aspect, he said the gas station was just very nice for the corner but not a landmark, and he was leaning toward keeping that standard a litt!e higher than 'just very nice' for the corner. He said the roof was appropriate and he was not opposed to metal roofs. He said that more was needed to classify it as landmark status. Chair Harris said that she preferred the staff recommendation for the canopy because it is two rows of cars instead of three and would less congested. She said she felt the canopy should be 14- 1/2 ft. and 7 feet was too high for the canopy; and should be modified. She said that the 24 hour operation for the service station was acceptable, but the food mart should operate at the regolar business hours for Cupertino which is 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. The vine/trellis treatment was appropriate; however, she said that she didn't have an accurate idea of how much of the back of the building is covered because the drawing shown was different from the plan. She said that because people are sitting outside, she would like a more accurate idea of which area is trellised, the location of the window, what the ground cover was, and to make certain the whole area was treated as if it had an audience. Relative to landscaping, Chair Harris said that she would like more on the Stevens Creek side to balance what is being done on the DeAnza side; suggested that the area for the art easement be turfed for now because it could possibly be 10 years before the remainder of the area is finalized. She said that as a landmark site, it was a quality project: the roof is acceptable and the brick and posts are suitable. She said she objected to the 27 tbot high building just for the sake of a high building, and suggested that it be reduced to 20 feet and the remainder reduced proportionally, which would open the view to the hills in that particular intersection. Com. Harris said that the materials and colors were tasteful; however, she felt the building should be lowered. Chair Harris said that it appeared a continuance was in order so that the applicant could do more work in several areas. She summarized that three commissioners preferred the alternate configuration and two preferred the staff recommendation; three to lower the canopy to 14-I/2: all agreed with the 24 hour service station; 3 to close the convenience store at the regular Cupertino business hours; most appreciated the trellis/vine and were agreeable to the 3 feet setback but would like to be assured that the whole area is treated as a focal area; everyone agreed with more landscaping on Stevens Creek, except Com. Doyle who wanted it on site: 3 endorsed the roof and there were 4 who wanted the design reconsidered; 3 wanted a lower or more minimal Planning Commission Minutes 17 October ~ 3, 1997 building and the 4th wanted more focus that it was a landmark, which doesn't necessarily mean bigger. Discussion ensued relative to what would make the site a landmark site. Com. Mahoncy said that if it was continued he would like to see photos of the view of the hills ftom the park. Chair Harris suggested that photos be submitted at the next meeting of views from key routes, one route being toward the hills from Stevens Creek, another coming down DeAnza Blvd. and looking in that direction. Com. Doyle said he was not opposed to the site itself the way it is structured, but it was more of the structure, and bow do yon take that and blend it into an environment where you are trying to turn it into a Iandmark area. Chair Harris said that a softer look on the food mart and a landmark feature of some kind was needed, and there was consensus to minimize the scale. Com. Roberts said that the landmark issue was related to the site and he had second thoughts after the general plan amendment that this corner is different and it has the open view into the hillside and should be Iow key. He said he felt the consultaut may have misled the applicant to believe the Planning Commission wanted a big building there. Chair Harris summarized that the concept was to maximize the view of the hills, which can be done. A brief discussion ensued regarding the possibility of revisiting the security issues of the 24 hour operation of the convenience store. Chair Harris said that the applicant was welcome to discuss the 24 hour operation of the convenience store when the application was again presented. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Application 10-U-97 and 27-EA-97 to the November 1 I, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 1997. Approved as Presented: October 27, 1997 Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary