Loading...
PC 02-12-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MENUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 12, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Coms. Austin. Harris, Mahoney, Doyle, Chairman Roberts Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner I1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 22, 1996 meeting: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin to approve the minutes of the January 22, 1996 meeting as presented. Com. Doyle Passed 5 -0-0 WRi'I'TEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Roberts noted the letter received from George and Mary Monk of Cupertino, relating to Item 3 on the agenda. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: I 1-U-95 and 2-EA-96 Cupertino De Oro Club Cupertino De Oro Club 20441 Homestead Road Use Permit to add a 580 sq. ff. serving area to an existing club building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1996 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO MARCH 11, I996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, requested the continuance of Application No. 1 I-U-95 and 2-EA-96, Cupertino De Oro Club, as it has been determined that the Califomia Environmental Quality Act applies in this case. He said a discussion of the prospects of a historical preservation ordinance is anticipated and cannot be discussed at this thne as it does not appear on the agenda. Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 12, 1996 Following a brief discussinn, there was consensus to continue the item to March l I. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Application No. 11-U-95 and 2-EA-96 to the March 11, 1996 Planning ComnUssion meeting. Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-EXC-95 Janet M. DeCarli Sanae 11640 Regnart Canyon Drive Exception to Chapter 19.40.050 J, Residential Hillside Zones to allow an addition to a residence on a prominent ridgeline. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO FEBRUARY 26, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Item 6, Application No. 6-EXC-96 and Item 8, Application Nos. 13-Z-95, 11-TM-95 and 35-EA-95 to the February 26, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Hams Passed 5-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: I -ASA-96 Cupertino City Center Same East side of Torre Avenue between Stevens Creek Blvd. & Rodrignes Ave. Architectural review for design and site development elements for an approved 24 unit residential development. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner II, reviewed the background of the item as summarized in the attached staff report. Referring to the architectural and site rev/ew, she discussed the areas that required modification through conditions of approval for the private park area, strectscape, building architectm'e and grading. Referring to the overhead of Plans C and E. Ms. Bjurman discussed the design changes that were approved as part of the public hearing process and answered CornnUssioners' questions. She stated that the applicant has met the intent of the conditions of approval with the exception of the park enlxy changes. Planning Commis(Lon Minutes 3 Februa~ 12,/996 In response to Com. Harris' question about the parking arrangements, Mr. Cowan clarified that the imfial concept was to have a full scale turnout with a separate lane; and the other option discussed with the Council was to have a duckout. Mr. Cowan explained that he and Mr. Viskovich of Public Works were working with the applicant in an attempt to get the parking spaces on the actual private property out of the public righi-of-way; to provide 6 spaces, not to be confused with public parking. He noted that signs or the paving texture should indicate to the motorists that it is private parking area and not a public space. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Henry Fisher, Classic Communities, clarified that originally there was a Plan F, but that it no longer existed. In response to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Fisher explained that because of the visibility of the umt on Tone Avenue, the design was reworked to staWs specifications and has been approved by the City Council. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input. There was no one who wished to speak on the issue. Mr. Fisher explained that his understanding on the parking issues bom the earlier meetings was that there was direction to attempt to capture more of the space that was used m the duckout parking in the park which would be available to the public part of the day, which was the reason the new configuration was developed. Referring to the overheads, Mr. Fisher illustrated the location of the wall, hedge, and planting areas. He pointed out that the concept was to create a buffer but still allow visual contact fi.om the street into the park and have an opening for the private residents to access trek parked vehicles. Mr. Fisher discussed the various treatments throughout the parkLng area. Responding to Chair Roberts' request for an update on the walkway between lots 19 and 20, Mr. Fisher explained that the requirement was that the buildings maintain an 8 foot setback to each other and make certain the walkway was wide enough for pedesuians. He noted that it is 8 feet at the apex of the juncture between the two buildings and there is a grade differential that has been created between lots 19 and 20 that allows for a raised planting area on one side and lights in the comer to line the pathway, wInch would create an inviting space for people. Chair Roberts summarized the issues as lighting, signage and gating. Ms. Bjurman clarified that the concerns about gating were twofold: one being the removal of gating and the other, fencing between properties. She stated that according to die proposed conditions, there would be no center gate, but there would-be private gates leading to private properties. Chair Roberts clarified the modified designs shown are those that would be approved. Com. Austin said that the architectural details were interesting and the park feature providing the open space path was a good concept. She stated she did not favor the 6 parking spaces, although it provided 30 more feet of park which was a tradeoff. Com. Austin said she approved of the method of paving, and recommended the residential parking spaces be marked for residents only. Com. Doyle said he approved of the lighting, and gates and fences as modified. He expressed concern with the auto entry and type of fencing and vegetalion used which would block visibility of traffic coming down Torre Avenue as autos backed out of the parking lot. He noted that the architectural modifications were acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 12, 1996 Mr. Cowan clarified the parking, noting that staff was also concerned. He explained that the actual depth of the angled stalls is such that there is a modified duck, and is designed so cars can back out without entering into the travel lane. Com. Mahoney indicated that all issues met with his approval. Com. Harris stated that the method of paving was appealing; and recommended that a sign be placed indicating that the parking spaces were private and for residents' use only. She suggested that a stipulation be included about private parking and public accessibility in Condition 2. Com. Hams indicated that a small sign should be included that the parking spaces are not for public use. Com. Austin recommended that the signs relating to private parking be placed at each parking site. Chair Roberts questioned whether there was any prior experience in Cupertino with the particular parking issue, stating that on one hand the public was invited into the park area, but on the other hand they were excluded fi.om use of the parking spaces. Mr. Cowan indicated that the issue was unique and that the park was not designed to be a neighborhood park, but a park area for the residents to enjoy and walk in. Chair Roberts noted that the park was a unique experimem and suggested that feedback be provided at a later date. Mr. Cowan explained that the condition of the privately owned land opened to the public would be reviewed by City Council after one year. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to approve Application 1-ASA-96 with the addition to Condition 2 that signs be put up in the private parking area indicating it is private parking Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 16-U-95, 12-Z-95, 10-TM-95 and 33-EA-95 Mary Jozovich, Don & Sue Jozovich and Viola Lazaneo Same 10106-10132 Blaney Avenue Use Permit to construct 8 residential units in a Planned Development Zoning District. Zoning to zone an approximately one acre parcel to P (RES 5-10). Tentative Map to consolidate 3 lots and to subdivide an approximately one acre parcel into 8 lots. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 4, 1996 Staff presentation: Ms. Bjurman reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. She stated that the item was continued from the Januavd 22, 1996 meeting to allow the applicant to reduce the building floor area milo (FAR) on the largest homes and save the large Monterey pine tree on the property. Ms. Bjurman noted that the FAR was reduced on all the units and the lot sizes were modified. She stated that the applicant was proposing to remove the Monterey pine tree because of its condition and potential for not surviving. She noted that staff is recommending at this time to remove the pine txee also. Com. Hams stated that she approved the pm[ms,al as amended. Mr, Brian Kelly, Kelly Gordon Development Corp., reported that the 14 inch elevation differential still existed. He explained that he would work with staff on the configuration of the retaining wall, Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 12, 1996 and work with the neighbor on the fencing. He said that the proposal was to run a series of vertical 4 inch pipes along the back property line with drains, using drain rock over the pipes before grading, to allow air and water to penetrate down to the root system where 18 inches of fill will be placed. There was consensus that the FAR was appropriate. Chair Roberts noted that he visited the site and stated the subject Monterey pine tree was not a superb example of its species. He noted that he was pleased that the redwood tree facing Blaney Avenue would be preserved. Com. Doyle concurred that the subject pine t~ee was in very poor condition. In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Bjurman illustrated on the conceptual landscape plan the location of the ten replacement trees. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. Mr. John Alburger, 10108 Mello Place, said that he met with Mr. Kelly, and was comfortable with the proposal. Mr. George Monk, 19985 Price Avenue, noted that he had submitted a letter about his position on the pine tree. Chaff' Roberts indicated that the letter was received by the Commissioners and noted. Mr. Monk said that the letter stated the nee was an inferior example an expressed concern that if it was retained, it would pose a safety problem to the surrounding eight homes, causing damage during storms, etc. Mr. Tom Pochylski, 19975 Price Avenue, submitted a letter stating that his issue was one of privacy; stating that if the Monterey pine tree was retained, it would push Units lA and IB too close to his residence and negate the enjoyment of his back yard. He noted that he was an environmental affairs manager and pointed out that the pine tree was not worthy of retention. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Cowan stated that die consmaction restrictions were handled by the Public Works Department. Chair Roberts summarized the issues as reduction of house size and removal or preservation of trees. Com. Doyle stated that the FAR has been adequately modified and noted that he was now in favor of removing the pine tree as it was not a good specimen. Com. Mahoney indicated he was in favor of removing the pine tree. Com. Harris stated she approved the new plan and commended the developer for being r~ponsive to meeting all requests. Com. Austin said she was in favor of removing the pine tree and was pleased with the reduction in house size. Chak Roberts concurred with the Commissioners. He requested that staff work with an arborist on die redwood tree No. 7, which was adjacent the sidewalk on Blaney, to determine if it posed a long-term threat to public safety. He said he would prefer to have it replaced if it posed a threat. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration for 33-EA-95 Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: 95 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application Nos. 10-TM~95, 12-Z-95 and 16-U- according to the model resolution Com. Austm Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 12, 1996 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-TM-95 The E&H First Family LP Same 1641 So. Stelling Road Tentative Map to subdivide a 0.9 acre parcel into four lots. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 1996 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. The application is for a 4 lot subdivision of an acre-size lot at the comer of So. Stelling Road and Seven Springs Parkway. It was noted that there would be noticeable train noise and ground vibrations from the nearby Southern Pacific rail line twice daily, three times per week when the train passes by. Recommendations for tree preservations were also discussed. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision. Referring to the tentative map, Mr. Cowan reviewed the proposed development and answered Commissioners' questions. He pointed out that it was not feasible to impose high sound walls for the irrffequent sound source from the railroad. Mr. Cowan illustrated the trees that would be preserved primarily along the western boundary line. The applicant was not present. There was no one present who wished to speak during the public input portion. There was consensus that the application was not detrimental to the surroundings and no objections were raised to the proposed subdivision. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application No. 9-TM-95 in accordance with the model resolution. Com. Harris Passed 5 -0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: RHS Zoning and Definitions Ordinance Amendments and 31-EA-95 City of Cepertmo Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillside (RI-IS) zones of the Cupertino Municipal Code relate to exception findings, house size, grading quantity and other subjects to be determined by the Planning Commission. Amendment to Chapter 19.08 (Definitions) of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to definition of basement. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 4, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARy 22, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes ? February 12, 1996 Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, noted that the Planning Commission had previously reviewed the following sections of the ordinance: lot size, site grading, second stoE~ setbacks, exception fmdings, and defmition of basement. Ms. Wordell discussed the following sections of the ordinance: Lot Size: Ms. Wordell noted that the recommended language on lot size reflected what the Planning Commission proposed on the rezoning of the area on Upland Way, and Lindy Lane area at the January meeting, namely that existing lots would have a lot size reflecting that particular lot, therefore not creating the non-conforming lot sizes that residents were concerned about at the public hearing. Similar to the existing ordinance as well as practice, staff has not been putting lot sizes on subdividable lots; the minimum lot size would be the average slope density. A subdividable lot would be given a lot size at the time of the zoning and the minimum lot size would be the slope density unless clustered. Site Grading: Ms. Wordell noted that areas were clarified and points were added relating to basements, and how grading would be counted for driveways. Second Story Setbacks: Ms. Wordell said that there was an item that needed clarification. She stated that the existing ordinance was always tied to front and back, and staff attempted to separate it, noting it was not always the case. Staff is applying downhill concerns just to the downhill elevation. In response to Com. Doyle's question about there being two downhill elevations, Ms. Wordell said that the wording "prima~y" would apply. Exception Findings: Ms. Wordell explained that Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, drafted the findings, and will tie the General Plan policies to the findings for hillside exceptions. Definition of Basement: Ms. Wordell reviewed the current definition and stated that staff was proposing that if fully submerged except for 2 feet, it only be counted as basement, and as it played out on a hillside ordinance, if there was an exposed garage, it would only be that portion of the submerged area that did not exceed 2 feet that could count as basement. She noted that tminhabited space did not relate to basement. Uninhabited Space: Referring to the overhead drawings, Ms. Wordell reviewed uninhabited space as defined in the attached staff report. A brief discussion followed wherein Ms. Wordell answered Commissioners' questions. In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Wordell explained that "average lot area ~:omputation" was actually a chart which although appears to be an average, is already calculated. She explained that in the foothill modified it is 12,000 square feet, in the foothill half-acre it is about 21,000 square feet; and in the 5 to 20, it is 5 acres. Com. Hams requested that the reference be included in the ordinance. Ms. Wordell stated that it could be included in the ordinance on Page 5-5. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. There was no one who wished to speak. Ms. Wordell explained that the proposed definition of basements is included on Page 5-25 of die ordinance with the addition of "exterior wall" and "finished grade" for clarification. Com. Anstm stated she approved of the application and commended staffon the excellent job. Com. Doyle stated he approved of the 6 issues preseate& and noted that the word "shall" versus "may" as Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 12, 1996 discussed previously, be used. Com. Mahoney stated he approved of the application. Com. Harris stated she approved of the application. Chair Roberts stated that relative to basement definition, he preferred the most restrictive one which was not shown, where the maximum emergence of the floor is 2 feet. Referring to Exhibit 5, alternative basement definitions, he stated he felt there was a problem with the proposed definition relative to the visual image of the building. Ms. Wordell explained that staff felt that be defining it as fully submerged it would still count, because it is exposed. Following a discussion, Chair Roberts stated he approved of the application if the wording "natural grading" was used. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration on Application No. 31 -EA-95 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Apphcation RHS Zoning and Defm/tions Ordinance Amendment and 31-EA-95 with lot size, site grading, second story setbacks, exception findings, uninhabited space, and definition of basement, and plan submittal deadline being deleted. Com. Mahoney Passed 5 -0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Sign Ordinance Amendments and 34-EA-95 City of Cupertino Citywide Amendments to Chapter 17.32 m=gardmg regulations for offsite signs. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 4, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 1996 Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell reMewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. She reviewed the two proposed types of sign amendments and the summary of proposed changes as contained in the staff report, and answered Commissioners' questions. A brief discussion ensued relating to the state law providing that no city ordinance may limit the number of "For Sale" signs posted throughout the city advertising property sale. Mr. Cowan noted that the ordinance needed to be amended to reflect state law. La response to Com. Doyle's question about bus shelter signs, Mr. Cowan explained that the City Council had an agreement with the Transit Agency which has parameters about the type of advertising which would regulate the content. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 34-EA-95 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 9 Februa~ 12, 1906 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Sign Ordinance Amendments and 34-EA-95 according to the model resolution. Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSENESS: Com. Austin congratulated Ms. Bjurman on chairing the Statewide Planning Conference. She also noted that Joseph Antolucci was selected as Building Official of the Year. Com. Harris commended staff for the Summary of Future Meetings and requested that it remain ongoing. 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 8:20 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting on February 26, 1996. Minules ApprovedAs Amended: February 26, 1996 Respectfully submitte E' be~ffEllis Recording Secretary