Loading...
PC 03-11-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 11, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Mahoney, Harris, Chairman Roberts. Commissioners absent: Austin, Doyle. Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner H; Tom Wiles, Planning Intern; Ms. Lynaugh, Public Works; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; and Charles Kilian, City ARomey. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the February 26, 1996 meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to approve the February 26, 1996 meeting minutes as presented. Chairman Roberts Corns. Austin and Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 2-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Roberts noted two letters pertaining to Item 5. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 3-ASA-96 Binkley Design Group Same 20301 Stevens Creek Boulevard Exterior modification to an existing retail building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 11, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. The application is for renovation of the exterior of the building to be occupied by Kerley's Hunting and Fishing Store. Staff concludes that the changes comply with Cupertino's Heart of the City design guidelines and recommends approval of the application. Mr. Tom Wiles, Planning Intern, referred to the overheads illustrating the front and side views, and explained the changes using river rock, pilasters and columns. He noted that there were no landscaping changes, and new signage would be submitted at a future date. In response to Chairman Roberts' question, Mr. Wiles referred to the color chart and explained the color codes. Mr. Lan'y Binkley, Binldey Design Group, explained that the application was for a cosmetic facelift for use by the proposed tenant. He said that the exterior enuld be changed with minor modifications in the future for use by another tenant. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input. As there was none, the public input po~on was closed. Com. Harris stated that the proposed renovations and colors were acceptable. Com. Mahoney concurred that the application was acceptable. MOTION: Com. Ma_honey moved to approve Application 3-ASA-96 per the model resolution. SECOND: Com. Harris ABSENT: Coms. Austin and Doyle VOTE: Passed 3-0-0 Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Coordinator, stated that the Planning Commission action was final unless appealed within 14 days. 2. Application No.: 4-ASA-96 Applicant: Tandem Computers Property Owner: Same Location: 18880 Homestead Road Architectural review of minor exterior changes to an existing building and parking lot. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff oresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for minor exterior changes, an addition to the existing building, and parking lot enlargement as outlined in the attached staff report. Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 11,199(; Mr. Wiles explained that the owner, Tandem Computers, does not intend to occupy the building, but plans to renovate the building for a lessee. He noted that the increase in square footage of 619 square feet would increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from.41 ? to.42. Using overheads, Mr. Wiles explained the first and second floor changes. Mr. Wiles reviewed Exhibit A, Page 2-5 of the Development Intensity Manual, relative to the FAR adjustments and exclusions. He pointed out that the number of handicapped parking spaces was being increased from one to nine. Mr. Wiles stated that staff recommends approval of the application. In response to Com. Mahoney's question about FAR, Mr. Cowan explained that the 33 was for industrial. He l~mted out that when the FARs were established in the 1970s and 1980s, there was a clear distinction between assembly space and research and development, and it is now more of a blend. He said that the FAR for Vallco Park is .33 as opposed to .37 along Stevens Creek Boulevard and DeAnza Boulevard. Mr. Greg Bunton, Greg Bunton & Associates, architect, explained that the additional square footage was to fill in indentations in the building for design purposes, and would be used for lobby spaces. He explained that the building roof needed repair, and more windows were provided to lighten up the interior of the building. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input. As there was none, the public input poCdon was dosed. Com. Hah'is said the application was acceptable. She noted that normally she would oppose additional square footage on principle because it already significantly exceeds the allowable FAR. She pointed out that the building modifications including more glass, new roofing and overall design were aa improvement to the structure. Chairman Roberts stated that the application was within the guidelines presented. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application No. 4-ASA-96 per the model resolution. Com. Harris Coms. Austin and Doyle Passed 3 -0-0 Mr. Cowan stated that the action is final unless appealed within 14 days. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owners: Location: 8-U-94 (Mod.) and 6-TM-95 (Mod.) Citation Homes Citation Homes Southeast comer of DeAnza Blvd., and Homestead Road. Administrative approval for design of and a lot for a recreation area with a recommendation from the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 11, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff uresentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the attached staff report. He stated that the role of the Planning Commission was to approve the design of the 3,000 square foot space allocated for the Corsica .single family site, which was approved by the City Council. Using overheads of Exhibit A, he illustrated the boundary wall plan as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Cowan pointed out that staff suggested that the specific play apparatus be reviewed by the applicant's designer and insuranec carrier to determine suitable equipment and design to meet their partienlar needs. In response to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Cowan pointed out the picnic and barbecue areas in Exhibit A. He said that the location of the recreation area was set aside for the Corsica residents. Mr. Cowan explained that there would be a gate between the two developments, and although it would be possible for an apartment dweller to use the recreation space and a Corsica resident to use the aparUnent recreation area, in reality it probably would not be common practice. If the use of the recreation areas became a problem, the apartment manager or the Corsica homeowners could petition the City Council to dose the gate between the areas. In response to Chairman Roberts' question regarding the sound from the freeway, Mr. Cowan stated that a freeway soundwall was installed. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. As there was none, the public input portion was closed. Mr. Jim Sullivan, Citation Homes, thanked the staff for their cooperation on the project and answered questions. He said that the recreation area was designed to meet the needs of the younger families who were purchasing the homes and that the play equipment was intended for children ages 5 through 9. He noted that the area was previously set aside for a sand volleyball court. There was consensus from the Commissioners that that proposed recreation area was appropriate. Chairman Roberts eommented that the proposed recreation area was more suitable than the previous volleyball court because it targeted the needs of the resident families. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to approve the design plan for the recreation area as presented according to the model resolution. Com. Mahoney Corns. Austin and Doyle Passed 3-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Historic Preservation Ordinanec and 4-EA-96 City of Cupertino Sane Citywide Consideration of creating a historic preservation ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 11, 1996 TENTATIVE COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 1, 1996 Application No.: Applicaat: Property Owner: Location: 11-U-95 and 2-EA-96 Cupertino DeOro Club Cupertino DeOro Club 20441 Homestead Road Use Permit to add a 580 square foot serving area to an existing club building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEB. 12, 1996. Chairman Roberts explained that presentation and discussion of Items 4 and 5 would be taken together. Staff nresentation: Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner II, explained that a video presentation would review Item 5 and she would present a combination between the historic preservation ordinance and the De Ore proposal. The video presentation reviewed the background of the application as presented in the attached staff report, noting that the application was to add 580 square feet to the rear of the DeOro Club building. A brief history oftbe DeOro building was provided. Ms. Bjurman reviewed the site and elevation plans. She pointed out that the item was continued from a previous meeting so that additional research could be conducted on the impacts of the construction to the oak tree located adjacent the proposed addition, as well as having a professional historical evaluation completed on the addition impacts to determine if the building would still be eligible for placement on either the state or federal listing of historical buildings. Ms. Bjunnan notexl that the results of both reports were presented in the staff report. Ms. Bjurman reported that the arborist's report concluded that the construction would not impact the oak tree as far as location on the roots; some limb removal would be necessary, not affecting the visual aspect of the canopy. Ms. Bjurman explained that the historical resources consultant determined that because the proposed 580 square foot addition t~ the roar of the building was relatively small and did not change the design of the oti~nal building, it did not preclude it from being eligible for state or federal listing. Staff recommends the proposed addition be approved. Chairman Roberts questioned if the specific conditions imposed in the tree report could be enforced, that is protecting the tree during construction with the use of a fence not allowing any construction activity outside the new building perimeter. Ms. Bjurman said that a fence closest to the building is not feasible; which is the reason the condition also stated that there shall be a contract with the certified arborist to be physically in the field to review the plans and to do a higher level of physical review as well as bonding requirements. She said staff would have to custom design certain aspects of those Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 11, 1996 recommeo_dations more closely as part of the contract with the arborist. Ms. Bjurman said that a standard bond of $10,000 could be posted or ask the arborist to estimate a figure. In response to Chairman Roberts' questions, Ms. Bjurman said that there were no historically state or federally registered buildings in Cupertino except for the trianon at DeAnza College. She stated that the General Plan does not encourage registration of historically significant buildings. Ms. Bjurman explained that, as a result of the public heating on the DeOro Club, the Historical Society sent a letter to the Planning Commission suggesting a one-ycar moratorium to allow staff, on all actions regarding historic buildings, to develop a historic preservation ordiunnec. Staff was directed to complete the ordinance. Staff researched the historic ordinances in Santa Clara County and obtained the model ordinance from the State Historic Preservation officer for their recommended historical preservation ordinance; and coordinated with the Historical Society as well as other groups to create the dra~ ordinance included in the packet. She said the purpose for this evening's discussion is to discuss issues outlined in the staff report. Ms. Bjurman reviewed the staff report which included the process for designating historical sites and districts. She also reviewed thc issues of concern including: (l) The limitation of the review of interior alterations: Presently the ordinance specifies that only exterior modifications to the building would be addressed by the Commission. Potentially there could be interior improvements to the buildings which could make it ineligible. (2) Staff's recommendation to remove the Historic Preservation Commission Composition: She explained that if the City participates in the Certified Local Government Process a minimum of two Planning Commissioners would have to attend annual classes in historic preservation and be considered the decision making experts in that area. She said she felt it was inappropriate to have the wording in the Historic Preservation Ordinance and integrated into the description of the Planning Commissioners' formation which appears in the municipal code. (3) Economic hardship: Ms. Bjurman stated that the model provided by the State Historic Preservation Offiec contained 13 findings which was excessive. It was suggested that the city attorney create some findings to show economic hardship and present a dear definition. (4) Environmental Review: There was a recommendation upon initiation of the designation of any historic district, the ordinance itself specify that in itseff shall trigger an Environmental Impact Report, and staff is suggesting that it is not appropriate for the ordinance, and if district designation is proposed, that through the proecss the environmental impacts be analyzed. Ms. Bjurman said staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the ordinance, and make any recommendations to staff for further study or recommendation for the adoption of the ordinance as proposed to City Council; that staff be directed to apply for CLG certification; and that staff be directed to begin the adoption for designation of the properties identified in the General Plan as well as the matrix list provided by the Historical Society in 1993 and allow staff to work with them to update the list; and that the Negative Declaration be recommended. Ms. Bjunnan clarified that CLG refers to Certified Local Government, which is a term given to allow the City to compete for funding discussed earlier under a certain criteria. In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Bjurman explained that the federal guidelines are referred to more frequently because the state guidelines are still being modified, and there are a lot of unanswered questions for the state designation. The findings for adopting historic buildings under the federal designation process are very clear. She said staff recommended removing the Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 11, 1996 Section 19.32.060 Historic Preservation Commission Composition. but integrate the wording into a different portion of the municipal code and not be integrated into the ordinance itself. Discussion continued regarding CLG certification wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. Chairman Roberts opened the public hearing for discussion on Items 4 and 5. Ms. Doris Hijmans, 23311 Mora Glen Drive, Los Altos, spokeswoman for DeOro Club, said that it was understood that the objective of the proposed ordinance was to identify sites and buildings eligible for designation as historic resources. She said the DeOro Club had concerns about the extent of the powers of the Commission to desi~nate a property as historic, involving zoning changes and deed restrictions. As an organiTatJou owning such a property with the potential for designation as a historic building, the DeOro Club would like a proviso in the ordinance similar to that contained in the National Historic Preservation Program; that is that no property may be listed against the objection of the property owner. She said that the DeOro Club also felt that the 14 day time allowance for an appeal to the City Council protesting a permit decision by the Commission was too short a period for an owner to prepare documented arguments. Ms. Hijmans summarized that the DeOro Club wanted assurance that the fights of property owners to enjoy the full use of a designated property would not be prejudiced, and that some consideration be given to the economic effect of such owning on the real estate values as a result of the restrictions imposed on alterations and development. Ms. Hijmans addressed the Commission on the effect of one year's delay on the project. She said that anticipating the remodeling project, the Club ceased taking reservations for renting the building for one year; which meant disappointing club members and other community members who plan events 12 months in advance. As a result, the DeOro Club will suffer a loss of income not only for this year, but also for the period of remodeling, and will mean that the clubhouse may not be available for as long as two years. Ms. Hijmans stated that the need to improve the facilities for the enjoyment of DeOro Club members and potential renters has been discussed for some time and funds were reserved for that purpose. The members have long wished to improve and separate the kitchen and janitorial facilities; in addition, many members are elderly and the need for improved restrooms and wheelchair aceess is becoming more apparent. The delays enceuntered have made it difficult for some members to attond the regular meetings. She said that the membership of the DeOro Club has owned and cared for the building for 75 years; and it does not seem unreasonable that improvements be made from time to time for the benefit of all who enjoy the unique building. She urged the Planning Commission to take all the facts into account when considering the request of the Historical Society to delay the permit for another 12 months, especially since the DeOro Clubhouse remodeling is the only project of its kind under eousideration at this time and a permit application was made several months before the proposed historic ordinance was published. Ms. Audrey Butcher, 871 E. Fremont Ave., Sunnyvale, said that her great uncle, George Hobson, owned the property that the DeOro Club now occupies. She presented a brief family history. She quoted from the Certified Local Governments in the National Historic Preservation Program: "No one benefits as much from the preservation of local historical sites and buildings, nor suffers as much by their destruction as the citizens of a community. It is they who feel most personally the loss of a treasured local landmark. Each historic building and structure represents a community investment that should not be discarded lightly. The preservation of a community's historical Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 11, 1996 resources will enrich the lives of its inhabitants now and in the future." Ms. Butcher said that was the reason she was enmestly requesting that the permit for the Cupertino DeOro Club be postponed until the historical ordinance can take effect. Such an ordinance is long overdue and efforts in adopting this Act are praised. She ~aid that the City's prominence in the electronic industry may see many new buildings that you will want to site as historic buildings in the future. This is not an ordinance just for the past but for all our futures. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, clarified that individuals have three minutes to speak. Ms. Yvonn¢ Olson Jacobson, 26715 Birch Hill Way, Los Altos Hills, stated that sbe was a local historian, past president of the California History Center Foundation and author of the book Passing Farms Enduring Values, which chronicles family famm of Santa Clara County. She said that she marveled at the unique building and praised the members of the club for being such good stewards of the building, whose care over thc past decades preserved a very special pext of Cupertino history. She said she was sensitive to members who wished to improve and expand the facilities. She said she was aware that the Planning Commission was trying to come to grips with the whole question of thc historic inventory and what is lef~ of it and how to deal with it. She said that from her sense fi.om the staff and the Planning Commission, the expansion should be approved. At the same time, she pointed out the first choice of preservation is to preserve the historical past, to keep inventory intact and as close to its historic character as you can possibly come. She pointed out that staffhas referred to this addition as such a small addition that it doesn't really impact the nature of the building. If that is the case, if it is so small, one has to ask the question why is it needed, and no rationale has been provided as to why the present building cannot be adapted inside in such a way that thc character of the outside of the building, as the original schoolhouse, cannot be maintained. Ms. Olson Jacobson emphasized that the schoolhouse is a time capsule and she was not sure that the needs of the group now in the building could not be met by just taking a better look and having a consultant adapt the present circumstances of the building to meet their needs instead of tampering with the integrity of the building. Com. Harris asked Ms. Olson Jacobson to comment on the previous two additions already made to the building. Ms. Olson Jacobson responded that the two additions were made as part of the original use as a schoolhouse, which is a point contained in thc letXer submitted to the Commission. The history of Collins School is a time capsule of early Cupertino. The additions and changes were made to accommodate a growing population and are part of the record of how this community responded to change and expansion. She said it was the members' resposibility to ~ that time capsule for subsequent generations. Ms. Henrietta Marcotte, 22415 Starling Drive, Los Altos, reviewed the history of Collins School. She said that she believed that thc charter members and founders of the DoOm Club would not have wanted the exterior of the building altered. She noted that there was interior space in the building that could be utilized for other purposes and suggested that a consultant could advise on utilization of the space to meet the club members' needs. She urged the Planning Commission to keep the building as the heritage building and affix a bronze plaque on the building designating it as a heritage building. Ms. Mary Lou Lyon, 879 Lily Avenue, Cupertino, said she has lived in Cupertino since 1960 and has taught at Homestead High School for 31 years. She stated that she was a member of the Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, and as a historian was asked by students why landmarks such as the Parish House and Doyle Winery in Cupertino were torn down and she was Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 11, 1996 powerless. She said the club members are to be commended for keeping the building in such fine shape; and rather than hiring an architect, they should consider using a kitchen design specialist, as she had not seen a plan for use of the kitchen including things desired, which should occur before the walls are tom down. Ms. Lyon commended the Planning Commission and staff on getting historical preservation on the books; stating that Cupertino to her knowledge was the only city that did not have a Historical Heritage Commission. She concurred with Ms. Marcotte that a plaque should be placed on the building. She urged the Planning Commission not to allow any changes to the building, and suggested a small building be placed in the mar of the buildinE for ex'Wa space. She said the building is the oldest school building in the County and its integrity should be maintained. Ms. Lyon said that before the building is changed, it should be certain that the space is being utilized to its fullest. Ms. Mathilda Sonsa~ 707 E. Homestead Road, Sunnyvale, said that the Collins School building was one of four school houses built from 1864 to 1869. She reviewed her family history and attendance at Collins School. She said that as a volunteer at the Cupertino Satellite Museum she provides historical information on Cupertino which includes the Collins School building, now the DeOro Club. She expressed concern that in the future a developer may come in and want to tear down the building and build a modem building. Ms. Sonsa recommended that the City of Cupertino establish a historical preservation ordinance in order to preserve the few remaining historical buildings such as the Collins School. She said she had no comment on the proposed addition to the building, other than to preserve the building as it is so that it can be saved. Ms. Marjorie West, 10273 Norwich Avenue, Cupertino, said that she was rental chairman for the DeOro Club. She explained that the DeOro Club was a non-profit organization, renting the facilities since 1970. She said that the club receives 8 to 10 inquiries per week for rental for events such as weddings, private parties and anniversary celebrations, and she has had to inform them that their requests cannot be honored because future contracts cannot be entered into. The club has suffered approximately $1200 per month loss of rental income, and will lose 2 years of income under the current proposal. She said the members and renters would be accommodated with an upgraded kitchen including a space for dishwasher, stove and oven; with proper storage for related equipment. She said that the traffic flow in the kitchen would be improved and would eliminate the expense of caterers as the work could be done by the members. In closing, Ms. West said that the landmark should be kept as a source of pride for CupeCdno. Chairman Roberts questioned whether the needs of the club could be accommodated by internal modification or space reorganization. Ms. West responded that the kitchen was used primarily for weddings and parties, which provided the income to maintain the building in its condition, and the possibility of adding any equipment to the kitchen is not practicable. She said a person was now being hired to do dishwashing for functions, and a dishwasher appliance would be useful addition. Mr. Bill Lester, 10050 No. Wolfe Road, said his family resided in the county since the 1800s, and he was presently a member of the California History Center Foundation. He said he felt it was timely that the Planning Commission consider the ordinance presented. Mr. Lester pointed out that areas in the west were seen as not having a great deal of heritage; yet ironically historic buildings are destroyed in the area. He said it was his understanding from family members who were members of the DeOro Club that the decision to make changes to the building were made without seeking architectural and planning review and due diligence was not exercised in making the changes. He said it seemed very much capable of meeting those heritage guidelines m architectural remodeling of the interior. Planning Commission Minutes 10 K'~'¢h 11, 19% In response to Chairman Roberts' questions about thc guidelines, Mr. Lcstcr said hc felt what has been presented architecturally docs not meet the hcritage guidelines, and thc proposed changes could bc accomplished in thc existing shell of thc building without changing thc ex, riot. Hc said it was his preference that the building bc preserved as it is, and thc interior be remodeled without an addition to thc building. A storagc building could be used to serve storage needs. Chairman Roberts pointed out that thc drai~ ordinance docs not contain a provision for preserving thc interior of thc building, and asked for Mr. Lester's opinion on thc ordinunce without such a provision. Mr. Lester reeponded that hc could only respond on his personal prcfcrcncc, which was to preserve as much of the character of thc interior as possible, understanding that thc nccds for handicap access should be accommodated. Ms. Sherry Stevens, 10566 E. Estates Drive, Cupeaino, stated that she and her husband had resided in Cupertino for 37 years, and she was currently Vice President of the DeOro Club. She read the contents of a letter from Mr. Robert Myers: "Over seventy years ago the members of the DeOro Club undertook the preservation of the Collins School and therefore saved it for all of us to enjoy today. Without them, Collins School/DeOro Club would have been lost. I applaud their foresight and determination then and their steadfasmess over those many years. Now the present day members are asking for permission to add a small addition while preserving the building's integrity in order to improve kitchen and lavatory facilities, and make access easier for not only some of their older members, but others with handicaps who will be provided improved access and use of the DeOro Club. I should also note that my wife and numerous other DeOro Club members are also members of the Historical Society. There is not total agreement among all of them on this application. However, the majority of the club members did as a whole vote for the project. No vote however, was conducted by the Historical Society. I therefore speak only for myself. I believe that this applicatiou fits within the reasonable usage category that was cited previously and encourage the Commission to vote for its approval on its merits alone apart from the proposed moratorium which is also on its agenda. In referenec to the statement in the letter regarding private sector preservation versus public sector preservation, it might interest the Commission to know that the DeOro Club spends on the average $60,000 per year for maintenance expenses and taxes. Signed Robert Myers." Ms. Stevens stated that the Cupertino DeOro Club has complied with both requests that were made by the Planning Commission for a report from the ecrtified arborist Barry Coute and a written report from a registered historian. Ms. Stevens repoaed that the historian, Susan Leymun, was unable to attend the meeting, but Ms. Leyman had stated that the addition to the building would be to an add-on and would not involve the original fabric of the building. Ms. Stevens requested exclusion from any moratorium as no historical ordinance was in place at the time of the original application for a use permit on November 13, 1995. Chairman Robeas clarified that the proposed moratorium was not on the agenda and not part of the ordinance. Ms. Shirla Welch, 1034 Corvette Drive, San Jose, stated that he was thc current President of the DeOro Club. She appealed to the Commission not to impose a moratorium on the plans to upgrade the building. She reported that she personally extensively investigated the accessibility of the building for handicapped persons, which revealed many problems for wheelchairs and walkers Planning Commission Minutes 11 March 11, 1996 because of the width of the doors throughout the building as well as the restroom. She emphasized that the memhers should not be placed in the undignified positions created by the narrow doorways and inaccessibility to restroom areas. Mr. Charles Newman, 10050 No. Wolfe Road, Cupertino, said he was a member of the Cupertino Historical Society Board of Directors, and urged the Planning Commission to proceed with the process of adopting a historical preservation ordinance, and apply the test to that ordinance specifically to this structure. He said he did not support the demolition of the wall and the ten foot addition, pointing out that to demolish the rear wall and move it ten feet with the new addition substantially impacts the historical significance and structural integrity of the building. He commended staff for the work done on the drat~ ordinance, and stated that he felt the process should proceed to work out modifications to the ordinunce and adopt the ordinance. Mr. Newman referred to the list of historically significant buildings and sites within the Cupertino community and stated that there were too few in existence. He said that the Collins School qualified as a significant site and was shown in the Cupertino Chronicle and also shown in the Old Santa Clara Valley book. He suggested that the building was an intact public school which went through a period of evolution, from the original one room schoolhouse, which was doubled and then doubled again. ~ said that the proposal is not a series of additions to the building; but is a carefully preserved schoolhouse which through the work of the DeOro Club has been carefully preserved Chairman Roberts asked if it was Mr. Newman's interpretation of the ordinance that there would not be enough latitude within the ordinance as drafted to permit that extension. Mr. Newman responded that the historian's report indicated that an addition could be made without precluding the listing of the building as a historical building. He questioned the addition because the building is in its pure form, and said he did not share the staff opinion that it was an insignificant modification by the addition of 10 feet. Chairman Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. Ms. Hijmans, spokeswoman for the DeOro Club spoke again, stating that she felt that some of the opponents' remarks were unfair in that the members of the club have been using the clubhouse and sharing it with others for some time. She said that the kitchen facilities were too small for the amount of use; the updating of the appliances, removal of the water heater from the kitchen and such, as well as the updating of the facilities for disabled persons was imperative. She pointed out that she felt no public building would he permitted to exist under the same conditions. She stated that as a private organization the DeOro Club was very conscious of what should be done with the building, and asked that the Planning Commission consider the application in that light. Chairman Roberts said it was obvious that the proposed modifications did include access for the disabled, but it was not apparent that any of the interior factors were taken into account in the proposed plan by the club. He also stated that the DeOro Club Charter included the preservation of the Collins School. Ms. Hijmans said that the proposed plan included updating the restroom facilities. She stated that the Club would continue to work to preserve the Collins School. Planning Commission Minutes 1~ March 11, 1996 In response to Chairman Roberts' question about the Club applying for historical registration, Ms. Hijmans said that thc Club ha5 considered applying on previous occasions, but not takeo action on it; the membership did not feel it necessary. She pointed out that the members are concerned about restrictions placed by the new ordinance. She said that the difficulties encountered with the proposed project are an indication that it will not be easy to do anything to the building, with or without registration. There was consensus to separate the two issues for purposes of discussion. In response to Com. Harris' request for staff to comment on an earlier suggestion that property not be listed against the objection of the property owner, Ms. Bjurman stated that it was a zoning ordinance and action could be taken without the property owner's participation. She clarified that for state or federal listing, property owner participation would have to be obtained. She said it was unlikely that the City Council would take action agalnnt a property owner's participation, but the landmark could be included on the list. Com. Harris questioned if the adoption of the ordinance in its present form would be adopting the list of community landmarks and historic sites presented, or would it be presented at another time? Ms. Bjurman responded that the list presented would not necessarily be the list for adoption; the Planning Commission could do so as part of the action taken, or it may direct staff to work with the Historical Society and other community groups to develop one list to be presented at a later It was clarified that the ordinance was a multi-phased process; the general ordinanee would be adopted, the list presented, and then rezoning would be discussed. Ms. Bjurman explained the guidelines of the historic preservation ordinance. She stated that to be designated a historic landmark does not necessarily restrict the property; only through the designation process can the property be assigned certain types of restrictions. The ordinance itself states that if you a~er designation, propose modifications to the structure or site, you shall consider getting an architect that is familiar with historic design; you shall comply with the historic preservation guidelines which may require staff to hire a historian to make a recommendation to staff and applicant on what should be aceomplished. The restrictions are not automatic other than to say that you shall come before the Planning Commission before any action is taken. Discussion ensued regarding the historic preservation process wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Cowan clarified that the Planning Commission would need to consider the question of the standards for review which would enable the owner to have reasonable use of the building other than strict preservation. Mr. Cowan discussed examples encountered in Los Gatos where he served on the Historical Commission. Mr. Kilian clarified that along the line of economic hardship, everyone has an economic hardship and the question will become whether to have strict findings or to allow a lot of latitude which would be up to the Planning Commission to consider. He pointed out that it was possible to consider the DeOro application at the meeting, and continue the ordinance for further discussion. Planning Commission Minutes 13 M~rch 11, 1996 A brief discussion followed wherein Com. Harris requested a change m wording on Page 4-14, Item (1), and staff concurred, W add thc wording ", building, site or district" following the phrase "That the proposed landmark". Com. Harris said she concurred with sta~s recommendation to remove Section 19.32.060- Composition of the Historic Preservation Committee, as she objected to selecting one or two planning commissioners from these disciplines, which would seriously limit the planning commissioners based on tboir expertise. She said that instances como up where expert information is needed from an arborist or a g~ologist specialist. Com. Harris stated that she was aware of the interest in CLG certification, and she felt that you may stand to lose something significant while you try to gain something. She stated she would not bo opposed to emolling in classes to gain knowledge, but it would not make the commissioners historians, and expert's knowledge and opinions would still bo needed. She said that it should bo dealt with in a specific way and perhaps there is a way to have it all, but she felt it did not belong in the ordinance. Regarding thc economic hardship issue, Com. Harris said that she would like to sec specific language writ~n by the city attorney. Mr. Kilian said it was his understanding that the language staff was recommending be put in the Planning Commission ordinance on selection of planning commissioners is required language for CLG certification. Mr. Kilian clarified that the issue is whether or not CLG accreditation is desired; it can be removed with no problem. If the designation is desired, it has to bo in a City ordinance. Regarding the economic hardship issue, he questioned Com. Harris if she preferred strict findings requirement or a liberal one. Com. Harris indicated that she preferred a strict finding requirement, stating that a historical ordinance with some teeth in it was needed. Com. Hah'is commended Ms. Bjurman on the excellent work on the ordinance. She said with the exceptions mentioned, she was in favor of the ordinance. She said she was in favor of approving the ordinance as the first step, creation of a historic resource list to be presented and discussed; consideration of historic designation for the properties and notification to the people that they were being considered so they could appear at the Planning Commission meeting and speak. Com. Mahoney stated that he had no questions for staff on the historic preservation ordinance. In response to Chairman Roberts' questions, Ms. Bjurman illustrated a summary of the critical issues: (1) interior alterations; (2) composition of the commission; and (3) economic hardship. Ms. Bjurman said she would prefer to defer approval of the preservation ordinance to allow her time to work with the Historical Society. Com. Hams said she did not want to restrict interior alterations, and that the guidelines put forth by the federal government address interiors. She pointed out that the reason the DeOro Club has lasted for 75 years and the members have been able to preserve the building is that the members have made it functional for their own as well as community use. If it had been stipulated that the building had to remain as it was 75 years ago, it might not be in existence today. Ms. Bjurman stated she would research what the federal guidelines for interiors was. Planning Commission Minutes 14 March ll, 1906 Chairman Roberts said he assumed there were grounds and findings for designating sites and landmarks as being worthy of historic preservation. In the case where exterior appearance is important, he said that latitude would he given for the interior, where the interior is actually an integral part of the grounds for preservation; and perhaps one would have a provision for protecting the interior features. Mr. Cowan reported that in Los Gatos the attitude was to establish standards for review for the various districts and if a private owner wanted to go further and get on a state or federal list, they would have to comply with the standards for that. He said he was not aware of what the internal standards were as they rarely were involved in that aspect. Chairman Roberts said he would would favor wording that would permit the Commission or the designating party to take into account the interior of historic buildings, and if portions of the interior of historic buildings is a substantial part of the grounds for historic preservation, protection he provided. Mr. Cowan ~ted that thc question is how far do you want to go as a public entity in terms of control of the interior? Com. Harris referred to the treatment section of the federal guidelines wherein it addresses four disfmctive approaches: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Mr. Cowan suggested that if questions have not been adequately responded to, consideration could be given to continuing the item. Com. Mahoney said that it should be handled on a case-by-case basis; certain architectural features on the interiors should he considered. He said he was against changing the requirements for the Planning Commissioners. He said he felt he issue was the creation of a separate Preservation Committee. Mr. Bjurman explained that it put a higher burden on recruitment of Planning Commissioners who have specialty interests in certain areas. A discussion ensued regarding the role of the Planning Commission in a Preservation Commission Com. Mahoney said that relative to economic hardship, he did not want to appear overly strict; he agreed with the concept of private ownership. Chairman Roberts said that relative to interior alterations, where the interior is a substantial part of the historic value, it should he considered as one of the elements in preservation. It is quite possible that Cupertino does not have anything that qualifies, but if there was one, the interior should be preserved as well as the exterior. He said that he felt the concept was to identify the Planning Commission as the Historical Preservation Commission. He said that an extra commission would be frustrating to people serving on that commision and he preferred some modifieafion whereby interested commissioners would express their interest merely by joining the Historical Society and taking part in refresher courses. He said he would be willing to participate in that way. Planning Commission Minutes 15 March 11, 1996 Cha/rman Roberts sa/d that relative to economic hardship, if it was a matter of hardship in the sense of a property owner not being able to mainta/n the property under the prov/sioas of the historic preservation, that would be reasonable criteria; but if it was a matter of foregoing a profit selling the property for some other use for a higher price, it would be considered too perm/ssive. Chairman Roberts said that in the absence of restriction on interior alteration, the interior could be changed. Mr. Cowan clarified that relative to economic hardship, the standards for review in the residential/historical zones is basically m maintain the character of the building. He cited an example of maintaining a front fa~dc. Mr. Kilian stated that if the standards for review are somewhat liberal in allowing this, the economic hardship standards should be strict because you can accomplish most of what is being requested by the normal standard process and therefore you don't need a lot of hardship exemptions because you are granting most of those. A discussion ensued regarding the criteria for showing economic hardship and the standards of review wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to continue the historic preservation ordinance to April 8 pending completion of issues pertaining to the Historic Preservation Commission and economic hardship. Com. Mahoney Corns. Austin and Doyle Passed 3-0-0 Chairman Roberts summarized the issues of concern relative to the DeOro Club's application for a use permit to modify the existing building (Item 5): the tree, exterior modification, and eligibility for historical registration. Com. Mahoney said he was in favor of the application and was pleased to have confirmation that the tree would not be impacted. He said he felt the fundamental character of the building would remain the same with a 13% addition in the rear of the building. He pointed out that the addition would have a positive effect on the community, allowing more usage of the facility. Com. Harris concurred with Com. Maboney and was in favor of the application. She said that the arborist report and the report from the historical consultant were beneficial. The modification for the handicapped was very important, and the continued use of the building by the community verifies that the building needs to grow and adapt. She said that the modifications to the kitchen will make the facility more functional and the historical integrity will not have to be sacrificed to have the modifications. Chairman Roberts expressed concern about the long term preservation of the building and stated he could approve of the application for all the reasons discussed. He said however, that he detected a nexus, between the City's General Plan policy to preserve historic buildings and the application, and he proposed acceptance of this application in conjunction with the DeOro Club's offer to apply for registration of a historical site building. He pointed out that the club members chose not to do Planning Commission Minutes ~6 March 11, 1996 so, but the step would be consistent with the club charter and he asked if another Commission would support the modification as well. Mr. Kilian summarized that Chairman Roberts was recommending approval of the use permit conditionally if the DeOro Club applied for and received registration under the applicable state and federal laws. A discussion ensued wherein Mr. Cowan suggested that a minute order be adopted stipulating that if the ordinance is passed the property be designated as historical preservation. Mr. Kilian said that it did not present a problem with the minute order; however, he said he was concerned with the condition imposed of applying for a historical site. Under recent court decisions, he indicated he was not certain there exists a legal nexus. Mr. Cowan suggested wording to the effect that this building has merit as a historical building and would certainly be a candidate for historical designation if and when an ordinance was adopted. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on 11-U-95 Com. Hams Corns. Austin and Doyle Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 11-U-95 including the addition of the $10,000 bond requirement for the oak tree, as well as the condition stating the contractual requirements with the arborist to include the 3:1 tree replacement. Com. Harris Corns. Austin and Doyle Passed 3-0-0 Mr. Kilian clarified that the action is a final action of the Planning Commission unless appealed within 14 days by written appeal to the City Clerk. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve a Minute Order specifying that "Commission finds this particular property has historical merit and should be considered as a candidate site should the City adopt a historical preservation ordinance." Com. Harris Cores. Austin and Doyle Passed 3-0-0 Chairman Roberts declared a recess at 9:30 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:4:3 p.m. the same Commissioners were present. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 2-ASA-96 Joseph and Florence France Trustee Same 20620 Homestead Road Modifications to an approved landscaping plan. Planning Commission Minu~s 17 March 11, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categoric. ally Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED ~: Ms. Ciddy Worddl, City Planner, reviewed the attached staff report and explained that the item was being presented as a status report on tree removal within the shopping center. Ms. Wordcll reported that application is in process and applicant has been notified that the application needed to be complete and scheduled for discussion regarding the reasons for removal of the trees and their plan to replant. She stated that the item was scheduled for the March 25 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Wordell explained that the applicant was informed that tbeir presanc~ at the m~ting was not necessary and that the item was scbeduled for the March 25 meeting. 7. Heritage Tree application for designation of heritage trees on Palm Avenue in accordance with Chapter 14.18 oftbe Cupertino Municipal Code. Staff ~: The video presentation reviewed the aRachcd staff repo~. The application submitted by Roger and Dana Stem is a request for the 33 California Fan Palm trees on Palm Avenue to be designated as heritage trees, to ~nsure their protection and proper care and maintenance. Staff recommends tbe palm trees be designated at heritage trees for their historic value as part of the Las Palmas Winery and their connection to John Doyle, prominent Cupertino resident. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reviewed the history of the palm trees, which are approximately 110 years old. He reported that the trees lined the main entrance to Los Palmas Winery on Stevens Creek which was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake. He explained the importance of listing the palm trees as heritage tree designation. He noted that the road they are located on is narrow and future development may require special attention to the health and welfare of the palm trees because they could be impacted by any right-of-way improvements on the street. If the trees are designated heritage trees, identification tags will be placed on each tree and they will receive special care and attention. The city arbofist will develop a protection plan for the fan palms, and the information will be supplied to private property owners interested in protecting and preserving the trees. Mr. Jung pointed out that some of the palm trees were covered with climbing vines planted by the property owners, and the property owners will be asked to remove the vines from the trees. Other measures will be the responsibility of the City. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding potential fire risk from the tops of the palm trees reaching the utility lines, Mr. Jung said that the palm trees can reach a height of 200 feet and the tops of the palm trees are above the utility lines. The City and PG&E are responsible for maintaining the trees to ensure that they are pruned adequately and do not get caught up in the utility lines. Ms. Dana Stem, 10418 Pale Vista Road, Cupertino, stated that she was requesting that the palm trees be designated as heritage trees because they are an important part of Cupertino's heritage, pointing out that eommunity landmarks are not always buildings. She said that they are the last reminder of the contribution John Doyle made to Cupertino. Planning Commission Minutes Ill l~lrch 11, 1996 Ms. Stem ~t,~l that the removal of the large pepper tree located on Palm Avenue was unfortunate and ffthe aeighbors l~i known beforehaad, perhaps a solution could have been reached rather than to destroy the tree which was a neighborhood landmark. Mr. Jung explained that all the neighbors were notified that the fan palms were nonfi~ntod to be designated as heritage trees, as well a the Historical Society and the applicant. Mr. Charles Liggett, 22415 Palm Avenue, Cupertino, said that most of his previous questions were answered with the staff presentation. He questioned if the heritage tree designation would delay the tree removal in the event of tree damage or death. He expressed concern about the time period involved in the event the tree is damaged, such as in a recent storm. He also questioned if the tree recently damaged by lightening would be replaced. Mr. Jung explained that the ordinance states that the Planning Commission is the body that can review and approve removal of a heritage tree; a recent clause in the ordinance stipulated that the Director of Community Development could approve removal of specimen trees in an unsafe or diseased condition. Staff indicated that the ordinance does not provide for replacement of trees. Mr. Liggett said he approved of the fan palm trees being designated as heritage trees. He suggested the City take a position on tree replacement for the neighborhood. In response to Com. Harris' question about the vines growing up the palm trees, Mr. Ligget~ said that he would prefer not to state an opinion, as the trees near his property do not have the vines attached. He said the wording in the document was appropriate. He pointed out that some of the utility wires are attached to some of the trees. Chainmm Roberts suggested that the City take a position with the respective utility companies regarding the wires in the trees and asked staff to address the issue. Ms. Marfl~ McDonald, 10428 So. Foothill Blvd., stated that she received written notice of the action to be t~en regarding the designation of the trees as heritage trees, and was pleased that the Planning Commission was considering action. Mr. Philip Plfagger, a resident of Palm Avenue since 1953, said he lived near the property that the pepper tree was located on and never had problems with visibility. He said he was very surprised when the tree was cut down, and was pleased that the Stems pursued the issue of the protection of the palm trees. Mr. Plfagger said that the trees meet the qualifications for the heritage tree designation and should he protected. A brief disenssion followed regarding a policy for replacement of trees. Mr. Jong said he would discuss the issue with Public Works. Mr. Cowan clarified that the action at the meeting was to preserve the existing trees, and if a minute order was desired to have a residual fund for the capital improvements program, approximately $6,000 to $7,000 per tree, you might suggest creating a sinking fund for this particular street. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the resolution designating the 33 fan palm trees on Palm Avenue as heritage trees Com. Harris Corns. Austin and Doyle Passed 3-0-0 Planning Commission l~inutes Ii) }~rc~l 11, 1~0(; REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: None The meeting was adjonmed at 10:15 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission Meeting on Monday, March 25, 1996. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Recording Secretary Mtnutes approved as presented: April 8, 1996