Loading...
PC 06-10-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 10, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioner absent: Austin, Harris, Mahoney, Chairman Roberts. Doyle Staff present: Robert Cowan, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Tom Wiles, Planner Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of the May 13 and May 28, 1996 minutes were postponed until the next meeting as they were not included in the agenda packets. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: communications pertaining to Item 5. Chairman Roberts noted various written POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 4-U-96 and 5-EA-96 Pacific CarCare Al Cali 19480 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use Permit to construct an approximately 3,500 sq. R. automotive fluid maintenance filter replacement building on a 22,300 sq. t~. vacant lot. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to cofitinue Application 4-U-96 and 5-EA-96 to the June 24, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Com. Doyle Passed 4~0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Planning Commission Minutes 2 June I0, 1996 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 10-ASA-95 EHUD Gordon Same 11703 Dorothy Anne Way Architectural review to construct a single family residence in a planned development zone. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 17, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 28, 1996 .~: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reviewed the application for arehitectural and site approval for a single family residence on a hillside lot, as outlined in the attached stall' report. Mr. Jung explained that the original plans and revised plans were displayed on the wall behind the Commissioners' seating area. Mr. Jung reviewed the concerns discussed at the January 8, 1996 Planning Commission which included: excessive grading, overly bright house colors, reduction of the visual impact of the house by setting it into the hill; reduction of the visual mass of the residence; slope stability to be addressed and appoved by the City geologist; and a property frontage retaining wall if needed for slope stability. Referring to overhead drawings of the original and revised plans, Mr. Jung discussed thc proposed changes to the grading; house colors; and illustrated the reduction of visible mass, thc setting of the house into the hill; slope stability; and illustrated the proposed front property line retaining wall. Details of the proposed changes are outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Jung discussed the letter received from William Cotton and Associates, the geotechnical consultant who addressed concerns about the stability of the property. Mr. Jung said that the applicant's geotechnical consultant and the city's geotechnical consultant have reached an agreement on what needs to be done on th.e particular site. Cotton and Associates have requested that any further grading and building permits be subject to the conditions placed in Cotton's June 6th letter. Mr. Amnon Levy, architect, explained that the purpose of the colored renderings was lo emphasize the landscaping, and retaining walls behind and in front of the house since it was a previous concern of the Commission. He said that a great deal of time was spent to emphasize and show how the development has its own architectural value on the one hand, and on the other hand how it would help from the geological point of view and stabililize the lot. He ret~rred to the colored renderings and discussed the reasons for the changes. Mr. Levy pointed out that thc colors were now more earth toned. He also reviewed the conceptual landscape plan. In response to Com. Harris's questions, Mr. Levy described the purpose of the carport, which functioned as a two-car parking area with the roof functioning as a family deck with a view of the hills. He illustrated the location of the three fireplaces; one in the master bedroom, one in the family room and one located in the living room. He confirmed that the height of the chimneys was slightly higher than the minimal legal height for vertical accent to the home. Planning Commission Minutes 3 June lO, 1996 A brief discussion ensued regarding the types of trees listed iu tile conceptual landsacape plan. Mr. Jung pointed out that staffhad not required the applicant to provide a detailed laudscape plan at this point, but rather to identify different landscape areas and the types of plant materials to bc used, with an emphasis on drought tolerant plantings as well as those types of plantings in the landscape architect's judgment that would be suitable for a steep hillside area. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one in the attdicncc who wished to address the Commission on the application. In response to Com. Harris' question about the revised colors, Mr. Jung explaiued tile method that staff uses to detemine the reflectivity value of the colors chosen. He said that there was a condition in the resolution which states that the colors have to meet the RHS requirements. Mr. Jung also explained that William Cotton was requiring as part of his review that there be a retaining wall along the perimeter of the property. Com. Harris expressed concern that if it is not possible to vacate the easement, then the retaining wall might not get built and it would not be safe and stable. Mr. Jung assured that for whatever reason they cannot built the retaining wall, the project would have to be presented to the Planning Commission again for a modification. Chairman Roberts asked if the RI-IS ordinance encouraged the use of chimneys as vertical design elements. Mr. Jung responded that the RHS ordinance did not contain comments on chimneys other than in the building code which indicated there had to be a certain separation between them and the roof and vegetation, as well as a spark attester on top of the chimney. Mr. Jung explained that the parking requirements called for two covered spaces and two uncovered spaces. He noted that the property did not have any street parking available and therefore the owner would have to provide four additional parking spaces which would be accommodated on the driveway apron. Com. Austin stated that she was in favor of recommending approval of the application with a condition of a retaining wall. She said the revisions were an improvement of the original design: the size has been reduced; the grading has been reduced and set into the hill; and the earthtones colors were appropriate. Com. Mahoney concurred with Com. Austin. Com. Haffis concurred that the changes were commendable. She noted that the deck and carport area was a prominent feature from the valley area and that the support beams conveyed a very massive structure. She recommended that it be only one car space deep, adjacent to the house with a second uncovered space. She also expressed concern about the height of the chimucys, stating that she did not approve of their use as an amhitectural prominent feature and that they should be at the minimum legal height. She stated that she would support the application wilh the two conditions set forth relative to the deck and the chimney height. Chairman Roberts concurred that the applicant has made progress and commended tile applicaut and staff for working together effectively. He said he was pleased to see the careful attentiou paid to the geotechnical aspects of the slope stability. He concurred with Com. Harris that thc Planning Commission Minutes 4 June extended chimneys were not an essential element, nor is the two-car covered carport and would like to see them reduced to the minimum. He also noted that the covered porch to the left of thc residence was not to his liking and not in agreement with the hillside ordinance. However, hc noted the covered porch was an integrated architectural element, the elimination of which might cause design problems. He said he was willing to accept the covered porch, but recommended a reduction in the covered carport and in the chimney height. Com. Austin said that she agreed with the minimum chimney heights. Mr. Jung asked if a landscape solution would satisfy the Planning Commission relative to thc concerns about the two-ear carport/deck. He illustrated in the landscape renderings that it would be a simple task to shiR some of the trees close to the deck or to visually screen it. Mr. Levy pointed out that the trees would hide the columns of the carport, yet not block the view from the deck. He said that reducing the carport to half the proposed size would et'fi:ct the view substantially. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, pointed out that file entire carport could not be seen from a view from the street. Com. Harris said she wonld approve the double carport if the trees pr6vided a screening for the pylons, but would like to see the chimneys reduced to the minimum legal height. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 10-ASA-95 according to the model resolution, with the condition that the chimneys be reduced to the minimum legal height. Com. Austin Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-ASA-96 Paul Weiss Paul Weiss 20955 B Stevens Creek Boulevard Sign permit exception to exceed the number and signs allowed in Chapter 17.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code and allow additional ground and pole building signs to advertise the combi~led General Motors (Chevrolet) and Chrysler Corporation Dealership. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to add a new grouud sig~l, relocate a ground sign to Stelling Road, and allow permanent promotional signs commonly nscd in the auto industry. Because the auto dealership is not close to auto row, it spends a disproportionate amount of funds on advertising and cannot take advantage of other promotional programs used by the other dealerships on auto row. The dealership now sells Chrysler producls as well as Chevrolet and needs additional signage. An additional factor to coasidcr is tile possible loss of off-street parking ifa bike lane is utilized on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, explained that the dealership is now a joint dealership involving General Motors and Chrysler. He pointed out that over time the city Planning Commission Minutes 5 June I0, 1906 has granted extra sign area for both ground and wall signs for the dealership. He noted that City Council has directed staff to meet with the owner of the property to develop a street plan possible onsite parking because of a planned bike lane on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Itowever, he pointed out that it was an important factor for car dealerships to have on-street parking potential customers as they tend to avoid parking on the dealership lots even though space is provided. 'He discussed potential solutions relative to the bike lane consideration. Mr. Cowan said that staffwas recommending a condition stating that if the signs do have to be relocated, Ihe applicant bear the expense of the relocation of signs. Mr. Cowan noted a revision to the table in the staff report depicting tile previous and proposed sign programs, and discussed the coverage of ground and wall signs'areas. Mr. Cowan said that staff recommended approval of the application as they felt that iu order lbr the dealership to remain competitive, the need exists to advertise the new products on the site. He pointed out that the dealership covered a larger frontage area than most retail operations in Cupertino and warranted additional signage. Staff is also recommending a condition relating to promotional signs, allowing them to be used consistent with the norm in the area. He noted that it was a wide open condition, but was not without precedent, in that it was permitted lbr Vallco Fashion Park. Mr. Cowan illustrated the colored transparencies of the various signs and discussed the presant location and proposed location of the signs. In response to Com. Mahoney's question about trees, Mr. Cowan stated that if the site was significantly remodeled a new streetscape would be discussed. He stated that the sign application does not warrant new landscaping requirements. He noted that if a bike lanc is installed and parking is required along Stevens Creek Boulevard, there would have to be parking bays and the sidewalk would have to be modified, which would possibly involve trees. The trees would have to be designed so as not to conflict with the objective of trying to gain visual access into the outside display area. A brief discussion ensued about the size of the various signs wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Alan Ford, representing Chrysler Corp., said that he coordinated tile application-with the Davidson dealership and Mr. Weiss. He explained that the Chrysler sign was adjusted to a 25 foot sign. He stated that the applicant concurred with staff's presentation. In response to Chairman Roberts' question about standard practices of the auto industry relative to advertising, Mr. Ford explained that the applicant was requesting permission to retain the bunting on the light poles because as a stand alone unit far from the auto mall, the dealership needs to utilize attention-getting signs to attract potential customers; but that they were uot requesting carte blanche for advertising. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. John Statton, Cupertino Chamber of Commeme, pointed out that Century Auto Plaza was one of the top ten tax generators in the community, and as sales tax makes up about 56% of thc general fund, the city relies on it for its parks, streets, and staffto makes the community what it Planning Commission Minutes 6 June lO, 1996 is. He noted that the only other auto retailer in Cupertino is moving to a San Jose location which makes retaining the sole auto dealership important and keeping it as competitive as possible. He said that the Chamber of Commeree supports the Planning Commission and City Council on the sign program for the community, and believe that there are occasions when exceptions must be made. He urged approval of the increase in signage to keep the business locally competitive. Mr. Ben Recktenwald, 21910 Alcazar Avenue, expressed concern about obscured vision tbr the traffic exiting onto Stevens Creek and not being able to see the bikes riding down Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mr. Cowan clarified that the safety issues would be taken care of by Public Works. Chairman Roberts closed the public input portin oftbe meeting. In response to Com. Harris' question if the approvals for exceptions moved with the property or the business, Mr. Cowan responded that the applications went with the property. He noted thnt the approval could be linked specifically to an auto dealership if there were concerns abont another type of business in the future. Com. Austin said she had mixed feelings; she was in favor of the recommendations as Ibc dealership was difficult to see and agreed that additional signage would encourage people to stop by. She recommended a limit on the provision to use promotional devices commonly used in the automobile industry, to to limited to this dealership only and perhaps a time limit on usage be established. Mr. Cowan stated that the proposal was to allow the use of the butttings, and tht streamers and pennants might present a problem. He noted that the buntings were very common for auto dealerships. Com. Mahoney said he was not opposed to the Chrysler sign, noting that a dealership needs to advertise what cars it sells. However, he pointed out that as a stand-alone dealership he l~lt the signs need not be as large because there was no competitiveness with other dealers in thc immediate area, and to add a wall sign was overkill. Mr. Jerry Davidson, owner of the auto dealership, clarified that there was not a request lbr a wall sign and for the record indicated a formal withdrawal ora request for a wall sign. He said that hc was a former resident of Cupertino for a number of years, and that good taste would be exercised in advertising. He thanked Mr. Statton for his meaningful comments. Com. Harris said that she felt that if a dealership carries three products, those three prodncts should be advertised. She said that the Chrysler sign was a significant exception to 374 area vs. 224 which was already an exception. She recommended substituting the Chrysler sign Ibr the second Chevrolet sign; there is already a.32 foot tall Chevrolet sign and an 8 foot tall Chevrolet sign and if the Chrysler sign was put where the little Chevrolet sign is then there would be appropriate exposure without further excessive signage. Com. Harris said she was in lhvor of thc height of the Davidson sign as it was appropriate and tasteful at 23 feet. She said she would like the height of the proposed sign to be 23 feet, not 25 feet. Com. Harris said she was not in favor of a blanket approval of promotional devices which are commonly used by automotive dealers. She said she felt the banner signs shonld not be tip continually. She said that the commercial signs should go through the Planning staff and they would maintain a handle on the tastefulness and tenure of the signs. She pointed out the reason Planning Commission Minutes '/ June I O, 1006 that auto dealerships on Stevens Creek Boulevard need to have so much signage is to differentiate one from another; and as the issue is only one dealership selling three diftbmnt products, she felt that it did not require as much prominent fanfare. Com. Harris recommended a condition of approval be that it move only with a multiple auto dealership at this location. In the future another business may be at the same location and the sign limitations might not be appropriate for that particular business. She said that she was in favor of restrictions Ibr promotional advertising and that it meet the current rules for everyone. Mr. Cowan clarified that theordinance specifies that the signs may be up for 120 days, with no more than 30 days in one period. He stated that the buntings were necessary on a continual basis to provide a constant reminder to the people passing by that it is an auto dealership. Mr. Davidson pointed out that the bunting signs were very expensive and would be damagcd il' they were continually removed and put back in place. He noted that they do attract potcutial customers' attention. Chairman Roberts said he favored a maximum of three signs for different dealerships and concurred with Com. Harris that the small Chevrolet sign be replaced with the new sign. lie suggested that they be similar in style, with some unity of concept between the signs. He said he favored restricting the exceptions to use of the property for auto dealership and agreed with thc majority to accept the bunting as promotional devices, but not give blanket approval for any aud all kinds of promotional devices, that a competitor somewhere in the South Bay might chose to follow. Chairman Roberts expressed concern about the buntings and asked for assurance that the safety considerations relating to traffic exiting onto Stevens Creek Boulevard raised by Mr. Recktenwald be addressed. He said he was receptive to the arguments of Mr. Davidson and Mr. Statton relative to the expense of the buntings and was willing to accept the buntings as a permanent or semi-permanent feature. Com. Austin initially said she favored a time limit of four times per year for one month duration on the bannem. She then said she would agree to a continual basis for the buntings economic reasons. Mr. Cowan summarized that there was consensus to allow the Chrysler sign on Stevens Crock Boulevard, and the Chevrolet sign on Stelling would be removed as a tradeoff for the high Chrysler sign. The small ground sign would be replaced by the Chrysler sign. The buntings would be approved as demonstrated in the application materials. Com. Mahoney summarized the conditions to be included in the motion for approval of the application: Change of sign 2 which was added, now deleted; fix on G to be 120; the wall sign remains the same; addition of sign I at 150 sq. ft.; condition that the applicant is aware the sign might have to be relocated if the bike lane is installed; deletion of sign C for a 2 sq. lt. sign; thc possibility of the addition of a bike lane; addition of Condition 4 stating that this meets signage approval only to go with property as long as it remains a multiple-auto dealership; change wording of Condition 2 to say the applicant may use existing promotional advertising on a year- round basis (if changes wanted, the applicant would return to the Planning Commission: verification of sight distance issues raised). Planning Commission Minutes 8 June I0, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved toapprove Application No. 9-ASA-g6 with conditions listed above according to the model resolution. Com. Austin Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 2-GPA-96 and 9-EA-96 City of Cupertino Various On or near Stevens Creek Blvd. between Highway 85 and tile eastern city limits. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to revise the text of the General Plan to redistribute the planned 500 dwelling units throughout the Heart of the City Specific Plan area. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July l, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANN1NG COMMISSION MEETING OFMAY 28, 1996 _~&ff_~: Mr. Jung reviewed the application for the general plan amendment to change the distribution of 500 housing units throughout the Heart of the City Specific Plan area, as outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Jung explained that the amendment would remove the geographical restriction that 300 housing units had to be located between Torte Avenue and Saich Way including the Town Center planning area, and that 200 units had to be between the remainder of Stevens Creek Blvd. between Route 85 and the eastern city limits. The revised distribution would allow the 500 units to be flexibly placed along the whole of the Heart of the City specific planning area with city approval. Staff believes the redistribution is warranted because staff found during the review of the Specific Plan that there was few feasible housing sites between Tone and Saich Way, and that there was a greater variety of lots available housing along the remainder of Stevens Creek Blvd. From a traffic standpoint, the housing units would be more equally dispemed than they currently are instead of having the majority of them clustered around the Stevens Creek Blvd./DeAnza intemection. Staff recommends approval fo the Negative Declation and approval of tile General Phm Amendment. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one present to wish address the application. Chairman Roberts noted that in the past, public comment has been in favor of the flexibility and this was a step toward that. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the Negative Declaration on 9-EA-96. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 9 June I0, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the General Plan Amendment, file No. 2-GPA-96 in accordance with the model resolution. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: I-TM-96 Donald Bahl Frank Graham 22366 Hartman Drive Tentative Map to subdivide a .69 acre parcel into one lot and one remainder parcel. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED .~: Mr. Jung explained that the application was being submitted tbr a tentative · map approval to subdivide a 0.69-acre parcel into one lot and one remaining parcel, rather tbml a subdivision into two lots, to enable the applicant to defer certain Public Works Department fees on the lot currently developed with a single-family residence. The video presentation reviewed the application as outlined in the attached staff report. It wus noted that due to the close proximity to the PG&E towers located to the east, tbe applicant has prepared conceptual floor plans to demonstrate the buildability of the lot. Both staff and the applicant feel that a reasonable size house can be achieved. The architect has modified the floor plan to allow for an adequate clearance from PG&E wires located above. Staff recommends appoval of the application. Referring to the overhead oftbe vicinity map, Mr. Jung illustrated the PG&E easement line, the PG&E tower and the buildable area of the newly created lot. He noted that the proposal meets the City's General Plan as well as the zoning of RI-7.5. The mature oak tree on tile commou property line will be protected through a condition on the tentative map, including bonding, as well as surrounding fencing during construction. Referring to an overhead of the floor plan, Mr. Jung explained that the applicant has created a conceptual floor plan to demonstrate an adequate building area on the property. The conceptual floor plan has been revised to provide the additional 1.7 feet of building clearance from tile easement line requested by PG&E and PG&E has accepted the additional separation. Another aspect of the project is that the applicant does not need the city owned right of way in front of bis property to build this particular project. Mr. Jung pointed out that the area is adequate to build a house and meet all oftbe city's RI zoning setbacks and according to the proposed floor plan thc total building size would be a 2500 square foot residence. Staff is recommending approval &the application and a Negative Declaration. Com. Austin referred to a letter written by a neighbor about the high power lines, and sim questioned how far the building has to be from the power lines. Mr. Jung said that buildings have to be outside of the easement that PG&E has purchased for the property, and because Planning Commission Minutes I0 June lO, 1996 PG&E requested additional clearance, the additional 1.7 feet of separation, the applicant has consented to do that. A discussion ensued regarding the letter's reference to the storm that resulted in a house tim because of the close proximity to the PG&E tower. Mr. Jung explained that the chief building official described the incident as a freak occurrence. Mr. Donald Bahl, applicant, 2140 Garden Terrace, Mountain View, said that he had nothing ltl add to the staffreport but was available to answer questions. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Steven Mozsgai, 22305 Carta Blanca St., Cupertino, referred to his June 6 letter expressing concern regarding the close proximity of the residence to the power line. He said it was diflicnlt to understand that the staff report had indicated that the lightening could have struck anything. He said he felt the 1.7 feet of separation was unreasonable taking into consideration the overall dimensions. He expressed concern that if other freak accidents occur, the whole neighborhood could burn down. He said the likelihood of similar accidents is heightened because tbe new structure will be built between the PG&E tower and the existing house. Mr. Mozsgai clarified that in the particular incident being discussed, the PG&E tower was struck along with tile existing house and the utility section blew up. Mr. Jung clarified that the PG&E right of way that PG&E purchased for their towers and lines is basically a safety clearance for the wires, and the additional 1.7 feet is the additional separation they felt was needed in addition to that easement based on the factors they used for wind loads and wire swing. In response to a question from Chairman Roberts, Mr. Jung said that the DeCarli residence is an example of having a PG&E tower located adjacent to the property. Com. Harris commented that if people choose to live in close proximity to PG&E towers, that is their choice. She expressed concern that a potential buyer be made aware of such conditions so that they can make their own choice. Chairman Roberts closed the meeting for public input. Com. Harris said that she approved of the application, but that the issue brought up by the neighbor was a valid issue and that potential buyem should be informed of such incidents as house fires because of lightening in the past. She questioned whether such a provision could be included in the approval. Mr. Jung explained that the disclosure laws require disclosing such information prior to selling property/residences. Mr. Cowan reiterated that according to experts it was a freak situation. He noted that a condition does notify the public of the electric magnetic field. Com. Mahoney said that he felt the incident was a freak situation and he reco~nmended approval of the application. Planning Commission Minutes 11 J uno I O, 1996 Com. Austin said she was in favor of approving the application with a disclosure clause. Chairman Roberts said that the design presented an innovative solution. He thanked Mr. Mozsgai for sharing his concerns and said that some risk did exist being situated so close to u high voltage power transmission line. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve application I-TM-96 with full disclosure to the new property owner. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 3- I-0 Mr. Cowan commented that most people are astute enough to research the public records, und the disclosure could be a part of the public record. He said that the condition relating to the electro magnetic field is done on a routine basis. Mr. Jung reported that the letter I'rom thc neighbor would become a permanent part of the tentative map file. Chairman Roberts declared a recess at 8:50 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:05 p.m. tile same Commissioners and staffwere present. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 2-TM-96 Emily Chon Rudy Mae Cole 21901 Dolores Avenue Tentative Map to subdivide a .45 aero parcel into one lot and one remainder lot. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 13, 1996 s,g..t, aff~: The video presentation reviewd the application for tentative map approval 1o subdivide a .45 acre parcel into two lots. The request was originally presented to the Planning Commission on May 13, at which time the Planning Commission expressed concern regarding tho drainage of the flag lot. A new drainage plan calls for a concrete swail which will direct rain water away from the proposed home and along a storm line to Byrne Avenue where tile line will surface. The new plan replaces the origirial plan which called for a 4 foot retaining wall. Stal¥ recommends approval of the application. Referring to the overhead oftbe tentative map, Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, illustrated how the concrete swail takes the water down the property line to the street. She reviewed the design of the proposed new system which would take the drainage water to an underground pipe. thc pipe would go out to the street and reach daylight at some point along Delores Avenue. As pointed out in the staff report, it is a street surface system for storm drainage; there are no slorm drains in the area. A storm drainage fee is collected and could be implemented sometime iu thc future but there are no immediate plans to do that, therefore the system is conceived as a surl'ace street system. Planning Commission Minutes 12 June lO, 1906 In response to a question from Com. Mahoney, Ms. Wordell stated that there would not bca retaining wall, but that it may require a one foot board to hold up a small amount of dirt. Chairman Roberts requested clarification of how the new plan would obviate the need to raise the property in the way similar to the old one. Ms. Wordell explained that by undergrounding iL it would achieve the slope needed in order to get the water out to the surface street. Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, explained that the proposal for the pipe would .allow thc applicant to put the water undergrond without raising the elevation of the property to the extent that they were proposing last time because they can get a flow on the pipe to get it to Delores. Where they were proposing last time to raise the property 4 feet so they could get an overland flow; that's basically what is happening here, by putting it into a closed system. Ms. Emily Chen, applicant, said that Mrs. Ruby Cole was unable to attend the meeting and submitted a letter regarding the application. She explained that since the last public hearing much work has been done to try to solve the drainage problem. She said that a meeting was held with Mr. and Mrs. Fung to explain the proposal, at which time the engineer suggested thc best solution would be to get an easement from the Fungs. They have declined to provide an easement. Ms. Chen said that Public Works provided helpful information. She said that the flag lot subdivision was consistent with many subdivisions. Referring to the map, she illustrated the proposed drainage system and answered questions. In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Cben stated that the owner of lots 25 and 26 have no present plans to do anything with his property, but perhaps some time in the future may wish to sell or subdivide. Ms. Liling Fung, 21900 Alcazar Avenue, gaid that she was the owner of the property behind Ms. Cole's lot. She said that Ms. Chen did talk to her and her husband regarding posibility o1' an easement; however, they did not propose any compensation for the easement and the Fungs did not feel an obligation to provide the free easement. She said she was confused after reading thc revised plan. She referred to the overhead map and pointed out some of the figures she lblt were not clear. She asked for clarification from the developer iftbe retaining wall will be removed completely or just reduced from 4 feet to 3 feet. She recommended that the building be set back from the northern line and also that the elevation oftbe foundation frame be lowered. Mr. Dieter Recktenwald, 21901 Alcazar Avenue, said that he lived near the proposed subdivided lot for 10 years, and that he moved to the area because of its rural setting. He noted that the proposed lot to be subdivided is very flat and he felt it did not need any grading except to solve some of the drainage issues which were resolved between the previous plan and the present plan. He expressed concern about the change in elevation which would result in a residence that sils much higher than the other residences in the area and ask the Planning Commission to take his concern into account and accommodate a plan which addresses keeping the residence at thc same level. He added that he felt no retaining walls were necessary in the neighborhood. He said he was opposed to building retaining walls as all of the other residences have ample drainage without doing further grading. Planning Commission Minutes 13 June 10, 1996 Mr. Carl Crosswhite, 21871 Delores Avenue, owner of lots 25 and 26, said he has bcen a neighbor of Mrs. Cole for 40 years. He reported that them has not been any problems with drainage, noting that the ground soaks up water like a sponge. He said he was iu thvor of thc flag lot; he outlined the number of flag lots in the area of Monta Vista. Mr. Crosswhite said hc did not have any immediate plans for his property and felt that Mrs. Cole should be permitted to have her lot flag lotted. He said that a retaining wall of one foot high would be ideal Ibr a redwood fence. He concurred that if the ground is as level as stated, the proposal of au 8 inch pipe would be appropriate. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the request so that Mrs. Cole could continue with her plans to relocate to a smaller home. Chairman Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Harris said that it was unclear under the new proposal if the building pad would be 3 I'cet above grade. She also noted that in the staff report it indicated the revised plan allows thc building pad to be reduced by approximately one foot, whereas previously it was a 4 Ibot building pad. Ms. Wordell responded that the building pad is at grade and the proposed pad is 363. She added that it was the finished floor that was reduced by one foot, which is something the planning department normally gets involved in because the height is measured from uatuml grade. The applicant can go 28 feet from natural grade and the finished floor can be anywhere they wanted; they will be within the 28 foot height. Ms. Wordell said that there would be uo retaining walls. Com. Harris questioned if Ms. Fung's comments about the elevation differeuces were valid. Referring to the engineering drawings, Ms. Wordell pointed out the original grade of 362.6 and the finished grade of 364.2, with a 1-1/2 foot difference. She said that the engineer said that it is a one foot wall or support, but that she understood the height could be a maximum o~' 2 l'eet before being considered a retaining wall. She indicated that the applicant might want to vcril3, that. Com. Mahoney asked for clarification of how water could go from 361 feet to 362 feet and flow out. Referring to the map, Ms. Lynaugh explained the concept in detail, noting that the flow would daylight somewhere along Delores Avenue when it can get to an elevation to keep the flow. A lengthy discussion ensued wherein staffanswerad Commissioners' questions. Mr. Cowan suggested that if the Planning Commission was still concerned about the wall height at the back of the property, a maximum wall height could be stipulated and the applicant conld return to the Planning Commission if it was not workable. Com. Mahoney said he concurred with Mr. Cowan's recommendation for a restrictiou. Com. Austin said that she was in favor of restricting the retaining wall to 2 feet, and stated she was in favor ora plan that worked out the numbers to ensure the flow. She said she approved the application; the subdivision was within the lot size; the easements for the driveway arc appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes 14 June 10, 1996 Com. Mahoney said he felt 2 feet was excessive and he felt more comfortable with a onc Ibot restriction, which is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He recommended using the term "change of elevation" from the neighboring property. Com. Mahoney stated hc approved of the actual pad, as long as the property line does not have a change in elevation more than one foot. Ms. Wordell commented that she referred to 2 feet because the engineer stated it became a retaining wall at 2 feet. Com. Harris said she was in favor ora condition referring to the 12 inches, stating that she Iblt il was a retaining wall if it is a board, or if it has a footing. She expressed concern about manipulaitng the foundation of the property to achieve the same result the neighbors were concerned about in the first place, and said she could not approve the application if that was what was being done. She asked that staffassure that was not the case. Ms. Wordell explained that the prior problem was that there might have been a change in gmdc, pointing out that if the grade was raised 2 feet, in addition to the 28 feet, there would bc 28 l~ect from the natural grade, which is 363, where the pad is. The height would be measured t'rom the natural grade which is where the pad is. Mr. Cowan said that the condition was specified in the ordinance. He pointed out that tile Planning Commission was to rev ew the subd v s on design including the grading. Com. Harris said she was in favor of theapplication, with the condition under Section 3, Item 4 restricting the retaining wall to 12 inches. Com. Mahoney clarified that the language would specify a maximum of one foot above tile neighbors' grade along the northern property line and that the drainage must be achieved with that maximum. He summarized that there were two separate issues being considered: how high the house is; there was consensus to use 363 as a starting point; and use of the term "wall." Chairman Roberts said that with the condition of the 363 foot pad elevation and the one I'oot maximum elevation difference, he concured with the majority; but asked for assurance that thc storm drainage dedication fees collected would be sufficient to construct proper storm drainage. Ms. Lynaugh responded that at some point in the future when sufficient storm drainage I~es arc collected there can be storm drains installed. The City currently has a mas'ret storm drain phm that has been updated MOTION: the the retaining wall SECOND: Com. Austin ABSENT: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed Com. Mahoney moved to approve Appliation 2-TM-96 with confirmation that roposed pad is 363 maximum and the addition of the restriction along orthern property line of the one foot grade differential liar 4-0-0 6. Application No.: 18-U-85 (Mod.) Applicant: Apple Computer Planning Commission Minutes 15 June I0, 1996 Property Owner: LoCation: Cupertino Union School District 10253 Portal Avenue Use Permit Modification to increase child, care attendance from 85 to 95 children, and to allow a contracted operation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED .S..t~f~: The video presentation reviewed the application for two requests from Apple Computer to increase the number of children currently allowed in the daycare lhcility by I 0, and to revise the use permit text in order to reflect that the facility has been an ongoing daycarc operation since 1987 for Apple employees' children. Staff recommends approval of this application. Mr. Tom Wiles, Planning Intern, reviewed the application as outlined in the attached staff report. Ms. Jackie Horton, Apple Computer, reviewed the application to bring up the occupancy or' the daycare center to match the licensing number, and the request to insure that the lmtguage in Condtion 6 reads correctly, indicating that Apple Computer leases the facility from the Cupertino Union School District, sponsors the operation, and that the center is only for Apple Computer employees' children. She pointed out that the day-to-day operation is contracted to Bright Horizons, a company that provides child care service to corporations. In response to Com. Austin's question about ratio of child to staff, a discussion ensued whereia Ms. Horton and Mr. Wiles clarified the ratio for the various age groups of the children in thc daycare center. In response to Com. Harris' request for clarification, Ms. Horton explained why Phase I was being expanded and not being labelled Phase II. Originally in 1987 when the project came before the city for review, Apple Computer leased both the Nan Allen School and an adjaceat unimproved parcel. Apple Computer maintained a ground lease on the property lbr three years and determinmed at the end of the lease they would not pumue the expansion originally planned, and terminated the lease of the unimproved property. She explained that there would not be a Phase II because that went away when the lease was terminated on the unimproved property. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Harris stated that she was in favor the application. Coms. Austin and Mahoney concurred. Chairman Roberts said that Apple Computer is providing a commendable service and supported it. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 18-U-85 in accordance with the model resolution. Com. Austin Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 17 June 10, 1906 NEW BUSINESS 8. Schedule Historic Preservation Ordinance (4-EA-96): Scheduling a study session. Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: Historic Preservation Ordinance City of Cupertino Various Citywide' Project Consistency With: Environmental Assessment: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Negative Declaration Recommended Ms. Wordell explained that the purpose of agendizing the topic was to schedule a study sessiou to address issues raised by the public at the City Council meeting and City Council members regarding impacts on the property owners relating to questions about what the review committee should consist of, should it be permanent or temporary, etc. A brief discussion ensued about the scheduling of a second August Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Wordell noted that the study session would include members of the Planniug Commission and interested public. There was consensus to schedule the study session on thc regular August 26 Planning Commission meeting date, from 7 to 9 p.m. Chairman Roberts questioned the permanence of the advisory committee, and the City Council's stance on preservation vs. restoration. Mr. Cowan reported that the City Council was not interested in a strict preservationist ordinance, consistent with the desire of the Planning Commission. He said that the issues would be addressed at the study session on August 26. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Don Westwood, owner of the Amh Wilson home, said he spoke with some of the other owners of historic homes and they expressed the desire to meet with staff before tile study session to better understand what avenues or options were available to them in preparation I~r the meeting. Mr. Cowan said that staff would arrange a time to meet with the interested homeowners before the study session. Mr. Cowan explained that what prompted some public to appear at the Council meeting was an effort by the Historical Society to begin the process of identification, and a list of potential properties was created which has not yet been viewed by the Planning Commission. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to schedule the study session at the regular August 26, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, from 7 to 9 p.m. with no additional agenda items. SECOND: Com. Mahoney ABSENT: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 18 June 10, 1906 9. Limit Length of Video Presentations. Ms. Wordell reviewed the guidelines for video presentations by the public as outlined ill the Minute Order. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Resolution Minute Order relative to video presentations from the public. Com. Harris Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 10. Consideration of Cancellation of August 26, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting. The August 26, 1996 Planning Commission meeting will be scheduled as a study session to discuss the Historic Preservation Ordinance only, as discussed in Itgm 8. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Harris referred to a copy ofa lettei: from Jay and Connie Sevison, relating to Miramonle Road. Mr. Cowan said that the letter was received only today and a staff member will visit thc area and investigate the situation. He noted that staff would report back to tim Planning Commission. Com. Harris requested that last minute items and correspondence distributed at the meeting bc referenced with agenda item numbers for ease of reference. Chairman Roberts addressed the issue pertaining to Stevens Canyon Road between Miramontc and Ricardo Road which was discussed at the last meeting concerning land use and zoning. I-lc said it was brought to his attention by several neighbors who jog and bike up Stevens Canyon Road that the portion of Stevens Canyon Road is particularly dangerous, with overgrown vegetation and shrubs, making it difficult for bikers and joggers to get along on the narrow mad. He said he visited the area and it is a safety hazard. He recalled at the meeting it was agreed to consider the level of urban services and the issue needed to be addressed. He suggested as a first step the city cutting back shrubbery to ensure safe passage. Mr. Cowan said that he spoke to Bert Visvocich who advised him that as development occurs, the city will do permanent improvements and there will be a sidewalk as properties develop. Staff will visit the site to see if there is an immediate solution for brush removal. The long term solution because of limitation of funds would be dependent upon what gets installed as development occurs. Chairman Roberts expressed concern about substantial slope failure in the II 800 block o1' Upland Road. He recalled that at the meeting last year regarding the 2 lot subdivision he had expressed concern about the drainage problem. He pointed out that more attention needs to be focused on permanent solutions rather than one property at a time, because in doing so thc problems are exacerbated in the future.