Loading...
PC 11-12-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD oN NOVEMBER 12, 1996 ORDER OFBUSINESS SALUTETOTHEFLAG ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Austin, Harris, Chau'man Roberts. Com. Doyle arrived at 7:50 p.m. during discussion of Item 5. Comrmssioner Mahoney amved at 8 p.m. during discussion of Item 7. Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Associate Plainer; Carmel Lynauglk Public Works Depu, h,ent; Thomas Wiles, Planning Intern; and Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Roberts noted several written communications not pertaining to agenda items and supplemental materials relative to Item 10. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 8-EXC-96 David Solmck George and Barbara Marcinkowski 10211 Byme Avenue Hillside Exception to conslxuct decks, stairs and other outdoor features including landscaping on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with Chapter 19.28.050C of the Cupertino Municipal Code. EN V IRON MENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOV. 25, 1996. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Hams moved that Application No. 8-EXC-96 be postponed to the November 25, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Planning Commission Minutes ~ No¥¢mbcr 12, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 21-U-96 and 33-EA-96 Karate Masters Seer Family Trust 7335 Bollin$er Road Use Permit to locate a specialized school, a karate studio, in an existing retail center in accordance with Chapter 19.56.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staffnresenlalion: The video presentation reviewed the application for the karate school operation in the former space of George's Donuts, as outlined in the attached staff report. The parking requirements and hours of operanon were reviewed. Staff recommends approval of the application. The Planning Commission's determination on the application will be the final determination unless appealed. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one fxom the public who wished to speak on the item. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application No. 33-EA-96 Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 21-U-96 according to the model resolution. Com. Hams Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 5-U-92 (Mod.) and 29-EA-96 W.O.V. Properties Same 20325 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use Permit Modification to relocate an existing specialized school in a retail center in accordance with Chapter 19.56.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff~ore~entation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the Sylvan Learning Center to relocate to a larger space within the same center, as outlined in the attached staff report. The parking requirements were also reviewed. Staff recommends approval of the application, citing that the 12 space parking deficit is unlikely to become a problem. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be final, unless appealed. Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 12, 1996 Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Associate Planner, explained that the tenant had not yet moved into the new space, and it is not known who will occupy the space being vacated. In response to Commissioners' questions, she clarified the parking deficiencies. Mr. Roger Shore, Owner, Sylvan Learning Center, clarified that with the new parking regulations, it will be adding back parking spaces to the center's setup. There will be no change in parking when the applicant moves and another tenant takes over the vacant space. There was no one from the public who wished to speak on the item. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application No. 29-EA-96. Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application No. 5-U-92 according to the model resolution. Com. Austin Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-EXC-96 Michael Helm Glen and Melissa Shih 21667 Rainbow Drive Hillside exception to enclose a deck area on an existing residence located on a prominent ridgeline and to vary from the required second story setbacks in accordance with Chapter 19.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to enclose two existing deck areas of a three story home located atop a prominent ddgelme. Neighbors do not feel that the deck enclosure will cause significant impact and support the project. Staff recommends a continuance of the application and suggests that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to return with another plan that will meet the homeowners' needs without requiring so many exceptions to the hillside ordinance. Referring to the overheads of the site and building data, the floor plan and the proposed elevations, Ms. Bjurman clarified the exception request. She explained staWs recommendations of alternatives which would not be the most costly method bm would be the least deviation to the RI-IS ordinance. Mr. Michael Helm, architect, said that he designed the home 13 years ago, and when it was constructed, the file decks on the rear of the building were such that it did not have adequate depression between the different floor levels, and therefore have leaked since then. The owners have made numerous repairs over the years exceeding $14,000 and still have not alleviated the problem. He said that the problem is so severe that the lower floor bedroom has dry and wet rot conditions, PlatmJng Commission Minutes 4 November 12, 1996 damaging the structural conditions of the wall. He explained that the deck spaces proposed to be enclosed are to be unconditioned spaces, such as sunroom or porch, which is the only outdoor or usable recreational space on the dovmhill side of the property. He said that the proposal would not change the existing building ibotpI/nt. Mr. Helm refe~ed to the photo board and stated that the existing structure's ma~ve bulk is positioned to the rear of the site, facing a large eucals~tus grove, and is not visible from the valley floor or the neighbors below, as the Ixees block the views from the homes and street below. The existing homes also block the front of the house from the valley view. Mr. Helm said that the setbacks from the second floor downhill wall plane ,vere not practical due to the existing bearing wall and structural conditions. Referring to Building Section A on sheet 5 of the drawings, he said the glue lan beam could not take additional point loading, i.e. offsetling the wall 5 feet back. He said it would also involve disproportionate costs as it would provide different bearing conditions and ultimately reinforcement of the foundation. The current proposed design does not require any grading, or an5' change in the foundation. Mr. Helm explained that offsetting a small roof on each of the facades would be difficult structurally because there is no way to get equipment down to the rear of the property to work on the foundation or change the bearing point. He said he felt the proposal was the least intrusive to the project that would solve the leaking deck problem. In response to Com. Hams' question, Mr. Helm explained the reason the decks were leaking. He said that the flashing conditions were not adequate; the floors are depressed one inch and therefore when mortarboard and file is put on the exterior deck, the finished floor of the interior and exterior are close to the same. When the water hits, its goes beneath threshholds, through the do~vnspouts into various leader heads into the wall cavities. He said that stepping up to the deck would make the problem worse. He said that it needs to be at least two inches in depth and presently is only one inch. A discussion ensued regarding possible options, such as rais'mg the floor areas and eliminating the decks. Mr. Helm said that raising the floors was not practical due to the existing flaming systems, and removal of the decks was not practical as they were over existing living spaces. He said that he had discussed staWs recommendation with them, but that the practicality of the structural conditions does not facilitate that type of solution. He said that the project would excessively increase from $20,000 to $40,000 because of the bearing conditions. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. Ms. Melissa Shih, owner of the home, clarified that the project was one of necessity due to the leaking problem. She said that Mr. Helm's design is practical as well as simple and elegant, and that the immediate neighbors supported the proposal. In response to Com. Doyle's request to have the required exceptions restated, Ms. Bjurman said that there was an exception to locate additional bulk within the 15% ridgeline; the second floor setbacks do not meet the 7-1/2 foot sethacks; any wall planes exceeding 20 feet in height shall have architectural elements which provide relief and break up; and there be a minimum number of offsets on the second and third floor or roof element offsets. Com. Austin said that she concurred with staff's recommendation to explore alternatives. Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 12, 1996 Com. Doyle said that the applicant has a problem that has to be resolved; however, he requested that they lay to minimize the hillside zoning exceptions in place. Com. Hams said that she concurred with staffs recommendation; and that they were not recommending deniM, but a continuance to attempt to work the issues out. She said she was appreciative of the attempt to find the most practical and least expensive solution, however, she felt the main issue was the prominent ridgeline issue. The General Plan is very specific stating that additions to legally existing homes within a 15% site line may not further encroach into the site line. She said the proposal was 400 feet, 10% of the existing dwelling, and the mass is too gxeat to recommend approval. Chair Roberts said he supported the staffs recommendation for continuance to attempt to find alternatives to seal the leak without adding substantially to the building mass and without significantly affecting its profile. He said he felt the north elevation was unsightly; and although the trees shield the view, he was opposed io using trees to mask unsightly architecture. He said that eucalyptus trees are a fire ha?ard in the hills and they should not be protected or relied upon as a landscape architectural element. He said he wanted an attractive proposal without the eucalyptus trees. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Application No. 6-EXC-96 to the December 9, 1996 Planning Commission meeting to enable applicant to work with staffto minimize or try to eliminate the exceptions to the hillside and zoning ordinance. Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 7-EXC-96 Barbara Hurd Same 21577 Flintshire Street Fence exception to locate a six foot fence in the fxont yard setback. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a fence exception, as outlined in the attached staff report. Applicant is requesting the exception due to the unusual configuration of her lot. Staff recommends approval of the application; however recommends a 12 foot setback rather than a 10 foot setback. The planning Commission's decision will be considered final unless appealed. Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, reviewed the configuration of the lot. Mrs. Barbara Hurd, 21577 Flintshire Street, circulated the photo board showing her home and the configuration of the lot. She described the proposed landscaping along the new fence. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Planning Commission Minutes 6 November/2, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 7-EXC-96 in accordance with the model resolution. Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Chair Roberts moved the agenda to Item 7. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 20-U-96 and 9-EXC-96 Davco Associates Robert Saich 10165 No. DeAnza Blvd. Use Permit to remodel an existing service station and canopy and add a food sales area. Sign Exception to allow two signs on the canopy when only one is allowed, in accordance with Chapter 17.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the apphcation for the gas station remodel and addition of food sales area, as outlined in the attached staff report. The plans include changing the service station from a Shell station to a Texaco station, operating from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Staff recommends approval of the application. A determination by the Planning Commission will be considered fmal unless appealed. Mr. L. Davis, Davco Associates, architects, said that the present tenant would be updating the service station and changing from Shell to Texaco. He explained that the canopy was being increased to pro,fide rain protection for the card reader system, but that the number of dispensers would be decreased. RefenSng to the material board, he reviewed the color scheme for the Texaco logo. Referring to the overhead of the site plan, he illustrated the storage areas, the outdoor stairwell, and the sales area. A discussion ensued regarding signagn, wherein Ms. Wordell answered ConmUssioners' questions. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one present who wished to Com. Hams said she was in favor of the sign exceptions, keeping the sign on Alves at 18" because of the two street frontages. She said she was in favor of doubling the canopy size as the present one was substandard and the colors were ara'active, but objected to the height of the canopy. The proposed work area was appropriate. Com. Doyle said he preferred to have one sign only, on one side at the 18 inch height, with the monument sign located at the comer; eliminate some of the parking by the front comer as it tends to clutter the site; and said that he concurred with Com. Hams on the height of the canopy. Com. Hams said she agreed with Com. Doyle's comment about the parking. _ Com. Austin said she supported stall's recommendation; the lettering and height is appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 12, 1996 In response to Chair Roberts' question about the height of the canopy, Ms. Wordell stated that the height of the canopy of the Unocal station recently approved was 21 feet. Mr. Davis said that the present roof has been hit because it is too low. Discussion ensued regarding the height of the canopy. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application No. 20-U-96 with the modifications for parking spaces to be removed fi.om the front to the comer, with staff consultation for location of handicapped parking space; and that the canopy height be a total of 17 feet with a minimum clearance of 14 feet Com. Austin Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Com. Mahoney arrived. MOTION: SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to deny Application No. 9-EXC-96 Com. Harris Corns. Hams and Doyle Com. Austin and Chair Roberts Com. Mahoney Application demed 2-2-1 Following a brief discussion a re-vote was taken. MOTION: SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to deny Application 9~EXC-96 sign exception only Com. Hams Corns. Hams, Doyle and Austin Chair Roberts Com. Mahoney Passed 3-1-1 Chair Roberts moved the agenda back to Item 6. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 7-TM-96, 9-Z-96 and 34-EA-96 Emily Chen Rossi Family Trust 10346 S. Stelling Rd. Tentative Map to subdivide a .9 acre parcel into 4 lots, including 2 flag lots. Zoning to rezone a .9 parcel from RI-10 ag. to R1-7.5 or other appropriate zomng district. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: December 2, 1996 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a 4 lot development and request for rezonmg the parcel from RI-10 ag. to R1 7.5 single fanUly residential zone. Although the Commumty Development staff generally discourages flag lots in Cupertino, there are certain areas in Cupertino where they are acceptable. Most of the area m question has been developed with a flag lot format, and all four proposed homes would be accessible from Stelling Road through a Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 12, 1996 reciprocal driveway access. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide a bond to ensure the care of the oak trees labeled I and 3. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and rezoning. The Planning Commassion's decision v,411 be forwarded to CiD' Council. NV. Cowun reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report. Referring to the site plan, Mr. Cowan reported the concept to take the two lots and create three lots and one remainder parcel which would be held by the owner and would not be part of the subdi~4sion. Staff would like to requJxe at least the sidewalk be continued across for public safety. The concept would be to have a common 18 foot wide driveway serve the properties in the rear with no access to Stelling so that cars for all three lots in the future development would back onto a common driveway. The remainder lot would be conditioned to require access as well. Referring to the overhead of the tree table, Mr. Cowan discussed what trees would be protected and what trees would be eliminated. Ms. Emily Chea, applicant, said that she was pleased with the staff recommendation and asked for the planning Commassion's support of the application. Regarding the houses fronting Stelling Road, she said that the two houses would ideally be face to face for the frontage. Com. Hams expressed concern about the houses facmg Stelling Road so that there is not a fence 20 feet back with an unkempt area along a mare attractive street. She questioned whether the issue should be raised when the subdivision is brought forward or a condition set forth now. ~Mr. Cowan responded that the zoning would have to be changed to a Planned Development zone because design of the home and fencing cannot be exercised. He said that use of the subdivision process to condition the home design is inappropriate. Discussion continued wherein Mr. Cowan answered Commissioners' questions. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Doyle said that Mr. Cowan's proposal on tree protection was appropriate. He said that he was in favor of preserving as many trees as possible but not impede property owners' flexibility. He said that resthcting access from Stelling should be part of the application; he said he would like to keep it to front yards, but not have to go to PD. He said that flag lots in this instance are appropriate and he would accept the proposal. Corns. Austin, Hams, Mahoney concurred with Com. Doyle's comments. ,Mr. Cowan noted that Ms. Chen had agreed to retain some small diameter oak trees not included in the survey. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to gnmt a Negative Declaration on ,application 34-EA-96 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application Nos. 9-Z-96 and 7-TM-96 with additions to the tree table; access to Stellmg Road; and according to the model resolution Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 12, 1996 Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 1%U-96 and 30-EA-96 Vincent and Connie Wong Same 10050 Imperial Avenue Use Permit to construct a 3,775 sq. fL building consisting of office and retail uses and an apartment. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct a combination one and two story building consisting of office and retail uses and an apartment on Imperial Avenue. It was noted that the area of Monta Vista is regarded as a special plannmg area and office, retail and residential are allowed uses for the parcel. Staff will present information on how the proposed project applies to the city's Monta Vista design guidelines. Approval of the project is recommended by staff and a determination will not be forwarded to the City Council, unless appealed. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, pointed out that there has not been any substantially new non- residential development in the Monta Vista area. He said that the proposal is consistent with the Monta Vista design guidelines as indicated in the staff report. Staff feels the only issue is the part in the old Monta Vista General Plan relative to shared access and shared driveways. A discussion ensued wherein Mr. Jung answered questions about parking and FAR. Mr. Vince Wong, applicant, said that he would also be an occupant of the building when it is completed. He explained that the front section of the building would be for commercial use and may be used in the future for a bagel outlet. Chair Roberts questioned if the applicant was concerned about the pesticide formulation company located next door. Mr. Wong said that he was not aware of the danger of the products used, but that the firewall should provide adequate protection fi.om direct contact. Mr. Jnng said that the fire district was aware of the uses surrounding property using any type of hazardous materials and had not expressed concerns. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. There wag consensus from the Planning Commissioners to support the application. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration on Application 30-EA-96 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application No. 19-U-96 Com. Hams Passed 5-0-0 Chair Roberts declared a recess at 8:45 p.m. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present. Planning Commission Minutes lo November 12, 1996 Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 4-GPA-96 and 23-EA-96 City of Cupertino Various Citywide General Plan Amendment to the land use and housing elements to redistr/bute residential potential among the planning districts and the undesignated classification. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HE~M~ING DATE: December 2, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996. Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell reviewed the reason the General Plan Amendment was being considered, stating that the two projects exceeded the 500 housing umts shown in the Vallco Park plan and staff recommended previously that if it was necessary to transfer units to that area. it would likely come fi.om the undesignated category which floats as it is needed and no General Plan Amendment would be needed. She said the issue relates to equity questions shown before, in that if for some reason the Planning Comrmssion or the City Council determined if no undesignated units were transferred and were kept at 500, there would be some equity issues raised as to the outcome of one or both of the projects. Mr. Cowan noted one finding made was that there was some concern about shifting 60 umts fi.om undesignated into the Vallco area, would it negate the ability of the scattered sights to build out, and staff attempted to demonstrate that it ~vould not. The infill pieces that had no other option other than residential could still develop. Ms. Wordell explained that the other issue was the Bubb Road and North DeAnza dislricts where there is not any residential activity there, perhaps we should consider transferring those into the undesignated category and three Commissioners indicated at the last meeting they were not interested in doing that. In response to Com. Austin's request, there was consensus to defer a decision on the General Plan Amendment until the Thompson Residential Company item was discussed. 10. Application No.(s): Applicant: Pi6peny O~vner: Location: 14-U96, 5oZ-96 and 21-EA-96 Thompson Residential Company Tandem Computers 10750 Wolfe Road Use Permit to construct 342 apartment units on 14 acres and rezone the property fi.om Planned Induslxial Zone P (MP) to Planned Residential P (RES). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: December 2, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996. Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. The item was continued fxom September 25 and October 28 Planning Commission meetings. The plamung Commissioners' concerns and recommendations fxom the previous meetings were reviewed. l?lanning Comraission Minutes l I November 12, 1996 Mr. Jung identified the exhibits displayed for the Commissioners' consideration. He discussed Schemes A, B and C which were the three different development schemes presented by the applicant to respond to concerns raised by the Planning Commissioners in previous meetings and answered Commissioners'questions. Mr. Jung also referred to the overhead of FAR compurisons of previous Council approvals, including Forge-Homestead, and Cupertino City Center and answered Commissioners' questions. In response to a question from Chair Roberts. Mr. Jung stated that the setbacks to the property line for the original proposal were 23 feet from Wolfe Road and 20 feet from Pnmeridge Avenue. Chair Roberts summarized that of the five areas of concentration outlined in the staff report, Items 2, 4 and 5 have had substantial changes, and Items I and 3 the changes are minor. Mr. William Thompson, Thompson Residential Co., said that two alternatives have been proposed to address the concerns expressed by the Planning Commissioners in the previous two Planning Cormmssion meetings. He said that the alternatives represent significant changes and have improved the proposed development. He said that if the circulation plan and the relafonship of the buildings in the original proposal was favorable, Plan B is the modification that responds to the Planning Commissioners' desires to increase setbacks, reduce building heights, increase landscaped open space. Plan C represents a more significant change in the building relationships and creates more landscaped area than Plan A or B. Landscaped open space has been significantly increased up to 5.6 acres, which is 43% of the site area in Plan B and 45% in Plan C. The Wolfe Road setbacks have been increased to 40 feet minimum from the curb in Plan B, and 95 feet by changing the location of Building 6 in Plan C. The Pruneridge setbacks are increased to a minim~ml of 40 feet from the curb and average 45 feet from the curb in Plans B and C. An attempt has been made to address the issue of the most prominent buildings at the intersection of Wolfe and Pnmeridge, which are buildings 5 and 6. An attempt has been made to reduce both the height and the mass in addition to increasing the setback. He summarized that the combination of the reduction of height, reduction in mass, and setbacks has a dramatic effect in terms of the appeal of die property from the street. Mr. Thompson said that the removal of the townhouse dormers reduced the roof height from 47 feet at the peak of the dormer to 42 feet on the ridge, and it is important to note that not only is the building setback increased, but the ridge is about 30 feet from the face of the building. He said that the screen of txees on Wolfe and Pnmeridge has been preserved because it is felt that they are an essential part of the plan and one of the most attractive features of the site. Overflow parking has been desigfied in the access easement to Ridgeview Court. Mr. Thompson requested the Planning comn~ssion's recommendation for approval of the project to the City Council. Mr. Alex Seidel, Seidel/Holzman, Architects, referred to the site plan, and reviewed Schemes A, B and C as outlined in the attached staff report. He noted that in un attempt to have a sense of landscape along Wolfe Road, a major arterial, Building 6 was rotated which created an extension of the pedesman greenspace system between the two buildings, emphasizing the pedestrian system being established on the site. Parking between the two buildings was also removed, creating a pleasing effect along Pnmeridge. The community garden at the comer of Wolfe and Pruneridge has become a major landscape space. Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Seidel passed around the model of the apartment complex and discussed the re¼sions made to the architecture, including the trellises, and awnings. In response to an earlier question from Com. Hams, Mr. Seidel explained that the difference between an on-grade parking garage and podium parking is podium parking is less efficient, because the drive aisle is in the garage, whereas if it is a podium. If it is on-grade, the drive aisle doesn't count as building area. Where an on-grade garage might be approximately 190 square feet, a typical parking space in a podium would calculate out at 340 square feet. A podium garage would give more square footage to park the same number of cars. He pointed out that the FAR may not vary significantly if including the square footage of the garage in the total calculation. Mr. Paul Lettieri, Guzardo & Associates, landscape architect, reviewed the common areas of Schemes B and C from landscape perspechves. He said they both have increased landscape areas, diverse courtyards, significant screening and continuity at the perimeter of the site, and both have a well developed entxy sequence and overflow of parking areas. He said that one of the things done on both schemes in the setbacks that have been increased along Pnmeridge, is there is another layer of tree planting possible which would be broad-leafed evergreen txees. He noted that Scheme A was more subtlely different from Scheme B with the increased setbacks and more open space; Scheme C is more dramatic fi.om the landscape perspective with larger open spaces, comer area is significantly larger with additional pedestxian paseos, with the community garden as a component. He illustrated photos of areas in the Park Place complex in Mountain View and discussed the similarities of the two developments. He discussed the concept of the commumty garden. Mr. Lettieri pointed out that both schemes offered a good balance of building, parking, landscape spaces and amenities. He noted there were still tot lots, picnic areas, community gardens, and unstructured open spaces. In closing, he said that it was an evolutionary process, starting out as a 500 umt project, with all podiums, high density and had evolved to the proposed plans which are more balanced and add to the value of Cupertino. In response to a question from Chair Roberts, Mr. Lettieri stated that some of the redwood trees along Wolfe Road could be preserved. Mr. Bruce Dmlh,an, Project Manager, Thompson Residential Co., reviewed issues of concern to the community that have been mitigated. He explained that the major issue relating to the school districts was resolved by taking the step to be annexed out of the Cupertino Union School District. He reported that the development would be annexed into the Santa Clara Unified School District, providing the closest elementaxy and junior high schools to the site. He said that the original site plan did not have the amenities included such as tot lots, picnic areas and recreational area, and the revised plan now supports the commumty living un the property. Relative to traffic, two major burdens hh~e been mitigated; one at the intersection of Wolfe and Prunefidge; and a secondary access by the Hewlett Packard site. He discussed the amemties of the complex with would draw residents to the site. Refernng to Com. Hams' earlier comments about the FAR, one of the reasons there was discussion on the FAR was Scheme A was originally calculated at .86 FAR which is considerably larger than the Citation, Corsica or Forge development. He said that it was important to remember that the context for the community is that it is surrounded by retail, commercial and office uses with no residential uses within 1/4 mile, and it will be creating its own residential community. He said that Hewlett Packard and Tandem Computers were supportive because they wanted their employees to have shorter commutes and work close to where they live. Planning Commission Minutes 13 lq c~c~6 Com. Doyle questioned the restrictions on the parking lot. Mr. Do~ finan responded that there was an easement with 1.4 acres of land, the easement being for access and egress to and from the site. He reported that Thompson was in the process of negotiating the improvement of the area with Sobrato _Mr. Don Peterson, SNK Multi Family, appealed on behalf of the development teem, appealed to the planning Commission to come to some resolution on the 500 unit allocation issue. He requested approval on the number that would accommodate both requests, and if any other actions are contemplated on the part of the planning Commission, both projects be treated equitably. He noted that both applications were submitted to the city on the same date, both projects were heard before the comrmssion; both developers have delivered their presentations before the comrmssion; and at the last Planning Commission meeting, the SNK application was heard and continued to December o for fi~rther investigation of commercial use on the Wolfe Road frontage. Mr, Peterson reported that a redesigned plan has been submitted to the city and will be presented December 9. Mr. Ernest Piccone, Director of Real Estate, Tandem Computers, expressed concern about the potential of putting Thompson Residential and Sand Hill Properties into an adversarial position, where they are competing for a limited number of units, stating that neither wants to be in that position. He said that previously the Planning ConUmssion stated informally that it was its opimon that each project should be considered on its own merits and not be impeded by the 500 unit !imitafon. He said that Tandem was supportive of proceeding in that manner and that a resolution by the Planning comnUssion formalizing that opinion would be supported by Tandem. He said there has been some discussion about the possibility of someone asking for more units within the Vallco Park area. He pointed out that other than the one resideace4ype lot remaining it was not likely to happen unless it occurs on Tandem properly. Mr. Cowan clarified that the General Plan as currently drafted allows either office R&D or housing, but the industrial credits for the site were transferred out several years ago. Tandem could retransfer development credits elsewhere to the property again. Both residential and industrial are permitted. Mr. Will Thompson, Thompson Residential. urged the Planning Commission's resolution of the pamcular issue. He said that in p.,5or meetings the Planning Commission had voiced support of the concept of approving the properties on their merit and addressing the issue of the unit count in the most sensible way. He said he felt his property cle~!y merl. ts the 342 anits requested. Chair Robert summarized that he felt the planning Commissioners were amenable to the concept of flexibility on the number of units and to consid?~ing indi,,4dual applications as they present themselveg' and on their individual merits, but were reluctant to c!o~ on it because it was felt it would be better to devote more attention to where those additional units would be drawn, whether they would be drawn from the undesignated or some specific area such as Bubb Road. Mj. Cowan said that the Plamning Commission had reached a conclusion that there is not a finite number in Vallco Park to cap, but Com. Doyle expressed concern about drawing down from other ~e, as and leaving some property owners with no potential development. He said it was not a problem becaose you can draw down from an undesignated pool. He sa-id it would be possible to clarify that the exact number of units in Vallco Park is not critical and each project would be evaluated on its own merits. Chair Roberts said that it could be recommended to City Council that if they were to make some adjustment to the total m~mber of units for the two projects or two applications that the Vallco Park Planning Commmion Minute.s 14 November 12, 1996 allocation wmdd be adjusted accordingly; a certain nnmber of units in Vallco Park cmfld be recommended. Com. Hams summarized that there is somewhere between 500 and 560 allowed with consideration for these two developments as they. finally play out. Chair Roberts said there wag the equiW ism~e; and it was his understanding the two applications be considered concurrently and refrain from seltling one without being prejudicial Mr, Thompson said that if the Planning Commission proceeds with Corn. Hams' recommendation that allows for con.qideration of between 500 and 560 units depending on what is approved on either or both of these two propertie~ it accomplishes a purpose and wmdd no longer be neces~saW that the two properties be considered at the same time which may have the practice effect of shortening the meetings, Ms, Wordell clarified that staff had ~mjgested that they. would interpret if transferring any additional units from the nndesignated categow, that no General Plan Amendment is required; that the cap on Vallco is 500 but if transferring in units, the General Plan would not need amending to allow more units because thy were transferred fi.om an ~mdesignated categow. There would be no action on the General Plan Amendment. If the majori~ agreed that no action would be taken on Bubb Road or DeAnzg Blvd., there would not be a General Plan action, Com. Hams recallgd that at the last Planning Commission, those three Commissioners present agreed not to change to Bubb Road allocation but North DeAnza Blvd. was not resolved, Chair Roberts said that it was agreed that the Planning Commission was not ready to act and it would be considered together with the General Plan review, Com. Harris expressed concern about taking it out of the nndesignated if it actually ended up ne. ga:ling 60, Ms. Wordell ~;id that the recommendation to the Council would be not to amend the General Plan. A lengthy discur.*ion ensued wherein staffanswered Commis.sioners' questions, MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com, Mahon~ moved to approve the Negative Declaration on AppLication No. 23-EA-96 Com. ~m'yis Passecl 5-0-0 Com. Mahoney moved to amend Application 4-GPA-96 to amend the General Plan ~ecifi ,lying that the 500 units allocated for the Vallce P~rk area can be moved up to no more than 560 units if and only if those additional units are necessary, for these two specific projects. Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Mr, Piccone said that he sap[mrted the application. He addressed Tandem's perspective on housing as a large employer in the area. Daring the last General Plan review: Tandem supported the concept of residential development in the Vallco Park area recognizin8 that at lenst some of the residential units approved would end up on Tandem's proper~. Even when there was a downturn in the valley, there was concern on Tandem's part about the jobs/housing imbalance which was remfifing in insafficient housing for employees, anaffordable housing, traffic congestion resulting from people Planning Commission Minutes ~ 5 November 12, 1996 having to commme to and fi.om work, and all the quality of life issues which makes it difficult to attract and retain the kinds of employees we need for the company. Since that time the condition has worsened; the high tech industry has renewed its strong growth and is hiring new employees at a rapid rate. Recent publicity indicates that a substantial number of jobs are being added each month and the number of people commuting into the valley has increased dramatically. He said it was their belief that not providing additional housing is not going to solve those problems. Although high tech workers are generally well paid, many of them cannot find a place to live in the valley because of a lack of dwelling units today, and they cannot afford the alternative to buy. As a result of that they are forced to seek other areas in which to live and are faced with the prospect of a horrendous commute. Tandem is not alone among the employers in the valley that are concerned about the housing crunch and the effect it will have on our abihty to attract the lifeblood of our industry. Even with the amount of residential consmaction going on today there is no information indicating that supply will match demand in the near future. Understanding that any development needs to comply with the requirements of the commtmity in which it is located, we strongly feel that providing housing is important to the continued vitality of the valley and should be encouraged. Chair Roberts retm-ned to agenda Item 10. Chair Roberts summarized that alternatives have been discussed representing a conscientious effort to comply. He reported that three Planning Commissioners reviewed Altumative A previously and offered guidance expressed in the five points in the staff report. Two Planning Commissioners were not present and may wish to review the points. Com. Austin commented on a recent San Jose Mercury News statement that Santa Clara County needed 50,000 umts in the county to meet the incoming jobs. The Governor has stated that class size for grades I through 3 will go to 20 students. She said that she was a proponent of affordable housing, and apartments are the way to accomplish that. She said there has not been an apartment built in Cupertino since 1969. She said she was in favor of the last one; but Alternative C was outstanding. She said that the Goals Committee wanted to put residential units along the transit corridors and this project is in line with hat the comrmttee recommended. Com. Doyle said that he is not convinced it is an urban downtown type of development on a mass transmit type comdor. Although it is on Highway 280, it is not mass n-ansit. He said he did not buy into the 4 sto~y type density level of 25. There have been developments in this type of areas where we have gone with 20 unit per acre which is more appropriate. Relative to the amenities, a 2700 square foot community center for a 450,000 square toot development is a small percentage. He said parking should meet the parking ordinances; these numbers have been used and every one that we made an exception on has come back to haunt us. He pointed out that the parks in the area were low, and there should be assurance that the ousite amemties available are adequate to support this project, and he said he felt what he saw for 340 families isa't substantial. Relative to setback of heights, something in the ratio of 1.5 setback to height is an appropriate ratio. He said that the architecture was repetitive and he had not seen improvement since the last time. He said that the idea of development shitt/ng which was discussed leads him to say that we should come back and do similar to what was done on the Tandem sites with City Center and look at what development allocations are there, what has been shit'ted and what is still available to solidify it; otherwise the same thing that occurred in City Center will occur, because the same statements are being made. He said he did not support the project as it stands today. Com. Doyle said that Scheme C was in the right direction, but at 340 units, the access to the site was not adequate. Planning Commission Minutes 16 November 12, 1996 Com. Mahoney said that most of the issues have been resolved. He said he did not feel it was an urban development style, and he had no problems with the densities as proposed. He said that he preferred Scheme C. Lowering the building heights in the front and moving the big ones to the center will take care of any feeling of too high density. He said the parking was appropriate. Com. Hams said that she favored Scheme C, that flipping the building was creative. She felt all the issues were not dealt with; the building heights were not lowered fi.om 3 and 4 stories to 2 and 3 stories except for building 5. What was done with building 5 was effective and suitable for all perimeter buildings 3, 4, 5, part of 6, 7, and the buildings in the center were apropos (1, 2, 10 and most of 6) to have the lofts and that all perimeter buildings should be done as building 5 was done. She said the FAR was appropriate without the podium garage. She said she liked the new arrangement for landscaped area and surface parking and a reduction in the garage space on the surface. She said she preferred fewer carports and would prefer the carports have pitched roofs instead of flat roofs. The parking issue was not addressed. She said it would be appropriate to add another podium building because she would like to see the parking standard adhered to which is two per umt, which would require more parking spaces. The community garden in the interior is fmc if people plant there. She said the one on the prominent intersection should not be a place where people grow herbs or vegetables. The landscape area on the comer should be maintained by the complex and should be a park-like are for the residents of the complex. She said she was aware that it was an issue of gemng the credit for that area and she said whatever is necessary, she would like to have it done as an architectural feature. As far as the amemties, she said she concurred with Com. Doyle that 2700 square feet for a recreation building was small, only one pool; and she would like to see more amenities along those lines. The greenspace is good. She aid she was close to approval but still see the txvo main issues of parking and the height of the buildings around the exterior. She said that she thought when the heights were brought down, the number of units would change, but it did not. She said the architecture is vew atlxactive. Chair Roberts agreed that Scheme C was closer to the solution he was seeking. He said he would prefer a lower density and in particular a lower height around the major thoroughfares. He said he would like to see more attention given to the comers of buildings 6 and 7. He expressed concern about the parking issue bemuse there is no possibility of overflow onto either thoroughfare; and would like to address the parking more specifically. He expressed concern also about the parks and recreation situation in the area~ He said the pool was not a private space und the residents may not feel comfortable using it with other residents peering down fi.om 3 or 4 story buildings. Chair Roberts agreed that 2700 square feet for a clubhouse was small for a community of its size. More attention should be paid to the carports as they were not the quality constant with the architecture. He said that Alternative C was otherwise a step in the right direction although staff has not had much time to consider what deserves closer attention. He said he was not ready to approve it in its present form and with its present level of detail. Ms. Wordell listed the issues of concern: (1) Level of amenities relative to density; (2) Parking; (3) Density relative to transit access; (4) Repetitive architecture; (5) Access limits - Wolfe & Pnmeddge; (6) Lower heights on periphery buildings; (7) Pitch roofs on carports. Chair Roberts said that relative to density, he would like to see smaller buildings around the periphery and decrease a few milts. Com. Harris said that building heights and parking were issues with three of the Comrmssioners; recreation space was mentioned by three ComnUssioners; three Cormmssioners were concerned about the carports. Com. Mahoney said the recreational space issue was not a major concern for him. Chair Roberts said that parking should be considered more carefully. Com. Doyle said that when the General Plan review is completed, there needs to be a Planning Commission Minutes 17 November 12, 1996 message sent because the next planning comes in not at 340, but 500. He said that 20 units per acre was more suitable and in line with what has been involved in. the past and these areas. Com. Doyle said that relative to the repetitive architecture, the level of detail end quality is appropriate. Com. Doyle asked that staff submit the map showing the City of Cupertino broken down into regions and amount of park space illustrated. Com Harris requested that the parking study at different developments throughout Cupertino be included in the packet also. Mr. Thompson expressed his willingness to discuss end resolve the issues at the meeting rather then continue the item. Relative to the parking, ~Mr. Thompson suggested either adding another podium parking or get a shared agreement with the Hewlett Packard building next door. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Thompson agreed to commit to pitched roof carports, with a review of the design at the end of the landscape plan. Referring to Scheme C, he agreed that the townhouse element would be removed from buildings 3, 4, end 5 end be the design presented this evening; other buildings will have the townhouses. Parking will be two per unit. Relative to the issue of amenities, Mr. Thompson asked that his business judgment be masted as the staff has had the opportunity to rex4ew thp_._ nrr~n~pdr.~r~' .............. ~m,~ifi~,e ~nd tho, za ..... h~,,~ been judged adequate by staff. He pointed out that he had experience in developing 16 similar properties, totaling 4,000 units end was sensitive to providing the prospective residents with the amenities that they request end use, and the amenities important to the developer from a marketing perspective. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to grent a Negative Declaration for Application 2 I-EA-96 Harri..'s Chair Roberts Passed 4-1-0 MOTION: SECOND: AYES: NOES: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to approve .Applications 5-Z-96 end 14-U-96 with Scheme C as presented this evening, with buildings 3, 4 end 5 having no lofts; parking at two per unit including possibility of achieving it through a podium or shared parking agreement with immediate adjacent property owner; caxports to have pitched roofs with roof covers similar to main stmctares Com. Mahoney Com. Hams, Mahoney, Austin Com. Doyle, Chair Roberts Passed 3-2-0 Com. Doyle requested that staff prepare a summary of allocations end what has been. used to d~t~te. NEW BUSINESS Il. Housing Conference Report from Andrea Hams on the Housing Conference Meeting of October 23, 1996. Com. Hams presented a report on the October 23 Housing Conference meeting. She stated that the major thrust of the meting was the housing issues because of the serious housing and jobs imbaience. She said that conversion from industrial to residential was discussed, end that there w~ a proposal to convert 50% of the park end ride lots to high rise apartments with the hope that the residents will use the transit system. She explained that the Tarmen Center houses a Clflld care center with retail for diy cleaning, take out food, etc., and a similar center is planned for Ohlone/Chynoweth station to Planning Commission Minutes ~ s November 12, 1996 meet that community need. She also reported on high density projects proposed for San Jose with 50 units to the acre. 12. Consideration of cancellation of December 23, 1996 Planning conmUssion Meeting. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus to discuss the need for a second December meeting at the December 9th meeting. MOTION: SECOND: PASSED: OLD BUSINESS - None Com. Austin moved that the planmng Commission not meet on December 23, 1996. Com. Hams Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Cowan reported on the recent meeting of the Santa Clara County Association of Planning Directors he hosted. He said the meeting was well attended as the major issue discussed was the streamlining of Planning Commission meetings. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:02 a.m. on November 13, 1996, to the special Planning Commission of November 19, 1996. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: November 25, 1996