Loading...
PC 04/24/95CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 j42.81 777-3308NINU'FES Old 1E REGU PLANHI ETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1995 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE To THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Vime cChrHarris. Roberts co. Com. Austin Commissioners absent: Chr. Doyle Com. Mahoney Staff present' Robert Cowan, Director of community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 27, 1995 - Regular meeting. Com. 1. 2. 3. 4. Harris amended the minutes of March 27, 1995 as follows: Page 4, 3rd paragraph, change the word "would" to ,could". Page 7, 3rd paragraph, add the words "at the time: the subdivision map is approved" to the first sentence. "Com. Page 10, 3rd paragraph, the first sentence sentence. Harris suggested creating an L-shaped parking area along the area to gain more regular south wall and along the easement of parking spaces rather than adding more compact spaces. Paqe 16, any reference to "Adrain" should read "Adrian". MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of March 27, 1995, as amended. Com. Harris 3-0-2 Passed Mahoney, Doyle WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FRO14 CALEJ"DAR asco & ASSOC-v 11837 and Item 4: Application 1-EXC-95, Carr 11841 Upland Way - Reuest continuance to the q Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 1995 81,004.3.8 and 3-EA-95, City Of Item 5: Application No. Cupertino, Citywide - Request continuance to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 1995. Item 7: Housing mitigation Manual - Request cont . inuance to May 22, 1995. H PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 1995 Page 2 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to continue items 4 and 7 to the meeting of May 22, 1995 and item 5 to the meeting. of May 8, 1995. Con. Harris Passed 3-0-2 Doyle, Mahoney ORAL CONK[UNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 1. Application No(s): 1-ASA-95 Applicant:--- -- - - - E-.-- Paul- Duncan Property Owner: Same Location: 10215 - 10235 S. De Anza Blvd. Architectural review for an awning and for a sign exception to allow more than one wall sign in accordance with Section 17.24.050 of the Cupertino Rtaff Planning Director Cowan presented the staff e report and noted the request is for an architectural modification to the building to allow for an awning. Mr. Cowan presented photos of the proposed awning. He stated staff supports the awning and color with notation that the awning be extended. Con. Harris addressed the Radio Shack sign which was not in compliance, Mr. Cowan stated the letters will be reduced and it will then be in compliance. Con. Austin asked, how this relates to the Steven Creek Conceptual Plan? Mr. Cowan stated this particular building follows the building design guidelines and not the streetscape. App Mr. Scott Blair, Blair Sign Programs, stated he accepts the recommendations of staff and noted he has drawings to reflect the design. Mr. Blair noted the color will be deep red. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding the difference in the Petco and Radio Shack sign, Mr. Blair stated both tenants followed their design requirements and it looks better as proposed. MOTION: Con. Austin moved to approve 1-ASA-95 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. SECOND: Com. Harris Aft VOTE: Passed 3-0-2 W t s,.::t ,i 4 ,�:4 r .g ,sz .'—H _. 1 r:. i. .. - -., 5+.•s �. rei'€ l __ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 1995 Page 3 ABSENT: Mahoney, Doyle 2. Application No(s): 9-U-94 (Modification) Applicant: Forge/Homestead Property Owner: Charles O. Forge/Eileen Hutching Co. Trustee Location: 20691 Homestead Road Administrative approval for architectural review and recommendation from the Planning Commission for an administrative approval of a minor change in a project in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. staff presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report noting when the Planning Commission approved this project they approved 204 units by reducing some of the three story buildings to two story on the perimeter. He reviewed the changes and -also the changes in the picnic area and pool as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Cowan stated the decision of the Planning Commission should be a report to the Council. ApDlicgnt presentation: Mr. Jim Sisk stated he will answer any questions. Ile noted there have been no changes in the parking. Com. Austin stated the applicant has followed the direction of the Planning Commission and would approve as recommended. Com. Harris concurred. MOTION: Com. Harris moved to recommend approval. of the modification and refer to the City Council for review. SECOND: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed 3-0-2 ABSENT: Mahoney, Doyle ABSENT: Doyle, Mahoney 3. Application No(s): 3-ASA-95 Applicant: Curtiss and Barbara Komen Property Owner: Same Location: 11.218 Stauffer Ln. Architectural review for a single family home located in a Planned Development. 5-t ff nre.... n: City Planner Wordell presented the staff report noting the use permit for Seven Springs requires architectural review for each of the custom lots. She outlined the AM location of the lot and reviewed the proposal including the lot PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 1995 Page 4 size, house size and the slope. Ms. Wordell presented the elevation maps noting this is a single story residence. She added that there are two areas where the proposed residence is not consistent with.the RHS ordinance. One is the flat yard area which exceeds the 2000 sq. ft. in the ordinance, she noted some of the pathways and lawn are contoured so they would not be counted in the 2000 sq. ft. Ms. Wordell noted a condition added indicates that the applicant must show that they do not have a flat yard area greater than 2000 sq. ft. The second inconsistency is the orientation of the residence, noting the residence is at a slight angle to the contours but staff believes is not significant. Ms. Wordell passed around the color board noting the colors do meet the reflectivity requirements and are appropriate for this area. She -added that there have been some problems in processing the application, noting the applicant submitted building plans without knowing they had to go through the architectural review process. Staff apologized to the applicant and noted they are recommending approval. Ih response to Commissioners questions Ms. Wordell made the following comments: • She outlined the location of the fault line and the riparian corridor. • If the applicant is grading to achieve a flat surface this area would be counted. • Tree cover in the riparian area is thick and the residence would be screen-d from Seven Springs. • The rear elevation is 6-8 ft. above ground. Ms. Wordell presented a photo showing the view from the lot to Seven Spring. The public hearing was opened. AR,jcant presentation: Mr. David Pruette presented a rendering showing the landscaping proposed. He noted there will be some modifications to the preliminary landscaping plan. Mr. Pruette addressed condition 3 regarding the landscaping. He noted they have a letter from the landscape architect indicating the .plans will be in conformance. Mr. Cowan suggested "...prior to occupancy permit.11 be added to condition 3 to address Mr. Pruette's concerns. Com. Harris expressed concern and asked why make an exception for this applicant? Ms. Wordell stated the applicant has been held back through no fault of their own. In response to Com. Roberts' question, Mr. Pruette stated there are medical conditions which require a one level home. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 1995 Page 5 The public hearing -was closed. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve 3-ASA-95 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the modification to condition 3 as addressed above. SECOND: Com. Harris VOTE: Passed 3-0-2 ABSENT: Mahoney, Doyle OLD BUSINESS 6. Report to Council: Application No(s): 3-U-95 Applicant: Central Fire District Property Owner: Same Location: Vista and Randy Drive north of Stevens Creek Blvd. USE PERMIT to replace and expand an existing fire station on an adjacent parcel. Staff presentation: City Planner Wordell presented the staff report noting the Planning Commission recommended denial of the previous plan. The Fire District submitted a revised plan to the City Council who then asked that it be returned to the Planning Commission for review. Ms. Wordell reviewed the location of the proposed fire station noting the surrounding uoes are commerclul and residential. She reviewed the differences in the new and previous plan as outlined in the staff report. She stated the benef i•ts of the new plan are as follows: • As 'she engines depart can Vista Drive they are further from the residents. • By moving the apparatus room they eliminated the need for the 17 ft. wing wall. The ladder tuck can be parked and used as a buffer for most testing. • Response times to the east exceed the current station by 13 seconds; to the west they are less 5 seconds, and the weighted average exceeds the current station by 3 second. Ms. Wordell noted the materials proposed are the same and staff is recommending approval. She also pointed out that it will be a condition of approval that the ladder truck rust be used for noise screening as addressed above. Com. Harris questioned the location of the glass on the building, and Com. Roberts addressed the neighbors plan which angles the driveway? AOL PLANNING CONNISSION MINUTES IF April 24, 1995 Pace 6 The public hearing was opened. Applicant _presentation: Chief Doug Sporeleder, Central Fire District, stated after the last hearing they worked on a plan to address the concerns of the neighbors and the City. He stated they want to move off Stevens Creek Blvd, to stop the mid -block maneuvering and backing into the station when returning. He noted they also want to improve the facility and remain in operation while the new facility is being built. He added they wanted to limit the impact on the existing business in order to hold down the costs. He stated the safety issue is what they are trying to accomplish by moving away from the mid -block entry. He noted they met with neighborhood groups and feel the movement they have made with this plan is significant and has improved the situation. Mr. Glen Bower, Architect, noted the revised design has addressed many of the concerns raised by staff and the neighbors. He added they are proposing a one story building which integrates into the neighborhood, as does the roof line, which enable the mechanical equipment to be hidden. He stated the materials proposed are stucco with some brick and the color is reminiscent of what is in the neighborhood. He pointed out the location of the glass in response to Com. Harris' question. Mr. Bower reviewed the landscaping plap noting with the new plan, it allows for more landscaping. Com. Harris suggested vines on the brick portion of the building which fronts Vista Drive. In response to Com. Roberts question regarding the angle of the 'driveway, Mr. Bower stated depending upon the angle of the driveway it could make the turning movements going north difficult. He noted the exit driveway has been moved south of the nearest resident to address the headlights shining into homes. Com. Harris suggested a redesign of the roof line to the brick portion of the building, Mr. Bauer stated they have no )bjections to a redesign of this roof line. Com. Roberts addressed the orientation of the driveway, Chief Sporeleder stated they have tested the orientation and what they proposed is the best solution. He noted it will also accommodate future growth. Chief Sporeleder addressed a possible fronting on Stevens Creek Blvd., and noted the more they encroach on the existing business the more costly it will be and there is the concern of the mid - Amok block entrance/exit, which is not normal practice. He added from PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 1995 Page 7 the view of traffic safety, it would be safer to come out on Vista Drive and come down to the intersection at Stevens Creek Blvd. Mr. Donn Kinne, President, Vista Gardens Homeowners Association, noted there is a consensus in the City that Cupertino is hard to develop in. He noted that a Council person met with the Fire District and warned them that they would have neighborhood objections. He -noted a group of .homeowners spent the weekend reviewing the Heart of the City concept. He stated a group of neighbors also met with the Fire District in November and March and voiced their objections and if there is a way to avoid this situation it should be avoided. He pointed out that if this was a private application it would not be allowed. Mr. Kinne presented slides showing the surrounding neighborhood including the car dealership next to the existing fire station. He presented two alternative plans and noted one proposal is less costly than the Fire District's proposal. He stated there was strong feeling expressed in the community for an exit onto Stevens Creek Blvd. He believes this in an opportunity to implement the Heart of City concept. He added they are not asking the Fire District to not improve their facility, but they should at least study a Stevens Creek Blvd. entrance. He urged the Planning 40 Commission to vote no on the project as proposed and noted the neighbors are against any use of Vista Drive. for fire engines. Mr. Ronald Jacoby, President, Joseph Park Homeowners Association, reviewed the Cupertino City codes rioting that development will not be allowed if detrimental. to public safety. He presented information on the response time from the proposed station and compared it with an entrance on Stevens Creek Blvd. He stated in two of the residents plans the building and technology is the same.. Mr. Jacoby also gave a presentation on noise comparing the residents proposal and the Fire District's proposal. After reviewing the noise study dated 1/23/95, Mr. Jacoby stated that the fire station will violate City codes. He believes the residents have proposed a plan which meets all the concerns raised. He noted they appreciate all the improvements made by the Fire District, but the Commission should push them to find the best alternative. Ms. Mavis Smith, Majestic Oak Way, stated it is difficult to predict how many calls the fire department will. receive and from what direction. She stated she is concerned that they are getting into a situation where they are looking at effects that might happen, but have lost sight of the purpose of the fire station. She stated the fire station she lives by causes oo problems and the first response to medical emergencies are the tire fighters. She stated these are, extraordinary people who work at the fire station PLANNING COMMISSION KINUTE3 April 24, 1995 Page 8 and this is no ordinary building, but an emergency service which everyone may need at some time. Ms. Smith stated she would like to see the Fire District have what they want, and wants to know from the fire truck drivers which turns are the best and the response time. Ms. Janie Phillips, 20192 Joseph Circle, stated the proposal to move the fire station into her backyard changes the noise levels. She stated she would like to see the entrance/exit stay on Stevens Creek Blvd. She also noted the lights from the trucks returning will shine into her bedroom. Mr. Earl Pennington, 10109 Randy Ln., stated he is representing his mother who owns property adjacent to the proposed entrance of the fire station. He noted when he spoke in March he was against the proposal because of the fire trucks using the alleyway. Ile notes: the Fire District cannot please all people all of the time and believes they have done a good job addressing the neighbors concerns. He stated he would support this project as proposed and would recommend approval. Mr. Ross Quinn, 20261 Reinell Pl., stated he requested at the last meeting that the Fire District not use Vista Drive and this has not been addressed. He noted Vista Drive is a narrow street and there is no light to stop traffic when the engines exit. He expressed concern about the impact on the normal traffic flow on Vista Drive and noted the exit and return should be ca, Stevens Creek Blvd. Ms. Gay Fisher, 20263 Cartwright Way, stated in March they had concerns about noise, lights and safety on a street that already has limited access. She noted she has further concerns about the Fire District's attitude towards the neighbors. She stated the residents proposal has not been seriously looked at and the objections to it have been weak. She noted there will be a traffic impact from this station. Ms. Fisher stated the noise problem has not been addressed.adequately and has not heard anything about pre- empters. She urged the Commission to consider an alternative plan with an exit onto Stevens Creek Blvd. Ms. Wanda Schenck, 20182 Joseph Circle, stated the lights from the trucks' will go into her bedroom window when returning. She stated it is her understanding that both the Monta Vista and Seven Springs station are mid -block entrances. She noted in both instances the trucks turn in their own driveway and in two of ache plans proposed by the residents, they plan for this. Mr. John Statton, Chamber of Commerce, stated whenever development occurs in the community there are many concerns. Ile noted PLANNING CONNISSION MINUTES April 24, 1995 Page 9 purchasing the property next door raises the cost to a prohibited manner. He noted Cupertino needs a new fire station and this is critical. He stated from the Chamber's point of view, if this location is the best, and the mitigations proposed by the Fire District shows good faith to address the concerns of the neighbors, the Chamber urges support of the Fire Yistrict's proposal. Mr. Bob West, 20232 Joseph Circle, addressed his letter dated April 1995 and the plan proposed by him and his wife as outlined in the staff report. Mr. West reviewed his chart titled ,site Selection for Cupertino Fire Station" attached to his letter. Com. Harris asked the Fire Chief to respond to the comments regarding the lights from the return vehicles. Chief Sporeleder stated the engines will be on low beam and there is a 9 ft. wall and does not believe the light will hit the residents. He also explained the safety issues regarding the exit and noted it will be much safer to come out on Vista Drive. He added they can control the signal lights at the intersection. Com. Roberts asked if the engines could make a turn on their driveway. Chief Sporeleder stated this maneuver can be done, but they have an alternative which can avoid •this. In response to the public's questions and alternative plans, Mr. Bower reviewed both the homeowners plan and Mr. West's plan as well as studying a Stevens Creek exit at length. He stated the ladder truck cannot come in off Stevens Creek and back into the apparatus room unless they make several turns, this would be a problem in the neighbors plans. He noted the problems with the Vista Park Homeowners plan are the following: Path of truck travel will impact the neighbors Traffic conflict. No room for employee deck • Remote corner of station affect: operation efficiency . Minimal setbacks - - Existing business conflict • No barriers possible fo::- noise mitigation. Mr. Bower stated the Fire District's proposal will address the noise for testing the equipment. In response to comments, Chief Sporbleder reiterated again that Stevens Creek is a main arterial and the entrance of emergency equipment on this street is not normal practice. He. added the light system causes the engines to pause. Mr. Mike Block, Director of Business Services, addressed the response time as outlined by Mr. Jacoby. He noted Mr. Jacoby did PLA? KING cownssION MINUTES April 24, 1995 Page 10 not mention barriers or traffic which need to be taken into account when calculating response time. He noted the engines will not go out onto Stevens Creek until it is safe and all lanes of traffic have stopped, this can take up to 10 seconds. He reviewed the response time from the new station as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Block stated he can't over -emphasize how dangerous it is getting out onto Stevens Creek Blvd., and there is less traffic on Vista Drive. Mr. Stan Shelly,. Acoustical Consultant, stated that some of the incidents which occur at the station, which are related to emergency response, are exempted from the ordinance so there is no attempt to mitigate them. He stated they will mitigate those incidents which occur during the testing. He stated in the old plan there were 3 bedroom windows that were in direct view of the at:p testing, but in the new plan the testing room will be further awey and the distance does mitigate what the wing wall provided. He stated after the initial study they did go back and do additional mitigations and noted the noise testing will be mitigated as outlined in his report. Coma Roberts asked if there is a contingency plan in case the noise is not mitigated. Mr. Shelly stated the Fire District has made the commitment to meet the noise standards. Ms. Wordell stated the condition for noise reads "The portable engine testing shall meet the noise ordinance standards" and if there is -a problem the Planning Commission can require additional noise testing. Com. Harris stated Mr. Jacoby°s report -indicated that every piece of equipment exceeds the decibel level allowed. Ms. Wordel.l stated in the report from Stan Shelly dated,February, the siren exceeded for 1/2 second, but these are exempt. He stated staff will work with Mr. -acoby and review his figures. Chief Sporeleder stated he wants to assure the neighbors and the Commission that they do strive to be a good neighbor and will respond to noise complaints and address these. Ms. Sandy Sloan, Attorney, stated the Fire District did seriously consider the plans submitted by neighbors but the fact remains that the neighbors are not happy because they do not want the station to front onto Vista :give. She stated there are two serious problems with the plans rt-:,,,nsed by the neighbors. First the district does not want to contijik_ - �Jt.`Lng in mid -block onto Stevens Creek as addressed by Chief Spot-Aeder. Second the district is not willing to take en existing rnriving business. She noted it is extremely Ask seriuu� for a governmental agency to take private property. She PLANA;IMG COMMISSI®M MINUTES April 24, 1995 Page 11-- stated they tried to work with the property owner, but could not work anything out and therefore were left with the situation that the district wants to take vacant land. She added the Fire District is trying to be sensitive to both the business and residents, but only taking land from the business. Ms. Sloan stated there are two legitimate business on this property and when taking a business they have to consider not only the value of the land, but also the value of the business. If they affect business seriously, they are responsible to relocate the business. She noted they have no expertise or money to do this. She explained severance damages and noted this is a concern. She stated the district cannot afford to take or disrupt an on -going business. Regarding the Heart of the City concept, Ms. Sloan stated the Heart of the City calls for medium to high :density residential on this lot or perhaps a mixed -use. She noted affordable housing would be appropriate on Stevens Creek Blvd. and would be buffered by the fire station. She added the living quarters in the fire station will be close to the residential and the apparatus room will be next to commercial. She pointed.out that this property is .zoned commercial. Ms. Sloan stated when the trucks come out on Vista Drive the siren would not be tilrried on until they hit Stevens Creek Blvd. She urged approval of the plan. In response to Com. Roberts question, Ms. Sloan stated the proposal has 'moved the property line down 20 ft. and is still in the vacant land. She stated this does not affect the legitimate business. Chief Sporeleder stated this has been a frustrating process and they attempted to find a solution to make everyone happy. The public hearing was closed. Com. Harris stated she appreciates all the work done by the Fire District and the neighbors. She spoke in support of the revised plan submitted by the Fire District and had the following comments: • The new plan addresses concerns of the neighbors Using the Randy access for personnel reduces the impact • Increasing the setback from residential is significant and supports the elimination of the wing wall. • Supports the relocation of the apparatus room. • Response time satisfactory. • Noise Mitigations will be met and conditions required are adequate. • Mid -block access may have been useful at one time, but not as safe to cross this road. • Concern about the brick building on the front of the station - not aesthetic and should be addressed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINDTES April 24, 1995 Page 12 Com. Austin concurred that this plan is better and has addressed many of the concerns of the neighbors. She expressed concern about the exit and asked if the lights could be left on low beam when exiting onto Vista Dr. She spoke in support of the nine foot wall to address the lights from the return vehicles. She spoke in support of the plan as proposed. She noted she has no objections to the brick work. Com. Roberts stated the revised proposal has vastly improved and for most of the reasons addressed by Com. Harris he would also support an approval. He believes after hearing the testimony from the Fire District it may be unsafe to exit onto Stevens Creek Blvd., and with reluctance will abandon the idea of an exit onto Stevens Creek Blvd. He noted the function of the ;Fire District and, the implications of public safety should be the top consideration. He stated he would also support revising the brick wall as addressed by Com. Harris. Cam. Roberts requested a condition requiring large trees to be planted at the end of the re-en".ry alley to address the light problem addressed by neighbors. Com. Harris and Com. Austin concurred. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to send a report to City Council recommending approval of the project as proposed by the Wire District adding conditions to redesign the brick wall with an eye to aesthetic and trees be planted to provide screening from the returningvehicles. SECOND: Com. Harris VOTE: Passed 3-0-2 ABSENT: Mah.-3ney, Doyle REPORT OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION Com. Harris expressed concern about the comments made by the consultant on the meact of the City Concept, regarding no consideration given to proposed land uses when the tree selection was determined and he would never use oak, ash ..ad pear with the land uses proposed. She hopes this wild: be discussed further. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DE"I,OPMENT Com. Harris addressed the Forge/Homestead project. Mr. Cowan stated the Council will make a final vote at there next meeting. He stated if denied,a new plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Com. Farris addressed Hunter Properties, Mr. Cowan stated 'hQre was no clear cut agreement with the property owners and if the � .r'y r r! -s �ij..v kt •rc '�,. .fir � N �., G p�•*�`' !;/f �``LY .vjt� �a � i «'�"' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 1995 Page 13 .� owners don't agree they can fall back to the two driveway cuts with a proviso that if there is leverage from the property to the east this can be restructured. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None The Commission briefly discussed the agenda for future meetings. ADJOURNxIENT The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. to the special meeting of May 4, 1995, at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted Catherine M. Robillard Minutes Clerk