Loading...
PC 04-12-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES April 12, 2004 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY The Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Marty Miller Angela Chen Lisa Giefer Staff present: Community Development Director City Planner Senior Planner Senior Planner Assistant City Attorney Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Colin Jung Peter Gilli Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the March 8, 2004 Planning Commission meeting: Com. Wong: Page 1, under Commissioners present, should read Commissioner Angela Chen instead of Gilbert Chen. On page 9, Taghi Saadati should be listed as the chairperson. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong to approve the March 8, 2004 minntes as amended, (Vote: 5-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. EXC-2003-03, EA-2003-10 Ray Nezhad 22551 Ricardo Rd., Lot 3 Hillside exception to construct a new 3,338 square foot residence on slopes greater than 30% Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 12, 2004 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Mr. Colin lung, Senior Planner: Application is for a hillside exception to allow a 3,300 square residence in an R-l zone where the slopes are greater than 30% in certain portions of the lot Deodar cedar shown on the aerial map is listed in staff report as being retained The two main issues with the project were geotechnical concerns and tree protection and privacy landscaping The city geologist was concerned about slope of the property and the effects that would have on the development of the property . Geologist was also concerned about the location of the Monta Vista fault The letters and studies done by the applicant's geotechnical consultant were reviewed by the City geologist. There is no evidence that Monta Vista fault runs through property Issues of slope and other geotechnical concerns could be addressed with a pier and grade beam foundation Trees presented on page A-2 of the plan set as "existing trees" have been removed. The only existing tree is the 26" Deodar Cedar located at the front of the house Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration for the project and for the hillside exception Another mature Deodar Cedar had been located in the center of the footprint of the house. Removal was approved by the City a couple of years ago. Approval was conditional upon the applicant planting three 36" box Deodar Cedars in the rear yard. Staff recommends that the privacy landscape plan be amended to include the three trees required as part of tree removal. Staff suggests that applicant confer with adjacent property owner to see if tree placement should be changed to allow more sunlight into yard for neighbor's garden area Chairperson Saadati: Asked for questions from the commissioners Com. Miller: Since a lot of information was given in the staff repo:t concerning the trees and landscaping, asked if the commissioners need to cover the material in Barry Coates' report Mr. lung: . Explained that the trees that were removed were not protected by ordinance. They were oak trees which were under-sized, and a Douglas Fir, which is not on the protected list Com. Miller: The environmental report checked "Potential Landslides" Said he did not see any justification for that and there was no mitigation for that Mr. lung: The potential landslides has to do with the fact that the house will be located on a steeper slope and its adjacency to the Monta Vista fault The geologist mitigates these hazards with the foundation system and the type of drainage system, using sub-drains under the pads of the house to draw the water out where it would have a tendency to lubricate the soil and increase the tendency for landslides PlannIng CommIssion MInutes 1 Apra 12, 2004 Com. Wong: Asked why this house was not built when the others on the site were built Mr. lung: There are four lots in the area The other three are on relatively flat lots---less than 30% slope . This application is the only one on a steeper lot with a slope over 30% Com. Wong: Since most of the trees have been removed, what type of planting will be done on the slope to prevent erosion? Mr. lung: Explained that the privacy protection plan calls for the whole back yard to be planted with trees The only additional landscaping that the City requires for an R-1 zoned lot this steep would be plants that would prevent erosion, but other landscaping is left up to the homeowner for R-1 zoned lots Com. Giefer: The staff report stated that other sites on the lot were considered for the home to be built. Asked if there was any information on those other sites Mr. lung: Responded that the hillside exception ordinance requires finding the most environmentally sensitive place to build a dwelling This is a relatively small lot---I 0,000 square feet---for the size of the proposed house Given the configuration of the lot, the house is on the most level portion of the property with a minimal portion on a steeper slope Com. Giefer: There is a drainage trench that runs at bottom of lot 3, along the most northern fence line between the adjacent home on Miramonte Road Drainage is primarily to drain the property on the western side of this lot Whose responsibility is it to maintain and service the drain? Is there an easement on this property if that drain which services another home is broken? Mr. lung: This refers to a large drain pipe that will provide drainage for the rear yards oflot 3 and lot 2 The area known as the Navid Subdivision also has private storm drain easements that tie into this private drain Com. Giefer: The tree that is to be retained is actually located further west on the property than is shown on the site plan or it has been removed Feels that the architect did not note the tree in its proper location on the drawing P1anning Commission Minutes 4 Ápril12, 2004 Chairperson Saadati: Pertaining to tree protection, according to the arborist report, there were some temporary tapes that were to protect the trees and those are being relocated How can we ensure that measures taken during construction will be more substantial so they can't be moved around? Mr. lung: Typically, plant protection during construction requires that sturdy fencing is used around the protected trees Workers are instructed not to move the fencing once it is in place while they are doing grading This prevents construction workers ITom throwing construction materials or pouring excess concrete, etc. around the base of the trees During a site visit, saw that there was fencing around the trees. Spoke to applicant about doing a better job of protecting the trees Chairperson Saadati: Asked if the fencing gets inspected after it is installed to ensure it is adequate Is there signage on the fences that they should not be removed during construction? Mr. lung: The City requires the applicant to contract with an arborist to make sure fence is in place prior to beginning of work The applicant's arborist issues certification after the work is done stating that work was done according to the requirements No day-to-day monitoring Ray Nezhad, applicant: Trees on lot 3 are protected as instructed by the City arborist by fencing around each individual tree Fences around 2 trees had to be removed for several days because access was needed behind the trees for installation of the storm drain The storm drain along the north side of the property is a shared drain between this project and Navico There will be master plan or agreement between lots 4 and 3 and Navico in case drain repairs need to be done in the future Com. Giefer: Asked if the master plan for maintenance of the drain currently exists Asked where the downspouts and run-off from the home will be Mr. Nezhad: Said the master plan for drain maintenance does not exist yet Stated that there will be no downspouts off the home. They will be attached to underground drainage Drainage will not be run over the surface of the property Com. Giefer: Wants to make sure that the drainage system is far enough away that it doesn't damage the remaining tree PlannIng Commission Minutes 5 Ápril12, 2004 Expressed concern about the amount of sunlight for the rear neighbor's yard due to the planting of replacement trees along the back Wants the neighbor to have input on the placement on the trees to make sure he doesn't lose all the sunlight for his yard Mr. Nezhad: Assured that the drainage system will be away ITom the tree The trees that were removed were already gone when he took over the project in January, 2003 The landscape architect and arborist will meet with the neighbor to determine what will be best for him Com. Miller: Stated that it looks like the plans show two dining rooms for the house and questioned the reason for two dining rooms Chairperson Saadati: Said there are not two dining rooms. One is a breakfast nook next to the kitchen. The architect incorrectly noted the nook as a dining room Com. Miller: Aside from concerns about the trees, is in favor of the project Even though the City does not require certain measures, there is a lot of new technology on soil stabilization for steep 10ts---ITom liming the soil if it is expansive soil to more extensive measures It may be appropriate on very steep lots to look into some of these measures to prevent erosion Com Chen: Said she supports the project Com.Wong: Asked if Ricardo Road requires sidewalks. Noticed that the street is very narrow Mr. lung: Said he believed this was one of the streets where residents were talking about maintaining a rural street standing People in the neighborhood wanted a more rural street profile and that was established as part of the public improvements This is an R-1 zoned area and the street is being built out one lot at a time. The street would have been applied to just the lots fronting on Ricardo Road The street will be widened to provide parking and there will either be an asphalt sidewalk or no sidewalk to maintain the "feel" that the neighbors want in the area Com. Wong: Said he supports the project Chairperson Saadati: Asked if the seismic issues would be addressed during the building permit process Expressed support for the project Planning Commission Minutes 6 ÁprilI2,2004 Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Wong to approve Negative Declaration EA-2003-1O. (Vote: 5-0-0) Motion: Motion by Com, Chen, second by Com. Wong to approve EXC- 2003-03 as amended with the addition of the following conditions of approval to the Resolution: 1. Underground drainage improvements shall be designed to not impact the existing 26" Deodar cedar (Tree No.4) 2. The applicant shall consult and seek the written agreement of the adjacent property owner that fronts on Miramonte Road regarding placement of the privacy protection trees in the rear yard of the subject property 3. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall provide evidence of a maintenance agreement for the storm drainage line along the rear of the subject property. (Vote: 5-0-0) 2. U-2004-03, EA-2004-04 Earl Sutton 10455 Band1ey Drive Use Permit to allow an 8,000 square foot swim facility in an existing office space Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Commissioner Chen asked to be recused from this application since she is a member of the church that also leases from the same owner. Commissioner Miller asked to be recused since he and the applicant are both realtors in the same company. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner This is a use permit application for a swim facility The site came before the Planning Commission recently for a re-zoning and a General Plan Amendment and a use permit for a church at an existing office building The church will be using most of the space for church activities, but there was a remainder left as office space The building has some parking in front and several rows of parking in back Residential uses are at the back. The other surrounding uses are office The floor plan shows an entrance to the swim facility from the rear The swim pool has a little retail area, some locker rooms and storage areas and a training room Issues discussed in the staffreport: I. Use: The zoning for this property includes commercial and quasi-public, residential and light industrial. In the commercial and quasi-public zoning categories, this use is a conditional use. This is different ITom when the church came through which required changes in the zoning and changes in the General Plan to accommodate it 2. Parking: The staff report provided information showing the other uses that would occur-the church, the office and the swim facility and how those uses coincided. Saturdays and Sundays could potentially have overlapping parking needs. There would not be adequate parking if the church used its facility to the maximum amount on those days. Their conditional use permit allows them to use all the parking on those days. Conditions of approval require that if the church plans to hold events or funerals or weddings beyond their normal church times, they would Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 12, 2004 need to coordinate with the swim facility so they would not have over-use of the parking area. Staff recommends that parking come back for public hearing review within a year to see if any problems have occurred 3. Noise: The roof equipment noise levels do meet the City's required noise standards. This would be especially sensitive to the residential areas in the back. Staff suggests through the conditions of approval that the swim facility go beyond meeting or exceeding the City requirements and use two of the approaches that the YMCA used to further diminish noise potential, which are to put baffles around the equipment and to direct the equipment away from the residential area at the back. Staff also requires that windows and doors remain closed 4. Hazardous Materials: Chlorine mix will be drained and stored in accordance with current regulations Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration and the use permit Com. Wong: Regarding the noise issue: Can a condition of approval require the equipment to face east and away from the residential area? Ms. Wordell: Condition 5 of the Resolution requires the applicant to direct any exhaust or fan noise away from the adjacent residences Com. Wong: Asked about the applicant's outreach in contacting adjacent residents Ms. Wordell: The applicant did contact the residents directly behind the lot. One e-mail was received from a Eric Wong on Hartford Drive who opposes the swim facility because he feels the office-use hours are more appropriate to the times that he is used to having activities. This project would bring about more activity on evenings and weekends, and he would rather not have activities during those times Com. Giefer: This site is different than what was looked at with the YMCA, because it has mature trees planted along the fence line between the lot and the neighbors Asked if there is a possibility that the pool and parking area could be moved forward toward Bandley Ms. Wordell: Stated that she asked the applicant before the meeting if that had been considered. One reason for the requested location is that it is now a warehouse area and not partitioned for offices, so this is a much easier space to go into Com. Giefer: One of the problems the "Y" continues to have is the buildup and smell from the chlorine, because all of the windows and doors are closed Expressed concern that this project will have the same buildup of chlorine gases in the structure Asked to review the issue at a later time if the chlorine gas buildup becomes a problem and there are complaints Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 12,2004 Ms. Wordell: Stated that she was unaware that the "Y", with their new equipment, is having continuing problems. The initial problems were due to trouble with reducing the activity of the fans and air conditioner. Then they had to open the doors and windows Does not anticipate the same type of trouble here, because they do not need to reduce the noise and they will be at capacity in terms of what they need in terms of reducing moisture in the po01 area Suggested that language be added that the commissioners want to revisit the window and door issues at the same time as the parking issue comes back Chairperson Saadati: Asked if the pool operation hours would be similar to the church hours Ms. Wordell: Listed the proposed hours as: 0 Monday-Thursday: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 0 Friday: 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 0 Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 0 Sunday: 1:30p.m. to 5:30p.m. Chairperson Sadaati: Asked if there would be a noise measurement after the equipment is installed and is in full operation At night, depending on the direction of the wind, that may have an impact on the neighbors Will excess parking be spilled over onto other properties? Ms. Wordell: A noise measurement would have to be added as a condition of approval There should not be any excess parking. They cannot spill over onto other properties, because they do not have permission to do so. All parking will have to be on.¡;ite Mr. Earl Sutton, Applicant: Wants to stay in the City ofCupertino----his family lives here, works here and is very involved in the community Spoke to the neighbors, and found no problems with the project Parking should not be an issue---met with the church personnel to get the hours established to make sure the swim facility members and church patrons were never there at the same time Would like to have the swim facility open until 8:00 p.m. every night, but is limiting the hours to accommodate the church's request that the hours not overlap Com. Wong: Asked if the swim facility would need the doors and windows closed Mr. Sutton: Said they do not want the doors open during business hours, because they do not want the noise to disturb neighbors The Health Department wants the widows to be open and ventilated when the pool is not in sessJOn The HV AC system will be running 24 hours a day to keep the moisture down PlannIng CommIssion MInutes 9 Ápril12, 2004 . The condenser should not come on many times during the night in this climate. If it does, it should be just for approximately 15 minutes two or three times By covering the pool at night, there will be very little moisture and the condenser is activated by moisture. This should not be a large issue When the figures for the 50 dB were established, they were looking at a 100' setback. It is actually 150 feet from the building to the fence, and the condenser sits an additional 50' back from the building toward the street. That is a distance of 200' from the rear property line Activity will be 100 percent lessons: no birthday parties, no free-swim---just structured, quality swim lessons. There will not be anyone "hanging around". The students will come for a half-hour lesson and then leave Mr. Piasecki: There were three issues that the commissioners wanted to address with the applicant: I. Notice to neighbors and how much coordination was done with them 2. Reconfiguration of the space and possibility of getting frontage on Bandley and taking access from Bandley 3. Noise condition: the applicant may have to come back and retrofit equipment if complaints are received Mr. Sutton: Notified neighbors by going door-to-<loor and talking to as many as possible. Made sure he spoke to the two two-story house owners directly behind the property, because they would be most affected . Looked into fronting the project on Bandley, but the area selected is an empty space almost like a warehouse. Feels it will be quieter putting a swim facility in the back, because the parking is in the back. If the students had to walk down the alleyway to the front of the building, it would be dangerous and noisy. When the kids are cold and wet, the parents will want to park as close to the door as possible Will be willing to address noise issues if there are complaints from neighbors. He is also looking into purchasing a unit that is much quieter. Worries that if he has to pay to put up the baffles around the equipment, it will eat into the funds he would have available for purchase of the new unit Chairperson Saadati: If a unit is installed that does not generate enough noise to affect the neighbors, that would suffice If the units start making enough noise to keep the neighbors awake at night, the baffles would need to be added Com. Giefer: Asked for information about venting the chlorine gases, since the doors and windows will not be open Mr. Sutton: Responded that the Health Department will not allow the windows and doors to be open when the swim facility is in session. The systems, by health code, must change the air six times an hour. The unit being considered for purchase changes the air eight times an hour The room would need to be aired out occasionally, and that would be done early in the morning or when staff first gets there. The entire place would be opened and fanned out Planning Commission Minutes 10 Àprill1, 1004 There is no issue with the commission's request to keep the doors and windows on the west side closed The plan is to keep the place as safe and healthy as possible and keep the neighbors happy at the same time Cupertino Resident, Lin Tsai, Beardon Drive: Expressed concerns about the noise. With the parking in the back and all the children being dropped off, the noise level will be high, especially in summer Fears that there will be a lot of kids hanging out and running around. There will also be noise from the cars and the parents chatting while they wait for their children Asked if it is safe for the neighbors to smell the chlorine buildup. Even though the facility is being aired out, it will add to the pollution of the environment Even though the pool will be covered, there will be a lot of moisture on the floor and the vents will be coming on. There are two two-story houses next to the property, and the chlorine will flse up The swimming lessons will begin too early and will disturb the neighbors' sleep Cupertino Resident, Desiree Lou, Fargo Drive: Home is located directly behind the property where pool will be built Voiced concern about noise and kids hanging out during late nights and weekends There have been occasions when the building has been vacant that neighbors have heard cars drag racing in the parking lot at night. One Sunday morning a car was blasting its radio very loudly . Concerned about smell of chlorine Can hear her own air conditioning unit when it runs at night. Is sure the swim facility will need a larger unit to keep the air properly circulated, so the noise will be louder Chairperson Saadati: Asked the applicant if there will be controls about the activity in the parking lot when the children are dropped off for lessons Mr. Sutton: There will not be any drop-off students. The class lasts for one-half hour and parents stay with the children. Students are not allowed to be there without parents Most of the clientele are young children-up to the 6th grade. There are very few teenagers There are also some adult classes---one of the commitments to the community is that each parent should know how to swim and should at least be able to jump into the water and save his own child if need be, so there are adult classes The early morning hours would be available for adult classes, so all parents will have the opportunity to know how to swim During the daytime hours when most children are in school, "water babies" classes will be offered for mothers and infants. Will try to contract with daycare centers to have them bring children in vans during daytime hours Instead of having 24 students coming every half hour, half the pool would get out on the 15- minute mark, so there would be 12 students rotating at a time, so that would cut down on the noise level and parking congestion Planning Commission Minutes 11 Àpra 1~, ~Oß4 Com. Giefer: Noted that there are several differences between this project and the one reviewed for the YMCA The trees along the fence line and the further distance between the pool and the fence line, and the fact that the applicant will keep the pool enclosed, will keep the noise level down Favors the project Wants signs posted along the fence line reminding members of the swim facility that there are residences on the other side of the fence and that they need to be considerate of the residents Com Wong Appreciates the neighbors' concerns about the noise level The applicant is making sure the ventilation is facing away from the residents, and the Planning Commission will review the parking situation, the noise and the use in a year It will be a great asset to the neighborhood to have a swimming school Supports the application Chairperson Saadati: As a frequent visitor to the YMCA, stated that much of the noise is generated from having outside activities, such as volleyball and skating The swim facility will not have outside activities, and considering the distance of the building from the residential area and the trees planted along the fence line, the noise should not be an impact to the neighborhood Favors the project Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Giefer to approve Negative Declaration EA-2004-04. (Vote: 3-0-2) Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Giefer to approve U-2004- 03 as amended with the addition of the following conditions of approval to the Resolution: 1. The parking situation and the noise level will be brought back before the Planning Commission in one year for review 2. Noise measurements for the HV AC will be included 3. Signs will be posted along the fence line to remind the swim facility members to be "good neighbors" to the surrounding residents 4. The applicant will have the option to install noise humidifier air handling systems that meet the City's noise ordinance in lieu of providing noise barriers around equipment 5. Additionally, the applicant shall keep west facing windows and doors closed during business hours to minimize noise from the swim facility (Vote: 3-0-2) 3. TM-2004-02 Hunter Storm Properties Southwest corner of Rodrigues and Torre Avenue Tentative map to subdivide a 0.4 acre property consisting of an approved commercial and office building into a 0.1 acre site consisting of the approved commercial building and a 0.3 acre site consisting of the approved office building Planning Commission decision final unless appealed PlannIng Commission Minutes 12 ÁpriI12,20O4 Commissioner Wong asked to recused from this application since his family owns property on Pacifica Drive. Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner: Application is a request to split the lot into two, on the corner of Torre and Rodrigues . The site is being excavated to have a parking garage There will be two buildings-a café or restaurant and a two-story office building The applicant is asking to split those into two separate lots Commissioner Giefer had mentioned a concern to staff about maintenance. Staff has presented a proposed maintenance condition to the applicant saying there will be a deed restriction on the land obligating all property owners in the future to maintain the buildings, the grounds and the landscaping Staff recommends approval of the application Cupertino Resident, Sheila Dolsol, Whitney Way Is concerned that with the café being separate, it may bring more traffic to the area Residents living in the area are looking at the other proposals for this corner with an estimated extra 300 cars being brought in. Any more traffic that may occur from splitting these two areas could be significant With retail coming into the area, there is no way to tell how many cars will be generated per "commute session" There has already been a significant increase in traffic since the traffic barrier was removed on Pacifica Drive Cautions Commission to maintain the character of Cupertino by remembering that this is partof a residential area Com. Miller: Asked Ms. Dolsol on what her reasoning is that the split will cause more traffic Ms. Dolsol: The café will be more visible. It will no longer be a café that supports the people in the office building. It will become more of a place where people will come from other areas Com. Miller: The split has already happened. This application is just to allow someone to purchase the café as a separate entity. The decision to split the two buildings was made a long time ago Ms. Dolsol: . The notice received for tonight's Planning Commission meeting is the only notice she has received about any meetings having to do with this corner None of the neighbors have received any notice either Neighbors are relying on elected council members to protect the character of Cupertino Does not feel the issues such as the café split, height restrictions and density issues are being addressed in a way to make the neighbors feel they have ample notice to speak to them Com. Miller: Asked staff to comment on the noticing issue Mr.Gilli: The City Council approved the master plan of the entire site on May 19, 2003. One of the conditions placed on the applicant was to split this into two buildings All of those hearings had a 1,000 foot radius mailing notice, and the hearings were noticed in the "Cupertino Courier" PlannIng CommissIon Minutes 1~ Apri112,2004 On September 2, 2003 the applicant presented the architectural design of the split. That meeting was also noticed at a 1,000 foot radius The notices were mailed to all property owners, both commercial and residential Ms. Dolsol: Reiterated that there is a great concern in the community that the charm of Cupertino is going to be lost There was supposed to have been a survey sent out recently regarding this site. She lives within a 1,000 foot radius and has not received the survey, nor have her neighbors Com. Miller: This is not an issue that impacts traffic or density. This is just an ownership issue Favors the application Com. Chen: This item concerns only the process Asked if there was a traffic analysis done at the time of the master plan Mr.Gilli: The master plan had a traffic analysis, noise analysis and all of the environmental impacts were analyzed as part of the 2003 action It was never anticipated that having the split would have any traffic impact. Normally the traffic engineer focuses on square footage of buildings, not whether they are attached or stand-alone Mr. Piasecki: Occasionally notices are not done correctly and there some people are missed, but the applicant spent 3 years going through a lengthy process getting input from many neighbors. He ended up reducing the heights of the buildings by one story and significantly reducing the densities of the residential portion of one of the buildings by going to the townhouse format To speak to the concerns of the citizen; people are listening, the City is listening, the applicant listened and is now proceeding with a much scaled-down plan Com. Giefer: Will the café that was in existence before the construction began continue in operation, or will this project be the only food service currently planned? Mr. Gilli: In the master plan, the building that houses the existing café will be redeveloped as townhomes, so this will be the only commercial location along Torre Avenue There will be commercial in a building along De Anza Boulevard, but those two locations will be the only commercial spots Chairperson Saadati: Concurred with the other commissioners that this application is just splitting the lot and will not have any impact on traffic Most of the people who are already, or will in the future, be living in the adjacent building or visiting the library will use the café PlannIng Commission MInutes 14 Ap";II~, ~004 Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Chen to approve TM- 2004-02 with the added condition to the Resolution of the maintenance agreement (Vote: 4-0-1) 4. U-2004-02 Etsuko Kuromiya (Wayne Gong) 19990 Homestead Road Use permit for a 3,400 sq. ft. karaoke studio and shared parking plan in the Oakmont Square shopping center Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner: The application is for a use permit to allow a karaoke studio and a shared parking plan at the Oakmont Square shopping center The owner of the center also owns the corner lot, but that lot is not in this application and is not part ofthe shared parking plan The project is a commercial entertainment use requiring a use permit The proposal is to have 8 studio rooms with a maximum occupancy on the entire tenant space of 96 persons The plans show room 4 as a studio. That will be converted into storage, to make the parking work There will be food and beverage out of vending machines, which in staffs opinion is a minor use There is no parking standard for this type of use. Staff used what it thought is the most appropriate standard-that of a restaurant or bar, which has one stall for every 4 seats or, in the case of a bar, one stall for every 3 seats This is a family-oriented operation, and staff believes one stall per 4 occupants is more applicable, because it is expected that a family will arrive in one car. That is closer to a restaurant use. With a bar use, people might drive in cars alone and meet after work, etc. There need to be 24 parking stalls, based on the occupant count for the building The parking lot is not adequate to provide 24 parking stalls and to meet the parking demand in the rest of the shopping center. The ordinance allows a shared parking plan Not all uses have the same high activity hours, an office will be in operation during normal business hours, while a restaurant will be in high use all day, and retail is normally in high use after work hours The ordinance breaks down how a shared parking plan can work: in a very small project, staff can apply the ordinance table without having a public hearing This project is large enough to require the Planning Commission approval The results of applying the table to the Oakmont Square shopping center, show that there is enough parking on the site Weekday evenings and weekend in the daytime are the peak demand times, requiring 83 spaces. The center provides 84 spaces There is a building under construction along Homestead Road. The property owner is attempting to get a medical office tenant into that building. That type of use has the highest parking standard: one space per 175 sq. ft. of area, whereas normal retail is one space for every 250 sq. ft. Without the shared parking plan, it would be difficult to locate a dentist office in that building This use permit is to allow a karaoke studio and a shared parking plan that will allow both the karaoke studio and a future dentist office in the building along Homestead Road Plann;ng CommissIon Minutes 15 Åpra 1~, ~ßM Because the needed parking for the karaoke lounge is only estimated at this time, this application will be reviewed in six months to determine if the parking ratio is appropriate and if the shared parking plan is needed If the property owner can show that one stall per 4 occupants is over-parking, staff can adjust the ratio accordingly Only if the project needs more parking after the study, will it come back before the Planning Commission in six months Staff recommends approval of the use permit Com. Wong: Asked that if a dentist office comes into the building along Homestead Road, it is included in the shared parking plan presented with this application Mr. Gilli: If the shared parking plan is approved based on the table in the ordinance that has all the percentages, as new tenants are proposed, the table will be used on each new tenant If the parking works, it will be permitted. If not, the new tenant will need a parking exception or an adjustment to the shared parking plan The issue with the dentist is that it is an office use, and during the weekday, the peak time of the office works very well with the non-peak times of the entertainment use. If the straight parking standard were applied in a sum, there would not be enough parking to have the dentist office with the amount of area in the center. Recognizing that different uses have different demands at different times is the basis for a shared parking plan Com. Wong: Regarding noise: will the building accommodate the noise so that it does not leave the building? Are there special provisions regarding loitering and people in the parking lot? Mr.Gilli: That will be handled at the building permit stage and the noise will have to remain inside There are no conditions in the Resolution regarding loitering, but the property owner has his office on the site and he is there frequently, so he will be able to make sure there is no loitering . Stated that he believes the hours of operation for the karaoke studio will be from 11 :00 a.m. to 11:00p.m. Per code, they are allowed to operate for a longer time. The plan set shows 11 :00 a.m. to midnight, but they have not been amended yet. The studio is only allowed to stay open until 11:00p.m. Com. Wong: Add as a condition of approval that there will be no alcohol will be served Mr.Gilli: Staff and the property owner are agreeable to that condition Com. Wong: Asked if staff sees any perceived problems with the mix of having a lounge next door to a karaoke studio Planning Commission Minutes 16 Àpri112,2004 Mr.Gilli: The karaoke studio is intended to be a family-oriented operation, and staff does not see a major concern A condition of approval can be added that if issues of behavior arise, it can be brought back to the Planning Commission Com. Chen: Does the six-month review period begin at the time the karaoke studio opens for operation? Asked if the restaurant is currently in operation Mr.Gilli; It can be added that the review period would begin at the time the studio opens A restaurant/bar is in operation now A medical office will open as soon as it can, becallie they have an application on file regarding signage. It will go before the Design Review Committee soon. The use is already allowed in the shopping center, but they are asking for a sign exception, which needs to go before the DRC Com. Chen: Wants to make sure that when the parking issue is reviewed in six months, it is with all businesses in operation Six months may not be enough time for a karaoke studio to get into full operation Can wording be added to ensure that if there are any issues at all that they will be reviewed? Mr.Gilli: Commissioner Wong's suggestion that a condition be added to have the use reviewed if necessary based on complaints should address all concerns The property owner requested the review after the six-month period If the property owner is not able to show in six months that staffs analysis is off, he has the option in a year or two years to ask for modification. That modification would have to come to a public hearing. With the wording now, the review will be at staff level in six months Com. Chen: Approves of Commissioner Wong's suggestion that a condition be added saying no alcohol will be served, but would also like to make sure no alcohol can be brought into the place during operation Mr.Gilli: That is a reasonable condition, but the applicant would need to be asked if that is acceptable Com. Chen: Asked if the maximum capacity of 96 people reflects room number 4 being used as storage Mr. Gilli: . If the plans are viewed, it says there is a capacity of 107, and room 4 has 11 Subtracting the 11, the capacity is 96. This is based on building and fire codes. for employees also This accounts Com. Chen: How is the peak hour defined for this business? PlannIng Commission Minutes 17 ÀpriI12,20O4 Mr.Gilli: Based on the ordinance, the peaks are in the evenings on weekdays and weekends On weekends during the day, it is still high, at 80%. On weekdays during the day, it is at 40%, because people are at work and are not here. After work more parking is needed, and on weekends, the most parking is needed Com. Giefer: Is there any information on the size of the windows that will be inserted in the rooms? Mr.Gilli: The windows are visible in the scale drawing When this comes in at the building permit stage, will look at the elevations to make sure the windows are of adequate height Com. Giefer: Wants to be specifically sure that they are not installing "peepholes" and that the windows are sizeab1e--{)r perhaps glass doors would be a reasonable alternative to windows to ensure visibility The City of Sunnyvale had some issues with entertainment facilities, and they recently installed windows which mitigated the problems As much visibility as possible into the interior rooms would be advisable Chairperson Saadati: Question regarding parking: Would some parking be designated for a specific business? Mr.Gilli: Replied that the entire parking lot is open parking Even though the lot on the corner is a separate lot, its parking lot is connected and both lots have the same owner The only specially designated spaces are the handicapped spaces Mr. Wayne Gong, owner/architect of subject building The hours of use are 11 :00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Food will be sold from vending machines and also prepared food will be brought in and laid on display The lease for the building states that no alcohol will be served and no alcohol will be allowed on site None of the parking spaces are assigned to individual tenants Chairperson Saadati: Asked if there is a sign posted stating that no one is allowed to bring alcohol onto the site How are the people who use the facility informed that they are not allowed to bring alcohol on the premises? Mr. Gong: It is a condition of the lease that no alcohol will be allowed on site Will be willing to post signs stating the ban on alcohol Planning Commission Minutes 1& Àpril12, 2004 Mr. Gilli: If the applicant wishes to be open after 11 :00 p.m., they will need to apply for a late-night use Anything after 11 :00 p.m. is considered a 1atð-night use, and that would require a change in the application description Unless this item is continued to another Planning Commission meeting, at this point, the hours of operation would have to be 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. (A brief discussion took place between the applicants) Applicant has stated that because she will have the ability to file later to extend the hours, the stated hours of 11 :00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. will be acceptable Com. Giefer: Since the applicant has stated that food that has been prepared elsewhere will be brought in for resale at this facility, are there issues with that? Mr.Gi1li: . As far as the zoning laws go, this would be considered an ancillary use and not a significant Issue The Health Department may have an issue, but that will need to be addressed at the building permit stage If the applicant can get approval from the Health Department, Planning does not have a concern Com. Miller: Most of the karaoke places are part of a restaurant that typically have a bar area This studio will be right next door to the lounge Have there been discussions with the lounge about how this would work as far as the no- alcohol provision? Mr. Gong: There have been discussions with the owners of the Peacock Lounge, and the owners are aware that the space wi1l be used for a karaoke use Visited a karaoke studio in Santa Clara similar to what is proposed here The Santa Clara facility serves alcohol, but ours will not Com. Miller: The concern is that the parties moving outside between the two establishments of the Peacock Lounge and the karaoke studio may cause issues with the neighborhood Mr. Gong: That was also a concern to the applicant, and one of the reasons for the no-alcohol stipulation Right now the patrons come out to the sidewalk to smoke, but they do not drink out there, and they would not be allowed to bring alcohol into the karaoke studio Com. Chen: Would like to have windows on the wall as well as windows on the door Com. Wong: Would also like to have windows on the wall to guarantee the proprietor more safety measures P1anning Commission Minutes 19 Ap";112, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: A simple solution would be to require that in addition to the windows on the doors, the applicant shall install the windows on the walls as illustrated on the floor plans, and we will make sure the windows are reasonably close to the sizes shown on the plans Com. Giefer: Would like to require a minimum of 24" by 24" windows in the doors There should be windows in the walls---ifnot sheet glass walls Com. Miller: More windows would be fine That shopping center has been struggling, and maybe this use will help it The only concern is that the patrons might "take the party outside too much", but as the applicant indicated, right now people go outside to smoke and this would not be too different Supports the application Chairperson Saadati: Any window that is installed should be such that one can view the whole room Mr.Gilli: These are the added conditions for approval: 0 The hours of operation are 11 :00 a.m. to II :00 p.m. 0 Lounge rooms shall all have windows on the doors and on the walls. The windows on the doors shall be at least 24" by 24". The intent is to make as much of room visible as possible from the hall 0 Parking will be reviewed six months after the use opens 0 No alcohol will be sold on site or brought on site. There will be a sign on the door on the sign or the wall of the business stating the no.¡¡lcohol policy. 0 There will be review by the Planning Commission if there are behavioral issues in the parking lot or inside the building. There will not be a time limit on this issue-if issues arise, it will come back to the Planning Commission. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller to approve U-2004- 02 as amended (Vote: 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: 5. Preliminary schedule of the Rl ordinance review process Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary R1 schedule and review information about approved projects and the ordinance approve in February 2003 The schedule is flexible Until May 24, public input and background issues will be review From May 24 until August, ordinance changes will be discussed In August, the design review process will be talked about---what will be reviewed, how will it be reviewed, etc. There should be a final approved ordinance in September 2004, which will be sent to the Council in either late September or in October The goal is to have it enacted at the beginning of 2005 Planning Commission Minutes 20 Ápra 12, 2004 Chairperson Saadati: It is usual that one meeting is cancelled during the summer. Will that impact the schedule? Mr.Gilli: It would just move the whole schedule down Com. Wong: Wants to hold off on the "Commission's Guiding Principles" and "Commission's Objectives" until after the public hearings and the survey results are in Because of limited time, and because of the large applications such as Val1co, General Plan, etc. coming in, and with one of the meetings being cancelled, could this be condensed into study sessions? Com. Miller: Concerned that the process is extended out too long, and there may be conflicts with the General Plan and some of the other applications Would like to move more quickly and get started as soon as possible Does not feel there needs to be a session on "Guiding Principles". The commission is taking input and deciding if the Rl ordinance needs improvements and, if so, making the necessary improvements. Does not see any other guiding principles or why there is a need to spend a session on that Should try to condense the schedule and perhaps add study sessions where appropriate Mr. Gilli: Part of the layout of the time if the how long it will take staff to prepare materials to be presented If there are study sessions, it does not necessarily mean that twice as much can be accomplished in one day. It will still take an additional amount of time to prepare for each of them The issues of the background and the survey are appropriate for a study session Ifwe are on a fast-track, maybe we do not need to do a review of other cities---ifwe know our rules, and we know what the public is interested in, that may be sufficient Com. Wong: Still feels the regulations from other cities would be valuable One meeting could be saved by not having "Commissioner's Guiding Principles" and Commissioner's Objectives" Perhaps regulations from other cities could be discussed during a study session prior to a public hearing. During the public hearing, items that require a vote could be discussed Com. Chen: Use study session time to digest information and have commissioners' discussions, and use public hearing time to focus on public hearing issues Com. Giefer: Since the deadline for receiving the surveys is April 15, is there any way for the commission to receive the information more quickly than is listed in the schedule? PlannIng Comm;sslon Minutes ~1 Áp";ll~, ~O04 Mr. Gil1i: At the rate the City was receiving the surveys prior to the "Scene", the inormation could have been available on April 26. Since the survey appeared in the "Scene", they are being returned faster than can be input into the computer Part of the results can be available on the 26th, but they will not be complete Com. Giefer: Understood that the principles and objectives were already set by the City Council Mr.Gilli: These principles and objectives are going to be what the commission felt should be the overall goal, based on the input received This is not a required element, but is often done in a long-range planning project What may be found as the process continues, is that people will question the reasons for certain actions. If a principle is established at the beginning stating that all review processes are as short as possible, that could be the answer to a person who later questions a choice that was made The background material is everything that was covered prior to May 24 which includes the plans for all the approved projects that could be used as reference as rules are discussed, the recommendations of the commission of 2003, the rules of other cities and the survey results This is for the edification of both the public and the Planning Commission Mr. Piasecki: One way to handle the "Guiding Principles" is for each commissioner to list three to five major issues or topics he/she would like to see the ordinance cover and to share that list with the other commissioners Com. Wong: Most of the major issues are covered in the tentative schedule Does not recall one topic scheduled for July 12-Rl issues on sloped lots Mr.Gilli: That topic is on the first sheet of the Scope of Work One commissioner had said he was happy that we are looking at Rl review on sites in the hills Mr. Piasecki: This is an issue that has been faced in the past. There are a few lots in the hillsides that are on relatively steep slopes that are zoned Rl This creates problems when applicants bring forward homes following standards that are inconsistent with the hillside standards Ms. Wordel1: The commissioners will want to add study sessions, because looking at some of the Planning Commission meetings coming up, the agendas are quite heavy on a couple of the dates. IfRI is discussed at all, it will be competing for public hearing time One meeting will be lost during the summer, so a study session may be one way to make up the lost time Planning Commission Minutes 22 Áprill2. 2004 Mr.Gilli: The next two Planning Commission meetings are April 26 and May 10. If the commission would like, the R1 issue can be continued from tonight's meeting to a study session on April 26 The amount of time needed will be dependent upon how much detail the commissioners want on the regulations in other cities Information has been received from all the cities in the county except Monte Sereno and Milpitas Because this is an Old Business item, it is not an advertised public hearing. It would be best if the commission refrains ITom going into detail and stating individual stances on the 2003 recommendations until there is a public meeting A study session could be a public meeting Ms. Word1ell: A study session is a public meeting, but it would need to be advertised as a public hearing so people would get notice in the paper and in any other way we want to advertise it Most of the meetings on R1 so far have been public hearings, but the chain was broken because R1 was not discussed at every meeting, and no date was set We will need to re-advertise if we want it to be a public hearing. These are all public meetings, but people don't hear about them in the same way There is not enough time to advertise a study session as a public hearing for the April 26 meeting Mr.Gilli: If the commission is going to strike the guiding principles and objectives outside the scope of work, the items could be condensed and the commissioners' stances on past actions could be discussed in a study session format on May 10 . The survey results will be in a database so information can be pulled up in any way desired If any of the commissioners have ideas on what types of information they would like to have pulled from the survey, please present them at the April 26 meeting, so the information can be gathered for the May 10 study session A large stack of plans is in the materials presented with this report. These are for reference and commissioners can call or e-mail me if there are designs that they don't like and they want to know why a particular design was approved Presented slides of projects that were approved in the R1 zones from 1999-to the present. Stated that it is good to take the time to look at these projects on the computer because they are three-dimensional and it is easier to get a feel of what the project looks like than from the plans Each of these projects went through a public hearing Asked each of the commissioners to let him know if they see a site that they would like to have photographed and presented to the other commissioners Presented a brief overview of the R1 ordinance approved by the Planning Commission in February 2003: 0 Revised illustrations: The graphics in the ordinance will be made more applicable 0 High volume area: The definition section of the ordinance specifies when an interior area is double counted. There is no explicit explanation of when it counts as first-story and when it counts as second-story area. It does not make sense to count high-volume area in a one-story house as second-story area. In a two-StOlY house, if there is a grand entry and stairwell with a ceiling over 15', then the part that is over 15' will count as second story area. In a one-story house, the applicant Planning Commission Minutes 23 Ápril12, 2004 0 will not have to go to design review if there is a vaulted ceiling over 15'. Most of the time, the applicant is able to design a home so it does not have double counted areas Guideline Conformance: All new homes or additions would have to be generally consistent with the design guidelines. Currently that only applies to two-story additions or new homes. Since 2000, we have reviewed two-story homes that have not gone to design review just to make sure they meet the guidelines in a general sense. This is to make sure that a house that is clearly not going to fit into the neighborhood is caught Two-story review: All two-story additions or new two-story homes would require discretionary approval. Unless an exception is asked for, it is handled at staff level approval. Neighbors are notified, they comment to staff and staff would acts on it. If there is controversy, it is appealed. Some of the commissioners felt that it was a waste of the applicant's time to come to a design review meeting if there was no controversy from neighbors Exceptions: This would be renamed as "design review" rather than "exception" to eliminate the negative connotation. The idea was that R1 is a "one size fits all" and that doesn't work. There are cases where exceptions should be done, and the past commission wanted to encourage that Narrow lots would have 5' side setbacks: A narrow lot should have smaller setbacks Side-facing garages on corner lots: There should be enough of a driveway to park cars on The building envelope would start at the side setback line: Currently, the building envelope starts 5' in from the property line, goes up 12' and then comes in at a 25 degree angle. The recommendation in 2003 was to start th" building envelope at the side setbacks, which are 5' and 10'. That would make a minor reduction in height on the 10' side Basement lightwells: If a basement is built, it will not count as floor area as long as the lightwells are as small as they need to be. It was suggested that, as an incentive to build a single.¡;tory house and a basement, without having a second story with its impacts, one lightwell that serves more as a patio would be allowed Privacy planting species list: The past commission removed the list of species from the ordinance and agreed to refer to it as a handout. That allows staff to update it more easily Privacy covenants: If there are privacy trees, they will be on a covenant on the property. This was in the tree ordinance, but not in the R1 ordinance and the past commission wanted to make sure people knew about it Second story decks: This proposed to move the rules out of the Accessory Structures ordinance and put it into Rl Variation to FARs and first story setbacks requires a Variance: Everything needs an exception, which has findings that are easier to meet than a variance. With a variance, one needs to have some hardship or some issues with the property. The idea was that exceptions would apply to the design aspects in the ordinance- second-story wall offsets, visible second-story heights, and not to the FAR. If someone wanted an FAR over 45%, it wasn't supposed to be an exception. There is a lot of documentation in the code stating, "... but in no case shall the FAR be over 45. .." Staff proposed explicitly stating that this would be a variance, which is a different process. Staff also suggested that first-story setbacks have a variance. Everything else would have an exception process 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 24 Ápril12, 2004 . All of these changes are in the scope of work, so commissioners can do any/all/ or none of the changes as they choose Council wanted to have the two-story review process and the exception process reviewed closely Staff recommends approval of the schedule as amended and that the next meeting on April 26 will be a study session where the regulations of other cities will be discussed The amendments to the tentative schedule are as follows: 0 April 26: Study session on regulations of other cities 0 May 10: Public hearing at 5:00 on survey results and compilation of all other public input, Commission's Objectives and Commission's Guiding Principles 0 July 12: Minor topics of the February 2003 action 0 June 24: Items originally scheduled for the June 14 meeting and so on, until the date the Planning Commission schedules as a break Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong to approve the tentative schedule for the Planning Commission's review of the Rl Ordinance as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held. Housinll: Commission: Housing Commission has had two meetings. No commissioner was able to attend the meeting at which the Commission listened to organizations who are applying for Block Grants. On April 8, the Commission approved the Annual Action Plan which specifies how low income housing will be mitigated. Discussed ways low cost housing can be improved in Cupertino and ways to serve the entire community. Mavor's Monthlv Meetinll: With Commissioners: The key information shared by Mayor James was the ballot initiative attempt by the Cupertino Concerned Citizens. The group is currently collecting signatures to have an initiative put on the ballot. The City has determined that it will not take any legal action at this time, but reserves the right to do so at a later time. An outside firm is conducting a study to determine what the results might be if the initiative is approved by Cupertino residents. The cost of the study will be approximately $100,000. The study should be available in 4 to 6 weeks. The Cupertino Concerned Citizens has asked the City to discuss some of their agenda items so they might not need to proceed with the initiative process. The Council declined the invitation and asked the Citizens group to continue to attend the public hearings and the General Plan Task Force meetings. If the initiative is placed on the ballot, the cost to the City could range from $70,000 to $240,000 depending on whether there will be a special election or a general election. A statue called "Perspectives" has been installed in the City Center Park (which will be renamed City Center Plaza). The Teen Commission reported that the new name for the teen center at the sports center is "The Down Under". The library is on track for its scheduled opening. Measure B did not pass, and it will impact the new library, probably in the form of cuts in library hours. Planning Commission Minutes 25 April 12,2004 The senior committee is focusing on sidewalk issues. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission is trying to improve walkability to and from schools. They are trying to generate more walking to school and are polling the public to understand how to be more effective in that goal. The Regnart Creek Trail behind the library will be opened very shortly. They are currently holing joint meetings with Public Safety to understand the issues with walkability. The Mary Avenue footbridge project is on track and the footbridge will be open soon. The Commission made a recommendation opposing the General Plan Task Force "Circulation Section." REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki presented clarification on a couple of points in the report of the Mayor's Monthly Meeting. There are three separate initiatives that may be placed on the ballot. When the Mary Avenue footbridge project is fully funded, it will go out to bid and it will then be constructed. It won't be open in the near future, but the City is hoping to get funding in the not distant future. This is a $7,000,000 project. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission' recommendation concerning opening of the Regnart Creek Trail will go before the City Council for endorsement. Money has to be allocated, and then the project can go forward. The City Council has asked that an analysis be done on the impact of the initiatives and that the study be done by outside consultant(s). Vallco Development Status: This project is moving very quickly. The information from Vallco will be proceeding to the Environmental Review Committee and then to the Planning Commission. League of California Cities Planners' Institute Conference: Commissioners Giefer and Wong attended. The CD of the proceedings will be available to loan to any commission who wishes to see it. Saturday, April 17 is the date for the "Welcome Monta Vista" event at the Quinlan Community Center, beginning at 10:30 a.m. The remaining parcels that were unincorporated in Monta Vista have been annexed into the City of Cupertino. That is the third major annexation in the last four or five years, beginning with Rancho Rinconada, then Garden Gate and now Monta Vista. Cupertino has a fairly contiguous set of parcels throughout its boundaries, which is a good thing for residents of the community. MISCELLANEOUS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the Study Session of April 26 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room C Respectfully submitted by: