Loading...
PC 07-25-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 25, 1994 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chr. Mahoney Com. Harris Com. Austin Com. Roberts staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director or Community Development ciddy Wordell, city Planner APPROVAL OF MINIJTES Com. Austin amended the minutes of July ll, 1994 as follows: 1. Page 11, 2nd paragraph, add the words "in order to keep the number of lots to three" after the word "improvements". 2. Page 21, item ll, "Com. Austin..... should read "Com. Harris..... SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of June 27, 1994 as submitted. Com. Harris Passed 4-0-l Com. Doyle MOTION: MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the minutes of July 11, 1994, as amended Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Doyle SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTSjREMOVALS FROM CALENDAR - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ju~y 25, 1994 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING 1. Application No(s): Applicant: Location: 81,160 and l7-EA-94: Newsrack Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Ordinance to amend Chapter lO.2l, regarding newsracks Staff Presentation: City Planner Wordell stated these amendments were initiated by the City Attorney to clarify existing regulations and to make them more enforceable. She briefly reviewed the changes to the ordinance, as outlined in the staff report. Com. Harris asked several questions regarding the changes and the following is a summary of the questions and answers: section 10.21.020 Permit required - Ms. Wordell stated permits are received from the City Manager's office. section 10.21.040 Issuance of Permit - Com. Harris stated this does not give the city the right to limit the number of newsracks. Ms. Wordell stated it is her understanding that the number cannot be limited. section 10.21.080 Dangerous newsracks - Com. Harris asked what are the penalties if section 10.21.070 is violated? She believes that section 070 needs enforcement. Ms. Wordell stated the resolution can include this concern when it goes before the Council. Com. Harris suggested adding the words "section 10.21. 070" after the words "section 10.21. 040" in section 10.21.080, this covers enforcement for both sections. section 10.21.070 Display of certain material prohibited - Com. Harris addressed (A), and ask could they add the word "otherwise" as opposed to "perverted"? wi th regards to the 15 days, as addressed in this section, Com. Harris believes this is too long. She suggested either 5 business days or 7 calendar days. Com. Austin concurred that 15 days is too long. suggested sending a minute order to council, leaving let the city Attorney decide on the number of days. Mr. Cowan this open and section 10.21.080 Dangerous Newsrack - Com. Harris addressed (B) and stated the $5 to retrieve the newsrack is not adequate. She suggested, at least the cost to recover staff's time and suggested $50. Section lO.21.070 (B) Ms. Wordell stated it was the city PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1994 Page 3 Attorney's intent to simplify how this section was described and not to change the requirement. Com. Harris suggested putting back in the language regarding nudity, as stated in the original item regarding this issue. Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. Chr. Mahoney closed the public hearing. Chr. Mahoney stated there are four issues: 1. section 10.21.080 Dangerous newsracks - should cover overall enforcement (4-0) 2. Section lO.2l.080 - 15 days to remove newsrack. Com. Roberts stated he was not aware there was a problem in Cupertino and unless this is the case he would prefer more lenient proceeding. He would support the 15 days. Chr. Mahoney concurred. 3. section 10.21.080 - $5 to retrieve newsrack. Mr. Cowan suggested wording to the effect that the cost will reimburse the community for the direct costs. (4-0) 4. section 10.21.070 (A) - Chr. Mahoney stated the wording has been changed. Com. Harris reiterated that she would like to see the language regarding nudity in either A or B. Ms. Wordell stated the city Attorney was simplifying this section. Chr. Mahoney stated the original language covers nUdity and the new language does not. He stated he would support A, B & C of the original language. Com. Harris stated this still does not cover the issue of nudity. Com. Austin spoke in support of the ordinance as presented by staff and would make the amendments regarding the reimbursement of the cost of processing and the 15 days being amended. Com. Harris suggested that staff talk the Planning commission's concerns Planning commission. to legal counsel and address and bring it back to the Com. Roberts believes that staff and legal counsel has worked on this ordinance and would be ready to vote at this time. Chr. Mahoney stated this is an attempt to streamline this ordinance and he would like to continue at this time for clarification. PLANNING July 25, Page 4 COMMISSION MINUTES 1994 SECOND: VOTE: NOES: ABSENT: Com. Harris moved to continue this item to August 8, 1994, with the purpose of determining the number of days, the number of dollars and clarification of section 10.21.070, as discussed by the Commissioners. Com. Roberts Passed 3-1-1 Com. Austin Com. Doyle MOTION: OLD BUSINESS 2. Streamlining Planning commission Meetings Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report noting at the July 11th meeting the Commission discussed streamlining Planning commission meetings. He stated if the commission has a long agenda with a cut-off time for 11 p.m. there has been a tradition that they meet the same week to hear the rest of the agenda. He stated staff recommends that the Planning commission adopt the Minute Order Resolution which will then go before the Council. Mr. Cowan stated he will put a time budget on the commissioners agendas. Com. Harris suggested eliminating the last sentence of item 3. Mr. Cowan stated staff is suggesting that public initiated applications can be continued. He stated private applications should be kept on schedule. Com. Roberts stated Commissioners have schedules and cannot be assured that they can attend a subsequent meeting the same week as the regular meeting. Mr. Cowan stated if there is a long agenda, non essential items can be continued. He stated they should try to expedite the review process for private development. Com. Roberts addressed continued items, and noted part of the overload comes from applications that have to be continued. He stated the city Attorney should be present at their meetings. Mr. Cowan stated most continuances are the result of issues brought up by the pubic and these cannot be anticipated. Chr. Mahoney addressed a time limit for groups and applications. City Planner Wordell stated it was the consensus of the planning commission at the last meeting to leave this open. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1994 Page 5 The meeting was opened for public comment. Ms. Nancy Burnett, CURB, stated if the Planning commission are too restrictive on the public, they will become angry. She noted the more informed the public become the more prepared they are to present to the Commission. She noted if the public is aware of what is going on they can become part of the solution and not the problem. She noted the residents want to be involved throughout the process. Ms. Burnett spoke in support of the three minute time limi t for simple items, but longer time should be allowed for complex issues. She noted organized group presentations can save time if they are well informed ahead of time. Ms. Burnett added that if the public is limited to one appearance, the applicant should also be limited to one appearance. She believes the public could also benefit from contacting staff before a meeting and also suggested a manual for the public explaining technical issues. She addressed continued items, and noted incomplete applications should be continued automatically. Com. Àustin stated the deadlines for applications must be adhered too. She believes that the 3 minute time limit is reasonable for public comments, but suggests 10-15 minutes for group presentations. She noted the public comment could be extended if necessary. Com. Àustin stated that questions from the Commission to the public should be limited to clarification only. She stated the applicant and the public should receive the same amount of time and the applicant should not be allowed to speak twice. She spoke in support of item 2, as addressed in the staff report. Com. Roberts stated they should make provisions regarding time limits for the applicant and groups. He stated because of time limitations, presentations are more organized and the commission should work towards a consensus as to what the appropriate time limits should be. He spoke in support of item 2, Commissioners contacting the staff regarding technical issues. Regarding item 3, Com. Roberts stated he does not mind going beyond 11 p.m., but this should be set as a goal. He stated staff and the Commission should be prepared to continue applications if they are not complete and avoid getting into deep discussions. Com. Harris stated the responsibility of the Planning Commission is to hold public meetings. She noted the Council have a three minute public time limit, and this seems to work. She stated groups should not be limited and the applicant also needs time to present his/her plan. She also noted the applicant should be available to answer questions in response to public input. She stated she would like to see a change in the policy regarding how staff schedules the items and noted this should be balanced more. She stated 11 p.m. should be a goal to work towards, but would like to remove the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1994 Page 6 last sentence in item 3. Chr. Mahoney spoke in support of the 3 minutes for public input and a longer time limit for the applicant and groups. He also spoke in support of the goal for II p.m. Chr. Mahoney stated he would like to hear from the applicant after public input. The Planning commissioners discussed the possibility of the applicant addressing the Planning commission after pUblic input. Chr. Mahoney stated if can address these, commission. specific issues are raised and the applicant he should be allowed to readdress the Corn. Roberts stated the commissioners should have the latitude to direct questions to the applicant or organized groups. Corn. Harris stated findings have been written to address problems the Commission brought up and they should work with these. She noted the process has been working regarding the applicant getting his information across and if it becomes a problem they should address it at that time. Corn. Roberts stated that unlimited debate does not assure that all the issues will be raised before going to the Council. MOTION: Corn. Harris moved to approve the minute order subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modification: Item 3 should read "A cutoff time of 11:00 p.m. is set as a goal. staff will attempt to plan meetings that will not exceed this cutoff time." The motion died due to lack of a second. Corn. Austin suggested adding item 4 regarding a staff deadline for materials and continue if materials are not presented in full. Mr. Cowan stated the findings of the resolution apply to the conduct of the meeting and the law provides for a notice of completion. He stated the problem is last minute changes and he would prefer the Commission not get involved in how the review process is administered. Corn. Roberts stated if public input is limited so should the applicant. He suggested the following language "Applicants shall be limited to 10 minutes per presentation unless staff advises the Commission that the issue is sufficiently complex to warrant more time." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1994 Page 7 Chr. Mahoney stated he supports Com. Roberts suggested language, but believes they are balancing one applicant with unlimited public input. There was a consensus to support Com. Roberts language. Com. Harris stated that the Planning commission should try to hear applications that are scheduled on the agenda. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve the minute order subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following amendments: Applicants and groups are limited to 10 minutes, with the additional wording as stated by Com. Roberts; Delete the last sentence on item 3. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Doyle SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: 3. Discussion of applications. required illustrations for planning staff Presentation: Ci ty Planner Wordell presented the staff report noting the Planning commission held two workshops on the possibility of requiring computer simulation for major projects. She stated at the workshops with AIA the Planning commission decided that their preference was that they not dictate what the actual median would be to prepare these drawings, but would rather describe the views and number of views they would like. She noted it would then be up to the applicant to determine how they would produce the renderings. Ms. Wordell presented a matrix outlining the guidelines for perspective drawings for discretionary permits, as outlined in the staff report. She noted that Planned Development could be added to the matrix. Ms. Wordell also presented drawings and examples of what the Planning Commission may require when a project comes before them. She also reviewed staff's suggestion regarding what the Planning commission may require, as outlined on the matrix. Com. Harris asked was any consideration given to getting a ridgeline drawing of a hillside project? Ms. Wordell stated this can be required. She stated the renditions can be computer generated or hand drawn and may be 2 dimensional. Mr. Jim Brenner, AIA, stated he will answer questions of the commission and noted that staff has put together reasonable requirements. He stated it should be clear up front what the Planning commission requires. He stated these should be guidelines as proposed to requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1994 Page 8 Com. Roberts asked if some architects are at a disadvantage because of an inability to follow these guidelines. Mr. Brenner stated an architect would frequently get a renderer to do the renderings. He stated the services are available. Chr. Mahoney noted the AlA had some concern about the number of requirements for a single family residential hillside project. Mr. Brenner stated the requirements seemed more burdensome on this type of a project. Ms. Wordell stated they did reduce the views required after receiving the input from AIA. Com. Austin spoke in favor of the matrix and would support adding detached PD development. She spoke in support of a ridgeline view. city Planner Wordell stated if a ridgeline is involved it could be included in one of the required views. Com. Austin stated three views are too many for the Single Family Residential Detached Hillside. Com. Roberts concurred that the three views may be too many. He suggested choosing the two most critical. He asked about applications which are continued with the recommendation that the applicant revise part of the plan. He noted the renderings become inconsistent. Ms. Wordell stated this would be on a noted this may encourage people to otherwise the commission may want to subsequent requests. case by case basis. She do computer renderings, be conservative in their Mr. Cowan stated if there are dramatic changes to the architecture and grading a new model must be drawn. Com. Roberts stated consistency is more important that the number of views. Com. Harris stated she would like to see the views on Single Family Residential Detached Hillside if the homes are over 5,000 sq. ft. She noted a view from neighboring residence should not be required if a photomontage from downslope is required, the neighboring residence could be included in this. She stated she would like to see a view of the building which includes the trees and focuses on the site. She would like to include the statement which included a ridgeline drawing. Regarding Attached Residential, Non-hillside, Com. Harris stated PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1994 Page 9 she would like to remove the word "attached". She stated the intent would be to get a concept of each building type and the recreation area. If there are over 100 units or a large project containing more than 500,000 sq. ft. she would like to see a model. She stated she would like to see an additional column to the matrix titled Model. In the large Non-residential projects, Com. Harris would like to see more views from the surrounding neighborhoods. She stated she would rather see more views as opposed to animation. Com. Austin stated she would rather have a model than animation. Com. Roberts stated he has not seen animation used effectively in cases like this. He noted with the very large projects a major concern is visibility and this should be taken into consideration when requiring more views. Chr. Mahoney stated he would rather see a model as opposed to animation. The consensus of the commission is as follows: single Family Residential Detached Hillside - drop 1 view from neighboring residence and include ridgeline shot, if applicable, in one of the two views. Residential, Non-hillside - residential over 100 units and projects 500,000 sq. ft. or more, like to see a model. No animation. Non-residential building over 5,000 sq. ft. - Like views from neighboring properties for very large projects. SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to recommend approval of the matrix subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing and to include the consensus points as addressed by the commission. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Doyle MOTION: city Planner Wordell thanked AlA for their participation in this process. NEW BUSINESS 4. Application 5-U-94 - Landmark Development: Request to set a public hearing for a General Plan Amendment for an 11,761 sq. ft. vacant parcel at Gardenside Lane and Rainbow Drive, to change from the residential designation of High: 20-35 dwelling units per gross acre to Med./High:lO-20 dwelling PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES J·uly 25, 1994 Page 10 units per gross acre. staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan stated the Council have asked the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing to consider a change in the landuse pattern for Rainbow Dr. Mr. Cowan stated four General Plan amendments are allowed each year and three have already been adopted and the diocese is the fourth. He stated he advised the applicant that he could try to incorporate his six lot development into the property behind or can start the process and wait until January l, 1995 until the amendment can be adopted. He suggested that the Planning commission direct him to initiate a General Plan hearing in September. Mr. Lon Mills, Landmark Development, stated the applicant will continue to talk to the adjoining Homeowners Association to try to get their approval to include this development as a third phase. Mr. Mills questioned the zone change? Mr. Cowan stated laws have got tougher in the last few years. He stated the zoning must be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Mills stated if the adjacent Homeowners Association is willing to take this on as a third phase, he stated they would have to change the architecture to blend in with the existing units. Mr. Cowan stated there needs to be architectural compatibility and physical integration. Mr. Mills stated the developer would like to move forward on this project. Ms. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendhal Ln., stated a 20 unit count would be another option to consider. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Austin reported on the Affordable Housing Committee and noted in-lieu fees were discussed regarding City Associates. Meeting Center REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Com. Harris addressed the Emily Chen application and noted the word "ash" should be removed from #l. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding the animal issue in Regnart Canyon, Mr. Cowan stated the Council continued this to September 19th and in the interim the neighbors will appoint someone to work with staff and then this will come back to the