Loading...
PC 07-11-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3182 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 11, 1994 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL commissioners Present: Chr. Mahoney vice Chr. Doyle Com. Harris Com. Austin Com. Doyle Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, city Planner Thomas Robillard, Planner II Michele Bjurman, Planner Il APPROVAL OF MINUTES Com. Austin amended the minutes of June 27, 1994 as follows: Page 9, following the motion add the paragraph "The applicant of item #6 stated if this item was continued could it be placed at the beginning of the agenda at the next meeting and the commission agreed". Com. Harris asked for a copy of the last joint City council/Planning commission meeting. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of June 27 as amended and also to include revised pages 9 and lO. Com. Harris Passed 3-0-2 Roberts, Doyle SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No Discussion POSTPONEMENTSjREMOVALS FROM CALENDAR - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Application No. Applicant: 3-U-93 Bombay Oven PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July II, 1994 Page 2 Location: 20803 Stevens Creek Blvd. Landscape review of previously approved use permit for a restaurant Com. Roberts requested that item 1 be removed from the Consent Calendar. Com. Roberts asked if this property is in the Heart of the City and if approved would they be missing the opportunity to implement Heart of the city landscaping plans. Planner Robillard stated the landscaping opportunities for this site are limited. He noted the use permit is a temporary use permit and will be re-evaluated in five years. He stated there is no building modification, just a change in use. Mr. Cowan stated staff recommends that there be very little capital investment in this building and so required minimal landscaping. Chr. Mahoney stated there is no specific plan for this area and will approve applications as they come in. MOTION: Com. Roberts moved to approve application 3-U-93 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 2. Application No: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 8-ASA-94 Sign Designs, Inc/Josh Brown Arco 10625 N. De Anza Blvd. EXCEPTION to allow a sign in excess of the allowed size and number permitted by sections 17.24.050 and 17.24.060 of the sign Code staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report and noted the applicant is not present at this hearing, but requested the Planning commission make a decision on this item. He noted the exception is for a 24 hour sign 4-1/2 ft. tall by 5-1/2 ft. wide. He stated the ordinance currently allows a sign up to 4 sq. ft. He added this particular site has two building mounted signs already approved and a ground sign. He stated staff recommends denial of the request and to allow the applicant to put up a 4 sq. ft. 24 hour sign. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 3 Com. Harris stated the applicant already has one exception. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to deny application 8-ASA-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Harris Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Chr. Mahoney moved to item 6 at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Appeal of Director's Decision to allow a mobile recycling facility (Goodwill) at Bateh Brothers Liquors and Groceries, 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd. Chr. Mahoney stated he would have to abstain from this item as he is a volunteer board member of Goodwill Industries. Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report noting this is an appeal of the Director's decision to grant a small collection facility permit for Goodwill Industries. He noted the City's ordinance relates to small collection facilities and has a number of pages which detail the design criteria for both the site and landscaping. He stated staff does support the facility and recommends approval. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Cowan stated the lot where the trailer is located is dirt. He believes this will be a relatively light activity and customers will park along the road and drop off materials. Com. Austin asked if this facility will operate on weekends. Mr. Cowan stated the applicant is requesting daily operation, which will be 7 days a week. Vice Chr. Doyle opened the pUblic hearing. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Robert Sasson, Goodwill Industries, gave a brief history of Goodwill Industries and the programs they offer. He stated this facility will not disturb surrounding neighbors. Mr. Sasson added that a full trailer will be removed once a month and replaced with an empty one. He stated the attendant will keep the place clean. He noted they are losing their site in Monte vista and the site proposed is a good location. He noted they are in compliance with city codes and believes it will enhance the property. Mr. Sasson showed photos of donation stations in surrounding cities and noted they have been at these locations for several years. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 1-1-, 1994 Page 4 Com. Harris asked if Goodwill would be willing to put in gravel to address the dust problem? Mr. Sasson stated they will do this if it becomes a problem. Mr. Bob Irwin, Appellant, noted he was not aware of this facility until his neighbor informed him. He presented pictures of Goodwill trucks and the site. He stated dust is created when traffic pull in to this parking lot and is concerned about oil spills getting into the water supply. Mr. Irwin noted that all neighbors agree that they do not want approval of this collection facility and this should be reason enough for the Planning commission to deny the application. Regarding the recycling of cardboard, Mr. Irwin noted other materials are dropped off at these sites and believes such sites are not maintained. He added the intent of the facility is good, but people abuse the system. Mr. Irwin pointed out that 1.3 miles from the proposed site is a Salvation Army truck. He stated if collection centers are needed they should be put in areas were there is no housing. He noted people complain about large motorhomes parked in front of their homes and this truck will be parked 50 ft. from his home. Mr. Irwin addressed property value decline as a result of this collection facility. He addressed the amount of drop-offs per day as addressed by the applicant and believes there will be more than three deliveries a day. He noted in summary, the neighbors do not want this facility and would ask the Planning commission to deny the application. Mr. Irwin submitted pictures and petitions regarding this facility. Com. Harris addressed a letter from Goodwill dated June 23, 1-994. Com. Roberts stated that the Goodwill truck may be an improvement to what residents are presently looking at. Mr. Irwin stated he would like this site improved and noise should be kept under control. Ms. D. Vassiliadis, 10128 Camino vista, stated heavy trucks use Foothill and Stevens Creek Blvd and this is a dangerous area. She noted any additional traffic will eventually cause an accident. She noted this facility is not needed in this location. vice Chr. Doyle closed the public hearing. Com. Roberts questioned the size of the trailer? Mr. Cowan stated the assumption is that it will be a regular trailer used by Goodwill. He stated operation will be seven days PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 5 a week. Com. Austin suggested operating from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and eliminate one day. She stated she would like black top to address the possible dust problem and noted the truck is not visually pleasing. Mr. Cowan stated if one weekend day is eliminated, there is the possibility that materials would sit over the weekend before being put into the truck. Com. Roberts spoke in support of dust sealing the pad were the truck is and one parking space. In response to a question from the public, Mr. Cowan stated the parking space will not be limited to Goodwill. Com. Harris stated she agrees that the access area should be sealed and would agree with a condition to limit the size of the truck. Com. Doyle addressed Mr. Irwin's comments and noted he would have preferred Goodwill to discuss this with the neighbors. He stated he would support the facility with the dust seal and a condition regarding the size of the trailer. SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: Com. Austin moved to approve the collection facility for Goodwill Industries and adopt Resolution 4541 subject to the findings of subconclusions of the hearing with the following additions: Truck should be limited to 27ft and the area for the truck and parking should be sealed for dust. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney MOTION: 3. Application No: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-EXC-93 Lotus Development & Constr. Inc. Same 2266l San Juan Road EXCEPTION to construct an addition to a residence on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with section 19.40.050 of the Municipal Code. staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report noting this was continued to get further information regarding the arborist and soils reports as well as the landscaping and drainage plans. He clarified that this is one lot. He stated the exception is for development on slopes greater than 30%. Regarding the Arborist report, after being informed by a concerned neighbor, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 6 staff confirmed that a second large oak tree next to tree No. 1 was not in the arborist report. He noted staff is suggesting that the tree be evaluated by a certified arborist and that protection measures be taken. He added the applicant is not intending to do landscaping on the site, but to leave it in a natural state. Regarding drainage, the ordinance states that all drainage must be let out to a public street or a drainage facility. Planner Robillard stated the preferred option is for the applicant to drain surface water through pipes to Santa Lucia Road. He noted if the applicant is unable to obtain an easement other options will be looked at. Planner Robillard stated staff is recommending approval. Com. Austin questioned the square footage of the house? Planner Robillard stated the house will be 4792 sq. ft. He also pointed out the location of the proposed driveway. Com. Harris pointed out that the exception is development on slopes greater than 30% and staff can 500 sq. ft., so the exception is for l30 sq. ft. because of approve up to Com. Roberts stated a number of recommendations in the geologist report are not incorporated into the findings and recommendations in the model resolution. Planner report permit. Robillard stated all recommendations from the geologist are incorporated and will become part of the building Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. APplicant Presentation: Mr. Barry Barnes, Lotus Development, noted they have put in a trench as requested by the City Engineer. He added since the last meeting he has met with neighbors to discuss their concerns. He noted he met with Mr. Haze and has agreed to set up a temporary construction fence between properties. He added he will construct a 2 ft. high temporary retaining wall across the lot to protect people below this lot. He noted there is no tree removal proposed and they will be protected. Mr. Barnes stated that this is one lot and the lower portion of the lot is an oak grove and will remain so. He stated no fencing is proposed. Regarding weekend work, Mr. Barnes stated there will be no heavy equipment on the site on Saturdays and no work on Sundays. He stated the large oak, as addressed by staff will be protected. Mr. Barnes noted the letter of agreement between himself and the neighbors can be attached to the building permit. He stated the house size is 3505 sq. ft. plus the garage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 7 Com. Roberts questioned the proposed drainage plan? Mr. Barnes stated his preferred option would be to pump the drainage up to San Juan Road. Mr. Richard Hernandez, 10723 Santa Lucia Road, stated he would like to emphasize the water flow and mud slides noting they have had some bad experiences in the past. He noted a natural ravine already exists and expressed concern about more water coming down the hill onto his property. Mr. Steven Haze, San Juan Road, stated he met with Mr. Barnes and would thank him for addressing the neighbors concerns. The public hearing was closed. Com. Harris asked about the letter of agreement between the developer and the neighbors. Planner Robillard stated this can be made part of the conditions. Com. Harris stated she would then be in favor of the project. Com. Doyle asked how common is it to have the drainage pumped in the other direction, as requested by the applicant? Planner Robillard stated this is not common and the preferred solution would be to obtain an easement from Mr. Hernandez so the drainage runs out to Santa Lucia Rd. Com. Roberts stated he is pleased to see many of the issues resolved, but remains concerned about the drainage and if approved, staff should pay particular attention to the drainage system. He noted it may be in the best interest of Mr. Hernandez to allow an easement through his property. Mr. Cowan stated the city Engineer will work with the applicant to come up with the best solution for the drainage system. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve 6-EXC-93 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing and to add condition 5 which would include the letter of agreement dated July 5, 1994, to be incorporated as part of the conditions. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 MOTION: 4. Application No: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 4-TM-94 Miu Juc Same 10120 Crescent Road PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 8 TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .92 acre parcel into 3 lots. staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report and noted this was continued to give the neighbors an opportunity to review the plans. She noted there is a existing single family home on the property and it is intended to be retained, with the exception of 200 sq. ft. She noted the three main issues to be discussed are: Lot configuration; trees and rezoning. Lot configuration - Because of site constraints it is impossible to create rectangular lots on this parcel. She outlined the best configuration for the parcel. Trees - The applicant has proposed to remove the pine trees, but staff recommends that the trees be retained because of their healthy state. Planner Bjurman noted if the trees are retained the driveway will be towards Crescent ct. Rezoning - Planner Bjurman noted that staff has included in the commissioners packets several letters from neighbors proposing that the Planning Commission consider rezoning this parcel to Planned Development requiring single story configurations. She noted staff does not find anything unusual about this parcel and would not recommend requiring single story homes. Planner Bjurman stated staff recommends approval of the tentative map as proposed. She briefly reviewed the setbacks required for second stories. Com. Harris stated she did visit the site and it seems that the houses on Crescent ct. were at a significantly higher elevation than this lot. She also asked about the adjoining orchard. Planner Bjurman stated the Varian's lease out the orchard and do some agriculture work. Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Morey Nelson, civil Engineer, representing Miu Juc, stated they have no objection to the driveway for lot 2 going out onto Crescent ct. He noted one pine tree may have to be removed because of the public right-of-way requested by the city. He noted Public Works has also asked for curb, gutter and sidewalk along Crescent ct. and the applicant does not want to do this because it is inconsistent with the area. Mr. Nelson outlined the elevation of the surrounding properties. Mr. Ken Clark, 10l5l Amelia ct., stated he would urge the Planning Commission to think of this lot in context of the larger area. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 9 noted this area is a transitional area and other parcels in the area are likely to be developed eventually. He urged the Planning Commission to rezone the entire area as Planned Development so the development can be done in an orderly fashion. He noted if this cannot be done he would ask that the neighbors be given 90 days to present this case more fully. Mr. Clark presented slides of the surrounding property and noted the applicant is asking to substantially change the area. He stated all the neighbors agree with some development, but with condi tions. He addressed the substantial impact on views as a result of the proposed subdivision. He believes the applicant does not want sidewalks so he can develop more of the site. Mr. Clark stated neighbors are concerned about the impact of two story homes and would prefer single story homes. Mr. Howard Strachman, 10075 Crescent Rd., stated he supports Mr. Clark's comments and believes the proposed subdivision and two story homes would substantially impact the view from the park. He stated currently two story homes are setback from the park and the Planning commission should consider this. He suggested the Planning commission get a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission as to two story homes on this lot, or the possibility of acquiring the property. Mr. Strachman addressed the view from his home and stated this will be impacted. He spoke in support of retaining the trees and undergrounding the utility lines. He also spoke in support of widening the street and noted the Planning commission should consider the fact that any change on this property is setting a pattern of development for the entire area. Mr. Strachman stated if the street widening does not occur, there is a potential for a four lot subdivision. Mr. Roy schenerlein, 22145 Orchard ct., stated he does walk in this area and is not in favor of the subdivision proposed. He noted the existing roads are narrow and the sidewalk along Crescent ct. is very important. He stated he would support the retention of the trees and expressed concern about the proposed home on lot 2. He noted if this property is subdivided the property owner should bear the cost of widening the roads and put in sidewalks. Mr. steve Paterson, 10106 Crescent ct., stated his main issue is the height, particularly the view from the park. He noted the construction of large dwellings adjacent to the park will have an adverse impact. He presented slides showing the property and the views of the site from the park. Com. Harris asked about the location of the play equipment in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July II, 1994 Page 10 park. Mr. Paterson pointed out on the map the approximate location of the equipment. He also noted that the road is currently serving 3 homes and this may increase to five homes, but does not believe there are very high demands to widen the road. Mr. Bruce Irwin, 10146 Amelia ct. stated he is a partner in the development and has discussed many concerns with the neighbors. He stated the intention of purchasing the property is to develop three lots and no more. He stated it is their preference to keep Crescent ct. a private road without sidewalks and keep the road 20 ft., solely to give a large lot size and not to increase the size of the buildings. He noted the original proposal was to include curb and gutter but no sidewalk as this is consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Irwin reviewed the elevation of the property noting lot one will remain, lot two the maximum elevation would be 7 ft. taller and lot three would be the same as existing lot one. He added most of the neighbors addressing concerns about two story homes in the area have two story homes. He noted they will work to preserve the area and the trees. Mr. Irwin pointed out that the existing home on this site can not be seen from the park because of the existing trees and noted they are willing to work with neighbors with regards to screening. Com. Roberts asked if Mr. Irwin can imagine a one story solution for lot 3? Mr. Irwin stated this can be considered and he will work with the City and the neighbors. He pointed out that the existing home on the property is two story. Mr. Schenerlein stated that there is a two acre parcel on this road and if this is developed at the density proposed the 2 acre site has a potential for seven homes. The public hearing was closed. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding further sUbdivision, Planner Bjurman outlined the parcels in the area which have a potential for subdivision. She also noted if the public improvements are not required and the Irwin property is included there is the potential for four lots. Planning Director Cowan addressed the development pattern in the neighborhood noting there is a strong feeling from the Council to keep the area at 10,000 sq. ft. lots. Planner Bjurman pointed out that this application was directed to the Parks and Recreation Department and Commission and they had no concerns regarding the view from the park because many parks within PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 11 the city abut residential properties. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding street improvements, Planner Bjurman stated there are no street improvements adjacent to this property. She also noted if the varian property was developed it will access through Crescent ct. Com. Austin stated the neighbors seem to be against two story homes, but two story homes would result in smaller footprints. She expressed concern about the height of the structures. She spoke in support of the street improvements in order to keep the number of lots to three, and the retention of pine trees. Com. Doyle stated the character of the neighborhood should be maintained, therefore there should be underground utilities and no curb and gutter. He stated development infill will continue in this area and most of the homes in the area are two story. He stated he is not in support of restricting home heights, but it would be a good idea to try to obtain a one story home on the lot closest to the park. Com. Roberts stated he looked at the site and would prefer that the house on lot three be restricted to one-story. He expressed concern about the question of improvements on Crescent ct. and the possibility that there may be further development in this area and public improvements should be considered. with regards to the trees, Com. Roberts would support preserving the pine trees, but noted it is not realistic to build a sidewalk up to a 24 inch pine tree. He stated a tree would have to be sacrificed if a sidewalk is permitted. He believes there should be sidewalks to permit access to the park, at least along Crescent ct., and maybe consider continuing it around Crescent Rd. Com. Harris spoke in favor of the subdivision as described and would like to preserve the two pine trees and have the driveway onto Crescent ct. She spoke in support of the underground utilities and does not want to see more than three houses on this property. Com. Harris stated she walked through the orchard and it does screen the view from the park to lot 3. She expressed concern about putting curb, gutter and sidewalks in this area because of the character of the neighborhood. She spoke in support of retaining the rural character and the pine trees. Regarding an access to the park, she is not in support of this and noted it may be appropriate in the future. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the main reason for requesting the sidewalk was for access to the park eventually. Chr. Mahoney stated there should be no sidewalks and no restrictions on two story homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July II, 1994 Page 12 Mr. Cowan stated the Commission is only approving a subdivision at this time and not the design of homes. Planner Bjurman pointed out that as soon as the dedication is required there is no potential for five lots. MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approve application 4-TM-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following amendment: Condo 4 remove the word "sidewalk". Com. Austin Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: 5. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-U-94 and 12-EA-94 Emily Chen Emily Chen, Frank Chang & Jennifer Chang 19340 Phil Ln. USE PERMIT to construct five single family homes in a Planned Development Zoning District. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report and noted this was continued in order to ask the applicant to come back wi th building designs that were consistent with the building materials and design of the adjoining Eichlers and to consider privacy. She noted in reviewing their plans, staff is suggesting that the application be continued because it is inconsistent with the zoning. Primarily lots 1, 3, 4, and 5 are using building materials that are inconsistent with the zoning. Lots 4 and 5 have setbacks that are inconsistent with the zoning. She also noted that lots 1 and 2 have designs on the rear yard that are two story vertical wall plains with no articulation. She pointed out that some of the information on the plans is inaccurate with regards to building sizes. She also noted the FAR on lots I, 2, and 5 exceed the 45%. She noted when she reviewed the plans for the buildings the comparison of the floor plans to the elevations were incorrect. She added staff did include in the report some suggestions on how the applicant could obtain some of the design ideas staff is thinking about and staff would recommend a continuance so the design can be more consistent with the Eichler design and the zoning. Chr. Mahoney pointed out that there are a lot on inconsistencies. In response to Com. Harris question regarding finding (e) in the model resolution, Ms. Bjurman stated this condition should be removed. Com. Harris also questioned the intent of the color requirement? Planner Robillard stated the intent of the color requirement is to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 13 fit in with the natural surrounding and noted shades of brown would be allowed. Regarding the four year bond on trees, Ms. Bjurman stated this was recommended as a result of discussions with International certified Arborists. Com. Austin questioned the materials proposed? Planner Bjurman stated stucco or tile would not be included in the natural material area. Chr. Mahoney stated the major question to the applicant is if they would like a continuance or a vote from the Planning commission. Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Eddie Shen, LRS Associates, 102 Persian Dr., Sunnyvale, noted he is representing the applicant and they are proposing five single family homes. He stated four of the five homes are two story homes in order to preserve more of the existing trees. He noted a one story home is proposed for lot 4. He stated it is his recollection from the last meeting that they were in compliance with regards to setbacks for lots 1, 2 and 3 and they had an exception for lot 4. He noted lot 5 was an exception for the second story. Chr. Mahoney stated a resolution was passed at the end of the last meeting giving setback restrictions without regard to what was proposed. Mr. Shen stated they are proposing this layout because of the restrictions on the lots. Chr. Mahoney stated the planning commission set restrictions and the question is would the applicant like to go back and work within the restrictions or would a vote be preferred? Ms. Bjurman stated another alternative would be to go for a continuance and go before the City council, who are reviewing the zoning recommendations, and ask them to decrease the setbacks on lots 4 and 5 based upon his reasons and whatever their answer is, design the homes to that criteria. Chr. Mahoney stated the plan proposed is not in compliance with the zoning restrictions. Ms. Emily Chen, Developer, stated there are so many restrictions on this property and they have spent much time working on the layouts. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 14 She asked are lots 1, 2 and 3 acceptable. Chr. Mahoney stated there are many inconsistencies and the Planning commission would give some direction. Mr. Forrest King, 604 Phil Court, stated he is speaking on behalf of the Fairgrove Homeowners and the major issues are the non- compliance items. He noted they are not trying to block development, but the primary concern is that the developer conform to the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. Mr. Forrest addressed a letter to Emily Chen dated April 29, 1994 from Michele Bjurman, which specifies the conditional use permit requirements. Mr. Forrest addressed the inconsistencies in the setbacks. He noted there are also inconsistencies in the FAR on the tentative map and pointed out labeling inconsistencies on the tentative map. Regarding the trees, on the tentative map, tree 14 is to be retained, but this tree has been lost on the landscape and site plans. He noted in addition to tree 14, the zoning change conditions specified that under tree preservation, the developer would replant nine new 24 inch box size trees, but on the landscape plans the developer has proposed 7 15 gallon trees. He stated the neighbors would like Evergreen trees. Mr. Forrest noted the applicant has orally agreed to provide a 7 ft. solid no lattice privacy fences at the developer's expense, and he would like this in writing as a requirement. Mr. Forrest showed an elevation drawing comparing the existing Eich1ers and the proposed homes and noted the materials proposed are inconsistent with the Planning commission's recommendations. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding the FAR, Planner Bjurman stated these were calculated on net lot area and this would include up to l/2 street of the new court. Chr. Mahoney stated there are two issues: 1) has anything changed since the restrictions were put in place to change Commissioners views on the restrictions; and 2) if all restrictions were met, what about the architecture? Com. Harris stated she has not seen a set of plans that comply with the requirements set at the last meeting. She expressed concern that there are still discrepancies between the floor plans and the elevations. Regarding the architecture, Com. Harris stated it is not attractive and staff has provided, to the applicant, some sample al ternati ves and she would like to see some of these suggestions incorporated into the plans. Com. Roberts believes that, comparing to earlier meetings on this issue, much has been lost. He stated it is his recollection that the Planning commission agreed that if the historic home was not to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ,- July 11, 1994 Page 15 be included there would be only four homes on this parcel. He stated many of the concessions made by the Commission were to accommodate the historic home. He stated he is not happy with the materials proposed. Com. Doyle stated he concurs with Com. requirements should not change. He also needed with regards to the architecture. Roberts and noted the noted improvements are Com. Austin stated she also concurs with Com. Roberts, particularly about the four homes vs. five. She spoke in favor of less two story homes as the Planning Commission indicated they would like a mix of one and two story homes. She added she would like to see more of staff's recommendations incorporated and is not in favor of the building materials proposed. She expressed concern about tree 14 and the landscaping as addressed by Mr. King. She spoke in favor of continuing this item until the City council hear the rezoning. Chr. Mahoney stated he does not want to impose more restrictions, but the existing restrictions should be adhered too. He noted the architecture needs more work because as proposed the homes look like stucco boxes. Chr. Mahoney stated he does not want to see this application every two weeks and the applicant should work with staff to reach some agreements. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to continue 6-U-94 to the meeting of August 8, 1994. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: 7. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 7-U-94, 5-TM-94 and l4-EA-94 Cupertino City Center Associates D Same Southeast quadrant of Stevens Creek Blvd. and De Anza Blvd. USE PERMIT to construct a l20 unit "For-Rent" condominium TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide one parcel to 120 condominium units staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report and outlined minor changes in the staff report. He presented an opportunity map, provided by the applicant, outlining possible uses for the entire Town Center area. He added the City consulted with Michael Freedman to review the proposed residential design and master plan for the site. He noted an issue of this proposal is the compatibility of the proposal with the adjoining and future uses. Regarding the east frontage, staff has worked with the P~IING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 16 applicant to create some interaction with the amphitheater. Regarding the west frontage, staff believes this will relate well with the other uses which may be designated in the future. He noted this area is part of the stevens Creek Blvd. specific Plan which will identify what the definitive uses will be in the future. Regarding the project design, Planner Robillard stated staff has worked with the applicant and the architect to come up with a design that utilizes a modern urban design that is compatible and compliments the existing uses. He reviewed the color board provided by the applicant. He noted pedestrian activity has been encouraged by staff and also the landscaping proposed does meet the Xeriscape guidelines and is consistent with the surrounding area. He noted the lighting proposed is consistent with the existing lighting and if the applicant wants to propose alternative lighting, this should come back before the Commission as a consent calendar item. Planner Robillard reviewed the requirements for park dedication and noted the applicant is eligible for 50% credit of the required park fees as explained in the staff report. Planner Robillard presented tables 1 and 2 which demonstrates how the applicant meets the credit criteria as outlined in the staff report. He noted policy 5-53 of the General Plan promotes the dedication of public open space where it is feasible, as opposed to private open space. He stated the City would not be interested in having the amphitheater dedicated because the cost ratio of maintaining this vs. what is provided to the community is not economically feasible, also the General Plan discourages requiring property less than three acres in size. Regarding traffic, Planner Robillard stated staff required a traffic study which concluded that the level of service at the intersections of stevens Creek and De Anza Blvds and De Anza Blvd. and Rodriguez Ave. would not be impacted. Regarding parking, the applicant is providing 1.93 parking spaces per unit, which is approximately 8 spaces short. He noted staff is not concerned with this deficit because, typically, cupertino requires more parking than what is required in other cities. He stated staff is asking that the applicant provide more parking along the north side of the property. He added, in talking to the applicant and architect this may be infeasible. Regarding affordable housing, Planner Robillard stated the Planning Commission can approve this project without discussing the affordable housing requirement. The General Plan requires that 10% of the units be dedicated for affordable housing. He stated the applicant is contesting these requirements and must go before the Affordable Housing Committee and their recommendation would come back to the Planning commission and the City Council. He stated PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 17 staff is recommending approval of the tentative map and use permit as submitted. Com. Roberts asked about the height restriction? Mr. Cowan stated it is approximately between 60 to 75 feet. Com. Roberts asked about cumulative impacts on traffic when the other properties are developed? Planner Robillard stated this was taken into consideration in the General Plan Amendment. He stated staff looked at the impact on the adjoining intersections. Mr. Cowan stated in 1993 staff did a computer model based on the MTC model at the regional level and determined what the current capacity of the whole system was. He noted when projects such as this one comes in, the adjoining intersection is tested and then once a year the overall system is looked at. Com. Doyle clarified that the usage projected for this development is lower than the model. Regarding design, design the project higher? Com. Roberts asked if they have latitude to starting lower at the amphitheater and then go Planner Robillard stated this would be the time to consider that. He noted the challenge of the affordable housing requirement is that it is economically infeasible. He noted 25% credit was a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission and it will come before the Planning commission within the next few months. He noted the Parks and Recreation commission want to make this change in general. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding public use of the amphitheater Planner Robillard stated the direction from the General Plan is to have public vs. private open spaces and staff suggests that this particular site have a public use easement. He noted the applicant will address their concerns about this. He noted there are regulations regarding antennas and a condition can be added. Planner Robillard stated there is sufficient guest parking. with regards to the design of the project, Planner Robillard stated Michael Freedman was in support of the project design. Com. Doyle addressed the impact on fire and schools, Planner Robillard stated this was evaluated during the General Plan update. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 18 He also noted that these units add to the overall housing requirement for this site. Com. Austin stated she discussed apartment zoning of this site with staff and believes that apartment zoning is where the City will obtain the affordable housing. Planner Robillard stated it has been a practice in the past that apartment buildings also have approved a tentative map so the units can be sold as condos in the future. He explained the affordable housing component if the units are sold. He added that City Center I apartments have been subdivided and could be sold as individual units. He noted a restriction can not be put on the tentative map to keep these units from selling for a certain time period. Mr. Cowan stated he would have to discuss the time period with the city Attorney. Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. Applicant Presentation: Ms. Jackie Diller, Cupertino city Center Associates, stated their goal is to develop a high quality project which meets the objectives of the General Plan and the Town Center design concept. She noted they agree with staff's recommendations with a few minor modifications. Regarding the parking on the north as addressed by staff, they would like more flexibility as it would reduce the amount of landscaping they are providing. She stated they may be able to put additional parking along the south side. Regarding the park in-lieu fee, Ms. Diller stated a public use easement will be in violation of the original CC&R's. She noted the l20 units will be rental and noted the architect will review the design, but noted the design will be similar to Park Place in Mountain View. Mr. Alex sidel, Architect, stated the building consists of a courtyard configuration of three stories of residential above a garage. He noted the garage is fully submerged at the northeast corner and half suppressed at the southeast corner. He noted the height of the building is approximately 40-50 ft. He stated the project in Mountain View is a model for this project and noted they have created a streetscape which is pedestrian friendly. Mr. Sidel outlined the colors to be used and they have incorporated pedestrian features which will relate to the amphitheater. Regarding the height of the structure, Mr. Sidel stated the developer of the project has looked at a series. The only feasible project is a wood frame project limited to 50 ft. He stated there is a uniform height all around the building. Regarding the massing, they did meet with Mr. Valentine, the originator of the Cupertino city Center Master Plan, who reviewed the project and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 19 felt it was important to establish consistent elevation facing the amphitheater. Corn. Doyle asked about the health club, Mr. Sidel stated it is primarily at the garage level. He also noted at the northwest corner the garage will be approximately 4ft. above ground. He stated the garage will be a naturally ventilated garage. Corn. Roberts stated he would like to see more variation in the height of the structure to blend in with the office buildings to the north. He also addressed the view from the amphitheater, and noted he would like to see a view facing west. Mr. Sidel stated he believes there is a tapering affect in the area as opposed to the building. He noted to achieve a stepping affect in the building would mean eliminating units. In response to Corn. Harris' questions regarding the landscaping, Mr. Sidel stated the lawn area of the amphitheater exists and they are proposing exposed aggregate paving with planters for the courtyard area. He stated this will be similar to the Park Place project. He noted there is one major access into the garage. He added there will be a 10 to 12ft. continuous landscaping strip around the perimeter of the project. Corn. Harris questioned the rental range. Ms. Diller stated the one bedroom apartments will rent for approximately $1000/mo. Chr. Mahoney questioned the condition regarding the park easement. Planner Robillard stated this is a condition of the tentative map. Chr. Mahoney stated the public easement of the amphitheater, as addressed by staff, is not included in the conditions. Corn. Harris questioned the violation of the CC&R's as addressed by the applicant? Planner Robillard stated the applicant has several parties who have an invested interest in the CC&R's and in order to change these all parties must agree to the change. He noted currently the CC&R's allow the city to use the amphitheater without fees, but the public easement would give the city and the public more flexibility. He noted the CC&R's have to be amended to allow the development and they could be amended at the same time to allow the public easement. He stated he would clarify this with the city Attorney. Mr. Farokh De Boo , Cupertino Waterfall, stated the current plan has the highest density in this area and noted neighbors were not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 20 notified about this proposal. Regarding the park dedication fee, it should be used to implement the Stevens Creek Specific Plan. He agrees that the amphitheater should be open to the public, but noted some of the concerts are annoying to adjoining neighbors. He addressed Park Place in Mountain View and noted they have accessories which this proposal does not. He expressed concern about adequate parking and noted the traffic study did not consider the intersection at Torre and Rodriguez. Mr. DeBao addressed the height of the building and noted this looks like a four story building including the garage. He added the units should be made affordable. In response to Com. Doyle's question regarding the distribution of units at the Waterfall, Mr. DeBoo stated 25 to 30% are one bedroom. Com. Austin stated she is not in favor of this project at this time because the applicant tends to rent and this is not apartments and not zoned apartments. She believes if it was apartments it would provide more affordable housing. She stated in the original plans it was zoned for apartments. Chr. Mahoney asked if there is a way to keep the units rental for a certain period of time, would this be acceptable. Com. Austin stated it may. She also expressed concern about the park dedication fees. Com. Doyle stated he would like to see this project on a photo montage. He noted he would also like to visit Park Place in Mountain view. Com. Doyle stated that the lO-12 ft. landscaping berm does not seem adequate for the proposed building and spoke in support of more buffering. Com. Roberts stated he agrees with Com. Austin that apartments are the best way to obtain affordable housing. He stated he is not open to considering the units rental for a certain time period as addressed by Chr. Mahoney. He addressed the open space dedication and noted if the amphitheater is not truly open to the public he would question the validity of the calculation as addressed by staff. Regarding the aesthetics, Com. Roberts believes they are missing the opportunity if they don't blend in the office towers with the surrounding area. He noted it is important to build this area in an aesthetically pleasing way which will invite people. Com. Harris stated she has no opposition to the rental condominiums and likes the fact that they have the double wall. She stated if it is economically feasible now to be apartments and later condominiums then this is acceptable. She stated that because of their size they will sell for less than a single family home and provide an alternative. She stated she is sorry the city allowed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 21 the amphitheater to be mitigation for a park dedication, because it does not get used and it is not a park like facility. She noted the development proposed is for an urban area and is 50 ft. tall and is this what the city wants? She expressed concern about the parking ratio proposed and would not like the parking to impact the surrounding streets. She spoke in favor of the design and the architecture and noted it will fit into the community. Com. Harris stated she would like a condition regarding prohibiting antennas. Chr. Mahoney stated he would prefer apartments, but would be open to exploring some limitation when they will be converted to condos. He spoke in favor of the architecture and would like to see the project from other views. Cams. Doyle and Austin also expressed concern about parking. Chr. Mahoney stated as more density comes into the area either parking or landscaping will have to be traded. It was a consensus of the council to tour Park Center in Mountain View. Chr. Mahoney suggested continuing this project to obtain more information on the following: _ Understand the options for limiting to apartments. _ Will hear from the Affordable Housing committee - Tour of Park Place in Mountain View. _ Better site perspective from amphitheater and the south. Chr. Mahoney stated he would like to see a more realistic view from eye level. The commission briefly discussed the best view for a photo montage and asked staff to select the best vantage points. Com. Harris stated staff should inquire with the city Attorney regarding the CC&R's, as addressed earlier. The planning commission decided to discuss item II before deciding on a date for the continuance of this meeting. 11. Cancellation of August 22, 1994 Planning commission Meeting Com. Harris noted she will be absent the August 8th meeting. After a brief discussion it was a consensus of the Council to cancel the August 22, 1994 meeting. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to continue item 7 to August 8, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1994 Page 22 SECOND: VOTE: NOES: and schedule a field trip to Park Place in Mountain View Com. Roberts Passed 4-1 Com. Harris 8. Application 81,160 and l7-EA-94: Newsrack Ordinance Ordinance to amend Chapter lO.2l, regarding newsracks MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to direct staff to to the Newsrack ordinance and set a July 25, 1994. Com. Austin Passed prepare amendments public hearing for 5-0 OLD BUSINESS Report to city Council: Application 80,052.2 and Ordinance of the City of Cupertino amending regarding large family day care homes. 9. 10-EA-94: An Chapter 19 Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan stated the Commission acted on this item at a previous meeting, it then went to council level. He noted there is a question about the need for administrative procedure to make sure that staff has the ability to approve administratively, the large family day care, rather than relying on the state Licensing Board. He stated the changes in the ordinance are outlined in the staff report. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the amending Chapter 19 regarding homes. Com. Austin Passed changes in the ordinance large family day care 5-0 NEW BUSINESS 10. Streamlining Planning commission Meetings Com. Austin stated she believes that it is important to have a cut- off time. Com. Harris suggested that staff plan the agenda so it goes no later than 11 p.m. She also suggested hearing the shorter items first. Mr. Cowan noted that city initiated items can be continued. He also suggested that the Commissioners contact staff for any technical questions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July II, 1994 Page 23 The Commissioners briefly discussed the time limit for public input. Com. Doyle suggested setting a time budget and trying to drive for this. 12. Scheduling public hearing date for Diocese Draft Environmental Impact Report. It was a consensus of the commission to schedule a public hearing for September 22, 1995 at 6:45 p.m. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Com. Harris asked was there an appeal of the Lotus Development project the Planning Commission denied at a previous hearing? She also asked about the Sandoval hearing? Mr. Cowan stated the Lotus Development project was appealed. Regarding Sandoval, the applicant is gathering more information. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT Having concluded business the Planning commission adjourned at 12:05 a.m. to the meeting of July 25, 1994 at 6:45 p.m. July 12, 1994 Respectfully submitted C~·I'-\·IQ..~d catherine M. Robillard Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of July 25, 1994 d 111 Attest: 4m~¡ Kim Smith, City Clerk orrin Mahoney, Chair