Loading...
PC 01-25-88 .. CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4642 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 25, 1988 Meeting Held irt the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Ave. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: 7:30 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Sorensen Vice Chairman Adams Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Szabo Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Plannirtg Director Glen Grigg, Traffic Engineer Peggy M. Cocker, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Com. Adams asked that on Page 4, Minutes of January 11, 1988, read, "Mr. Carmada" MOTION: Com. Adams moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 11, 1988, as amended. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 Chr. Sorensen asked that on Page 5, Vote to read, "Passed, Com Sorensen abstaining" MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Minutes of the Adjourned Regular Meet- irtg of January 13, 1988, as amended. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM 1: Application 23-U-87 -Bryan/Watkins - Requesting approval of a minor amend- ment to a previously approved use permit for a two story office/retail/residential building to adjust required setbacks. ITEM 2: Application 4-U-86 - Prometheus Development - Request for minor amend- ment to incorporate bridges connecting the upper stories of a twin 8 story office development. M0110N: Com. Szabo moved approval of Consent Calendar SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of January 25,1988 Page 2 PC - 536 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 3. Application No(s) Applicant: Propeny Owner: Location: 54-U-87 Shinl!U and Etow (Eli McFlv's Restaurant P. Barnhan Southwest corner of Vallev Green Dr. and No. De Anza Blvd. N/A Parcel Area (Acres): USE PERMIT (54-U-87) To remodel an existing restaurant to reconfigure upper and lower floor dining space, and to provide related exterior architectural improvements. FIRST HEARING CONTINUED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL DATE: February 1,1988 CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application and stated that Staff recommended approval. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Garrett Shingu responding to questions stated that existing seating would be relocated to the greenhouse dining area being requested; such was being done to eliminate an undesirable dining area in the restaurant. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie noted his continuing concern regarding restaurants, namely, the parking ratio; he felt that Applicants had addressed this issue. Mr. Piasecki stated that restaurants with bars require 1 parking space for every 3 seats. Com. Szabo noted the request to irtcrease the restaurant size without an increase in seating; he questioned whether in fact, seating was not being increased. Mr. Cowan responded that when complairtts were made, Staff investigated them. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved approval of Application 54-U-87 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of this Hearing per the Model Resolution. SECOND: Corn. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of January 25, 1988 Page 3 PC - 536 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 4: Application No(s) Applicant: Location: I-GPA-87 and 52-EA-87 Otv of Cuoertino Citvwide GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (l-GPA-87) 1. Clarification that the Floor Area Ratio bonus policy applies to the Traffic Inten- sity Performance Standard area. 2. Consider policies requiring residential design standards regulating height, bulk and mass of single-family homes. FIRST HEARING CONTINUED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 1, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan advised the Commission of deliberations at the City Council Meeting of January 18, 1988, and reviewed the issues before the Commission. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Staff Repon, Interim Ordinance and Interim Rules, and I-GPA-87 (General Plan policy); he presented the followirtg exhibits: Pictures of six homes illustrating floor area ratio analyses Table 1: Examoles of Residential Develooment in Cuoenino R-l Standards Ootional Packa~es Tvoical BuiIdin!! Forms Circa 1960's Com. Claudy noted that concerns heard at Public Hearirtgs of the Commission were: Perceived bulk of houses and "wall" effect, rather than concerns on setbacks Reduction of the plane and mass of a house through use of varying design elements The Public Hearirtg was then opened. Mr. Patrick Sheehey, 7716 Squire Hill #4, Cupertino, emphasized the followirtg: FAR's presented in the exhibit of six homes were pretty large Use of daylight plane concept in conjunction with the FAR's to soften edges, especially if privacy and view restriction limits are not initiated Favorable to a downstairs bedroom as shown irt the Hunter homes c Mr. Jan Stoeckenius, 22356 Cupenino Rd., Cupenino, felt that 15 ft. setback on both sides was fairly restrictive; he favored a 15 ft setback from all but one side. One side yard may be 10 ft. wide. Mr. AI Wonh, 7724 Squire Hill Ct., Cupenino, requested consideration of a situation where the elevation of a two-story had been raised several feet through grading; example of a Squirehill Ct. home cited wherein several feet of fill had been added to the building pad. Mr. Richard Childress, representing the development industty, commented: 15 ft. setback requirement would be a significant problem for remodelling projects; if implemented, 50% of a 60 x 100 ft.lot would be eliminated irt terms of the second floor PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meetirtg of January 25, 1988 Page 4 PC - 536 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Childress continued as follows: Noted.the strong demand for at least four upstairs bedrooms with two or more baths , .15 FAR limits the second floor envelope to approximately 1/3 the size of fIrst floor-- which would be somewhat small; recommended a .20 FAR Implementation of a daylight plane concept raised design concerns on new houses; varied front setbacks suggested for relief of a "wall" effect of a row of houses Bulk of houses: control of mass of a house through control of 7 ft. area above second floor ceiling; example of Saratoga Design Ordinances cited Use of side garages and alternation of driveway designs Questioned the application of Ordinance to Residential Hillside (RHS) development Noted that houses were increasing in size on smaller lots; suggested an incentive, namely, as the lots irtcreased in size, the FAR would be more liberal Comparison of FAR's to existing setback standards; examples cited Control of front and possibly, rear yard setbacks rather than side yard setbacks Raised elevations from fIll resulted from the necessity for proper drainage; costs of addirtg fill were cited Suggested irt Model Resolution (Mirtute Order) that pipeline projects be considered as ÌI1Ìtiated at the Tentative Map stage Questioned restrictions to FAR's to the point that two car garages are preferred over three car garages; noted the impacts of cars on the street Mr. Bob Hoxsie, 22337 Mc Clellen Rd., Cupertino, commented as follows: Felt that side yard setbacks were important to preserve air space Building a four bedroom/two bath house on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot was unrealistic Felt that the larger lots should be used for larger homes Noted difference irt remodelling and new projects; cited restriction of a 15 ft. setback Questioned the purpose of offering an incentive for varied front setback Ms. Ann Anger questioned an exhibit in the Staff presentation showing a fIve bedroom house on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot. She favored adequate setbacks; however, she had no objection to increased height. Mr. Fred Reine1l noted the followirtg concerns: More restrictive standards durirtg the irtterim period; he cited his project irt the pipeline FAR's irt general; he concurred with Mr. Childress' comments Mr. Dick Oliver, Dividend Development Corp., noted concern about effect of an interim Ordinance on projects underway; he cautioned that such not be unduly restrictive. He noted the substantial differences in increased FARs and sideyard setback requirements. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby, 21442 Elm Ct., Cupertino, commented as follows: Cited examples of remodelling projects Noted that the public did not seem concerned about consistency with existing homes Felt that large roofs added bulk to homes Noted the attractiveness of the new style architecture; cited specifIc design features MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of January 25, 1988 Page 5 PC - 536 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Szabo noted costs of a Use Permit application; Ms. Cocker suggested consideration of an administrative hearing for exceptions, with the right of appeal to the Commission. Com. Mackenzie was unfavorable, if such relied upon neighbor's agreement to the project. Consideration given to variance procedure; difficulty of makirtg the Firtdings noted. Com. Claudy noted that four bedrooms/two baths could be built irt a .15 Second Floor FAR; he felt that as the lot size decreased, the FARs could increase. Com. Mackenzie favored leaving the FAR double across the lots; he favorr.d smaller houses on the smaller lots and discussed guidelines for the Residential Design Ordinance. Consensus reached by the Commission at.2O Second Floor FAR for the irtterim Ordirtance Com. Adams suggested in the Model Resolution, Setbacks - Sidevard that the second story FAR may be irtcreased when the front yard setback was increased by 10 ft; Com. Claudy did not feel that a bonus had to be given for setbacks when the FAR was .2; he noted that privacy intrusion to rear yards would result from increasing the front setback. Com. Mackenzie suggested consideration of a required 10 ft. side yard setback on all sideyards. Mr. Piasecki noted that a partial offset provided visual relief; he noted the potential difficulty of admirtistrating an interim ordirtance with numerous requirements. Consensus reached by the Commission that one sideyard setback could be 10 ft. Com. Adams suggested in the Model Resolution, Vertical Extension. add 4) "Attic space over 7 ft. is considered second floor space; agreement reached that "floor to ceiling space greater than 15 ft." be substituted for the term "attic space." Saratoga Design Review Ordinance to be reviewed for language. Com. Adams suggested in the Model Resolution, Use Permit. be deleted. Com. Szabo reiterated concern regarding the making of Findings in granting a variance; he suggested consideration of an Exception Procedure for the interim period. Com. Claudy was favorable to such. Mr. Cowan suggested that the Architectura1 and Site Approval Committee (ASAC) review applications durirtg the interim period; the Rl Ordinance was cited. Com. Adams was favorable to this suggestion; Com. Mackenzie noted that this process was beirtg developed for two recently approved tract maps. Consensus reached that ASAC review exceptions; Com. Mackenzie dissenting. Com. Adams suggested language be added to state, "Fill lots resulting in fIrst floor elevation differences of 5 ft. are limited to a second floor FAR of .15" Com. Claudy cited an example and added that if second story windows exceeded an acceptable differential, the house would have to be modified as needed. Building on the higher elevation lot, the house would have to be maintained within the plane from the lower lot. He concurred that this suggestion should be considered for the Residential Design Review rather than the in terim ordirtance. Com. Adams suggested in the Model Resolution, Pine1ine. to remain as stated. , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of January 25, 1988 Page 6 PC - 535 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to adopt a Minute Order to the City Council, recommend- irtg Interim Design Standards for Single-family homes, regulations as follows: I) Second Floor (FAR) Floor Area Ratio Second floor area may not exceed .20 of the total net lot area. 2) Setbacks-Sidevard Second floor elements shall be setback a minimum of 15 ft. from one side yard and 10 ft. from the other 3) Vertical Extension Vertical extension along existing building lines with consent of neighbors shall be rescinded. 4 ) Vertical SDace Floor to ceiling area greater than 15 ft. is considered second floor space 5) ExceDtion Architectural and Site Committee (ASAC) to review exceptions during the interim period 6) Piocline Sites for which a fmal tract map has been recorded and which have filed for building pennits prior to February 2, 1988, shall be exempt from irtterim regulations SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Mr. Piasecki reviewed the General Plan Amendment and answered questions. Com. Mackenzie questioned whether the proposed Ordinance Amendments adequately addressed a Planned Development zoning district. Com. Claudy had no objection; he suggested the addition of language addressing the excessive visual intrusion into adjacent developed residential properties and to reduce perceived building mass from adjacent residential properties through grade differentials. Mr. Cowan suggested that this sentence be added to the Model Resolution, Strategy 3. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved the granting of a Negative Declaration. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to recommend approval of I-GPA-87 subject to the con- clusions and subconclusions of this Hearing per the Model Resolution, adding Strategy 3 as noted. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to direct Staff to initiate work on the AI, Rl and RHS zoning to develop language to impliment the proposed General Plan Amendment. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Mr. Kirkeby requested additional information from the Commission regarding the action taken. .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINU1ES Regular Meeting ofJanuary 25, 1988 Page 7 PC - 536 NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 5: Status Report on rear wall at Orchard Valley Marketplace. Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Staff Repon; he noted that the Property Manager was unable to attend due to illness. Mr. George Harris, 19731 Bixby Dr., Cupertino, stated that he was not in favor of the installation of the wall for the following reasons: It would move the wall closer to his residence Would designate a non-restricted area, with increased activities Sounds would reflect off the wall and onto the rear wall of the building Mr. Ron Biermann requested irtformation on the restricted area and the November 23, 1987, hearing. He suggested a security guard be hired to ensure that the gate remain locked. Mr. Tamblyn, 19721 Bixby Dr., Cupertino, objected to the irtstallation of the wall. Com Claudy, withdrew his suggestion of irtstalling a wall, since the neighbors themselves did not wish the wall to be irtstalled. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to adopt a Minute Order determining that a wall would not significantly improve conditions; such not to be irtstalled at this time. SECOND: Com Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Claudy suggested that the lectum in the Council Chamber be turned toward the camera Chr. Sorensen irtdicated she will be absent at the Meeting of February 8, 1988 REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded its business, the Planning Commission adjourned 10:19 at P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of February 8, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recordirtg Secretary