Loading...
minutes 10-10-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES October 10, 2006 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL TUESDAY The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 2006 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Marty Miller Lisa Giefer Cary Chien Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki City Planner: Ciddy Wordell Senior Planner: Colin Jung Associate Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Aki Honda Public Works Director Ralph Qualls, Jr. Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SeDtember 26. 2006 Planninl! Commission minutes: Corrections as noted: . Page 12: Vice Chair Giefer: Second bullet, line 5: Delete "they are non-native and use a considerable amount of water and will need to be irrigated for a longer period of time than the native species. (Vice Chair Giefer noted that she was referring to the privacy plantings that were not eucalyptus.) Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to approve the minutes of the September 26, 2006 meeting as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Staff noted receipt of various written communications received relative to agenda Items 3 and 5. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 October 10,2006 POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 8. TM-2006-09 (EA-2006-15) Dennis Liu, 10377 Amistad Court Tentative Map to subdivide a 21,382 sq. ft. parcel into two parcels at 11,101 and 10,231 square feet respectively. Planning Commission decision final Unless appealed. Request postponement to the October 24,2006 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to postpone Application TM-2006-09 to the October 24, 2006 meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. TR-2006-14 City of Cupertino Blackberry Farm Tree Removal of a specimen oak tree at Blackberry Farm. Postponed from the September 26, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Ralph QuaDs, Jr.,'Public Works Director, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the informational report on the removal of the Coast Live Oak tree that was in a hazardous and dangerous condition at Blackberry Farm. He pointed out that the safety of the public is a prime concern relative to the danger that the tree posed, because of conditions outlined in the arborist's report. He also noted that the premises were used in the summer for public and private picnics, the largest being the Yahoo annual event at which more than 4jOOO people attended. The tree was removed on July 24, 2006 because of the potential safety hazards. . In the slide presentation, he illustrated an example of a tree falling after closure of the park in September, which caused considerable damage, and noted that if the park had been still opened to the public, it would have had severe impacts, possibly including injury or death of park attendees. Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to the removal of the tree, and timelines. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: . Relative to Chair Miller's comment that the application should come back to the Planning Commission, he clarified that Section 14.18.140 (Exemptions) relates to the removal of the tree in the case of an emergency caused by the hazardous or dangerous condition of the tree. He said it could be addressed in the new tree ordinance for clarity. Assistant City Attorney Eileen Murray: . Referred to Section 14.18.160 (Director to Inspect) and clarified the Director of Community Development's authority to refer to other departments or the Planning Commission. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Gail Bower, resident: . Noted that Blackberry Farm was part of the Stevens Creek Corridor. The city is currently planning a major demo and reconstruction project beginning in March, construction bids will be presented to City Council on Oct. 17th. The plan seems to be highly focused on the new facilities for the city's picnic and event business; yet Cupertino voters passed Measure T Cupertino Planning Commission 3 October 10,2006 which was to pay for Blackberry Farm for open space. She showed papers that showed Measure T was for the acquisition and preservation of property known as Blackberry Farm for open space; it clarifies that another property the Fremont Older School site would be for public recreation; hence there is a definite difference in this impartial analysis between open space and public recreation. . She questioned the use of Blackberry Farm, which under Measure T was to be used as open space, and was still continuing a part time picnic business, and why buildings were going to be demolished and rebuilt for an area that is supposed to be open space. . She expressed concern about the loss of approximately 100 trees which were planned to be removed for the project. . Asked that the city foster public trust by following what citizens voted for in Measure T, which is that Blackberry Farm be open space, not picnic grounds. Rhoda Fry, resident: . She questioned why the tree stumps were removed. She illustrated photos of Hidden Villa, a preserve in Los Altos Hills, created by early members of the Sierra Club where the tree stumps remain. She said they could be used for children's play, used to determine how old the tree was by its rings, and used to determine different things in history and growth of the tree. . Asked for sensitivity to removing what is left at Blackberry Farm and questioned why the area where the dangerous tree was tagged, was not roped off as a dangerous area. She also asked about the disposition of the wood from the trees and stumps. . She showed a photo of the trees that are slated for removal at Blackberry Farm, about 73 trees for the creek restoration, and noted that 23 were not close to the creek. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Commended the city for protecting the Oak trees and asked what the plans were for replanting the same type of tree. She also noted that the Bay Laurel at Rancho San Antonio had split, and she said she hoped that it would be left up as it may grow back from its roots. . Said she hoped that when the city replants the trees, it will be a ceremonious event so that people will realize the beauty, history and future of the trees. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Ralph Qualls Jr., and Mr. Rizzo from Public Works, responded to the public speakers' questions: . Relative to safety, said they posted the tree, and there wasn't a great deal of activity; and set the date for removal on the day the park was closed. . Said it would do no good to place cones around the tree, because if the tree fell, it would fall across the roadway and the roadway would have to be closed until the tree was removed. He said they assumed the risk that they didn't want to close off the end of the park because of the rentals booked for the park. They kept a watchful eye on the tree, and the contractor removed the tree within one week from the inspection. . There are no replacement plans; it will be taken up as part of the project referred to as the Stevens Creek Corridor Park. . Mr. Qualls said that it was not appropriate for him to comment on the project; there have been a number of issues raised and were not cited in the questions about the project. The City Council is holding a substantial discussion on October 17a to discuss the Stevens Creek Corridor Park; the implementation of it, the budget for it, the scope of work; and for anyone who has the concern and interest, it would be the appropriate forum. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 October 10, 2006 · Said he did not know what the replacement strategy would be, because they would take it up because it is such a large tree, and will determine where it would be replaced. It is probably not going to be replaced in that area because it is a play area with ball courts and volleyball courts; but the replacement strategy for making up for having to remove the tree would be considered as part of the project and the most effective way to do it. · He said he would note that as a concern of the Planning Commission and raise it at the Council meeting. · He reported that it was pointless to keep the stumps; the contractor removes the wood from the tree; the city doesn't have the means or equipment to haul the wood to a dump site. There is a discount in the contract for salvage of the wood and it is used for other purposes. Firewood is a tough sell these days because of the air quality conditions. It is less expensive for the contractor to salvage the wood. Com. Wong: . Expressed concern that no more trees be removed without the Planning Commission's knowledge, since there has been a strong concern from the public to bring it to the Planning Commission instead of the Director of Community Development until things get worked out by the Council on October 17111. Vice Chair Giefer: . She questioned the definition of a dangerous tree. She pointed out that the tree has evidently stood for hundreds of years, and there was no rush to do anything about the tree until Parks & Rec took over the maintenance in June and it was labeled a dangerous tree. She said the tree was not leaning, and appeared to be on level ground, and could have potentially lived another ten years. . Whereas another tree that was more dangerous, did fall, and it had not been inspected. She said there needs to be a better handle on what is labeled public hazards. Ralph Qualls, Jr.: . He said they rely on the professional judgment of licensed experts and the arborist made it clear it was a dangerous and hazardous tree; and based on that advice from a licensed competent practitioner to exercise that judgment, the tree was removed. . It is the responsibility of the city staff and the Public Works Department to maintain the safety and welfare of the public; and the public has access to these areas and if these trees represent a danger, they have to be dealt with. Advice is given by a competent licensed professional and the necessary action was taken. Vice Chair Giefer: . She suggested that consideration be given to leaving the stumps in the ground as they may have some recreational value as discussed earlier. If the Corridor Park project is going to change Blackberry Farm, and if they are in the way and need to be removed, it can be done at a later time. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Saadati: . Said he felt the informational item was acceptable based on the report and that the arborist's identified it as a dead tree. He suggested that in the future, an arborist who specializes in oak trees be used. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 October 10, 2006 Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, to forward a minute order to City Council requesting no further trees be removed from Blackberry Farm until City Council has heard public input regarding remaining trees in Blackberry Farm, trees that would be removed as part of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park restoration, and that if there is a tree that has already received a permit for removal, the stump remain there and not be ground out until after the Council is finished with the Stevens Creek Corridor project. Second by Com. Wong, with an amendment that in the event of an emergency situation, that the Public Works Dept. determine that it was emergency, and they follow the policy and return to the Planning Commission and go through the Director of Community Development and return to the Planning Commission for proper procedures. Amendment accepted by Vice Chair Giefer . (Vote: 5-0-0) 2. R-2006-07, RM-2006-22 Kevin Chiang (Lai residence) 10535 Cypress Court Consider an appeal of a Residential Design Review for a new, two-story 3,725 sq. ft. residence. Consider an appeal of Minor Residential Permit for a 12-foot 6" rear setback for the single-story portion of a new two- story 3,725 sq. ft. residence. Planning Commission decision unless appealed. Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the appeal of the Community Development Director's decision approving a residential design review for a new 3,725 square foot, two story residence, and a minor residential permit for a 12' 6" rear yard setback for the single story portion of the residence, as outlined in the staff report. . He noted that the appellants reside at 10546 Cypress Court and 10521 Cypress Drive. . A summary of the appellants' concerns were outlined, including the size and style of the architecture being a major departure and divergence from the current neighborhood; potential privacy intrusion from the rear yard facing second story windows; and petitions signed supporting the appeal. The applicant has also submitted numerous letters of support and signed signatures supporting the proposed project. . The applicant in response to one appellant's concern, has submitted revised plans indicating that three of the windows facing the rear, will be raised to accommodate the neighbor's pnvacy concerns. . Staff feels the project is consistent and compatible with the neighborhood; the zoning district does allow the applicant to apply for a two story permit. Ching Hwang, representing the appellants: . He said it was pointed out by the Planning Department that we should have referenced Section 19.28.100 of the ordinance instead of 19.28.130; although it is only a minor difference in wording. . Also the adverse visual impact on the adjoining properties has been reasonably mitigated instead of mitigated to the maximum extent; hence the correction doesn't change the essence of the appeal. . In the appellants' view, neither of the criteria has been met. It is not harmonious; the neighborhood is tract homes or remodeled tract homes. This house is going to be twice the size ofthe other homes, and the design is not compatible with the surrounding homes. . Focus is on adverse visual impact on adjoining properties. The Planning Department's recommendation does not address how it has been reasonably mitigated. He illustrated the privacy impact of the proposed second story on his property. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 October 10, 2006 . Said the answer to how they can reasonably mitigate the privacy intrusion on their property is to. relocate the window and mitigate the intrusion problem. He said he would later address the Planning Commission's suggestion of planting screening trees and shrubs. . He discussed proposed mitigation relative to relocating the master bedroom and bathrooms in an attempt to mitigate the intrusion on his privacy. Steven Liao, property owner: . Said that he has made every attempt to make modifications to the proposed house design to mitigate the privacy concerns of the neighbors in question. . He said that the majority of the neighbors support the proposed project. . He said that appellant Hwang had not been in contact with Mr. Liao prior to the appeal, and that he leased the property and was not residing on the property adjacent to Mr. Liao. . He asked that the Planning Commission recognize his efforts in working with staff to revise the design in accordance with the city ordinance in an effort to mitigate the concerns of the appellants. . He said that he was willing to consider a front setback exception in order to increase the space between the rear of his home and the Hwang residence. Vice Chair Giefer: . Noted that the Liao property location on the cuI de sac was unique, and wondered why he didn't ask for a front setback exception vs. the rear setback exception, as it may be something the Planning Commission could make a fmding for. Mr. Liao: . Responded that the possibility of a front yard setback had not been discussed with staff. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Kevin Chiang, project architect: . Said that they followed the city codes for the proposed project in considering their needs. . Reviewed the proposed changes to the project to mitigate the concerns of the appellants. Richard Ullman, Deodora Court: . Opposes the project. . Completed a remodel last year, and made every effort to have their home blend in with the neighbors and fit in with the original designs and construction on their street. . Said that he felt the neighborhood should remain as one story homes. John Frey, resident: . Supports the project. . Said that Mr. Liao has made every effort to design the project to blend in with the neighborhood and no concerns were raised until the last moment by the appellant. . He noted that there were other two story homes in the neighborhood and said they fit in with the other existing homes. Richard McGrath, Deodora Court: . Opposed to the project. . Said he felt the proposed project was oversized, poorly designed and did not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. . He asked that consideration be given to keeping the neighborhood within its original design. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 October 10, 2006 Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said issues of substandard rear yard setbacks have been a paramount problem in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood and in Cupertino. . Said that if there is a complaint from a neighbor about the application, the process would be held up. . Said that Vice Chair Giefer's idea of pulling the house forward would solve many problems. When large homes are built in neighborhoods with smaller homes, it is a shock to neighbors and when there are substandard back yards, disagreement between neighbors occurs. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Wong: . Asked the reason why the setback was 25 feet, rather than the usual 20 feet. Gary Chao: . Referring to the floor plan, the elevations in the front, there is a tower feature that represents the staircase and it takes on a two story form and is subject to the second story setback. The result of that, everything is pushed back; also because the shape of the lot, it is not a conventional shaped comer lot; it has a curvature to it but at the comer it bulbs out significantly, so in essence the front yard setback curves with it, which is why everything has to be pulled back more than usual. Steve Piasecki: . In response to Com. Wong's question about why staff supported it, he summarized that it would be exchanging one variation; and it would be varying from the front yard second story setback requirement. . Relative to the 12-1/2 foot rear yard setback for the single story; no one is talking about the single story other than it is the only reason he needed a minor residential permit. He said that before the Rl ordinance was amended, you were allowed to come as close as 10 feet as a matter or right; we changed it and said no, we ought to take a look at these if you are a little bit closer; and it would allow one to come as close as 10 feet. . Second story setback where the window is, which seems to be the biggest issue, meets the ordinance, is 25 feet back and it meets the ordinance requirements plus he has provided the privacy screening provided by the ordinance, so the second story which seems to be the issue meets all of the ordinance requirements. You can encourage him to go back and apply for an exception on the front yard setback; the problem with that is it will cost the applicant several thousand dollars and a lot of time, about six weeks to two months in lost time. . The view angles and visibility are about the same; the point was the staff did approve it originally, it met all the ordinance requirements, we felt that while it was a larger house than many of the neighborhood homes, this wasn't substantially oversized or; it is very well designed; the applicant has done a good job; and you will remember that when we did the Rl ordinance we talked at length about what size second stories should be and it came in around 900 or 1,000 square feet to provide the reasonable bedrooms up there. We were and still are comfortable with the applicant's proposal and feel that the privacy screening will do much of what the appellant is asking for. Much of the other redesigns that have been discussed while, anything, you can always redesign, and I applaud the appellant's creativity in trying to figure out ways to do it. It still will require this applicant to go through a significant delay and he has done quite a bit in terms of minimizing the windows facing his neighbors. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 October 10, 2006 Com. Wong: . Said that the applicant agreed on their own to the siding and stone in the front. Gary Chao: . That is actually part of the original proposal; it was always the intent of the applicant to make sure that the material, the stones and wood sidings, and detail treatment are all from elements of the neighboring homes. Com. Wong: . With the RI ordinance, people are allowed to build either a one story or a two story home. The ordinance was reviewed about a year or two ago, in many public hearings. . He expressed concern that an applicant is trying to build their dream home and the Planning Commission may be subjective on the style, type of siding, etc. and not everyone's concerns will be satisfied. He said the rules that that Mr. Liao followed are very prescriptive. . He said Mr. Hwang does have the right to appeal and he corrected Ms. Griffin's earlier comment, stating that no one was accusing Mr. Hwang of being the bad guy. Mr. Hwang is merely exercising his right as a resident of Cupertino, even though he may not live in the home; he is exercising his right to appeal the Director of Community Development's decision; which is the reason for the public hearing. . I understand some concerns that they would prefer to have a one story home, some privacy plantings take a long time to affect visual impacts; Mr. Hwang did not act intentionally in not showing the bamboo or the trees presently there, but when a neighborhood grows and transforms from a tract home in the 60s to something that is 2006, there are going to be growing pains and I think that he did try to make a reasonable attempt; everything is prescriptive. . Mr. Hwang was creative in suggesting different ideas; however it is not the Planning Commission's task to suggest the location of the bedrooms and bathrooms. He made a reasonable attempt by raising the bathroom windows up to 5 feet. . Said he supported the Director of Community Development's decision. Gary Chao: . In response to Com. Chien's question about the timeline, he said the normal process was followed to the point where the appellant appealed the project. The two delays were caused by accommodating the appellant's schedule and Mr. Piasecki's request for postponement of the hearing to accommodate his schedule. Com. Chien: . Relative to ingress and egress, and the ability for one to escape in case of a fire, how is the width and height of ingress and egress windows calculated? Gary Chao: . According to the building code and fire code each bedroom window must have a means of exit; the fire department requires that the windows be at least no higher than 5 feet in terms of sill height. Com. Chien: . The RI ordinance is the ability for someone to improve their property and the ability for them to improve it the way they want with limited government infringement. As a government we have the ability to restrict things such as size, but we try to limit that to an extent where we do not infringe upon someone's right to improve their property. The other side of the coin is the secondary party, the party that is affected by construction, and we Cupertino Planning Commission 9 October 10,2006 recognize the right of privacy for those people; their rights to noise abatement during construction and things of that nature. The Rl ordinance is a living document, it changes occasionally with new decision makers, but it attempts to balance the rights of both sides. . Relative to the merits of the appeal, the appeal form states that the size is huge; the ordinance prescribes that anybody who wishes to improve their home can go up to 45% of their total lot, which is where this case falls. . . The second question is the ostentatious style of the architecture. The home is a nice home, it uses wood siding and brick, and is well designed. . He said in terms of the facts presented, he supported the staff recommendation. Vice Chair Giefer: . The issue we are being asked to decide, is do we think it is okay to have the back of the house at 12-1/2 feet from the mutual property line. In the past I have not supported this type of Director's Minor Modification; and I cannot support the proposed project. I think there were other opportunities that the applicant had. . My comments are independent of privacy screening; I think the privacy screening can be mitigated with the correct type of plantings. I think the space is too close, and we are putting the single story element too close to the common property line. I would like it to be 20 feet from the common property line. Com. Saadati: . The proposed application meets the Rl ordinance and meets the rear yard setback as prescribed in the ordinance. . One other way to looking at the second level; the applicant could have put two bedrooms in the back and he chose one bedroom which reduces the potential privacy impact, and since they are going to be putting in trees to screen the view, this is consistent with some other buildings that we have approved in the past. . Said he supported staff s recommendation. Chair Miller: . Said he supported staff's recommendation. The applicant has complied with all the points in the ordinance and in terms of the privacy issue, the landscape screening is an accepted mitigation measure in the city and has been done for many houses. . Noted that when the appellant spoke, he suggested that there was a privacy issue with his master bedroom window, and that window is completely obscured by the bamboo, and there is no view through the bamboo to either side of the fence. . Noted that the appellant's back yard has an incredible amount of landscape screening as well to screen the rest of his neighbors, and there is no reason why there cannot be landscape screening on the side of his house to include the master bedroom of the applicant. . Said that the applicant has tried to address the appellants' concerns by reducing the size of the other windows. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien, to deny the appeal and uphold the minor residential permit on Application R-2006-27 and R-2006-22. (Vote: 4-1-0; Vice Chair Giefer No) 3. U-2006-10, ASA-2006-18 Richard Haro (Francisco Residence) 10130 Santa Clara Avenue Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to construct a new two-story 2,131 sq. ft. residence with 5-foot side yard setbacks in a Planned Residential zoning district. Planning Cupertino Planning Commission 10 October 10,2006 Commission decision final unless appealed. Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for a Use Permit to construct a new two-story 2,131 sq. ft. residence with 5 foot side yard setbacks in a Planned Residential zoning district, as outlined in the staff report. . He reviewed the side yard setback exception. Staff feels that the project site fits the parameters of the Rl-5 zoning district and the proposed use permit is consistent with the intent ofthe R1 ordinance. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project according to the model resolutions. Richard Kimville, representing Richard Haro Inc.: . Reviewed briefly the plans prepared. He noted that there was a full basement, with a deck in the front of the house which is adequately screened. He said it presented as an overall smaller appearing house, with the second floor set back. . He said they have worked diligently with staff and followed their recommendations. Com. Chien: . He asked what the homeowners' considerations were when they chose to go below the 750 square feet allowable for second story. Richard Kimville: . Said they were trying to keep the overall project not too large, and it has been worked several times over. There was not a specific issue brought up about that; just working with the totals. . Said he could not say that it would be feasible if you look at the way the designs layout; it is a nice house and you are starting over totally when you do something like that at this stage. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Commended the architect for designing an appropriate sized home on the small lot and taking advantage of the basement. She said the house would complement the neighborhood. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien to approve Application U-2006-10, ASA-2006-18. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Miller declared a recess until 9 p.m. 4. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 Appellant John Tracy/Jessica Rose; Elena HerreralSubir Sengupta; 21180 Grenola Dr. Appeal of a Residential Design and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 sq. ft. residence with two second- story rear yard decks. Aid Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report . Reviewed the appeal of the Residential Design and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 sq. ft. residence with two second- story rear yard decks on 21180 Grenola Drive. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 October 10, 2006 . The residential permit and minor residential permit were approved on August 21, 2006 and two appeals were filed by neighbors on September 6, 2006. The appellants' concerns were outlined in the staff report, Page 4-3, and include protection plan for the Oak tree; concerns about the impacts of the second story master bedroom balcony; the home not fitting in or complementing the neighborhood; proposed change of color of the home to prevent reflectivity into the neighborhood and privacy screening be reinstated. . Staff feels the proposed residence meets and exceeds the development standards for a two- story residence with two-story decks; the Mediterranean style home is consistent with other Mediterranean styles in the Garden Gate area; the balconies are limited in size and there are others that have been approved in the neighborhood. Staff also feels the landscaping plan addresses the privacy protection landscaping requirements. . The city arborist determined that the Oak tree can be retained on the property based upon their review of the plans shown. If the applicant follows the protection measures required per his report, staff has narrowed criteria to request the changes based on the temperature and glare effects that the Herraras and Senguptas requested and more changes were requested on the design of the house or colors based upon that. . She illustrated of the color renderings and photos of the site from various elevations and other neighboring homes. . She clarified that the Planning Commission would be the final decision maker on single family homes, unless appealed by the City Council. Jessica Rose, Appellant: . Expressed concern about the impact of the proposed home, specifically the rear balcony which would invade their existing privacy and affect the quality of life and property value. . She explained that they had recently remodeled their home, taking into consideration the potential changes to the neighborhood and the impact on their home. She said they did not consider that the home behind them might build a second floor balcony. She said that the proposed balcony was not in scale with the design and general neighborhood and would have a negative impact on their privacy. . She discussed the examples used in the staff report of homes with second story balconies and summarized the concerns outlined in their written appeal related to privacy impacts, incompatibility with the neighborhood, and landscaping screens for protection of the impacts from the balconies. Horna Mojgani, applicant: . Discussed the concerns of the neighbors relative to the oak tree; privacy; look and feel and compatibility with the neighborhood; impact on quality of life; and the value of the neighboring houses. . She said the home design meets all the development regulations for two-story homes with balconies; it is compliant with Rl ordinance for second story deck. Relative to the oak tree, in the initial plan, the oak tree was mislabeled as a sycamore tree and following an arborist's determination, the oak tree will be preserved and remain on the property. . Relative to privacy impacts from the balcony; we went to our neighbor's house to talk about their concerns; we agreed that they can see our house and whoever is standing in our balcony and from our balcony if somebody wants to see their backyard, he or she can; of course if there is no privacy landscape. What we did not agree and discuss was, what details can be seen from our house? . Maintaining privacy landscape should be mutual; people can use curtains for more privacy; with many new two story houses, some big balconies and also looking at the trend of the new developments and understanding the city ordinance should help the people who renovate their older houses to set their expectations realistically. One should anticipate a possibility of Cupertino Planning Commission 12 October 10,2006 two story houses to be built next to them, replacing older homes. . She illustrated photos showing the views from the bedrooms and master bedroom. . She said that in order to address the neighbor's concerns regarding privacy screening, they have planned a maximum privacy protection landscape which meets the city's privacy protection landscape requirements, and have chosen plants from the city's privacy protection planting list. . Regarding story poles per the neighbor's request, she said they paid an extra $600 to put up the story poles to show the exact location of the balconies. Balcony setbacks are exceeding the minimum setbacks for east, west and rear sides. Regarding balcony size, it was initially designed to be 113 square feet. Although it met the two-story balcony requirement, to satisfy the neighbor, they reluctantly reduced the size significantly to almost half of the initial size down to 60 square feet. . They considered the neighbor's windows and attempted to put almost all the second floor windows on the side of the adjacent neighbor with no window on the side. Regarding compatibility and feel and look, this is a mixed neighborhood, many two story newer homes are built next to 50 years old, single story homes, throughout Cupertino and specifically in this neighborhood. Existing newer homes under construction are Mediterranean style and some have rear balconies. Elena Herrera, Appellant: . Said she understood that there was a certain mode of operation to adhere to; the ordinance says (a), (b) and (c); within that we all agree that you have a certain responsibility to address the style, size, the look and feel within your purview as individuals. We as residents look to you to exercise your judgment and that is what we are doing tonight. . One of the precedents that is being discussed is balconies. She said she discounted the homes built during the County tenure of that neighborhood, specifically because the neighborhood campaigned for annexation into the city for the types of protection sought tonight. She illustrated two examples of projects approved recently; one with a balcony overlooking her property and one which overlooks her back yard. . She illustrated photos of Greenleaf which showed examples of large homes which did not fit into the neighborhood. . Showed a drawing to illustrate the importance of landscaping on the east side of the home being reinstated. . Referring to the color renderings of the project, she said there were features of the home that did not fit in with the look and feel of.the home. The bay window over the garage and the turret feature do not exist in the new buildings that are being constructed in the neighborhood. . She referred to the entry feature which exceeds 14 feet; the turret which is not in keeping with the home designs in the neighborhood and the bay window. She recommended that the fa~ade be softened; . She expressed concern that there were flaws in the noticing procedure. Relative to the subject property, she said that she did not receive noticing although she shares a property line with the new project behind her home on Hazelbrook. She said that the landscaping report contains many unanswered questions relating to protecting the oak tree. Com. Chien: . There was a disagreement about the species of the tree, which was later identified as an Oak tree. He asked if there was a need for the arborist to come out at that point. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 October 10,2006 Aki Honda: . Said there was a need because it had to be determined how far away the oak tree would be from the main residence and to have the arborist look at that plot plan to see if it was sufficient distance away from the proposed home; In that timeframe, the applicant's designer had the property surveyed and they determined at that point that the oak tree would be 14 feet, 2 inches away. Their initial plan showed 12 foot setback but they later changed it and the arborist reviewed it and said it would be appropriate. . Relative to entry height, she said that the initial review with the applicant was that the entry height was too high, at that time over 14 feet. The entry height is from the plate height, not from the peak of that roof, but from the plate height to the floor. . Said that the applicant wanted the balconies to be functional, not just ornamental. . Said there was a diagram in the ordinance that shows how the entry feature height is measured, and it shows it to the plate height and not including the roofing over it. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she was concerned about the ridge above the plate height; the gap between the plate height and the bottom just under the keystone. . Asked the applicant if in their discussions with the Tracys, they had considered offering to plant privacy trees or shrubs on their side of the property line as a courtesy to screen them from the new construction. Part of the alternatives brought up is that the applicant can pay for the plants and installation on their property; and the neighbor would maintain it to maintain their privacy. Applicant: . Said she would plant other privacy plants if the appellant felt others were more appropriate. Aki Honda: . The reduced balcony plan was added as part of the approval plans as an addendum. They have been working with the designer to redesign the whole plan, during the application stage instead of revising all of the entire plans again. They submitted a revised portion for that balcony which was added as an addendum and included as part of the approved plan. The elevations do not reflect the reduced balcony as of yet, but the reduced balcony and floor plan does. . The applicant has not given a revised elevation. It will be set in more and won't project as much as shown on the elevations. Steve Piasecki: . Said that a possible option would be to ask the applicant to install a 6 foot high barrier that would direct views away from their neighbors instead of into their neighbor's back yard. . We have approved turret features; we try to get them to be less dominant, this one because it is set back is not as obvious as some are. One of the things we look for in house designs and we try to encourage applicants is symmetry and balance. There are some features here, some people have talked about this window here that seems to be out of symmetry. The entry feature could be reduced in height. You could ask the applicant if they are willing to take a continuance; they could come back and look at putting some kind of brick or rock feature into the design of the home as well as lower this feature, and simplify another feature somehow. You could do a number of things that would lower and soften this; in addition you could look at providing a screen to the balcony and/or minimizing it further by adding landscaping, so maybe they could come back with a package that would address a number of the neighbors' concerns and scale the house more compatible with the neighborhood. Being compatible with the neighborhood is always a problem when you have neighborhoods that Cupertino Planning Commission 14 October 10, 2006 are in transition; this one has a tract of homes that were newer, built in the 70s and were largely stucco homes and weren't as big as this home, but they were of stucco features and the hom:es in Garden Gate are very small in some cases, and because they are flat roofed, they do not have the appearance of this, and there is clearly a transition going on. How do you balance that; and this is a classic neighborhood with a lot of variety. Chair Miller: . Relative to the balcony, two issues in terms of intrusion are the visual intrusion and noise intrusion. He asked if staff considered that intrusion in evaluating the balcony? Aki Honda: . Said staff did not take into consideration the sound intrusion. Steve Piasecki: . Said there was no provision in the ordinance to do that. He clarified that a balcony is an appurtenance on a home; it can be well designed, it can be sensitively designed relative to the neighbors. We don't look on it as being a neighborhood character feature one way or the other; it is just another amenity that someone chooses of may chose to have in their home. Chair Miller: . Said they have focused on the visual impact of the balcony on the neighbor to the west; and asked about the impact of the balcony on the neighbor to the east. Steve Piasecki: . Said there was much greater setback; there is an oak tree in the back yard that will provide some of that screening; I think that the views are more limited; this is also the neighbor immediately to the east; the privacy screening is not needed. If you had a continuance, you could ask that neighbor to weigh in on the issue and ask for more sections and details to help with that. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Les Bowers, resident: . Said the proposed balcony looked directly into their 6 foot garden window into the master bedroom, as well as the windows up above. . The original planting was large magnolia trees and it was felt because they would take a longer time to grow, pitosporum was recommended because of its faster growth. . Said Garden Gate was built on slab foundations and the privacy issue is much greater because there is as much privacy invasion on a house on a slab foundation than there is with another kind. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said that the issues that drove Garden Gate to annex into Cupertino from the County are still alive. House size is important in Garden Gate as is privacy. . People do have the right to build what they want on their property. Relative to the balconies, there is precedent in the city to look at the invasion of privacy with these types of balconies. In many areas of the city, particularly Rancho Rinconada with the small lots, balconies are not encouraged. In Garden Gate, there is a history of overly large homes, the city has done a good job in bringing the homes into line with the property. Cupertino Planning COnUnission 15 October 10, 2006 . Said she was pleased there are second story setbacks. In the case of the balconies, if you are able to bring them back, perhaps not have them rounded, have them step out two to three feet, if they must be there, but also what the previous speaker said about the slab houses in Garden Gate, Rancho is on slab also, if you bring in the new homes, they have probably a crawl space underneath them; if not a whole basement area, so that is going to put another five to six feet on the height. She suggested that the portico was too high. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she felt the entry feature is too large and dominates the entry of the house. Said she would like it lowered, and agreed that the second story bay window seems to be out of alignment with the architecture and sticks out. . Relative to tree protection, she said she was not sure they were doing enough to protect the Oak as they have for others in the past, and was uncertain if final approval included such things as trenching, root barriers, fencing it off, posting, no storage under it, no dumping, the usual things done for Oaks. AId Honda: . Said they were all standard conditions, and it is stated in the conditions to look at the arborist's report and all of the arborist's recommendations. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she was sympathetic with the privacy issue since she resided on a sloped lot and in the process of remodeling her home, added large kitchen windows. She said she was aware that her neighbors would have a clear view into her new kitchen window, but it is a choice she made. . Expressed concern about the privacy plantings on the east side; a site visit showed the clearest shot it to the east; there are screening trees already on the west side of the lot, but you can see quite extensively on the east. She said she was surprised the neighbor had waived the privacy plantings, and she suggested they be reinstated even though they were waived. . Suggested that Tree A, the deodora cedar be moved forward to the area approximately 8 or 10 feet from the corner of where the current story poles are and approximately 8 feet from the common property line fence. The reason is that off the east balcony, one would be able to see quite a far way to the east and the plantings would help those and future neighbors with their privacy. . Said she would prefer that the balcony be removed and replaced with a faux balcony, with French doors, and curve out 18 inches as an architectural feature. It would maintain the integrity of the back of the house and solve many privacy issues heard today. Balconies need to be well placed. She suggested an option of pulling that section of the house forward, moving the closet around the staircase. . He said there appeared to be confusion about the privacy plantings, and suggested bringing that portion back to the DRC to finalize the landscaping plan, or give some specific direction on where it needs to be increased, so that staff can work with them, and make it as expeditious as possible. Com. Saadati: . Said that privacy is the major issue and needs to be addressed by planting trees or modifying the balcony. As far as the front entry feature, the way it is presently designed based on the Cupertino Planning Commission 16 October 10, 2006 three dimension view shown earlier, lowering it will result in it being out of proportion. . It meets the current RI requirement; if you want to change the plate height that is something we have, but a lot of effort has been put into make in an entry feature. The intent was to lower it, but if the roof slope is one to one, then the ridge is going to be substantially higher. Perhaps in the future we need to address it to keep it lower; and depending on the width of the entry feature, then the ridge of it would be much higher. Those are the issues that we could address. . The bay window seems to be out of proportion, and could be addressed by the architect. The original balcony is out of proportion; a smaller balcony makes the plan look much nicer and would serve the function and cost less. The main issue is addressing the privacy by either going back with the Director of Community Development or coming back to the DRC. Com. Chien: . Said he felt the privacy plan was deficient and needed to be strengthened. He said it appeared that the privacy planting was done after the fact by the property owner. He suggested that the entry height and deck be negotiated and some adjustments be made. Com. Wong: . Said he concurred with Vice Chair Giefer in most areas. The front portico is too large, and should be lowered. If it could be kept symmetrical to the height shown, it would be more compatible with the neighborhood. . The bay window is not compatible with the front; and I do not support the bay window sticking out. . The peach color is too bright and is not compatible with the neighborhood; choose another color that would be more compatible with the neighborhood. . Agree with staff on softening some architectural features to help soften it to be more compatible with the neighborhood. . Vice Chair Giefer asked about the Oak tree; it is already prescriptive in the ordinance and in the model resolution. . Relative to the elevation of the second story, said that he was concerned about the balcony sticking out. . Referring to the second story floor plan, he said he liked the enclosed balcony vs. the balcony that stuck out too far. . Suggested that the applicant work with staff to reduce the size of the balcony; agreed with Vice Chair Giefer to either reduce the bedroom to bring back the balcony if they want to keep the 60 square foot balcony so that it won't intrude out and on both balconies. It should be a solid vs. see through wall because of the privacy protection of this particular neighbor; even with the trees and shrubs planted, you can still see into the back yard. . He said he knew that it was difficult to accept a second story home in a neighborhood of mainly one-story homes. He said the Planning Commission should not make decisions about where the rooms are located, it would help to push it back a little, and make the balcony come back a little; and ensure there is a good landscape plan. . Said although the east side neighbor waived their rights, he did not feel it was unreasonable of the applicant to plant privacy protection on the second story windows facing east. They could be shrubs or trees to help mitigate the privacy intrusions. Chair Miller: . He expressed concern about the privacy impacts of the balcony, and said that it was not acceptable that the neighbor could see into the backyard of the neighbor. The choices would be to eliminate the balcony or in some way reduce the balcony so much that you cannot view Cupertino Planning Commission 17 October 10,2006 the neighbor's yard to the west; or ask that the landscaping that is put in place be a complete screen on day 1, not three years from now. . He said there are rights of the property owner and there are the rights of the neighbor also. The balcony is different from a window. . Concurred that some softening of the front was needed; a neighbor suggested some landscaping that was in the rendering and some landscaping would help soften the front. Said he agreed that there needs to be landscaping along the east side as well. Many issues can be mitigated with landscaping; more landscaping than normal is needed because it is a very large home. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to uphold the appeal with the following modifications: · Pull back the second story balcony in the master suite so that it is non- intrusive to their neighbors on the west side, or eliminate it and recommend a faux balcony in its place; · The final design details will be referred to the DRC; · The entry feature height should be lower to be more in alignment and symmetrical with the front elevation turrets; · The second story bay window be refined or removed; · The privacy planting on the west side of the building be increased in height and density to provide full screening at time of installation; · The east side privacy planting be restored specifically tree A - the deodora cedar, moved forward to not crowd the Oak and provide screening for the second story balcony on the east side into that adjacent neighbor's yard; · The landscaping and/or brick/rock features on the front elevation to soften the elevation; · The applicant to work with staff on a finallandscaping plan; · The applicant work with staff to identify a less bright color scheme for the neighborhood; and · The final design will come back to the DRC. . Com. Chien: . Said he would be more comfortable with the recommendations; the Planning Commission has the purview to do anything at the DRC level. He said he would rather not design the house on the fly, on the dais, and preferred that it go to the DRC to address. He proposed the amendment for acceptance. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she was not willing to accept the amendment since she felt it was more expeditious for the applicant to know what the specifics are, so they are not spending incremental dollars trying to redesign the entire second floor, when it is one small piece that needs to be fixed. Com. Chien: . Asked the city attorney, why bind the Planning Commission to certain requirements when it is going back to the DRC, and the DRC will have the purview to make any decision. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: . Said it can be done either way by a motion for a specific requirement or make it a broader, specifying the things that they are not happy with, and direct the DRC to look at those things and come up with solutions. She said she could not say what the best option was. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 October 10, 2006 Steve Piasecki: . Said he was comfortable with the DRC, and asked the applicant if they were agreeable to a continuance to work on the issues. Com. Chien: . Said he had confidence in the DRC and did not want it back at the Planning Commission level. Staff explained the options available to the applicant, and explained the conditions outlined in the motion made. The applicant agreed to a continuance to work with the neighbors and city staff. There was consensus that an application fee would not be charged. Withdrawal of Motion: Vice Chair Giefer withdrew the motion to uphold the appeal in favor of a continuance of the application to the November 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Wong accepted the withdrawal of the motion. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to continue further discussion of Applications R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 to the November 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Chien: . We decided in the original motion to take it to the DRC so that we could have an open forum where all parties are involved to discuss how we could come to a solution. The process we are going to now is not as transparent, it is going to be incumbent on the property owner to move the process forward and we would be back here possibly with or without new information depending on what the applicant does. My preference would be to take it to the DRC where everybody gets a full airing of the case. Com. Wong: . Explained that if the application is continued, all suggestions are off the table, and the applicant will be forced to work harder and work with their neighborhood so that when they come back in 30 days, hopefully they will have a plan that all their neighbors will strongly support the project or there will be a repeat of the long discussion. He said he felt it was a win-win situation. Chair Miller: . Said he agreed with Com. Wong, the DRC is only two commissioners, and it will come back to the full Planning Commission and hopefully they will have talked to the neighbors and reached some agreement. Steve Piasecki: . We prefer when we give the applicant the option of going to DRC or coming back to the Planning Commission, of deferring to whatever option they prefer because there is a significant delay, and they will have to spend money and lose time. Staff would rather they be in agreement, rather than dictate one formula which may not work out, and cause more delays for the applicant. (Vote: 5-0-0) Cupertino Planning Commission 19 October 10, 2006 5. U-2006-09; Steven Hall (Starbucks) 22390 Homestead Rd. Use Permit for an existing coffee shop (Starbucks) to open at 4 a.m. and close at 12 a.m. Aid Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for a use permit for extending the hours of operation at the Starbucks Coffee on Homestead Road, to open at 4 a.m. and close at 12 a.m. . Surrounding neighbors have expressed concerns about the potential additional noise impacts from the additional vehicles and people; potential loitering in the parking lot during the late night/early morning hours; additional traffic resulting from extended hours; and the impact of the extended hours on the peaceful surrounding residential neighborhood. . Staff recommends that if the Use Permit is approved, the same conditions of approval be applied to the project as the Peets Coffee relative to reciprocal ingress/egress easement, which would require modifying Condition 3 and a new condition stating that the applicant shall enter into a recorded parking agreement to share parking between the adjacent properties. . Because of potential noise impacts on the neighborhood and the concerns of the neighbors, staff suggests a 6 a.m. opening and retain the 11 p.m. closing, which would allow Starbucks to open an hour earlier than currently permitted, and also allow the employees to arrive before the 6 a.m. opening to prepare coffee. It would also allow existing patrons inside of Starbucks before 11 p.m. to remain past the closing time, but prohibit new patrons from entering after the 11 p.m. closing time. . Staff recommends the approval of the Use Permit for the hours of 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. seven days a week, and the reciprocal parking and ingress/egress easement conditions be added in addition to the conditions in the model resolution. Steven Hall, applicant, introduced Amber Reed, Development Manager of Starbucks and landlord Jane Hahn. Amber Reed, representing Starbucks: . Said that the store opened in August, shortly after Peets Coffee opening. She admitted there was a small oversight in their store development process and with that oversight, combined with Peets opening at 5:30 a.m., they have been opening earlier than 7 a.m. and have applied for the conditional use permit to rectify the error. . The goal of the use permit is to be able to serve the early morning commuters and compete with Peets and their existing hours, which is a 5:30 a.m. opening. She said there was a precedent set in terms of closing hours, with Blockbuster Video; they closed at midnight, and the Wells Fargo Bank ATM is open 24 hours. . Relative to the concerns about potential loitering in the parking lot, she said it was their goal to be an active member of the community, and it was their desire to work with the community on related concerns. She pointed out that the early morning patrons usually are commuters who do not remain on the premises, but are on their way to their jobs. Jane Hahn, Starbucks landlord: . Expressed concern about the reciprocal ingress/egress easement requirement. She said that when Peets application was approved, she had expressed concern about their lack of parking and the potential to overflow into the Starbucks lot. . She said she was willing to cooperate on a reciprocal parking agreement or an ingress/egress agreement pending agreement with her legal counsel. Cupertino Planning Commission 20 October 10,2006 Aki Honda: . Relative to the ingress/egress easement agreement, clarified that the same conditions were placed on the project that were placed on the Peets project for consistency purposes. Jane Hahn: . Said she understood the condition placed on Peets as they added another 1700 square feet; however, she only changed tenants and improved the landscaping on the Starbucks facility. She said she was willing to cooperate but felt it was not justified to add a condition on her property. Steve Piasecki: . Said his understanding was that the Peets property owner was required to agree to provide reciprocal ingress/egress whenever we could require it of this property owner and now you have an application before you. Things work better if all concerned work together; and we don't like to have to force patrons from one lot to go out onto Homestead Road; the motorists on Homestead Road think they are entering their stream of traffic, in fact they are going to make another, quick right hand turn into the Peets parking lot and you have problems with potential accidents that way. We try to get property owners, even when they don't necessarily want to do this, to agree to cooperate and let their patrons function as if it were one cohesive shopping center. . If that agreement is in place with Peets, then we would eliminate two spaces on each lot and open up a driyeway aisle. . In response to a Los Altos's resident's question why Peets and Starbucks would be permitted to be located in such close proximity to one another, he clarified that it is a free enterprise system, with the private marketplace deciding when two coffee shops would be located next to each other. It is not the city's decision to determine if two of the same type businesses would be in such close proximity to one another. Aki Honda: . Clarified that Peets did not have a Use Permit to operate earlier than 7 a.m. and later than 11 p.m. and should not be opening at 5:30 a.m. . The commercial hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week. Vice Chair Giefer: . Asked the Starbuck's manager what actions are taken to reach out to the neighbors if and when there is a problem. Amber Reed: . Encouraged the neighbors to come in and speak with the store manager if there were any concerns about the store's operations. . . Said they have not had any neighborhood meeting since the complex opened. She said she was not aware of the community meeting, otherwise she would have participated and responded to the community's concerns. . In response to Com. Wong's request, she provided the hours of operation of various Starbucks sites in the area. . Relative to tl\e 12 midnight closing time, she said they would like to have the option available if the customer was there and the demand was there. She said the various hours reflect what the market demand is at those stores. She said that they wanted the earlier opening time for the Homestead location to be able to serve the commuters leaving early in the morning. Cupertino Planning Commission 21 October 10, 2006 Com. Wong: . Disclosed for the record that he resided down the street at Homestead and Highway 85, but beyond the 500 feet. He said he was aware of the neighborhood concerns because he was familiar with the particular site and the traffic patterns. Com. Chien: . No questions. Chair Miller: . Asked staff if there had been a survey of other businesses in Cupertino with early morning hours or 24 hour businesses and their proximity to the neighbors. Steve Piasecki: . Said that the Donut Wheel which is open 24 hours a day, predated the ordinance provision, and he was not aware of any concerns of the neighbors. . Com. Wong called me and asked when we decide when things go earlier or later and the distinction staff makes between urban vs. suburban. The argument can be made that the Donut Wheel or something in Val1co Fashion Park is more of an urban setting and that you can expect if you are on Stevens Creek Boulevard you expect it to have more traffic, more noise, early or late or whatever, similarly with DeAnza Boulevard. . On Homestead Road, across the street from residences, the expectation is that things are going to quiet down at 11 p.m. and conservatively in this location it doesn't make a lot of sense. . The applicant can argue and the Commission can do whatever they decide based on whatever testimony is received, but staff felt it was a suburban location. . Said the Stevens Creek and DeAnza location is further away from residential and could probably be operated in later hours successfully without having the impacts similar to the Homestead location. Chair Miller opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak. The public hearing was closed. Com. Saadati: . Relative to the hours, if the businesses are successful they should be able to operate, and unless we see the operation, we don't know what the impact is going to have. . Said he supported the 5 a.m. to 12 midnight operating hours, and if complaints are received from the neighbors, it can be re-evaluated and changed. He suggested a six month trial period with re-evaluation. Com. Chien: . Asked how many other businesses operate similar hours to what is being requested, because we are always interested in applying the rules consistently to all of our businesses. . Point of suburban vs. urban; he said he would have preferred choosing the Stevens Creek and DeAnza site for the type of hours. He said he did not have a problem with the hours per se, but was concerned about location of the store for the proposed modified hours. . Said they need to be up to par in terms of the other stores and those permits. He said he would be willing to reconsider the hours. . He noted that at a previous meeting, the Commission rejected a request for a business to remain open one additional hour per day; and he found it troubling to let another business Cupertino Planning Commission 22 October 10, 2006 have additional hours when one was just denied. The only difference is there is not a record and history of problems yet. Vice Chair Giefer: . After hearing the applicant's testimony, they are currently closing at 10 p.m. because they haven't had the demand to stay open beyond that. I am prefacing my comment with that data point that I did hear the applicant say. I think that 4:30 a.m. is very early and I agree that in this location it is very early, so I would not support a 4:30 a.m. opening, I would go as early at 5:30 a.m. seven days a week, 5:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. that I would support. . I would also want to see the ingress/egress as a condition of the approval. Com. Wong: . Said he was concerned that when a decision is made, it is only for the Homestead location and it will affect Peets Coffee or any of the other businesses on the Cupertino side, not on the Los Altos side. Whatever Starbucks requests, Peets Coffee will follow with same requests. . I am very considerate of the neighbors, especially W oodsprings, because they are in Cupertino as well as the single family homes across in Los Altos. It is nice that we have a shopping center that is completely revitalized. I am concerned about the emails received about noise; I think that the garbage coming in early in the morning can be disturbing. As a property manager I have received concerns about when you live in a condominium complex you are expected to have some noise, especially if it is coming from a neighbor, and I think that Peets and Starbucks want to be a good neighbor, and I think what we encourage for both Starbucks and Peets is you need to talk with Woodsprings HOA, I think they are not really opposed to you being there, I think they need to be informed. . The difference between the Blue Pheasant is it is a night club in a different zone vs. a commercial zone next to a residential zone. We want to make sure of quality of life and noise is that they know they live next to a commercial zone; they do have the luxury of walking to Peets or Starbucks or any of the shops, so I am going to suggest something that is in between. I agree that 5:30 a.m. is more appropriate; the other thing is I agree about the midnight closing; my rationale is in a marketing standpoint, I can understand with Peets and Starbucks that you want to get the traffic because of location, the other thing is that I am supporting a midnight closing is there are many young people in area, and I would prefer they hang out at a coffee place rather than a bar like blue Pheasant. There is not that many places for people to hang out. The condominium association will be concerned about that and I suggest that either a six months or 12 months to come back to the Planning Commission, have a public hearing, and suggest you have a neighborhood with Woodsprings and suggest that you do a hand in hand with Peets Coffee, because you also need to talk with the other property owners and businesses because I don't want to do it piecemeal. Chair Miller: . One interesting point is that Starbucks and Peets is operating now from 5:30 a.m. and have we heard complaints on the illegal 5:30 a.m. opening? (Response: No) . Said he was sensitive to Com. Wong's argument that Starbucks and Peets are suitable places to go rather than a bar; and he was also sensitive to Com. Saadati's suggestion that they try it and bring it back for a review at a later time. Steve Piasecki: . Suggested an alternative that has been used, that in the event the city receives complaints that we can bring those back at any time to consider and the condition says that you can impose mitigations up to and including reducing the hours back down. I like that better because then people don't have to come back here. Cupertino Planning Commission 23 October 10, 2006 Chair Miller: . Said he supported the existing early morning hour, to legalize it and allow the possibility of going to 12 midnight, with the condition that if there are complaints it comes back to the Planning Commission at that time. . Said that they required an ingress/egress condition, and have insisted that Peets does it, and that it be done on the other side as well with Starbucks, so I think we are going to require that as well with the further conditions that are acceptable to the city of Los Altos. In the event that it connects with the Los Altos side, it could also connect through the Cupertino side, either way we want to make a connection. Steve Piasecki: . Said the only other proviso is that if there are complaints, they be brought back to the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission can hold a hearing to consider mitigation such as up to and including restricting the hours of operation. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application U-2006-09 with the following conditions: · That the opening time will be 5:30 a.m. and closing time 12 midnight; · Add the condition on ingress/egress as staff suggested that maybe from the Town of Los Altos or from Cupertino; · In the event the city receives complaints, the complaints or issues be brought before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission can decide to hold a hearing to consider mitigations if it is related to the hours of operation, including restricting the hours back to 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. · Relative to ingress/egress what they would have to agree to provide is reciprocal ingress/egress between the adjoining property to the south or to the east and we can work with them; the only proviso that it has to be two-way and we understand that we will lose a few parking spaces but shopping centers work a lot better when we are connected. Com. Wong: . My question is that I cannot see how the shopping center wi11lose parking spaces because we already have a concern regarding parking on the Cupertino side; . Said he strongly encouraged Starbucks. He suggested that they talk to the neighbors to be proactive, and also talk with Peets Coffee and work together to make things work. Steve Piasecki: . Suggested keeping it simple and doing reciprocal ingress/egress and not throw the parking in there; that is not a common thing required at other locations. He suggested taking it out. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said that it was a package that was very hard fought to get the egress/ingress and reciprocal parking agreement when they wanted to expand Peets. The issue was that Mrs. Hahn's property potentially could be under-parked. She recalled that flow was one issue and also parking because the Cupertino side was potentially under-parked at the time and with ingress/egress she didn't want her parking to just be utilized by those people without her patrons having the opportunity to use those other parking spaces. Cupertino Planning Commission 24 October 10, 2006 Steve Piasecki: . Typically what property owners will do is they will post their property and if they feel it is necessary, they will enforce to the best of their ability; it is not easy to enforce the stuff; and all I am suggesting is the complication of adding parking when it impacts the ability to expand or modify, which we experienced with Bunker, is not worth the benefit. Chair Miller: . Said that the landlord could agree to do a mutual parking with him, but they would not make it a requirement because of past experience creating problems. Jane Hahn: . Said she felt it was unfair to make a thoroughfare of her property when Peets was given an additional 1700 square feet to expand into a site where there wasn't adequate parking. Steve Piasecki: . Said there may be a compromise, but he still did not recommend it based on the Bunker expenence. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said they encountered problems with Bunker because it was vague. Steve Piasecki: . You could suggest that in the event the reciprocal ingress/egress worked toward Peets side within the city of Cupertino, that you include the parking if it works to the south side with the Town of Los Altos, but you don't. Her point seems to be that Peets is inundated; I think we are splitting hairs; we are getting very refined when we are talking about two vs. four parking spaces. It doesn't make a big difference in the greater world of things. It is more important that we have reciprocal ingress/egress. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Miller declared a short recess. Com. Saadati left the meeting and did not return. 6. EXC-2006-09, Yung-Kuang Parking Exception for a proposed medical center. Chen (Cupertino Medical Center) 10040 Bubb Rd. Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. . Reviewed the application for a parking exception for Cupertino Medical Center to operate an urgent care center at a new location on Bubb Road on an existing developed site with 61 parking spaces. There are no issues with the use of the site as an urgent care center with its associated uses since it is a professional office use. . She reviewed the project site and the parking requirements, noting that the urgent care center would not require the same amount of parking as a typical medical office accommodating numerous patients each hour. A parking analysis was conducted by Fehr and Peers, comparing the existing parking demand of the current Stevens Creek Boulevard urgent care center to determine the future parking demand at the Bubb Road location. The study estimated that 56 parking spaces would be needed for the urgent care center and its associated uses. It was concluded that the existing 61 parking spaces would be sufficient for the site. Cupertino Planning Commission 25 October 10, 2006 . Staff supports the proposed parking exception because the parking consultants have shown that the parking will work on site and therefore staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the exception subject to the model resolution. Yung -Kuang Chen, Director, Cupertino Medical Center: . Provided a brief review of the proposal to expand the medical center at the new location. Com. Wong: . Asked staff what the current zoning is and if the facility fit in that zoning. . I believe that we reviewed the parking ordinance and now that we have standard parking, we recalculated the size of the parking spaces, so I am not sure this hasn't been touched for a while that the parking stalls now, are they in the old, or new; if we haven't applied the new parking stalls, can we get more parking stalls in this particular property. Aki Honda: . The current zoning is ML-RC zone, which is light industrial zone in the West Valley Industrial Park area, and the use is similar to a medical office as a professional office use, and they are automatically permitted in the zoning district. Yung-Kuang Chen: . The current parking spaces are large in the current zoning, which may enable an increase of one or two parking spaces depending on how many handicapped spaces are needed. There is a chance that two more parking spaces can be added. Chair Miller opened the public hearing; as there was no one present who wished to speak he closed the public hearing. Com. Chien: . Said he had no concerns, and wished the business success in its expansion. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she supports the application. . Relative to parking, since the applicant will be operating a physical therapy center, she said they may have to increase the amount of handicapped spaces in the parking lot close to the building as a convenience to his clients. . She said she did not have an issue with reduced parking. Com. Wong: . Said he was pleased that Cupertino Medical Center is planning to relocate back into Cupertino so that the city will not lose a medical center. . My only concern is that I am a huge parking advocate and I rarely give exceptions regarding parking, but based on the report by Fehr and Peers, I am willing to give an exception. . My main concern is that if we look at the new parking stalls that we suggested and if we can include more parking, it would be wonderful; it could be regular or handicapped, but I am looking more at trying to increase parking. You can work with staff to do that to determine if we can fit more stalls or not. . Said he supports the exception. Chair Miller: . Said he supported the parking exception; with respect to the handicapped I think that we Cupertino Planning Commission 26 October 10,2006 already know roughly what the handicapped requirement is because they are currently operating at a site here and I would suggest that we allow the applicant to choose the number of handicapped spaces he needs because he is probably the one who knows best. Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Wong, to approve Application EXC-2006-09. Friendly amendment from Com. Wong - if applicant can work with staff to see if we can do some restriping to see if we can add some additional parking spaces based on the newly revised parking ordinance. Accepted by Com. Chien. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Saadati absent). 7. M-2006-04; ASA-2006-17 Daryl Hawkins, AlA New Life Church, 20900 McClellan Road Modification to an approved Use Permit to add approximately 3,863 sq. ft. one-story, multi- purpose building at an existing church. Architectural and Site Approval for an approximately 3,863 sq. ft., one-story, multi- purpose building at an existing church. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for the modification to an approved use permit to add a 3,863 square feet one-story building at an existing church, and for architectural and site approval at the existing church, as outlined in the staff report. . He reviewed the parking; setback from residential; and architecture of the proposed project. . Staff recommends approval of the modification of the use permit and the architectural and site approval per the model resolutions. Daryl Hawkins, AlA, applicant: . Said the parking is well laid out around the perimeter, providing room in the middle for the buildings. . Said they worked to tie in with the same color brick on the comers; aside from that there is good screening from the adjacent residences. They have taken several opportunities to talk to the residents to see if they had concerns. . Said he would provide an enclosure for the trash dumpster as well as recycling. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Tim Isbell, Pastor of New Life Church: . The dumpster is a 3 cu. ft. dumpster and will be replaced with the next size up. The new design has recycling separate from the dumpster. . There are seven parts of the church: an English speaking, a Mandarin speaking, and a Cantonese speaking congregation all part of one church; in addition to one youth group, one children's ministry, and our own pre-school for 44 children. We also lease space to an after school program. What we intend to do with the buildings, the first building is our worship center, Building B is preschool building, Building C is mostly elementary and some nursery; proposed Building D is for adult fellowship activities and some dedicated youth space and offices and conference rooms. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission 27 October 10, 2006 Com. Wong: . Said he supported the project. It is a good addition to the church facilities. He complimented the architect on an excellent job. Com. Chien: . Said it was a good project, and he hoped that the multipurpose building would be offered to the public for use at a reasonable fee. Vice Chair Giefer: . . Said the only issue he had was with the trash enclosure and it appeared to be addressed and would improve the litter on site. . Said he supported the project. Chair Miller: . Said he supported the project also, it is well designed and fits in. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to approve Application ASA-2006-17, M-2006-04. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Saadati absent) 9. TM-2006-10 Mike Rhode Vallco Restaurants 10123 No. Wolfe Rd. Tentative Map to create two parcels, approximately 15,150 and 19,360 sq. ft. respectively, at the northwest comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for a tentative map to create two parcels (restaurants) at the northwest comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road, as outlined in the staff report. . Staff recommends approval of the application in accordance with the model resolution. Mike Rohde, Vallco International LLC: . Reiterated that the application was for a tentative map relative to their agreement with Sears and the ground lease. He said it was appropriate to split the two parcels. . He indicated on the site mat the property owned by Sears. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Questioned the reason for breaking up the parking lot into separate parcels and why Sears was not applying to separate the parcels. . She expressed concern about setting a precedent relative to the sale of the two parcels and rezoned for building, something not a part of the mall. She suggested that conditions be applied to the two parcels that they must be used for retail and not used for housing complexes or gas stations. . She urged the Planning Commission to keep Vallco Fashion Park in tact and if the two parcels are to be rezoned, rezone them for retail, restaurants or light industrial; but not housing. Ciddy Wordell: . Relative to Ms. Griffin's question why Valko was the applicant and not the owner of the property Sears, she said that Sears did sign the application and concur with it. Cupertino Planning Commission 28 October 10, 2006 . The development agreement allows residential at Vallco, which allows the potential for having residential. It would need to be rezoned; the application would have to come back to a public hearing for anything other than the two restaurants. Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to approve Application TM-2006-10 in accordance with the model resolution. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Saadati absent). OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: No meeting held. HOUSING COMMISSION: . Com. Wong reported that the next meeting will be held Thursday, October 12,2006 at 9 a.m. MAYOR'S MONTHLY MEETING WITH COMMISSIONERS: Com. Chien reported: . Teen Commission is focusing more on advocacy, less on event planning. . Fine Arts is always looking for places to exhibit their art. Any businesses wishing to act as sponsors are invited to contact the Fine Arts Commission. . Technology Commission is working proactively on refining the Wireless Ordinance. . Library Commission reported 4,600 registrations for a month at the rate of 900 items checked out per hour. . Bike and Pedestrian Commission are studying the Mary Avenue footbridge process carefully; a Safety Fair was recently held in the Civic Plaza. . Senior Commission is dealing with the problem of the baby boomers retiring and how the city as a government can react and plan for those retirees. . The Mayor reported that the Governor signed a bill to bring additional $1.97 million to Cupertino from property taxes. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: No meeting held. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting on October 24, 2006 at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall. SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary