Loading...
PC 06-22-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 22, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commi~ioners present: Commissionexs absent: Staff presant: Harris, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin (Com. Doyle arrived at 6:50 p.m.) Com. Mahoney Robert Cowen, Director of Community Development; Vera Gil, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the June 8, 1998 regular meeting: MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the June 8 Planning Commission minutes as px~sented SECOND: Com. Stevens ABSENT: Corns. Mahoney and Doyle VOTE: Passed 3-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted the petition from B~ian Miller relative to the Scofield Drive application; a letter from Snmnntha Vall Epps in favor of single story homes; a letter from Victor Lee in opposition of the Scofield Drive rezoinng; and a memo on South Bay Connections guidelines for successful recycled water. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Apphcation No. Applicant: Location: 5-U-98, 1 I-EA-98 Hossain Khaziri 10002 DeAnza Blvd. Use Permit to demolish an inactive service station and construct a new 778 square foot service station and 648 square foot car wash. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1998 TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 6, 1998 REQUEST CON I INUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 27, 1998 Planning Commission Miaates 2 June 22, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to postpone Application 5-U-98 and 11-EA-98 to the July 27, 1998 Planning Commission mecang Com. Stevens Coms. Mahoney and Doyle Passed 3-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 8-EXC-98 Mike Terron 20558 Stevens Creek Blvd. Sign Exception to locate 2 wall signs on the exterior frontage of an existing business (McWhorters) in accordance with Chapter 17.24.050 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Com. Hams requested Application 8-EXC-98 be removed from the consent calendar for discussion. Staff oresentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Co.--anity Development, explained that the application was for a Postal Express sign on the McWhorters store as shown on the exhibit. He said that staff felt that there was community benefit for having the postal function inside the store. He noted that the Postal Express sign space would only be applicable to McWhorters, and if the postal express service vacated the premises, McWhortexs could not use the sign space for o~,er purposes; but would have to apply for another sign excepfon. Mr. Cowan said that findings relating to the postal service as a public necessity could be included. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 8-EXC-98, adding the condition stating that the sign is approved for purposes of the postal service use as part of the McWhor~s store, and should the postal service vacate the premises, the sign exception does not apply. Finding D would state that this exception is one that will allow put?lie notice that the postal service, a community benefit, will occupy space in this location as well as the primzay occupant. Com. Stevens Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s) Applicant: Location: 6-U-98, 8-Z-90(M), 16-EA-98 Judy Chen 7359 Rainbow Drive Use Permit to demolish.an existing aparmaeut and consWact an g unit to-*~house development on a .34 acre parcel. Commission Minutes 3 June 22, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMYNATION: Negative Declaration recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 20, 1998 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO MEETING OF JULY 27, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish the existing apartment and construct an 8 unit townhouse on a .34 acre parcel. The application also revolves rezoning the land use designation from a planned residential development vdth 20-30 dwelling units per gross acre down to a planned residential development with 10-20 dwelling units per gross acre, a lower density development. The applieaut also requests that c~rtain ci~' resU-lctions be removed, namely restrictions requiring a minimum of 4 rental units on the site, and that 3 of those units be reserved for tow income tenants. The Affordable Housing Committee recommends that the applieaut provide 2 of the 8 units for below market rate ownership. Staff recommends that the item be continued W a fumm meeting since a number of deficiencies with ~lJect to height, setbacks and housing mitigation have not been addressed. The Planning Commission is requested to conduct a pm-review of the submitted site and architectural design before further processing of the application. This would allow the applicant to address the concerns raised by the staff in addition to any concerns and/or recommendations raised by the planning Commission. Ms. Veto G-il, Planner II, listed the major concerns relative to: (1) Design: setbacks from the western property line; (2) Parking deficit of 3 spaces; (3) Height: 2-1/2 storys over the garage; (4) Appropriate devetopmeat intensity; (5) General Plan conformance; and (6) Mitigation for loss of affordable units. Referring to the assessor's map, M& Gil illustrated other developments in the area which were already 3 storys. Refen4ng to the site plan, she itlu~h~-d the location of the Landmark development and said that staff recommended that the applicant increase the setbacks or provide landscaping. Currently, the Landmark development does not have any landscaping which adds privacy to the units. Relative to the pafldng defieit~ staff recommends that the applicant remain at the approved parking requirement of 3 spaces per townhouse, which would allow 2 spaces per towahonse with a sa~fflcieat amount of visitor parking. She also pointed out that the Affordable Honking Committee is concerned with the loss of affordable units and is recommending that the applicant provide 2 units for below market housing as a means of mitigating the loss of affordable units. Staff concurs with this recommendation. Staff is requesting feedback on the design of the project so ltlat the applicant would have a better undr~aading of the Planning Commission's expectations in order to revise their plans. Ms. C_ill answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Mark' Hines, attorney representing the applicant, requested that the item be discussed later in the meeting because the architect was not yet p~sem. He pointed out that they had not received a copy of the staff repeaX and was unaware that the recommendation was to continue the item. Chair Austin explained that staff was recommending the item be continued for further review, and that the applicant's representatives review the staff report and take notes on the discussion. Ms. (3il noted that because of the noise control issue, some of the units would have a ventilation system installed to allow proper cooling and ventilation with the windows and doom closed. Mr. Cowan said that a single row of trees would have little effect on the noise control from the t~eway. Mr. Tom Sloan, project architect, referred to the various elevations of the proposed development and reviewed the architectural elements of the project. Relative to the concern regarding the 2-1/2 stotys over the garage, Mr. Sloan said that he designed the project to match the height of the Planning Commi~on .rV~nutes 4 June 22, 1998 adjacent property, and because the units were small, it would enable the owner to offer a bonus space for storage. Chair Austin requested the architect address the issues of concern for the next meeting. Chaff Aasfin opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Kevin Wyun, 20618 Gardenside Circle, referred to the site plan, and said although he was not opposed to the project, he requested that they keep the height at 2-1/2 storys and not exceed 3 storys because it was the gateway to Cupertino. He also suggested including some dense landscaping around the perimeter. He said the exi.~ng pine ltee in the back looked healthy and requested that it not be removed. Relative to the soundwall on highway 85, he said there was a 15 foot easement to Callrans; he also suggested some landscaping along the soundwall. He also suggested removal of one unit to meat the additional requirement for parking. Chair Aus~n closed the public input portion of the meeting. In response to Cmn. Doyle's question about the fire dep~ t~ent's position on the site plan, Ms. Gil said that the fire depmtment and pubhc works department have made o.,omments relative to the easements; and the applicant is still in the process of addressing those concerns and the fire deparanent has not yet signed offyet. Chair Austin suggesting that a landscaping plan be added to the list of issues. Com. HanSs said that relative m setbacks, if the adjacent prope~ remains for a period and is not redev¢lopecL there was no ~eason to restrict the proposed project to anything other than the present rules for the property. She suggested offsetting the windows for privacy, and adding lalldscaping for pfiva~-; and asked what the present niles were and whet the thought was about the futu~ of the adjacent prope~y. Com. Hams said she felt the parking deficit should relate to the present rules for parking and not some other proposal that was presented 8 yems ago, especially as the parking ordinance has been revised since then. She poimad out that the affordable homing units had also been revised. The Planning Commission looked at miiigation for 5 to 9 units, and the City Council decided to charge a fee, therefore there should not be a different rule for this property. She said she would like to see them all be townhouses, since Cupertino needed townhonses for ownership, because they sold for less th,n homes and would provide first time buyers the oppo~mity to live in the eo,~mmnity. Relative to the height, she said it should not be higher than the surrounding buildings because DeAm,a Bo.ulevard is Cupertino's main sh';:et and ii is important not to lose the view of~d hills. Com. Doyle said that relative to setbacks, he concurred with Com. Harris to adhere to the present rules; and use the present rules for parking also. He said he preferred to keep the height below the adjacent prope~ie~ and would like it to stair-step up, but if not possible, keep it from going abov~ the heights of the other buildings bom the foundation, not grade. He said it was appropriate intensity, and appropriate to change the zoning Relative to miligafion of affordable housing, he said he was in favor of trying to get two BMR units if possible. A brief discussion ensued relating to Com. Doyle's suggestion for a General Plan change for consistent-, wherein Mr. Cowan said that staffwould discuss it further and provide a better analysis and present further options. Com. Stevens said he concurred with Com. Harris about the height and low income housing. She said because the buildings are closer to DeAnm Boulevard, the buildings will dominate those behind them even though they are the s~me height, therefore he preferred that they be lower in Planning Cotlmlission Mrna-rcs 5 June 22, 1998 height. Relative to the setbacks, he said the Landmark buildings were 10 feet, but the total of 20 would match in between which he £eR was appropriate. He requested a better definition of the loft area. Chair Austin said that some of the issues could be fine tuned and help the applicant in their planning. She said that she concurred with Com. Harris, that changes should not be made midstream, but the building height should be the same or lower than the buildings next to it. Relative to the parking deficit of 3 spaces, she sa~d she felt 24 was a reasonable number, and was not certain if it was present or former rules. She said she preferred at least one BMR unit and said that there was a need in Cupertino for townhonses as they were more affordable than regular housing. Com. Doyle suggested adding some trees along the sU~et and on the corner as you approach from thc east. Chair Austin also asked that the applicant look into the large pine tree a previous speaker rcfarred to; and suggested that when thc applicant returns with a landscape plan, they aRempt to scxeen thc area. MS. Cril summarized that the plannlnE Commissioners agreed that the height needs to be reduced; use current standards for setbacks; use thc current parking standards in the parking ordinance rather than thc 1990 zoning; and get further information on why housing committ~ is recommending something special for this parcel. Relative to the design, Com. Hams commented that the quality of the bulldinE is determined by many things and because Rainbow Drive is a major gateway to thc hillnide and an important pact of thc community, the buildings need to be high quality. She noted that the buildings had no overhangs, and there was a lot of blank wall space which presented a very sparse effect. She suggested shutters for the windows. Corn Doyle concurced. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Corn Doyle moved to continue Application 6-Z-98, 6-U~98 and 15-EA-98 to the July 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Harris Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Location: 8-Z-98, 19-EA-98 City of Cupertino Scofield Drive, between DcAnza Boulevard & Western Drive Rezoning of 26 parcels from R 1-10 to R1-10i (single story with use p=.mit for second story) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 6, 1998 Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan reported that the Planning Commissioners toured several Rl-10i neighborhoods in the community recently as well as thc Scofield and Hibiscus areas to become famiUar with the character of the neighborhoods. Mr. Cowan said that it was a unique application in that it was initialed by the Planning Commission, prompted by petitions submitted 4 months ago requesting an Rl-10i designation in order to preserve thc single story character of the neighborhood. He reported that staffmet with the neighbors to discuss the ~,,,;fications of the RI- Planning Commission Minutes ~ June 22, 1998 10i dasignation, and the petition now has only 4 people in favor of the Rl-10i designation, and the balance opposing it. He said that in the futore they should establish some criteti,x In this particular instance, he said he felt they got off to a false ~i~uL and possibly a community meeting with the staff to discuss the ~,ances of the requirement before the hearing stage would have been helpful. He said the John Drive Rl-10i designation was successful because over 75% of the neighbors were in favor of the designation. In the interest of time, Chair Austin asked those in favor of the S¢ofield Drive rezoning to stand up; 4 stood up; 13 stood up as opposing the rezoning of S¢ofield Drive. She said that it appeared most were not m favor of the rezonmg. She noted that several speaker cards were submitted and encouraged a spokesman to speak on behalf of those opposed or in favor if the groups desired. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Orland Larson, 20613 S¢ofield Drive, expressed concern if the guidelines still allowed someone to build a huge home up to the envelope, and questioned if someone could buy a home tomoxxow and keep building. Chair Austin said as long as they kept within the FAR and setbacks. Mr. Larson referrad to photos of the larger new homes bein~ built and expressed conc~n about the character of the neighborhood. He questioned is there was a moratorium on buff/ting, and sa/d he thought there was going to be some resections on building. He said he -was concerned with privacy. He sa/d he did not want to see the character of the neighborhood destroyed; and noted that the lots were 10,000 sq. ft. lots and additions could be made single story. He su/d single story homes do not devalue the homes, as evidenced in Saratoga Mr. Brian ,Miller, 20584 Scofield Drive, said they followed many of the directions of the last meeting and took it to the meeting with ~aff where there was good discussion about the concerns and issues. He said an inconclusive vote indicated a 50/50 split; a few residents decided they would clarify and provided the information to give people to vote on the issue. He questioned why the item had to go to the City Council. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney, clarified that zoning was a City Council is~nie and that the pJ~nnin~ Commission is an advisory board on zoning issues. All zoning issues going through the Planning Commission have to be forwarded to the City Council. She said it ~s a state law. Mr. Cowan said that it was clem the majority of residents were opposed to the Rl-10i zoning, the hearing was adw~dsed in advance to speed things up by a couple of weeks; and asS~imin$ a decision ~ould be made at Itxi~ meeting, it would be forwarded to the City Council on July 6. Mr. Miller said he believed thnt the city should try to make some ehsn~es oitywide, which thc neighbors were in favor of. He said it is a costly process for the city to Uy to have the meetings on Rl-10i changes, and the sooner changes are made globally across the city, the sooner the RI changes can bc made. Approximately 22 people in the audience stood in agreement. Ms. Carol phillips, 20739 Scofieid Drive, said she originally signed the petition but realized after attending the meeting that it was worthless to do it on Scofield Drive unless also on Sum-ise Drive since the houses on Scofieid are already being heavily impacted by the houses on Sum-ise. When the petition was presented again on the Scofield Drive issue, she said she was opposed to it. She said she felt control was needed and that of the past opinion of the city process is unless groups of ?lann~ng Commiss/on M~nutes 7 June 22, 1998 people go to the Planning Commission with an issue, they will not do anything. She said the residents wanted changes as fast as possible, and did not want the Scofield Drive incident to happen on Sunrise Drive. Mr. John Luhring, 22066 Hibiscus Drive, said he was supportive of the comm~mity coming together to do something about the rezoning. He said he was not opposed to two story homes unless is affected his privacy or they became monstrosities such as in his neighborhood. He said that a Rl-10i single story ordinance does not prevent 2 story building from going into the neighborhoods, but that people who want to build 2 story homes in a single story zoned neighborhood would need to get a special Use Permit. The special Use Permit requires them to inform and forewarn the neighbors that the house is being built to allow them input. Until the Planning Commission and the City of Cupertino establishes R1 guidelines to make sure there is architectural review and other things to make sure the new homes fit in the neighborhood, it is ail that is available. He said the process will not decrease the home values nor will it stop anyone else from building 2 story homes, but it elimln~tes the element of surprise. Mr. Greg Mahnrin, 20725 Sunrise Drive, said his property was directly adjacent to Seofield and was affected. He said he disagreed that the property values would not decrease, as recently a house sold for a considerable amount and when the moratorium on 2 story homes went in, the property. was removed from the m~rket and the seller pmbably lost about $30,000. He said he was in the process of remodeling his home and did not feel that it was fair that the neighbors would have input as to whether or not he could add a second story to his home ff he followed the city gm~lelines. He said there were already 6 two story homes on Sunrise Drive and were not obtrusive. He suggested using foliage for privacy. He said he was opposed to restricting the building of 2 story homes. Mr. Victor Lee, 20683 Senfield Drive, said he felt the plying Commission should not impo. se privacy issues because the regulation on fence is 4 to 6 feet high and the average person would be able to look over his neighbor's fence. He said plmafng trees and foliage can help with the privacy issues. He said he had a large back yard and wanted to be able to provide an area for his children's pleasure which he felt is a homeowner's right when they purchase the property. He e. aid he felt some of the issues were not g~ttiag out, and urged the planning Commission to take them into consideration when making their decision~ Chair Austin dosed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Dc~jle said that the item was discussed and a public hearing scheduled bacunse the comm~mity wanted it. The Planning Commission watched it being sorted out and tried to reflect the eommllulty'S decision and it is clear that this eomm]lllity do~s not want the Rl-10i restriction. He said it was brought up that the R1 should be looked at and reviewed. Com. Doyle reported that the planning Commissioners alld staff toured the COmmllnity and saw examples of two story homes that did not impact the neighbors, and it was hopeful that they could reach a compromise that meets all the good of the community and people's wishes. He said he was opposed to the Rl-lOi zoning on Scofield Drive. Com. Stevens said he agreed with the community's response and reflecting what they said even though they changed their mind. He said he also felt that the R1 standard being worked on would answer many of the questions. He said he was also opposed to the Rl-10i restriction on Scofieid Drive. P[ann/n~ Commission Minutes s June 22, 1998 Com. Harris said that she concurred; the Rl-10i zoning is a neighborhood issue, they came forward and said what they wanted and the majority opposed the restriction. She said that she was opposed to the application at this time. Chair Austin concurred. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 19-EA-98 Com. Stevens Com. Maheney Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to deny Application 8-Z-98 based on the finding in the model resolution Com. Stevens Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 9-Z-98, 19-EA-98 City of Cupertino Hibiscus Drive and Hibiscus Court R ezoning of 19 pamels from R 1-10 to R 1-10i (single story with a use pea mit for a second story) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 6, 1998 Staff m~atation: The video presentation reviewed the application to rezone the 19 parcels located within the Hibiscus Court and Drive neighborhood from an RI-10 designation to an R1- 10i designation which makes it more difficult for a property own~ to construct a two sto~ home or add a second sto~ ~lttifion to an exk~ing home in the area, by requiring a Use P~tmit. Similslr to the Scofield Drive neighborhood Rl-10i zoning request, staff I~3ornmend~ denial of the Hibiscus Court and Drive rezoning request as they feel a 63% level of support is not adequate to win,mt a rezoinng. The planning Commission's reco,-,~,endafion for approval or denial will be forwarded to the City Council for a final det~,-inafiolL Mr. Cow .m~ xvferred to the zorn.' g map and ilk~rated the location of the Hibiscus Court and Drive neighborhood. He reported that 63% of the neighborhood was supportive of the Rl-10i zoninE restriction; however, he said he felt that a required 70-75% level of support was more realistic. He said there was no criteria as yet. and staff will return with some suggested criteria and also a~tempt to define the boundaries of the neighborhood. Staff is recommending denial of the application since 63% support is not adequate. Chair Austin noted that several speaker cards were submitted and encomaged a spokesman to speak on behalf of those in favor or in opposition, and encouraged those who wished to address issues to speak. She questioned how many were in favor of the rezoning; 3 persons stood and 9 stood in opposition. Mr. John Luhring~ 22066 Hibiscus Drive, said he represented those who signed the petition. He clarified thva there were 13 signatures on the petition, not 9 as stated in the staffreport. He said he had informed the neighbors that their property values would not necessarily decline. He said he ?lall~ Commi~4/on Minutes 9 June 22, 1998 spoke with a neighbor who said she didn't want any more monstrosities built in the neighborhood, and he informed her of the special Use F~,~it process. He noted that the percentage in favor of the restriction was closer to 66%. He illuminated overhead photos of homes in the neighborhood which he said depicted the style of the neighborhood. He showed a photo of the large newly constructed home on Hibiscus and Maxine Drives, which he felt did not fit in which the architecture of the neighborhood. He voiced his fn~itation at the builder of the home, stating that the home was built purely for monetary gain with no consideaation of the other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Luhiiug said that he would be content with the R1 zoning that the Planning Commission is considering, relative to architectural fit, privacy setbacks, but until it is finalized, any builder can duplicate the monstrosity homes. As the representative for Hibiscus Drive, he requested that the Planning Co,,~,,,i~sion approve the application for Rl-10i zoning based upon the number of property owners in favor of the zoning He added that if the application is not approved, he was requesting that a moratorium be placed on building in the Hibiscus ComtdI~ve neighborhood until the R1 ordinance is changed. He said he was concerned with the timeline for completion and did not any more large homes constructed in the interim. Ms. Kathleen Orr, 22051 Hibiscus Drive, said she was in favor of restxicting the two story homes on Hibiscus Drive. She referred to the earlier reference to the hillside protection policy which allowed people to view the surrounding hill~ from the floor of the city, and the concern for maintaining the chmm of structures within tile city and making certein they fit into the neighborhood. However, she said that the huge home recently built across fi'om her home no longer allowed residents to see the hillside, the trees, or the sun come up. She said she felt there Was 5omOhlng wrong with the city allowing the oblrasive smactures to be built, and hoped that the city would act quickly on a review policy so that other neighborhoods wouldn't have to go through the s~ae thing. Mr. Chris Orr, 22051 Hibiscus Drive, said he was in favor of the restriction. He said he was not opposed to second story homes, but was opposed to developers who do not reside in the neighborhood and chan~inE thc ~ of the Itelghborhood. He said he chose the neighborhood because of the single story, ~maller homes, and there were o~her communities people could live in that provided larger homes. He said that Saratoga would not allow monstrosity homes to be built in the ~rne neighborhood as ~matler homes, destroying the neighborhood. Mr. J. Leonard, 22042 Hibiscus Drive, said the character of the neighborhood had Changed OVer the years; and he was opposed to restrichons on building two story homes in a neighborhood that already ~ two story home~: He distributed photos of two story homes in the neighborhood which fit i~o the character of the neighborhood. He said the previous petition eireulated did not mention that there were already 16 two story homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Leonard said the restrictions should apply to the entire neighborhood, as well as the enrire city. He distributed a copy of a survey of Hibiscus residents which provided them a copy of the R1-10i zoning ordinance and informed them of the meeting; and he asked the residents if they agreed to give up their right to modify their home as they wish or would they rather go to a special meeting to get approval. Out of 19 homes, only 4 property owners agreed to the rezoning, 10 people disagreed, 3 homeowners were undecided, and 2 were unavailable for the survey. He illustrated a map which indicated which propet'ty owners were opposed to the restriction and which were in favor of it. He said he felt the issue was not two story homes, but how large should the home be. He said he felt the study on home values was inconclusive as there was not adequate dnm to reach a decision. Mr. Leonard said thai while he would not build a second story, he felt if his children decided to build a second story, they should have the right, if it was done within the city guidelines. He requested that the planning CC, hh,lSsion preserve the freedom to choose how propert~ owners wish to planning Commission Minutes ~l June 22, 1998 petition c~e in and everyone was in favor and whm the comm~mity wanted. She said in this instance there is not a preponderance of the community in favor of the apphcafion, and she would not support it for ~ reason. Chsir Austin said she concurred with the Commi~ioners' comments ~nd did not support the rezoning apphcafion. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve the Negative DecLaration on Application 20-EA-98 Com. Stevens Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to deny Application 9-Z-98 according to the findings Com. Stevens Com. Mahoney y Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Cow~n noted tlmt the application would be fomearded to the City Council on .Iuly 6, 1998. He said that staff would submit suggested guidelines for resolving issues end a process at a July p!annin~ Commission meeting. Chair Austin declared a recess fi-om 8:55 p.m. to 9:12 p.m. .6. Application No.(s): Applicant: 24-U-S3(M) Shelly Nguyen 20021 Carmona Ct. Director's referral of a minor modification to a use permit for a 362 square foot addition to a single family residence in a Planned Development in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Munieipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff ~resentution: The video presentation reviewed the request to construct a 362 square foot addition to a single family re?'dence in a Planned Development as outlined in the ~t~ched staff report. Siaff recc.,~-,ends alal~uv~l of the application in accordance with the conditions of the model resolution. A deeisiun to approve or deny the application if reached will be considered final unless appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days. Refen'ing to the site plan, Mr. Cowan illu~is~;ed the location of the home within the p!ann~d Development built in the late 70s. He reviewed the proposed addition and answered Commi~-sioners' questions. Ms. Shelly Nguyen, apphcant, said she had two tla,ghters, and that the home was a 3 bedroom home, with the bedrooms upstairs and no formal dining room. She said the addition would be used as an area to put a desk for her children and provide room for other activities. She said that she has contacted her neighbors and they did not object to the addition. Mi'. J. Baldwin, architect, clarified the dimensions of the addition. Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 22, 1998 Com. Doyle expressed concern that they would be setting a precedent with the high FAR if the application for the addition was approved. He pointed out that Mouta Vista has many different lot sizes and this would set a precedent for .57 FAR, and people have complained about .45 FAR. He said there needs to be a strong case why the application is special and others are not. Com. Stevens said he agreeed with Com. Doyle's concern although he was not on the commission when it was establi~he& He said that when looking at the floor plan and lot it appears that the need is logical. Mr. Cowan said that he felt you should look at FAR as the general indicator and look at the actual project itself, which is why there is no official FAR for PUD, just single famaly. Com. Harris said that the first page of the plans show that previously the two story section of the house abutted the two story resident on one side and a two story resident on the other, but the back portion of the house where the second story addition would be, abuts a one story resident. She said she felt it was a privacy issue and was not aware if any mitigation such as planting was considered. She said she felt a 900 square foot backyard is acceptable, and that a 1,300 square foot towahome is very small, and the addition will allow the applicant to stay in their house. Com. Harris said she would like to approve the application as it did not impact the fi.ont. She said her only concern was some mitigation to help the one story property fi.om being impacted. Mr. Baldwin said that some planting could be done on that side. Com. Stevens said he supported the application. He said he felt that fi.om the comment that she is familiar with her neighbors mad there is more lawn area oa the back of the other lot and a tree could be planted if they desire, with possibly some help. With only five feet there is not much room to do anything. He said that he sapported the application. Corns. Doyle and Harris said that they coneurrex:l. Chair Austin said she supported staff's recommendution according to the model resolution, as it was such a small are~. Com. Doyle expressed concern about the justification for the high FAR. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 24-U43(M) according to the model resolution Com- Harris Com. Doyle ' Com. Maboney Passed 3-1-0 Com. Doyle clarified that he was opposed because of the high FAR. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Stevens reported on his attendance at a recent meeting relating to amenity space. He pointed out the objective of the rules, what was contained and said what is called amenity space is not actually amenity, but refers to lowering traffic status, lrips and various other things. He said he understood the concept, and they also Planning Commission Minutes 13 June 22, 1998 agreed that the description derived of araeniW space should have the word "or" in it. There were three definitions given, and the majority stated that it should be "or", instead of "and", so that any item or area recommended for amenity space could meet any one or more of the three. He said he questioned if the conference rooms were used for commtmity uses, how would they handle that; however, there was no resolution. Com. Doyle said he felt that they arrived at the question as to what is the reason for amenity space; was it amenity space or was it for traffic mitigation? He said amenity space needed to be defined. He said there was agreement that it should be a list-based type of definition that identifies the different types of categories. Com. Doyle said it was also mentioned that there should be an open categogy, a review process for someone who was creative and could have amenity space. He said there was also a question of percentage of a project that could be amenity space. Com. Doyle said that the developers were looking for some sort of guidelines so they could start planning in that direction. Mr. Cowan said that the next step was to bring it to the Planning Commission. Com. Hams discussed the issue of handicap parking. Mr. Cowan said that handicap parking designation varied by land use type, and noted that the ratio of handicap parking spaces would REPORT OF '!'~4 ~; DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING; There was a brief discussion regarding the newspaper clipping related to the subcommittee to chose the architeclmal firm. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to the regular meeting on July 13, 1998, at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Soeretaty Approved as presented: July 13, 1998