Loading...
PC 05-11-92 � CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue � Cupertino, CA. 95014 ( (408) 252-4505 I�INUTES OF TH8 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COI�IlKISSION HELD ON MAY 11, 1992 � SALUTE TO THE FLAG: � ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairman Fazekas Vice Chairperson Mann Commissioner Mahoney Commissioner Austin t Com. Mackenzie arrived at 7:51 p.m. � Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of 1 Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner � Michele Bjurman, Planner II Cheryl Kershner, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: � MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the minutes of April 22, 1992, as presented. � SECOND: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Mackenzie MOTI�N: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of April 27, 1992, as presented. � SECOND: Com. Mahoney VOTE: Passed 4-0 � ABSENT: Com. Mackenzie I '� POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: � 2. Application 41-U-83 (Revisedl: Continued to the Planninq Commission Meeting of May 26, 1992. MOTION: Com. Mann moved to Continue item 2 to the meeting of May 26, I992. SECOND: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed � 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Mackenzie WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Sunnyvale Manor ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None PLANNING COIrII�1ISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 11, 1992 Page 2 � CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. ApAlication 4-U-89 - Peninsula Bible Church: Applicant is requesting a one year extension of the Use Permit. � MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Consent Calendar. SECOND: Com. Mann VOTE: Passed 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Mackenzie PUBLIC HF�ARINGS: 3. Application No(s): 2-TM-92 Applicant: David A. Voss, Trustee ' Property Owner: Same Project Location: NW corner of Foothill Blvd. and Alcalde � TENTATIVE MAP for 2 lots on .5 acres consisting of between � 7,500 and 7,537 s.f. � Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurrnan presented the staff report. � She noted this is a request for a two lot subdivision. She noted I staff expressed concern regarding ingress/egress. She stated a � condition has been included requiring ingress/egress onto Voss Ave. An additional condition has been placed on the application requirinq the residence face Alcalde. i The public hearing was opened. At��licant Presentation: Mr. Marv Kirkeby stated he reviewed the conditions and is in agreement with.exception to the access to the corner lot. He requested that access not be totally restricted on the Foothill side. He noted this would not be the primary access. In response to Com. Austin's question, Ms. Bjurman stated the properties directly behind face a Cul de sac and access onto Voss. Ms. Bjurman stated the access was discussed with the City Engineer and he would support the second access as requested. Mr. Kirkeby stated they do not require a curb cut at this time. Com. Mann commented that the applicant wishes to leave the option open for a future access. . There -was a consensus of the Commission to allow the use of the rear entrance. Com. Mann questioned the requirement for a fence. Ms. Bjurman stated the fences are regulated by the Fence Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINiTrES Regular Meeting of May 11, 1992 Page 3 Com. Austin expressed concern about fencing along Foothill Blvd. and asked if this could be restricted. ` In response, Ms. Bjurman stated the majority of parcels on Stevens Canyon are conventionally zoned, therefore can not be con�itioned. She stated to regulate fencing would require a change in the zoning. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve application 2-TM-92 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with cond. 15 to read "The residence on Parcel 2, sha11 face onto Alcalde Avenue. The primary ingress/egress for Parcel 2, shall be onto Alcalde. 1 SECOND: Com. Mahoney VOTE: Passed 5-0 � 4. Application No(s): 3-V-92 Applicant: William Maston Architect Property Owner: Tom and Kathy Lodes Project Location: 21023 Christensen Drive �` VARIANCE to Section 8.4 of Ordinance No. 1449 (R-1) to reduce � the second story side yard setback surcharge from 5 ft. to 3 ft. for a 298 s.f. addition to a single family residence. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report. She noted she circulated photos to the Commission submitted by the architect. Ms. Bjurman presented the floor plan of the proposal noting the request is to expand the second story bedrooms. Ms. Bjurman explained the requirements for the Variance noting the applicant does meet the criteria. Ms. Bjurman displayed the elevation exhibits outlining the options for adding the 3 ft. required. She stated the impact to the adjoining property is very minimal and there has been no opposition from the neighbors. Ms. Bjurman outlined the cumulative impacts if the variance is approved. She noted this could be setting a precedence in the neighborhood. She stated staff recommends approval. Applicant Presentation: Mr. William Maston stated this particular subdivision is one and two story structures. He stated the surcharge, from an architectural standpoint, is incompatible. He noted what is requested has been done by a neighbor and looks architecturally consistent and does not look massive. In response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Maston stated the neighbor did not need a variance when doing his addition as the ordinance was not in place. Com. Mackenzie stated he would vote against the application at this time as it does not meet the variance criteria. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 11, 1992 Page 4 Ms. Bjurman outlined the content requirements of the Variance as outlined in the staff report. Com. Mahoney and Chr. Fazekas noted they support the findings. Com. Mann stated she will not support the application at this time. She stated a sidewall on a corner creates problems and the reason for the Ordinance was to avoid such walls. Com. Austin expressed concern about setting a precedence. Chr. Fazekas closed the public hearing. Mr. Maston asked if the property owners could speak. � Chr. Fazekas re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Lodes, 21023 Christensen Dr., stated he feels that the variance is justified. He noted they are one of the first homes seen when entering the subdivision and want to maintain the integrity of the structural image of the community. He noted the side wall will not be a continuous 6 ft., wall of concrete. He stated they have support from the Community and the request is consistent with the architecture of the neighborhood. Chr. Fazekas closed the public hearing. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to recommend denial of application 3-V- 92 with the following findings: There are no exception or extraordinary circumstances or condition applying to the land; Does not prevent the enjoyment of property rights. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed • 3-2 NOES: Com. Mahoney, Chr. Fazekas OLD BUSINESS: 5. AgAlication 3-U-92 (ModifiedL - Ron Lackey: Clarification of Condition 9 of Resolution No. 4406. Staff Presentation: City Planner Wordell presented the staff report. She noted the clarification relates to the following three issues, parking, fencing and the trash enclosures. She noted the Planning Commission clearly stated that parking should be on paved areas. Ms. Wordell presented the site plan map outlining where parking and the fencing should be placed. She outlined the applicant's site plan map noting a fence or the additional 18 spaces to the south of the property do not exist. She stated the Planning Commission need to clarify where the parking and fencing should occur. Regarding the trash enclosures, Ms. Wordell stated the Planning Commission required they be placed on the West side of PLANNING COMIKISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 11, 1992 Page 5 the lot, this would result in the loss of approximately 3 parking spaces. She noted if the trash was behind the building there may be problems with the proximity to the residents. Ms. Wordell noted it is staff's recommendation to approve the fence as proposed by staff, the area be paved for access to both strips of parking and the applicant return to the planning staff with the � correct plan outlining parking, including the handicap stall, and placement of trash enclosures. Ms. Wordell stated an incorrect site plan was submitted to staff and the Planning Commission. Com. Austin stated the Planning Commission recommended the trash enclosures be placed on the west side of the building so it would � not irnpact the neighbors . She stated they are aware of the loss of parking stalls. Ms. Wordell stated all the dirt area would not be required to be paved to meet parking requirements. The area not paved should be fenced. She stated if the parking area was paved and stripped according to the applicant's site plan they would have adequate parking. AA�licant Presentation: Mr. Gary Schrnidt stated he is concerned about parking and this is the reason for the clarification. He stated they are dealing with three parcels and pointed these out on the site plan map. Mr. Schmidt gave background information and explained the conditions of each parcel. He stated there was a Use Permit issued for the undeveloped parcel several years ago which will consolidate all three parcels and any improvements at this time will be temporary. He stated they have an existing obligation to allow adjoining building occupants to park on the parcel in question. Mr. Schmidt expressed concern regarding Cond. 5, he stated he does not have the authority to place a fence between the two lots. He outlined the area where a fence could be placed with a gate. He also noted that the restaurant has common use of the dirt area. Chr. Fazekas stated that the Planning Commission required that the additional 18 spaces to the south be paved and put in 26 ft. of pavement for a driveway. He suggested moving the fence. Mr. Schmidt stated if they did what was required of the Planninq Commission, the pavement would be where the underground parking will be. Com. Mann stated that it is a City requirement that cars should be parked on paved areas. Com. Fazekas reviewed staff recommendations. PLANNING COMIKISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 11, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Schmidt felt the conditions at this time are inappropriate for this rninor amendment. Mr. Paul Godley, Cupertino, stated he lives close to the property in question and has no objection to the development of the three parcels. He stated the abandoned vehicles have been removed, but the large containers are still on the property. He stated parking � is inadequate and people do park on the dirt areas. Mr. Godley pointed out the placement of the trash bins. In response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Godley stated the parking should be brought up to code level. He noted he has doubts about when the new deveiopment will take place. Mr. Schmidt stated he will work with the neighbors to address concerns raised by Mr. Godley. Chr. Fazekas closed the public hearing. Com. Mahoney stated the parking should be paved. Chr . Fazekas stated parking should be discouraged in the dirt area . Com. Austin stated they should pave enough to meet the parking requirements for the leqal parcel and fence off the remainder. Com. Mahoney stated the applicant should pave enough to meet the Use Permit requirements and optionally pave as much as possible to meet the need of the restaurant and the remainder fenced off. Ms. Wordell stated there is a lack of 20 spaces for the whole center. Com. Mann stated they should pave for at least the additional 18 parking stalls as indicated on the site plan and paved for driveways. She stated there should be no fences. The Commissioners discussed the parking problems as well as the fence and trash bins. There was a consensus on the following: Parking stalls should be paved and provide an additional 18 spaces ; placement of a north/south fence as staff recommended; trash on the West side and neighbors protected. A plan has to be brought back before staff showing conformance with the above requirements. M�TION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve application 3-U-92 (Modified) subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing subject to staff approval. SECOND: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING CO1�II�iISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 11, 1992 Page 7 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMIdISSION: - None � REPORT OF DIREC'i'OR OF COPlMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 8:35 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of May 26, 1992 at 6:45 p.m. � Respectfully submitted, , ,,,, � � , N� � � �r� Cather M. Ro i ar , Recording Secretary A roved b the Plannin Commission PP Y 9 at the Regular Meeting of May 26, 1992 /s/ Daryl Fazekas Dary Fazekas, C airman Attest: � i /s/ Dorothy Cornelius Doro y Corne ius, City C erk Amended 6-8-92