Loading...
PC 10-12-92 � I �� � , ::1'L'� :;�' {:�;� i:'r:'i`ii�0 � STATE GF CALIFORNIA � 1U300 �1brrE� �venue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 2�2-45U5 � �iIlV OI�' fiHE REGULAI2 MEETING OF THE PLAri�ING COM��IISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 12, 1992 SALUZy� `1'O `I'HE FLAG : ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairman Fazekas Vice Chairperson Mann Commissioner Mackenzie � Commissioner Mahoney Commissioner Austin (arrived 6:47 p.m.) Nlarilyn Norling, Housing Coordinator � Staff Prese:nt: Robert Cowan, Director of � Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner � Michele Bjurman, Planner II Glen Grigg, Traffic Engineer � I APPR0�7AL OF' MINITTES : � Com. Mann made the following correction to the Minutes of 9/28/92: Paqe 7, 5th paragraph word "amiable" change to "amenable". MOTION: C�om. Nlackenzie moved to approve the minutes of S�ptember 28, 1992, as corrected. SECOND: C'om. Mahoney VUTE : Fyassed 5 POSTPON 1�:t�1�rITS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS : - None ( LJRITTEN COI�t1�1UNICATIONS: - None � OltAL COIKMUD(ICA`.CIONS : - None � CONSEN`1' CAI.ENDAR: 1. Apq1lC �ation 13-U-88 - Tandem Computers: Request for an exten�>ion of a Use Permit for two years. Chr. Fazexas requested the removal of 13-U-88 of the Consent Calendar. Staft PresE�.ntation: City Planner Wordell noted this is a requc�st for an extension of an existing Use Permit which expires on October 18, 1992. She stated this Use Permit has not been implemented in PLANNIiVG C��1WIMISSION MINUTES Regular Me�� ting of October 12, 1992 Page 2 the past b��cause the applicant would like to tie this buildinq to their 1Kast:er Plan. Ms. Wordell reviewed other reasons the � applicant has not implemented the Use Permit as outlined in the staff report. She stated there are several reasons why staff support the request for the extension, also as outlined in the staft repor She noted a specific plan is being prepared as part of the GenE�ral Plan and if other buildings are proposed they will be part of the specific plan which could take up to a year to complete. She noted if the extension is not granted the Use Permit will expirE; before a specific plan is complete. She stated �the Planning cc�mmission allowed for the height in this specific area. Ms. Wordel7. stated the Use Permit would have to be in conformance with the GE:neral Plan. In responsE� to Com. Mahoney's question, Ms. Wordell stated if the General Pla.n, as amended, conforms to allow this building, it co�ld � be built. :'�s. Wordell stated the extension is a reasonable requ�st because oi the time it will take to review the General Plan and complete a specific plan. She noted if the City chooses to change � the Genera�.� Plan to not allow this building the Use Permit would not be vali.d. � Applicant F�resentation: Mr. John Hailey, Tandem Computer, noted � the staff report has addressed all the major issues. He stated I Tandem has proposed in the General Plan review process, a build:ing configurat�.on which is not the same as what is before the � Commission. He stated this is the alternative they would pursue. He feels it is inappropriate to proceed with the Use Permit for the � reasons st<<ted in the staff report. He stated the City needs to find a cause to not grant the extension and noted Tandem wants the flexibility� to respond quickly to their own needs. In response to Chr. Fazekas' question regarding the parking gara��e, Mr. Hailey stated it is approximately two and one half stories w.ith no retail. In response to Com. Mahoney's question, Mr. Hailey stated they h;ive been listening to what the community wants in the General Plan, �ut i if the General Plan is approved with enough flexibility for Tandem to proceed in a different way, they will do that. � Com. Mann stated there are safeguards in the resolution and Tan��em will take the community's needs into consideration. She stated if the extension is not granted,another application for a Use Per�nit � will be teclious and expensive for the applicant. Com. Mahoney expressed concern about the actual physical height or the building. He feels this is an opportunity to prohibit an eiqht story build.ing. Chr. Fazekas expressed concern about extending the Use Permit <�nd ��L.AI�TNIidG CaraMISSION MINUTES Regular rleeting of October 12, 1992 Page 3 feels that Ly granting the extension they are approving the eight story building. He stated the height of the building daes not fit iiito any characteristics of the General Plan. Com. Austin stated the applicant does have approval for tYie buildinq in the General Plan and the extension should be grantec�. She noted she would support staff's recommendation. Com. Mackenzie stated he supports staff's position. He stated if 4 this was to expire and the City does not have an approved General Plan, it le��ves the door open for other proposals, maybe higher zhan this one. MOTION: Ccm. Mann moved to approve application 13-U-88 to grant a two year extension on the Use Permit subject to the � find.ings and subconclusions of the hearing. SECOND: Cc�m. Austin VOTE: Passed 3-2 I NOES: Cams. Mahoney, Fazekas f i'OBLIC HEARINGS: ( 2. Application No(s): 9-U-92 and 17-EA-92 1 Applic�.nt: Charles Fang � Pro�ert.y Owner: Moreno Moses ' Project: Location: 1G036 Peninsula Blvd. � US� PEF:MIT for a 2,496 s.f. retail building. Staff Preser�tation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report. She outlined. the property on the zoning map and noted the propos�d use is consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Distric�t. Ms. Bjurman outlined the proposal, which is to demolish the existing single family residence and a detached carport and to construct a ground story retail with a second story residential � unit. Nts. i3jurman outlined the proposed landscaping an the site plan map. Sl.ze also explained the ingress/egress between the Anirn,�l � Hospital and the proposed building. She noted Dr. Brown did express concerns about security and noise if an ingress/egre�s easement was required between the properties. She stated staff I agrees with these concerns and has added a condition requiring the applicant to record an ingress/egress easement which will be implemented at the time the hospital land use chanqes. Regarding l��ndscaping and tree protection, Ms. Bjurman reviewed the trees which will be affected as well as the landscaping, as outlined in the staff report. Ms. Bjurman noted staff has concern regarding the existing oak tree in relationship to the proposed balcony. 3he noted the arborist indicated that a significant amount of canopy will have to be trimmed. She stated staff has created a condition to have the second story window at a 10 ft. PLANNING CUZ��ISSION MINUTES Regular Meel=ing of October 12, 1992 Page 4 setback or the window be opaque in texture. Ms. Bjurman stated staff recominends approval as outlined in the conditions. In response to Commissioners questions, Ms. Bjurman outlined the parking and the easement between the two properties. She noted the use would De a photo shop with residence on top. The photo shop will follow ERC requirements. The public lzearing was opened. $�plicant Pz•esentation: Ms. Hoe, Designer, expressed concern about the conditic�ns. She stated the shifting of the landscaping to the north side af the driveway will be difficult, because the existing fence is not on the property line and Dr. Brown does not permit removal of t:he fence. She also noted the trash enclosure is in the way of the �?roposed driveway. � Com. Mann stated the trash enclosure is not in an approved location. Ms. Hoe stat:ed the main issue is the fence and the applicant does not want tr�is fence to hold up the project for several years. Regarding tr�e balcony, Ms. Hoe stated they are willing to relocate ' the balcony if this project is approved. Ms. Bjurman stated the Planning Director does have the authority to make minor modifications. Resident, rE�presenting Dr. Brown, stated when Dr. Brown occupi�d the property 9 years ago the fence was already in place. She stated a ret:aining wall was put in on the other side. She stat�d it was Yier impression that the dumpster was on their property. S:he noted if thE� durnpster has to be rnoved to the back of the building they would have unhappy neighbors. She stated if the ingress/egrE:ss easement is opened up it will only be sh�red by two properties. She also noted there is a gate on their property whi��h Lhey locic af�ter hours . Com. Mann stated she was on ASAC when Dr. Brown's improvements we�1t � through. SYie noted ASAC never approved the dumpster in front of the property� or a fence . In response to Com. Austin's question regarding the ingress/egress easement, N[r. Cowan explained the City's reciprocal access agreement. He stated the condition should be placed on the property anc� eventually will apply to all properties. He also reviewed thE: agreement with Dr. Brown regarding the reciprocal access. In response to Com. Mahoney's question, Ms Bjurman stated there is only 7 percE�nt landscaping on the whole site. She stated if the pLANNING COr�FiTSSION MINUTES Regular Meet�.ng of October 12, 1992 Page 5 landscaping is causing the driveway problems it may not be required. In response to Com. Mann's question, Mr. Grigg stated if the building was moved back one foot it would make parking tight in the back. Mr. eowan st�►ted, following design guidelines of Monta Vista, staf�f asked the applicant to bring the building up close to the street. i Chr. Fazekas stated it may be a building which is too big for tie site. Com. Mann stated a condition can be placed to have the fenc,e legally remc�ved. Chr. Fazeka:: closed the public hearing. Com. Ntacken�zie expressed concern about the tree canopy over the balcony. Com. rtann �uggested putting the balcony over parking space #10 wnich i� de:�ignated for the resident. I Ms. Hoe spolce in favor of Com. Mann's suggestion. Chr. Fazeka,� reopened the public hearing. Mr. Barry '�oate, Arborist, suggested that the balcony not be beneath thz canopy of the trees. He expressed concern about too much pruning of the canopy. He stated barbecue smoke is not a major probl�m. Chr. Fazeka;s closed the public hearing. Com. Mann spol:e in support of making the window opaque. Chr. Fazekas spoke in favor of removing the window. M s. Hoe st;�ted the window was created because the side of the � building is very plain. She noted it is a 10 ft. setbac .- stated there is no privacy intrusion. Com. Mackenzie suggested requiring the driveway to b c nt cannot landscaping be pu t in place. He noted if the app this it must come back for a modification. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve application 9-U-92 subj�ct to the findined that balcony should to rear condition add right side of the building. YL�I�IIYING COM��IISSION MINUTES Regular N1�eting of October 12, 1992 Page 6 SECONU: Com. Nlann VOTE: Passed 5-0 3. Application No(s): 20-U-86 (Modified) Applicant: JMB PROPERTIES PropE:rty Owner: Pacific Acquisition Corporation Property Location: 21269 Stevens Creek Blvd. USE PERMIT modification to landscaping plan. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report. She reviewe�3 the previous Use Permit approval and noted the discussion will entail the existing Use Perrnit review and the new proposal. Ms. Bjurman explained the approved tree removal and the replacement trees, as outlined in the staff report. She noted a condition ot approval on the previous use permit called for the replacement trees to be 8" diameter. She noted the Oaks Center indicated they could not obtain trees of this diameter and replanted trees of 6 inch diameter or less without City Counc�l approval. Nts. Bjurman reviewed the Tree Management Plan approved by the City Council in 1991. She stated staff conducted a site visit in June 1992 and determined that this plan had not been implemented. Staff did notify the property owners and the plan is now being implemented. She reviewed the reasons for the tr�e removal request, as outlined in the staff report. Ms. Bjurman reviewed st«ff recommendations, as outlined in the staf�f report. The public r�earing was opened. Mr. Barry Coate, Arborist, stated the difference between a six inch tree and an eight inch tree would be 4 to 6 feet of canopy. Mr. Coate expla;_ned the tree diameters and the leaf mass. He stat�d that tree #70 should be removed and replaced with two healthy trees. Mr. Coate also explained the different sizes in trze diarneters ar,d the age of trees. He also reviewed the cost of tre�s and repl ant�_ng . The Commiss.ioners discussed tree canopy. Mr. Coate stated the existing trE:es have approximately a 12 ft. canopy. Regarding tree �55, Mr. Co�.te stated this tree is in very poor health and if the cable broke the tree would fall. Com Mann quE:stioned the root system of existing trees; Mr. Coate stated some ot the trees have been abused for a long time and the best thing t:o do is to take good care of them and when they di�, replant somE� more. Mr. William Friedman, Corporate Commercial Services, provided photos to the Commission as to which trees are available. He stated the market chanqes rapidly and the best trees they could get at the time were the ones they planted. He stated the market is pLAIYNI�JG C01�ITSSION MINUTES Regular Nieeting of October 12, 1992 Paqe 7 different and with the help of the Arborist they will plant the larger trees. In responsE� to Com. Mahoney's question, Mr. Dave Mackey stated trees #u8 and 69 are the same species, but are not oak trees. He noted in 1992 they are focusing on an oak tree plan and 1993 will focus on maintaining the existing trees on site. In responsE: to Com. Mann's question, Ms. Bjurman outlined the � location ot the additional trees. Com. Austir.. spoke in support of staff's recommendations. She commended s�taff and the applicant for their work. She stated this should be r�viewed in one year. i Com. Mahoney expressed concern about prior conditions not being met. He spoke in support of staff's recommendations, but all conditi�ns �f approval should be met and reviewed by the Planning � Commission. � Com. Macken: ie concurred with Com. Mahoney. He stated staff should look at each tree before it is planted and it should be reviewed by � the Planninq Commission in one year. ` Com. Mann cc�mmended Planner Bjurman and staff for getting on top of � this proble_n. She stated as a result of Ms. Bjurman and staff's work people have come to realize that oak trees are precious to the City. In response to Com. Mann's question, Mr. Coate explained a co- dominant trunk, and noted this is not as qood as a single trunk and they are di:Eficult to find. Chr. Fazeka:� closed the public hearing. MOTION: C��m. Austin moved to recommend approval of application 2�-U-86 (Modified) subject to the findings and , subconclusions of the hearing and to recommend that 8 inch diameter trees are the target for replacement. SECOND: C��m. Mann � VOTE: Pa�sed 5-0 4. Applic��tion No(s): 3-GPA-90 Applic;�nt: City of Cupertino Proper�ty Owner: Same Projec�c Location: Citywide ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING to continue discussion of the general Plan. Subject: Housing Mitigation PLXI'1NItJG CO�K:+lISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 12, 1992 Page 8 Starf Prese�ltation: Ms. Marilyn Norling presented the staf'f report. Sne reviewed the recommendations from the Affordable Housing Conmittee and the Planning Commission for Housing Mitigation c�f office and industrial development as ou�tlined the staff report. ]Ms. Norling f'urther reviewed recommendations for housing mitigation of residential development. She presented a chart showing the median price of condominiums and single family homes and the in- lieu fees which will be required. A chart was presented outlining Bel�w MarkE:t Rate (BMR) percentages and the length of affordability. The Commiss.ioners went through each recommendation for retail development and discussed the points 1 through 6. Ms. Norling stated mixed-use is to be encouraged and sites should be selected where both commercial and residential are in high demand. She noted sites which would not be designated for rnixed- use; paym�nt: of an in-lieu fee would be required. Regarding �:�, Ms. Norling stated that staff is concerned about exempting sc�me retail developers and are trying to get everyone invalved. Mr. Cowan stated, at the Affordable Housing Committee meetiny . there was ir�put from the National Association of Industrial Parxs who noted t2 retailers should have some obligation. Chr. Fazeka=; asked what the impact will be on retail construction? Ms. Norling stated it is staff's feeling that the fee will have to be reasonable in order not to discourage retail construction. Com. Austin addressed the parking. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the parking requirement is 5 per 1000, but 4 per 1000 in Vallco. Regarding 6U, Mr. Cowan stated the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council various pools of retail space. He stated the idea of 6D is to unfreeze some commercial potential in the commercial zoned site. He stated this is an incentive to get developers to provide more housing units. He noted the 3600 units required ha:7 dropped to 3100 because of the hillside plan. Com. Mann stated that recommendation #3 is not what the Planning Commission agreed on. She noted they agreed on the 15% nexus. The Commissioners discussed the nexus study and how it evolved. They also discussed what the Planning Commission agreed on. Chr. Fazeka:� stated ABAG requires more affordable housing than what PLANNING CC►M1�iISSION MINUTES Regular MeE�ting of October 12, 1992 Page 9 the City is proposing. Mr. Cowan :�tated that ABAG fair share analysis looked at seve:ral variables �lnd the Nexus study did not look at as many factors. Com. Mann :�tated that the experts have said it is a lot easier to get financ:�ng for low income housing than it is to get financing I for rnixed-use projects. f Com. MahonE:y stated there are several large corporations who want to add more square footage and would be willing to provide housing; he questior�ed c�xempting retail. Ms. Norlinc� stated if retail is exempt, so is Vallco. She noted the Develo��ment Agreement does not require housing mitigation. � Mr. Cowan stated that the Council added 200, 000 s. f. for a total of 1 Million �;.f. for a power retailer. The public hearing was opened. 1 Ms. Nancy �3urnett, 729 Stendhal Lane, stated with regards to the ' Development: Agreement the City will lose $500,000 unless there is ' a plan by Jaly 1993. She expressed concern about shared parking on weekends. � Chr. Fazek«s stated that residential units would have designated parkinq. The Cornmis:�ioners discussed parking requirements for mixed-use projects. Recomrnendation 6B, remove retail 4-1 (Fazekas No) Com. Macker.zie stated the City wants a big box retail in order to get sales tax. He suggested looking at ways in which in-lieu fc�es can be wor off with the sales tax if large sales tax i:� generated. If the retail is not generating enough sales tax th�n they pay t:ne in-lieu fee. He stated this would also apply to Vallco. A Recommenclation �7 was proposed: Provide incentives includinq possible refunds of mitigation fees to retailers who generate sa_e:� tax over a set limit per square foot. 3-2 (Mann, Fazekas No) Com. Mann :�tated the small retailers are being affected and t:h� Commission needs to be careful they are not putting retailers c�ut of doinq business in the City. Ms. Norling stated that AB1600, in terms of charginq in lieu fE�es and having a'legal basis, also says that if the City has not PLp.NNI'tJG CiJMMISSION MINUTES Regular Me��ting of October 12, 1992 Page 10 committed - the money within five years it must be given back. She asked wher� the refund money would corne from and noted the sales tax revenu�� is not dedicated to housing. Mr. Cowan clarified Com. Mackenzie's suggestion, stating that the housing f�:e would be collected and there would be a certain expectatioil for sales tax per square foot and if this is exceeded there woulc� be a refund. Regarding F:ecommendation #3 it should be 11 per 100, 000 square feet as opposed to 14 per 100,000 square foot. 5-0. The Comrnissioners discussed Affordable Housing Comrnittee Recommendations: Residential Mitigation. Com. MahonE�y stated that the word "mitigation" should not be used in dealing with residential. Mr. Cowan ;�tated if expensive housing is built it displaces low income hou:>ing. Ms. Norlinc� stated when expensive housing is built the value of additional housing units is increased. Co:m. MahonE�y stated BMR programs should not be on single family resid�nts. Com. Mann stated BMR programs should not be attached to four units or less. Com. Mackenzie stated the issue is the size of the units as opposed to a number. He suggested no BMR programs for units of 2500 s.f. or less, anything over this the BMR program comes into play. He suggested looking at the density range in the General Plan and if a person is building at less than 80 percent density, then the BMR proc�ram applies. If building at maximum density no BMR program applies. Com. Mann st�ated there are not many condominiums over 2500 s.f. Ms. Norling.stated if a developer builds more housing units than required in a mixed-use development they may be exempt from #1. She noted the Affordable Housing Committee would consider exempting single famil.y homes for owner built and occupied. She noted staff researched t:his and many homes are built one at a time and owners may move in for a short time. She stated the seven unit requirement will not kick in on very many projects. She noted th�y are trying t:o establish a fee if BMR units are not built. Com. Mann expressed concern about adding another cost to the price of a home, by charging more fees. She stated the City has to l�I.ANtdIivG C�71�(ISSION MINUTES Regular Me��ting of October 12, 1992 Page 1 either ign��re tne single family homes or come up with a very low fee. Chr. Fazek«s suggested that the fee is due when lots are created. He stated E�xisting lots should be excluded. Com. Mann :�uggested looking into a sliding scale. Ms. Norlinc� stated the Housing Committee and the panel of experts will look into this. Com. Mackenzie and Com. Austin both spoke in favor of no BMR program foi- residential development. Com. Mann �tated everyone who does business in Cupertino should ` share in px-oviding affordable housing. Ms. Norlinc� stated there has to be some type of resale requirem�nt ( to keep prices down. � Com. Mann feels there is no commitment to provide affordal�le housing in the City. � � Com. Austin feels the BMR program will discourage housing in Cupertino. Chr. Fazekas suggested if an existing lot is subdivided �the property o�aner should pay a fee and it should be on a sliding scale. Com. Macker�zie stated the size of the units and density will drive the amount of affordable housing in the City as opposed to the BMR prograrn. Recommendat:ion #7, Spending of money should apply across the board. It was a c��nsensus to leave the recommendations as is except for � number 1. Existing single family lots would be exernpt unl�ss subdivided. I NEW BUSINE�:S : 5. Proposed new Planning Commission report forrnat. Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan stated staff is try:ing to save st��ff time and Planning Cornmission time in preparing and reviewing staff reports. He noted there will be a standard report and the key is to rnake the report easier to read. There was a consensus of the Commission to adopt the new Planning Commission report format. PLANI�ING COM�IISSION MINUTES Regular Me�ting of October 12, 1992 Page 12 REPORT Or' 'rHE PLANNING COIKMISSION: - None REPORT OF llIRECl'OR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None DISCOSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None ADJOURNAi�:N7": The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:25 P.M. to the next Regular Meetinq of October 2b, 1992 at ' 6:45 p.m. Respectful�_y submitted, � e o�a..�.x�.s�: 1•� • �d��,�•c�rd Catherine I�1. Robillard, Recording Secretary I Approved by the Planning Commission � at the Regular Meeting of October 26, 1992 /s/ Daryl Fa zekas Daryl F'azek:as, Chalrman Attest: /s/ Dorothy Cornelius Dorothy Corne ius, City Cle��k