Loading...
PC 06-11-01CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 11, 2001 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Corr, Patnoe, Chairperson Kwok, Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director; Ciddy~ Wordell, City Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Mike Fuller, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 29, 2001 Regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to postpone the approval of the May 29, 2001 minutes to the June 25, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Kwok noted receipt of a letter from the Towu Center Village Cupertino Homeowners Association Board of Directors addressing the proposed Civic Park/Town Center development project; and a letter from Rosemary Stahl, Sunnyvale City Clerk, relative to a resolution &the Sunnyvale City Council amending the Sunnyvale downtown Specific Plan. ORAL COM3,IUNICATION: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 06-U-01, 05-Z-01, 06-EA-01 Summerhill Homes 10120 lmperial Avenue Use permit to construct a 56-unit townhome development. Rezoning of an ML (light industrial) zoning district to P(Res) (Planned Residential) for a 56~nnit townhome development and to P(ML) (Planned Light Industrial) to allow a transfer of floor area ratio development credits. Tentative City Council date: July 2, 2001 Request postponement to meeting of June 25, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes 2 June I I, 2001 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 04-U-01 Grosvenor California Limited 10120 Imperial Avenue & One Results Way Use permit to transfer floor area ratio development credits from Imperial Avenue to Results Way Corporate Park. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request postponement to meeting of June 25, 2001 o Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 03-EXC-0 l, 05-EA-01 Via Builders 22085 Regnart Road Hillside exception to construct a 5,277 square foot residence on slopes greater than' 30% and for a grading quantity that exceeds 2,500 cubic yards. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request postponement to meeting of July 9, 2001 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 14-ASA-0 l Stevens Creek Apartments (Verona) Lot I, Tract 7953, Cupertino City Center Architectural and site approval for lighting, color, ~naterials, landscaping and other design t'eatures of an approved apartment building. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request postponement to meeting of June 25, 2001 Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, requested that Items 2 and 3 be continued to the July 9, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, and Item 6 be postponed to the Juue 25, 2001 meeting. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to postpone Items 2 and 3 to' the July 9, 2001 Planning Commission meeting; and Items 6 and 7 to the June 25, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Com. Chen Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMIJNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None Application No.: Applicant: Location: 09-U-69(M) Darlene A. Lutz (Dar's Hideaway) 10095 Saich Way Use permit modification to allow a full bar at an existing cocktail lunge. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Planning Commission Minutes 3 June I I, 2001 Staff presentation: 'The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit ,nodification to allow the serving of liquor at Dar's Hideaway. Presently the establishment serves beer and wine; the prior establishment the Silver Fox had a full service bar. Details regarding the size, location, operating hours, and proximity to businesses and residential were outlined as set forth in the staff report. Staff recommends several conditions to ensure that the bar does not become a nuisance to the neighbors, as set forth in the model resolution. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered final unless appealed. The applicant was not present. Mr. Piasecki noted that the applicant was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting as she is the sole proprietor of the business. He explained the rationale for the conditions and said that staffwas satisfied that with the conditions the City has adequate safeguards and recommends approval of the application. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application 09-U-01 in accordance with stafff's recommended conditions Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 05-U-01, 05-EXC-01, 07-EA-01 Barry Swenson Building 19160 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use permit to demolish an existing residence and construct an 8,900 square foot office building. Exception to the side yard setback requirements of the Heart of the City Plan Tentative City Council date: June 18, 2001 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to demolish an existing residence and construct an 8,900 square foot office building, as set forth in the staff report. The use permit for a 10 unit apartment building which was approved in 1998 has expired. The site is surrounded by apartments, offices, vacant land and a single-family residence. It was noted that the proposal is in compliance with the General Plan, which provides for office use on the site. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site plan, and reviewed the setback issues relative to the proposed building, and discussed staff's recommended conditions of approval, as set t'orth in the staff report. She discussed the architecture of the building, and noted the suggestions ot' thc architectural consultant, such as recessing of the windows. Ms. Wordell noted that the proposed building was approximately 3.5 feet lower than the adjacent buildings. She reviewed the landscaping proposal as set forth in the staff report. Relative to land use, Ms. Wordell explained that the General Plan and zoning allow commercial, residential or retail; noting that the property was counted toward the office potential in the General Plan. Staff recommends approval of the application. Planning Commission Minutes 4 .lune 1 I, 2001 Ms. Wordell said that the issue of trash collection had not surfaced before, and noted that tim receptacle was not close to the residential area. Relative to mixed use for the property, she said that the applicant was interested in office use; there are policies in the Heart of the City Plan and the General Plan encouraging mixed use, they are not required to have residential, but it is an option. Ms. Wordell explained that in the prior approval for the property, there was not a side setback exception but there was a front setback exception and there was a provision in the Heart of the City Plan that there should not be parking in front. The reason the city agreed to that exception is that the apartment building met all the side setbacks, but a driveway could not be placed down the sides with residences in the middle; hence by placing it at the back there is access to parking in the front and there would not be a need for driveways down the sides at all; therefore it was a different type of exception. Chair Kwok expressed concern about the side setback and questioned if the building width could be reduced to 40 feet in order to maintain the 10 foot side setback or move the building further toward the east. Ms. Wordell said that the building size could be reduced but it ~vould create a visual problem of getting more of a narrow front without the design interest. She said she did not think it could be moved to the east because of the setback problems to the east, therefore it would have to be reduced in square footage. Relative to his concern about the 5 foot setback, Chair Kwok said that two ways to mitigate a setback were to require the fire rated windows or to ask the adjacent property owner to agree to a non-build easement. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Counsel, said that the adjacent property owner could be asked if he would agree, or it could be made a condition when he develops the property. She said it is frequently done when people come in for redevelopment ou their property and conditions are set forth that will make them compatible. When they come in for redevelopment, there will be other options in the design so it may not be the problem that Chair Kwok anticipates. Com. Corr noted that if the owner of the Cypress building agreed to a no-build zone, it would ride with the property and the issue would be taken care of. Ms. Murray said that it would be a covenant recorded. Mr. Rich Truffier, Barry Swenson Builder, said that the proposed site was a difficult site to work with and they had worked witb staff for the best use. He addressed questions posed regarding the trash enclosure location and the concern of the proximity of the single family residential area; noting that the trash enclosure was referred to as a utility structure and a garage was immediately adjacent to the property. He said they shared the concern and felt the trash enclosure should be located as far from the residential portion as possible. Relative to the location of the building, he pointed out that it was a long narrow lot and was difficult to design, and after working diligently with staff on a variety of site plans, they arrived at a solution of the four to five foot easement with a five foot non-build easement. One of the initial proposals had the building located in the rear, and was moved toward the front with ingress only from Stevens Creek. He said he felt they had the right for the egress through the Cypress property through some of the language that was in the reciprocal access easements that are currently in place; however Cypress was opposed to that solution. Through continued work with staff, Mr. Truffier said that the conclusion was reached that it would be better to have the site stand on its own, yet they would like to preserve reciprocal easement to an extent to allow eventually for circulation through both properties. Itc said they felt the 40 to 45 foot width is paramount for the functionality of the building and they Planning Commission Minutes 5 June I1,2001 had grave concerns about reducing it further, which leaves it as long and narrow. He requested approval of the proposal from the Planning Commission. In response to Com. Auerbach's question if consideration was given to other uses for the property, Mr. Truffier said the property was purchased from the Jacobs family who originally had a use permit for an apartment complex, and they purchased it under the guise that it was General Planned for office which was their original intention. After meeting with staff they were requested to look at residential, and they took an honest look at the possibility of residential use. However, office use was determined to be the best use for the property since it would generate the highest revenue. He said it was felt that mixed use degrades both the office and the housing, not resulting in A housing or A office property. Mr. Truffier said that they understood Cupertino's housing needs and he felt that Barry Swenson Builder had a well known reputation. Other mixed use properties were studied, but because of the small size of the property, a lot of economy is lost with the scale of the compact site. He pointed out that there are tremendous costs in developing small sites and the proposed property is under an acre. He said he felt the proposal was high quality architecture with good use. Chair Kwok questioned if changing the separation to 15 feet and moving the building further back would make it too narrow for ingress and egress to get into the parking lot. Staff responded that it would, and said they met with Cypress Properties and they are willing to give a non-build easement if the site stands on its own. Com. Auerbach questioned why it could not be flipped around so that at least the driveway would be adjacent to the other properties so that in future development, it could possibly be combined. The applicant said that setbacks to the already existing housing would not allow for that because there is housing next to it. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Bob Hightower, Barry Swenson Builder, discussed the history of the project. He said the prior owner of the property wanted to build housing; and approached the developer and a number of other developers to make the site work, but given the economics of the housing on the small site, the site costs, the number of units, and the cost of the site itself, no one was able to make the housing a viable project. The property was then purchased from the Jacobs; and the applicant worked with staff on whether or not office use would be acceptable. Relative to mixed used, he pointed out that it increases the site, the infrastructure costs a great deal for the number of units that may be built on top of the office project. He noted that reserved parking for housing would impact the office parking, and additional plumbing and electrical expenses needed to be offset in a housing development would increase the costs and per unit cost would betoo high. Additionally there were some low income housing requirements in the previous design that impacts the economic viability of mixed use. Chair Kwok closed the public hearing. Chair Kwok summarized the issues: side setbacks; actual use- office vs. mixed, office vs residential; trash enclosure; removal of tree; jobs, housing and balance; integrating with the Heart of the City Plan; consistency with the other side of Stevens Creek Boulevard; ingress and egress; and project height. Planning Commission Minutes 6 June I 1,2001 Com. Corr said lie was ~ot opposed to the five foot setback because of the parking lot uext door, and referred to the diagram showing the layout and suggested flipping the building and putting it closer to the housing element, resulting in more mass and open space, giving more relief. Il' the no-build zone is granted at this time or later, they would be able to maintain the distance desired between the existing building and any other building there may be. Com. Corr said lie l;elt the building was too narrow, and expressed concern about making the building any narrower in order to gain room on either side. He reiterated that he was not opposed to the five foot setback, and would prefer to have mixed use development for the property. He concurred that rationale was provided for what would work on such a narrow lot, and the applicant had a choice of either residential or office, and they chose office. Given what is occurring on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Com. Corr said that the proposal was suitable. He said that lie opted to leave the trash container where it is. He said he did not agree with the applicant's comment that mixed use degrades both the office and the housing, but that they complement each other well. He said Com. Auerbach's comment on the jobs and housing was valid and it would be necessary to look at bigger pieces ol' property than the proposal, for a solution to the balance. Com. Corr said lie was not opposed to housing on the parcel; however, the applicant does not feel it is the best use. Com. Patnoe said he did not have a concern with the setback, but felt they did uot have the entire picture of the issue with Cypress Properties. He said eventually they would need to get a no-build zone approved, and was reluctant to approve something that would need more work down the road. He said lie concurred with Com. Corr relative to the trash bin remaining iii the same location since being closer to residential would create a problem. Relative to the height, lie said lie would prefer that the height be higher. Com. Patnoe said that he would prefer mixed use t'or the site, but because of the history of the project where there was trouble adding the ten units because of the narrow strip of land, he remained neutral. Com. Chen said she felt the office mixed use and job housing were similar issues; and balance.job housing is a basic principle of the city and she concurred with Com. Corr that it is a larger issue than just the small narrow lot, but she was not concerned about it. She said that because of the potential problem with the trees, she was not opposed to tree removal, but felt the concern about the location of the trash container was valid since it was close to residential. Com. Chen said that she was concerned about the setback issue because currently it is the parking lot next to the property, but it also restricts the future use of the adjacent property and staff is recommending a condition to require adjacent property owner's approval. Ms. Wordell clarified that it was an option available that they would either volunteer the non-build easement or the applicant would have to have fire rated windows, and the adjacent property owner is not being placed in a situation where they would have to agree to anything. Com. Chen said she felt it was necessary to get the adjacent property owners' agreement to the narrow setback and that would be her only requirement. Com. Auerbach directed his comment to the contractor and architect, stating that the proposal was a difficult site, and the Planning Commission was not opposed to companies profiting. Cupertino wants to be friendly to businesses and there would be a lot of start up companies needing small office spaces. He read content from the General Plan relative to the implementation of' the General Plan. He referred to the web browser for a view of Stevens Creek Boulevard which illustrated the mixed use developments and office use, and said lie felt it was not coming together to fulfill the mission to make Stevens Creek corridor an urban entry into the city. lie illustrated a drawing of the proposed property, and pointed out fallacies relative to setbacks. Planning Commission Minutes ? Jtme II, 2001 Com. Auerbach said he did not have a problem with the five foot setback, but said he would pre[er that the building span the entire lot and have some way to access parking in the rear without any curb cut. He said another element of the specific plan is that barriers to pedestrian access should not be created between adjoining retail commercial property. He pointed out that he was concerned that the proposal did not fit within the goals for the Stevens Creek corridor and said that it merely contributed to the hodgepodge development that is occurring. Com. Auerbach said he was not concerned about the trash receptacle location or the tree removal, but felt a problem existed relative to jobs housing with a serious deficit in housing. He reported a benefit of mixed use is that it enables bringing together housing and office to prevent the exacerbation of the problem and in the long run it may be able to be ameliorated. This lot does not meet that requirement; it may be a difficult lot to build on, it may be an impossible lot to build on, in other words the best use of this property might be to sell it to an adjacent owner or some other use; all options must be considered. He said the plans so far do not help with the fronts being addressed by the General Plan and he preferred that the ingress and egress were solely with the adjacent lot. Relative to the height of the building, one of the important elements of urban design or at least current thinking is to try and keep some consistency in the roof once there is framing of the street; however, he said it doesn't appear that is occurring. The projects being approved are not really helping with this concept. Com. Auerbach presented a brief outline of the Compact meeting and said that their project bears a lot of what happens on the other side of Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said that if what Compact proposed and discussed were put in place, he would have less concern with developing office space since he felt the proposed development with Compact would have completely obliterated any chance to create some walking urban corridor along Stevens Creek, at that end, and he would not be so concerned about what went in on the other side. He said he felt to the extent they could create a consistent corridor down Stevens Creek to encourage people by walking, there is a seamless set of buildings with shops on the ground floor, or small offices, which is the direction he felt they were being encouraged to take, to create a walkable community and he felt he current design did not contribute to that. Chair Kwok referred to the computer drawing of the proposed building on Stevens Creek and said it was not consistent; in terms of height and use, he said lie felt a mixed use is preferred, noting that projects have been approved with that lot size on a mixed use. He said lie felt it was an economic factor for the developer. Chair Kwok said that as a Planning Commission, they were responsible for deciding what is best for the City of Cupertino, and the lot is better suited for a mixed use. Looking at the history of the parcel, it was approved for a 10 unit construction for a single residential development, and 8 or 10 units would be more beneficial for the city. Relative to the exception, he said he was not convinced in the negative declaration that a finding was made, nor that all efforts to meet the standards have been exhausted. He said he was not concerned about the location of the trash compactor, but was concerned about the ehn tree as it appeared to be healthy. He said he felt the height of the building should be taller to be consistent with the area; and was not comfortable with the setbacks and the land use. There was consensus that the application needed to be studied further and the applicant agreed to explore some options and return with a more workable proposal. MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved removal of Application 05-U-01, 05-EXC-01 and 07-EA- 01 from the calendar with direction to the applicant to go back and explore a mixed use option or some other option, following direction discussed, preferably mixed use. Planning Commission Minutes 8 June I l, 2001 SECOND: Com. Patnoe VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmntal Review Committee: Chair Kwok reported that a meeting is scheduled l'or June 13th. Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported that there was no meeting held since the lust Planning Commission meeting, but that a meeting was scheduled toward the eud of June. Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Patnoe reported that he would attend Wednesday's meeting. Other: Com. Chen reported on a recent housing workshop she attended relative to u PBS production of"A City That Lives; A City That Dies". Com. Auerbach reported on the Compact meeting held earlier in the evening relative to a proposal to use the Compact lands on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Finch and Tantau Avenues. Com. Corr also commented on the Compact meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported that a joint study session would be held with the City Council on July 9th relative to the General Plan study session. A community meeting to kick off the General Plan update will be held on July 17th. He reviewed City Council items considered and pending City Council items; and provided an update on the progress of approved projects, including the Adobe Inn, Cypress Hotel, P. J. Mulligan's site and S. Wong Townhome project. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on June 25, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, Approved as presented: June 25, 2001 Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary