Loading...
PC 07-22-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (40g)777-330g AMENDED MI]h~TES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 22, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Doyle, I--Ia~is, and Mahoney Commissioner absent: Roberts Staff present: Robert Cowan, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Plalmer;Vera Gil, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Charles Kilian, City Attorney; Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 8, 1996 Regular Meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the July 8, 1996 minutes as presented. Com. Doyle Com. Austin Com. Roberts Passed 3-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: Chair Haxris noted three letters from Karen Lcc Shell, Renee Roberts, Sandra Asetta; regarding the homeless shelter for men on Greenwood Court; (Chair Harris directed staff to present a report at the next meeting so that a response could be sent); letter from J. Seveson; letter from Tri County Apartments relative to Item 4; and letter from John Hagan regarding vendor ordinance. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-U-96 and 13-EA-96 Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Same Stevens Creek Boulevard/Vista Lane Use Permit to demolish an existing commercial structure and construct a new 11,900 sq. ft. fire station adjacent to the old station. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 3, 1996 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 12, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 22, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 9-U-96 and 13-EA-96 to the August 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Owner: Location: 15-Tlvl-89 OVIOd.) HM & T,LLC. Same Blaney Avenue and Rodrigues Avenue REQUEST CON'IiNUANCE TO THE JULY 22, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Application withdrawn. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to withdraw Application 15-TM-89 (Mod.) as requested. Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION - None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-ASA-95 Cupertino Village Associates Same Northwest comer of Wolfe Road & Homestead Road Architectural and site approval for roofing material at an existing retail commercial center. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FiNAL UNLESS APPEALED Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for architectural and site approval for roofing material for the Cupertino Village shopping center. It noted that this was applicant's second attempt to find an acceptable roofing material since the Planning Commission rejected the sample submitted at the January 8 Planning Commission meeting because they felt it did not resemble a heavy shake material. Staff feels the present proposed roofing materials of asphalt dimensional shake shingle, which resembles the original heavy shake roof, is appropriate. Staff recommends approval of the application. The Planning Commission's determination is final unless appealed within 14 days. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Coordinator, slated that the application is a subjective issue, what is the ideal material for the roof. He stated that staff feels the heavier shake roof with the shadow lines is appropriate. Mr. Peter Pau, applicant, referred to the sample boards and illustrated the original material and the proposed material. He explained that he worked with the manufacturer to come up with the heaviest grade possible in the asphalt composite shingle, noting that because of the limitation they were not able to go to another type of roofing material because of the weight and stress on the building. He distributed a color sample board and indicated that a condition of approval would be to work out a color selection with the staff. Mr. Pau said that the shade "weather wood" was selected as the most appropriate color for the roof. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 9-ASA-95. Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: 6-U-96 Applicant: Hossain E. Khaziri Property Owner: Same Location: 1002 DeAnza Boulevard Use Permit to demolish an abandoned service station and construct a 1,500 sq. fl. service station and car wash. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 8, 1996. Staff vresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish the abandoned service station and construct a new 1,500 sq. fl. gasoline service station and car wash. The lot is located at the northeast comer of Stevens Creek Blvd. and DeAnza Blvd. at the heart of the Heart of the City; clearly the intersection known as the Crossroads is the most prominent and visible intersection in Cupertino. The Heart of the City Specific Design Plan calls for distinct signature improvements at the intersection such as landmark buildings, street monuments or other public art work, landscaping and special pavement. Given the plans to create a signature design at the Crossroads, staff feels that a service station does not address the importance of this intersection and recommends denial of the application. Should the Planning Commissioners disagree with the staff recommendation, they must consider the following issues attached with operating a service station and car wash on the site: issues concerning the noise levels to be generated; underground soil contamination caused by previous Texaco gas tanks; nonpoint source pollution; street improvements; and building design. A determination by the Planning Commission to approve or deny the application will be considered a final decision unless appealed within 14 days. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, re-emphasized that the comer is one of the most prominent comers in the city in terms of traffic and visibility and given that the General Plan is assigned to the particular comer location, staff feels a commercial land use such as a gas station/car wash, from an urban design, is not the particular land use that the City envisioned for that comer. Referring to the overhead of the site plan, Mr. Jung discussed potential uses for the comer in the event a service station is no~ approved. He said that the adjoining lots were highly redevelopable because they were one and two story office buildings from the 1960s. He illustrated a proposed floor plan with parking around the rear perimeter, maintaining all the setbacks, the Heart of the City landscaping, and stated that it was not infeasible for the lot to be more intensely developed. Mr. Jung explained that a 4,000 sq. t~. building was comparable to the new building being constructed at Stevens Creek Blvd. and Tantau Ave., which will house retail space, a juice bar and a coffee shop. In comparison, he said the Taco Bell building at the corner of Bollinger and DeAnza was about 5,600 sq. 1~. Mr. Jung passed around the colored rendering of the proposed facility. In response to Com. Doyle's questions, Mr. Jung explained that staff's objection was based on the use of the property, that it is an automotive related use, and the orientation of the building on the corner. He Planning Commission Minutes 4 ]uly I:Z, 1096 said it doesn't give any added form or dimension to the intersection itself. Discussion continued about the possible uses for the properly wherein MA'. Jung answered questions. Com. Mahoney questioned whether the General Plan language would support staff's recommendation for denial of the project. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, quoted the language of the General Plan "...The Crossroads intersection should be developed with a distinct signature to mark its City prominence. Such improvements may include the siting of landmark buildings, street improvements or other public art works, landscaping and special pavement." He said that if staff did not feel the gas station would accomplish those things, they were free to deny the application. To allow a landmark gas station would be at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Com. Austin questioned if the type of retail could be designated. Mr. Kilian said that it was based upon traffic generation or some other objective criteria. He said generally it is not distinguished between retail uses that have identical impacts with respect to the city. Mr. Hossain Khaziri, applicant, said that he was an experienced multiple station operator in San Jose and felt the comer was an appropriate location for a gas station and car wash. He distributed a brochure depicting the proposed car wash. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Khaziri said that he was not considering a repair shop for the location. A brief discussion ensued about the operation of the car wash wherein Mr. Khaziri answered questions. Mr. Michael Aminian, Genta~ Medallion Realty, said that he has been in business in Santa Clara County for 21 years, and felt the only feasible facility for the site was based on economic review of what would be fitting for the small size pamel. He said that the site has been vacant for over nine years and is growing more unsightly. Mr. Aminian pointed out that he was also a restaurant owner and felt that the site was not suitable for a restaurant. He said that getting the owners of the adjacent properties to cooperate is not a reality as many people have tried to negotiate the parcel with Exxon and were unsuccessful because of several issues, one being environmental. He explained that the environmental reports are in process, reports from the Santa Clam Valley Water District and reports from Texaco and from Exxon Corp. He pointed out the remediation unit would probably remain for another year. Mr. Aminian said that the site has been a gas station for over 40 years and the only economical feasibility is for it to remain a gar station. Mr. Aminian pointed out that Mr. Khaziri has agreed to make all the improvements necessary to bring the property up to standards and build an exemplary gar station for the location. Chair Hams closed the public hearing. Chair Harris smnmurized that the issue of concern was if the Planning Commission wanted to have this particular use at this particular site in light of the General Plan which speaks to a distinct signature at that corner. There are two proposals presented, one for a gar station and one for a car wash. From the color rendering and staff comment that the architecture is satisfactory; the issue has to do with building size; the site is covered mostly with asphalt or concrete as opposed to a building or landscaping, as well as the fact the opening for the car wash would be visible from beth Stevens Creek Blvd. and DeAnza Blvd. Com. Mahoney questioned how realistic it is to get sites combined in similar cares. Mr. Cowan responded that the city has no leverage to accomplish it, that it would have to be done through the private sector. He reported that there was a fragmented ownership pattern along DeAnza Blvd. before the Apple development with a lot of land assembly at that time. He said it takes willing owners. Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 22, 1996 In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Jung stated that the owner of the property was Exxon Corporation; Texaco is cleaning the property up; Mr. Khaziri is the interested party in purchasing the property. Com. Austin said that the comer property has been an eyesore for many years and she felt the applicant was presenting a plan that had been approved by the city's design review. She commented that gas stations are a dying breed and the car wash would be a suitable use. She said the retail meets all the specifications relative to design. Com. Austin said that it wouM be difficult for a restaurant such as Fontana 's to be successful because of the unsuitable parking situation. Com. Austin pointed out that the applicant was willing to improve the property, the property was historically a gas station for many years and it might adapt well to the comer. She said she was not willing to wait another 18 years before the property was improved. Com. Austin said she felt approval should be granted with the specifications to clean up the soil contamination, add low profile flowering hedge, and that recycled water be used for the car wash. Com. Doyle said he agreed with Com. Austin about the current poor appearance of the corner, although he was not ready to give up on the concept of upgrading the property above a gas station as he would like to see some other usage. He said that at this point in time he did not feel it was appropriate in transitioning to fall hack into what was there before. Them is a public policy issue to a certain extent on what goes on that corner; and the Heart of the City looked upon the corner as a gateway, a passageway, and the program should be given the chance, as diffficuit as it might be. He said that possibilities to have Exxon clean up the corner to be more presentable in the interim should be investigated. Com. Doyle said he was opposed to the proposal. Com. Mahoney said it would be advantageous to decide if the location could be a gas station or not. He said that if it was decided it would be a gas station, he didn't feel it has been given the right level of attention and would like the item continued for more in-depth discussion. He said them were no signs anywhere and it has been an issue in the past, where the signs will be and how big they will be. Com. Mahoney recommended postponing the final decision. He said that he felt discussion was being hurried. He explalnod that he was not comfortable with a gas station at that location, but pointed out that anything that goos there will not solve the problem. Looking at the reasons for rejection, the proposed use does not have the density, height and orientation to foster greater city identity expectations at the most visible and prominent street intersection in the City. He said he felt any facility on that lot without combining the lots is not going to meet that; therefore the decision should be for the best of what is presented and move forward. Mr. Jung recalled the Planning Commission meetings when there were developers presenting proposals and an attorney representing Pacific Valley Bank who owns the adjoining parcels, considering that parcel and others for an 8 story office building on the comer, which was denied because of the size. Com. Mahoney said at this point in time he would like to hold out to see what else could be done there. He said he was opposed to the project, but if tbem was enough others who want something here, he would recommend continuing it on a design basis. Chair Harris said that the propesal is very attractive; that she preferred low rise to high rise, although a certain balance at that intersection is necessmy. She expressed concern that a service station coverage is mostly asphalt or concrete, and when driving by the intersection one would see the asphalt, and not an attractive building. She said that she opposed the application on that basis as well as the car wash opeuings which are very prominent and noticeable when driving by. She pointed out that all service stations emit an odor, although the present pumps are designed to collect it. A service station attracts many short term cars, many over a short period of time which adds to the pollution in the area and she expressed concern about the traffic at the intersection. Chair Hams said that she would not approve the facility at the site at this time. Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 22, 1996 Com. Mahoney said Chair Harris had a different set of criteria for denial, and suggested including the traffic concerns into the motion if one was being considered. Mr. Cowan said it was important to have findings, and referred to Page 2-4 of the agenda packet which contained two resolutions, one for denial and one for approval. He said there were two findings and based on the testimony, new findings may be added. Chair Harris stated that in terms of possible denial, the findings say that the proposed use does not have the density, height and orientation to foster greater city identity expectations, and thc proposed use and building type does not improve the development character of the community. She said she was not in favor of Item 1 and questioned if anyone wanted to speak to those conditions, noting that other conditions could be written. She said she felt that height was not the main issue, that it pertained to property type and coverage, which Item 2 speaks to. The comment of providing a distinct signature, which is the wording in the General Plan, could be added. Com. Mahoney said that he approved, and was in favor of some height which could be discussed further. Com. Doyle said that he agreed also, and was not opposed to a gas station per se as long as it meets the criteria that staff may be concerned with. Chair Harris that that she felt that each proposal should be considered as it is presented, as long as there are responsible findings. MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to deny Application 6-U-96 in accordance with the findings contained in the resolution on Page 24 of the staff report. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not there should be a continuance of the item. Com. Doyle stated he was not opposed to a gas station at the location if it was a "landmark" station. Mr. Jung pointed out that in staff's opinion, it would be very difficult to change the orientation of the building, given the circulation needed for a gas station; the geometric and cimulation wouldn't work out and for a gas station and car wash on a comer intersection it would be the best orientation for that; anything else would he too awkward and would cause traffic problems and backups. SECOND: Com. Mahoney ABSENT: Com. Roberts A brief discussion followed regarding whether or not to give the applicant the option to have the item continued or have the Planning Commission deny the application. Com. Austin said that it has not been past practice to chose the type of retail for certain locations, and she said she felt it was wrong to do so. She said she was opposed to determining the type of retail best suited for a location, and was voting no on the denial. Com. Doyle said that aesthetics was an issue; however, the application or usage wasn't an issue. Following a brief discussion, Com. Doyle withdraw his motion to deny the application; Com. Mahoney withdrew his second of the motion. Com. Doyle reiterated that the concern was for the aesthetics of the corner, not necessarily the usage. He said there were some restrictions that potentially staff feels could be inflicted upon the site because of the type of usage discussed but that is not for the Planning ComnUssion to limit their options. He said that the community standards are one of aesthetics at the corner and appear to be very significant of the impact to the community and to the appearance, and it should be reflected in the community's feeling at this point. Planning Commission Minutes 7 July ~19, 1006 Com. Doyle said it would be ideal to be able to return with a feasible alternative to meet the essence of that, but if not, some other usage should be considered for that location. Mr. Cowan clarified the message was that if a service station were considered, it would have to be a very unique sonSce station to meet some of the aesthetic objectives. Com. Mahoney clarified that the planmng Commission was not choosing a usage; only indirectly saying, based on what has been seen and heard from staff is service stations have by their nature certain architectural constraints. It was already stated that the building shouldn't be in the front, and there is a lot of concrete involved; if those can be solved, it would be a very unique situation. The applicant should be given the opportunity to solve those problems and still have that usage. Com. Austin pointed out that the applicant has met the building design slandards as sot forth in Page 2-3 of the staff report. She questioned what more could be added. Mr. Cowan reiterated that in order to be acceptable, the service station would have to very unique, given the importance of thc location. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, stated that to provide some additional background, during the early reiterations presented, the applicant had submitted to the Planning Commission and Freedman, Tung 8: Bottomley, more elaborate architecture including dome features and a canopy. The feedback from Freedman's offiee was not to be out of character with the gas station, so the applicant toned it down somewhat to have more of a traditional look based on direction given. Mr. Khazifi stated that he would prefer a continuance to allow time to work on changing the design in such a way to make it a more distinct signature landmark property and still maintain the use at the site. Mr. Cowan pointed out that there are service stations in the state which have very unique signature and reflect a certain character. He recalled that the Planning Commission has made decisions in the past, relative to the character of use, such as the Monta Vista area where automotive uses were prohibited. Com. Harris stated that the site presently has toxic contamination, and Exxon is accustomed to dealing with such sites, whereas other people may fear working with such a site because of the fear of the end responsibility, which is probably one of the reasons the lot has sat idle for so long. Com. Harris commented that she felt it was an exercise because staff strongly feels they don't see a service station on this site. Com. Doyle commented that the Planning Commission should review the information presented during the Heart of the City and see ff there isn't some way to meet the requirement or meeting some of the guidelines that were proposed as pan of the plan. Com. Mahoney said that although it may appear to be a "fire drill" it is worth the consideration because of its importance. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Applieatlon 6-1J-96 to the September 9, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, to allow applicant to work on coming up with something more befitting the landnmrk Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 22, 1996 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: Amendments to Chapter 19.108 - Television and Radio Aerials Ordinance Amendments and 6-EA-96 Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.108, Television and Radio Aerials of the Cupertino Municipal Code, related to expansion of definition to include other wireless communication facilities, location, siting design and other related subjects to be determined by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 3, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1996 Staff uresentation: Mr. Jung explained that the hearing was the third hearing on the antenna ordinance. Staff solicited comments from each of the consultants and industrial representatives who previously expressed an interest. Referring to the overheads, he reviewed the table which summarized comments and concerns with the aerial ordinance from the three respondents. Mr. Jung summarized the concerns: (1) The respondents are interested in having non-residential aerials in residential areas. They felt that from a design standpoint under certain circumstances they could be designed so that they would not be visibly obtrusive. Staffdoes not agree. (2) Certain of the development restrictions which are summarized in the table could be more liberalized so that they wouldn't necessarily have to come in and get height exceptions and use permits. Com. Harris slated that the purpose is well stated 'in 19.108.010, which is the balance the Planning Commission is looking for to meet the needs of the business community, to meet our needs, to have that service and to protect the health, safety and aesthetics. Com. Harris questioned why receiving antennas have a 49 foot height restriction and transmitting antennas 55 feet. Mr. Jang responded that the reason for the language is that when the ordinance was originally drafted, it perlained to TV antennas and ham radio antennas which were always in a receiving or transmitting mode, not doing both. The higher height was applied to the transmitting antennas which were the ham radio operator antennas, and the lower height applied to the receiving antennas because most were TV antennas; TV signals are very strong and tall antennas were not needed to pick up TV signals. He stated that Cupertino was the first to have such an ordinance. Com. Austin questioned the reason for the recommendation that non-residential aerials be placed on water towers or churches but not in residential areas. Mr. Jung stated that some Planning Commissioners and staff had indicated that there may be acceptable locations such as churches and water tanks which were in close proximity to residential areas; for example a water tank next to a freeway and a company was interested in locating an aerial there; in lieu of constructing a monopole if the water tank was high enough they could mount the antennas on the water tank, thus having less of a visual intrusion ff it was mounted on the water tank vs. having a monopole in a scenic area. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Jung stated that from a practical standpoint 29-1/2 foot towers would not be used because lower heights are not feasible for the wireless communication providers to install. Typically the ones mounted on buildings or monopoles in the area have been 35 to 55 feet in height. He said that if it was a hillside location, it would be possible to put a lower height mass on it and still achieve the needed coverage; but all the hillside areas are zoned residential. He said the ordinance is written to cover the gamut of ham radio antennas as well as cellular, and the cellular ones will not be able to locate many 29-1/2 foot antennas because they cannot get a diameter of 8 inches. Discussion ensued regarding specific site development regulations as set forth on Pages 3-16, 3-17 and 3-18, wherein Mr. Jung answered Commissioners' questions. In response to Com. Harris' suggestion, Mr. Jung stated that the word "ali" could be added relative to the findings (last line, section B, Page 3-18. Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 22, 1996 Com. Harris stated that she felt findings Nos. 1 and 4 were not necessary (Page 3-18), as the purpose is stated earlier relative to the need of the business community and the need of the residential community. She recommended that Nos. 1 and 4 be deleted. Following a discussion, Mr. Kilian clarified that the elimination of Items 1 and 4 would make it more restrictive. He said the exceptions were patterned after the use permits and development permits for land and they were put in for land to avoid inverse condemnation claims. Not necessarily the same considerations applied to towers. Mr. Kilian clarified that Nos. t and 4 were designed to make it easier to develop a house on a piece of land. He said that denying a tower is not the denial of fundamental use of property in most cases. Chair Harris opened the public hearing for public comments. Mr. Michael I-Iarlin, Cellular One, said that he was not involved in the subject ordinance, but had experience working with other cities. He said Cellular One sent in a letter expressing concerns and staff addressed the concern on setbacks, in Cellular One's favor. He said Cellular One was concerned with residential properties and stated that they felt in many cases they could incorporate antennas within the structures in residential properties, and multi-unit developments which were not visually intrusive and thus avoid erecting a tower. He said that given the ability to submit an application, to have staff review it on an aesthetic basis, there would be instances where they could work in a design which would be a good fit in a residential area. Mr. Harlin said that Cellular One would prefer to avoid the towers as a rule in residential areas. He said he was referring particularly with building mounted, roof mounted anteonas and asked if the height limitation applied to roof mounted antennas. Mr. Jung noted that there was a section in the ordinance addressing the problem if there is a building taller than 49 or 55 feet that an antenna could be erected on top. (Page 3-16, 19.108.060 (B). Chair Hanis asked staff to comment on the reasons for not having the commercial antennas in a residential area. Mr. Jung said that the primary reason for the regulation was that part of the language in the Telecommunications Act is that all of the service providers, past, present and future are to be handled on an equal basis. If one was approved in a residential area and the Planning Commission didn't like it, another sen4ee provider could object. The other aspect of allowing them on taller residential buildings vs. low density single family residential neighborhoods, staff felt it wasn't a good basis for deciding whether it should, that it would be appropriate for an apartment house but not a single family house. Mr. Jung said that the exception process covers height, and cross section, but not location. The way this is written, a non residential aerial cannot be put in a non residential neighborhood or on a residential building. Chair Hams closed the public input portion of the public hearing. Com. Doyle questioned how abandoned sites were addressed. Mr. Jung responded that it is not addressed in the ordinance. He said he had lengthy discussions with the City Attorney and the Chief Building Official about what to do about abandoned sites. Mr. Kilian said that the problem is the City would have to find a public nuisance in order to require that sort of abandonment. He explained that a public nuisance isn't normally something that is purely aesthetic in nature and there are situations where towers are not actually abandoned even though they are not in use; it may be the intent of the owner that they may be used in the future. He said that the City is having difficulty finding a basis on which they can demand that a tower be torn down. If it was truly abandoned, it could probably be done with the owner's permission without any problem but it would likely occur at the owner's expense. Mr. Kilian pointed out that it is hard to justify a public nuisance situation with a Planning Commisdon Minutes 10 ]uly 22, 1996 tower because it does not create any health or safety ha?ards unless it is falling apart or is unsafe. Something cannot be simply abated because of aesthetics. Chair Harris asked if an abandonment section could be written into the ordinance. Mr. Kilian explained that it would be difficult to enfome it because of the nuisance standard. He said it would be difficult especially in situations where a tenant is paying rent for a tower even the tower is not being used. The city would have very few legal levers to require the removal of a tower that was "abandoned". There could be a clause in the ordinance about the removal, but when enforcing it the nuisance standard would have to be applied. It would be difficult to enfome such an ordinance absent some health and safety reason. Mr. Kilian pointed out that there were some examples in the city now of towers that are not used even though the tenants are paying the landlord for the towers to be there; that is income to the landlord and he would object to them being removed. Com. Doyle asked what the mechanism was for someone to take an antenna for one application and change it to another? What restrictions are there to ensure they come back for another public review? Mr. Jang said that the Planning Commission would be reviewing an antenna application in the next week, which because of technological reasons would be changing the shape of the antenna panel. The mechanism for that is while it may seem to be a minor difference, the Planning Department has asked them to return for a modification of their use permit because it represents a 25% increase in the antenna itself. Com. Doyle requested the reference to one mile from the context on Page 3-17, 19.108.080 (A) be removed. Mr. lung responded that staff was not in favor of the removal of the reference to one mile because when they set up their network it is not based on a geographic boundary, it is based on how well the coverage works for them and ffyou were to look at alternative locations, they may not necessarily be within the city itself. Chair Harris said that Com. Doyle raised an important issue. She said that if there is a proliferation of abandoned towers in the future and there are not any conditions either in the ordinance or permit for removal of the towem, a grandfathering would have to be written in because they weren't part of the original rnling. She commented that if truly there is an inteot to use the tower, it should not come down, but if it is truly abandoned with no lease and no intent to use it, there should be something in the ordinance that stipulates it needs to be removed. When a permit exists, one of the conditions should be at such time as the lease expires and there is no further use for it, the owner will have it removed. It can be included as part of the lease that the tenant remove it similar to requiring a quarry be put back to its original state. Mr. Kilian said that there was no problem conditioning new applications with that requirement. Chair Harris suggested that the requirements be included in the ordinance. It could be included as Item (D) Section 19.108.080, Application Requirements, which would indicme that any approval of any permit issued under this chapter shall require as a condition for such approval the removal of any tower, etc., should it be abandoned or not intended for use; no longer in use for the use intended by the use permit. Mr. Jung provided information from a survey of cities with ordinances that restrict time in which an unused tower may stand to between 6 and 18 months with some requiring the tower applicant to cover the demolition costs. Mr. Jung said that it would be put under the general development regulations and that equipment that is no longer in active use shall be removed within 18 months after succession of the active use. Mr. Kilian clarified that it is only part of a conditioning process. Mr. Jung said that some were approved by staff but staff could put conditions of approval in there that adds aa abandonment condition. Planning C0mmissicn Minutes 11 July 22, 1996 Com. Harris clarified that if approved now, it would be approved with an abandonment condition subject to the discussion held and staff to write that language. Com. Doyle said that the term "abandonmenf' should apply; it is no longer used for its permitted use for 18 months. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Negative Declaration. Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve amendments to Chapter 19.108, removing Section 19.108.100, B1 and 4; and adding the condition in permitting process related to abandonment. Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 4,. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: Parking Ordinance Amendments and I-EA-96 City of Cupertino Citywide Zoning amendments to Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding parking standards. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 3, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1996 Staff omsentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, referred to the overhead of the parking ordinance amendments and reviewed the 7 areas that the Planning Commission requested additional information on in order to assess whether the proposed amendments are adequate, as outlined in the attached staff report. Chair Harris reviewed the rationale behind a separate item for high density condominiums. She said that Cupertino was too restrictive in comparison to other cities and that it was requiring too much parking space and not allowing enough development of the site for the high density. She pointed out that the Planning Commissioners were not all in agreement, but it was a staff decision. Chair Harris explained that part of the issue discussed at the May 28 Planning Commission meeting was is it the number of bedrooms or should it be based on high density, and if it is high density, will less parking be required? Staffwas asked to address the issue with other cities for comparison and they found most were using 1.2 and Cupertino was using 1.8. Staff has decided not to go with the unisize s~all, the tree canopy language was put in as requested by the Planning Commission and states that if it is a big tree, the ratio would be one in ten, and if it is a small tree, the ratio would be one in five and somewhere in between for the remainder; keep the 50% compact spaces in industrial, put in the RI-C and make the specialty food category similar to the fast food category; change the commercial rate from 200 feet to 250 feet. Chair Harris pointed out that it was the key change in the ordinance, that there would be less parking required; that it will be one space for every 250 feet of most other retail uses. In response to a request from Chair Hams, Ms. Gil described the Class I, II and III facilities for bicycles. Ms. Gil said at the last meeting the question was raised ff bicycle parking facilities were provided which were not covered in residential developments such as multi family developments, would they be used by the residents or would they go unused. Staff was requested to contact the City of Palo Alto to find out whether they have the most restrictive requirement, ffthe bicycle lockers were actually used. She used a chart to illustrate the space taken up by the bicycle lockers in a development. Ms. GU answered questions relating to Section O - Bicycle Parking. Planning Commission Minutes 12 July 29_, 1006 Chair Harris recommended wording change in Section O, (1), second line: change "protects the bicycle from theft" to "and are intended to protect the bicycle from theft". Ms. Gil commented on the letter received from Tri County Apartment Association expressing concern about the ordinance. She said the association felt the ordinance may preclude development from happening in Cupertino; that if developers were asked to provide fully enclosed facilities at 20% for the bicycles, there would be less apartment development. Staff spoke to a developer who is attempting to develop approximately 340 units on the Tandem site and mentioned the proposed amendment to the ordinance, and they felt they could accommodate the 20% bicycle locker facilities. She noted that this does not necessarily reflect that every developer will be as eager to do it. Com. Austin addressed the issue of the unisize stall which she said she preferred. Ms. Gil clarified that staff's intent was not to hurt to commercial businesses, and if the Planning Commission chooses to keep the current ordinance which is what they prefer, it doesn't make sense to move to unisize stall because it requires to provide more space for parking because of the configuration of the unisize-size stalls. Staff prefers keeping 1/3 of the spaces 33% for compact. Mr. Cowan responded to an earlier question from Chair Hams, and clarified that the section of the Municipal Code involved goodwill and had to do with not so much as the requirement that you can't put it on a vacant property; but that those facilities have to be used in conjunction with an existing business. (Page 4-7, Item D, Vacant Lot). A discussion ensued regarding Table 19.100.040A, pertaining to the Land Use - Duplex section. There was consensus that the parking ratio should read "3/DU(3 enclosed and 3 open)". It was also recommended that the word "two" should be removed from the footnote 1. Com. Harris summarized that staff's recommendation was that open spaces be 10 by 20 (a footnote will be needed to so indicate). Com. Hams reconunended that the chart be amended so that each unit would have two lines for more detail and requested that it be presented to the Planning Commission again when amended. Chair Hanqs opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Jackie Sapier, Pegasus Development Co., expressed concern about the 20% bicycle parking requirements. She suggested further study, and asked that an alternative to the City of Palo Alto be used as a case study for determining the measurement, as it is known as one of the most bicycle-utilized cities in the nation, which puts it at a different scale. She said that Palo Alto has not had any condominium or multi family development within the last ten years. She suggested a study similar to Exhibit D where 10 cities were studied, for more data to make the conclusion. Mr. Cowan commented that while it is true that few cities have the requirement, the Countywide Congestion Management Agency is pushing to get it as a requirement. It may be a standard condition for countywide efficiency plans if you don't meet level of service requirement; they are talking about 50% he said he felt was excessive. He said it was being driven not so much by our desire to emulate Palo Alto, as it is a countywide effort to develop some bicycle standards for apartments. Chair Harris requested an example for the Calculating Shared Parking for Mixed-Use Developments chart. Chair Hams closed the public input portion of the public hearing. Com. Mahoney said that the open issue he heard was pertaining to the single family cluster, and asked what the Planning Commission meant? He said other than that point, he would not like to see the item returned for further discussion. Planning Commission Minutes 13 July 22, 1996 Com. Doyle said he was still opposed to 250. Com. Harris addressed the issue of 1 space for every 250 feet of retail vs. one space for every 200 sq. fi. of retail; currently the ordinance is I for 200; the change is to 1 for 250 to make it easier on the retail. Com. Harris said that the chart required updating, and that the Planning comrmssion had to decide what they meant on the single family cluster. Com. Mahoney said to put in what was agreed to at the last meeting. Com. Harris summarized that the decision was that if it had 3 bedrooms, there would be 2 enclosed spaces per dwelling unit plus 1/2 space for each bedroom over one; no visitor parking. Mr. Cowan said that the single family cluster is designed for very low intensity, such as Rancho Deep Cliff, and PD is usually used; and then use standards that are more appropriate to the building form being put up, whether condominiums or apartments. Com. Mahoney said that he felt it shouldn't be more restrictive than single family, so he said 2 enclosed. Commas. Austin and Doyle agreed. Discussion continued. Mr. Cowan said that there is no separate specification for visitor vs. non-visitor. Com. Harris said that except for providing 4 per dwelling unit there is two in the garage and two open; every house has 4 spaces; this would only provide two spaces for a one bedroom cluster and three spaces for a 3 bedroom. Mr. Cowan said that judgment would be exercised, and if the streets were wide enough to provide parking, the Commission would feel comfortable with it; ff not, there will need to be more parking space. The Planning Commission discussed the updates to Table 19.100.040A. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration for Application No. I-EA-96. Com. Austin Com. Roberts Com. Doyle . Passed 3-1-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the amendments to Chapter 19.100, Off-Street Parking Regulations, as amended Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Com. Doyle Passed 3-1-0 COm. Doyle commented that 1 in 250 was too high; Com. Harris said that it was requested that the parking ordinance be rewritten to make it less restrictive; an attempt on staff's part was to make it 1 in 250. Mr. Cowan said that he felt the Commissioners' concern was covered by the General Plan controls on the amount of new growth in the community, although it may occur on individual sites. Com. Doyle said that 7 out of 9 cities surveyed had 200 square feet as their standards. Chair Harris declared a recess at 9:38 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:55 p.m. the same Planning Commissioners and staffwere present. Chair Harris moved the agenda to Item 8. OLD BUSINESS 8. Application No.: 13-U-95 Applicant: Deep Cliff Golf Course Review of condition use permit of the audibility of the amplification system and hours of operation. Planning Commission Minutes 14 July 22, 1996 Staff oresentation: The video presentation explained that the Planning Commission will conduct its one year review of the goff course's amplification system and hours of operation. Presently the golf course does not use an amplification system because it cannot find one suitable to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission last year. Relative to the hours of operation, 55 notices were sent out to the neighbors in the immediate area and only two complaints were received regarding the hours of operation, Mr. Kilian stated for the record that there were two members of the Planning Commission who reside within 300 feet of the application, stating that it would have an economic effect on the value of their homes, which would preclude them from participating, except as a member of the public. Mr. Chris Kolpa, Club Operations Manager, Deep Cliff Golf Course, clarified two inconsistencies in the video shown. He stated that the goffcourse did not install an amplification system because they elected to handle the golf course in a different manner, and not because they could not find an appropriate system to meet the City's requirements. He noted that the starting time is 5 a.m. in the spring and summer, and 5:30 a.m. in the fall and winter, and not the hours which the video mentioned from 1-1/2 years ago. Mr. Kolpa said that at this point in time there are no plans to install an amplification system; but when one is installed it is staff's recommendation that it get approval followed by a review in one year. He noted that there was no one present in opposition to the hours of operation which is indicative of what Deep Cliff has done in the 1-1/2 years since meeting with the neighbors to solve their concerns. He distributed a list of hours of oparation of other public golf courses in the county for comparison purposes. Mr. Kolpa said that the golf course worked with the neighbors to come up with suitable hours of operation for all. Mr. Brian Sullivan, 530 Railway Avenue, Campbell, said that he has been playing golf at Deep Cliff for 15 years and plays every Sunday morning in the first group. He said that none of the neighbors have complained. A brief discassion ensaed about tee off times. Mrs. Lois Burke, resident, said that the City of Cupertino should be proud of the jewel they have in the city and should do everything they can to have it stay as wonderful as it is. She said she and her husband goffat 6:15 a.m. on Thursdays, and Tuesdays at 7:30 a.m. Mr. Earl Burke, resident, said that he represented 45 men and women who tee off at 5:45 a.m. on Tuesdays. He requested that the Planning Commission keep the goff course so that the men and women many of whom belong to Cupertino and pay taxes to Cupertino. Ms. Lou Nelson, member of the Deep CILff women's club, said that the club started tee offat 7:20 a.m. every Tuesday morning, with between 45 and 60 women playing. She said they are proud to play at Deep Cliff and hoped that nobody took that away from the club. Mr. Kolpa said that he would explain the reasons the golf club needed to start the grounds maintenance at 5 a.m. ff necessary. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Kolpa explained that for the last 1-1/2 years they invested over $2,000 in hand held walkie talkie radio equipment which is coordinated through the pm shop to an individual on the first tee to announce the order of tee off times. Additional salaries have to be paid for the individual on the first tee, but felt that in order to be a better neighbor it was worth the investment. Relating to the two complaint letters received from residents, Com. Hams asked about the frequency that the early morning maintenance crews using loud machines passed by those certain homes. Mr. Kolpa pointed out that the machinery was within the city noise ordinance, and said the question has been what will work for the neighbors. Mr. Kolpa indicated that the greens were mowed each day, therefore the machinery passes theaeighbors' homes every morning. He said the greens are mowed early in the day, and the louder machinery mows the other areas such as fairways, the roughs, the fringes later in the day. The mowing of the greens usually takes 6 to 7 minutes per green. Planning Commission Minutes 15 July 22, 1996 Com. Doyle said that mention was made in the letters of chain saws and leaf blowers. Mr. Kolpa said that they were hardly ever used in the spring and summer, and if they were used would be later in the day as necessary. He explained that during the winter months, following a storm, sometimes chain saws were needed to cut the fallen trees and leaf blowers are used to clean off the greens. Mr. Kolpa said that approximately 2 to 3 years ago they invested $17,000 in the quietest greens mower manufactured. In response to Com. Harris' questions, Mr. Kolpa said that it took a total of I hour and 8 minutes to mow the greens. He said if the two neighbors who sent the complaints would get in touch with him, he could address the possibility of changing the mowing pattern. Mr. Steven Swartz, General Manager, Deep Cliff Golf Course, said that they would work with the two residents that sent in the complaint to address the issue of noise. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Doyle said that problems arose before the golf course personnel worked out a compromise with the neighbors, with the Planning Commission on the sidelines. He said that the proposed amendment was appropriate and that the Planning Commission should review the application if they went with the amplification system. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 13-U-93. Chair Harris Com. Roberts Austin and Mahoney Passed 2-0-2 Chair Harris moved the agenda back to Item 6. 6. Application No.(s): Applicant: Mobile Vendors Ordinance (202.01) and 15-EA-96 City of Cupertino Mobile vendor ordinance to create a new ordinance to regular mobile vending facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERIvflNATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 3, I996 Staff omsentation: Ms. Wordell explained that the ordinance was being proposed because them is not a consistent policy or regulations regarding mobile vendors. She said that the ordinance was put together by the City Attorney's office, notably Deputy City Attorney, Eileen Murray, and with input from Public Works and Planning. She referred to the overhead of the permit procedure, prohibited locations and general regulations and explained them in detail. Ms. Wordell referred to the overhead map to illustrate the possible locations of mobile vendors, pointing out that mobile vendors would not be permitted on Stevens Creek Boulevard, but only on side streets. In response to Com. Austin's question, Ms. Wordell defined mobile vendors as carts which would have to be removed from the location each night. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel, explained that ice cream trucks and vehicles where the memhandise is peddled from the street in a moving vehicle are generally regulated by the vehicle code and not this regulation. Ms. Wordell addressed the issue of festivals and special events. She suggested that wording to exclude special events or festivals be included in the ordinance. In response to Com. Austin's question about special licensing for mobile vendors to combat the criminal element, Mr. Kilian said that San Jose's recent problem referred to ice cream cart vendors in the Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 22, 1996 neighborhood, not site specific locations, which are governed by the solicitors ordinance which does require fingerprinting for solicitors. Ms. Murray addressed the issue of restricting what could be sold. She said that when you start moving away from time, place, and manner regulation and getting into the content, you are moving into more constitutional issues. All cases related to that are federal cases because in the lust five years the street vending has been tied to free speech, saying that vending is speech related, and when the content of the items is regulated, you get away from time, place and manner regulations. She said that alcohol is regulated under other laws. Ms. Wordell explained that the reason for the ordinance was that there is not a current policy governing the decision for allowing or disallowing potential mobile vendors in the city, and decisions were not consistent on what wus being allowed and disallowed. Referring to Section 080 on Page 6-7, Chair Hams requested that it be clarified that umbrellas or canopies open on four sides are permitted but shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height from the ground Referring to Section 030, Page 6-6, Item (f) Chair Hams requested that for clarification purposes, the language read "People will approved mobile vendor licenses shall be required to have valid Cupertino business licenses." Referring to Section 050, Page 6-7, Item 0c), Chair Harris requested that "for one year" be added. Ms. Wordell suggested adding an Item (c) to Page 6-7, Section 060: "This' chapter shall not apply to special events or festivals where prohibited locations are devoted exclusively to that use, and where the events are regulated by the outdoor sales and promotional events resolution '. There was a brief discussion regarding Section 5.20.080. A discussion ensued regarding the letter from the Chamber of Commeme which addressed the issue of notification to shop owners/managers within a 500 feet radius of mobile vendors being near their businesses. Ms. Murray explained that a posting of the location will be made for the benefit for the businesses and notifying the owners. There wus consensus that it would be included in the ordinance that the local tenants should be notified. Ms. Murray clarified that there could not be a restriction on like businesses in one area. Mr. Kilian clarified that the ordinance wus to limit the locations in legal ways. A discussion ensued regarding how restrictive the ordinance should be. There wus consensus that an ordinance wus necessary. Com. Doyle said he felt the number and location should be controlled. Com. Mahoney stated that he felt the restrictions on Page 6-6, Section 050 were too restrictive. Chair Hams, Corns. Austin and Doyle said they felt the regulations should be very restrictive. Chair Hams questioned ffdiscussion was necessary on the specific prohibited locations or go with all of them? Relative to the two existing vendors, there was consensus to provide a grandfathering for the location for 2 years for the two existing vendors. Mr. Kilian clarified that it was a limited grandfatbering for the location and they would still have to comply with all insurance requirements, etc. Referring to Page 6-5, Section 030, Chair Hams recommended that the sentence "Failure of the planning commission to act within thirty days shall be considered as a final denial of the appeal." be deleted. Following a brief explanation, there was consensus to delete the sentence. Com. Doyle stated that he would like to restrict the mobile vendors from residential areas because of the inability to restrict what the vendor is selling or providing. A brief discussion followed regarding Planning Commission Minutes 17 ]uly 22, 1996 whether or not to add a restriction about mobile vendors in residential areas to Section .050 Prohibited Locations. Chair Hams, Coms. Austin and Mahoney favored non-restriction for residential areas; Com. Doyle favored restriction. Discussion ensued regarding the distance from parks and schools. Chair Harris, Coms. Austin and Mahuney said 500 feet was appropriate; Com. Doyle said he preferred 1,000 feet. Referring to Section 0.30 (b) relating to notification, it was noted that the ordinance did include notification to property owners as well as occupants. There was consensus to change the wording from "property owners of immediately adjacent properties" to "occupants and property owners of properties within 300feet." "Written notice thereof shall be sent to occupants" will be changed to "delivered or sent." Ms. Murray clarified that a section covering seasonal events would be added to include pumpkin patches, Christmas tree sales, seasonal fruit stands, etc. Referring to Section 050, Item (I), Page 6-7, Com. Mahoney recommended deleting "like" and inserting "another" referring to vendor. Com. Doyle suggested restricting the number of mobile vendors to 5 per year. Chair Harris said she agreed with Com. Doyle. Coms. Austin and Mahoney said they did not agree to a restrictive number per year. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Negative Declaration for Application 15-EA-96. Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the regulations as amended Chair Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 OLD BUSINESS - Discussion ensued regarding the time schedules for the August 12 and August 14 meetings. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION - None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m to the 6 p.m. joint meeting with the City Council on Monday, August 12, 1996. Recording Secretary Approved as amended: August 12, 1996 November 4, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 7 proposal; and (3) Authorize staff to waive application fees other than direct advertising and mailing costs. Dean seconded and the motion carried 4-1 with Sorensen voting no. Bautista said that the Economic Development Committee would move swiftly to look at alternative uses for the site and to work with the applicant if he wishes, and report back on January 21. Council members concurred. 13. Applications 4 -GPA -96 and 23 -EA -96 - City of Cupertino - General Plan amendment to the land use and housing elements to redistribute residential potential among the planning districts and the undesignated classification. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for approval. (Continued from the meeting of October 7, 1996; staff requests continuance to December 2, 1996.) Under "Postponements" this item was continued to December 2. 14. Applications 14-U-96, 5-Z-96 and 21 -EA -96, Thompson Residential Co. (Tandem Computers, property owner) - Use Permit to construct 348 apartment units on 14 acres and rezone the property from Planned Industrial Zone P (MP) to Planned Residential P (RES). The project is located at 10750 Wolfe Road. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for approval. (Continued from the meeting of October 7; staff requests continuance to November 18, 1996.) Under "Postponements" this item was continued to November 18. 15. Applications 8-Z-96, 18-U-96, 6 -TM -96 and 26 -EA -96 - Chalet Woods, Inc. - Zoning amendment to rezone a .66 acre parcel from RI -6 to P(RES); use permit to construct 5 single-family detached residences on a .66 acre parcel in a Planned Development Zoning District; tentative map to subdivide a .66 acre parcel into 5 lots. The project is located at 1187 Gardenside Lane. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for denial. (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1746: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code By Rezoning a Parcel Located at 1187 Gardenside Lane From RI -6 to P(RES) - (Application 8-Z-96)." The council members had received a letter dated Nov. 4, 1996, from Mr. James Jackson. The applicants propose to reduce the size of the five houses to an F.A.R. of .45, work with the neighbor to the west to eliminate the windows on that side of the house and setting back the second story, and providing a 6 -foot fence, as well as changes to street trees and parking strip as requested by another neighbor. The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report. Mr. Jim Jackson, representing the applicant, said its important that the council stick with the General Plan, and this project falls within the lower limits currently in that document. Reduction of one unit would take it below the 5 units per acre set forth in the General October 21, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 5 crucial intersection. She suggested that the city get the consent of the citizens to buy the property and turn it into a park. Or perhaps Mr. Boyce would be interested in purchasing this site and expanding his properties. Mr. Boyce indicated on the map that his easement was located on the east side of the property. He said he could provide a copy of the legal documentation. Dean moved to continue this item to November 4 to allow time for the adjacent property owner Phil Boyce to provide staff with evidence of a right-of-way easement which he holds on this property. Bautista seconded and the motion carried 5-0. PLANNING APPLICATIONS None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. Review of Housing Mitigation Manual. The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report and discussed a list of cities which require a housing mitigation fee. He said that the Economic Development Team recommends that the "cause to be built" section of the manual be eliminated. Fee recommendations ranged from $0.00 to $5.00 a square foot. Also, Tandem Computer requests that Council consider their situation with respect to credits in the "housing development bank." Mr. John Statton, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, said there must be a level playing field in terms of the fees order to remain competitive. He agreed with past comments by Councilmember Dean that the state has been dictating housing policy, but Mr. Statton felt it should be done on a regional basis. Through the requirement for construction of housing, the city has created a large disincentive for property owners to develop in Cupertino and instead the companies are relocating elsewhere. If council does set a mitigation fee it should be at the lowest possible range. Mr. Dick Schuster, representing the Cupertino Housing Committee, noted that the committee's input was in advertently omitted from the minutes of the Economic Development Committee. The Housing Committee recommends (1) Support of the housing mitigation requirements as currently stated; (2) Retain the $5 per square foot in - lieu fee; (3) Amend the "cause to be built" section so that it clarifies that office/industrial development can bank proposed housing units. Mr. John Hailey, representing Tandem Computers, Inc., asked that council proceed with the concept of de -linking development and housing. It was a difficult negotiation during the General Plan process to tie the companies to the idea of creating housing, but that was agreed upon because the $5/foot mitigation was so onerous that another alternative was needed. For that reason, if the housing mitigation fee approaches $5/foot Tandem urges October 7, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 6 14. Public hearing to consider an appeal of Planning Commission approval of Application 6- U-96, Hossain E. Khaziri. The application requested a use permit to demolish an abandoned service station and construct a 1,500 sq. R. service station and car wash at 10002 DeAnza Boulevard, Councilmember John Bautista, appellant. This item was continued to the meeting of October 21, 1996 at the request of the applicant. 15. Applications 4 -GPA -96 and 23 -EA -96, City of Cupertino - General Plan amendment to the land use and housing elements to redistribute residential potential among the planning districts and the undesignated classification. Environmental determination: Negative declaration recommended. Recommended for approval. This item was continued to the meeting of November 4, 1996, at the request of staff. 16. Applications 14-U-96, 5-Z-96 and 21 -EA -96, Thompson Residential Co. (Tandem Computers, property owner) - Use Permit to construct 348 apartment units on 14 acres and rezone the property from Planned Industrial Zone P (MP) to Planned Residential P (RES). Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for approval. This item was continued to the meeting of November 4, 1996, at the request of staff. 17. Application 1 -EA -96 - Amendments of Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code pertaining to parking standards. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for approval. (Continued from September 16, 1996 meeting.) (a) First reading of Ordinance. No. 1737: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 19.100, Off -Street Parking Regulations, of the Cupertino Municipal Code." The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report. Discussion followed regarding the uni-size parking spaces which would result roughly a 3% reduction in the number of spaces. The Community Development Director said the uni-size spaces provide more room for cars, but there may be more flexibility in having larger stalls for customer convenience and compact stalls for employee parking where there is less turnover of cars. Mr. John Statton, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, said many shopping centers are already traffic -impacted and if uni-size spaces resulted in a reduction of total spaces it may keep some types of uses from moving into a complex. He asked for increased flexibility if uni-size spaces are established. Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 22, 1996 MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 9 -ASA -95. SECOND: Com. Mahoney ABSENT: Com. Roberts VOTE: Passed 4-" PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: 6-U-96 Applicant: Hossain E. Khaziri Property Owner. Same Location: 1002 DeAnra Boulevard Use Permit to demolish an abandoned service station and concoct a 1,500 sq. R. service station and car wash. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 8,1996; Staff t)msentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish the abandoned service station and construct a new 1,500 sq. R gasoline service station and car wash. The lot is located at the northeast corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and DcAnza Blvd. at the heart of the Heart of the City; clearly the intersection known as the Crossroads is the most prominent and visible intersection in Cupertino. The Heart of the City Specific Design Plan calls for distinct signature improvements at the intersection such as landmark buildings, street monuments or other public art work, landscaping and special pavement. Given the plans to create a signature design at the Crossroads, staff feels that a service station does not address the importance of this irtersection and recommends denial of the application. Should the Planning Commissioners disagree with the staff recommendation, they must consider the following issues attached with operating a service station and car wash on the site: issues concerning the noise levels to be generated; underground soil contamination caused by previous Texaco gas tanks; nonpoint source pollution; street improvements; and building design A determination by the Planning Commission to approve or deny the application wilt be considered a final decision unless appealed within 14 days. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reemphasized that the corner is one of the most prominent comers in the city in terms of traffic and visibility and given that the General Plan is assigned to the particular corner location, staff feels a commercial land use such as a gas station/car wash, from an urban design, is not the pariicular land use that the City envisioned for that comer. Referring to the overhead of the site plan, Mr. Jung discussed potential uses for the comer in the event a service station is no: approved. He said that the adjoining lots were highly redevelopable because they were one and two story office buildings from the 1960s. He illustrated a proposed floor plan with parking around the rear perimeter, maintaining all the setbacks, the Heart of the City landscaping, and stated that it was not infeasible for the lot to be more intensely developed. Mr. Jung explained that a 4,000 sq. ft. building was comparable to the new building being concocted at Stevens Creek Blvd. and Tantau Ave., which will house retail space, a juice bar and a coffee shop. In comparison, he said the Taco Bell building at the corner of Bollinger and DeAnza was about 5,600 sq. ft. Mr. Jung passed around the colored rendering of the proposed facility. In response to Com. Doyle's questions, Mr. Jung explained that staffs objection was based on the use of the property, that it is an automotive related use, and the orientation of the building on the comer. He Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 22. 1996 said it doesn't give any added form or dimension to the intersection itself. Discussion continued about the possible uses for the property wherein Mr. Jung answered questions. Com. Mahoney questioned whether the General Plan language would support staff's recommendation for denial of the project. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, quoted the language of the General Plan "...The Crossroads intersection should be developed with a distinct signature to mark its City prominence. Such improvements may include the siting of landmark buildings, street improvements or other public art works, landscaping and special pavement." He said that if staff did not feel the gas station would accomplish those things, they were free to deny the application. To allow a landmark gas station would beat the discretion of the Planning Commission. Com. Austin questioned if the type of rctail could be designated Mr. Kilian said that it was based upon traffic generation or some other objective criteria. He said generally it is not distinguished between retail uses that have identical impacts with respect to the city. Mr. Hossain Khaziri, applicant, said that he was an experienced multiple station operator in San Jose and felt the comer was an appropriate location for a gas station and car wash. He distributed a brochure depicting the proposed car wash. In response to Cont. Harris' question, Mr. Khaziri said that he was not considering a repair shop for the location. A brief discussion ensued about the operation of the car wash wherein Mr. Khaziri answered questions. Mr. Michael Aminian, Century Medallion Realty, said that he has been in business in Santa Clara County for 21 years, and felt the only feasible facility for the site was based on economic review of what would be fitting for the small size parcel. He said that the site has been vacant for over nine years and is growing more unsightly. Mr. Aminian pointed out that he was also a restaurant owner and felt that the site was not suitable for a restaurant. He said that getting the owners of the adjacent properties to cooperate is not a reality as many people have tried to negotiate the parcel with Exxon and were unsuccessful bemuse of several issues, one being environmental. He explained that the environmental reports are in process, reports from the Santa Clara Valley Water District and reports from Texaco and from Exxon Corp. He pointed out the remediation unit would probably remain for another year. Mr. Aminian said that the site has been a gas station for over 40 years and the only economical feasibility is for it to remain a gas station. Mr. Aminian pointed out that Mr. Khaziri has agreed to snake all the improvements necessary to bring the property up to standards and build an exemplary gas station for the location. Chair Harris closed the public hearing Chair Harris summarized that the issue of concern was if the Planning Commission wanted to have this particular use at this particular site in light of the General Plan which speaks to a distinct signature at that corner. There are two proposals presented, one for a gas station and one for a car wash. From the color tendering and staff comment that the architecture is satisfactory; the issue has to do with building size; the site is covered mostly with asphalt or concrete as opposed to a building or landscaping, as well as the fact the opening for the car wash would be visible from both Stevens Creek Blvd. and DeAnza Blvd. Com. Mahoney questioned how realistic it is to get sites combined in similar cases. Mr. Cowan responded that the city has no leverage to accomplish it, that it would have to be done through the private sector. He reported that there was a fragmented ownership pattern along DGAnza Blvd. before the Apple development with a lot of land assembly at that time. He said it takes willing owners. Planning Commission Minutes July 22. 1996 In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Jung stated that the owner of the property was Egon Corporation; Texaco is cleaning the property up; Mr. Khaziri is the interested party in purchasing the property. Com. Austin said that the corner property has been an eyesore for many years and she felt the applicant was presenting a plan that had been approved by the city's design review. She commented that gas stations are a dying breed and the car wash would be a suitable use. She said the retail meets all the specifications relative to design. Com. Austin said that it would be difficult for a restaurant such as Fontana's to be successful because of the unsuitable parking situation. Com. Austin pointed out that the applicant was willing to improve the property, the property was historically a gas station for many years and it might adapt well to the comer. She said she was not willing to wait another 18 years before the property was improved. Com. Austin said she felt approval should be granted with the specifications to clean up the soil contamination, add low profile flowering hedge, and that recycled water be used for the car wash. Com. Doyle said he agreed with Com. Austin about the current poor appearance of the corner, although he was not ready to give up on the concept of upgrading the property above a gas station as he would like to see some other usage. He said that at this point in time he did not feel it was appropriate in transitioning to fall back into what was there before. There is a public policy issue to a certain extent on what goes on that comer, and the Heart of the City looked upon the corner as a gateway, a passageway, and the program should be given the chance, as difficult as it might be. He said that possibilities to have Exxon clean up the comer to be more presentable in the interim should be investigated. Com. Doyle said he was opposed to the proposal. Com. Mahoney said it would be advantageous to decide if the location could be a gas station or not. He said that if it was decided it would be a gas station, he didn't feel it has been given the right level of attention and would like the item continued for more in-depth discussion. He said there were no signs anywhere and it has been an issue in the past, where the signs will be and how big they will be. Com. Mahoney recommended postponing the final decision. He said that he felt discussion was being hurried. He explained that he was not comfortable with a gas station at that location, but pointed out that anything that goes there will not solve the problem. Looking at the reasons for rejection, the proposed use does not have the density, height and orientation to foster greater city identity expectations at the most visible and prominent street intersection in the City. He said he felt any facility on that lot without combining the lots is not going to meet char therefore the decision should be for the best of what is presented and move forward. Mr. Jung recalled the Planning Commission meetings when there were developers presenting proposals and an attorney representing Pacific Valley Bank who owns the adjoining parcels, considering that parcel and others for an 8 story office building on the corner, which was denied because of the size. Com. Mahoney said at this point in time he would like to hold out to see what else could be done there. He said he was opposed to the project, but if there was enough others who want something here, he would recommend continuing it on a design basis. Chair Harris said that the proposal is very attractive; that she preferred low rise to high rise, although a certain balance at that intersection is necessary. She expressed concern that a service station coverage is mostly asphalt or concrete, and when driving by the intersection one would see the asphalt, and not an attractive building. She said that she opposed the application on that basis as well as the car wash openings which are very prominent and noticeable when driving by. She pointed out that all service stations emit an odor, although the present pumps are designed to collect it. A service station attracts many short term cars. many over a short period of time which adds to the pollution in the area and she expressed concern about the traffic at the intersection. Chair Harris said that she would not approve the facility at the site at this time. Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 22, 1996 Com. Mahoney said Chair Harris had a different set of criteria for denial, and suggested including the traffic concerns into the motion if one was being considered. Mr. Cowan said it was important to have findings, and referred to Page 2-4 of the agenda packet which contained two resolutions, one for denial and one for approval. He said there were two findings and based on the testimony, new findings may be added. Chair Harris stated that in terms of possible denial, the findings say that the proposed use does not have the density, height and orientation to foster greater city identity expectations, and the proposed use and building type does not improve the development character of the community. She said she was not in favor of Item l and questioned if anyone wanted to speak to those conditions, noting that other conditions could be written. She said she felt that height was not the main issue, that it pertained to property type and coverage, which Item 2 speaks to. The comment of providing a distinct signature, which is the wording in the General Plan, could be added. Com. Mahoney said that he approved, and was in favor of some height which could be discussed further. Com. Doyle said that he agreed also, and was not opposed to a gas station per se as long as it meets the criteria that staff may be concerned with. Chair Harris that that she felt that each proposal should be considered as it is presented, as long as there are responsible findings. MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to deny Application 6-U-96 in accordance with the findings contained in the resolution on Page 24 of the staff report. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not there should be a continuance of the item. Com. Doyle stated he was not opposed to a gas station at the location if it was a "landmark" station. Mr. Jung pointed out that in staffs opinion, it would be very difficult to change the orientation of the building, given the circulation needed for a gas station; the geometric and circulation wouldn't work out and for a gas station and car wash on a comer intersection it would be the best orientation for that; anything else would be too awkward and would cause traffic problems and backups. SECOND: Com. Mahoney ABSENT: Com. Roberts A brief discussion followed regarding whether or not to give the applicant the option to have the item continued or have the Planning Commission deny the application. Com. Austin said that it has not been past practice to chose the type of retail for certain locations, and she said she felt it was wrong to do so. She said she was opposed to determining the type of retail best suited for a location, and was voting no on the denial. Com. Doyle said that aesthetics was an issue; however, the application or usage wasn't an issue. Following a brief discussion, Com. Doyle withdraw his motion to deny the application; Com. Mahoney withdrew his second of the motion. Com. Doyle reiterated that the concern was for die aesthetics of the corner, not necessarily the usage. He said there were some restrictions that potentially staff feels could be inflicted upon the site because of the type of usage discussed but that is not for the Planning Commission to limit their options. He said that the are community standards aone of aesthetics at the corner and appear to be very significac'. of the impact to the community and to the appearance, and it should be reflected in the community's feeling at this point. .+ Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Com. Doyle said it would be ideal to be able to return with a feasible alternative to meet the essence of that, but if not, some other usage should be considered for that location. Mr. Cowan clarified the message was that if a service station were considered. it would have to be a very unique service station to meet some of the aesthetic objectives. Com. Mahoney clarified that the Planning Commission was not choosing a usage: only indirectly saving. based on what has been seen and heard from staff is service stations have by their nature certain architectural constraints. It was already stated that the building shouldn't be in the front, and there is a lot of concrete involved; if those can be solved, it would be a very unique situation. The applicant should be given the opportunity to solve those problems and still have that usage. Com. Austin pointed out that the applicant has met the building design standards as set forth in Page 2.3 of the staff report. She questioned what more could be added. Mr. Cowan reiterated that in order to be acceptable, the service station would have to very unique, given the importance of the location. Ms. Ciddy Wardell, City Planner, stated that to provide some additional background, during the early reiterations presented, the applicant had submitted to the Planning Commission and Freedman, Tung & Bottomley, more elaborate architecture including dome features and a canopy. The feedback from Freedman's office was not to be out of character with the gas station, so the applicant toned it down somewhat to have more of a traditional look based on direction given. Mr. Khn7iri stated that he would prefer a continuance to allow time to work on changing the design in such a way to make it a more distinct signature landmark property and still maintain the use at the site. Mr. Cowan pointed out that there are service stations in the state which have very unique signature and reflect a certain character. He recalled that the Planning Commission has made decisions in the past, relative to the character of use, such as the Monta Vista area where automotive lues were prohibited. Com. Harris stated that the site presently has toxic contamination , and Exxon is accustomed to dealing with such sites, whereas other people may fear working with such a site because of the fear of the end responsibility, which is probably one of the reasons the lot has sat idle for so long. Com. Harris commented that she felt it was an exercise because staff strongly feels they don't see a service station on this site. Com. Doyle commented that the Planning Commission should review the information presented during the Heart of the City and see if there isn't some way to meet the requirement or meeting some of the guidelines that were proposed as part of the plan. Com. Mahoney said that although it may appear to be a "fire drill" it is worth the consideration because of its importance. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to continue Application 6-U-96 to the September 9, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, to allow applicant to work on coming up with something more befitting the landmark SECOND: Com. Doyle ABSENT: Com. Roberts VOTE: Passed 4-" Case Manager: Michele ❑ Colin,❑ Ciddy ❑ Tom ❑ Bob 0 era ❑ Target Dates: Pre -Hearing: = - ERC: - - P CC: _ Legal to Paper: �' Publication Date: �� 300 ft. mailing 1 APN#: 6 /0 — -V, — b / % APPLICATION NO.(s): 6 -IJ -96 — • APPLICANT: a'n `" ziri PROPERTY OWNER: Same LOCATION: 10002De� GENERAL PLAN: USE PERMIT: 9 ase ii.A ) TENTATIVE MAP: VARIANCE: F,00ttcr Messages (Check the ones that apply): Lg'rirst Hearing Planning Commission Decision Final Unless Appealed ❑ Tentative City Council Hearing Date: ❑ Environmental Determination: Not Complete: ❑ CaLEsempt `Ef Neg.Dec.: 13 EIR: 13 DeMinimus: 13 City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (:i er.}- ,E. Khaz'Df �Je- e Anza Boulevard s C. ` t o, CA 95014 C'P APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 6-U-96, HOUSSAIN E. KHAZIRI (JOHN BAUTISTA, APPELLANT) Councilmember John Bautista has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to approve your Application 6-U-96 which requested a use permit to demolish an abandoned service station and construct a 1,500 sq. ft. service station and car wash located at 10002 DeAnza Boulevard. The appeal will be heard at the October 7, 1996, re-.:,ar City Council meeting. Council meets at 6:45 p.m., City Hall Council Chamber, ' 00 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Interested parties are invited to attend -i0 be heard. If you wish to challenge the City Council's action in t. xt, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the pul. hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Cit, of Cupertino City Hall at, or prior to, the public hearing. Sincerely, Roberta Wolfe Deputy City Clerk cc: Department of Community Development appcals\appcal Ldoe Pn Wd — R-yrlM 81111 r I* [_1 Slew /�/ /�; �� RECEIVED SEP 1 G 1996 BY: dunti & /,Z, ,i,�L A4i- i 9, /ssG /nuixiL do 1 19MMI19 ASS0009 INC. Architecture, Engineering, and Planning August 26 / 1996 Mr. Colin Jung City of Cupertino Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA • RE: Site and Architectural Design for 10002 De Anza Boulevard Dear Colin: On July 22, the planning commission continued our conditional use permit application for new gasoline service station and car wash to Sep. 9 / 1996. As you mentioned " it will be very difficult to flip or change the orientation of the building itself. Giving the circulation and proximity of the carwash, you can not undoubtedly flip the building over and move it to the corner at this intersection. The proposed plan is the best plan and anything else will be too awkward and will create different problems in terns of, backups, turning movements and design". My understanding was, that the planning commission were in favor of the project with a few minor changes to be made for the final approval. Please see the following changes listed below. I - We are proposing a very unique and attractive street sign at the comer of De Anza and Steven's Creek boulevard. This sign has a pound with a circulating water that runs from the columns on each side, and the columns are made from brick to match the columns under the canopy. 2- We are proposing a stamp concrete pavement on both of the driveway going in to the site. This would create a break between the asphalt and concrete. 3- We are proposing a very beautiful arbors on top of the three parking spaces as you enter the site from Steven's Creek Boulevard. This structure will have landscaping around and on top of the arbors. this also would break that opens of the site, and would add a very nice a warm feeling to the site. 4- At last but not least we are proposing another great monument to this site, by creating a great looking waterfalls to the face of a building. This will be located 2542 S. Bascom Ave. • Suite #2O1 • Campbell, CA 95008 (408) 377.4434 • Fax: (408) 559-2022 in the front of the building facing Steven's Creek Boulevard. This water fall is nine feet high and is build from natural stones with a very beautiful landscaping in the front and on the sides of it. This is not just a gas station, it has the charm of the station with a most beautiful landscaping and monument signs and other features as i describe above. Please see the attached drawings for all the items we are proposing. Thank you very much for your support on July 22 / 96 meetings. Please feel free to call me at your any time. ncerely e Norouzi De igner • CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: 6-U-96 Agenda Date: September 9, 1996 Applicant: Hossain E. Khaziri Property Owner: Exxon Company Property Location: Northeast comer of Stevens Creek & De Anza Blvds., 10002 De Anza Blvd. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Commercial/Office/Residential Zoning Designation: P (Stevens Creek Boulevard Conceptual Zoning) Gross Acres: 0.49 acres (21,344 square feet) Non -Residential: Square Footage: Building - 788 square feet, Car Wash - 720 square feet FAR: 0.07 Parking Required: 1 stall/ 200 square feet of retail space 788/200 = 4 stalls required Parking Provided: 4 stalls ( 1 handicapped, 3 regular) Stories/Height: I story/ canopy - 24', building - 18.5' Project Consistency with: General Plan tt4_ Zoning yes Environmental Assessment: Categorical Exemption, Class 2 & 3, Sections 15302 & 15303 Application Summary: Use Permit to allow the demolition of an abandoned gasoline service station and the construction of a new 1,500 square foot gasoline service station and car wash. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission previously reviewed this application on July 22, 1996. The applicant is proposing to redevelop this abandoned gasoline service station/minor automobile repair facility with a new 1,500 square foot gasoline service station and car wash. The property is located on the northeast comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Area Boulevard, the most prominent and visible intersection in the City, also known as the Crossroads Corner. The property is within the Heart of the City Specific Plan area and is surrounded by a one story bank and a two story office building. DISCUSSION: The Commission continued this application at the request of the applicant to give him an opportunity to redesign the project. The Commission's direction was to produce a more significant and monumental building that addresses the importance of the street intersection as the crossroads of the community. Staff gave the architect specific guidance (Exhibit A) that would move the redesign closer to the design objectives of the City for these comer locations. The applicant has chosen not to redesign the building and submits this application for your further consideration. There are some signage details and further landscape enhancements, including water features, but the fundamental objective to create a landmark building at this comer has not been addressed. The General Plan states: Hossain E. Khaziri 6-U-96 September 9, 1996 Page -2- Po/icy 1-1: Heart of the City (page 2-5) "...The Crossroads intersection should be developed with a distinct signature to mark its City prominence. Such improvements may include the siting of landmark buildings, street monuments or other public art works, landscaping and special pavement." The lot is of sufficient size and dimensions to develop a small commercial building that would better meet the City's general plan policies. Obviously, a more substantial building with genuine landmark status could be developed if the adjoining lots were combined with the subject property. The fact that the surrounding properties of 2.74 acres are under the same ownership and developed with older buildings makes private redevelopment of the whole area a more feasible possibility. Based on the general plan policy, staff continues to recommend denial of the project. In the • event the Commission makes opposite findings, additional site and design issues related to the gasoline station/carwash are discussed in the July 22nd staff report (Exhibit B). A resolution of approval with appropriate conditions is also included. The Planning Commission's action is final unless appealed to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Application No. 6-U-96 in accordance with the model resolution. Enclosures: Model Resolution for Denial of the Project Model Resolution for Approval of the Project Exhibit A: Staff letter to Reza J. Norouzi dated August 7, 1996 Exhibit B: Planning Commission staff report dated July 22, 1996 . Exhibit C: Letter from Charles Hanson dated August 9, 1996 Exhibit D: Memo from Freedman, Tung & Bottomley dated May 15, 1996 Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3, A4 dated July 8, 1996, Grading Plan dated May 29, 1996 Street Improvement Plan dated June 28, 1996, Sheet L-1, Irrigation and Planting Plan dated July 8, 1996, Sheet L-2, Elevations, dated August 30, 1996 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Associate Planner Approved by: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development g/pdrcporn/606b 6-U-96 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 1500 SQUARE FOOT GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AND CAR WASH AT 10002 DE ANZA BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described on Section II. of this Resolution; and • WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant's project has failed to achieve the following general plan objectives of the City: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, does not have the density, height and orientation to foster greater City identity expectations at the most visible and prominent street intersection in the City in accordance with policy 2-2 of the General Plan; 2) The proposed use and building type does not improve the development character of the community in the City Center/Crossroads activity center of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby denied, by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application No. 6-U-96 set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of, September 9, 1996 and are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. 6-U-96 September 9, 1996 Page -2 - Application No.: 6-U-96 Applicant: Hossain E. Khaziri Property Owner: Exxon Company Location: Northeast comer of De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. 10002 De Anza Boulevard PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September 1996, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: Robert S. Cowan Director of Community Development • g/planning/res6u96 APPROVED: Paul Roberts, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission 6-U-96 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1500 SQUARE FOOT GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AND CAR WASH AT 10002 DE ANZA BOULEVARD . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section H. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino . Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. 6-U-96 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 9, 1996, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. 6-U-96 September 9, 1996 Page -2- SECTION II: PROJECT Application No.: DESCRIPTION 6-U-96 Applicant: Hossain E. Khaziri Property Owner: Exxon Company Location: SECTION III• CONDITIONS 10002 De Anza Boulevard ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DFVELOPMFNT DEPT 1 APPROVED EXHJBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits titled, "Proposed Gas Station for Mr. Hossain Khaziri, 10002 De Anza Blvd., Cupertino, CA" and consisting of 7 sheets: A-1 through A-4, 1, 2 and 1-1 except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. • 2. ABANDONED WATER WELLS The property owner shall seal abandoned or unused water wells if the City, after consultation with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, determines that said abandoned or unused water wells have a potential to contaminate the water supply. 3. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENT All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to or concurrently with project construction. The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required demolition permits in accordance with City Ordinances. 4. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACnCES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity which disturbs soil. • 5. NONPOINT SOT JECE PO J .1 J11ON The applicant shall install a car washing unit that provides for the recycling and reuse of wash water. A trench drain shall be installed at the car wash exit and connected to the sanitary sewer. 6. REVIEW OF REMEDIATION I JNIT FOR SOIL. CONTAMINATION CLEAN UP If a remediation unit is required to complete the soil contamination clean up to the satisfaction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The District shall review and approve the remediation unit prior to building permit approval. In the event a remediation unit is not required, the applicant shall landscape the unit site with at least one 24" boxed tree and additional shrubs consistent with the approved landscape plan. 7, HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include a flowering hedge along the interior turf perimeter. The selected hedge plant shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Resolution No. 6-U-96 September 9, 1996 Page -3- 8. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION Any residual commercial square footage created by subtracting the proposed building square footage from the existing building square footage shall be assigned to the Heart of the City retail commercial development allocation pool. SECTION TV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 9. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 10. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades • and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 11. STRFFT LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 12. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 13. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. • 14. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 15. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 16. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones unless storm drain facilities are deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Resolution No. 6-U-96 September 9, 1996 Page -4- 17. UNDERGROUND TND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 18. The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 6% of Improvement Cost or $1,744.00 minimum b. Development Maintenance Deposit: $3,000.00 c. Storm Drainage Fee: $2,420/acre d. Power Cost: $75.00 per street light e. Map Checking Fees: $N/A f. Park Fees: $N/A -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 19, TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be • screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 20. DEDICATION OF WATERLINE The developer shall execute a quitclaim deed for underground water rights to California Water Company and shall reach an agreement with California Water Company for water service to the subject development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 Califomia Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. of this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices. Bert Viskovich, City Engineer Resolution No. 6-U-96 September 9, 1996 Page -5 - PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September, 1996, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Robert S. Cowan Paul Roberts, Chair Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commission g/pl�inghes6u% Exhibit A ® Community Development Department 10300 Torte Avenue ('itc ul' Telephone (408) 777-3308 C1.1pertil o Fax (408 777-3333 Planning Division August 7, 1996 Mr. Reza J. Norouzi VIA FACSIMILE Memarie Associates, Inc. 2542 South Bascom Avenue, #201 Campbell, CA 95008 RE: Site and Architectural Design for 10002 De Anza Boulevard Dear Reza: • On July 22, the Planning Commission continued your use permit application for a new 1,500 square foot gasoline service station and car wash. The Commission's direction was to redesign the site to achieve a more significant and monumental building that addresses the importance of the intersection as the crossroads of the community. While I have misgivings that the ideal design for this comer can be achieved with a service station/car wash development format, I would be willing to review a design that meets the following guidelines: • Move the main building to the comer of Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvds. • Delete the car wash and add more retail square footage, including other tenant stores if possible. • Provide more parking at 1 stall per 200 gross square footage of building. • • Increase the height of the building to close the visual gap between the canopy and the main building roof. • Design a prominent entrance and facade that addresses the street corner. • Design will be reviewed by Freedman Tung & Bottomley for which there is an additional architectural fee. Call me at (408) 777-3257 should you have any questions. Sincerely, olin Jung. Project Manager c:winword/6u96d Exhibit: B CITY Oi• CUPERTINO 10300 Torn Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: 6-U-96 Agenda Date: July 22. 1996 Applicant: Hossain E. Khaziri Property Owner. Exxon Company Property Location: northeast comer of Stevens Creek & De Anza Blvds., 10002 De Anza Blvd. Project Data: General Plan Designation: CommerciaUOfce/Residential Zoning Designation: P (Stevens Creek Boulevard Conceptual Zoning) Gross Acres: 0.49 acres (21,344 square feet) Non -Residential: Square Footage: Building - 788 square feet, Car Wash - 720 square feet • FAR: 0.07 Parking Required: 1 stall/ 200 square feet of retail space 788/200 = 4 stalls required Parking Provided: 4 stalls ( 1 handicapped, 3 regular) Stories/Height: 1 story/ canopy - 24', building - 18.5' Project Consistency with: General Plan ng_ Zoning yes__ Environmental Assessment: Categorical Exemption, Class 2 & 3, Sections 15302 & 15303 Application Summary: USE PERMIT to allow the demolition of an abandoned gasoline service station and the construction of a new 1,500 square foot gasoline service station and car wash. BACKGROUND: • The applicant is proposing to redevelop this abandoned gasoline service station/minor automobile repair facility with a new 1,500 square foot gasoline service station and car wash. The property is located on the northeast comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De AnzaBoulevard, the most prominent and visible intersection in the City, also known as the Crossroads Comer. The property is within the Heart of the City Specific Plan arca and is surrounded by a one story bank and a two story office building. DISCUSSION: General Plan' While the commercial land use is consistent with the General Plan land use map designation, there are development expectations for this intersection comer that are not addressed by the proposed application. For example: Policy 2-2: Heart of the City (page 2-5) "...The Crossroads intersection should be developed with a distinct signature to mark its City prominence. Such improvements may include the siting of landmark buildings. street monuments or other public art works, landscaping and special pavement." L&ban Desien_ Non-residential building patterns have typically been low profile and generally uniform in height, making it difficult to focus development intensity to shape the City's built form and identity. The City's development reallocation and priority system (general plan pages 2-7 through 2-9) was established to give the City greater flexibility and discretion in shaping the land uses and development character of the community. The Crossroads Intersection is arguably the center of the city and deserving of special attention and focus. Land uses and building types should address the importance of the Crossroads. This has already occurred in the effort expended to conceive and develop a four seasons orchard/park at the southeast Crossroads comer through the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Staff does not believe that redeveloping the project site with another service station and a new car wash addresses the importance the City has assigned to the intersection. For the above reasons, the application for a service station does not meet City general plan objectives. Staff finds the project inconsistent with the General Plan and thus recommends denial. In the event that the Planning Commission makes opposite findings of project consistency with the General Plan, then the Commission should consider the other project issues: Norse. The maximum noise levels generated by the car wash, 62 decibels at the bay dour. are projected to attenuate to 54 decibels at the property line. Ambient noise generated by the surrounding automobile traffic on De Anza and Stevens Creek Boulevards averages 70 decibels at the intersection according to the General Plan. Project noise levels are below the General Plan standard of 70 dB ldn which is considered normally acceptable and are below noise ordinance levels for non-residential areas. Stricter limitations on the hours of operation of the car wash versus the service station are not warranted since noise standards are met. Soil Contamination_ The onsite soil was contaminated by leaking underground gasoline tanks from previous gasoline station operators. Texaco is in the final stages of cleaning up the site according to Greg Gibson of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. A remediation unit is planned for the site if needed. A condition has been placed in the model resolution requiring Santa Clara County Water District review and approval of the remediation unit used to finish the site clean up. Mot1noint Source Pollution:_ To address nonpoint source pollution concerns associated with car washes. A condition has been added to the model resolution requiting recycling and reuse of wash water and a drain at the car wash exit that is tied into the sanitary sewer. Heart otthe Ciet ImnrovemenGL The Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage is subject to the Heart of the City landscape easement improvements which require a to -foot separation between the sidewalk and the curb. Because De Anza Boulevard and the adjoining Stevens Creek Boulevard property have monolithic (curbside) sidewalks, there will be some large sidewalk transitions as the sidewalks are connected together. In addition, there are numerous utility vaults and a traffic signal pole at the comer that will need to be accommodated. Planning staff will work with the Public Works Department to minimize the amount of sidewalk concrete and improve the appearance of this comer. A low -profile flowering hedge is required at the back of the landscape easement, but is missing from the landscape plan. A condition has been placed in the model resolution to insert a hedge. gilding Design: • The building design has been reviewed by Freedman Tung & Bottomley (See Exhibit A). Their suggestions were incorporated in the design of the building. The building follows a traditional building form by providing an identifiable base (brick tiles), a middle section (stucco) and a top (detailed cornice and standing seam metal roof). The wall is articulated and accentuated with building mounted lighting. The complementary colors give the building a very pleasing look versus the corporate colors used by the oil companies for corporate identification and advertisement. The brick tiles were chosen to match the brick facade building across De Anza Boulevard. Canopy materials and architecture will match the building. A perspective of the project from De Anza Boulevard is enclosed. RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends denial of Application No. 6-U-96 in accordance with the model resolution. Enclosures.• Model Resolution for Denial of the Project Model Resolution for Approval of the Project Exhibit A: Memorandum from Freedman Tung & Bottomley on gasoline station dated 5/15/96 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Associate Planner Approved by: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development QSL. g/planning/6u96a Fie-- -U-416 Exhibit C Charles Hanson 7617 Elderwood Court Cupertino, CA 95014 August 9, 1996 Andrea Harris, Planning Commission Chair City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: DeAnza-Stevens Creek Gas Station I was quite surprised that the planning commission would suggest a car wash disguised as a Mississippi paddlewheeler as reported in the Cupertino Courier. (See enclosed.) Let's not pretend to be something that we are not. Does" balance" at this corner mean that you want another red brick building to match the other one at that intersection? I should hope that is not what you were suggesting. Historically this site has been a gas station. It is owned by a gas company. It is being purchased by another gas company. The property is too small to be anything other than a gas station. This suggests that a gas station would be the highest and best use of this property and probably the only economical use. Approximately one million sales tax dollars has not been collected in the last ten years. Cupertino receives a share of this million dollars. We depend on these tax dollars to run our city. Vacant land does not produce sales tax revenue. This gas station would not generate additional traffic. It's very existance depends on the traffic which passes this intersection every day. Cupertino has very . few gas stations. Even some of those stations along on DeAnza Boulevard are located in San Jose. Let's allow a "Cupertino gas station" in Cupertino. Let's keep our tax dollars home. We have lost too many gas stations over the years. In summary, we need to move forward with approval to eliminate an eyesore with a tax producing business which depends on the existing traffic. I urge you to approve the demolition of an old gas station and the construction of a good business investment which has already been approved by Cupertino's design review. Sincerely/, Charles Hanson Exhibit: A E8EE9MAN T U N G G B0T10MIEY Urban Design & Planning Dist nct Revitalization Street & Plaza Design MEMORANDUM VIA GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT DATE: May 15,1996 TO: Ciddy Woniell, Planning Department City of Cupertino 10300 Tome Avenue • Cupertino, CA 95014 FROM: Greg Tung ATTACHED: 2 sets of drawings of recommended changes RE: Design Review of proposed Gas Station at 1002 De Anza Blvd. Attached are 2 copies of drawings for recommended changes to the proposed design, and our review comments herein with respect to the proposed Gas Station. I apologize for the reproduction quality of the prints - the tracings did not reproduce as well as I would have liked. 1. For the station/car wash building, we recommend combining their scheme "C" and "E" • with omission of the dome and changes in materials noted. Basically, using the brick base, stucco walls, and articulated cornice of "C" together with the sloping roofs of "E" (albeit with a much better roof material, standing seam metal roofing) will produce a - decent commercial building that is still largely what they have designed. We have also suggested use of exterior lighting to complement the building's architecture. In general, we are setting a higher standard of finishes and materials for a simple building, because of its prominent location at (arguably) the most Important intersection in town. 2 For the pump area canopy, we have recommended that the detailing and materials match the main building. 41 rearrq Street Swiss 500 San Franc= G 94108.5522 415.291.9455 I 0 3. The site plan does not show any landscaping or Wither features, and needs to be submitted and reviewed. We recommend that a continuous low brick wall with regularly spaced pilasters (12'-0" max. on center) or separate brick piers be used around the landscaped edges of the site (behind the sidewalk with a small setback), with the bricks matching the building's bricks in color and texture, and a decorative cap on all walls and/or piers.. The gas station sign must also complement the building architecturally (shape, paint color, etc.). LIY`�a� .�,ar.i :�S ;nu1��=•�'•�aa�. �:rmtS� 2.e,. Please do not hesitate to call us for any questions. 3 1 ■ 0 4TEVEIJ6 CREEK 6LVv n u El 0, ¢DHoaOFBHDa Gyle®0' t �^ 1 �f VOCIRI4V GaAOe 03 A I A d b BE Ie `u' I b IS 0= H El m Lp qp - roll L ACJ 0 gi► ml- -w., U" L 0 0 R P, L 'A H