Loading...
PC 10-26-87CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10430 So. De Anza Blvd. Cupe1tino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 26, 1987 Meeting Held in the Interim Council Chambers, 10500 N. De. Anza Blvd. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chai1man Mackenzie Staff Present: Vice Chairwoman Sorensen Commissioner Adams Commissioner Sz.abv Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Dcvdopmcnt Steve Pi.asccki, Assistant Planning Director Mark Caughey, Associate Planner Peggy M. Cocker, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 7:00 P.M. MOTION: Com. Soreri• ·;n moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 12, 1987, as prr.sented. SECOND: Com. Adams van~: Pas&cd 4-0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Mrs. F.J. I-Janlcy, proposed design of Rainbow Dr. between Stelling Rd/Upland Dr. Cal and June Keuseder, regarding Alves Dr. Irene Inman, regarding the Rt. 85 interchange at Stevc11s Creek Blvd. George and B;u-bara Ann Harris, in rEgard to Item 4 of t{le agenda ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Larry Loo requested consideration o[ down zoning the ARCO Station at Foothill Blvd/Stevens Creek Blvd. Petition presented in favor of Lhis request. Item to be placed on the agenda of the Planning Commission. Mr. Mcclivillaltsco objected to construction on foothill Blvd., Rainbow Dr., Mc Clcllan and Highway 9; Staff directed him to contact the Director of Public Works. CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: .!. PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUTI~S Regular Meeting of October 26, 1987 Page 2 PC -530 PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM l. Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): USE PERMIT (50-U-87) To operate a retail d1y cleaning shop with on-premises cleaning plant as a 1,400 sq. ft. tenant space within a ncwly-dcvelo;-x:d commercinJ center. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categmically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DA TE: November 2, 1987 SJi1ff Pre~.nJation~ Mr. Cowan noted ti'lat the proposed operation would be surrounded by commercial/office use and thus there would not be noise or other impacts. to residential areas; Staff recommended approval. Apnlic£!.nt's Prc:lentation: Mr. Richard Miller, Dry Clean U.S.A. noted that f!quipment generating noise was located in the boiler area--a closed door room; secondly, there was no rear door to the premises. In response to questions addressed by the Commissioners, he defined a "fully closed" dry cleaning system, use of evaporative coolers, procedures used in dry cleaning and recycling of solvents used. He confirmed that hc-had received a letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, dated October 16, 1987; other Dry Clean U.S.A. establishments had an exempt status and as<;urances had been given that this establishment would also receive a similar exemption. The Public Hearing was then opened. 'D1crc were no speakers. MOTION~ SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Szabo moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 4-0 Com. Szabo moved to recommend approval of Application 50-U-87, subject to conclusions and scbconclusions of Staff Report and this Hearing; Conditions of Approval per the Model Resolution. Corn. Sorensen Pa~;serl 4-0 . !., ' ~·: I·:· ' ' ;l f ./ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 26, 19[!7 Page 3 PC -530 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ffEM2 Application No(&) Applicar~;: Location: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (l-GPA-87) 1. Clarification that the Floor Arca Ratio ~FAR) bonus poiicy applies to traffic Intensity Performance Standard area. 2. Consider policies requiring residential design standards regulating height, bulk, and mass of single-famiiy homes. flRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINA110N: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 2, 1987 . .S.WLf..U<KDJ.il.tiQ.n_;_ Mr. Piasecki reviewed the General Plan Amendment under consideration. With respect. to the FAR tonus policy, Staff felt that a de:tcm1ination had already been made by the Planning Commission and the City Councii that th~ l ,000 sq. ft. bonus would apply to the TIPS area. He reviewed the history pf policies on residential design standards; issues cited were: Is there a problem? Defining the dominant development pattern in tbc City, including recerit development, and dctcmiining whether the new dcvcLJ1Jmcnt of larger homes was a problem. Staff felt t.hat a problem existed in that some of the current development created: A continuous wall r: • .ine Altered spatial re.lationships bet\veen buildings in residential neighborhoods Significant divergence from established dcvclopmc.nt patterns in the community Create.d development out of character with the existjng ClHnmunity. A setics of photographs were presented showing established development patterns. S1aff suggested a policy requi1ing reasonable compatibility between existing neigl'1bor- h1:>ods and new development; in addition, convention<.'.l residential zoning should be amended, including R· 1 and RHS zoning district. Secondly, non-conventional residential should be scaled to be re'lsonably compatible with suITotmding single family units when the two a.re contiguous. Development, when stmounde:d by or contiguous to existing f':sidential should observe the same setbacks and any other applicable lirnitations. Staff recommendation was presented, site issues were reviewed and concerns smrnunding · General Plan Amendment impact upon tbe degree of non-conformity which would be created, and the resulting diminishmcnt of property rights were suggested as topics for future duscussion. The proposed FAR was suggested for consideration. '1'. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 26, 1987 Page 4 PC -530 PUBLIC HEARI:'\GS Continued The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Richard Oliver, Princi;ile, Dividend Development Corporation, questioned the recom- mended granting of a Negative Declaration on an amendment with such broad implications; issues of importance which had not been addressed: Fiscal impact to the City The significant impact on property rights of existing property owners Potential impact on th:! school system Mr. Oliver stated that there was a market need for larger homes, reflected in a maturing of the community, increased property values and a higher earning capacity of residents .. Long time residents wi:.hed to remain, with tneir child1·en attending schools in the Cupertino School District; however, they had need for increased living space. Limitations which were too strict or prohibitive would require these individuals to move to other communities; such would not serve either property owners nor the conummity as a whole. rvtr. Oliver cautioned the Commission regarding passage of a General Plan Amendment which wns too restrictive and did not reflect the changing character of the community. Responding to Commissioner Adams, he stated he had built approximately 100 homes i11 Cupt:rtino over a 15 year period. M.5. Cocker ccnfim1ed that fiscal impacts and impacts to the school sys1em were not required in ai. Environmentiil Impact Statement; Mr. Oliver respor:ded that Eve1y EIR he completed contai1.cd the fiscal and school in1pacts as part of the criteria. Mr. Richard Childress, President Jlebcor Corporation, concurred with the ;ibove; he stated that he had been developing prirnarily residential properties for 15 years. He questioned: Percentage of available development in the city: If only a small percentage remained, the proposed General Amendment may have no si&1nificam impact Whether further discussion could be held a11d cited lack of ad :q1jate noticing on this Item Applic:ibility of che Amendment on RHS zoPing; he felt that crowding and density were not a problem in the Residential Hillside zoning Basis for this docurnem; he cited changing development patterns and cited the desire for ~hree car garages and remodeling occurring in the city to secure additional living space. He noted an adjacenc city's Design Review process which was time consuming and very costly; thes':! <.:osts would be borne by the propert'J owner Whether these controls rieeded to be imposed this late in the development of the City Jn response to Commissioners' questions, h~ stdted that the r\,mC'!ldmcnt did not adequately address the transition betwc~n rr:;ndominiums ar;.i R-1 ricvek,pmevit. He felt that a FAR should not exist since it depfr1ed the developer of c1eativity. Developers had built accordi.ng to se•back rules. he saw no icason to change this criteria. If greater land mass arnund houses was de~;ired, why did the C.ty in con_iunction with the School Disuict, develop 6,00D sq·. ft. lots in three areas of the City'> If the standards for dc:\'ciopmcnt were not appropriate, they should have been changed Jong <1zo. PLANNING COMI\·1ISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 26, 1987 Page 5 PC -530 -----·---------------· PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Barbara Fugundcs supported a residential design standard; she ci~ed the Clarkston Development wherein a side yard abutted her rear property line. Mr. Charles Masters, Developer of 21 homes in Cupertino, favored the creation of separate neighborhoods through the use of cul-de-sacs and was not favorable to a .15 FAR for second story additions. If the Amendment had been in place, he would not have pursued one of his dcvelop1ncnls in Cupertino, due to lack of economic feasibility. Mr. D. Salczar objected to a down zoning of prope11y he owns in the Monta Vista area; he noted the legal costs involved to challenge this action. Mr. Rich Parker nme<l the difficulties of developing infill lots in a manner compatible with an existing neighborhood, especially when the new homes arc very large. He cited the Clarkston development as an example. Ms. Pauicia Salem favored the proposed General Plan Amendment to pr.event abuses. She suggested consideration of existing owner's rights in the development of infill lots. Ms. Dottie Donio ci~ed ti1e Gerard Development as an exar:n'ple of what should not happen; she felt the Commission had a duty to consider feelings of long time Cupertino residents. ·n1e Public Heming remained open. Chr. Mackenzie reported that Com. C!aucly felt that a self-contained development was manageable; cifficulties arose in the development ,)f infill lots which interfaced with existing neighborhoods. Com. Adams concurred with f AR l?...QilllLti12QU.s;.ilbl~1Q .. ILiJ2Ar..£.ib (Staff Report, II, A); he favored design guidelines and requeste.<l f mther consideration of the options available. Com. Sorcn~en noted the following concerns: Lack of ackquate Public Notice and favored a continwmcc of lhis Heming Differences of new development from intlll development Consideration of remodelling guidelines--a sigpjficant issue for the City Com. Szabo favored the development of some criteria and noted the follovring issues: Visual obstruction to existing neighborhooo:s from the very large homes being built; he objected to the fact that a 5600 sq. ft. home could be built on a 7 ,000 sq. ft. lot Traffic increases and impacts from the building of these very large homes Chr. Mackenzie made the following comments: Concurred with ResiJential Design Standards, II., .C..Qffirn.1mi1Y-1k~!dkm Objected to "rniid waJl" of new developments; he suggested staggered front setbacks Limit<i.tion of '.lecond story FAR's, in effect, eliminated apen (ground) space Favored rcgulH!.\on of minimum lot size, preventing another Federspicl development Questioned hoN to rncrgc dewloprncnt of infill lots with existing residential areas Objected to a determination of proper•y rights by neighbors, rather than zoning laws PLANNING COY.MISSION1 MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 28, 1987 Page 6 PC -530 -----~------· PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MO'DON: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to Continue Application l··GPA-87 to the Meeting of December 14, 1987. Com. Sorensen r~~ct ~o Break: 9:05 -9: 15 P.M. NEW BUSINESS: Note: There was no Item 3 for tlie October 26, 1987, Meeting of the Planning Commission. ITEM 4. ADJ.21.i<;.i!.UQ.D 16-:ll-76iArr~JJS1<61li..Qrcl)~_g.l_ V~.Y.J~.I..ls£UtliW..k.l -Status report regarding rnmplaint letier dated September 27, 1987, from George and Barbm·a Ann Harris. The property is located on the southeast comer of Stevens Creek Boule.Nu.rd at Portal Avenue. ~taff PI~~ tvlr. Piasecki updated the Commission on status of this Application and reviewed issues of concern as stated in the Staff Report. Staff rcques1:cd one momh to evaluate the complaints made <ind report back to the Commi~sion. Ms. Cocker concurre::l and noted that City Attorney's Office would prepare a statement of various procedures available to the Commission to obtain Code compliance. AunlLU!11.l5-PrcsentatiQ.n.;. Mr. Mark Wimmer, Manager, Orch:u-d Valley Market Place, was agre.eablc to a Continuance of one month. Mr. George Harris read into the record a written statement outlining complaints; photographs showing possible code violations of the site were prc•;cnted. Mr. Tom McMaster, Owner, J. T. McHarts Pizza, cited repeated efforts to instnict his employees regarding theiprohibition of use of the rear corridor; he noted an incident wherein he was called within minutes of an employee putting one cardb'.)ard box in the rear corridor. The rear comdor outside his business was bdng maintained in a clean and orderly ma1111er. Mr. Milrk Wirnmcr requested time to address issues raised and asked that use of the rear corridor be allowed 1.0 transport garbage to the trash containers. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Sorensen moved to Continue /\pplication 16-U-87 ( Ar~K:nded) t1) the Meeting of November 23, l 987. Com. Adams Passed 4-0 Ms. Barbara Harris requested infomrntion on the Continuance of the Application; Chr. '.V1ackenzic rcvic:wcd the intent of allowing a month to resolve this situa1jon. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 26, 1987 Page 7 PC-530 --------------------- NEW BUSINESS Continued ffEMS Application 9-M-87 -C:.ipcrtino City Center-Requesting approval of a minor amendment to a use permit for mixed use development to change the distribution of required parking within the comple:•. The sit\! is located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between De Anz.a Boukvnrd and Torre Avenue . .S.!1!illJ"escnw.tim~ Mr. Caughey reviewed the his(ory of this Application and the Barton- Aschman Traffic Study Distribution Table; Applicants have rfX!uestcd to reduce the number of parking spaces anii redistribute these spaces as shown on the configuration presented. Staff determined chat as long as this request was consistent with the Barton-Aschman Study, they had no objection to approval of the Minor Amendment requested. MOTION: Com. Sorensen mowd approval of Application 9-M-87, a minor amendment to Use Pennit 4-U-86 to modify the distribution of parking for a Commercial/ Office/Residential Complex. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 4-0 OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COM!\HSSION: Com. Sorensen requtsted a report on a house on Garden Gate Dr. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: Ha.ving concluded its business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:55 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of November 9, 1987 at 7:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Prolm-Caughcy, Recording Secretary [ } ~ t r € \ ~ Ir ~;: t~·. ' ' .. . -. - '· PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of Ocwber 26, 1987 Page 8 PC -530 ADJOURNMENT Continued Approved by the Pianning Commission At the Regular Mxe·~ ng of November 9, 1987 ,~, -~-,_J_ Dona 1ackenzie, h~man Attest