Loading...
PC 10-16-91 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA -10300 Torre Avenue cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1991 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: commissioners Present: Chairman Mackenzie Vice Chairman Fazekas Commissioner Mann Commissioner Mahoney Commissioner Austin staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner IT Travice whitten, Assistant City Engineer Cheryl Kershner, Deputy City Attorney Marilyn Norling, Housing Coordinator APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Fazekas 23, 1991, as Com. Austin Passed Com. Mann moved to approve the minutes of September presented SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: 4-0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None CONSENT CALENDAR: - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Project Location: 36-U-86 (Revised) and 6-EA-88 Torre Avenue Properties Same 10100 Torre Ave. AMENDMENT to delete requirement to designate 15 parking spaces in garage at 10100 Torre Avenue for Chateau Cupertino residents. staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan stated the request to delete the condition of approval applied to providing parking for Chateau residents. Mr. Cowan presented an overview of the application as outlined in the staff report. He noted a parking survey was completed by staff and from staff's point of view there does not seem to be parking problem that warrants the continued requirement for the 15 parking spaces. He noted most employees are parking off-site, but there are parking spaces set aside. Chr. Mackenzie opened the public hearing. Ms. Sally Brennan, 19917 Twilight ct., stated that the residents of the Chateau will change and requested the Planning commission make no decisions that cannot be changed. She suggested the applicant be committed to supplying the additional 15 spaces if the need arises. In response to Com. Mann's question, Ms. Brennan stated there have been parking problems in the past. Mr. Cowan noted off-site parking is very limited and explained where this would be. Com. Mann stated she would like to keep the 15 parking spaces and would vote no. Com. Mahoney stated he would support the deletion of the 15 parking spaces. Com. Fazekas stated he would like to hear from the applicant at this time. Com. Austin stated she is not in favor of losing the 15 parking spaces. Chr. Mackenzie spoke in support of the deletion of the 15 parking spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 3 MOTION: Com. Fazekas 1991, due to Com. Austin Passed moved to continue this item to October 28, the applicant not being present. SECOND: VOTE: 5-0 2. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: project Location: 1-GPA-91; 2-U-91 and 11-EA-91 Monta vista Center/Terry Brown Manta vista Center Partners N. side of Stevens Creek Blvd., 300'west of Mann Drive (Old MV Hardward site). GENERAL PLAN amendment to allow residential use emphasis on APN 326-19-117 in lieu of meeting the Neighborhood Commercial use objective for the Monta vista commercial district stated in the "Function" statement for the Monta vista Special Planning Area in the Land Use Element. USE PERMIT to demolish an existing retail center and develop 20 semi-detached townhouse units on 2.5 gr. acres, 8 units per acre, and retain the mixed-use 15,000 s.f. commercial/office structure with 10 senior units on 1.1 net acres. staff Presentation: city Planner Wordell presented the project reiterating comments as outlined in the staff report. She noted there was public testimony to keep the commercial. She noted the first floor shown as retail included a restaurant. The second floor has 2200 s.f. of retail with 10 senior units and a patio area. She noted parking for the seniors is an issue. There have been no specific parking spaces for seniors and these should be covered when designated. A condition of approval should be 1 parking space per senior unit. She noted the traffic r:rqineer does not recommend angle parking along stevens Creek Blvd. The proposal falls short of the parking demand and this may become a problem at certain times of the day. Underground parking may be re- introduced if parking is seen as a problem. She noted a condition of approval is to allow retail on the second floor. with regards to design issues, she noted there are areas of inconsistency with the Monta vista Guidelines as outlined in the staff report. Staff believes there should be a stronger relationship between the store frontages and Stevens Creek Blvd. to create a better interaction. The tower design should be authenticated. She noted there are other minor inconsistencies which are outlined in the staff report. Ms. Wordell gave an overview of the Townhouse design as outlined in the staff report. She also discussed parking and staff are suggesting more guest parking be added. The elevation on the west side will be reduced. Ms. Wordell commented on the setbacks and staff is suggesting larger and more private patios. Regarding the common area, staff is suggesting a play yard rather PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 4 than a spa. Staff suggested the signs be removed. She noted a proposed condition restricts occupancy of the townhouse portion to not more than 12 units before the senior housing is begun. Ms. Marilyn Norling, Housing Coordinator, gave an overview of the rent staff would like to serve in these units. She noted affordable housing would be 25 percent of income. There would be no delay in occupying the units. She noted in talking to the developer, there may be a possibility of keeping these units affordable for 50 years. She outlined the different options of how this could be done. She noted if this project is approved, she recommended it go before the Affordable Housing Committee to work on details of the agreement. In response to Com. Mahoney's question, Ms. Norling stated they will look into the possibility of getting more affordable housing at the Chateau. Corn. Mann commended Marilyn on her work in obtaining senior housing. Ms. Wordell outlined comments from ASAC. They suggested there be a continuous covered walkway in front of the Commercial. Greater use of wood trim around the second floor windows. Glass block is not appropriate. ASAC did not think the flags used and awning colors were appropriate. The front wall material should be changed and suggested the use of antique lanterns. More color variety should be used for the townhouses. She noted the applicant has submitted drawings with the changes indicated. In response to Com. Mahoney's question, Ms. Wordell stated the Engineering Department noted the bus stop will be accommodated without having to make changes in the parallel parking spaces. Mr. Travice lIIhi tten stated the worse case would be to move the parking spaces down one in the west direction. In response to Com. Austin's question Mr. Cowan gave background on the adoption of the Monta vista Guidelines. In response to Chr. Mackenzie's question requirements, Ms. Wordell stated if a person would be agreeing to not bringing in more than regarding parking rents a unit they one car. ADPlicant Presentation: Mr. Terry Brown, Monta vista Center Partners, stated many of the issues brought up by staff have been addressed on the plans submitted. He noted, with regards to second story commercial, after talking to existing tenants some felt they could serve from a second floor. He noted the wall portion in front of the retail had been removed. They have reached a compromise as to the commercial design and architecture. They have PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 5 added 8 parking spaces. He noted this project has had a significant amount of neighborhood input. The signs from the residential area will be removed. The height of the fences have been lowered in the front. He noted the intent of the retail space is for service to the community. with regards to the lack of parking spaces at lunch times, the owner of the Red Pepper Restaurant stated the lunch crowd is only half of the dinner crowd. He stated underground parking is expensive and will increase the overall height of the buildings and would prefer not to do this. Com. Fazekas questioned the shared parking? Mr. Brown stated if there was an overflow of parking in the evening or weekends, there is parking in adjoining office buildings. In response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Brown stated every unit will be responsible for their own garbage and there will be central mailboxes. In response to Chr. Mackenzie's question, Ms. Wordell pointed out the location of the additional 8 parking spaces on the site plan. In response to Com. Mahoney's question regarding the columns and entries, Mr. Brown stated they are in agreement with ASAC. Chr. Mackenzie opened the public hearing. Ms. Henny Heerspink, 21265 stevens Creek Blvd., noted there are senior citizens on waiting lists for affordable housing. She questioned if the low rent would include utilities. She urged the Planning Commission to approve the 10 units on the Monta Vista site and some rental units at the Portofino. Mr. John Vitale, 21836 Oakview Ln., stated he would request an 8' masonry fence along the back of the property. Mr. Patrick Milligan, 10018 Oakleaf Pl., spoke in favor of the project. He read a letter to the Commission which he will be distributing to his neighbors. Ms. Ann Anger, 10185 Empire Ave., felt the Monta vista Guidelines are being ignored, although she felt Mr. Brown will do a good project. She expressed concern regarding the development of downtown Monta vista. She feels this location is good for Senior citizens. Mr. Wayne Vucenic, 21840 Stevens Creek Blvd., expressed concern regarding visual impact of the project. He also expressed concern regarding the retail and urged the Planning commission to stay with the 15,000 s.f. of first floor retail. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Edwin Brown, 21852 Oakview Ln., noted he has been actively following the project. He spoke in support of the recent plans submitted and noted the general feeling of his neighbors was that they have corne to an acceptable solution. Mr. Ken Barnum, 21920 Byrne Court, noted he is in favor of the project. He was appreciative that the buildings have been lowered and expressed concern regarding the landscaping across stevens Creek Blvd. He recommended that the commercial be moved back. He spoke in support of first floor retail, but not second floor. Mr. Curt Mason, 21910 Byrne ct., expressed concern regarding the view from the units across stevens Creek. He also agreed with Mr. Barnum regarding landscaping on stevens Creek. He spoke in support of the first story commercial, but expressed concern regarding signage on second story commercial. He felt the water tower in the area is a burden and expressed concern about more water towers being built. Ms. Wordell stated there would be landscaping in the right-of-way area. She pointed where the signage would be on the buildings. Mr. Wayne Levenfeld, 10120 Phar Lap Dr., stated this is a better project than previous projects, but does not feel they have complied to all the recommendations by the Council and staff. He expressed concern about the lack of parking noting this will cause the retail to fail. He was not in support of second story retail. He suggested removing building #9 to generate more parking. Ms. Anne Robertson, 21979 Oakdell P1., noted she supports Mr. Levenfeld's suggestions noting that homeowners supported maintaining retail. She noted if the General Plan can be changed to accommodate this site, then the Monta vista Guidelines should also be changed with regards to this site. She also expressed concern regarding parking and the impact of traffic when the Post Office opens. Ms. Mollie Delpae, Cupertino Community Services, noted they have 23 names of the waiting list for senior units on the Monta vista site. She stated that the parking was adequate and few senior citizens drive. In response to Com. Fazekas' question Ms. Delpae stated she would be surprised if there was as much as one car per unit and the age range of the people on the waiting list is 65-82 years. Ms. Linda Vincent, 21930 Byrne ct. expressed concern regarding landscaping on Stevens Creek. She noted there was complete support for the plan in her neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 7 Mr. Chun Pong Ng, 10009 Oakleaf Place, spoke in support of the project as it is presented at this time. Corn. Mahoney questioned the landscaping the public had addressed? Mr. Travice Whitten stated this is one of the landscaping projects that was put on hold because of the drought and will be completed when the drought is over. Mr. Terry Brown stated this landscaping issue is situation and when landscaped will improve the neighborhood significantly. Mr. whitten stated staff will work with the homeowners to talk about the landscaping. a difficult look of the In response to Corn. Mann's question regarding first floor retail, Mr. Brown stated the reconfigured to be inviting. the design of the retail has been Mr. Brown reiterated his comments from earlier. He noted one of the key requests from the Council was to have neighborhood support and this he had achieved and commended the neighbors. Chr. Mackenzie requested staff to provide a copy of the uses permitted in the Commercial Ordinance. Planning Director Cowan noted the Commercial Ordinance allows retail as well as office activities. He also gave a copy of a recently adopted Development Agreement, specifically exhibit E to the Commissioners. Exhibit E defines retail uses in a more limited sense. It has a list which eliminates office use among other things. Com. Fazekas recommended an additional 10 parking spaces as opposed to 8, and the other parking is acceptable. The second story retail is acceptable and spoke in support of a convenience store. He noted the architecture is a vast improvement and very acceptable noting the more detail the better. The grading concept is good and suggested the entries onto stevens Creek be more detailed. He agrees with no identification signs on the townhouse portion. A lot of signage and glass is needed to make the retail successful. He requested the number of trees be doubled. He. stated it is a very good presentation overall. Corn. Mahoney concurred with Com. Fazekas. He stated the architectural detail may not be as important depending what type of retail stores will go in. He noted this is a good project overall. He feels they shóuld be restrictive about the retail. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 8 Com. Mann stated she had no concern regarding the parking. She did not feel the covered walkways are necessary. She concurred with Com. Fazekas regarding detail and signage. She stated this is a good project. Corn. Fazekas suggested using exhibit E as part of this project. Com. Mann did not feel this should be used. Corn. Austin stated she would have like to have seen more commercial, but did support this proposal. She spoke in support of the architecture. She expressed concern regarding refuge and noted it needs to be housed in an adequate location, sensitive to surrounding neighbors. She stated the retail should be restricted to businesses that will be a convenience to the neighborhoods. She felt the second story retail should be quieter activities. Chr. Mackenzie stated he is in support of the project. He stated the 8 parking spaces should be restricted to guest parking only. He expressed concern regarding parking on the retail side. He was not in support of the flags. Types of retail should be restricted to those who serve the neighborhood. He suggested adding a requirement that the awnings should be wider over the doorways to give the feeling of continuous coverage. It was a consensus of the Commission that the 2200 s.f. retail on the second story is acceptable. Chr. Mackenzie expressed concern regarding a low wall were the restaurant is proposed and suggested restricting the height. The Commissioners discussed appropriate uses for th~ site: food stores, drug stores, apparel, variety and hardware stores. Medical and dental would be acceptable on the second store. Mr. Brown asked the Planning Commission not to limit him to certain services. He feels both Travel Agencies and Real Estate Offices serve the neighborhoods. The Commission stated the developer should comply to parts of Exhibit E, specifically Nos. 1, last half of 2, 4, 5, 8, without a separate car, 10 and 11. MOTION: Com. Fazekas moved to recommend approval 1-GPA-91 sUbject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Corn. Austin Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: Com. Fazekas moved Declaration. approve Com. Austin Passed to recommend a Negative SECOND: VOTE: 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 9 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 3. Com. Fazekas moved to recommend approval of 2-U-91 subject to the findings and subconc1usions of the hearing with the following modification: add finding that after hearing testimony the second story retail has been restricted: Condo 15, 8 ft.: Condo 25 to include Exhibit E of the Development Agreement, excluding item 3, 6, 7, 9, and 12. From item 2 remove banks and financial institutions, item 8 strike the words after "facility"; Condo 26, to add more trees and maintain the same level of detail presented on the plans, if not more. To work with ASAC to widen the awnings for a walkway effect, work wi th ASAC to locate the trash enclosures as far away residents as possible; add conditions that the 8 guest parking in the townhouse area be restricted to guest only; add condition that wall shown on the plan can only be installed if a restaurant is built: add condition second story must be retail and quiet in nature; add condition no signage on townhouse portion. Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0 Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: project Location: 10-U-89 (Amended) Portofino Development Corporation Portofino Development Corporation Corner DeAnza Blvd./Homestead Road AMENDMENT OF A USE PERMIT to modify the architectural design of Phase II and Phase III of the residential units. Staff Presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman presented the staff report. She made a correction on Page 2 under "Use permi t comparisons" heights for Condo/Apt and Townhouse/Condo should be 44 ft. and 32 ft. respectively. Ms. Bjurman gave background of this project as outlined in the staff report. She stated the proposal is to reduce the total duet count from 147 to 97 single family homes and to construct 140 Condominium units along 280 and DeAnza and to construct 105 podium style condominiums. She outlined the density range proposed as outlined in the staff report. She noted staff is concerned about setbacks as outlined in the staff report. She noted the proposed setbacks are compatible with the conditions of approval. Staff is also concerned about the semi-depressed garage as outlined in the staff report. She noted 6 to 7 ft. of the garage will be above curb level and noted a condition has been place on the applicant that the entire garage be at a minimum of 5 ft. below top of curb elevation. Ms. Bjurman stated staff also had concerns regarding the catwalk and have requested the applicant submit a detail of this structure to be reviewed. She reiterated comments on parking as outlined in the staff report. Regarding the Village Homes, only one car garages are proposed and staff is concern about this as explained PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 10 in the staff report. She noted the applicant is proposing 45 tandem parking stalls within the garage. This is acceptable to the City Engineer. She noted concerns from ASAC: the vertical elements and the amount of stucco used; they recommended no palm trees be used; also concern about parking, the stated courtyard parking within the village homes should be restricted to guests only; lack of public open space; colòr used for the awning is not compatible. Com. Mann expressed concern regarding the overall height. Ms. Bjurman stated the approximate height of each room is 9 ft. Com. Mahoney expressed concern regarding parking around the recreational area. Ms. Bjurman stated people will park in guest parking and walk along the pedestrian walkways. In response to Com. Fazekas' question, Ms. Bjurman stated a noise study was done in 1989 and the same conditions apply to this application. Ms. Marilyn Norling, Housing Coordinator, stated the State Housing Department have not found Cupertino to meet their standards. She noted there is limited amount of land available. She noted density bonus programs have been developed to produce affordable housing. She noted affordable housing is still very expensive and she is urging affordable rental units. One of the options to reach the affordable housing goals is to increase the density as outlined in the staff report. Staff is recommending that the density is kept the same in this project and designate 25 of the units for affordable for a minimum of 20 years. In response to Com. Austin's question, Ms. Norling stated there are non-profit developers interested, but the applicant is resistant. Ms. Norling expressed concern regarding the smaller units and no deed restriction to guarantee the selling price that is being proposed. Corn. Mann expressed concern regarding the high down payment people have to come up with. Mr. John Delmare, Portof ino Development co., stated one of the major issues was the height of the buildings. He feels the setbacks are an improvement to the previous plans. The reason for the elevation in the parking garage is because the grade is sloping 6 or 7 ft. towards DeAnza and they proposed building the dirt up to make it level. with regards to the one-car garage in the village homes, they can increase the one-car garage of the number 2 unit to a tandem garage. All the interior spaces in the clusters can be designated to the number one units. Regarding the tandem stalls in the terraces, they will also be assigned to one bedroom units. Mr. Delmare stated the rational for adding an additional foot to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 11 ceiling height is because these units are small and the extra foot helps make them look larger and brighter. Regarding the affordable housing and density, Mr. Delmare stated the original request was for 650 units and they had been cut down to 550 units and this had a financial impact. He noted it is difficult at this point in time to increase the density and re- design the project to add affordable housing. He feels the homes proposed are within the affordable housing range. He expressed concern regarding home values when rental units are mixed in. He feels the Homeowners Association dues are too high to be able to rent out these units. He noted compromises have been reached in this project and feels it is unfair to request higher density and affordable housing. In response to Corn. Mann's question regarding the courtyards, Mr. Delmare explained the landscaping and the recreation areas. Mr. Phil Terhost, Project Architect, explained the catwalk system noting this is an entry way to the condominiums. It will have a stucco base, painted metal railing and either tile or pattern concrete to walk on. He noted he will comply with staff and submit a detailed plan for the catwalk as requested by staff. Mr. Delmare addressed the conditions. Condo 10, he recommends it is not necessary to dedicate development rights; Condo 22, he will increase the garage sizes for the number two units and designating circuit stalls for the number one units; Condo 23, requested the setbacks as drawn be approved; Condo 24, request that this condition read that at least 5 ft. of the parking garage be covered, but not necessarily below natural grade, but below new grade. This would apply along De Anza and Homestead; Condo 28 be deleted; Condo 30 part which reflects condo 28 be deleted. Planner Bjurman stated with regards to Condo 22 staff is not in support of what the applicant proposed, but will work with the applicant. Mr. Delmare stated his understanding of ASAC's requirements was that they wanted the courtyard stalls to be dedicated to residents. They were concerned that these courtyards be maintained for the residents. Planner Bjurman recommended that Condo 24 stay as stated in the model resolution. Mr. Phil zeitman, 22907 Cricket Hill, noted there are many concerns that need reviewing. He requested the Commission continue this to allow more neighborhood involvement. He feels the neighbors are not fully aware of the new proposal. He stated the project so far is not attractive and needs to be improved. Affordable housing is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 12 needed and if the State standards are to be met someone has to start. He stated this is a good project to supply affordable housing. Sally Brennan, Citizen Advisory Committee, urged that the Planning commission request the developer to supply affordable housing. Ms. willi Krauss, 20153 Northcrest sq., noted this project was not what they has expected when it first started to be developed. She feels the change of plan is not an improvement. She expressed concern regarding people from the Portofino Development using the Northpoint guest parking. She noted she did receive notice at her office. She also expressed concern regarding the mass of the buildings. Ms. Mollie Dalpae, Cupertino Community Services, expressed concern regarding the affordable units and noted the Homeowners Dues as quoted by Mr. Delmare were incorrect. Mr. Delmare stated in terms of height, the buildings are all lower, there is more parking, more landscaping and larger setbacks. Chr. Mackenzie questioned the depressed garage. Ms. Bjurman stated that staff is requesting that it be a minimum of 5 ft. as measured from the closest adjoining top of curb so it would change along with the curb elevation. Mr. Phil Terhost stated it is very difficult to slope the garage floor, additional construction costs are involved, it complicates the sub-structure of the building utilities. He noted they are keeping the garage floor flat and are above by 2 ft. Com. Fazekas pointed out at one point the garage is 8 ft. above ground level. He stated the garage finish floor would have to be dropped 5 ft. to keep it level. Mr. Terhost stated this is the same situation as in the previous project. Ms. Bjurman stated the plan that was approved did not have the 1:5 setback, but the conditions of approval in subsequent development would have to reflect this. Ms. Betty Sliton, Northpoint resident, stated that what is being developed is not what was presented to the Council. She urged the Commission to continue this as residents have not been informed. Com. Mahoney stat~d he would not support this project as presented. Com. Mann stated the buildings should be lowered, the garage should be fully depressed. She spoke against the architecture and the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 13 parking and the lack of landscaping. She stated the developer should be required to provide the affordable housing. Com. Mahoney stated affordable housing should be required. The neighbors should be involved and would like to see improved parking. He noted many of the issues need to be resolved. Com. Fazekas stated the traffic study warrants enough increased density to allow 50 to 100 affordable housing units. He noted much of the architectural detail was deleted to allow affordable housing. He stated the models should be in 3-D and very accurate. He feels the project is too massive. He recommended 2.8 parking spaces per unit. He is not against a one-car garage as long as the units have adequate parking within 150 ft. of each unit. He is strongly against tandem parking in the garage. The awnings are not appropriate. The pool should have parking near by. There should be street access to the lower left end of the project. He would like to see a complete redesign and spoke against the courtyard. The 50-100 affordable units should be rental and work through the City housing department. Piling the dirt against the garage is unacceptable. He feels there is no commitment to the Community. Com. Austin stated she would like to see it clustered with higher densi ty and lots of landscaping. She recommended more rental uni ts. There should be community involvement and spoke against the massive boxy look of the project. Chr. Mackenzie concurred with the Commissioners. Mr. Delmare stated he has been working with staff for months and have made many changes. He stated the site is over 2~ units per acre. There is more parking, more landscaping, less mass and densi ty. He noted the same type of architecture has been kept. He stated to obtain more parking and more open space would mean going higher. He requested this go to Council for their input. Chr. Mackenzie closed the public hearing. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mann moved to deny 10-U-89 with the following findings: lack of affordable housing; to much pavement in courtyard~ general architecture; garage elevation; setbacks~ not in support of tandem parking; parking configuration as it relates to closeness to the units~ not adequate amount of landscape open space; excessive bulk and starkness. Com. Austin Passed 5-0 MOTION: REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None