Loading...
PC 08-12-91 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 AUGUST 12, 1991 ROLL CALL: SALUTE TO THE FLAG: Chairman Mackenzie Vice Chairman Fazekas Commissioner Mann Commissioner Mahoney Commissioner Austin commissioners Present: Robert Cowan, Director of community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner II Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Cheryl Kershner, Deputy City Attorney staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the minutes of July 22, as presented. Com. Austin Passed POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: Item 6: Item 9: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Application 32-U-85 - The Forum at Rancho San Antonio - Applicant requests continuance. Discussion of possible Revocation Hearina for Application 36-U-86 John vidovich - Staff requests continuance. Com. Fazekas moved to continue items 6 and 9 to the meeting of August 26, 1991. Com. Austin Passed 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 12, 1991 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. APPLICATION 1-M-91 LOUIS LAU Requesting approval of Planning commission interpretation for placement of an accessory structure outside of approved pad location for a hillside lot. 2. APPLICATION 12-TM-88 - ROBERT LEONG Requesting a one year extension to an approved Tentative Map to divide an existing parcel into four lots. Com. Mahoney requested that item 1 be removed from the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Corn. Fazekas moved to approve application 12-TM-88 - Robert Leong and remove application I-M-91 - Louis Lau from the Consent Calendar Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. APPLICATION l-M-91 LOUIS LAU Requesting approval of Planning Commission interpretation for placement of an accessory structure outside of approved pad location for. a hillside lot. staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman reviewed the staff report with the Commission. Corn. Fazekas questioned the City's liability if the tennis courts were damaged due to an earthquake? Deputy City Attorney Kershner stated this was difficult to answer as it is on a case by case situation. She suggested a condition to run with the land, disclosing the fault to future owners, this would protect the City from any liability. Planning Director Cowan said a notice is recorded involving this fault line and is also on the sub-division map. . In response to Com. Mann's question regarding landslides, Planner Bjurman stated the retaining walls are being built for that reason. She also noted that the applicant has not requested flood lighting and a condition can be added to prohibit this. Applicant Presentation: Ms. Paula Blanchfield, Architect, noted they had no intentions of putting up flood lights. She felt confident the tennis court will be screened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 12, 1991 Page J SECOND: VOTE: Com. Fazekas moved to approve I-TM-91 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modification: Add to Condition 2, ASAC will review the landscaping plans with particular attention to the view shed from public streets and the adjoining parcel, taking into consideration the retaining walls; Add Condition 4 to read "The City Attorney should review the existing CC&R's to ensure the City is protected against earthquake damage; Add Condition 5 to read "No flood lights". Com. Austin Passed 5-0 MOTION: 3. Application No(s): Applicant: Property OWner: Project Location: 26-U-90 Nelson Chao Nelson Chao North side of peninsula Ave. northerly of and adjacent to Stevens Creek Blvd. USE PERMIT to operate a financial services office in an existing 2,800 s.f. building. staff Presentation: city Planner Wordell reviewed the staff report with the Commission. She noted office and storage use is proposed for the building. She also reviewed the exterior changes of the building. Ms. Wordell stated there is no on-site parking and the applicant must secure parking in the right-of-way for the uses requested. She noted the adjoining property owners had reached no agreement regarding the use of the abandonment of the right-of-way and the ingress/egress easement. She stated the City will work on reaching an agreement. The City has added conditions to prohibit the use of the storage areas as office areas. She stated it is necessary for the neighbors to reach an agreement regarding parking which staff has suggested parameters to reach this as outlined in the staff report. Regarding design, it will be reviewed by ASAC and approved based on their recommendations. Com. Fazekas questioned the purchase of the street? Mr. Travice Whitten, Public Works, stated a figure has not been established at this time, but will be based on the benefit to the applicant. In response to Com. Mann's concern regarding grading and parking of the back area, Ms. Wordell stated the adjoining property owners have not reached an agreement to support parking in the back area. In response to Chr. Mackenzie's question regarding the internal floor plan, in particular the attic space, Ms. Wordell stated staff PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 12, 1991 Page 4 recommends a condition that this space will be used for internal storage use only. She stated that all building code violations must be rectified prior to issuance of a building permit. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Frank Oldham, Architect, San Jose, stated the applicant would like the use of the four rooms in front. He noted the other rooms could be used as storage and maybe rented out. Regarding the piece of property owned by the state, Mr. Oldham did not feel there would be a problem obtaining it from the State and dedicating it back to the property owners. Com. Mahoney expressed concern about setting a precedence for other applicants. Mr. Oldham stated a future site plan has been submitt2d to staff showing the removal of the building in the back to add four parking spaces. Planning Director Cowan stated staff will have to ensure the back area of the building is not habitable and in compliance with building codes. In response to Chr. Mackenzie's question regarding the volume of visitors to this building, Mr. Oldham stated there would be few visitors. Chair Mackenzie opened the public hearing. Mr. Doug Healy, Cupertino, noted the building in question has been shut down for code violations. He noted Peninsula Ave. should remain as a public street. Mr. Healy stated the building is intended for office use and is concerned about parking problems, which already exist. He stated it would be difficult to monitor the number of employees. Discussion followed on access to and from the back of the property. Ms. Ann Anger, Monta vista, stated she has no recollection of Peninsula Ave. being abandoned as it is a lengthy process. She does not support office use in this building. Dr. Joe Brown, owner of Monta Vista Animal Hospital, noted the City is dealing with two issues, the abandonment of the property and zoning. He concurred with Mr. Healy regarding heavy use of the street and the abandonment is of no advantage. Dr. Brown noted in order to comply with storm drainage requirements he had to build up the back of his property and it is not practical to use the back of the property. He noted the abandonment will not provide more parking. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 12, 1991 Page 5 In response to Com. Austin's question Dr. Brown stated the only way to get practical use out of the lot is to tear the building down and start again. He expressed the importance of keeping Peninsula Ave. open as a thoroughfare. Mr. Mike pericus, owner of the Monta vista Inn, stated Peninsula Ave. should be kept open and the proposed plan will not help the existing parking problem. Mr. Oldham stated the people who utilize the buildings are the only ones who use the street. He stated the applicant will improve the front of the building, as well as take care of any drainage problems. Chair Mackenzie close the public hearing. Discussion followed. In response to Corn. Mahoney's concern regarding the abandonment, Chr. Mackenzie stated the abandonment is a Council decision. Mr. Cowan stated the abandonment buys the removal of redundant Right-of way. It has limited use. It also provides mechanisms to have people who use the right-of-way to pay for street improvements. He noted the abandonment also provides a way to obtain legal parking on-site. In response to Com. Fazekas' question regarding complying with public street standards, Mr. Whitten stated it does not comply. Com. Fazekas felt parking should be eliminated on one side. Mr. Cowan stated a 30' curb to curb with parking on both sides is acceptable for this property. Mr. Whitten concurred. Mr. Cowan stated credit for public right-of-way parking was an incentive program to start commercial buildings. In response to Com. Mann's question regarding removal of the back part of the building and parking, Ms. Wordell stated it is a condition of Dr. Brown's property agreement to reach an agreement about access in the back. Chr. Mackenzie suggested granting a Use Permit that requires on- site parking with one visitor space and the remainder employee. Corn. Fazekas expressed concern with the floor plan and is not in support of the application. He would like to see the stairs removed, the s.f. calculated as all office space and would support carport parking in the rear as well as the reduction of s.f. of building to match the eight parking spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 12, 1991 Page 6 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOES: Com. Fazekas moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0 Com. Fazekas moved to deny application 26-U-90 with the following findings: Parking count must match the square footage when calculated as office; Peninsula Ave. acts as an important link for traffic circulation of adjoining properties; access to the rear is possible for additional parking; FAR of .71 is too large for site; on-site parking is required. Com. Mann Passed 4-1 Com. Austin 4. CITY OF CUPERTINO: ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING to establish preliminary goals of the Planning commission for on-going review of the City's comprehensive General Plan Amendment process. Staff Presentation: City Planner Wordell reviewed the Commission's preliminary goals for the General Plan as outlined in the staff report. She noted this hearing should focus on the goals reached. Mr. Cowan stated he had talked with the major the City and discussed their desire to expand. like to give presentations to the Commission. property owners in He noted they would Chr. Mackenzie suggested obtaining overall technical analysis prior to hearing from the Major property owners. He commented on a letter from CURB which questioned if the City was building the General Plan to meet the developers needs. He noted once the General Plan is established, the amendments should be minimal. Com. Mahoney concurred with Chr. Mackenzie. He would like to see an overall growth goal for the City. He stated he would like to work on some criteria as to which goals they select. Com. Mann stated parameters are needed so applicants can base proposal on these. Com. Fazekas suggested staff determine an overall context of how major owners will affect the City. He noted he would like to hear from major property owners as to where they are proposing buildings and how dense. Com. Austin concurred with Com. Fazekas. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 12, 1991 Page 7 Chr. Mackenzie suggested looking at technical reports, the major property owners presentations, the Grand Blvd reports and the Seminary property. Chair Mackenzie opened the public hearing. Mr. Phil zeitman, 22902 Cricket Hill, noted it is important to hear the technical reports as soon as possible, then what is feasible can be determined. He urged the Planning commission to go ahead wi th study sessions. They should also have hearings on the Seminary property. Chr. 1. 2. 3. 4. Mackenzie suggested hearings in the following order: Technical Reports seminary Property Major Property Owners Grand Blvd Committee The hearing was continued by acclamation to the meeting of August 26, 1991. 5. APPLICATION 6-U-90 - CHARLES REYNOLDS a minor modification to a use permit increase house size. Requesting approval of to revise setbacks and Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report to the Commission. She noted she had provided a comparison of lot area after lot line adjustment as presented in the staff report. Ms. Bjurman reviewed the setbacks required and proposed, FAR and roadway dedication as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Cowan stated this property is in a PD zone. In response to Com. Mann's question Ms. Bjurman stated with the lot line adjustment the adjoining lot will be 56' wide. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Chuck Reynolds stated the lot line adjustment was done to create an extra parking space as required by the City Council. He said he was not informed at a formal hearing to provide street dedication. He stated the 10' dedication is possible and if necessary, he suggested a trade-off for park fees. He stated his FAR is 45% and the west side of the property line is 17'. He noted, if requested, he will increase the garage to 20' x 20' interior. Mr. Cowan explained to the Commission why the City Council denied the appeal for deleting the street dedication fee. wi thout dedication parking is not possible on the street as well as other reasons. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 12, 1991 Page 8 Chr. Mackenzie opened the hearing Chr. Mackenzie closed the hearing. Corn. Mahoney stated he did not see the need to bend the FAR requirements. Corn. Fazekas was not in support of the project. He felt the FAR is too high, the building is too close to the street and the design is too boxy. Com. Austin concurred with Com. Fazekas. Chr. Mackenzie also concurred with Com. Fazekas and suggested the applicant corne back with a design which meets the 45% FAR. Mr. Reynolds stated he feels he meets the 45% FAR. He is willing to work with staff regarding the 10' dedication. His understanding of the City Council's denial was based on lack of parking. Mr. Travice Whitten stated the street dedication is required on this property. Planner Bjurman suggested adding a condition that the 45% FAR not be exceeded and the issue of street dedication be worked out with Public Works Department. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Fazekas moved to continue application 6-U-90 to the meeting of August 26, 1991 with direction to reduce to 45% FAR and improve the architecture. Com. Austin Passed 5-0 MOTION: 7. APPLICATION 11-U-90 - SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT CO. Requesting a Minor Amendment of the Use Permit site plan to shift a proposed two-story building toward the northeast by approximately 50 feet and to provide other minor architectural changes. staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report to the Commission. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Bill Tagg noted he would answer any questions. In response to Com. Fazekas' question regarding change in elevation, Mr. Tagg stated the windows have been adjusted and not the elevations but on the east elevation an exit stairwell was needed for the second story. Com. Fazekas expressed concern regarding the outside stairwell as it faces the neighbors. He also objected to the proposed penthouse. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 12, 1991 Page 9 Mr. Tagg stated this penthouse cannot be seen from neighbors. All the mechanical equipment is inside, but the penthouse is needed for ki tchen exhaust fans. He noted this cannot be seen from De Anza or Mariani. Corn. Austin stated the original design was much better. Corn. Fazekas stated he would rather see more parapet than a penthouse. The commissioners discussed the changes in the design and agreed the original arches on the first plans are more desirable. Com. Fazekas requested to see a more detailed plan on the proposed changes. Mr. Tagg stated the changes had been discussed with neighbors and there were no objections. The Commissioners looked at Perspective Plans. materials used for the windows and stairwell. where the trees will be located for screening They discussed the Mr. Tagg explained purposes. Com. Mahoney was not in favor of the outside stairwell. Com. Fazekas stated if the penthouse is necessary the same material as used on the building should be used. Chr. Mackenzie suggested the penthouse be designed to look like a skylight or be disguised in some way. Mr. Tagg stated stucco will be used for the penthouse. Corn. Fazekas stated the penthouse should blend in and the stairwell should be inside. He feels the penthouse will be seen from the overpass and could not approve the application at this time. For direction he suggested the penthouse should be disguised or the same granite used. Chr. Mackenzie stated the major concerns are to bring back the curves in the roof line, the stairwell inside ând the penthouse hidden. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Fazekas moved to continue application 11-U-90 to the meeting of August 26, 1991. Corn. Mahoney Passed 5-0 MOTION: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 12, 1991 Page 10 NEW BUSINESS: 8. Discussion of suggestion for Planning commission pre-hearing site visits. Planning Director Cowan stated he had no comments to add to his staff report. He noted the use of slides can be reintroduced if more information is required. Corn. Austin spoke in favor of models and slides. She would like access to videos and feels this would quicken the process of the hearings. Com. Fazekas spoke in favor of slides. He suggested requiring the applicant to provide photos which can be transferred to color transparencies. Com. Mahoney spoke in favor of slides, but not for every application. Chr. Mackenzie spoke in favor of overhead transparencies. Com. Mann suggested visual information. projects. finding out how other cities provide more She suggested site visits for the larger Deputy City Attorney Kershner stated there are due process problems with individual site visits. In response to Com. Fazekas' question Deputy City Attorney Kershner noted if a Commissioner happens to go by a particular site and discloses what he saw at a public hearing this is acceptable. Com. Fazekas suggested aerial photos and locator maps. 10. city of Cupertino: regarding application for basements. Interpretation of Zoning Ordinance of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement Com. Fazekas stated he will be abstaining from this item as he knows an applicant that this affects. Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan stated the concept of FAR is to control height and bulk of a building and a basement, if fully depressed, does not affect these. He stated the basement may be one and one half feet above ground level. Corn. Mann said this should not affect the FAR. Chr. Mackenzie felt it should be totally below ground level. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 12, 1991 Page 11 The Commissioners expressed concern regarding other impacts this may have other than bulk and height. ci ty Planner Wordell stated Los Altos went through a similar exercise and decided to allow basements which would not affect the FAR and there does not seem to be a problem. Mr. Cowan noted basements could be used as second units. Chr. Mackenzie stated that one foot above ground level is acceptable. Com. Mahoney suggested allowing a basement an lowering the FAR. Corn. Mann spoke in support of the basement and the 45% FAR. SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: Com. Austin moved ordinance that a affect the FAR. Com. Mann Passed Com. Fazekas to accept the interpretation of zoning fully depressed basement should not MOTION: 4-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Corn. Austin expressed concern regarding an oak tree hanging over a chimney and the house built close to the tree in a recently developed home. Mr. Cowan explained that the house is built with pier and beam foundation so as not to damage the tree. He noted if the tree is overhanging the chimney it is a problem. Com. Mann suggested the City look into providing parking spaces next to trail entrances, particularly Mid-Peninsula open space areas. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None