Loading...
PC 06-24-91 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, Ck. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 24, 1991 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: commissioners Present: Chairman Mackenzie Vice Chairman Fazekas Commissioner Mann Commissioner Austin commissioners Absent: Commissioner Mahoney staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of community Development Mark Caughey, City Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner I Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Cheryl Kershner, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Fazekas moved to approve the minutes of June 10, 1991, as presented Corn. Mann Passed 4-0 Com. Mahoney SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - None ORAL COtDroNICATIONS: Chr. Mackenzie presented a Resolution to Mr. Mark Caughey. CONSENT CALEIIDAR: - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 24, 1991 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner Project Location: 4-U-91 Ronald Hansen Same 22050 Regnart Road USE PERMIT to allow exemption from the requirements of the Underground Utility Chapter of the Municipal Code to allow an existing overhead utility line to remain in service to an existing residence which is part of a previously approved two- lot subdivision. Staff Presentation: Mr. Travice Whitten presented the staff report noting the previous Tentative Map approved required Condo 9, which obligates undergrounding of utili ties. The applicant is requesting this condo be waived. Mr. Whitten reiterated the staff comments as to why staff would recommend denial of the application as outlined in the staff report. ADDlicant Presentation: Mr. Ronald Hansen, 22050 Regnart Road, outlined various reasons for not locating the utilities below ground, including cost, steep terrain and the loss of tree canopy. He noted putting utilities underground is costly and a financial burden. Mr. Hansen presented photos and slides to the Commission explaining his reasons for the application. Com. Mann questioned about a splice box, Mr. Hansen noted PG&E would not accept this as there is a septic field. Mr. Whitten pointed out a new easement over the driveway which should not exceed 15 percent and that the line running up the driveway would preserve trees. In response to Com. Austin's question Mr. Whitten stated it is technically feasible to have an overhead line for the existing house and a splice box to the new property. Com. Austin also expressed concern about setting precedence if the application were approved. The public hearing was opened. Chr. Mackenzie closed the public hearing. It was a consensus of the Planning commission to support staff's recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 24, 1991 Page 3 SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Fazekas moved to deny application 4-U-91 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with an additional finding that this particular project, although not large in relationship to the hillside area, should participate in removing overhead utilities Com. Austin Passed 4-0 Com. Mahoney MOTION: 2. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Project Location: 1-GPA-91; 2-U-91 Monta vista center/Terry Brown Monta vista Center Partners N. side of Stevens Creek Blvd., 300' west of Mann Drive (old MV Hardware 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 28 semi-detached townhome units on 2.77 gr. acres, and retain the mixed-use 8,400 s.f. commercial/office structure with 10 or more Senior citizen apartments above on the remaining .84 acres. staff Presentation: Mr. Mark Caughey presented the staff report. He requested that the application be presented in two parts, first addressing the General Plan Amendment and then the Use Permit. He noted the "Function" statement of the Monta vista Guidelines has been adhered to and any change from this would require a General Plan Amendment. He noted a retail absorption study has been done in the city. The findings of this study directed future retail growth to the "Grand Blvd." portion of the Stevens Creek corridor. An economic study showed that sales which should have occurred in cupertino are migrating to other nearby markets because these activities are under-represented in the City's trade area. He noted it is not clear which conclusion is correct. Mr. Caughey informed the Commission of the petitions from neighbors supporting a retail center. Com. Fazekas commented on the Sedway Report questioning if the site is suitable for a large retail store? Mr. Caughey noted the study showed the large store had less potential for expanding. Com. Mann suggested staff research a convenience food store rather than a large chain store. Mr. Caughey noted the sedway Report did not specify as to what type of store. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 24, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Cowan stated results of General Plan discussions of the Monta Vista area showed the area would not support a major food store. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Terry Brown noted if this site was suitable for retail it would be in process at this time and stated it is best suited for residential. Mr. Brown stated they had made an effort to lease the buildings as is and the demand is not there. He noted they had talked to Commercial Brokers who feel the site is not suitable for retail. It is his intention to relocate the existing stores into the new development. After talking to retailers in the center, Mr. Brown concluded the site would not support large stores. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Sally Brennan, Directo~ of Cupertino Community services, noted the need for more housing as they have a waiting list for senior housing. She spoke in support of the General Plan change. In response to Com. Fazekas' question Ms. Brennan noted there is an unlimited demand for affordable and senior housing. Mr. Patrick Milligan, 10018 Oakleaf Pl., reiterated his comments from past City Council and Planning commission meetings supporting a retail center. He feels a neighborhood center is needed. Mr. Milligan suggested holding decisions on the General Plan Amendment until the Use Permit is discussed. Ms. Ann Anger, President, Monta vista noted the opportunity for more retail. a General Plan Amendment. Improvement Association, She was not in support of Mr. Wayne Vucenic, 21840 Stevens Creek, spoke in support of keeping the General Plan as is. He noted there is room to add senior housing if needed without redevelopment. Mr. John Vitale, 21830 Oakview Ln., expressed concern regarding the increase in traffic with the new center and also privacy impacts. He supports senior housing, but elsewhere. He spoke in support of leaving the General Plan as is. Mr. Dick Hayes noted the Monta vista Shopping Center is the center of Monta vista and he is not in support of housing on this site. He expressed the need for neighborhood shops and suggested rehabilitation to the site. He noted the General Plan Amendment is not in the best interest of the local residents. He felt smaller shops would be more viable than large stores. Ms. Karen Metzger, 10223 Pasadena Ave., expressed concern regarding traffic flow and the increase in traffic. She also expressed concern regarding high density housing units in the city. Ms. Metzger stated the existing tenants are moving out because they PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 24, 1991 Page 5 cannot afford the new rents. She noted the need for a convenience store in the Monta vista area. Ms. Ann Robertson, President, Oakdell Ranch Homeowners Association, felt the Use Permit and General Plan Amendment cannot be separate. She stated the Use Permit must be considered in light of changing the General Plan. Mr. Terry Brown noted public wants do not drive retailers to open stores. He reiterated his comments regarding unsuccessful attempts to get retailers interested. He noted the plan proposed will create less traffic, there is a need for housing and this is the opportunity to provide some. Com. Fazekas felt there was not enough evidence provided to reword the General Plan. Com. Austin felt they needed to look at the Use Permit and added there is a need for affordable housing. Corn. Mann spoke in support of senior housing and the need for some commercial on site. She felt the food services should be left on the site and written into the conditions. Chr. Mackenzie questioned offices being converted into commercial. Mr. Mark Caughey said there are incentives in the development policy to get retail into office buildings. Chr. Mackenzie noted the wording in the General Plan that neighborhood shopping areas must be provided. Com. Mann suggested the wording food service, minimum 8,000 affordable and senior housing. should include local neighborhood s.f. commercial, provision for Com. Fazekas suggested design and traffic criteria be added to the wording as well as social good and economic viability. Com. Austin felt the area should be retained as is at this point in time. Chr. Mackenzie stated he sees a need for affordable (rental) housing. He feels the reason for the lack of commercial in Monta vista is because of lack of focus and the only way to correct this is to disallow commercial in certain areas. He noted he is willing to make the trade off, enough commercial to meet the needs of the residents and the remainder of the land used for affordable housing. The Commissioners agreed with Chr. Mackenzie's above statement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 24, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Mark Caughey presented the staff report regarding the Use Permit. He pointed out concerns as outlined in the staff report. The City directed the developer to study scheme F and noted staff's concerns about alleys in the development. The mass of the building is a concern and staff suggested the developer present a complete cross section to the Commission. staff requested the site plan be revised with more direction. Parking adequacy was discussed and staff requested to further study this with more direction. Staff feels that there should be more clearly defined pedestrian linkages between the townhome portion of the site and the commercial/senior complex. staff requested the developer return in 30 days. Corn. Fazekas suggested setbacks, building heights, asphalt and structural coverage be addressed by the developer. Com. Mann requested the stairs be shown in better proportion. Mr. Terry Brown noted the drawings are to scale and would like to have the proposed plan considered. MOTION: Com. Fazekas moved to continue application 2-U-91 to July 8, 1991 Com. Mann Passed 4-0 Corn. Mahoney SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: Com. Fazekas moved to continue item #6 to June 26, 1991 at 7 p.m. Com. Mann Passed 4-0 Corn. Mahoney SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: 3 . Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Project Location: 2-EXC-91 Christine Sorensen Keith and Christine Sorensen Westerly terminus of Villa Marie ct., 450 ft west of Rainbow Drive EXCEPTION to section 16.28.040 of the Municipal Code to allow a fence exceeding 3 ft. in height to be located within a front yard setback. Staff Presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman presented the staff report. The proposal is to place a 6 ft. high fence 3 ft. behind the front property line and to place 8 ft. high pillars with wrought iron fencing atop, at the entrance drive, approximately 18' behind the front setback. Ms. B jurman pointed out staff's concerns, including concerns regarding the view triangle. She noted the RHS Ordinance indicated fencing must only encompass an area of 5,000 s.f. in a lot greater than 30,000 s.f. Ms. Bjurman pointed out that the superimposed drawing as submitted by the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 24, 1991 Page 7 applicant is misleading. She noted the applicant's representative pointed out to staff other parcels in the area with fencing greater than the 3 ft. limitation and code enforcement is looking into this. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Keith Sorensen noted they are concerned about people driving onto their property and would like to put up a gate and fence and tie it in aesthetically with the neighborhood. In response to Com. Mann's question Mr. Sorensen noted it is a cyclone fence around the back of the property. In response to Chr. Mackenzie's question regarding the need for a retaining wall Mr. Sorensen stated they want something aesthetic to the area, it dosn't necessarily have to be a retaining wall. He noted it is too steep to move the gate up the hill. Mr. John Singley, Architect noted the problem with placing the gate behind the set back is it would disrupt plantings and the gate would be the view from the valley below. Mr. Singley stated from his interpretation of the Ordinance they only have a 42" high fence, the lower portion would be used as a retaining wall. He noted the 8 ft. pillars and wing wall are behind property setbacks and have received approval from neighbors. He noted the masonry wall on both sides are 30" high. Mr. Singley pointed out the view corridor. The public hearing was opened. Chr. Mackenzie closed the public hearing. Com. Mann noted she would not support this application and would like to see removal of the fence in the back of the property. Corn. Fazekas stated any portion of the wall over 3 ft. high should meet the setback. He noted he is unconvinced this is a special circumstance and would not support the application. Mr. Cowan noted that the applicant can build a fence on the south side of the driveway with a 3 ft. retaining wall and that the 8 ft. wall is acceptable if the neighbors approve. He'noted that what the Commission is looking at is the section of the wall on the North side of the driveway where it is flat. Com. Austin concurred with Com. Fazekas and would not support the application. Chr. Mackenzie stated he would like to avoid walled in projects and would not support the application. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 24, 1991 Page 8 MOTION: Com. Fazekas moved to deny application 2-EXC-91 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Mann Passed 4-0 Com. Mahoney SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: 4. Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Project Location: 5-U-91, 9-EA-91 Mario Landino W.D.V. Partners 20343 Stevens Creek Blvd. (st. Joseph's Center) USE PERMIT to operate a 2,200 s.f. 68 seat sit down restaurant within an existing commercial center. Staff Presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman presented the staff report. She noted the approval of the application creates a deficit of 16 parking spaces which is acceptable to staff because the types of on-site uses require shorter parking periods. She noted the parking problem, if any, would occur between the hours of 11 a.m. - 2 p.m. Ms. Bjurman noted a condo had been added to address any parking problems which may occur in the future as outlined in tþe staff report. A condo on the Use Permit regarding landscaping has been added, requiring an arborist report. Chr. Mackenzie expressed concern regarding the parking deficit. In response to Corn. Mann's question regarding landscaping Ms. Bjurman stated a condition in the original Use Permit required the trees be maintained. Applicant Presentation: Ms. Carla wilki noted they will comply with staff conditions and recommendations. Com. Mann questioned the maintenance of the trees. stated they will comply with the arborist's report. Ms. wilki Mr. Cowan stated a condition could be added requiring the replacement of trees if necessary. Chr. Mackenzie suggested the arborist look at all the trees and the recommendations be implemented. He suggested the arborist's recommendations be adhered to before occupancy. The public hearing was opened. Chr. Mackenzie closed the public hearing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 24, 1991 Page 9 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Mann moved to recommend approval of granting a Negative Declaration Com. Austin Passed 4-0 Com Mahoney Corn. Mann moved to approve application 5-U-91 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following addition to condo 5 the arborist's report should study all trees and his recommendations be implemented and submitted to staff prior to occupancy and if trees need to be replaced they be 48" box trees. Corn. Fazekas Passed 4-0 Com. Mahoney Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Project Location: 5. 4-EXC-91 A. Lagorio Phillip Lenihan 21841 Almaden Ave. EXCEPTION to Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code to require dedication of real property for street improvement purposes. staff Presentation: Mr. Travice Whitten presented the staff report. He noted the basic requirement of the Ordinances for street dedication improvement has not changed since this application was submitted, but the exact nature of the street improvements were changed. He also noted there had been a policy change but had no affect of the street dedication. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Anthony Lagorio noted he applied for the exception on suggestion from the City Attorney. He noted the improvement would not create more traffic and is not detrimental to the public welfare. He feels the request meets all conditions to meet the exception requirement. Mr. Phil Lenihan stated he wanted to preserve as much of the lot as possible. He has stayed 38 ft. from the back fence and does not wish to change this. He noted there are no impact on neighbors. He noted he does not want to apply for a variance~ Com. Austin felt the house would be too big for the lot and would not support the exception. Com. Fazekas stated there are no special circumstances to consider this exception. Corn. Mann concurred noting too much mass on the site which fronts on the street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 24, 1991 Page 10 Chr. Mackenzie concurred with the Commissioners. Com. Fazekas stated the Commission and staff should look at the setbacks in the different neighborhoods within Monta Vista. MOTION: Com. Fazekas moved to deny application 4-EXC-91 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing Com. Austin Passed 4-0 Com. Mahoney SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: NEW BUSINESS: 7. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Discussion of review process for amendment and codification of zoning regulations. staff Presentation: Mr.· Cowan noted the City Attorney has put together a draft codification of the zoning codes. He noted there are two fundamental approaches to consider this as outlined in the staff report. One assigns a separate chapter for each zoning district, the second approach divides the code into functional components. Mr. Cowan noted ways in which the Commission could study the draft Chr. Mackenzie suggested each Commissioner mark up copies of their draft with suggestions and return it to staff. The Commissioners agreed with having a chapter to give to applicants. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Fazekas reported on the Grand Blvd. Sub-Committee. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None