Loading...
PC 04-08-91 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 APRIL 8, 1991 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: commissioners Present: Chairman Mackenzie (arrived 7:30 p.m.) Vice Chairman Fazekas Commissioner Mann Commissioner Mahoney Commissioner Austin staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Mark Caughey, city Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner I Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Charles Kilian, City Attorney Cheryl Kershner, Deputy city Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of March 25, 1991. Corn. Mahoney Chr. Mackenzie Passed 4-0 SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None CONSENT CALENDAR: - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 8, 1991 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 16-TM-90 Sobrato Development Sobrato Interests II East side of De Anza Blvd. Mariani Ave. & I-280 between VESTING TENTATIVE MAP to create a six lot sUbdivision with parcels ranging in size from 0.6 acres to 1.2 acres with one additional lot held in common ownership. Request to redefine the Standard of Success of the Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Program to allow for a maximum noise exposure level at the adjacent residential property line from 64 dBA to the maximum extent allowed under the City Noise Code. Staff Presentation: Mr. Mark Caughey explained the procedure for vesting a project. He presented an outline, with two major issues to be discussed, those being, principal and technical concerns. He noted the focus of the debate at this hearing is whether this type of application is within the public interest? If it is, do the CC&R's and other documents protect the City's interest to ensure the conditions of the Use Permit will be applied? Staff feels the documents presented to the Commission do protect the City's interest. Regarding the principal issue Mr. Caughey stated the main topic is the Use Permit Conditions, staff has prepared a "Concordance" as outlined in the staff report which explains the obligations and the developers effort to assure the Commission that the conditions will be followed out. In response to Com. Fazekas' question Mr. Caughey stated staff considers the map period and the Use Permit validity period to be the same. In response to Com. Mahoney's question Mr. Kilian stated that staff has asked the Commissioners to decide whether a Tentative Vesting Map includes the Use Permit entitlement? Mr. Kilian gave an explanation of the Planning Law, which deals with use permit entitlement, in addition there is the Subdivision Map Act, with separate rules and issues and how they relate to this application. Mr. Kilian stated if changes were requested in a few years the developer would have to apply for a map change. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Bill Burns, explained why the Vesting Tentative Map was the Motorola buildings will be demolished and Sobrato Development, requested. He noted substantial fees have PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 8, 1991 Page 3 to be paid to a lender. Regarding the CC&R's Mr. Burns stated the City is a beneficiary of the CC&R's which state that the City has the right to enforce certain provisions of the CC&R' s and the developer cannot amend these without approval from the city. In response to Com. Austin's question Mr. Burns stated the CC&R's run with the land as do other agreements. Mr. Caughey reviewed the technical issues. He noted, as suggested by Corn. Mackenzie, a correlation document was prepared which is the Concordance. The issue of the Transportation Demand Management Program was explained. He noted the TDM agreement explains how the program will work. with regards to the Termination Performance staff feels the termination clause needs to be reworded to ensure the monitoring process is on-going. In response to Com. Mahoney's question Mr. Caughey stated the TDM program goes into effect two years after full occupancy. Mr. Bob McIntyre, Apple Computer Inc., ensured that no mitigation measures were being stopped. The request at this hearing is to stop the constant monitoring program only. He noted trip generations have been measured in other Apple buildings in the area and came up with 1.7 trips at peak hour traffic. He noted the TDM measures will be done. Regarding timing and phasing of the project, Mr. McIntyre stated the intent is to build all six buildings out at the beginning and the phasing planned is only an amount of time to allow occupancy of the buildings, they are planning a 12 month occupancy period. Mr. McIntyre felt the need for constant measuring of the TDM program is not necessary if all the rules are followed. He suggested applying half of the measures at day one and if it is not successful then the second half of the TDM measures will come into play. He felt if the rules were not conformed to, the Use Permit could be revoked. Corn. Mann stated that there is no guarantee that Apple will always control the building. Com. Mahoney suggested a compromise to leave the monitoring open. He would like the ability for staff to enforce the measuring if a problem occurred. Mr. Kilian suggested having a procedure, to waive the monitoring any given year. Mr. Cowan stated that the City will approve an overall TDM program sometime in the future, and it could be stated that this procedure must comply with the City Ordinance. Com. Austin supported an on-going monitoring. Chr. Mackenzie suggested an annual monitoring requirement, of which the Director of Public Works has the authority to waive if no problems arise or substitute another ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 8, 1991 Page 4 Mr. MCIntyre stated if a law is passed they will comply, but an easier solution for the developer is to work out with staff what the conditions are and work through them. Commissioners agreed on the annual monitoring requirement giving the Director of Public Works the authority to waive it any given year. Mr. Caughey discussed modification of the construction noise exposure limits. He noted the 64 db as stated in the staff report is unrealistic and the Noise Ordinance allows a maximum of 80 db during construction and would like this 64 modified to the 80 db. The commissioners agreed with the modification. The street and bridge improvements were discussed. Mr. Caughey stated Sobrato Development has agreed to take sole obligation to complete the bridge improvements also the right-of-way acquisitions and improvement costs if necessary. Sobrato has provided a separate agreement for this as they do not want it to run with the land. Mr. Caughey noted the City Attorney had concerns regarding the annual renewal of the Irrevocable Letter of Credit and would like a longer term commitment. staff questioned if the letter of credi t should ref lect not only the base amount, but also the inflated value as well. Mr. Kilian felt this is a technical issue and decision making should be with the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney. He felt as a policy matter the Planning Commission should specify the letter of credit to be irrevocable in its form with its term to be left up to the discretion of staff. He felt the $1 million should be increased as well as the security. Mr. Whitten stated he feels the letter of credit is a technical issue to be worked out with the lender and City Attorney. Mr. John Sobrato, Sobrato Development, stated they have tried to secure a long term letter of credit, but the bank will not write a letter of credit for the amount required. He noted the bank is willing to write a letter of credit for $1 million with an automatic provision that if the letter of credit is not renewed 30 days before it expires, the City staff should call the bank. The other issue he addressed is the letter of credit has to be renewed and increased for the Marshall & Swift construction index. He noted he was able to have the bank write the first letter of credit for two years. Chr. Mackenzie stated the longer term letter of credit gives the ci ty better protection, which he feels is more important than indexing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 8, 1991 Page 5 Corn. Mahoney stated the magnitude of the project is preventing the longer term for the letter of credit and feels the City should follow up. Corn. Mann suggested leaving the discussions between staff, the applicant and the City Attorney, which the Commission agreed. Mr. Caughey pointed out the two extraordinary fees required are Housing Impact Mitigation and Public Art. These fees have been folded into the standard improvement agreement. In response to Corn. Fazekas' question Mr. Caughey stated the Housing Mitigation fee is due when 390,000 s.f. of the building is occupied and went on to explain how the housing mitigation fee was established. Mr. Caughey explained the changes in the CC&R's relating to Section 7.1 which pertains to permitted uses. Corn. Mahoney noted the figures of the trips generated in Condo 15 do not add up. In response to Com. Fazekas' question regarding condition of the CC&R's not being met, Mr. Caughey stated there are different procedures for different problems. Staff would work out the issue wi th the Property Owners Association, if not, . a public hearing would be called. Mr. Kilian stated there are a number of ways to deal with this. Chr. Mackenzie gave suggestions to modify the CC&R's and the conditions. He did not support allocation of parking spaces for individual tenants. He noted his intent of condition 19 of the Use Permit was to allow no more that 8 percent for allocation and for van pooling only. Mr. Caughey stated that staff anticipated multiple ownership of the buildings and certain spaces would be allocated for car and van pools. Mr. Burns stated they would like the flexibility for visitor parking and executive parking. He noted the 8 percent requirement for van pooling is under the TDM program. Chr. Mackenzie stated he is concerned about section 2.16 of the CC&R's and a problem with street parking arising. Mr. McIntyre stated the garage parking is controlled by the Owners Association and feels it is necessary to allocate parking for individual parcels. He feels there is a need to mandate share of parking according to size of building and feels it is appropriate PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 8, 1991 Page 6 to allocate parking in case of other owners moving in to one of the buildings. Mr. Sobrato stated they would like the flexibility to allocate parking spaces. He noted there is adequate parking on-site and stated it is not likely that they will have to parcel out specific parking spaces for many years, but would like the option to do so. Corn. Mahoney felt there is a need for some allocation for visitors and Company cars. Com. Fazekas suggested 8 percent for van pooling and 2 percent for executives, but should be kept as a common parking area. He feels the TDM program should be managed on-site. Corn. Mann felt allocation should be allowed and if there is a problem, they then work it out with the City. Mr. Cowan suggested developing a proportion of parking spaces to each lot based upon the total number of spaces available and the square footage of the building. Chr. Mackenzie felt the best utilization for the parking spaces is common parking without allocation. Chr. Mackenzie expressed concern regarding the CC&R's: Section 6.1, could be construed that anyone could put up a fence. Mr. Caughey stated the minimum set back line as well as zoning controls are dictated by the approved Development Plans which are referenced in Condi tion 11 of the Use Permit. Chr. Mackenzie was concerned regarding specific language of Section 6.1 relating to the fence. Mr. Kilian suggested any structures including fences should be approved by the applicable City's ASAC approval. Section 6.3 should require City approval; Section 7.1 (3), Chr. Mackenzie noted 10,000 s.f. of retail space can only be allocated once and not to every building, which needs to be clarified. Mr. MCIntyre stated they would like the flexibility to put half the retail in one building and the other half in another building. It was decided by the Commission that the City Attorney would work on the wording for Section 7.1(3). Section 7.5 needs to have City approval; Section 7.7, City approval; Section 7.10(a) delete the word qualitative and monitoring process should be preformed at the Association's expense; Section 8.3, Term: CC&R's dissolve after 30 years, Chr. Mackenzie questioned whether the City should have to approve this dissolution? He noted the Use Permit would protect this; Section PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 8, 1991 Page 7 8.7(e) paragraph 5 needs to be clarified, add a preamble statement, property owner must comply to City Ordinance. It was noted that the City Attorney would clarify the wording on the changes. Mr. Caughey reiterated the changes made by the Commissioners as follows: Condo 13 of Model Resolution, the Commissioners agreed that monitoring could be waived upon the opinion of the Director of Public Works, this will be reflected in the TDM program as well as the CC&R's; CC&R document changes, section 6.1, reference back to any requirement for applicable City approvals; section 6.3 City approval is necessary to change the landscape plan; section 7.1(3) Clarification of allocation rules by which the Association distributes up to 20,000 s.f of retail space in to two 10,000 s.f. increments; section 5, require city approval; section 7.1(a) delete reference to qualitative noise levels and just discuss noise levels. Add notation that the monitoring process shall be preformed at the expense of the Property Owner's Association; Page 27, section (e), paragraph 5, add preamble statement, notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph that the property Owners Association would have an obligation to comply with city parking requirements. Mr. Kilian added with regards to the bridge improvements that the security provisions for the $300,000 would, not only be subject to the CPI, security instrument approved by the City Staff and widening and $1 million and but also to a city Attorney. MOTION: Com. Fazekas moved to recommend approval of a Negative Declaration Com. Austin Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: SECOND: VOTE: Com Fazekas moved to subject to the findings with the above changes Com. Mahoney Passed recommend approval of 16-TM-90 and subconclusions of the hearing reiterated by Mr. Caughey. MOTION: 5-0 2 . Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 2-TM-91 Charles Chang, AlA Ching Chen Lin Southwest corner of Seeber ct. & Stelling Road. PARCEL MAP to subdivide 1 acre gross into four lots ranging in size from 7,593 s.f. to 9,005 s.f. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reiterated the discussion at the last hearing noting a five lot sub division was denied by the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 8, 1991 Page 8 Planning Commission and the was now presenting a four consistent with the General City Council. He noted the applicant lot subdivision and the project is Plan and Zoning classifications. A brief discussion was held regarding the orientation of the lots, noting concerns from a resident in the neighborhood. Mr. Cowan stated the lots are compatible with the surrounding lots in area and staff is more favorable to have the lots face front yard to front yard, rather that front yards onto stelling. In response to Corn. Mann's question Mr. Cowan stated the street width is 30 ft. which is City standard. In response to Chr. Mackenz ie's question Mr. Cowan noted any discussion or concerns regarding the lot line between parcels 2 and 3 will be worked out at staff level. Mr. Cowan noted the large pine tree is controlled by the City. Chr. Mackenzie closed the public hearing. Com. Mann spoke in favor of the four lot subdivision. Com. Mahoney noted he would support the application with the front yards facing onto Seeber ct. Com. Fazekas expressed concern regarding the wiç:jth of the street and on-street parking, but would support the application at this time. Corn. Austin spoke in favor of the application as did Chr. Mackenzie. MOTION: Corn. Fazekas moved to approve of application subject to the findings and subconclusions of the with Condo 13 reworded to reflect the trees revised plan submitted; Condo 17 deleted. Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0 2-TM-91 hearing on the SECOND: VOTE: 3. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 1-U-91 Craig Baker Rick Fratarcangeli 10280 Imperial Avenue USE PERMIT to operate an automotive repair shop in an existing 2,677 s.f. building currently located within the County of Santa Clara. Staff Presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman described the surrounding uses in the area which are commercial/industrial as well as residential. She noted the proposed auto repair operation will PI~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 8, 1991 Page 9 include the use of power tools. Staff is concerned regarding noise as the noise level will exceed the level allowed by the Ordinance. Ms. Bjurman reiterated the conditions which will be imposed if the application is approved, as outlined in the staff report. She noted the existing building lacks architectural detail. Staff and ASAC suggested landscaping improvement, window element improvements as well are architectural detail along the roof line. She noted the applicant did improve his site plan to include some landscaping along the front of the building as well as awnings. Staff included a condition which would require the applicant to have a tiled accent along the roofline. wi th regards to lighting, staff recommend the removal of the existing building mounted light as the City Engineer feels it is insufficient, and replace it with lighting fixtures in the parking lot, final approval would go to ASAC. No off-site parking will be allowed by employees or autos being repaired and no on-site parking in the evening. No outdoor storage will be allowed. Ms. Bjurman noted the Monte vista Specific Plan identifies two cuI de sacs, the purpose being to separate the residential uses from industrial. Conditions requiring dedication for the fulfillment of the cuI de sac has been applied to this Use Permit. She noted this change of use would most likely be the conversion of residential uses to those uses more compatible with industrial/commercial use and could resul t in a net reduction in housing. She noted staff is recommending approval subject to annexation. In response to Com. Fazekas question Ms. Bjurman stated she would like to see more architectural detail. Applicant Presentation: Mr. craig Baker noted all vehicles will be repaired indoors. As for landscaping, space is limited. He feels they have made a good attempt to comply with ASAC suggestions regarding architecture. The gate system has been removed completely. The use of the power tools will be limited and does not feel this is a problem. In response to Com. Mann's question, Mr. Baker stated nine parking spaces are not necessary, but are all paved. Mr. Baker noted there was originally 10 parking spaces one had been removed and landscaping will be added. Corn. Mann suggested ASAC look at the possibility of landscaping in parking stall number 1. In response to Com. Austin's question Mr. Baker noted there are three employees, which still leaves six parking spaces. The public hearing was then opened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 8, 1991 Page 10 Ms. Janet Johnson expressed concern regarding problems with traffic and noise. She noted there is a problem with cars parking in front of residences and felt the proposed sound wall is not adequate. The Commissioners discussed the cud de sac and where the street ended. Mr. Travis Whitten stated there is a portion of right-of-way missing, currently the street is closed at the north end of the new subdivision off McClellan Road, staff have been negotiating with the owner and may be in a position to obtain the portion of the right-of-way and are ultimately planning to conform this to the General Plan. Mr. Ernie Mindickey gave the history of the uses of the proposed lot, he noted he bought his adjoining lot with the assumption that the proposed lot would be left vacant. He expressed concern regarding noise, especially early morning, and stated his bedroom window is only 9 ft. away from the building. He feels brighter lights are not needed and parking currently, is a problem. Ms. Jillian Kelly stated there are five auto shops in the area and noted no more were needed. She expressed concern regarding noise, parking problems and increase in traffic. Mr. Rick Fratarcangeli, Property Owner, noted that Imperial Ave. is a neglected street. He noted his is the General Manager of the Limo Service and did work with the neighbors. He stated the operating hours for the auto shop will be day time only and when the cuI de sac is completed it will eliminate some traffic. In response to Chr. Mackenzie's question Mr. Fratarcangeli stated the BMW shop does not have a sound wall, only a fence. He noted the windows of the proposed building will be blocked on the fire wall. Com. Mann suggested minimum usage on the property until such time as the cuI de sac is constructed. Ms. Kershner, Deputy City Attorney, stated restrictions can be put on the property. Mr. Cowan stated the property is zoned for light industrial uses and the city cannot control the occupancy, unless for auto repair. Chr. Mackenzie closed the public hearing. Chr. Mackenzie suggested extending the sound wall to buffer residents to the south. Mr. Travis whitten stated there would be a site distance problem for cars leaving and entering the building and this would have to be reviewed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 8, 1991 Page 11 Com. Mahoney suggested a sound buffering placed in front of the building. Corn. Fazekas stated they are not obligated to approving an auto shop in this PD zone. He does not see a need for another auto shop in the area. Com. Mann stated if the auto shop is approved then another use can corne in which could be noisier and more of a problem. Com. Austin did not oppose this application as she felt the City had some control regarding noise and traffic. If another occupant moved in, other that auto, they would have no control and more problems could arise. Com. Mahoney spoKe in favor of the project, as did Com. Mann and Chr. Mackenzie. Com. Mackenzie suggested adding a condition that the applicant must apply for a building permit and bring the building up to building code. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration Corn. Mann Passed 5-0 MOTION: MOTION: Com. Mann moved to recommend approval application 1-U-91 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing adding Condition 13, applicant must apply for a building permit and bring the building up to code. Com. Austin Corn. Fazekas Passed 4-1 SECOND: NOES: VOTE: 4. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 15-U-80 Revised Bob Varrelmann, AIA Oks ana okopnyi 10366 Miller Avenue USE PERMIT previously resthome. REVISION to allow a second story addition above a approved first story addition to an existing Staff Presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman reiterated the background of this project noting the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Use Permit to add a second story addition above the previously approved first story. The use is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Designation. She noted the proposed building coverage and Floor Area is beyond that which would normally be permitted in the Multi-Family Residential zoning District. The result of this is less on-site open space and off-site visual and privacy impacts. Ms. Bjurman reiterated the setbacks allowed under the 1989 Use PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 8, 1991 Page 12 Permit. staff now recommends a 10 ft. first floor setback, 20 ft. second floor setback and a 6ft side yard setback. She noted the proposed parking is in accordance with City requirements, but staff recommend that the front yard fence be brought into conformance wi th the residential fence to make two of the parking spaces standard. In response to Com. Mann's question regarding lodgers, Ms. Bjurman stated the proposal is not to increase occupancy level, but for office space only. Com. Fazekas expressed concern regarding parking, noting cars will have to back out onto the traffic lane of Miller Ave. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Bob Varrelmann, AlA, noted the applicant is requesting to put the building back to the original design and bring it up to code. He noted with staff's requirements for setback they will lose either a bedroom or laundry room. He noted the additional second story is for office space only. The Commissioners and Mr. Varrelmann discussed the setbacks. Bjurman showed the original plan approved with the laundry approved at 3 1/2 foot mark. Ms. room Chr. Mackenzie stated he would not oppose readjusting the first floor, but expressed concern regarding the addition to the second story. Com. Faze.kas stated he did not approve of the addition to the second floor Mr. Varrelmann stated the second story addition is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In response to Com. Mann's question Mr. Varrelmann stated if this is not approved it will not effect the residents. Com. Austin felt there is a need for office space. Com. Fazekas stated he would be in favor of changing the first floor, but would not support the office space because of a public safety issue regarding cars backing onto Miller Ave. MOTION: Com. Fazekas moved to continue application 15-U-80 Revised to the meeting of April 22, 1991 Com. Mann Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: PLANNING COKl!ISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 8, 1991 Page 13 NEW BUSINESS: Discussion of the proposed "Marchese" Office/Residential Development in the City of Santa Clara, S/W corner of Wolfe and Homestead Roads, and comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report. staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey noted the material sent to the Commissioners is an excerpt from the EIR for the Marchese Project, in the City of Santa Clara, but presents concerns regarding traffic and housing to the City of Cupertino. He noted the Traffic Engineer has reviewed the traffic study from Santa Clara and has questioned the methodology used, noting this method is not used by most other cities and Santa Clara need to use the same standard as other cities. Mr. Caughey stated they are concerned about the housing methodology, noting the City of Santa Clara do not use the ABAG methodology, the method they use overstates the jobs/housing ratio as well as the impacts. He noted staff will comment back to Santa Clara regarding their methodology used, which they don't think is reliable. Mr. Caughey noted this project is a huge development and the City of Cupertino must have an understanding of the impacts of this project and the documents Santa Clara provided are not giving that. Mr. Caughey asked for comments from the Commission. Com. Fazekas noted that Santa Clara has a jobs/housing imbalance and have turned down several mixed-use projects and noted this is an ideal site for residential property. He stated housing mitigation needs to be addressed. He questioned the Transit Plan. Mr. caughey stated one of the criticisms is the EIR does not address pending regional transportation planning al ternati ves, noting transit options need to be discussed. He noted the most serious impact, in terms of traffic, are at Stevens Creek Blvd and I-280 and staff are concerned about grid lock within the City of cupertino. Com. Fazekas noted there could be alternate sites by Great America which could be considered. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Fazekas reported on the Mayor's Luncheon Com. Austin commented on using videos for presentation of sites in question, at the Planning commission Meeting. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None