Loading...
PC 08-27-90 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 27, 1990 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: commissioners Present: commissioners Absent: staff Present: vice Chairman Mackenzie Commissioner Adams Commissioner Mann commissioner Fazekas Chairman Claudy Robert Cowan, Director of community Development Mark caughey, City Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner I Greg Grigg, Traffic Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Application NO(S): Applicant: Property OWner: Location: 30-U-89 Sudarshan Sarpangal Sudarshan sarpangal 10629 Felton way REQUESTING a 9 month extension to an existing Use Permit to llow occupancy of a second unit. 2. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 12-TM-88 Robert Leong Taneo Hirano 10911 S. Stelling Road REQUESTING a none year extension to an approved Tentative Map to divide an existing parcel into four lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 27, 1990 Page 2 MOTION: Com. Adams moved to approve the consent calendar as presented Com. Fazekas Passed 4-0 SECOND: VOTE: PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued items) 3. Application No(s): 2-GPA-89, 7-Z-90, 9-U-90, I-DA-90 AND 17-EA-90 Applicant: Westfield, Inc. roperty Owner: Westland Shopping Center L.P. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to increase the development cap for the Vallco Fashion Park regional shopping center from 1,385,000 s.f. to 1,645,000 s.f. REZONING of approximately 5.9 acres at the southeast corner of Wolfe Road and Vallco parkway from P(CG,ML,Office,Hotel) Planned Development with Commercial/Light Industrial/Office/Hotel intent to P(Regional Shopping) Intent, or such other zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning commission or City Council consistent with the General Plan. USE PERMIT to allow net expansion of the Vallco Fashion Park regional shopping center by 260,000 s.f. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Cupertino and westfield, Inc. to assure future development of said Vallco Fashion Park according to land use entitlement granted by the City for a fixed time period, in exchange for defined public benefits granted by Westfield, Inc., and providing for other benefits and obligations to the signatories to said agreement. Staff Presentation: Mr. Mark Caughey presented the staff report. He noted this was a continuation of previous hearings. He noted the purpose of this meeting was to build upon direction given to the developer by the Commission regarding architectural issues and also to make further resolution of some of the points of interest on the Development Agreement and the use permit. Mr. Caughey showed graphics of the proposed development noting the form of development on the Rose Bowl is described as highly urbanized. He noted the developer had presented to staff a series of criteria of design as stated in the staff report. Mr. Caughey presented an outline of the design objectives narrative. Mr. Caughey noted the procedure of the Development Agreement and noted the developer was concerned regarding the future review of use permits to actually draw down the development credits authorized under the General Plan Amendment in the series of application would put the negotiating with major tenants in jeopardy. He noted the developer requested that the building PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 27, 1990 Page 3 permit review process be localized with staff only. He noted that the director of community Development felt that ASAC should be involved in the process. He explained the alternatives of staff and the developer as stated in the staff report. The distribution of building credits was discussed. Mr. caughey explained the potential alternative bridge location. ADDlicant Presentation: Mr. John Endicott stated that the importance of knowing they have approval helps in negotiations with tenants. He noted further public hearings takes away the concept of the Development Agreement. Mr. Endicott explained the architectural design for the proposed development and explained the parking. He noted the alternate location for the bridge was better. The public hearing was then opened. Corn. Adams expressed concern regarding the applicant's request of a Development Agreement without ASAC approval. He felt that ASAC should be part of the Development Agreement. Corn. Mann agreed with Corn. Adams stating that ASAC approval is necessary. Corn. Fazekas stated it was not a major stumbling block to go through ASAC. Corn. Mackenzie stated there is no point of having a Development Agreement if building permits are later subject to discretionary review by a political body. Mr. Bob Cowan explained the informal and formal review of ASAC. He noted that according to the Development Agreement he is given the authority to approve the building permit as long as he makes the finding that it is consistent with the architectural guidelines. He noted if the applicant does not agree with his decision it will go the city Council noting that whether ASAC reviews it or himself it will go to council. He noted the applicant wants assurances noting that the building envelope, the shape of the building and square footage can be assured but the final details will be determined at a later date and there will be discretionary review at that time. In response to Mr. Cowan's question Ms. Leslie Lopez, Deputy City attorney stated that a future city Council could forestall the development. Mr. Endicott stated that if the community Development Director is not happy with what the developer proposes it should then go to the Council and not ASAC which is another public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 27, 1990 Page 4 Com. Mackenzie suggested an informal review with ASAC. In response to Com. Adams suggestions Mr. Endicott stated that to provide the design of the development is not realistic at this time. Com. Adams stated a compromise maybe an alternative. Mr. Cowan stated the final details of the project cannot be defined at this stage, but there will be discretion at the point when the final details are defined. Mr. Endicott stated the major department stores say what they want regarding window detail etc. Com. Fazekas stated he would approve the developer's alternative adding that the Director of Community Development may turn to ASAC, Planning commission or City Council for informal hearings for final details. Com. Adams stated he has reservations about avoiding the pUblic hearing process. Com. Mann concurred with Com. Adams. Mr. Cowan stated that ASAC is a pUblic meeting as opposed to a public hearing noting that only exceptions warrant public hearings. It was agreed by the Commission that a formal meeting would be held by ASAC to review building permits under the use permit and then reviewed by the city Council. Com. Fazekas stated he supported the alternative bridge location across Vallco Parkway. Com. Adams stated he had no preference, but noted the pedestrian and driving traffic will have to be considered. He suggested adequate parking phased during development. Com. Mann expressed concern regarding the levels of parking. In response to Com. Fazekas question Mr. Cowan stated Vallco parking will help shape Tandem Computer Company's parking. Com. Mann suggested free standing department stores. Mr. Caughey explained the layout of the building in the Rose Bowl area and throughout the center noting that zoning allowed mixed use in the Rose Bowl area. Com. Fazekas supported the defined green areas. It was agreed by the Commission that the defined green areas on the graphics were appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 27, 1990 Page 5 Com. Mann stated if the developer built out on the Rose Bowl to reduce the height of the structure, could parking go elsewhere. Mr. Caughey explained the parking noting an entitlement was approved some time ago allowing Westfield to have parking garages necessary to maintain the ratio. He outlined the parking as stated in the staff report and the Development Agreement. He noted parking will be reduced during construction and during holiday periods off-site parking will be required. He noted that parking is not clear at this time. Mr. Caughey showed graphics pointing out the changes on the parking levels which projects no parking over the street level. In response to Corn. Adams question regarding setbacks Mr. Caughey stated the total height above the side walk is 52 feet. Mr. Caughey showed the latest site plan pointing out setbacks. He noted the proposal is 10 ft. on the east and west faces from property line. wi th regards to the trees Mr. Caughey stated the trees at the bridge connection will be lost, noting the developer will work around the other existing trees. Corn. Adams expressed concern regarding trees lost as the conceptual plan seems to indicate. Com. Mann suggested not approving the envelope to take in the entire piece of property leaving the lower one quarter at the eastern side not to be built on. Com. Mackenzie did not agree with this. In response to Com. Adams question regarding street window display Mr. Caughey stated the display window concept would be on Wolfe Rd. as well as Vallco Parkway. In response to Com. Adams Mr. Caughey stated the bus area still had to be defined by public works but had suggested under the bridge. In response to Corn. Adams question Mr. Endicott stated there will be loading dock facilities for service areas. Corn. Mackenzie stated the main concern of the Commission was the size and bulk of the Rose Bowl area. Com. Adams questioned the effect of this shopping center with neighborhood shops. Corn. Fazekas felt shopping centers. to Cupertino. that this will not compete with neighborhood Corn. Mackenzie felt it will bring shopping back Mr. Caughey explained the change in approach on the use permit which go with the Development Agreement as stated in the staff report. He noted if the use permit and Development Agreement don't PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 27, 1990 Page 6 travel together the use permit will have to be revisited. He went on to explain the alternative of permitted uses as stated in the staff report. He noted the Planning Commission wished to follow rules already existing in Vallco Fashion Park. Mr. Caughey noted the developer has another approach which would allow late evening activities anywhere in the center without any use permit review, based on a self regulatory process according to industry standards. He noted staff was concern about this and suggested late evening activities on the east end of Wolfe Rd. He noted sales events would be restricted to events pertaining to the center as a whole including a permit process through the Director of Community Development. Com. Mackenzie suggested that the Director should consider the City in general when considering late evening hours. The Commissioners agreed with staff alternative. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Caughey stated staff suggestion regarding late hours applied to the existing shopping center as well as the proposal. Mr. Caughey referred to the Access as stated in Condo 16 in the Staff report. He noted the previous suggestion was a clover leaf access which Westfield was not happy with. Mr. Terry Ferrari, Architect, explained the layout of parking pointing out the flow of traffic in and out of the center. The Commissioners were all in favor of the parking and flow of traffic explained by Mr. Ferrari. Mr. Caughey explained the mixed use entitlement as stated in the staff report. He stated the ice rink and child care facilities would be treated as shopping center amenities as directed by the Commission. They are open to the public and will remain as long as the Fashion Park continues to operate. He noted the developers are not responsible for operating the child care facility, it is a tenant and would prefer to be required to participate in child care issues as required by the City. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Caughey stated the Ice Rink should be tied to the length of the Development Agreement and stated that it will be tied to the use permit as a condition for as long as the use permit exists. Com. Mann stated she would like to see the child care in the center. Com. Fazekas stated he would like to see the child care stay to serve the community. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 27, 1990 Page 7 Mr. Endicott stated that if the City adopted a child care requirement they will be excluded from this because of the existing child care facility. If the requirement by the City comes into affect they will have the option of keeping the tenant and will keep the operation. Com. Adams stated he had no objections to Mr. Endicott's suggestion but noted if that be the case the floor area calculations should be part of the total. Ms. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendhal Ln., expressed concern regarding housing for the employees the shopping center will bring. Com. Mackenzie stated he was looking for city amenities out of the Development Agreement. He noted the ice rink and child care improve the quality of life in Cupertino and spoke in favor of locking them in. Com. Fazekas stated he would support staff's suggestion stating if the City did require child care it could be negotiable with Westfield. Com. Adams stated the child care is not an amenity to Vallco. He noted he had no objection to Mr. Endicott request. Com. Mackenzie suggested putting an amendment in the Development Agreement in the case of a city requirement for child care. Mr. Endicott stated a specific tenant. should be available they would like the freedom not to be tied to Com. Mackenzie stated it was the service that in the center. Com. Mackenzie modified condo 18 to include the word "otherwise" before "result in closure of said facilities" and to delete the last part of the last sentence starting with "consistent" in the second paragraph of condition 18. Mr. Caughey went on to discuss the park and ride lot stating staff would like to see it implemented on the site in close proximity to bus turnouts that will occur on Wolfe Rd. He stated the developers approach is to suggest the actual number of spaces to be encompassed in the park and ride lot would be based on the demonstration of need by the transit. He stated staff want to require 75 spaces to include it in the agreement. Com. Adams, Com. recommendation. Fazekas and Com. Mann support staff's Com. Mackenzie stated that these park and ride lots usually self regulate. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 27, 1990 Page 8 Mr. Caughey stated that the terms of the agreement between the Transit District and the owner of private property have to be explicit, because of liability issues etc. He noted staff would like to be explicit noting the Transit District request 75 spaces. Mr. Caughey explained the single user space reservation noting that enough space must be reserved for a major tenant. He stated that the Commission had previously requested 100,000 s.L, but the developer had requested 80,000 s.f. as this was appropriate. The Planning Commission accepted the developer's request. Mr. Caughey went on to explain the payment of impact fee noting the revision to Condo 23 as stated in the staff report. He noted the staff alternative was eliminated he noted he was not suggesting the intent of the impact fee be tied to the use permit. He noted the intent of the 20 year time frame runs from the time the development agreement is recorded. Com. Mackenzie stated it should be annual payment of impact fee. He also modified the dates for the holiday period in Condo 17 stating they should be changed to Nov 25 - Jan 5. Com. Mann expressed concern regarding housing and suggested that the east end of the development could be apartments for employees etc. She stated it was a prime area for housing. She noted she would not make this mandatory, but would like to see it investigated. Com. Adams concurred with Com. Mann Com. Fazekas and Com. Mackenzie did not support this suggestion. Mr. Caughey stated he would add a paragraph to the staff report regarding housing. The commissioners discussed the trees. Mr. Ferrari indicated were the trees are and which ones will be removed. Mr. Endicott stated trees removed will be replaced. Mr. Caughey stated a drawing of the set backs and the trees will be presented at the next meeting. MOTION: Com. Fazekas moved to continue applicant 2-GPA-89, 7-Z- 90, 9-U-90, 1-DA-90 AND 17-EA-90 to September 10, 1990, 7:30 p.m. Com. Adams Passed 4-0 SECOND: VOTE: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 27, 1990 Page 9 4. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 8-U-90 Hillview Bible Church Hillview Bible Church 1160 S. Stelling Road USE PERMIT to construct a 2,580 square foot addition to the existing building and related site improvements. Staff Presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman presented the staff report. She noted it was an applicantion to build a 2000 s.f. addition to an existing church facility. She noted there was concern regarding on and off-site parking stating the applicant was unable to secure an agreement for long term off-site parking. She noted precedent cases only counted paid employees for parking. Volunteer employees were not calculated into the parking requirements. Ms. Bjurman explained staff's study of the parking. She presented graphics outlining the proposed parking noting that the city Engineer was concerned regarding back-up space. She noted that four parking stalls will be lost to allow for a fire lane. Ms. Bjurman stated the applicant had established a Parking Management Plan. She noted there was concern from ASAC regarding the architecture stating the applicant is willing to change after direction from the commission. She stated that staff is concerned regarding the existing parking problem. In response to Com. Fazekas question Ms. Bjurman stated the City of cupertino do not have guidelines for tandem parking noting parking monitors will be on-site. Com. Adams stated that standards for church parking need to be updated. Aoolicant Presentation: Mr. Kurt Useldinger, Architect showed the proposal at this time as opposed to the previous proposal. He r'loted proposed is a 30 percent increase in building and a 48 percent increase in parking noting the only time there would be a parking difficult would be on Sunday for the 11 a.m. service. He stated the building will not encroach into the sanitary easement. Mr. Useldinger explained the parking management plan proposing tandem parking and car pooling. He noted that only two parking stalls will be lost to accommodate the fire lane and stated parking monitors will be on-site to ensure no over parking on the streets. Mr. Bill Patterson stated that growth of people attending is not their aim noting the number is limited with the auditorium seating. He noted the effort is to update their classroom standards noting there will be no increase in the number of student. Mr. Patterson stated that after a study of the parking for several months there were virtually no full size cars. He noted satellite parking is easy to come by. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 27, 1990 Page 10 Ms. Bjurman stated that the Traffic Engineer recommended removing all tandem parking which is a total of 16 stalls. Com. Fazekas spoke in opposition to tandem parking. He stated he would like to see more landscaping. Com. Mackenzie expressed concern regarding future property owners who will have the parking problem and not monitor it. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to close the public hearing Com. Fazekas Passed 4-0 Com. Adams moved to grant a Negative Declaration Com. Mann Com. Fazekas Passed 3-1 Com. Adams moved to approve application 8-U-90 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Condo 8 to read exhibit sheets 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 dated March 28,1990 and sheet 2 dated 8-15-90; Condo 12 to read "landscape plan to ASAC review prior to issuance of the building permit, ASAC to consider replacement specie for proposed removed specimen pine, color rejuvenation of any existing plant materials and screening of any second story elements. Com. Mann Com. Fazekas Passed 3-1 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - (New Items): Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 2-GPA-90 and 30-EA-90 Cupertino Hotel Ventures Cupertino City Center Associates "D" South side of Stevens Creek Blvd. 300 ft. east of De Anza Blvd. REQUEST to amend Table 2-A of the Land Use/Community Character Element of the General Plan to increase from 240 to 250 the allowed number of rooms within the hotel complex authorized for site A under said Table. Staff Presentation: Mr. Bob Cowan presented the staff report. He noted there was a general plan limitation for the number of rooms on the site. He explained the number was proposed by the applicant. He noted there was another General Plan policy stating the hotel should not be expanded significantly if it may damage the marketability of the hotel in Vallco Park, which is now a dead issue. He stated the 10 rooms will not change in the parking PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 27, 1990 Page 11 requirements and the architectural design will not be changed. The public hearing was then opened MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to close the public hearing Com. Fazekas Passed 4-0 Com. Adams moved to grant a Negative Declaration Com. Mann Passed 4-0 Com. Adams sUbject to hearing. Com. Mann Passed moved to recommend approval of 2-GPA-90 the findings and subconclusions of the 4-0 Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6. 1-V-90 Jenny and Hugh Jackson Jenny and Hugh Jackson South side of stevens Creek Blvd. 300 ft. east of De Anza Blvd. VARIANCE to section 8.4.3 of Ordinance 1449 to reduce the required second story setback surcharge for a second story addition to an existing single-family residence. Staff Presentation: Ms Michele Bjurman presented the staff report. She noted under the single family ordinance a requirement for second story there is a surcharge of 15 square feet, five of which must be applied to the side yard. Ms. Bjurman explained that the applicant apply the surcharge to the east side as explained in the staff report. She stated it was the opinion of staff that the applicant does not meet the criteria to obtain a variance. She stated staff is concerned regarding the adjoining property as they were not fully developed at this time. Com. Fazekas stated he would be abstaining from this item. ADDlicant Presentation: Mr. Jackson, 22460 Cupertino Road presented the Commissioner with photographs of the adjoining properties explaining what each photo showed. He stated that the closest neighbor was 75 feet away. Mr. Jackson stated that there have been no objections from neighbors and noted that privacy should not be a factor. Mr. Jackson explained why they request the extension as proposed. The public hearing was then opened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 27, 1990 Page 12 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to close the public hearing Com. Mann Passed 4-0 Com. Mann stated that she felt Mr. Jackson has fulfilled the variance criteria. She noted it was an unusual lot size, not granting the variance prohibits enjoyment of property rights and the flag lot cannot be seen from the street. Com. Mackenzie stated Mr. Jackson has had the rights to enjoy his property rights by living on the property. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Adams moved for a denial of application 1-V-90 Com. Mackenzie Com. Mann Com. Fazekas Passed 2-1 7. NEW BUSINESS: Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 28-U-88 (2nd Amendment) Landmark Development Larry Guy Northeast quadrant of Rainbow Dr. and Gardenside Lane. REQUESTING approval of a minor amendment to an existing Use Permit to change approved architectural elevations and add 20 s.f. floor area to 8 of 36 dwelling units. Staff Presentation: Mr. Bob Cowan presented the staff report explaining a modification was requested to the approved plans to incorporate space to enlarge dining rooms by 20 square feet for each room. He noted as Planning Director he approved the interior lots, but the Commission should approve the exterior lots. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to approve application 28-U-88 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing Com. Fazekas Passed 4-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: - None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None