Loading...
PC 03-12-90 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGUIAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 12, 1990 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Chairman claudy Vice Chairman Makenzie Commissioner Adams commissioner Mann Commissioner Fazekas commissionêrs Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Michele Bjurman, Planner I Travice Whitten, Assistant city Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - none POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 1: Aoolication 1-TM-90 (Trioiano) continuance to April 9, 1990. ITEM 5: ITEM 6: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 7: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Applicant requests Aoolication continuance subdivision 18-TM-89 (Miller) to April 9, 1990: map to increase from Applicant requests applicant to modify two to three lots. Aoolication 2-U-90 Futuretainment) - Applicant requests continuance; staff recommends April 9, 1990. Com. Mackenzie moved to continue items 1, 5 and 6 to April 9, 1990 Com. Adams Passed 5-0 APplication 31-U-88 (Lucas Dealershio Grouo) - Applicant requests continuance to March 26, 1990. Com. Mackenzie moved to continue item 7 to March 26, 1990 Com. Adams Passed 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: -none ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: -none PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 12,1990 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR: -none PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Application No.(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 5-EXC-89 Lance Geselbracht Lance Geselbracht 22336 Regnart Road EXCEPTION to section 16.28.040 (1) to allow a fence exceeding 3 ft. in height to be located in a front setback area. staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan gave the staff presentation. He stated this application was for a fence acceptance on the Nellis Subdivision. He pointed out this particular area is zoned Rl-80 and not RHS because the RUS zone did not exist when this property was zoned. Mr. Cowan stated the applicant proposes to have a gate which would be located within the 20 ft. setback requirement and this is the purpose of the applicants request. Mr. Cowan explained the General Plan policy which was adopted prior to Nellis Subdivision. It stated that fencing should be around the building rather than around the property line. He stated that the RUS zone does not allow solid fencing over 5,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Also, the General Plan states that no fencing is allowed which prohibits the migration of wild animals. He suggested that the Commission should request a hearing to change this particular section to provide for more open type of fencing or change the hillside policy. He also suggested a public hearing to rezone the R1 property to RHS be initiated. He stated that the Commission had control over the fence exception. Mr. Cowan stated staff recommends approval. Com. Claudy reconfirmed that the gate was wrought iron with a redwood post with wire mesh fence. Mr. Cowan stated this was consistent with the open fence policy. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question regarding the General Plan pOlicy, Mr. Cowan stated that prior to issuance of a discretionary permit it must be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Cowan stated that the issue is the ten foot section around the gate. There is no discretionary act involving the balance of the fence. Com. Claudy stated the Commission should make a decision on the application and then make changes. ADDlicant Presentation: Mr. Lance Geselbracht, 22336 Regnart Road concurred with the staff report. He stated the fence is offset 30 feet on one property line and offset 10 foot on the other property line for distance of 100 ft and no fence for the next 300 to 400 feet to allow for migration of wild animals. He stated the gate post are constructed with rock and designed to be consistent with PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 12,1990 Page 3 gates in the area. In response to Com. Fazekas question Mr. Geselbracht stated the driveway was 10 percent max grade. He stated if the gate was pulled down it would be a danger for deer. In response to Chr. Claudy's question Mr. Geselbracht stated there was a flat pad at top of the driveway. Mr. Geselbracht stated the right of way is 35 feet. He noted that within a two year period the fence will be obscured with plants. The public hearing was then opened. Ms. Carrol McNeill, Vice Chairman of Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association of Regnart Ranch stated that the homeowners association has worked with the applicant. She stated she did not see the revisions to review the applicant's request. She stated the perimeter of the fence should be moved in from the boundary lines and the total area encompassed by the fence be reduced, this is keeping in conformance with the General Plan. Ms. McNeill described the area and the fencing around other properties stating there is no front yard fencing just back yard. She noted that wide corridors should be left between the properties for wild life migration. In summary she stated that approval of this variance request would contradict the intention of the General Plan. She noted the Homeowners Association request denial of this request. In response to Com. Mann's question regarding the Homeowners Architectural Review Committee, Ms. McNeill stated the application and denial was in writing, noting there was also verbal conversation. Com. Mann expressed concerned about procedures of the Homeowners Architectural Review Committee and stated it was important to follow procedures in writing. Com. Mann stated she did not like the fence but the only issue the Commission had to look at was the gate. Ms. McNeill stated she was representing the members of the Homeowners Association and noted the value the open and natural character of the area. In response to Com. Adams question Ms. McNeill stated that the gates in the area are similar. She stated the design is acceptable but the location is not. In response to Chr. Claudy's question regarding the CC&R's Ms. McNeill stated that the CC&R's require that if a member of the association wants to build a fence they must gain the approval of the association. She stated that specified in the CC&R's is that application must be made prior to construction and approval or disapproval must be received within 30 days of submitting the plans. She noted the Homeowners Association did comply with this. Mr. Geselbracht stated that he did submit his application in July and did not receive written response from ASAC until October. He stated his fence will not be visible when moved down the hill. He noted that he was applying for the one pilaster which is 15 feet off the set back. He noted he is in compliance with the CC&R. Mr. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 12,1990 Page 4 Geselbracht noted that he did notify homeowners in the area regarding his application. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing. Com. Adams Passed 5-0 Chr. Claudy stated the fence is already there and is not the issue. Com. Mackenzie stated he would approve the acceptance. Com. Fazekas stated he would like to see the fence set back to the requirement and would not support this. Com. Mann stated she would approve the acceptance. Com. Adams questioned the contour lines and the position of the pilaster. He stated to move the gate would be inappropriate but would support the exception. Chr. Claudy stated that a gate is not necessary, but is allowed. He noted the gate should be down the hill. He noted another alternative would be for the entire fence to be pulled back 20 feet and would not support the acceptance. Com. Fazekas and Com. Adams questioned the contour lines, noting they were not 20 foot contour intervals. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to re-open the public hearing Com. Adams Passed 5-0 Mr. Geselbracht stated the contour lines were 20 feet and the drawing before the commissioners is not to scale. He stated the driveway is steep and the gate is consistent with neighborhood. In response to Com. Mann's question Mr. Geselbracht stated if the fence was lower it would be an invite for deer to jump and this would be dangerous. In response to Com. Adams question Mr. Geselbracht stated the contours were 10 feet. Com. Fazekas questioned the scale of the drawing and stated the 902 line goes through the gate post. Mr. Cowan stated that if the slope of the driveway is an issue, the commission may want to continue this item to get more information. Com. Mann stated if the gate was automatic there would be no stopping on the slope. Com. Mackenzie questioned the fence as is. Mr. Geselbracht stated it is within five feet of the proposed property line. Com. Mackenzie stated there would be enough room to move the gate down 5 feet were it is flat. Chr. Claudy stated the pictures the Commissioners had did not match the applicant's drawing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 12,1990 Page 5 Mr. Cowan asked the Commission if the grading was a material fact in their decision the application should be continued so the applicant can prepare more accurate drawings. Com. Mackenzie and Chr. Adams requested more details and drawings. Ms. Carrol McNeill stated that pulling the fence back so the top of the fence would not be visible from the road would be acceptable to the Homeowners Association. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to continue Item 2 to March 26, 1990, 7:30 p.m. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 MOTION: Chr. Claudy noted that the commission wants more information of elevations and the topography of the land adjacent to the gate. Com. Mackenzie suggested a picture of a parked car at the 20 foot line. Chr. C1audy suggested a public hearing to rezone the Nellis property to RHS. Mr. Cowan stated this may be difficult because some lots are large. He noted staff will come back before the Commission with a report on Zoning. 3. Application No.(s): Applicant: property Owner: Location: 1-U-90 Terry Brown Construction Terry Brown Construction East side of Scenic Blvd. of Palm Avenue. 500 ft. North USE PERMIT to construct a detached residence on an existing lot within a Planned Development zoning district. Staff Presentation: Michele Bjurman gave the staff report. She stated the proposed single-family residence is consistent with the low density residential General Plan designation. Ms. Bjurman noted that five single family residents had been approved on this site in 1988 leaving the existing lot undeveloped. She stated that ASAC recommended that all aspects of this project be in conformance with R1 standards. She stated the maximum height for the detached garage in the R1 ordinance allows 15 foot height with 15 foot setback. She noted the applicant had proposed a garage, 21 feet high and a 5 foot setback from the property line. She stated that a condition of staff is to integrate the detached garage into the main structure or comply with the R1 zoning ordinance regarding setback and height requirements. Ms. Bjurman noted the applicant will provide one guest parking space at the bottom portion of the parcel which will be screened by landscaping. Ms. Bjurman noted a correction on the staff report concerning the oak trees, noting some will be removed during construction. She stated staff would like to retain these trees. Staff recommended a comprehensive PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 12,1990 Page 6 landscaping plan be developed to protect the trees and screen the guest parking space. She noted staff recommends approval. Com. Fazekas questioned the 360 foot contour noting it was for the adjoining parcel and not for the lot in question. Mr. Cowan stated this was a 1917 lot and would be difficult to develop and is the reason it is zoned planned development requiring a separate use permit. In response to Com. Adam's question Ms. Bjurman stated to the South of the parcel was a singe family residence and a creek to the east of the parcel. She stated there was no access road. In response to Chr. claudy's question Ms. Bjurman stated the parking space on the south side is guest parking and vehicles cannot park there over 24 hours. Mr. Cowan stated parking is tight and the guest parking is needed. Acclicant Presentation: Mr. Terry Brown stated that back in 1980 it was determined that Riveria Road could not service the lots in question. He stated the entire area was rezoned Planned Development. Mr. Brown explained the layout of the lots. He noted the topography of the site made it difficult to develop. Mr. Brown discussed elevations of the proposed development and the property in the area. He noted the intention is to stay within the Rl standard. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Ms. Bjurman stated the decks are in Compliance. Com. Mackenzie stated he would like to see the guest parking space become two parking spaces. Chr. Claudy questioned the orientation of the back yards. He also expressed concern regarding fencing. In response to Com. Fazekas question Mr. Brown stated the cripple wall below the first floor is the building outline. He stated the height of the cripple wall is 10 feet. He stated this was in the R1 standard. Com. Fazekas stated he would favor narrowing the property and bringing the low point of the house up hill. Mr. Brown stated they would loose double square footage if this was done. Mr. Cowan stated that the Commission does have authority over design. Mr. Cowan also stated the property could be three levels with more square footage with a third level. In response to Chr. Adams question Mr. Brown stated that it was the intention not to do excavation of notches. In response to Com. Adams question Mr. Brown noted the easement access on the lot to the south is already there and noted there was a condition on the lot since 1980 that an easement be granted. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 12,1990 Page 7 The public hearing was then opened MOTION: SECOND: Com. Adams moved to close the public hearing Com. Mann Com. Adams and Com. Mann withdrew their motion to close the public hearing. Com. Mackenzie expressed concern about the appearance of the property from the bottom of the hill. He asked if there are design alternatives to narrow the appearance of the building. He noted the width of the house on the east elevation and suggested trading some of that and have a third level. Mr. Brown stated the bank is heavily wooded and does not think this property will be as obvious as the house built to the south from down hill. Com. Mann stated the wall could be landscaped. Mr. Brown stated the redwood decks are not waterproof they have vertical posts which greenery would be planted around. Com. Mackenzie stated the property owner would get better use of the guest parking if it was two parking spaces. Mr. Cowan suggested that the Commission condition the application to enable ASAC to look at the possibility of additional landscaping and give ASAC the ability to evaluate the guest parking to see how two spaces can be applied. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOES: Com. Adams moved to close the public hearing. Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of l-U-90 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with Condition 17 modified to add a request that ASAC look at using vegetation to mask the cripple wall on the downhill slope and look at building treatment. Also an attempt to try and provide two parking spaces in the lower parking area. Com. Adams Passed 5-1 Com. Fazekas Mr. Cowan clarified that the Commission was approving the building form. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 12,1990 Page 8 4. Application No.(s): Applicant: property Owner: Location: 3-U-90 and 2-EA-90 Crouton's, Inc. William Antonioli, Trustee (Barclay's) 10100 So. DeAnza Blvd. USE PERMIT to convert the former Barclay's Bank site to a dine-in restaurant with 115 seats and incidental sale of beer and wine with food orders. Staff Presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman gave the staff report. She stated the site is not in a special policy area. She noted the proposed restaurant is consistent with the General Plan and meets the .25 floor area ratio designated for this area. Ms. Bjurman stated the applicant did comply with ASAC and staff review is revising his desert like theme and the landscaping. She noted the applicant has a 5 foot strip of landscaping in the public right-of- way along DeAnza Blvd. and the installation is acceptable to public works but material in this area will need to be approved by Public Works. She stated the applicant proposes to increase the width of Scofield road thus providing a two way road. Applicant must obtain an ingress egress easement from the adjoining property owner. Ms. Bjurman noted the existing sidewalks as stated in staff report. She stated staff is recommending approval. ApDlicant Presentation: Mr. Jamis MacNiven, owner, stated that this building has been vacant for some time and it is Crouton's intention to restore this to an attractive building. Mr. MacNiven explained the set up of the restaurant. Chr. Claudy expressed concern about the landscaping, in particular the palm trees. In response to this Mr. MacNiven stated that they have about 15 percent more planting area than is currently on the site. He stated the building is unique and giving it some character would be a benefit for the site. The public hearing was then opened. Com. Adams stated the restaurant is a plus for this building. He stated he did not approve of the location of the building and would be hard pressed to approve this application because of the building being so close to sidewalk. Com. Mann stated the building is not in an appropriate site, but the restaurant would be an addition to the City. She accepted the palm trees. Com Adams discussed the auto parts store on DeAnza Blvd. and stated he would like to see the proposed site integrated with the surrounding development. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question regarding action that was taken on this property a few years ago when DeAnza Blvd. was widened, Mr. Cowan stated there was some architectural changes as a result of this. The city had to cut one third of the building PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 12,1990 Page 9 off. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Ms. Bjurman stated it was a use permit application. Chr. Claudy stated a Use Permit was required to operate a restaurant. Chr. Claudy expressed concern about the access issue and stated that either access on calli or Scofield would work. Com. Mann suggested a condition on the access issue. Com. Mackenzie stated the parking was adequate and the restaurant use is appropriate. Com. Fazekas expressed concern about the parking when the restaurant is busy. Chr. claudy noted that parking may overflow onto the Prometheus property. Com. Fazekas stated he would like to see more landscaping. He suggested getting rid of some wheel stops and putting in landscaping especially more trees. Chr. Claudy stated the restaurant is as good a use as any. He noted he will not vote for the approval landscaping or color of the building. He feels the color of the building does not fit in with the area. Com. Mann suggested the applicant go back to ASAC to review the coloring and also to work on softening the structure of the building. She noted that this building will draw many people and should be attractive. Com. Adams stated he would like to see the applicant ensure the landscaping and architecture is reasonably integrated to the rest of the area. He noted he cannot accept the proposed use as presented. Com. Adams stated there should be no outside eating. Com. Fazekas suggested reducing the handicap ramps for more compact spacing or landscaping. Chr. claudy stated the use is acceptable. Mr. Jamis MacNiven stated modifications will be made on the suggestion of the Commissioners. He noted that timing is very critical and hopes that the modifications can be made on the staff level. Mr. Paul Ilgenfritz stated he supports the color of the building which would give the corner character. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing. Com. Mann Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration Com. Mann Passed 5-0 MOTION: PLAlOIING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 12,1990 Page 10 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOTES: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of 3-U-90 subject to findings and subconclusions of the hearing wi th the following modifications: Condi tion 11 to clarify the 2nd paragraph. adding a sentence at the beginning to read, 'The developer should choose access from the north or from the south due to complications involved in obtaining access from both.' Condition 15 to be returned to ASAC for formal review prior to issuance of building permits with direction to ASAC to provide more conventional landscaping and colors with the specific goal of tieing the building in with the adjacent Prometheus buildings. Com. Mann Passed 4-1 Com. Adams Chr. Claudy stated this will go before the City Council on April 2, 1990. NEW BUSINESS: 8. APPLICATION 4-U-89 (Revised) City Center Associates: Requesting interpretation of minor amendment to the Use Permit for a 240 room hotel to revise exterior architecture and add 4,500 sq. ft. of floor area. Project site is located on the south side of Stevens Creek Blvd. 300 ft. east of DeAnza Blvd. Staff Presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan gave the staff report. He stated it is a minor amendment and is typical of an applicant with a major project. He noted the plans were approved in 1986. Mr. Cowan explained the access and circulation to and from the hotel. He noted the plan has been approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and stated additional parking will be added. Mr. Cowan explained that pursuant to the Use Permit the applicant is required to plant trees in the corner park plaza one year after occupancy of the office buildings. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Cowan stated the additional parking will not encroach westerly or northerly onto the park area and added the parking is primarily for hotel parking. Mr. Cowan explained the major changes as stated in the staff report. He stated the most significant architectural change was on the sixth floor. Mr. Cowan noted the number of parking spaces beneath the hotel has decreased by 35 spaces. He further explained that the whole city Center development has a surplus of approximately 240 spaces which might be reduced to approximately 170 spaces. He suggested that he be given authority to approve the number of parking spaces in that range, if the total number is reduced to less than 150 the applicant must obtain Planning Commission approval. Mr. Cowan explained that future development in the City Center would allow for extra spaces if needed. In summary, Mr. Cowan stated that the overall changes are minor and do not constitute the need for a use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 12,1990 Page 11 ADDlicant Presentation: Mr. Mark Kroll, Prometheus Development, explained that major projects such as the hotel must go through several minor revisions before the final design is ready. Mr. John Hill, Archi teet, explained the changes to the hotel including structural changes and changes to the interior layout. He noted that the hotel would an "all suites" hotel and explained the architectural design to the hotel. Mr. Hill stated that the parking changes were required to make the circulation more "user friendly". In response to Com. Fazekas's question Mr. Hill explained where landscaping would be placed in relationship to the underground garage. In response to Chr. Claudy's question Mr. Hill stated the roof would be clean looking from the adjacent office building. Mr. Walter Hsu, Prometheus Development, explained the staging plan for the hotel development. He also explained the proposed timing for completing landscaping for the park site. Mr. Hsu concluded by commenting on staff concerns. Chr. Claudy stated this was a public meeting and asked if anyone from the audience would like to comment on the hotel development. Phil Halstead, Cupertino Watchdog, stated that in return for development credits which Prometheus Development received the City might consider requiring a public use covenant for the amphitheater area. He also pointed out that parking adjacent to the corner park was encroaching into the park space. In response to Chr. Claudy's question Mr. Cowan stated that the City has the right to use the amphitheater for sponsored events but remained in control by the City Center Development. He noted that he was in the process of researching that point for clarification. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of 4-U-86 (Revised) subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Condition 1 to include the building study model as an exhibit; condition 3 to change the capacity of restaurant lounge seating to 300; condition 4, third sentence, to read: 'If the study shows a surplus below 150 spaces, the Planning Commission shall review the study'. Com. Adams Passed 5-0 MOTION: Chr. claudy reminded the applicant this application would be scheduled for the April 2, 1990 city Council meeting. OLD BUSINESS: -none PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 12,1990 Page 12 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Chr. c1audy reported on the mayors luncheon. authorized Don Brown, city Manager, to hire Resolution Specialist to help mitigate Development, and the condominium residents. He noted the council a Municipal Conflict between Prometheus Com. Fazekas expressed his concerns for the traffic impacts on Foothill blvd. due to the proposed closing of the 280\85 off ramp onto Stevens Creek Blvd. Mr Cowan responded by stating the Measure "A" committee will have to find mitigation measures for the impacts due to the closure. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Bob Cowan stated that the stage II work of the General Plan has begun. The department has a full time staff member devoted to the General Plan update. He noted that the State requires the Housing Element of the General Plan to be updated by July 1, 1990. Also, the Parks and Recreation commission is working on the parks and recreation element. DISCUSSION OF NEWSP~ER CLIPpINGS: -none ADJO~: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:35 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of March 26,~990 at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~ """ . Ro-WÅ"-'--'f'cl Catherine M. Robillard, Recording Secretary the Plannin~ Co ission r Meeiing Q! ~rc~ 26, 1990 < Clerk