Loading...
PC 02-26-90 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MIlfU'l'BS OF THE REGU:L.AR MBBTIHG OF THE PLAllHIHG COMMISSIOH HELD ON FEBRUARY 26, 1990 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: commissioners Present: Chairman C1audy Vice Chairman Mackenzie Commissioner Adams Commissioner Mann Commissioner Fazekas staff Present: Robert Cowan,- Director of Community Development Mark Caughey, City Planner Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Mann moved to approve the Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 12, 1990, as amended SECOND: Com. Fazekas VOTE: Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to approve the Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 14, 1990, as amended Com. Mann Passed 5-0 MOTION: POSTPONEMENTS OR IfEW AGENDA ITEMS: Item 2: ADDlication 18-TM-89: Larry Miller to regular meeting of March 12, 1990 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to continue Item 2 to March 12, 1990. Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 WRITTEIf COIIIIUIfICATIOIfS: - None ORAL COIlMUlfICATIOHS: - None CONSEIfT CALElfDAR: 1. APPLICATION 31-U-88 - LUCAS DEALERSHIP Requesting informal advisory for a minor modification to a use permit allowing for decorative structures to be installed at an existing office building. site is located at 19930 Stevens Creek Boulevard, the southwest corner of Stevens Creek and Finch. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 26,1990 Page 2 Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan presented the staff report. He noted the applicant wants to remove a steel tubular space frame on the front landscaping area and replace it with four structures which are approximately 12 feet high and 16 feet square. He noted open air canopy was a better term for these structures rather than kiosks. Mr. Cowan stated the structures are concrete plaster with stucco finish. In response to Com. Fazekas question Mr. Cowan stated the use is basically an office building, but they will be leasing cars and stated the landscaping is within the Stevens Creek Guidelines. Mr. Cowan stated these were minor adjustments. ADDlicant Presentation: Mr. Hollis Logue, Architect, stated that a space frame concept had already been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that they are remodeling the building and felt the space frame is not suitable for this particular location. He stated there are four cars anticipated for this structure and noted they have done nothing to modify the concept other than to change the philosophy of the materials being used. In response to Com. Fazekas question Mr. Logue stated that there would be planters around the structures but no landscaping had been added or removed. Chr. Claudy invited members of the public to address the Commission on this issue. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to subject to the findings hearing. Com. Adams Deny approve application and subconclusions 3l-U-89 of the SECOND: VOTE: 2-3 Chr. Claudy stated that he voted against this project because he liked the space frame strmxture over the kiosks. He felt the kiosks were too heavy. Com. Fazekas also stated he voted against this project because he felt that this did not improve the architecture. Chr. Claudy stated that this can be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Cowan asked the Commission if this is a minor amendment or should there be a public hearing. The Planning commission stated it a minor amendment Mr. Logue asked the commission for direction. Com. Mackenzie stated it was too bulky and one uniform canopy would be more acceptable. Com. Fazekas agreed. Chr. Adams stated, although the coverage had been cut down, it was still too big and would like to see something smaller. Mr. Logue asked if this item could be continued. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 26,1990 Page 3 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to rescind the previous motion Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Com. Mann stated the original plan was more suitable and if the architect could find a solution between the original and the new plan. She also stated some color should be added. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to continue Item 1 to March 12, 1990 Com. Adams Passed 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued Items) 3. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: l6-TM-88 Noor Billawala Noor Billawala Westerly terminus of Rainbow Drive TENTATIVE MAP: MAP to subdivide a 10.9 acre parcel into two lots encompassing 1.5 and 8.4 acres respectively. Staff Presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report. She stated the discussion of the subdivision had been continued' because of a deficiency in one of the lot sizes. She stated there are two lots 1.6 acre and 9.2 acre. Ms. Wordell gave a slide presentation showing the site. She stated that the development that is occurring now in this area already has the requirement to stabilize the hillside. She noted there is a flat pad in parcel 1 and the proposed building site in parcel 2 is on a slope. She noted the size of the lots is dictated by the slope of the property and by the geological features and stated the southern portion of the property is suitable for development. Ms Wordell stated that moving the northwest property line to the left, as discussed by the Commissioners, would not give more usable area to parcel 1 because the slope begins in this area and parcel 2 would lose some area. She stated that parcel 1 was the minimum size required and parcel 2 would allow for subdivision but recommended that a condition be added to prevent this because it is not practical. Ms. Wordell stated each building would be required to have four off-site parking spaces. She stated that staff would recommend a condition to avoid retaining walls if possible. She explained the road maintenance stating the developer must maintain this. Com. Adams asked Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney, if the City would be liable for any damage to property on these hill sites, due to earthquake or landslides. Ms. Lopez stated there is no liability when the city issues a Use Permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 26,1990 Page 4 In response to Com. Claudy's question regarding the fencing Ms. Wordell stated that the zoning district does limit the amount of solid fencing allowed. Com. Mann expressed concern regarding the fencing prohibiting the freedom of the animals. Com. Fazekas expressed concern about the minimum lot size requirement. In response to Com. Fazekas question Mr. Bob Cowan suggested that staff develop al ternati ves to restrict parcel two from being further subdivided with the most appropriate option approved by the City Attorney. ADDlicant Presentation: Mr. Noor Billawala stated he had nothing to add to the staff's presentation and noted he had seen condition 12. The public hearing was then opened. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to close the public hearing Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy suggested keeping the solid fencing minimum. Mr. Cowan- stated that the zoning district stated that no more 5,000 sq. ft. of total space enclosed with solid board fencing. Com. Claudy had no objection to rail fencing. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to grant a Negative Declaration Com. Mann Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to approve application 16-TM-88 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following conditions modified: Condition 12 to require that the dedication be recorded on the deed of the larger parcel and requesting that the tentative map have a notation; Condition 19 to change the word 'all' to 'each' and add the words 'on each parcel'... to the end of the paragraph; Condition 21 to delete the words 'the structure on; Condition 23 to indicate that fencing should be provided along the south property line or wherever needed for safety due to retaining wall, and add a sentence stating that the fencing does not allow more solid fencing than is otherwise permitted by the RHS zone. Com. Mann Passed 5-0 Com Claudy stated that the Commission's action is final unless appealed by 5:00 p.m. Monday March 5, 1990 PLAIOfING COIIHISSION IIINV'l'ES Regular Meeting of February 26,1990 Page 5 NEW BUSIHESS: 4. FILE REFERENCE 81.004.211: Report of the Director of Community Development on the status of non-conforming buildings within the R-J (Multiple Family Residential) zoning district. staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan stated this matter was brought to staffs' attention at a City Council Meeting. He stated that based on today's zoning rules, a non-conforming building, if destroyed to more than 75 percent of its assessed value, could not be rebuilt to its original state. Mr. Cowan stated the Council requested staff to look into this matter and report back to the Planning commission. He publicly thanked Ms. Mary Brown for her help in this matter. He stated after research staff concluded, of the lots effected, 40 percent were substandard and felt something must be done to correct this. He stated staff had developed five options to solve the problem and asked the commission for their input. He stated the RJ ordinance had been in effect for 1J years. Mr. Cowan noted there are two basic problems, intensity of land use in terms of the non conforming status of the property and site development standards such as setback, parking, building height, etc. He then summarized the 5 options. Com. Fazekas stated he preferred option three because it would allow the City to control how an apartment building would be rebuilt. Com Adams stated he preferred option five noting it is probably the best way to solve the inconsistencies in the zoning ordinances. Chr. claudy stated he preferred option five noting that he did not want to see a larger building or buildings replacing what was already there unless all current requirements are met. Com. Mackenzie preferred option five, stating that the development rights regarding the square footage and number of units would be the same unless a Use Permit is obtained to change. Com. Mackenzie stated he would like to limit option two to residential. Chr. Claudy stated it is not a public hearing and no action would be taken on this issue tonight but invited the public to address the Commission. Ms. Mary Brown, Real Estate Broker, stated she thought option two was the best choice. In response to Ms. Brown's question Chr. claudy stated that if a property owner wanted to remodel 75 percent or more he would have to meet the existing zoning standards. She asked that the ordinance be written so that an apartment building could be rebuilt to its previous setbacks and number of units not only if it was destroyed but if the property owner chose to rebuild. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Ms. Brown stated that in Cupertino four units of a moderate price range would produce more income than two units in a high price range. In response to Com. Mann's question Ms. Brown stated nearly all the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 26,1990 Page 6 affected units are grouped together making property values of adjacent parcels similar. Bob Cowan confirmed Ms. Brown's statement noting that changes in density to these areas would be out of place. Ms. Donnie Graddy, Tri-County Apartment Association, encouraged the Planning Commission to consider staffs' recommendation or option two. Mr. Niles Mosley stated that he understood the City Council passed an amendment excepting the properties that were annexed in there currant status. He stated that under this amendment the apartments could be rebuilt as they were before. In response to Mr. Mosley's statements Mr. Cowan stated that this was not an ordinance but a city policy and would do more research in this matter. Ms. Paula Keena stated the fair option to choose would be the one to let property owners rebuild what they had before. Mr. Dave Kopels, 10161 Village Place, stated that his property has been sold as fourplex. He stated there has not been adequate disclosure of the non-conforming use ordinance. He expressed' concern that the decision of the Planning commission may adversely affect his property rights. Mr. John Gatto, 20685 Gardenside Lane, stated that it was made clear when the properties where annexed to Cupertino they would hold the rights they previously had. Mr. Warren Vinay stated he was concerned about not being notified when zoning changes are made and how this policy of notifying residents worked. Mr. Bob Cowan stated the normal procedure is for the C.i ty to advertise in the Cupertino Scene and a display add ~n the Newspaper. In response to Mr. Vinay's question Chr. Claudy stated that for specific sites the city notifies owners within 300 feet. Ms. Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney, stated that residents can be notified on certain issues or the resident can put in a request to be notified. Mr. Cowan stated stamped addressed envelopes can be given to the city Clerk and agendas can be mailed. Chr. Claudy noted this was a problem caused back in the 70's and the Planning commission is trying to solve it now. Ms. Elley Warner, 20076 La Roda ct., stated she was here representing the San Jose Real Estate Board. She stated that by requiring use permits this would cause problems when trying to sell property and expressed concern about property value. She noted the PLANNING COIINISSIOH MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 26,1990 Page 7 property owners should be allowed the same footprint and be able to upgrade their property. Chr. Claudy stated that what the Planning Commission is aiming for is to allow the property owners to rebuild the same amount of units and square footage as he had before but would have to meet all the current building codes. Mr. Avtar Singh, 11608 Birch Spring the current state of the ordinance. favor of option two. ct., expressed concern about Mr. Singh stated he was in Chr. Claudy explained that the new ordinance would only affect those property owners whose property has been destroyed. Mr. Dave Kopels expressed concern about the new ordinance stating it would make it difficult to sell property with the new ordinance. Ms. Ann Anger stated that property owners want to build the same square footage as they had before and should be allowed to upgrade their property. Com. Adams requested staff to examine the feasibility of option two over option five and give the Commission the pros and cons of this- option. He stated he would like to see an easy solution in order to keep property owners and staff satisfied. Com. Adams stated he would like to take this into account for both voluntary and involuntary changes to buildings if staff can do this. Com. Fazekas stated that he would like to see more landscaping around the apartments buildings. Com. Mackenzie stated the current ordinance allows the property to be upgraded up to 25 percent of its value. He stated that two issues of voluntary remodeling need to be looked at, one for the people in the old San Jose area and the other for Cupertino residents. Com. Mackenzie stated staff also needed to look into the city's obligation towards the old San Jose area. Com. claudy stated he did not have any objections to upgrading property, but did not want the volume of the buildings to increase. He stated a Use Permit would be required if new standards are being bull t. Mr. Cowan stated that staff would work with the comments from the commission and try to come up with an acceptable solution. He noted this would be advertised and brought back before the Planning Commission on March 26, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 26,1990 Page 8 5. FILE REFERENCE 81.003.24 CITY OF CUPERTINO DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY MANUAL: Discussion of consolidated reference manual describing various existing regulations of non-residential land use intensity, including Floor Area Ratios, TIPS and special regulations for various planning areas. Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey stated that the Manual was now easier to use and worded better than the first draft. He went through the Manual and highlighted the changes. He stated the purpose of this Manual was to provide a quick and easy reference for finding out what the intensity rules are for any given non- residential property in the city. Mr. Caughey stated once the Commission gave their consensus on the Manual a hearing would be set to adopt a resolution which will recognize the consolidated Manual and supersede all prior resolutions which adopted references to development intensity. Com. Mann asked that the Motel Development section be clarified. Com. Mackenzie suggested a sentence be added to clarify the Motel Development section. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Caughey stated land use control would be reviewed by the Goals Committee. Mr. Caughey noted that the Amenity Space Exclusion would be reviewed by the city Council. He stated that no action from the Planning commission was needed at this time and it would be placed on an agenda at which time a formal decision will be required. 6. FILE REFERENCE 51.868.1 AND 36-EA-89 CITY OF CUPERTINO XERISCAPE GUIDELINES: Discussion of proposed low water usage landscaping guidelines for new and substantially remodeled developments. Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey gave the staff report. He noted, as requested by the Commission, the xeriscape Guidelines had been sent out to businesses in the City who are involved in managing, designing, and installing landscaping. He noted that they had recei ved response back from several businesses. He stated the Green Industry Council noted that plants which are presumed to be drought tolerance may in fact not have those characteristics. They suggested to list standard reference material which is reliable and to allow the individual designers to certify the water saving capabilities of the plant zones that they are identifying with, this would eliminate the plant list. He stated that staff is suggesting the turf coverage be limited to functional areas. He stated good management of the irrigation system is the best way to save water. He suggested an irrigation schedule would be an approach. Mr. Caughey noted that Drip Emitter System is not necessarily the best and most sufficient irrigation system. He explained the self certification concept of the Xeriscape Guidelines. PLAlfNIlfG COMIIISSIOlf MIlfU'l'ES Regular Meeting of February 26,1990 Page 9 In response to Com. Fazekas question Mr. Caughey stated that one of the concepts mentioned in the guidelines was the idea of an annual water audit, but right now this would be voluntary and not mandatory. In response to Com. Mann's question regarding reclaimed water, Mr. caughey noted as stated in the guidelines reclaimed water would be used for maintenance only. In response to Chr. Claudy's question Mr. Caughey noted that the guidelines would be circulated to the more active developers for their input and returned to the Planning commission for final endorsement in about six weeks. Com. Mackenzie suggested that the guidelines contain enforcement capabilities to re-audit water usage. He also suggested that turf be permissible where there are Design Guidelines. Com. Mann asked wasting water. Attorney, stated if there would be continuous enforcement for In response to this Leslie Lopez, Deputy City that there is drought ordinance for this. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. caughey stated that these guidelines could be implemented through a design guidelines manual and also conditions of approval for new development or redevelopment of sites. Chr. Claudy expressed concern about water shortage and stated that there should be enforcement in residential areas for wasting water. OLD BUSINESS: - none REPORT OF THE PLARNING COMMISSION: - none REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - none DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - none