PC 08-12-85 •
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PC-472
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Page 1
•, Telephone: (408) 252-4505
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON AUGUST 12, 1985
SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7: 3 0 P .M.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : Com. Adams
Com. Szabo •
Com. Sorensen
Chr. Claudy
Staff Present : Dir. of Ping. and Devel. Cowan
Assistant Planning Director Piasecki
City Attorney Kilian
Assistant City Engineer Whitten
APPROVAL OF MINUTES •
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to accept the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of July 8, 1985 as submitted.
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to accept the Minutes of the Regular
Adjourned Meeting of July 10, 1985 as submitted.
IIO SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS
It was determined that no-one in the audience was there for
Items 5* or 8.
MOTION: Com. Szabo, to continue Item #8 for one month,
per Applicant ' s request .
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to withdraw Item #5*from the
Calendar
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(.Com. Mackenzie absent)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS •
A letter from two television viewers of Planning Commission.
A letter from Cupertino Union School District on Item #3 .
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
110 *Erroneously referred to as Item #4 on the Agenda
PC-472 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, AUGUST 12, 1985
Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Application 23-U-85 of DIM: AND DEKE HUNTER: USE PERMIT to
construct a single-story, 6,700 sq. ft . commercial/office center 411
and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee
recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject
property is located on the southwest corner of De Anza Boulevard
and McClellan Road in a P (Planned Development with General
Commercial and Office intent) zoning district . First Hearing.
Tentative City Council hearing date - August 19, 1985.
Director of Planning and Develop,�ent Cowan reviewed the Staff
Report, modifying the suggestion therein for a curvelinear Y g �g
access, since Assistant City Engineer Whitten had advised that
with a solid barrier on McClellan Road, it might be possible
to maintain a perpendicular access to allow for left turn move-
ments onto De Anza Boulevard going north.going He also mentioned
that Staff felt landscaping could be reduced from 11 ft . 6 in.
to 10 ft . if the Commission desired, and that the matter of
front berming could be left to ASAC*, since it seemed the
objective of screening automobiles might be met without it .
Com. Szabo, noting the 330 sq. ft . reduction in the building
favored in the Staff Report, wondered if such a reduction could
remove the building further from adjacent residential property.
Mr. Cowan suggested this might be discussed with the applicant,
but felt such could be achieved on the south side.
Deke Hunter, Co-Applicant, advised they were combining two
sites and closely following City guidelines to achieve a warm
project on a highly visible corner. He described the decor as
ship-lapped wood in earth tones. He did not want to change the
setbacks on the south side, advising that the roof dropped down
there, and nothing could be seen from the back wall. They
wanted consideration for helping to widen De Anza Boulevard and
providing a bus pull-in, he said, since they were constrained
by the narrowness, of the site.
Asked about the situation of the trash enclosure by Cora. Adams,
Mr. Hunter had no objection to moving it; asked about the
330 ft . reduction, Mr. Hunter did not think it was necessary,
but suggested they could accomplish it by reducing 6 ft . on the
side or 2 ft . across the rear.
Asked about the fire doors by Chr. Claudy, Mr. Hunter confirmed
there would be no loading, etc . there, that they would be
purely emergency exits with bars and alarms, and that there
would be shrubbery there and security gates at the sides, to
discourage loitering.
Chr. Claudy emphasized the problems the City had had with
commercial located next to residential areas, and stressed
that everything, including trash, would have to be taken through
the front entrances .
NOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Fassed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent) 411
*ASAC - Architectural and Site Control Committee
PLANNING COMMISSION nINUTES, AUGUST 12, 1985 PC-472
Com. Adams questioned the trash enclosure being so near Page 3
residences.
110 Mr. Cowan pointed out that the 8 ft . wall would act as a
sound barrier and that collection times were controlled by
City Ordinance.
The Commission decided there should be a Condition to ensure
that containers be returned to the enclosure.
The Commission agreed that to adhere to policy; the reductio
of 330 sq. ft. was necessary, but opinions differed on
where such reduction should take place.
It was the consensus of the Commission that they could
compromise on the landscaping setback along De Anza Boulevar. ,
due to the difficult corner and the bus turn-out .
Assistant Traffic Engineer Whitten, addressing the driveway
issue, advised there were similar situations elsewhere in
Cupertino. He felt the right turns in and out would be
controlled at peak hours, since it would be impossible to
cut across the traffic at those times.
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to recommend the granting of
a Negative Declaration
SECOND: Com. Szabo
VOTE: Passed 4-0 .
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to recommend approval of
4 Application 23-U-85, subject. to the Findings
of the Staff Report and the Subconclusions
-
with Conditions 1 1 as per
of the Hearing, 5
the Staff Report; Conditions 16-24; Condition
25 modified to reflect that the Applicant should
decrease the square footage of the building by
330 sq. ft . where he desired, but that side
and rear setbacks shall be no less than currently;
Conditions 26-28;Condition 29 eliminated;
Condition 30 to read, "The Applicant shall install
a median on McClellan Road per Staff requirements . "
Condition 31 modified to add, "Management shall
ensure that the trash container is retained within
the enclosure at all times. ";Condition 32;
Condition 33 added requiring a security gate (or
gates if the trash enclosure is not solid) and
alarms on the fire doors which activate when doors
are opened.
SECOND: Corn. Adams
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
2. Application 25-U-85 of H AND D PROPERTIES: USE PERMIT
to construct a single-story, 6,900 sq. ft . professional
office building and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental
Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
Delcaration. The subject property is located on the west
® side of Portal Avenue approximately 200 ft . north of Stevens
Creek Boulevard in a P (Planned Development with Commercial,
Office and Residential intent) zoning district . First
Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - August 19,198' .
PC-472 PLANNING COMMMISSION MINUTES, AUGUST 12, 1985
Page "4 Director of Planning and Development Cowan presented the
Staff Report . 111
Com. Sorensen established that if the use of the building
changed in the future, there would be surplus parking spaces.
Bill Hirschman of H AND D Properties addressed Condition 27,
advising that the tree screen would be Australian Willow or
evergreens, since it had been realized that Redwoods would
grow too tall. Addressing Condition 29, he advised the handi-
capped access was required, and by law had to be at the primary
access of the building, so they had therefore left it there but
had tried to soften it with brick veneer and plantings. He
advised that moving the building would not be satisfactory,
since back windows would have to be eliminated because of fire
regulations. He agreed to a wood shake roof for a residential
look, if preferred.
Herman Hijmans, Co-owner of adjacent Top Furniture, had no
objections to the building, but felt they should have been
consulted about the reciprocal access which bisected the back
of their property. He wondered if it could be moved closer to
the back fence.
Chr. Claudy felt sure the Wheaton Drive residents would object,
and noted that the backs of the buildings there had traditionally
been devoted to parking.
Mr. Hijmans said he would explore the matter further with Staff.
MOTION: Com. Adams, to close thie Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Sorensen 4-0
VOTE: Passed
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
Com. Adams felt the reciprocal easement might put traffic on
Portal; and whilst wanting to keep the option, he suggested
future Planning Commissions might question the allowance of the
opening there.
The ramp revision was accpetable to the Commission.
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to recommend the granting of a
Negative Declaration
SECOND: Com. Szabo 4-0
VOTE: Passed
(Corn. Mackenzie absent)
MOTION: -Com; Sorensen, to recommend approval of Application
25-U-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff
Report and the Subconclusions of the Haring; with
Conditions 1-15; Condition 16 modified to reflect
Exhibit B, first revision; Conditions 17-23;
Condition 24 deleted; ,Conditions 25-28; Condition
29 deleted.
SECOND: Com. Szabo 4-0
VOTE: Passed
(Co ?. Mackenzie absent) 411
r
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, AUGUST 12, 1985 PC-472
3. Application 27-U-85 of SOUTH BAY CHINESE CULTURAL Page 5
410 CENTER (EATON SCHOOL) : USE PERMIT to operate a Chinese
Cultural Center with classroom and library activities
utilizing approximately 7,000 sq. ft. of Eaton School.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee
recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Eaton
School is located on the southeast corner of Suisun Drive
and Farallone Drive in a BA (Public Building) zoning
district. First Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FINAL
APPROVAL.
Assistant Planning Director Piasecki advised that the
original proposal had met with Staff approval, but that the
new proposal went far beyond the recommended intensity, and
Staff recommended the Applicant be advised to withdraw, or
that it be sent back to E.R.C. *
The majority of the Commission favored continuance, to reasse.s,
since neighbors had not been appraised of the changes and
could be burdened by an intensity of nse four times greater
than originally proposed.
City Attorney Kilian, asked for advice, suggested the
Application could be referred back to the E.R.C.* and also
advised it would not be necessary to take public input at
this time.
Director of Planning and Development Cowan recalled the
E.R.C. * action had been based on very light activity.
110 MOTION: Com. Adams, to continue Application 27-U-85
to the Regular Meeting of September 9, 1985.
SECOND: Com. Szabo
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
Phil Harris, 20087 Suisun Drive requested an opportunity to
meet with the parties before September 9th.
Sonia Shear, Cupertino Union School District, explained they
had not had an opportunity to meet with residents after the
late development and had followed the procedure Staff advised
Eleanor Werner, 20076 La Roda Court and Tony Scott, 20230
John Drive complained they had not been properly noticed.
Mr. Cowan explained there were two agencies involved; the
School District and the City,and emphasized Staff was always
available._.to _mee-t w th,� esid its. -
Chr. Claudy observed there always seemed to be such problems,
but assured the School District was well aware of neighbors'
concerns.
4. Applications 12-Z-85 and 26-U-85 of LAWRENCE GUY:
REZONING approximately . 26 acres from R2-4 .25 (Residential
Duplex, 1 dwelling unit per 4,250 sq. ft . lot area intent)
zone to P ' (Planned Development with Residential Single-family,
1 1-5 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zone or whatever
*E.R.C. Environmental Review Committee
PC-472 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, AUGUST 12, 1985
Page 6 zone may be deemed appropriate..b' 'the Planning Commission;
USE PERMIT to construct two detached, two-story single-family •
residences and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review
Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration.
The subject property is located on the south side of Rodrigues
Avenue approximately 450 ft. east of Torre Avenue. First
Hearing. Tentative City Council; hearing date - September 3,1985.
Director of Planning and Development Cowan presented the Staff
Report, noting that the Conditions of Approval resolved
privacy problems, and presenting; a new plan received that day
showing a fourth bedroom addition.
Larry Guy, Applicant, described paving decided on two single
family homes instead of a duplexl, keeping to traditional R1*e.
setbacks where possible to fit in with the neighborhood.
Chr. Claudy, remarking on the difficult site, saw a problem
in that one of the patios for Uri°it B was overlooked from Unit
A and suggested Patio 2 for UnitlA might be larger and Patio 1
for Unit B might be smaller.
The Applicant agreed this could ) ?e considered.
Alan Brinker, 20202 Rodrigues said the creek was an eyesore to
look out on, and also pointed out there was nowhere for
neighborhood children to play. ;His entire house would be
back to back with these houses, he said, and felt this was
overbuilding, with the odd corners making it difficult to
maintain landscaping. He asked the Application be rejected. •
Luis Pina, Architect, admitted there were problems they had
had to deal with in the shape ofl the lots and limited area,
especially in respecting neighborhood setbacks. He explained
the shape of the lots held them to two-story, but noted Mr.
. Brinker' s house was over 50 ft . aay.
The Applicant noted they had specifically not put a bedroom
over the garage close to the neighbors; Mr. Brinker' s house
was oriented to the creek, he said.
Mr. Brinker felt backing out onto Rodrigues from the residences
would be a problem because of the blind curve, and wanted a
turnaround provided.
MOTION: Com. Szabo, to close the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 4-0 .
(Com. Mackenzie absent)I .
The Commission consensus was that the project was acceptable
for the lot and blended with the neighborhood. There was
a discussion on a zero lot linei'concept to deal with the
problem of Patio 1.
Chr. Claudy, in summation, said' 'a ;single residence would not
be economically feasible: there; that visual intrusion was
minimal, and that similar traffic problems occurred elsewhere
on this street and in the City. ;
The Applicant felt zero lot line dwellings would not be so
easy to market or soundproof.
R1 Residential, single-family' '
I.,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, AUGUST 12, 1985 PC-472
There was a short discussion with the Architect on how to Page 7
110 adjust the lot lines to accomplish the same thing.
Mr. Brinker questioned the Floor Area Ratios, and was
assured by Staff they were within City guidelines.
MOTION: Com. Szabo.., to recommend the granting
of a Negative Declaration
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
MOTION: Com. Szabo, to recommend approval of Application
12-Z-85 , subject to the Findings of the Staff
Report and the Subconclusions of ther\Hearing,
with Standard Conditions 1-15; 16;17;18.
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed. 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
MOTION: Com. Szabo, to recommend approval of Application
26-U-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff
Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing, with
Standard Conditions 1-15; Condition 16 based
on Exhibit A, first revision, modified to show the
lot line between Units A and B continuing in a
general southeasterly direction straight back to
the fence line; . Conditions 17-22 as per Staff Repor .
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
110 VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
BREAK: 9: 55-10:10
6.Applications 13-Z-85 and 28-U-85 of MANUEL GONZALEZ:
REZONING approximately .11 gross acres from R1-7. 5
(Residential Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft . minimum lot size)
zone to P (Planned Development with Residential, 4.4 to 7.7
dwelling units per gross acre intent) zone or whatever zone
may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE
PERMIT to construct a two-story, single-family residence and
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee
recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The
subject property is located on the east side of Peninsula
Boulevard approximately 100 ft . south of Grand Avenue.
First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - .
September 3, 1985.
Assistant Planning Director Piasecki covered the Staff Report
which suggested internalizing the staircase and adhering as
closely as possible to setback requirements.
Manuel Gonzalez, Appli"cant, wanted the staircase to remain
outside the building envelope as planned, for safety reasons
and because it would destroy the character of the house
otherwise.
Mr. Piasecki said there was ample room within the existing
410 building for the stairs.
III '
n
PC-478 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, AUGUST 12, 1985
Page 8 •
Ann Anger, Monta Vista resident, did not have any objection
to the two-story aspect which was consistent with that area,
but was very opposed to the lattice work, because of the
unsatisfactory history of lattice work in the Monta Vista
area.
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to close; the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Szabo
VOTE: Passed 4-0 •
(Com. Mackenzie absent),
Com. Adams, on the zoning, observed that PD* zoning was
already a trend in the area.
The Commission established the basic design was satisfac-
tory if the staircase was within!'I the building walls, with
the building shifted over as much as possible to meet 10 ft .
setbacks. It was determined that if the outside staircase
was deleted, the lattice work was redundant .
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to recommend the granting of a
Negative Declaration
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed , 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to recommend approval of •
Application 28-U-85, subject to the Findings
of the Staff Report andSubconclusions of the
Hearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15 and
Conditions 16-19 as in the Staff Report .
SECOND: Com. Szabo
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
*PD - Planned Development
L
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, AUGUST 12, 1985 PC-472
Page 9
7. Application 11-TM-85 of JAMES C. AND JENAY A. HOEFMAN:
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP to subdivide approximately 2 . 21
acres into eight parcels ranging in size from approximately
8,000 sq. ft . to 15,200 sq. ft . and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of
a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located
at the northern terminus of Tula Lane approximately 100 ft .
south of Pepper Tree Lane in a R1-7. 5 (Residential Single-
family, 7,500 sq. ft . minimum lot size) zoning district .
First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - •
August 19, 1985.
Director of Planning and Development Cowan, presenting the
Staff Report, advised the Tentative Map had previously been
approved some time ago and had expired. He drew attention to
a minor change in Condition 18, in that the first sentence
was to read, "The Applicant shall record a Covenant for a
reciprocal ingress/egress for any lots which share a common
driveway prior to issuance of building permits on said lots. "
The Commission established that the previous Tentative Map had
been discussed at length and this was almost identical.
Paul Hoffman, appearing on behalf of his parents, offered to
answer questions.
Barbara Torak, 20883 Sola Lane, wanted Sola and Tula traffic
patterns reviewed.
Chr. Claudy and Mr. Cowan established that no through streets
were being proposed.
MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend the granting of a
Negative Declaration
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend approval of Application
11-TM-85, subject to the Findings and Conditions
of the Staff Report .
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed . 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
I.
PC-472 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, AUGUST 12, 1985 g
Page 10; UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9. Application 8-TM-76 411(Revised) of DREW ARVAY: Requesting
; approval to construct a gazebo outside the approved buidling
, envelope on Lot 5 in the Rainbow's End subdivision.
Assistant Planning Director Piasecki described the desired
!; position of the gazebo and suggested Commission approval by
Minute Order.
Drew Arvay, the Applicant, said the 15 ft. gazebo sat on top of
a retaining wall, was non-obtrusive, did not block views, and
had not been objected to by neighbors. He explained that if it .
was moved 6 ft. over, the most desired location (which was out-
side the expanded building envelpe) it would be further screened
by a huge oak tree. I '
The consensus of the Commission was that the size of the lot
was large enough to accommodate the gazebo there.
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to adopt ;a MINUTE ORDER to approve a
gazebo located outside of the .building envelope for
Lot 5 of Rainbows End Subdivision, per Exhibit A
presented by the Applicant with a Condition that a
slight adjustment to g
ali n with the center line of the
„
pool might be approved by Staff at Building Permit level.
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent) ' I
10. Application 8-U-84 of GEORGE SOMPS/ANDREW JARA: Requesting
approval of a minor modification to a previously approved Use III
Permit to allow installation of a satellite dish antenna.
Said project is located on the no';rth side of Stevens Creek
Boulevard approximately 250 ft . vilest of Blaney Avenue.
Director of Planning and Developrerlt Cowan said the dish was not
visible from the site or neighboring houses, and that the design
and color were unobtrusive. He suggested for the future, that
Staff prepare a policy on such dishes for Commission approval.
The Commission agreed and further asked for criteria to judge
whether such dishes were necessary when requested.
Com. Adams had not noticed the dillsh at the site, and asked if it
was as low on the roof as possible.
Raymond Rooker, Architect, confirmed it was actually lower than
the prepared sketch, and that theyIhad paid careful attention to
the residences at back. On the d . h policy, he remarked that
sometimes screening could be worse than the dashes and felt they
should be better accepted in the Valley, where they were almost
a "trade-mark". 1
MOTION: Com. Sorensen to approve; Application 8-U-84
subject to the Findings 'pf the Staff Report and
Subconclusions of the Hearing, with Conditions
1 and 2 as listed in the Staff Report .
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed 4-0
411(Com. Mackenzie absent) ;
�..`i"� �i. tf_ r �n ad.♦fir Wi`vy, + .'71c .. 4 °�ti 1J.:y4+1. �,,r..�fi }� I�C`+1 nL.
y r, F v ,.< C }4r ` r 'A Oly— 6 E`
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, AUGUST, 12,' 1985 2'C, 72 "
:Page '11 -
REPORT OF THE PLANNING. COMMISSION b,
Chr. Claudy introduced Air. Jose' Batto of. P. & E. ,' 1who
explained that he. would 'be attending ' Important Planning i, .;;'
Coi=ission and City Council Mee'tings to answer questions,
as part of the new P.G. & E. "Key Contact. Program".
Chr. Claudy noted the extension of Commissionera' . terms.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR g.
is
Mr. Cowan discussed the heavy schedule for the first
September Meeting with the Commission.
After determining the nature of the Items, it was decided to
schedule most Items for September 9th, with the Vallco Park
Hotel Item to be scheduled for September 11th and the
E1 Camino Hospital. Item for September 17th. The Commission
felt it would be inconsiderate to have the public sitethrough
several Meetings to be heard, as might happen otherwise. .
Mr. Cowan informed the Commission of the Planning; Commissioner '
Institute Meeting to be held on October 28th.
ADJOURNMENT: :1;08 :�•.M.
ATTESTED• ti .fir " APPROVED: .
City Jerk Xhaon
P.
E.
t
` tt