Loading...
PC 10-16-85 CITY OF CUPERTINO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA PC-478/A 10300 Torre Avenue,Cupertino,CA. 95014 Page 1 Telephone : (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1985. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 7 : 30 P .M. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : Com. Mackenzie Com. Adams Com. Szabo Corn. Sorensen (9: 30 p.m. approx. ) Chr. Claudy Staff Present : Dir. of Ping. and Commty,Devel.Cowan Assistant Planning Dir. Piasecki Assistant City Engineer Whitten PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8. CHARLES MASTERS (REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH) : REZONING (19-Z-85) approximately 1. 3 gross acres from BQ (Quasi- Public Building) zone to R1-6 (Residential Single-family, 6,000 sq. ft . lot size zone or whatevr zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and TENTATIVE SUB- DIVISION MAP (19-TM-85) to subdivide approximately three acres into seven parcels . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The • Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date is November 4, 1985. Mr. Piasecki outlined the Staff Report , especially noting Mr. Jauch ' s feelings that the culdesac should be shifted, which would mean further encroachment into the Applicant ' s property. Chr. Claudy established with Staff that the property marked in pink was Mr. Jauch' s right of way and would not have to be involved in construction. Mary Kirkeby, representing the Applicant, felt the flagging of the lot off Dumas caused problems, that the lot would be too narrow to build a house on, and either lot being required to face on the park would not be very liveable . He pointed out that other parks had lots siding to them he did not understand why having a rear or side yard to the park would cause a problem. Com. Szabo established with Staff and Mr. Kirkeby that the trees would be protected and would act as a 15 ft . hedge. Mr. Piasecki, discussing the flag, advised the Commission that shifting the lot lines across the subdivision would make it workable. • Randall Smith, 22811A Medina Lane, President of the Congre- gation of Redeemer Lutheran Church, advised they were trying hard to conserve trees and serve the community best with this plan. They did not see that surveillance would be served considering the existing fencing and trees,but did not want same removed, because of community benefit . PC-478/A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1985 Page 2 Ted Greer, member of the Board of Trustees of Redeemer Lutheran Church, explained the development enabled them to expand their 110 facilities and add landscaped parking, and was concerned that if the plan had to be changed, Mr. Masters might not develop . Irene Jauch, 10760 S. Stelling Road, confirmed with Chr. Claudy that his understanding was the same as the position in the City Council Minutes of August 15, 1985, and that in previous discussions it had not been felt necessary to construct on any of the Jauch property. Mr. Cowan advised City Council had been told that when the Redeemer Lutheran Church land was developed, there had to be a decision whether the culdesac would be completed. Chr. Claudy established with Mr. Cowan that though technically the upper right quadrant of the red triangle could be left out, this was not very satisfactory. Mr. Ed Jauch showed slides of his and the adjoining property and stated that storm drain and sewer line details on Cupertino Sanitary District blueprints now appeared on their property where previously they had not . Chr. Claudy interjected that the Commission did not get involved with such things which were left to City professionals and established that in the Tentative Map the Commission was merely approving that such facilities would be provided, and not the position of them. Mr. Jauch wanted to make it clear that there was not a manhole • where it appeared on the drawing. Mr. Kirkeby advised the storm and sanitary systems shown were constructed in conjunction with the subdivision to the north. Rachel Craven, 7589 Erin Way, member of Redeemer Lutheran, felt Mr. Jauch' s property would be enhanced and Mr. Master' s plans would add to their neighborhood. Ann Anger, Cupertino resident, emphasized the developer should not encroach on land that was not his . Charles Masters, Applicant , advised that in a previous Map lots 5 and 6 were to face towards a new street to the north, but that Mr. Jauch had at that time presented a plan to turn them around to be more compati'cle with plans he had. With this plan he had been careful :lot to encroach on Mr. Jauch ' s land, locating the culdesac bilb to give fair access to Mr. Jauch, he said. He emphasizec the curb was off the pink area mentioned. He noted his difficulties in working with lots 5 and 6 the way that Staff preferred. Com. Mackenzie established with Mr. Masters that he could get a 32 ft . inside radius of the culdesac without encroaching into the pink triangle. The Commission and Applicant discussed reconfiguring the lots to make the plan work. It was established that a driveway • to lot 2 could not be taken off Dumas because the curb was already constructed there, and Mr. Kirkeby felt the house would look like a townhouse at best . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 16, 1985 PC-478/A MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing Page 3 SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE : Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent ) Chr. Claudy expliained the philosophy of fronting streets to parks. He felt if lots 1 and 6 were defined facing south, physical survellance and wider lots would be gained. The Commission discussed the concept of cyclone fencing for surveillance purposes if lot 6 was not to face the park. Mr. Cowan felt the homeowners would tend to put up solid board fence, because of the privacy problem. Com. Mackenzie wanted visibility into the park as a require- ment, and felt the street requirement was a policy. Mr. Piasecki advised there was no obligation to instal a str-et . Com. Szabo observed the visibility requirement could not be enforced, since homeowners could plant shrubs,and that in any case with the trees there would not be much visibility. Chr, Claudy felt the culdesac was in the correct location but also felt Mr. Jauch, who was not involved, should not be required to give up property, and that it was not required to build in the larger triangle now. Com. Adams said the fire truck turnaround should not be jeopardized, and was in favor of implementing a plan to acquire title to the red triangle area. The consensus of the Commission was that the Applicant be responsible for all improvements for the culdesac, with the exception of the pink triangle area, outside of the Jauch right of way. Chr. Claudy clarified for Mr. Jauch that the Applicant would have to negotiate with him to buy the red triangle area and, if refused, could apply to City Council to condemn It was the consensus of the Commission that the front yard of Lot 6 should face south, so precluding a 6 ft . solid fence, and also precluding a 3 ft . fence on the first 20 ft . of the lot . MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend the granting of a Negative Delcaration SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent ) MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 19-Z-85, SECOND: Com. Szabo .. VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent ) • MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 19-TM-85, subject to the Findings of th Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15; Conditions 16-19; Condition 20 modified to • PC-478/A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1985 Page 4 state that the driveway flag for parcel 6 shell he a minimum of 2n ft . in width and111 located on the westerly property line (with the second sentence as in the Staff Report ) ; Condition 21 modified to include, "the south property line for lot 6 shall be defined as the front yard as defined by R-1 Ordinanae, ' Section 27; second sentence to be deleted; third sentence as is; fourth sentence to be deleted; New Condition 22 added to state that the Applicant is responsible for the closing of the right of way and the improvements shown, except for the Jauch property that is not in the Jollyman Lane right of way. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent ) 9 . DERK K. HUNTER PROPERTIES (KIER & WRIGHT) : TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (17-TM-85) to consolidate three parcels consisting of approximately . 6 acres into one parcel. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence no environmental review is necessary. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of South De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road in a P (Planned Development with Commer- cial and Office intent) zoning district . First Hearing. The Planning Commission has final approval unless appealed. . Mr. Cowan explained the Application allowed the Use Permit to be implemented. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent ) MOTION: Com. Adams, to approve Application 17-TM-85 subject to the Findings and Conditions of the Staff Report . SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 4-0 10 . WHALEY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (LANDS OF WESTERMAN) : TENTA- TIVE PARCEL MAP (20-TM-85) to subdivide approximately . 75 acre into four parcels ranging in size from 6,300 to 6, 900 sq . ft . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way on the south side of Rainbow Drive and approximately 300 ft . west of Stelling Road and is prezoned R1-6 (Residential Single-Family, 6,000 sq. ft . minimum lot size) . First hearing. The Planning Commission has final approval unless appealed. Mr. Cowan, reviewing the Staff Report , advised Mr. Whaley • had agreed to Staff' s requests, but that an issue not addressed was whether a sound wall was necessary adjacent to the Southern Pacific right of way . It was Staff ' s feeling, because of the planned development nature and the rural area, such a wall should not be required, he said. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1985 PC-478/A Warren Whaley, the Applicant, had no objection to the Page 5 410 Conditions, had already implemented the suggested revisions on the culdesac, but felt a sounuwall would serve no purpose . MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Corn. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent ) The consensus of the Commission was the soundwall not be required. MOTION: Com. Szabo, to approve Application 20-TM-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing, with Conditions 1-15 and 16-20 of the Staff Report . SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent) 11 . DeANZA PROPERTIES (CUPERTINO INN) : MODIFICATION OF USE PERMIT (15-U-85) for the par.pose of deleting a parking structure and consideration of minor site modifications. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence no Environmental review is necessary. The property is located on the northwest corner of Highway 280 and North DeAnza Boulevard in a P (Planned Development with commercial intent) zoning district . First Hearing. Tentative City • Council hearing date - October 21, 1985. Mr. Cowan advised that Staff' s concern in deleting the parking structure had been the possibility of off-site patrons frequenting a proposed lounge and drinking estab- lishment , but as the Applicant had since determined it unnecessary to have such, Staff now felt comfortable with the reduced parking. He commented the change was positive in terms of appearance, as the ramp would have been un- sightly . He presented a revision to Condition 3 . Chr. Claudy wondered whether the recordation of a covenant should remain a part of Condition 3 . Mr. Piasecki explained Staff would prefer not to use it because of clouding of title and related problems, and felt with such a small facility it would not be necessary. The Applicant would not be putting up restaurant and bar signs, he said. Com. Szabo felt Condition 3 might be misleading. Mr. Vidovitch, Applicant, commented that because of the ABC* licensing laws, they would only be able to serve liquor to guests, and would not be able to charge. It had now evolved in- to an all-suites hotel, he said, and did not involve cooking or bar facilities and met all parking requirements for similar small hotels . Chr. Claudy established with Mr. Vidovitch that he was giving up the restaurant to have the parking garage deleted. Asked by Mr. Vidovitch if it could be interpreted as a minor change, Chr. Claudy advised it had already been voted otherwise and so had to go on to City Council . PC-478/ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1985 Page 6 Com. Szabo was inclined to grant the capacity of breakfast service to guests, which he felt important for the success of the project . ' Mr. Fred Reed, President of Associated Land Management, agreed saying they would serve continental breakfast and might want to go further. For dinner, which was of less importance, they had made arrangements with local restaurants for room service, if required. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Appli- cation 15-U-85 (Revised) subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing, with Conditions 1, 2 and 4 as written in the Staff Report and Condition 3 as presented at the Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Sorensen absent) 12. PAUL TAI: REZONING (20-Z-85) approximately 2 .1 gross acres from BQ (Quasi-Public Building) zone to R1-6 (Residential Single-Family, 6,000 sq. ft . minimum lot size) zoning district or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (Map 21-TM-85) to subdivide approximately 2. 25 acres into 12 parcels ranging in size from 6,000 sq . ft . to 9,200 sq . ft . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the • granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the east side of Stelling Road, south of and adjacent to the West Valley Freeway (Highway 85) right of way and approximately 100 ft . north of West Hill Lane. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date is November 4,1985. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report and advised the only issue was a request from an adjoining property owner that construction vehicles come in anothr way, which was addressed in the Conditions . Paul Tai, Applicant , said he had worked closely with Staff to find the best development solution; there were now 11 lots, two less than originally, because of dedication requirements. He advised he had negotiated with Trinity Arabians for access, and would be building a retaining and sound wall at construction time. Com. Adams established Mr. Whitten felt there was enough dedication to cover the "worst case" for construction in the Highway 85 corridor. Com. Mackenzie observed that if the freeway was at grade on Stelling this would not be the "worst case" . Mr. Whitten replied that City Council ' s final position was that the new road would be depressed. Com. Adams questioned noise attenuation. • Mr. Cowan agreed there would have to be noise attenuation in conjunction with the construction of the freeway, but did not want to see a 6 ft . soundwall built now that might eventually be inadequate. I *ABC - Alcoholic Beverages Com::.fission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1985 PC-478/A Com. Mackenzie suggested double-glazing, and on hearing Faze 7 410 from the Applicant this and R-19 insulation were already conservation requirements, he felt the units could be required to be designed to meet requirements to be specified. Mr. Whitten wanted it considered that if soundwalls were built now, they would be on private property and the State would not maintain them. It was discussed whether and how to hold funds from the Applicant for future soundwall construction. Mr. Thai advised that as he had to build a retaining wall anyway, he wanted to construct it as a 6 ft . to 11 ft . above grade noise attenuation wall. The Commission felt, because of the height, ,this would be satisfactory. Mr. Cowan agreed (though there might be some redundancy eventually) especially if the wall could be designed to be expanded if necessary. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend granting of a Negative Declaration. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie • VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 20-Z-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report . SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 21-TM-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing with Standard Conditions 1-15; Conditions 16-19; Condition 20 modified to allow access either from Stelling Road or the Highway 85 right of way; Condition 21; Condition 22 added entitled "Sound Attenuation" requiring 1) that as units are constructed a qualified sound engineer be retained to examine the plans and ensure units comply to a 29 decibel noise level, and 2) a covenant be recorded passing this obligation on to poten- tial new owners. SECOND : Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION R".•.: a1A PC-478A PLANNING COMMISSION' DIINUTE5, OCTOBER ] fi, 1985. Page f REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ;dr. Cowan advised� that City Council .had beenasked' fox°.: `. design guidelines for the Vallco Habial, that, height had. not been a concern to .them, th&t there had been :a -.strong desire for a 1-5 horizontal/vertical setback relationship, and that the architectural design was basically rejected. ' , he advised it was imnrobab.le the Hotel watlldbbe ready for the next Hearing and might even be delayed into the. New Year. ` Com. Szabo established the present location of the towers would be outside the guidelines. The Commission felt because of the -significance for Cupertino, they hi!eded to see a detailed model-.df::the building with a block diagram to show the relationship, of the surrounding structures, up to the freeway; Wolfe Road; and Stevens Creek Boulevard down to the Widmark Hotel. It was suggested that the matter of obtaining a model of the City be explored, possibly to be built by a civic group or school, since such models otherwise were very expensive. ADJOURNMENT: 3.0:15 P-M APPROVED: ATTEST i - 'a' . s. airperson .- r E 4- i 5 L� Y t �t t M o r. T i fP r, f e w .s�.s '� °.�,���t�'s its '"" •.4^n�,1 ,.�„f� ��'fF '4'�' T :�'�A• i �. a dei ,1