Loading...
PC 11-20-85 CITY OF CUPERTINO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA PC-481 10300 TORRE AVENUE,CUPERTINO,CA. 95014 Page 1 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1985 SALUTE TO THE FLAG : 7: 30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Mackenzie, Adams, Szabo, Sorensen and Chairman Claudy, Director of Planning and Community Development Cowan, Assistant Planning Director Piasecki, Planner II Binnendym and Housing Specialist Brutoco present . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 12, 1985 were continued. POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS & VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS: Several written communications, to be entered at the appropriate tim: . PUBLIC HEARINGS The consensus of the Commission was tha Item 1 (a) and (b) would be heard and continued for environmental assessment an. Item 1(c) and 2 would be heard simultaneously, as they influenced each other. ITEM 1:CITY OF CUPERTINO (1-GPA-85) PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS including, but not limited to, the matters described below: • (a) Amend the HOUSING ELEMENT to update demographic data, reassess housing need and amend various housing policies. (b) Amend the LAND USE ELEMENT to allow a portion of the Vallco Park hotel room allocation to shift north of Interstate Rte. 280 in the Vallco Park Plannin&_Area. Discussing the Housing Element (a) Mr. Cowan said the Commission (1) needed to understand the needs of the community as defined by Staff, the BMR* Committee and City Council (2) rescind th BMR* program and (3) replace the BMR* program. Ns. Drutocg stated the needs of several groups had been identified. ABAG* required that Cupertino not only address its own needs, but a fair shar of the regional needs, she said, and had given the City numbers which had been used to estimate approximate1ythe amount of the 1985/90 need met by income group which appeared in the Staff Report . HUD* figures had been used to define moderate family income, and low income and above moderate had also been examined. She advised it was almost impossible to meet the numbers, and that the State was aware of that, the idea being to do the best possible within the constraints. In discussing the Housing Element and the BMR* program, the City Council had • identified the needs of fixed income people, especially seniors and female heads of households with children, she advised. *BA:R - Below Market Rate Housing *ABAG -Association of Bay Area Governments *HUD = Committee on Housing and Urban Development . I PC-481 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 20, 1985 Page 2 Ms . Binnendyk stated the BMR* Committee ' s feeling that the major need for the moderate income group was ownership and ' the below moderate income group was rental, and described their goals for a replacement program as more equitable, on-going and self-sufficient, not relying on a continual supply of new housing. They suggested that a non-profit housing corporation could work closely with the City and that all developers be levied a construction fee to go into the General Fund to develop alternatives such as purchase and resale below market rate; equity sharing or low interest loans; purchasing vacant land and developing for low/moderate income projects; purchasing multi-family residences and rehabilitating for rental; sponsoring rental supllements; providing low interest loans for creation of rental units . She suggested the present BMR* Committee could choose the non-profit corporation to be used and discussed the construction fee approach, giving an idea of possible revenues based on square footage. She confirmed that City Council had indicated their broad support to incorporate such a scheme into the Housing Element if the Planning Commission felt it appropriate . Questioned by the Commission, Ms . Einnendyk established that each BMR* unit was subsidized in the amount of approximately $50,000, so that with 100 units, the program would cost $5,000,000 at build-out . It was noted that the square footage tax could match this amount over a five-year period. Corr. Szabo noted that in the past the developers building the most moderately priced housing had been penalized by the BMR*progralll Com. Sorensen established that City Council was mainly concerned with fixed income people. Mr. Cowan added that City Council had wanted localized needs addressed rather than the State fair share numbers . Chr. Claudy felt that since the average income in Cupertino was at least $9, 000 higher than the average for the County, according to the QED Report figures, there was no conceivable way any kind of national housing need could be met here, and no very low income and very little low income housing could be provided. Ms. Britico believed that only 10a of very low income and 15% of low income needs 1980/9C had been met so far. Com. Szabo noted a significant increase in apartment vacancies, which might moderate rents. Beverly Lawrence, Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, advised that a Bay Area Council survey had shown that a person could not now buy an averagehouse with an average income . Iola Hendrikson, past member of the Rental Stablization Committee, said the City Council had wished to keep a balanced community, and wondered if the non-profit housing corporation would solve the problems of seniors in Cupertino, who were • not at poverty level, but who could no longer afford rents here. She hoped that a project like Lytton Gardens in Palo Alto could be built in Cupertino, and pointed out what Cupertino had done for the handicapped and in providing the El Camino *BMR - Below Market Rate Housing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 20, 1985 PC-481 Hospital site for continuous care facilities . She hoped Page 3 IIPsomething could be done for seniors and single mothers, she said, and pointed out that vacant apartments were often left that way because of the tax shelter value, and low income families and seniors did not benefit from the situation. Com. Szabo asked for figures on senior housing needs, but Staff did not have them separated out . Ms. Lawrence gave statistics from the 1980 census, indicatin:, that 1,000 families lived on incomes of $4,700 per annum in Cupertino. The Commission felt these figures might refelct taxable income only and concluded they made little sense and they could not put faith in them, but acknowledged that there was a definite need for affordable housing in Cupertino . Ms . Lawrence felt that zoning for higher density could make housing more affordable, and that such could be attractive as in the Lytton Gardens project . She also mentioned that San Mateo County had begun to finance "granny" units . The concept of Lytton Gardens was discussed, that they were very small and had little parking. It was felt "granny units would be unpopular, since they would eventually become rental housing, and people did not want this next doo . Mr. Cowan felt the political potential had been reached in • terms of density in 1978, putting his hopes in mixed use projects, where developers were not charged for residential units . Chr. Claudy noted that though one such project was being constructed in Town Center, it had not been popular with developers so far. He also noted that increased density did not necessarily mean more affordable housing. Ms. Hendrikson advised that Austin was converting office space to residential use, and felt this could be done in Cupertino. Jason Chartier, developer and member of the EMR* Committee, recommended taking applications on a case by case basis, not being ruled by too many guidelines, which he felt enabled people to beat the system. There were many ideas to be pursued, he said, and did not want to see a cut and dried program, but one that was ongoing and helping the truly needy. C Mackenzie established that Mr. Chartier felt the Com. acken ie present BMR* Committee could go forward as an operating committee. Com. Sorensen suggested a representative from Cupertino Community Services might be a member. • Mr. Chartier felt this need would be met by having applicants fill out written applications that would go before the committee . Staff asked for direction. *BMR - Below Market Rate Housing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 20, 1985 PC-4+81 Com. Adams, acknowledging the unfair aspects of the present Page 4 program, favored the BMR* Committee proposal of a fee across 11, the board and of defining as needs theyarose. He favored a ten-year renewabler P loan o rare but was not in favor of P o the City purchasing property. urchasin Mr. Cowan noted that City purchase of property would be prohibited without a vote of the people. Com. Mackenzie supported the idea of a loan program. He noted the new program would put more burden on developers and wanted it kept at par. He liked the idea of the BMR* Committee handling the review of applications on a subjective basis . Com. Sorensen added that teachers, seniors and single parents seemed to be need categories, and that Cupertino Community Services had seen an increase in families applying for assistance. Com. Szabo favored retaining a non-profit corporation to operate the program and felt rental and purchase were appropriate for different groups, and that professionals, such as teachers, would go elsewhere if there was no purchase program. He wanted to see two-bedroom condominiums in the purchase program program, being recycled when people moved up in the market . He felt the funds should not be limited to the construction tax, but should be augmented from the General Fund. Chr. Claudy felt since Cupertino residents, employers and developers would be paying, the benefits should go to Cupertino residents or workers . He was in favor of a rent-oriented program, and noted that it tcok windfall profits to move up in housing and so disagreed with Com. Szabo . Also, he was opposed to General Fund monies, other than the special account , being used, except if voted in, which he doubted it would be . Com. Adams agreed that the majority of any program should be rental, since he had read that renters were better off in today ' s market . Com. Szabo suggested using Palo Alto ' s formula to prevent windfall profits . He noted that if Cupertino was closed to first time homebuyers, professionals would not make their homes in Cupertino. Com. Sorensen advised the School District would be in a hiring mode for the next five years. Chr. Claudy suggested the School District might follow the example of Columbia University, who rented to employees, since they owned a lot of land. The consensus of the Commission was to recommend replacing the BMR* program and that the new program should not focus on specific categories, but should take applications on a case by case basis, governed by need. • The Commission was interested '.n exploring increased density only on parcels presently isolated from existing residential, because of transition problems , and encouraged mixed use. *BMR - Below Market Rate Housing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEiIEER 20, 1985 PC-481 Staff undertook to identify some possible areas where Pale 5 . increases could be made on a case by case basis . Discussing the Land Use Element, Mr. Cowan explained that the wording in the General Plan regarding the Vallco Park Hotel made it appear that all hotel space had to be south o Highway 280, which had been a Staff mistake. Now Vallco Park was exploring the possibility of a business suite hotel north of Highway 280 . The Public Works Director had been concerned with Staff ' s rewording, but the rewording presented tonight from Vallco Park was satisfactory to the Public Works Director and Staff and was more restrictiv- he advised. The Commission was concerned that if the site chosen was west of Wolfe Road, it might impact the homes there. Mr. Cowan advised that traffic would be sealed off and that there was enough room on the site to position the hotel to prevent privacy intrusion. The consensus of the Commission was that the Land Use Ele- ment of 1-GPA-85 was satisfactory . The Housing and Land Use Elements of 1-GPA-85 were continue. to the Meeting of January 13, 1986 for environmental assessment . BREAK: 9 : 30 - 9 : 45 P.M. • ITEM 1 : c ) Amend the LAND USE ELEMENT to designate as a "Residential" use area those lots situate at the easterly terminus of Blossom Lane backing up to South De Anza Boulevard. ITEM 2 : HUNTER PROPERTIES REZONING (23-Z-85) of approximately 0 . 21 acres from R1-10 to P (Planned Development with General Commercial Intent ) . USE PERMIT (43-U-85) to expand a previously approved commercial center by 2,300 sq.ft . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Negative Declaration recommenced. LOCATION: Easterly terminus of Blossom Lane, adja- cent to South De Anza Boulevard and southerly of McClellan Road. First Hearing. Mr. Cowan explained City Council had initiated the amend- ment, since the three parcels concerned were general-p lanne. commercial and zoned residential and had to conform. Staff felt that because of the South De Anza Boulevard Plan, the properties should be zoned commercial, but that they should be developed simultaneously, he said. He relayed residents concerns that the commercial would eventually expand wester y and also the neighborhood continuity would be destroyed, • but Staff felt a hard line could be drawn and there could b; a neighborhood treatment similar to that in the Vallco Park area to mitigate the impact . PC-481 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 20, 1935 Page 6 Chr. Claudy noted that only if the Commission would accept piecemeal development of the three lots could the Hunter 11, Application be considered; otherwise it was moot . Deke Hunter, Applicant , described their project at the corner of McClellan Road and South De Anza Boulevard as first class and agreed with taking a hard line position on zoning, and felt thattle commercial zoning should stop at the three properties in question. He agreed to lower the south end of the building, if required, and noted they were providing ingress and egress and treating the culdesac positively for the neighborhood. He further noted that Mr. IY,itchell and the MacDonalds supported the rezoning and felt the soundwalls would be an asset . Com. Mackenzie asked if Mr. Hunter had attempted a plan for simultaneous development . Mr. Hunter confirmed he had, but that the Culver' s were not ready to develop. Robert Kretschmann, Blossom Lane, felt it was paradoxical to hear earlier that more residential units were required and to hear now that three were being considered for commercial zoning. Ms . Culver, Blossom Lane resident, confirmed they were not interested in redeveloping currently, and felt the redevelop- ment should take place simultaneously as it would otherwise • be unsightly, but was amenable to the commercial zoning. Susan Minch Kretschmann, Blossom Lane, supported Mr. Kretschmann and added that office vacancy rates were about 30%. As a homeowner there, she did not want to see commercial development at the end of the culdesac instead of large trees, as the neighborhood country feeling would be destroyed. She felt the backs of the residences could be made to look acceptable from the South De Anza Boulevard Side . Helene MacDonald, owner of one of the properties, supported the commercial zoning and noted she had had five offers, all commercial, on the property in the past year. She felt it was unrealistic to be penalized when theirs and treCulvers ' needs were not the same. She felt the soundwalls and land- scaping would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Mrs . Waltrip, Blossom Lane, disagreed that Mrs . MacDonald ' s property was in good condition, as had been stated by Mrs . MacDonald. Joe Waltrip questioned the size of the building and was advised that it would have to meet setbacks standards, if approved. He felt if the Culver residence was the only one left as an island on South De Anza Boulevard the City would want to change it, and wanted the Culver' s property protected. Chr. Claudy explained that Mrs . Culver was not objecting to the commercial zoning aspect . • Tom. O 'Donnell, Attorney for Hurter Properties, felt that in the long term, the three could not remain residential and that the use permit and ASAC* Conditions would protect the remaining *ASAC- Architectural and Site Control Committee P PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 20, 1985 PC=481 homes and felt the soundwall would be beneficial. He Page 7 411, emphasized that the third property owner, though not ready to develop, agreed on the commercial zoning and he did not think the other two should be married to the Culvers ' time schedule, noting that an opportunity could be lost here . Ms. Culver felt they had the right to live with the traffic and noise, if they wanted, until her husband retired and the were ready to move. Ms. Kretschmann noted that from the South De Anza Boulevard side the properties appeared commercial, but from the Blossom Lane side they appeared residential. Deke Hunter presented photographs taken that day on Blossom Lane and some of a culdesac in the Vallco Park area, mention:d earlier by Mr. Cowan, which had received a similar treatment to that proposed for Blossom Lane. The majority of the Commission felt that in a maximum of ten years the lots would be commercial and felt they should be so zoned now, but should develop simultaneously, with a sensitive approach to the culdesac and the residences . Com. Adams hoped that the residences could somehow be replaced elsewhere. Chr. Claudy noted the difficulty of replacing the residences as had been found in the past . He agreed with Ms. Kretschma .n • that the properties appeared residential from Blossom Lane and commercial from South De Anza Boulevard and, in deciding which aspect to give up, because of the shortage in the City he believed it should be the residential that should be kept However, if the zoning was to be changed, he agreed that piecemeal development should not be allowed. Mr. Cowan suggested amending the General Plan to include the statement that the lots should develop jointly and continuing the Applications to the January 13, 1986 Meeting. The 'Commibsien .ekacssrtained that if they rezoned nowthey would be required to hear the Use Permit and wanted the zoning continued. Mr. Cowan inquired of the Applicant whether a continuance or a vote would be satisfactory . Mr. O 'Donnell pointed out that timing was important to them and also to Ms. MacDonald, and this could not be done in 4/5 months time . He wanted the record to show that the Applicant was asked to demonstrate what the unified develop- ment might look like and also why the Applicant felt the development of one parcel would not take away from the whole. He noted there were alternatives to the plan presented tonight . Chr. Claudy agreed to hear Item 2 in its entirety, since the • Applicant should not be denied the opportunity to present the Use Permit and to appeal to City Council, if necessary , at this time . PC-481 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 20, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Hunter, addressing the use, stated there was only a 2/4o vacancy rate of commercial in Cupertino, so that resi- • dential and retail compared for scarcity. This was a natural extension of their present development, he said, and they had tried to mitigate the effects on the culdesac as previously discussed. Their presentaion of the three properties was a suggestion only, to show the optimum design, but both the Mitchell and Culver properties could develop alone, he felt . By adding the MacDonald site, they had increased the parking and could move the curb cut if required and provide ingress and egress for the other two lots when they were ready to develop. Questioned by Chr. Claudy regarding the culdesac treatement, Mr. Hunter suggested the wall could be on their side with landscaping on the neighborhood side, and said they were flexible. He noted that the City seemed to have great aspirations for the intersection, with realignment of Pacifica Drive and McClellan Road and their development would have a positive visual impact there, he said. Questioned by Com. Mackenzie, Mr. Cowan advised the plan had not been thoroughly checked sinca it had been assumed the Application would be continued. Ms. Pat Hendsch, Realtor for the MacDonalds, stressed that all offers on the property had been commercial. She felt the development would be beneficial to the area, that the soundwalls would not be highly visible and the properties • were suitable to be developed individually . Chr. Claudy asked if the property had been on the market as a commercial property. Ms . Hendsch said it had come on the market at the same time as the corner property, but they had made a full disclosure, not advocating it was a commercial property, but what the General Plan reflected. MOTION: Com. Szabo, to close the PUblic Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 Corns . Adams and Szabo repeated ',heir concerns about piece- meal development . Findings were discussed. Com. Mackenzie noted he was swagged by the presentation and felt the Hunter and MacDonald properties could feasibly be developed together. Com. Sorensen noted that from t -,e residential side, this would leave half a culdesac developed commercially,and would not be aesthetic . MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to reco"unend the granting of a Negative Declaration on Applications 23-Z-85 and 43-U-85 • SECOND : Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 ..... K ..... �Q ' ! 14 rT 1..,51 '. PLANNING- CODDIISSIO-V MINUTES, NOVEI-IBER .-20 Page- zabo., to recommend, I iOTION: Com. Szabo, denial, of,,: Appaioationv. 23-Z-85 based on the Findingsofbeing` ui'rie' ntly4' under 'd Gdneral Plan , 4 residential community; undesirable p ec.emea treatment along South De Aiiza Bo'ulevard.'.-" SECOND: Com. ' Sorensen VOTE: Passed 41-1 (Co'm. Mackenzie dissenting) MOTION: Com. Szabo, to reco=rend denial of Application 43-U-85 based on the Finding that having, -recommended against the zoning change the Use Permit -is'. in--;.. appropriate. SECOND: Com. Sorensen% VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Chr. Claudy to send a MILTUTE ORDER to the City, Council,-,.,-f- rat. that if it should-be decided to approve Application 43-U-85, the Application be sent back to : the Planning Commission r for adetailed study of soubabarrier, parking lot, and culddsac treatments and location of the curb out ; ," ,. secondly, advising that the Commission felt-the three properties should be developed jointly. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed . 5-0 NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT: 11:42 P.M. ;ATTEST:-',— APPROVED: e alrperson ?K CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA il/ 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino,Ca. 95014 r^^a ` ; Telephone: (408) 252-4505 - I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING CO:,:+iISSIO': HELD ON OCTOBER 14, 1985 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 7 : 30 P .M. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : Com. Mackenzie Com. Adams Com. Szabo Com. Sorensen Chr. Claudy Staff Present : Dir. of Ping. & Comty.Devel . Cowan Assistant Ping, Dir. Piasecki City Engineer Whitten City Attorney Kilian APPROVAL OF MINUTES [MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to continue the approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 23rd. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS The Chairman advised the audience that Item #7 had been withdrawn. WRITTEN Mi4UNICATIONS Several relating to withdrawn Item #7 . ORAL COMN1NICATION S CONSENT CALENDAR r+.T T T E T IT��•�S REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1 . Application 34-U-85 of BEIM AND JAMES: USE PERMIT to construct a three-story office building consisting of approximately 38,700 sq. ft . and demolish an existing restaurant building. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environ- ,;iental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the west side of North DeAnza Boulevard approximately 130 ="t . north of Valley Green Drive ir. a P(Planned Development sic"r. General Commercial, Light Industrial and Residential) zoning district . The project was previously assessed, hence no environmental action is necessary. First Hearing. Tentative City Council Hearing date is October 21, 1985. Mr. Cowan reviewed the Staff =report, advising that Staff supported the Application. : e explained it had been 41P resubmitted because thougt the Planning Commission had approved the prior submittal 1a June, City Council had felt the building was too massiv and had also cited a glut of office space. i • PC-478 PLANNING C01"MISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 14, 1985 Page 2 • He indicated the new, lighter colored, material used and the offset of the third level and terracing, all to soften the building' s impact . .:e fuither indicated .:ol the'�.. �iCy of replacement of commercial activities with office activities on North De Anza Boulevard was scheduled to be discussed by the City Council the next evening. James E. Jackson, representing the Applicant, stated the restaurant had not been a successful use there, so the site had failed to maintain the approved use, the reason probably being the site was too large, the trip constraint for the restaurant use being only .10 F.A.R. *, which was much lower than other allowable uses. He felt there was no guarantee a quality restaurant would locate, there,and that nobody wanted the entrance to Cupertino dominated by a fast food restaurant . He had made a study and exhibited a map of 90 restaurant sites in the City, mentioning that several restaurants had closed because of the economy and also that there would be many sites for restaurants to locate, such as around the proposed hotel at Vallco and in the new City Center. He stated the figures used in surplus office space studies included space still on the drawing board and some financed but not even started, that surplus space available was actually closer to 8%, and that a cyclical economic downturn was also involved. He surmised that this location would be easier to lease than others in the City and felt the decision basis should be land use planning and not cyclical downturn. He compared past apartment and 'gas station over-supply problems to the issue, and noted the marketplace always took care of the problems . He stresised a 1974/75 decision of City Council that the North De Anza 'Boulevard area would not be allocated specific uses, a conciept of trip ends being treated instead of control a spectrum o;f uses, and felt it was unfair to change this rule now. In conclusion, he stated the design had been improved and the building blended height-wise with those adjacent . - Mr. B.H. Bocooh, 4041 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, Architect on the project, advised the height was now three-story only in the center, that the setback from De Anza Boulevard had been increased by 15 ft. and because the elevation of the building was lower than Rong Shing by aft . with the berm being left at existing height, most of the first floor would be hidden and all the parking would be screened. He noted the material and color change, and also that the glass and concrete in the center element had been treated in a different way, all to reduce the massive effect . Additions included trees and a water feature and roof gardens on the two-story elements, and there would be a front door on' De Anza Boulevard, he said. Cora. Adams established the windows in the center element were recessed 18 to 20 inches. Chr. Claudy explored mechanical equipment screening materials and established with the Architect that he was willing to use stucco textured material instead of metal, if requird. F.A. R. - Floor Area Ratio PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOPER 14, 1985 PC-473 Ann Anger, Cupertino resident, felt this type of office Page 3 space was a good use for the parcel and said Cupertino had a lower office vacancy rate than the rest of the County . She had supported the first Application, but liked this design even better, she said. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Adams felt Mr. Jackson had presented excellent argu- ments in favor of the project . The Commission was in favor of the new design, though Chr. Claudy and Com. Mackenzie were disappointed that the green granite would not be used. Chr. Claudy commented the existing restaurant building was only usable as a Chinese restaurant, but had probably failed because it was too large for such. Com. Mackenzie noted that whether or not the Application was approved by City Council, he would like to see the broken Rong Shing sign removed. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 4-U-8 subject to the Findings of pp 3 5, J g the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing and Conditions 1-15; Conditions 16-23; 111 Condition 24 with an additional paragraph to the effect that the equipment screen should be of plaster or stucco textured and colored to match the concrete exterior of the building; Condition 26 renumbered to read Condition 25. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 2 . Application 35-U-85 of RICHARD W. SHAvv: USE PERMIT for an existing detached solar structure to permit a 1. 5 ft . side setback and 0 ft . setback to the main house in lieu of the 6 ft . side setback and 5 ft . setback to the main house required by the R1(Residential Single-Family) zoning ordinance. The proposal is categorically exempt, hence no Environmental Review is necessary. The subject property is located on the east side of Sage Court approximately 180 ft . south of Lilac Way in a R1-6 (Residential Single-family, 6,000 sq. ft . minimum lot size) zoning district . First Hearing. The Planning Commission has final approval unless appealed. Mr. Piasecki, reviewing the Staff Report, said concerns with building and fire codes had been worked out and approval was recommended. Chr. Claudy noted the adjacent property owner had written to say he did not object to the structure. In discussion, the Commission did not see any problems, but Chr. Claudy stated he would abstain on principal, since it was a variance-type Application,and he wondered what would happen if it was not already installed. • PC-478 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 14, 1985 Page 4 MOTION: Corn. Szabo, to approve Application 35-U-85 411 subject to the Findings ;and Conditions 1-3 of the Staff Report . F SECOND: Com.. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Chr. Claudy abstaining) 3. Application 36-U-85 and 42-Eta-85 of SUNNYVIEW LUTHERAN HOME: USE PERMIT to expand and remodel an existing retire- ment facility by 8 apartment units, additional "personal care" beds and related facilitie . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Cupertino Road in a BQ (Quasi-Public Building) zoning district . First Hearing. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FINAL APPROVAL UNLESS APPEALED. Mr. Piasecki presenting the Staff Report, advised the issues were the existing flooding condition on the site, which was addressed in Staff Report Condition 21, and the consolidation of the three parcels, which was addressed by Condition 23 presented tonight . City Attorney Kilian had met with some concerns regarding c) of Condition 23, he said. Com. Adams was hesitant to allow additional construction on • the site if the flooding problem could not be rectified, especially considering the type of use. Mr. Whitten stated there were a number of possible solutions , that it was a question of economics and limitations, and advised that additional storm drain facilities,to ten-year flood standards, had been installed since the last flooding. Questioned by Cora. Szabo about deep water, he noted that this would flow off the site. Com. Soresensen and Chr. Claudy noted that specimen tree removal was addressed in Condition 20 to their satisfaction. Bill Bloomingdale, Ross Architectural Group, addressed the flooding and the improvements that had been made since, and said the condition had been cau1sed by plugging up downstream causing "bubbling up" at the site. He felt serious problems could be stopped by separating the storm drain line so that the "bubbling up" would occur at th= bottom of the site where it would not cause such damage. They felt the problem could be ,mitigated, he said, certainly to the extent there would be no life endangerment, and advised they were retaining a civil engineer to work with Staff. He confirmed the new structure would be built over existing parking lot , and so would not aggravate the run- off problem by taking up soil area. He advised the existing wing had not flooded, and since the new wing would be 2 ft . higher, he did not anticipate a problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MIIIUTES, OCTOEER 14, 1985 PC-478 Chr. Claudy established with Mr. Whitten that a retaining Page 5 wall or berm might be necessary to prevent water being dumped on the apartment site to the north. Mr. Bloomingdale noted there was space on the ether side of the road to develop a sufficient berm. Com. Mackenzie felt a berm there would push the water down the street and might solve the problem. Mr. Whitten noted there were a number of possible solutions and suggested the Commission might want to see some after Staff had worked with the Applicant ' s engineers . Corns ..Adams and Szabo suggested Staff and the Applicant should find a solution that the Commission could examine if Staff required. Mr. Ron . Szelsky, Director of the Sunnyview Lutheran Home spoke tc the consolidation issue, explaining that one parcel, Sunnyview West, was developed under HUD* who were very specific about separation, and that in the case of the parking lot which was owned by Sunnyview Manor, they had several months ago requested this be kept as a separate property, because it was presently unencumbered by loans. Chr. Claudy advised Condition 23 had been developed to ensure the site would not be sold off in parts, leaving ® insufficient parking; he also foresaw problems with recip- rocal easements . The Director felt the attorneys could work out a solution. He expressed their anxiety to provide a missing level of personal care and some additional apartments to their facility, both of which were sorely needed. Ms . Rachel Craven, Cupertino resident, wanted the need for adequate and affordable elderly housing in Cupertino taken into consideration. Com. Adams acknowledged Ms.Craven' s request, but wanted to see solutions before building permit issuance. Corns . Szabo and Mackenzie suggested that if Condition 21 was found to be unworkable, the Applicant could return to request it be removed. MOTION: Com. Sorensen, for acceptance of Application 42-EA-85 SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Sorensen, for approval of Application 36-U-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing, with Conditions 1-15 (Standard) ; Conditions 16-20; Condition 21 modified to reflect that professional engineering analysis be generated for Staff' s review for acceptance of the flooding mitigation points prior to issuance of building permit; Condition 22; Additional Condition 23 as presented tonight . SECOND: Corn. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 41uTTT _ p„„oa„ „� ;.T�„chic anri Urban Development PC-478 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCT©BER 14, 1985 Page 6 4 . Application 37-U-85 and 43-EA-85 of FONTANA' S RESTAURANT (MURRAY HORTON) : USE PERMIT to 'add approximately 1,000 sq . c0i� f r; r : f, th £t . to an existing _., �� :;c, . t , x stair an and ..:o�.�i;.,, __., roofline of a previously approved 1, 400 sq. ft . addition . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The sub- ject property is located on the isouth side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 200 ft . i,west of Saich way in a P (Planned Development with commercial emphasis) zoning district . First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date is October 21, 1985. Mr. Cowan in reviewing the Staff Report explained the Application would add a further 1,000 sq. ft . to an approved addition not yet constructed, and the only issue was the architecture, since Staff recommended the mansard roof should continue to be required, las was required on the approved addition. Murray Horton, the Applicant, felt the proposed roofline gave better symetry and balance, and noted it had been approved by A.S.A. C. * Com. Adams established the new entrance would be on the parking lot side and the present front entrance would be used as an emergency exit only, though thei' area would still be used as a waiting area in warm weather. Questioned by Com. Adams, Mike iortcdn, Ed Myers Architects, 111 thought the adjacent post office 'building was at least as high as the top element . Ann Anger spoke in favor of the extension. She noted that this was a quality, non fast-fo'od restaurant and was successful . NOTION' Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie noted that A.S.A.C. * had not overwhelmingly approved the design. Mr. Piasecki pointed out that Condition 20 required the design to return to A. S.A.C. * to ensure the preservation of the mansard roof line. Chr. Claudy was in favor of this,; he saw no reason to change the mansard roof line which had previously been favored by the Commission. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 43-EA-85 SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to re'comrmend approval of Application 37-U-85, subject to the Fiidings of the Staff Report and the Subconclusions of the Hearing and Cordi:tions 1-15 and 16-21 of the Staff Report . SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Chr. Claudy asked that Staff' s report to the City Council include the Commission ' s feeling the non-mansard roof looked like an add-on. t PLANNING CO:,INISSI3N Y.INUTES, OCTCDER 14, 19E5 • Application 17-Z-85, 38=U-85 and 18-TM-85 of ROBERT D2 e W . KEIL: REZONING approximately 1 . 2 gross acres to P (Planned Development with Residential Single Family intent ) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct six detached residential single-family houses and TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION? MAP to subdivide approximately 1. 2 acres into six parcels. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommendation is pending. The subject property is located on the south side of Peninsula Avenue approximately 60 ft . east of Barranca Drive on the former Southern Pacific Rail- road right of way. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date is November 4, 1985. Mr. Piasecki, giving the Staff Report, explained that as the parcel was traversed by numerous easements, Staff felt the concessions were justified to get a quality, single- family, development . He noted the Environmental Review Committee had now given approval, but had requested a noise report, and the consultant was requiringthat a sound wall be constructed, the height of which Staff questioned, . since it was not aesthetic or totally beneficial. He advise• the Applicant had now modified the architecture acceptably. Questioned by Com. Sorensen, Mr. Piasecki felt the traffic noise was at a very low level there. 411 Com. Adams determined with Mr. Whitten that parking would be allowed on both sides of the street . Bob Keil, Applicant, had heard from Caltrans they proposed to add soundbarriers there by 1989 which would protect the whole property. Also, since every house had space for four cars, he did not see a problem with on-street parking, he said. Mike Mansch, Peninsula Avenue, was concerned about the widening of the street, did not want sidewalks added and wondered about lighting. He was also concerned to know how the Applicant would deal with the surplus land to the northeast . Chr. Claudy and Mr. Kilian discussed and explained setbacks and easements with Mr. Mansch. Jeff Mansch, Peninsula Avenue, was concerned with the solar. Chr. Claudy assured him the solar units would be on the north side, overlooking the freeway. Ray Watts, Peninsula Avenue, did not want 10 ft . of his yard taken for the street, but was happy with the developmen if it did not jeopardize existing properties and had a decent street width, as there was some street parking now. Mr. Piasecki demonstrated that the Applicant was providing an additional 20 ft . dedication for the street . 11110 Doris Jacobson agreed the street was too narrow to have parking either side and wanted to know for sure the size and type of wall to be erected. 1 PC-478 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 14, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Piasecki advised Staff was suggesting an 8 ft . wall would 411 4 fencing Staff f was sufficient, and, where the . e:icirr, was now, �ta� _ suggesting a chain link fence was sufficient, instead of a wall. Chr. Claud advised Ms. Jacobson the State could not be required to build a wall where the fence was, and also that the Applicant could not be required to build it . Asked by Chr. Claudy his plans for the northeastern end, Mr. Keil listed a P.G. & E. access and groundcover and landscaping. The matter of a covenant to maintain the landscaping was discussed and Staff felt it could be divided between the six homeowners, with the City as beneficiary if not maintained, bu the Commission felt this would be too hard to enforce, and that lot 1 only should be involved. Mr. Watts advised dirt bikes were creating dust and annoyance on the berm of 280 in the area land felt something better than the chain link fence the State had installed was needed. Questioned by the Commission, the Applicant said he would make a change, if required. Mr. Whitten advised Mr. Mansh that if there was no street lighting now, none would be added', except maybe at the intersection. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0111 Corm. Szabo felt that from the freeway side the scundwall height would not matter, and that the homeowners might benefit from having it higher. Com. Adams, recollecting the Applicant ' s comments about a State-built wail, felt 8 ft . here would be sufficient . MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to grant a Negative Declaration SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 17-Z-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15 and Condition 16 of the Staff Report . SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 38-U-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusins of the Hearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15; Cond. 16 modified to deletel the reference to Exhibit B and to change the reference from Exhibit B, 1st revision to Exhibit B, 2nd revision; Conds . 17-21 as written; Cond. 22 modified to 4111 clarify that rear yard fencing in lots 3-6 need not have accounstical mitigation qualities; 1 5 PLANNING COMI4ISUION MINUTES, OCTOBER 14, 1985 pC-478 01, Condition 23; Cond. 24 modified to reference Page 9 Exhibit B, 2r.d revision, and to clarify that P the setbacks from the curbline shall be 15 ft . to the single story elements and 25 ft . to the second story elements; Cond. 25; Cond. 26 with all references to the architectural rendering deleted; Cond. 27 (additional) that fencing or gates to prevent improper access to the area between the development and the freeway be installed, with design subject to Staff approval , SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 18-TM-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15; Conditions 16 and 17; Additional Condition 18 requiring recordation of restrictions on lot 1 to require maintenance of the landscaping in the wedge-shaped area to the northeast of the drive- way easement access with the City as beneficiary, with that requirement subject to approval by the City Attorr:cy . SECOND: Ccc , Sorer.;_en VOTE: Passed 5-0 411 MOTION: Com. Adams, to continue Items #8 through #12 to a Special Adjourned Meeting to be held on 'r:ednesday, October 16, 1985 at 7: 30 p.m. SECOND : Com. Sorensen VOTL' , � �1� . Passed _- B2,EAI:. 10 : 15 - 10 : 30 P .M. 6 . COGUN INDUSTRIES, INC. (CUPERTINO CHURCH OF THE :,:AZAETNE I : ;.EZONING (18-Z-85) . app+roximate1y 2 . 66 gross acres from R1-10 (.Yesidential Single family, 10,000 sq. ft . minimum lot size) zone to BQ (Quasi-Public Building) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and USE PERMIT (39-U-85) to construct a single- story classroom building consisting of approximately 3, 500 sq. ft . on an existing church property. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the south side of McClellan Road approximately 350 ft . east of South Stelling Hoad, First Hearing. Tenta- tive City Council hearing date is November 4, 1985. I PC-478 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 14, 1985 Page 10 Aroutlinedthe St aff Cowanan ,P,e urt advising that the F architectural issue was addressed in Condition 18, that zoning would now conform and that an existing trailer was being replaced with a classroom structure. It was determined there would be, a trailer remaining, and a modification should be added to allow it to remain. Eugene E. Eitzen, representing the Applicant and the Church, advised there were currently permits for both trailers and that the second one would be removed in approximately five years for parking lot space. He questioned having to underground utilities, since St .} Judes Church adjacent had not been required to do that . Mr. Whitten thought City Council had waived in the case of St Judes . Chr. Claudy observed it was a political issue and advised the Applicant to address City Council on the matter. Com. Mackenzie established the remaining trailer was, and would continue to be, a classroom. Mr. Eitzen established with Staff that Condition 12 did not apply in their case. He advised they would be renewing fencing on their southerly bordr, except where a cyclone fence had been erected, at no cost to the homeowners. Rachel Craven, 7539 Erin Way wa's in favor of undergrounding 410 utilities, since this was being, done throughout the area. She recalled the church had rock bands in the past, and was in favor of a sound barrier. Sonya Meissner, 7631 Erin Way was concerned with noise, which they had six days a week,i she said, and wondered if something could be done with the zoning. She also suggested fencing might help. Chr. Claudy explained the concepts of the zoning action. The Commissioners felt fencing would not help currently. Mr. Cowan felt the noise ordinance would adequately address any problems. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 :MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 18-Z-85 , SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 It was felt by the Commission that fencing might be appropriate when the remaining trailer wast removed for parking lot space. It was agreed to reference worship acrivities in Condition 18, since they had been inadvertently omitted. ti. L` . , Y )1 .,! •„ L I.. i � 1 I^ '.v ]t l'. S L �, h k11 I PLANNING C07"MISSION 1Y1INUTES, . OCTOBER 14, 1985. PC 478 sf' 140TION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Page 11 Application 39-U-85, subject .to the Findings. of the Staff Report and Subconclueions.-of the' Hearing;, with Standard Conditions 1-15;` Conditions 16 and 17; Second Condition 17 renumbered to 18, and adding a sentence permit- h, ting the use of the existing church building for church related activities and permitting continued use of the existing 24 ft. trailer for church related classroom use, provided appro- priate permits are in effect; existing Condition r 19 renumbered to 20 and existing Condition 20 ,, renumbered to 21. s SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Adams suggested, and it wa:^. the consensus of the r. Commissions that for any structure taller than two storeys and for major two Morey commercial structures as large or• larger than the jupertino Bank building the Applicant should provide a persective drawing, ,,o' tft-Urrou ding bullcliftn,V;�A from eye level from both corners facing the stree y and from across the street. If a corner lot was involved., ? three perspectives should be required (from • ach corner facing the intersection) . For a major structure such as the r Vallco Hotel, a scale model of the building plus the surrounding area should be submitted.Black and white was satisfactory.fo_ perppectiye drawings. Chr, Claudy commented that thoughtthe Photo Drive-up project could hardly be called an addition, it looked good. } Mr. Whitten advised Com. Sorensen andtChr. Claudy of �E c � current and suture road works on Stelling. r� Com. Adams suggested Staff might obtain a copy of the Phoenix Arizona recreational vehicle ordinance, which he had heard was a strong one. Com. :Sorensen advised of a BurlinSame ordinance on the use 5` ,of school premises. '` REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Vis: Mr. Cowan discussed the scheduling of the Housing Element with the Co=ission, that it should be heard as soon as possible after the legal advertising date. It was decided that November 20, 1.985 at 7: 3C p.ra. 'would be appropriate. The Meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.ra. until Wednesday, October 16, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. orc •5y : -rne`I' s Doha Claudy ,y, City Clerk ChairpersonA FROM f'^ ht to y � ,.�n 4?... �:n'�r�G `����".��r�...�.}...*_.�f".�i�1a�t6r+ti�•_tn'.rf"315.�.:. ...�����"'Rr- �