Loading...
PC 12-09-85 r t CITY OF CUPERTINO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA PC-483 10300 Torre Avenue,Cupertino,Ca. 95014 Page 1 Tel: (408) 252-4505 410 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 9, 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. & Commty.Devel. Cowan Assistant Planning Director Piasecki Assistant City Engineer Whitten City Attorney Kilian APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Com. Adams, to approve the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of November 20, 1985 after changing page 7, paragraph 6 to read, "Mr. Adams hoped that the homes could be relocated to sites rezoned residential. " SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Adams, to accept the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 25, 1985 as presented. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 3-0 (Corns. Mackenzie and Sorensen abstaining) POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS A request for interpretation of change of use involving the Becker Feed Store, to be heard on December 11, 1985. MOTION: Com. Szabo, to continue Items 10 and those following until December 11,1985. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 WRITTEN. COMMUNICATIONS A letter frost Raymond Rooker regarding Item #13, to be incorporated at that time. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to approve the Consent Calendar SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS: PC-483 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DECEMBER 9, 1985 Page 2 3. Application No. 47-U-85, CITY OF CUPERTINO, East side of Torre Avenue between Rodrigues Avenue and Pacifica Drive, ilk 9. 6 acres. USE PERMIT to remodel City Hall and expand the Library, to construct a plaza between the City Hall and Library, and to modify and expand the parking area including the addition of a driveway enti!ance from Pacifica Drive. Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of November 25, 1985. Environmental n ironmental Determination: Negative Declaration. Tentative City Council hearing date, December 16, 1985. John Zoronovich, H & D Architects, Redwood City, summarized the description presented to the Commission at the Meeting of November 25, 1985. He commented that City Hall needed a larger central lobby area. Using an overlay, be described the effect of the trees to be planted around the library area. Mr. Cowan presented the accoulstlical _ and traffic analysis that had been requested by the 'Environmental Review Committee, advising that noise readings ha'a been taken at 6:30 p.m . during a City Council Meeting. ';' He reported that in Staff's judgment the curb cut should bel, maintained in its present position, since there would be !only a slight decrease in noise level if it was relocated.. ' Chr. Claudy observed that a rel'ocation would mean four fewer turns which would make the r.outi'e more attractive to commuters. Com. Szabo determined with Mr. .Whitten that any problems Central Fire might have with the plan could be worked out . • Mr. Cowan assured Com. SorensenI that there would be an adequate night patrol and security lighting to discourage transients in the library area. Philip Underwood, 10325 Farallorie', Drive, presented written input to the Commission. He reti•i'ewed his concerns of parking, access,lighting pollution, landscaping, public safety and traffic. He felt there had been omissions in the traffic report, that 400 vehicles per hour were a possibility, and that the Noise 'Ordinance might be violated. He exhibited a sketch of the height of. the redwoods and their shading and blocking effects on nearby residences. He felt the access to parking should be from Torre and suggested underground parking would eliminate pollution and screening problems. Mr. Piasecki noted that material quoted by Mr. Underwood came from the noise element of the General Plan, not the Noise Ordinance. Jenny Lee Sepulveda, 10285 Faral�lone Drive, was concerned about driveway placements, and advised that animals had been killed at -the site of the Rodrigues driveway. She felt noise readings might have been higher if taken during the day, and also felt there would be a fire hazard if Torre was cut off. Mr. Cowan advised that readingsihad been taken at the time 411 of a"worst case" situation, and 'that the cut-off of Torre was presently only a neighborhood item. He reminded that the design of-theiparking lot and traffic flow was to provide access for residents whilst C1tdodut'aging through traffic. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DECEMBER 9, 1985 PC-483 Suzanne Silar, 10581 Whitney Way, noted that she would be Page 3 110 facing the proposed driveway, which was right in the middle of a residential area, and that commuters would cut through to Bollinger. Larry Zuraky, 10275 Farallone Drive, said the Public Works Director had mentioned at a meeting in August that Torre would be blocked off. Theresa Smith, 20260 Pacifica Drive, described difficulties in backing out of her driveway at peak hours and felt more traffic and the vagrant situation would jeopardize her children's safety. Betty Oto, Clay Street, said she would not feel comfortable walking with so many trees blocking visual access. Jim Lee, S.W.A. Landscape Architects, stressed the security lighting and advised the trees would be canopy type and at least 20 ft. apart. Susan. Adrian, 20408 Clay Street, wanted more thought given to the public safety building phase." Julia Meyakawa, 10345 Farallone Drive noted that redwood trees branched near the ground and so was concerned about them from a security standpoint. She also wanted the access driveway to remain on Torre. Larry Mehringer, 20351 Gillick Way, approved of utilizing City Hall basement and expanding the library, but not the addition of a public safety building, which would eliminate the soccer field and cause parking and traffic problems. Chr. Claudy suggested the Commission seek a redesign. Mr. Cowin noted that City Council would have to approve a budget for new drawings and there would be delays. Chr. Claudy observed that citizens did not like the plans and the City ehould. be treated like any other applicant. The consensus of the Commission was that the plans for City Hall were basically acceptable, but thepresent lobby area was adequate and the new entrance way and plaza area were unnecessary. The basic design of the library addition . was acceptable. Regarding parking location and access, the consensus_ was to recommend approval of Phase 1 with no access to Pacifica, some access to Torre, low branching redwood..treee• to be removed, with Phase 2 to be left to subsequent use permit approval,and the question of access to Pacifica to be left to hearings relating to neighborhood protection strategies. The Commission favored continuing the Application, summari- zing their concerns, for City Council direction. MOTION: Com. Szabo, to continue Applicatin 47-U-85 O to the Regular Meeting of January 13, 1986. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 PC-483 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DECEMBER 9 1985 • Page 4 MOTION: Com. Adams, to send a !Minute Order to City Council requesting direction regarding the issues that have been raised and suggesting that more consideration 41, be given to the design1' of the project . SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 BREAK: 9:35-9: 50 P.M. 4. Applications 21-Z-85, 25-TM78,5 and 44-U-85 of DEBCOR CORPORATION, 0.67 acres West side of Stelling Road, approx. 110 ft. North of Lilac Way. REZONING from R2-4.25 (Residential Duplex 4,250 sq. O . lot size per unit) to P (Planned Development with Residential Single Family, 5-10 DU per gross acre Intent) zone ,or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. USE PERMIT to construct six (6) detached single family homes. TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide said property into six (6) residential parcels with lot sizes ranging from 3,200 ft . to 4,760 sq. ft . First Hearing. Environmental Determination: Negative Declara- tion. Tentative City Council hearing date, January 6, 1986. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Staff' Report, mentioning the minor issues of the fencing plan and possible privacy intrusion fears of neighbors. Dick Childress, 11701 Regnart Canyon Drive, Applicant, felt this was the best use of the land and the development was suitable to the neighborhood. Regarding fencing, he noted they were mostly more restrictive than required, but in some • cases a small sideyard access was required. He noted that measures would be taken to save fall but one tree. Parking was discussed, and Mr. Childress stressed the parking far exceeded requirements. Street parking on Lilac Way was also discussed. Paul Brophy, 7705 Lilac Way, felt the density was too high and the setbacks teoclose to property lines, and felt the development did not fit into planned development guidelines. The present duplex zoning was discussed; that only two duplexes P would presently be allowable on the site. Dennis Lee, 7759 Lilac Way, also' disagreed with the density and the narrowness of the streets., Mr. Cowan advised that street widths could be increased to 30 ft. if required. Robert 'Conlan, 7733 Lilac Way, said the neighborhood had not wanted the Ronndtree development , and that trend would be repeated, hemming them in and creating parking problems on their street. II' MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the PUblic Hearing SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 The Commission weighed the City need for the units against possible parking problems. It wers ' felt a duplex, cluster or zero lot line configuration might be more appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DECEMBER 9, 1985 PC-483 Chr. Claudy observed the present design was for single family Page 5 `, homes on substandard lots. Mr. Childrdss agreed to redesign the project . MOTION: Com. Adams, to continue Applications 21-Z-85, 25--TN-85 and 44-U-85 to the Regular Meeting of January 13, 1986. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 5. Application 2-V-85 of ROGER D. ANDERSON, Northwest intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Cupertino Road, 0.40 acres. VARIANCE from Ordinance 1240 to allow a single family home to encroach into the required setback area. First Hearing. Environmental determination: categorically exempt. Tentative City Council hearing date, December 16,19. 5. Mr. Cowan reported Staff's view that the unique shape, severe constraints and relationship to surrounding propertie warranted a variance for the property. The relationship with three buildings to the west and tree protection was discussed and found satisfactory. The Commission was advised that adjacent property owners had been noticed. - Mr. Whitten stated that only a very small portion of the southeastern corner would be taken if Stevens Creek Boule- Syard were to be widened. MOTION: Com. Szabo, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Corr. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 The consensus was the property was unique and the variance justified. MOTION: Com. Szabo, to recommend approval.. of Application 2-V-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 reflect preservation of any existing trees Staff might find appropriate. SECOND: .Coma Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 6. Application 26-TM-85 of H & D Properties. West side of Portal. Avenue, 190 feet north of Stevens Creek Boulevard, 0.60 acres. TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a previously approved 7,100 square foot office building into office condominium units and one common parcel. First Hearing. Environmental determination: categorically exempt . Tentative City Council hearing date, December 16, 1985. Mr. Cowan briefly reviewed the Staff Report . Bill Hershman, H & D Properties, explained that though six or seven units would probably be the maximum sold presently, subdivision into nineteen units was desirable to facilitate future sales. PC-k83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DECEMBER 9, 1985 Page 6 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. AdamsIlk VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 26-TM-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and 'Subconclusicros of the Hearing and Standard Conditions 1-15, and Conditions 16-19 of the Staff Report . SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 7. Application 28-Z-85 of Cupartitso Union School District, Older Elementary School, northwest quadrant of Miller Avenue and Atherwood Drive at the terminus of Calle de Barcelona and Alderbrook Lane, 13.1 acres: PREZONING from County of Santa Clara R1-6 to Cityof Cupertino p BA (Public Building) or whatever zone is deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. First Hearing. Environmental determination: negative declaration. Tentative City Council hearing date, January 6, 1986. Mr. Piasecki briefly reviewed the Staff Report . Chr. II Cl audy established this wase. housekeeping11 item to facilitate annexation. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearng SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 111 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 28-Z-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and the Subconclusinns of the Hearing and Conditi®ns 1-15 and 16-18 of the Staff Report . SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Comp- Sorensen, to continue Item #9 until December. 11, 1985. SECOND: . Co - Adams VOTE: Passed + 5-0 8. Application 41-U-85 of JAMES BLACK/DEVCO, west side of North De An za Boulevard, approximately pp Xy 200 ft. south of Greenleaf Drive, 3.0 acres. USE PERMIT to construct a four story office building encompassing 76,145 square feet. First Hearing. Environmental determination: negative declaration. Tentative City Council hearing date, Decemberi16, 1985. Mr. Piasecki in giving the Staff Report noted that an approval had been secured several years ago for a building of almost the same size and height . Staff suggested down-sizing slightly to match the available trips, stepping back the fourth floor slightly and lowering the building as much as possible to grade, he said. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DECEMBER 9, 1985 Pc-483 The Commission surveyed a model provided and questioned the Page 7 110 Applicant and Architects . (Jim Black of Carl N. Swensen Development Co. , representatives of California ARchitectural Group and a representative of Cupertino Nursery) . Height and setbacks in relation to neighboring buildings, the fourth floor cut back and traffic access were discussed. The existing garden was to be preserved, with pedestrian access, it was established. Questioned by Chr. Claudy, the Applicant advised he desired the additional square footage because of the strong parking and landscaping position, but there would not be a problem in cutting back to the original if required. Howeve . , he noted that the second floor of the atrium was dead space. Mr. Piasecki agreed that such dead space could be taken into consideration. Mechanical equipment was discussed. This was to be screened in the atrium area, and the screening wall would match the building facade, though it would probably be constructed of a different material. Mr. Adams felt four stories was too massive and favored stepping the two top floors . Com. Sorensen confirmed the plant material would appear as on the drawings, and felt this would help offset the mass. It was felt the dead space in the atrium should not be counted in the square footage and the pad height should be lowered as much as possible . Chr. Claudy and Corns. Szabo and Mackenzie felt the building should be stepped back the same way as the Prometheus buildi g. LOTION: Com.. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend approval of Application 46-u-85, subject to the Findings of the Staff Report and Subconclusions of the Hearing, with Standard Conditions 1-15; Conditions 16;17 modified to permit construction of a 75,000 sq. ft . building; Condition 18 modified as necessary to reflect the 1985 amendment; Condition 19; Condition 20; new Condition 21 stating that mechanical equipment screening be of a material to closely resemble the appearance of the building; new Condition 22 stating that the expiration of the Use Permit shall run from the approval date of this amendment . SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 C a '; � 1 � S• w�i !F n " '�'M � (k�S)f 1 7 �S�'l tEt,�{�'�F;�:i���F�rttj.�4�th�' \t�y'� t' j''.. !. ♦ v f .' .7, ''ids; PC�4B� PLANNING' COMRISSIQN rill-NUTES D 4CEMBER, 9, 198.5 Page 8 + ;..` Adjournment: 11:30 P.m,, until" 7:30 p.m.. 'on `Wedne"aday'; December 11, "1985: Atte9to ,° x .y. a R\ "`� .,':-),aa Approved: ='City CTetK. /, -hairperson �. �.... 7:. t it a�r ;T. Y. ,4 tz: �w t 't J+ +r it kA '3 tai �. .. _ .na. �4"'�=LZ..�i � ver ,.. �5S" +, �_ �::;�.��`'...�...�� •" .� �� - �"