PC 05-27-86Cl'fl( OF a.JP.ER:l'.'(N), STATE OF CALn"ORNIA lOJOO Torre Avenue
Olpertino, CA. 95014 · a
(408) 252-4505
MINU'I'ES OF '!HE m:x:;'IJIAR MEErIOO OF 'mE PI.ANNIN:; a:tvlMISSICN
HEID CN MAY' 27 I 1936 Meetin:J Held in t.lie co.m::il auunbers of OJpe.rtiro City Hall
SAWI'E 'ro 'IRE FI.AG;
ROIL CAIL:
Commissioners Present: Chainnan Szabo Vice Cha:lnaan JY'..ackenzie commissioner Mzans Coonnizsioner sorensen
7:30 P.M.
staff Present: Robert C'aWan, Director of Plannin:.J & J.)?velopnent Steve Piasecki, Assist:mt Plann.in;J Director Charles Kilian, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUI'.ES
MJI'ICN: cam. sorensen, to awrove the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
May 12, 1986, as a\bm.itted.
SEootID: Com. Mams VOI'E: Passed, Olr. Szabo abstainirq. 3-0
WRITI'EN a:MruNIC.ATIONS
-arr. Szabo ackncMledged receipt of a letter frau Ma. carol Mr..r:x:Mell
reg~ a problem with signs in the Manta Vista area. Mr. Piasecki stated that the letter has been fol:Wal:'dEd to COde Enforoement.
ORAL CXM1UNIC.ATIONS
-None
CONSENT CAI.ENDAR
-None
..
ITEMS RF»JVED FRCM CXJNSENI' CAT.ENDAR
-None
-1-
PI.ANNnK; CXM'1ISSIOO' MINU'l'ES Regular Mt::letin:] of May 27, 1986
PAGE 2
Fe -494
I=UBL!C HEARINGS:
rr'EM i
AJ::plication No(s) Applicant: Location:
Parcel Area (Acres)
_3-Z-83 (Re~Jsed} ·--------·-----City Of CUpertino
16o+
ReVision of zoniaj restrictions includin3' but not necessarily limited to design stan::1ards arrl lam.scape setback require.ments • . 0 .
FIRST HEARING
:EN'VlRJN.MENI'AL DE.TERMINATION: categorically Exempt
TEN"'..i.ATIVE CITY c::a.JNCIL HEl\RING DATB: June 16, 1986
Staff Present:.ation: Mr. Piasecki. presented an ~it rutl~ the project area. 'Iha area affected by the proposed atoo.ndment to the St.evens creek O:>ooeptual Zoning Plan does not irx::lude the Vallco site or Town center.
'Ihe proposal is to provide greater flexibility in l~ge for the
lan::lscaped parkway concept that has been incorporate:i in a nurnbe.r of
plans; this concept was incorporat.00 ve.:ry specifically within the Stevens a:-eek Blvd. Conceptual Zon:i.rq Plan with limited room for interpretation of
hardship cases a.rd special circumstances; the language chan:]es are to provide the flexibility for the carrnnission arrl the City Council to detennine the special circumstances in which it would apply.
'Ille Staff Report notes that 50% of the study arc?.a is already .improva::I or cammitted to 50 foot laroscape setback standa:.rds. If the portion of Vallee Park arrl Tchln c..:e:nter l:x:l~,.ring on Stevens Creek Blvd. is included, then 2/3 of the reach of Stevens creek Blvd. is ccr.am.itted to the 50 foot larrlscape staroard.
'lb.ere are two reasons why property owners cannot ccmply with the 50 foot stan::iard: 1) the property is shallow arrl 2) an existirq building is
reroodela::l within the 50 foot setback area.
'Ihe proposa1 suggests retaining the 50 foot landscape setback, with an average of 35 feet, except where extraordinary circumstances exist; where these circumstances exist, property owners are asked to provide 15% of the prope.rty depth ;in larrlscape area, not less than 25 feet. 'Ihis approach
will provide greater flexibility are the discretion of the Commission.
PI.ANNm:; o:t1MISSION MINt1I'ES Regular Meeting Of May 27 / 1986
PAGE 3
PC -494
ITEM l (Cont'd)
cam. .Adams questioned the information on the Inventoiy of Parce1.s Not
conforminJ to 50 Ft. r..an:tscape Depth, referrin;J to Bc\l"Clay•s Bank Center, · Stevens Creek Boa~rks an:l Portal PlazC'.. Mr. Piasecki clarified the
infonnation.
cam. Mackenzie questioned whether in the case of shallow lots, the lardscape setback can ba graduat.00 deperrli.:NJ upon size of the lot in question. Mr. Piasecid stated that the proposal stat.es that the applk.ant shall attempt to provide 15% of lot depth which is the graduated scale.
In no case shall the setback go below 25 foot (20 foot setback in the
proposal charqE.rl t.o 25 feet}.
'lbe Public Hearin;/ was then opened.
Ms. c.:.nnie Shaw, 10010 Bret Ave., Olpertjno, asked for clarification regardin;J 'Che Lorin;J Fst:ates area. Mr. Piasecki stated that this area is included in the study but ~d not be included in this requirement until
these propel.'ties are redeveloped.
MJI'ION: cam. Mackenzie moved to close the p.lblic hearirq.
SECOND: Ccm. .Adams
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
Com. Adams cono.rrs with staff's recommf>.ndation on suc;'9'e.sted chan3'es to corrlition No. 7 of Ordinance 1223.
com. Mackenzie concurs with request.Erl changes arrl favors greater flexibility in the larquage, but expresse::l concern regardin;J a project such as the Vid.avich Application and state:l. that approval.of this proposal dor.>...s not, thel.""efore, grant approval for any specific project.
com. Sorensen concurs with the proposed amendment.
Chr. Szabo favors the proposal but EOq>ressed the followin;J concerns:
l) '!he rationale for incorporation of :mini::.'tl s1:anjards is appearance; this proposal may defeat the putpeee of these stan::lards by COITpramisIDJ the required depth.
2) PreViC'lUS applicants have been required to give up 50 feet to l003t the setbac:k. requ.ireloonts, thus raising a matter of fain;ess. Now, applicants ·can be granted. less exa=tirq requirements, perhaJ?S creating disincentives to maintain the standards. Can ONnerS of property be
asked to compensate the City when landscape setback standards cu;e
reduced? 'Ihus CMners de not profit from reduced landscape
requirelrents.
PI.ANNIN::; CX!'1MISSICN M[N{]l'E.S
Regul~r Meet.irg of May 27, 198F
PAGE 4
PC -494
r.rEM l (Cont'd)
Mr. cowa.n que.stioned whether requir.irg prcpe.rty owners to o:::ttipensate the City is appropriate since it is the e.xt.enuatir:q cuo.:nnstances that detennine whether owners can ~ the intent of the Ord.inarx:".e.. 'Iha key
element of this design policy dea.ls with the sidewalk policy plan which will not ~, · • an:i will provide a c:mll'OCll'l eleroont even if the 50 foot
landscape setback is reduced in SCllnG case.s.
can. Mackenzie suggested provid:in3' incentives for owners of property to oonsolid:ite parcels; saoo policies seem to counter efforts to consolidate parcels and ma.i.ntain larrlscape setback ~ .. equirements. A potential trade
off a:ul.d require reduced intensity if minimum lanW:r-:tpe set.reek requirements are not root. 'Iha City and the citizer..s \.K:W.d thus be ;canpensated in sane manner.
Mr. cowan stata:i that such a proposal may requi.m a General Plan
Anlfm:hnent.
Mr. Piasecki stated that the eommissioo may wish to develop guidelines that are more explicit than currently stat.00 in Zonirq ~for allowing setbacks that are less than the required m.in.imum. '1bese guidelines would allow the Ccmmission to retain the flexibility needed in reviewin;] in:lividual applications.
In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, Mr. Piasecki stated the·. the 1000 square foot bonus applies to redevelopnent area.<J. 'Th.is requires a Firrlir:q that an older area is redevelopirq and that a bonus is needed to spur that redevelc::poont. 'Ihis has been liberally applied. in some areas
but has been used only rarely on Stevens Creek Blvd.
M:>I'ION: Con. Mackenzie rrcved to reopen the Public Hear:ln:J.
SEOJND: Com. .Adams
vorE: Passed 4-0
'Ihe Public Hearing was then reopened.
Com. Mackenzie stated that. one guideline had already been set; rarreJ.y that applicants shall attempt to provide a minimum of 15% landscae:'l. setback. depth; the applicant could be requested to reduce the intensity of the developrre.nt.
Mr. 1)
2)
Piasecki suggested that the followil1LJ guidelines be added: unusual property shape or size of property existi. '1g buildings within the Conceptual Plan bour.dary desirable to the City to be retained that are
cam. Adams suggeiited. that the laroscape set.back'. statrlard could be waived
pe.rrl.in:J acceptance of reduced .intensity an:i based upon fi.00.~ suggested
by Mr. Piasecki..
PI.l\NNING CX!1MIS.SION MINtJI'ES Regular Meetin;1 of May 27, 1986
PAGE 5
PC -494
IT.EM l (O:mt'd)
Chr. Szabo stated he is favorable to the concept of public benefit being gained when minimum lan:lscape star.dards are waived for a property owoor.
Mr. Kilian questioned whether these proposed conditions are guide.lines necessacy for the granting of an exception. If mardatory, thE>.se con:litions are not guideline.s but are fi.n:lin;Js. ·
can. Mackenzie summarized these con::litions for waiving the 50 foot
lan:.'lscape setback as: -urru.su.:.u p:r:q;:ierty shapes -small parcels of lan:l -existing buildirx]s or trees desirable to the City to be retained
Mr. cowan stated there are two aspects: 1) circumstances that apply to larxi that warrant daviation 2) cx::cnpensation for these daficiE'.ncies
can. Mackenzie e."Ultlffiarized the c.ampe.nsations as:
-reduced develcpnent intensity
-other p.ibl ic amenities, suc.h as reduced curb cuts, increased pa.rk.ir¥], consolidation of :parcels,. additional landscapin:;, retention of trees or historically .inportant · r.an:lmarks. '
Ms. Connie Shaw requested inform.'.\tion regard.in:] the prq;:x:>Sed camroorciil developne.nt of property she owns. Cllr. Szabo stated that the proposed
ordi.n.an::e Arrerdxnent wculd be to the benefit of property owners SUC"'.h as
herself that require flexibility in :meeting the 50 foot larrls<'..:ape setback requirem:mt. Further questions reqardin;J the process of obtaining
incorporation into the City of CUpertino, where these Ordinances apply, were answered by Mr. Piasecki.
Ms. Kathy Myles, CUpextino d:'lamber of commerce, re.quested infonration on
the suggested change.s.
'D:n. Mackenzie suggested the fol .... wing language charY:l'es: -2ro Paragt'"afh, SUbstance of the Chc"U1ge, in the proposed Resolution:
change the first sentence to read 11 In cases where unusual property sh.ape, a shall& lot, existing buildin9's desirable to the City are to be retained mald.rg provision of the 50 foot setback infeasible the above
standard may be waived." -'Ihe following sentence, "In such cases •.. ", stanis as is with the above
noted change fran 20 to 25 feet.
-Addition of a final sentence. that states: "In adcU.tion, applicants must provide a campensatin';J benefit to the city by reducing develcpment intensity or by providing an urrusual put.lie amenity. "
PI.ANNING a::r1MISSICN :mNUI'ES
Regular Meetirq of M3y 27, 1986
PAGE 6
~ -494
IT.EM l (Cont'd)
Ms. Myles statOO. that the applicant who has an unusual shaped lot already .
has sufficient prd:Jlel!S withrut ha.vin;J to deal with added aioo.nities or reduc.ed intensity. '1be b.lainess oanmrunity wishes to see :i vnifonn looking stevens creek Blvd. whidl attracts people to eupertiro to shop. 'Iha fact that a business exists on Stevens creek Blvd. is a benefit to the: City;
what.aver the canm.ission is able to do to help bllsiness suc:oeed is where the camni.ssian sh.a-lld be µrtt~ its efforts, not in ask.i.rq businesses to
spen:i extra llX:ll"ley on addoo amenities or re:.lesign.ing their building--roney whidl they may not have.
'.Iha goal is to be flexible, to review each application on a case· by case basis a.rd. to eliminat.e unnecessary regulations.
Mr. Kilian ~ested that the wo:rdin::j state "the applicant may be require:l
to re:'luoe intensity of dsvelq:ment or provide an unusual public ~ .. r'.ity",
delat.irg the word "shall."
MJI'ION: can. Mackenzie JOCJllOO to close the Public Hear.in;J
SECX)ND: Can. Sorensen
VOTE: P"d.SSed 4-0
IDI'ION: a:im. Mackenzie ll"O'le:i to recc.mnen:l modification of Zoning per the
Model Resolution on Application 3-Z-83 with the firrlings per tl1e
Staff Resoluti.on arrl t.he substance of the change :rrodified to read In cases \<hlere unusual property shape, shallowness of the parcel or the retention of exist:irq buildin:Js or trees desirable to the City make provision of the 50 foot set.back infeas.i.ble. Qi.ar~e of
20 feet to 25 feet in the secon::l sent.P...nce. Addition of the sentence, In addition, applicants may be required to reduce developoont intensity or to provide an unusual public amenity such as consolidating parcels, providing additional landscaping, re.tain.im 'i::rees or historical landmarks, or providing increased parki.n:'J.
SECOND: cam. SOrense..'1 VOI'E: Passed 4-0
OID BUSINESS -None
NEW BUSINESS
-Report on the use of trash enclosures.
Mr. Cowan state:i that there is one change to the Report submitted; narrely, in 1: Section 2. 92 states "that the company is respor.si.ble for the return of containers to proper storage locations." In fact, ti'lere is a diffe.re.ntial rate st:ruc..ture that allows a business owner to pay the lw(.ll° fee arii put the trash bin back in the enclosure himself. nus may be the source of the trouble regarding trash containers left out in public view.
P.U\NNIOO a::MllSSICN MINOI'ES Regular Meeting of May 27, 1986
PAGE 7
PC -494
NEW OOSINESS (Cbnt'd)
Mr. Kilian stated that part of a plan not . .bein;J implemented is grounds for possible :furthtn-hearing on the Use Fermi t. Aoot:har ordinance could be
adopted that nr¢.rea CX111?liance with specific CXJI'ditions; failure t.o
canply W'C1..lld result in bein;J cited ~ COde Enforcement.
In resp:mse to can. Mackenzie's question, Mr. Kilian stated that el.iminatin;J the differential rate stru.cture would require renegotiation of th.a contract. HcM;ver, adcptian of a health and safety o:i:d.inan::e that
Wl?.l.ld require the kaepfn; of trash enclosures on public prct}?f"..rty could be done, with citation ~ the O:x:le Enforoement process used as a more
effective means of -:lea..l.in; with this issue.
M1I'ION: can. sorensen IOCNed to send a Minut.e Order to the City council sug::restin;J an aioondmen't to the axisti.rg ordinarr.e requir:inj that
trash bins be kapb within awrove,d trash erclosures
SEO:!ID: can. Adams
V'01'E: Passed 4-0
REFORI' OF 'lHE P.r.ANN:m:; o::M.fi.SSICN
-a::in. sorensen questiona1 the statement in t.'1.e OJpert.ino O::Alrier which questioned whether the hot.el at VaJ.lro shoul.d be aa high as propoeed.. Mr. Cowan stated that he wa.lld research the issue. -'Ihe caamissioner camne.nted on the traffic problems on De Anza at Laza.nee
Dr. at 8 A.M. Mr. ~ stated that the Plannitl;J Department has not received canplaints on this prci:>lem; he will refer the problem to the
Traffic Eo;Jineer. A c:han:Je in the timing of the t.""affic lights was
also requested. -Chr. Szabo stated he had attended the Mayor's !J.mcheon, at which time
the partici~ were informed that the new OOrxis program woold be set up. -can. 1ldams requestOO. information egarding the expansion an:i inprovement
of the City Hall Wilding and the Library buildirq. Mr. COWan stated
that the City is au:·re1"1tly negotiating for office space. -can. Mackenzie stated that there have been rumors ~the building built by Jdm Vidovich, which question the seismic safety of th9 :b1J.ld.:irq. Mr. Cowan stated that he has personally check.a:i with the City Building Inspector who assures Mr. ccwan that the building has been
thoro\.l8blY checked an.l ::x:mpliea with seismic requi.reroonts. -can. Ada:ma :requested infonration regardi.rg the anv..mt of builcUng debris surround.im tbe buil~ on Stevens Creek Blvd. arrl DeA.nza Blvd~ Infonaation oot available at present.
REroRI' OF 'IHE PLANNING DIRECTOR
-Mr. C:Man informed t11.e cammission of the u.c. Extension sponsored
Plannin; ard z~ Clinic on JU.ly 11, 1986. Intereste:l persons need to . contact Mr. cu.van.
e. '
PLANNING MINUTES
Regular Meeting of May 27, 1986 Page 8
PC -494
ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded its business, the Planning Commission adjourned
at 8:40 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of June 9, 1986 at 7:30 P.M.
ATTEST:
. \
APPROVED:
Nicholas Szabo, Chairman
Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular
Meeting of , 1986
·I