Loading...
PC 01-14-80 PC-324 Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (40&) 252-4505 MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Adams Commissioner Koenitzer Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Gattõ (abstained on Items #3 and #5) APPROVAL OF MINUTES November MOTION: VOTE: 13, 1979 Com. Blaine, Approval. PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Adams 5-0 December 10, 1979 Com. Claudy, page 7, par. 2, last 2 lines, change to read, "between Imperial and Pasadena -- those on the north side." Delete, "surrounding owners and interested parties quit claim properties within the proposed road right-of-way." Com. Koenitzer, page 3, last par. add sentence, "The new roadway shall not be named restiva1 since it will not con- nect with existing Festival Drive." Page 9, par. on report from League Meeting: change to read: "more and more families would be doubling up in single fami y residential in violation of Cupertino definition of single family residences." Add note: "The other concern was pos- sible regarding cooperative apartments and condominiums in the City." Chr. Gatto requested that Assistant Planning Director Cowan check tape of meeting and provide fill in for gap on page 6 in the Pisano application. MOTION: Com. Blaine, approval, Minutes of December 10, 197 Second: Consensus VOTE: PASSED 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS Request by Assistant Planning Director Cowan for consider- ation of State Mutual Savings of review of previously ap- proved application under unfinished business. Site and architectural design changes. MOTION by CONSENSUS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PC-324 Page 2 MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PUBLIC REARING ITEM #1, Applicstions 27-Z-79 and 31-U-79 of WILLIAM L. CARMEN: PREZONING approximately .4 of a gross acre from Santa Clara County CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to City of Cupertino P (Planned Development with commercial and resi- dential intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appro- priate by the Planning Commission and USE PERMIT to con- struct a 9,500 sq. ft. building consisting of approximately 5,750 sq. ft. devoted to office uses and three second-story- level apartments consisting of approximately .3,750 sq. ft. Said property is located at the southeast corner of Pasadena Avenue Granada Avenue. First hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - February 4, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report and pointed out the unique feature of the combination office space and residential space available on the site. Parking for the development was recommended to be discounted based on residential parking substituting for office use parking in a dual capacity. It was pointed out that ideally the business owners would occupy the residential areas. The Commissioners discussed the height of the structure, the rationale_for the discounted parking and dual parking use being an alleviating approach to congestion. Privacy for adjacent property owners was judged to be satisfactory. It was agreed that rather than reduction of Pasadena to 26 ft, it was better to use 40 ft. width because of the probability of access to Stevens Creek, heavy traffic load. (Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised the Com- missioners that the City Council had recommended reviewing land use in the Monta Vista Area -- a direct result of the Allen DeGrange application.) Mr. William L. Carmen, Applicant, pointed out the areas in which he had complied with parking and city requirements. Additional parking had been obtained by redesign of the building. Considera~le landscaping was still planned. Mr. .Jeff McKnirht, Architect, recommended the architectural style as being one that blended in with other styles, which he recognized as being important in Monta Vista. He stated that all natural materials and considerable glass areas helped with the free flow of air. Mrs. Ann AnRer, Resident, said me was glad to welcome new- comers to Old Monta Vista. She felt it was necessary to be vigilant against overbuilding and creating too much parking on streets. Mr. McKnight advised Mrs. Anger that nine staff members would occupy his office space and there were no plans for expanding the business -- professional engineering for the electronics industry. Mr. Carmen asked about undergrounding requirements for utilities and was advised that the Ordinance required the undergrounding of all new developments, either immediately or on a deferred basis. It was recommended that he con- tact the Public Works Department for discussion and reso- lution. MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI G PC-324 Page 3 COM. CLAUDY stated that one problem w~th the appl~cat~4n was the lack of selling or manufacturing, which was contrary to the General Plan's designation for commercial, store-front, industrial uses. (It was noted by Mr. Cowan that the subject noted by Com. C1audy would be included on the Planning Commission Agenda in 2 to 4 weeks.) COM. GATTO recommended a statement in the inte~est of the option for undergrounding of utilities to be left open. And he further recommended two considerations, 1) mass and form (scale) of the buildings, and 2) compa~ibi1ity of style for the neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Motion: Second: PASSED: Com. Blaine Com. Koenitzer Consensus MOTION: Com. Adams, Approval & Acceptance of Negative Declaration. Second: Com. Koenitzer PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 COM. GATTO stated, for the record, that he wished it to be known that the approval of the subject application did not establish policy that would apply to future applications in this or other areas. It was agreed the statement should be- come a part of the Motion for Approval of the Negative De- claration. MOTION: Com. Adams, Approval 27-Z-79, subject to the Findings and Sub conclusions as presented in the Staff Report, Standard Conditions #1 through 114; Condition #15 altered to reflect Exhibit A, 1st Revision of January 14, 1980; Condition #16 Standar Second: Com. Koenitzer VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 MOTION: Com. Adams, Approval 31-U-79, Subject to Findings and Subconc1usions of Staff Report; Standard Conditions 11 through #14; Condition #15 reflecting revision exhibited as submitted January 14, 1980 (Exhibit A, 1st Revision); Condition #16 to account for three parking spaces; Condition #17 deleted. Second: Com. Koenitzer VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 RESOLUTION TO R-CONTROL: Com. Adams, to permit a discussion with the applicant on a modification of the desig of the structure to more appropriately reflect the character of Old Monta Vista. Second: Com. Koenitzer VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 PC-324 Page 4 MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEM #2, Applications 28-Z-79, 32-U-79 and 30-TM-79 of DOROTRY RELDMAN: REZONING approximately .60 gross acres from Rl-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) to P (Planned Development with sing1e- family residential cluster intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct three new single-family residential cluster homes; and TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide the subject property into four parcels. Said property is located at the northeast corner of Blaney Avenue and Price Avenue. First hearing. Tentative City Council hearing datè - February 4, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the ~taff Report, calling attention to the 5 to 10 units/acre al- located for the area. He noted the Tank House (water tower or pumping system), which encroached upon the right-of-way, and which was recommended to be accommo- dated by an Encroachment Permit, which would be forth- coming from the City of Cupertino. COM. KOENITZER requested that Staff provide the sq. ft. figures and density on the Williams Development. Concerns for the plans were 1) retention of an existing structure, 2) preference for detached structures, 3) the small lots with large units resulting in closeness of units, 4) unimaginative design, 5) privacy intrusion, 6) lack of variety architecturally in style of buildings. COM. KOENITZER, as a result of his calculations, stated that,inc1uding Mrs. Heldman's home, the density of the small area would be 10 units/acre. Considering the new building site, the density worked out to better than 15.7/ acre.- - COM. ADAMS asked for guarantee as to the use of the Tank House and Mr. Norman Garcia, Pre-design Company of Campbell, CA, representing Mrs. Heldman, certified that the Tank House would be used only for storage, was in an ex- cellent state of repair, and he further guaranteed that it would be maintained. Mrs. Dorothy Reldman, owner-resident, 10104 South Blaney, said many months of work had gone into the exhibited plan -- to match the original home and to harmonize with the neighborhood. She noted the need for housing units and the increasing land cost causing greater density re- quirements. She promised that the Tank House would be maintained as an historic landmark and be used for storage pusposes only. PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED: Com. C1audy. Second: Com. Blaine PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-324 Page 5 COM. BLAINE congratulated Mrs. Heldman on the efforts she had put into the design; however, she noted that she felt the size of the houses on such small lots led her to feel th t redesigning was necessary or elimination of one unit was called for. After further discussion, CHR. GATTO advised Mrs. Heldman that the CONSENSUS of the Planning Commission (five members present) was that one unit be eliminated and that the units be redesigned as per discussion. MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, Continue ITEM 12, to Regular Meeting of February 11, 1980.- Second: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 (CHR. GATTO announced that he wished to ab~ stain from consideration of ITEM #3 because of know- ledge of the Application.) VICE CHR. KOENITZER requested that Assistant Planning Direct r Cowan review the Staff Report on Item 13. ITEM #3, Applications 29-U-79 and 28-TM-79 of CYPRESS PROPERTIES, INC.: USE PERMIT to construct a two-story, 12,000 sq. ft. office building; and TENTATIVE MAP to sub- divide approximately 1.65 acres into two parcels equaling approximately .7 of an acre and .95 acres. Said property is located at the southwest corner of Bandley Drive and Greenleaf Drive in a P (Planned Development with industrial, commercial and residential (4-10 dwelling units per gross acre) intent) zoning district. First hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - January 31, 1980. Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report and Recommendations. He stated the reverse plan, the parkin2 and the trips were in conformance. The Cal Water Service property adjoining was maintained for pumping and possible future wells. Property is presently in orchard growth. Easements for future development of the property would be required and it was felt some device should be installed to prevent the public from having access to the property. COM. KOENITZER stated that he felt they were asking for trouble in the future and asked City Attorney Kilian for an opinion as to easements for the property. City Attorney Kilian advised that the easements would be better tied down, but that a Tentative Map could locate fkBting easements, which could be determined by the City at the time of development, and which could be changed to suit the application. For the prese~t the ingress and egress should be identified as not to exceed "x" number of feet as standard, and the exact location could be delayed indefinite y. PC-324 Page 6 MINUTES JANUARY l4, 1980 REGULAR. PlANNING COMMISSION MEETING COM. CLAUDY asked that the floating easement requirement be made a part of the Conditions for approval of the Application being discussed for reference at a future date. Mr. deBenedetti, Cypress Properties, representing the de- veloper, explained that the buildlng was intended for business-professional use, the major occupant being his own organization. He advised they had purchased as much property as Cal Water Service would permit, the remainder retained by the Service being that which they. felt they'd utilize. An offer was made to extend a wall or fencing the length of the property if that was required. The neighbors had been canvassed and all seemed to be in agree- ment that the development would not impact their privacy. Mr. deBenedetti had reservations and questioned the con- clusions of the Staff Report that the building would be too large and prominent. Moving the building to a southerly location would cause a driveway installation too close to a corner. He said his firm would agree to negotiate future easements if they were to be written into the Conditions for approval of the applications. City Attorney Kilian advised that the Planning Commission and the City Council always retained the power to waive or quit claim access matters. Mr. David Kinsey, 20643 Greenleaf, complimented the fence proposed and the general appearance of the development. He specifically asked that insurance and care be taken that the "Any Mountain, Ltd. parking incursion incident" be guarded against in the future -- his point being that Greenleaf is a temptation to drivers searching for parking in congested areas. Mr. WonR, 20653 Greenleaf, said he felt it was not too much to ask for minimum setbacks; and, he was also con- cerned about parking on Greenleaf. Mr. David Holme, 20613 Greenleaf, pointed out that the basic consistency in fencing might be esthetic. He requested that the builder continue the wall along Greenleaf Drive. The Commissioners discussed the requirements for easements, location and style of fencing, length or limits of the fencing, the orientation of the building on the property, driveways to accommodate Parcel A and Parcel B, the landscaping (Resolution to H-Control to assure large box trees to create greenery across the end of the cu1-de- sac was recommended by COM. ADAMS), and easements to be determined by future action. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Adams. Second: PASSED by· CONSENSUS Com. Blaine 4-0 MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1979 REGULAR PLANNtNG COMMISSION MEETING PC-324 Page 7 MOTION: Com. Adams, to grant Negative Declaration. Second: Com. C1audy VOTE: PASSED 4-0 ABSENT: Chr. Gatto MOTION: Com. Claudy, Approval 28-TM-79 subject to Findings and Subconclusions set forth by the Planning Com- mission of January 14, 1980; Standard Conditions #1 through #14; Condition #15 standard; Condition #16 and 117 modified to indicate future City choise and action for location of easements on Parcel A. VOTE: PASSED 4-0 ABSENT: Chr. Gatto MOTION: Com. C1audy, Approval 29-U-79, subject to the Findings and Subconclusions of Staff Report and Planning Commission Meeting of January 14, 1980; Standard Conditions #1 through #14; Condition #15 modified to read "the approval is based on Exhibit A of Applications 29-U-79, as modified by additiona Conditions contained herein." Eliminate the rest of Conditions #15. Condition #16 and #17, as stated; Condition #18 modified to read "shall be ex tended"...."a wall compatible with the existing BAS Homes wall shall be constructed along the Northerly property line of Parcel B, and a redwood fence sha1 be constructed along the westerly property line of Parcel B. These two shall connect with the existin cyclone fence to preclude access; Condition #19 and #20 modified to reflect that these are floating ingress and egress easements, which are to be dete·r mined by future City action; Condition #21 standard. Second: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 4-0 ABSENT: Chr. Gatto RECESS 10:00 p.m. UNFINISRED BUSINESS ITEM #4, Application 32-TM-77 of Jerry Merkelo and William McGuire. Request for extension of Tentative Map. CHR. GATTO resumed the chair and asked for a motion on Item #4 in the absence of comments. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to Extend the deadline for Tentative Map 32-TM-77 for one year. Second: Com. Claudy VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 (Chr. Gatto announced he wished to abstain from Consideration of Item #5 due to knowledge of the Application.) PC-324 Page 8 MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEM U5, State Mutual (FarWest Savings), Foug & Brown, Palo Alto, request the City of Cupertino to consider design modifications to previously approved plans for the corner of Stevens Creek Avenue and Finch Avenue, 10,000 sq. ft. building planned in combination with 15 cluster development. This second time the developer is coming before the Planning Commission for determination of whether or not the planned changes require a Public Hearing. Associate Planner Piasecki outlined the prop~sed changes, as exhibited, in the revised drawings. The Commissioners discussed the total size of the building, parking configuration (along with lack of turn-around), ratio of owner-occupied to rental property, architectural style, and degree of importance of each change and the total of the changes. City Attorney Kilian advised that major change of a sub- stantive nature would require public hearings. The decision, he said, would rest with the Planning Commission as to whether or not the changes being discussed were major changes. It was agreed,that the changes constituted something less than 5% of the total plan. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to refer to Architectural Site Approval Committee Second: Com. Claudy VOTE PASSED 4-0 ABSTAINED: Chr. Gatto MOTION: Com. Blaine, MINUTE ORDER TO H-CONTROL expressing concerns for 1) parking circulation in the parking lot and lack of turn around space, 2) architectural integration of the project with the residential project (features approved but now changed), 3) concern about location of the main building and discussion and determination as to whether building should be shifted or moved in order to facilitate circulation in the parking lot, 4) concern for the location of the community room relative to the parking. MOTION FAILED for lack of a second. After further discussion it was agreed to RECONSIDER COM. BLAINE'S MINUTE ORDER to H-CONTROL (see above). MOTION: Com. Blaine, to reinstate Minute Order. Second: Com. Claudy VOTE: PASSED 4-0 ABSTAINED: Chr. Gatto REPORT OF TRE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1980 REGULAX PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-324 Page 9 As.istant Planning Director Cowan, fallowing up an an August request, advised the Commissioners as to City Council action pertinent to the Planning Commissioners. 1. Council's new solar policy and the putting in of solar collectors (water heating systems). 2. Joint Meeting between Commission and City Council on Industrial Task Foree Report. 3) Staff working on Park Plaza site to reopen land-use hearings at the request of owner and for General Plan policy. 4) Genera Plan Hearings scheduled for January 28. 1980. 5) The Town Center to be pursued for determination of traffic concerns under the direction of Glynn Gregg. 6) Inspir~tion Heights matter. CHR. GATTO, having resumed the chair, suggested that the General Plan be first on the January 28, 1980 Agenda and In~pir.tion Heights be second on the Agenda. Town Center could come in to provide. time for work to be åone on the traffic problem. Aasistant Planning Director Cowan announced a meeting of the neighborhood on annexation on January 23. 1980 and promised further infor_.tion. He suggested that delay of annexation might be a possibility. ADJOURNEHENT 11: 15 p.m. ¡>F~.cp& C_~irmaa t ATTEST: (/'~0Zl~/1~~, City Clerk / / /.¿