Loading...
PC 09-11-89 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1989 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairman Adams Vice Chairman Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Sorensen Commissioner Szabo Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Mark Caughey, Senior Planner Travice Whitten, Asst. City Engineer Charles Kilian, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Sorensen moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 28, 1989, as presented. Com. Szabo Passed, Chr. Adams, Com. Claudy, Mackenzie abstaining 2-0-3 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 7: Application 18-U-89 - Cupertino Restaurants, Inc.: Continued to a date uncertain MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to remove Application 18-U-89 - Cupertino Restau- rants Inc. from calendar per request of the Applicant. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 ITEM 12: Application 13-U-89 - Sobrato Development: Continuance requested to the Meeting of October 23, 1989 ITEM 13: Application 5-GPA-89 - General Plan Consolidation: Staff requests Continu- ance until the Meeting of September 25, 1989 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to Continue Application 13-U-89 - Sobrato Develop- ment:to the Meeting of October 23, 1989, and Application 5-GPA-89 - Gen- eral Plan Consolidation to the Meeting of September 25, 1989. Com. Sorensen ~.~ 5~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 2 PC - 580 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None. CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM 1: Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: lO-TM-77 (Revised) Dick Randall Dick Randall 22348 Re¡¡nart Road TENTATIVE MAP amendment to an approved subdivision to increase the area and volume of site grading on Lot No. 14 within the subdivision. CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: August 28, 1989 FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED ITEM 2. Application No: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 12-U-88 (Amended) Pizzeria Uno Arthur Gunther 19930/19936 Stevens Creek Blvd. USE PERMIT condition clarification regarding reciprocal access to the property lying to the west of the site. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED A Representative for Pizzeria Uno made himself known, but did not wish to speak. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Com. Sorensen Passed PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM :3 Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Acres: 5-0 3-V-89 and 3-M-89 Mehdi Naderzad Same 21620 Rainbow Drive .71 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 3 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued VARIANCE to Section 10.61.2 of Ord. 1450 to exceed the 20 ft. building height limi- tation for a structure located on an adjacent ridgeline. INTERPRETATION of a Condition of Approval for Tract 5990 regarding the defini- tion of the building envelope and access for Lot 13. CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: August 28, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED (3-M-89) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 18, 1989 (3-V-89) Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and summarized Staff Report Dis- cussion and Recommendation: he presented the Revised Site Plan, Original and Revised Elevation Plans and the Previous and Current Plan of Structure. Com. Mackenzie questioned what revisions the Staff wished to see in the Revised Plans; Mr. Cowan responded that more significant changes were required, specifically, a reduc- tion in the steepness of the driveway slope by lengthening it, the stepping of the house into the hillside or designing a structure to match the existing hillside terrain. Com. Claudy asked what proportion of the footprint exceeded the 20 ft. height limitation; Mr. Cowan responded that he did not know. Com. Mackenzie noted that it appeared that only one projection to the left (recreation room) and a front projection (kitchen nook) as shown on the North Elevation Plan, did not exceed the 20 ft. height limitation. Com. Claudy commented that protions of the house that exceeded the 20 ft. height limita- tion included virtually all of the remaining roof surfaces. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Jim Jackson, Attorney representing the Applicant, commented: - Applicants had not conceded that a Variance was required due to the following reasons - The City's Ordinance stated that the overall height of structures could be 35 ft.; the Ridgecrest Ordinance was adopted to address homes that were massive, bulky and built on a ridge and limited such structures to a 20 ft. height The Ridgecrest Ordinance intent was quoted verbatim There was no Ordinance that pinpointed the site and informed the owner, prospective buyer and/or architect that this property came under the Ridgecrest Ordinance standards - The Applicant purchased the lot on the assumption that a 35 ft. height limitation was applicable; the architect made the same assumption - Staff made a determination that this site was included, based on a map drawn by the City Council, which showed general areas where the Ridgecrest Ordinance would apply - Concluded that the Ridgecrest Ordinance did not have clearly defined standards as seen in a typical subdivision where required setback areas were very clear to everyone This was a question of fairness versus unfairness; an individual purchased a lot based on the assumption that the lot in question was within the Residential Hillside Ordinance guidelines, which allowed a 35 ft. height limitation; Applicant was entitled to the same PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 4 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Jackson, Attorney for the Applicants, continued his comments as follows: - The house had been designed as close as possible to the Ordinance The Planning Commission's previous discussion reflected the same thought, i.e., what could be done to achieve the overall goals of the Ridgecrest Ordinance, namely, to avoid silhouetting the house which would result in a disruption of the view to adjacent homes Contended that the proposed house would not be visible from the prominent view sites because of the way the ridge turned and the very large home immediately in front of it; only the highest projection of the proposed structure would be able to be seen - Did not feel that a disruption of the view from the Valley floor would occur, nor was the house positioned on the top of a ridge - The Applicant's Architect did not believe it was possible to set the house on a pad which would allow compliance with a 20 ft. height limitation, without massive scaring of the hill or reducing the structure to less than 2,000 sq. ft.; this was a narrow, very steep lot - The house was moved a distance of 35 ft. down the hill, and the overall silhouette was lowered 15 ft. as seen by the Valley floor; although Staff contended the height was unchanged from the original proposal, the public's perception of the height was lessened - Neighborhood concerns were satisfied by installing four extra parking spaces at the base of the lot and siting the house within the building envelope; they supported this proposal - Applicants had gone as far as they could go; they did not feel a Variance Application should have to be made but if such was required, the Findings could be made Mr. Frank Gonsalves, Architect, thanked the Planning Commission for the Continuance in order to review the original proposal; he agreed with the above comments and discussed the revisions made to the proposed home. Com. Claudy asked that the relationship between the Elevation Plan and profile be shown. Mr. Gonsalves responded that the position of the garage was fixed; if this portion of the structure could be lowered, it would be possible to design a house closely conforming to the 20 ft. height limitation. The placement of the driveway access off of Rainbow Ct. was the greatest constraint; he was surprised to hear that the revised proposal was greater in height than the original submittal; this was a matter of interpreting the Ordinance. He con- firmed that flipping the house in order to lengthen the driveway, had been considered; the driveway would be above grade and would require the addition of some fill. In response to Com. Claudy's question, he thought that the problem with the height of this structure was a function of the garage. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. Com. Mackenzie noted that the City Council who adopted the Ridgecrest Ordinance should have the opportunity to interpret the Ordinance intent with reference to this Application. Com. Claudy observed that the Ridgecrest Ordinance was drafted to address the impact of homes built in the area; the fact that some structures exceeded the Ordinance requirements did not mean that they could be ignored. Consideration of a variance was in order, unless the City Council deemed otherwise; Commissioners Sorensen and Szabo agreed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 5 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Mackenzie commented that the method by which building height was determined, tended to encourage construction of a sheer wall from the ground level to the maximum height allowed; such accentuated the perceived bulk and mass of the structure. He took issuance with the Ordinance in this respect; a house that was stepped down the hill was much more desirable. The apparent juxtaposition of Ordinance requirements and the preferred building design resulted in a quandary. Com. Sorensen noted that if the house was not above the ridge line and was stepped into the hillside, it would seem to be an acceptable proposal; however, such was in conflict with the Ridgecrest Ordinance requirements. Mr. Cowan presented Exhibit A-A from the Ordinance and discussed the intent; placing the garage at the bottom of the slope or constructing a detached garage were the only answers. Com. Szabo agreed that a visually less impactful design would be preferred; the Ordinance as currently written may have to be reconsidered and possibly, amended. It was reasonable to say that this was a unique situation, and that not all alternatives were safe or desirable; some considerations would result in scarring the hillside. The practical way to arrive at the best solution was to grant the Variance requested. Com. Sorensen also favored the granting of a Variance; she had concerns about the stability of the hillside, which could be destabilized. There was no geologic report on this site for the Commission to reference in making their decision. Com. Claudy stated he would not vote in favor of a Variance; the revised plans did not be- gin to address the concerns raised by the Commission at the previous hearing on this Item, namely, reducing the perceived bulk and mass of the building. While he would allow some degree of variation in the 20 ft. height limit, the revised plans showed an increased height. He agreed with Com. Mackenzie's comment that the Ordinance may encourage the use of sheer walls; however, a profile of the house showed that not one section of the structure was stepped into the hillside, with the exception of one corner of living space which was next to the slope. As the Applicant's Architect stated, the problem was the garage; if the garage were placed at the bottom of the hill, the problem would be solved. In addition, some of the building mass above the 20 ft. height limitation served no purpose; the turret above the entrance was wasted space as far as living area was concerned and only added to the bulk of the structure. He contended that the Applicant had not made a good faith effort to address the issues. Chr. Adams stated he could not approve the Variance; the Applicant was not being denied the enjoyment or use of his property rights; in addition, there were no special circumstances which would prohibit the Applicant from complying with the applicable regulations. Com. Mackenzie also would not vote in favor of a Variance. He did not wish to rewrite the Ordinance; denial of this request would ensure that the Application would be heard by the policy making body who could make the necessary interpretation. However, he felt that a good effort had been made by the Applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 6 PC - 580 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Jackson agreed with Com. Mackenzie's comments. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend denial of Application 3-V-89.per the Model Resolution. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed, Com. Sorensen, Szabo dissenting 3-2 Mr. Cowan noted that action was required on both a modification to the proposed building envelope and the access. Com. Claudy did not object to locating the driveway at the top of the lot. Com. Mackenzie thought that the 15% driveway slope not be exceeded. Mr. Whitten comment that the slope percentage was regulated by the Central Fire Protection District; they would on occasion approve some modification of this standard. Mr. Cowan asked if the Commission wished to allow access to be taken from the top of the site, with a modification to the building envelope to accommodate such; Com. Mackenzie responded that this was acceptable subject to Staff approval. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to approve Application 3-M-89 subject to the conclu- sions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 4: Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-U-75 (Amended) Home Federal Savin¡¡s Home Federal Savin¡¡s 19444 Stevens Creek Boulevard AMENDMENT to a Use Permit to permit a 90 + sq. ft. building addition to an existing S & L Building. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL DATE: September 18, 1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application; although the Applicant was not present, they wished a decision to be made on their Application. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 7 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chr. Adams noted that formerly they were unfavorable to the use of drive-up windows, due to the air pollution created; the configuration shown allowed for only one car at a time. Mr. Caughey thought the proposed configuration was due to marketing considerations. Com. Szabo had concerns about the location of the drive-up window; the visibility from Stevens Creek Blvd. was completely blocked and the view from Miller Ave. very limited; such would enhance the possibility that a hold-up could occur. Mr. Cowan confirmed the Sheriffs Department had reviewed the Application and had made no comment. Com. Mackenzie agreed with the above comments concerning safety; he noted that rules designed to remove fast food drive-up windows from view, worked against the public's safety while transacting business at an automatic teller window. He suggested that these rules be reviewed. A,pplicant's Presentation: None. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 5,..0, SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 5: Com. Claudy moved to recommend approval of Application 9-U-75 subject to the conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. Com. Sorensen Passed with Com. Szabo dissenting. 4-L Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 21-U-89 and 28-EA-89 Clark Rosa Clark Rosa 10270 Imperial Avenue USE PERMIT to allow an automotive repair and machine shop in an existing structure located in the P-ML (Planned Development; light industrial intent) district. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 18, 1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application and presented a Revised Reso- lution, adding a Condition 17. to read, "The subiect Use Permit shall become effective upon the date on which annexation of the suQject site to the City of Cupertino is certified. Business activity shall not commence prior to that date." Renderings were passed out showing the design and color palette of the building. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 8 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Com. Szabo's concerns, Mr. Caughey stated that the Use Permit Conditions had been made as explicit as possible to raise the awareness of the Applicant regarding the expectations of the City and the fact that this was a transitional area of the City; the operation was relatively close to an existing residential area. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Clark Rosa reviewed the parking available which severely limited the possibility of customers dropping off their cars in the residential area; there was no box for keys to be left prior to opening the service shop. He noted the cleanliness and orderliness of the proposed operation. He had had no complaints on his machine shop operation which was located in another area and was also adjacent to residential homes. Com. Szabo noted that there was no Condition limiting the Hours of Operation; he stated that he had concerns regarding the proximity of the residential area. Mr. Rosa was agreeable to Com. Mackenzie's suggested hours of operation from 7:00 AM. to 6:30 P.M.; the operator of the business had no objection to a prohibition of hours on Saturdays and Sundays. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com.Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 Com. Szabo reiterated his concerns regarding the proximity of the operation to the adjacent residential use and suggested that the Use Permit be scheduled for a review; other Com- missioners felt that a scheduled review would not address the concerns raised. Com. Mackenzie felt the greatest risk would come from the sale of the business to an operator who was unfamiliar with these concerns and/or the Conditions of Approval. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Sorensen moved to approve Application 28-EA-89. Com. Claudy Passed 5-0 Com. Sorensen moved to recommend approval of Application 21-U-89 sub- ject to the conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hear- ing per the Model Resolution. Conditions 1-16; adding a Condition 17. to read, "The subject Use Permit shall become effective upon the date on which annexation of the subiect site to the City of Cupertino is certified. Business activity shall not commence prior to that date." Adding a Condition 18 to state that the Hours of Operation were limited to 7:00 AM. to 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday only. Com. Claudy Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 9 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 6: Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 16-U-89 Terry Silveria Kenneth Fran~adakis 10601 S. DeAnza Blvd. USE PERMIT to allow the operation of a specialized school within an office/commer- cial center in accordance with Section 6.K, Ordinance 1344 of the CG (General Com- mercial) Zone. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL DATE: September 18, 1989 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: August 28,1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and presented an aerial map. He called attention to a letter from a resident concerned about the condition of a fence and trash collection hours; Condition 4. Fencin~ addressed this concern and the City Ordinances regulated the hours that trash could be picked up. A,pplicant's Presentation: Mr. Terry Silveria made himself available for questions. In response to Com. Claudy's question, he stated that students were primarily adults although some junior high and senior high school students were also tutored. Dr. Kenneth Frangadakis, Property Owner, stated he inspected the fence and would com- plete the needed repair. They had agreed that if further expansion occurred, the properties would be merged; however, this Application would not appear to trigger a merger. Com. Claudy asked if there was a reciprocal parking agreement between the two properties; Dr. Frangadakis responded that there was no such agreement as far as he was aware of. Com. Claudy commented that he was no so much concerned about a merger of the two parcels as the possibility that parking would be lost if one of the properties was sold. Dr. Frangadakis stated that he understood the Commission's concerns; however, it was not economically feasible at this time to merge the two lots. Com. Claudy responded that they were not requiring a merger of the parcels. Chr. Adams added that the Commission wished to ensure that parking provided for the flag parcel was not lost; they were asking for a reciprocal parking agreement. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 10 PC - 580 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued SECOND: VOTE: Com. Szabo moved to recommend approval of Application 16-U-89 subject to the conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. Conditions 1-2; Condition 3 amended to read, "The owner shall consolidate all existing parcels into a single lot prior to the operation of the school or at the owner's option. record a reciprocal parkin~ easement in favor of the two parcels: the wordin~ of the reciprocal parkin~ easement subject to approval of the City Attorney. " Conditions 4-5. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 MOTION: Break: 9:05 - 9:19 P.M. ITEM 7: Removed from the calendar as stated previously. ITEM 8: Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Acres: 19-U-89 and 24-EA-89 Jerry A Kler La Mancha Development Co. NE Corner Stevens Creek Blvd.lStelling Ave. .61 (Net) USE PERMIT to demolish an existing service station and construct a 6,500 sq. ft. retail building with related site improvements. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 18, 1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application and discussed Staff Report Architectural Treatment: he presented the Site Plan, an Aerial Map and Architectural Ren- derings of the proposed structure. The Applicant was asked to address the use of the large windows which could act as display cases for merchandise and services offered; such would reinforce the connection with pedestrians which the City was anxious to establish. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Kler, Architect, commented as follows: - Stated they were interested in opening the building to pedestrian traffic; tenants would do themselves a disservice to block the view into the retail area and/or services offered - The intent was to have several pedestrian access as well as access from the parking area The area did not have an established architectural character; it was reasonable to design a building that was a statement in itself and would generate future development - The windows had been designed as elements to showcase the merchandise; the signage would be carefully contained and would in fact be played down by the building itself - Noted the characteristics of designing a building that wrapped around a corner A Landscape Plan had been submitted and was available for review; landscaping would be designed not to block the windows but would soften the building surfaces PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 11 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Chr. Adams' question, Mr. Kler stated that the tenants would be restricted regarding the amount and placement of paper signs in the display windows; in addition, the City could regulate signage under the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Caughey reviewed the Sign Ordinance regulations. Com. Mackenzie responded that the 25% coverage allowed by the Sign Ordinance would be excessive for these windows. Com. Claudy was also concerned that window signs would be too much for this site. Mr. Kler confirmed that he had no objection to an added Condition limiting the amount of window signs, per Chr. Adams' question. Mr. Whitten advised in response to the Applicant's inquiry regarding Condition 12., Development A¡¡reement. that the fees could not be determined until the improvement plans were completed and the cost estimates prepared. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 Mr. Cowan noted that if special restrictions were placed on the signage, it would be more difficult to administer; consideration was given to various ways to address the signage. Com. Mackenzie summarized that that the alternatives were to have the windows used for the display of merchandise and/or be left open for a view into the retail/sales area, or signage could be permitted on 10% of the window area. Com. Claudy wanted the windows facing Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Rd. to be uti- lized in a manner similar to a classical store front in commercial areas; examples of Univer- sity Ave. in Palo Alto, Castro St. in Mountain View and Saratoga-Los Gatos in the Town of Los Gatos were cited. He wished the buildings to appear as pedestrian entrances on a pedestrian street. Mr. Cowan agreed that the signage could be limited to 10% of the window area. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Sorensen moved to reopen the Public Hearing. Com. Claudy Passed 5-0 Mr. Kler suggested that signs be limited to a certain square footage, to be shown on the architectural plans; the leases already defined the allowable areas for sign displays. Com. Claudy suggested a statement be added outlining the purpose, namely, that the windows on Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Ave. were for the display of merchandise and/or visual access into the selling area. Mr. Kler added that a prohibition could be placed on the installation of permanent partitions that would block the view into the store. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 12 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Sorensen moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Claudy Passed 5-0 Consensus reached that signage would be limited to 10% coverage of the window; area available for the placement of signage to be indicated on the Architectural Drawings. The Architectural and Site Review Committee could then review the matter. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 9: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Application 24-EA-89. Com. Claudy Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 1O-U-89 sub- ject to the conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hear- ing per the Model Resolution. Conditions 1-20; adding a Condition 21 to require that the glass window and door areas facing Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Rd. were to be used for the display of merchandise and/or provide visual access into the retail sales area; signs can be placed on the glass areas as permitted by the Sign Ordinance but are not to exceed a 10% coverage of the window area. Com. Szabo Passed 5-0 Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area: 8-Z-89. 1O-TM-89 and 25-EA-89 Cupertino Union School District Same 19900 Price Avenue (Wilson School Site) 4.0 + Acres REZONE one lot of 4.0 + acres in the BA (Public Building) to R1-6 (Residential Single-Family, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size). TENTATIVE MAP to divide one lot into 18 single-family lots ranging in size from 6,100 + to 10,225 + square feet (gross). FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 2, 1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan presented the Application, reviewed the history of the Wilson School site and discussed the General Plan Policies in relationship to this Item. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 13 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Applicant's Presentation: Ms. Geraldine Steinberg, Property Consultant for the School District, summarized the Application and commented as follows: - Neighborhood meetings were held prior to presenting a Tentative Map, which were followed by community public meetings to present a proposed Subdivision Map Residents on Portal Ave. objected to the placement of a driveway behind their lots; their Project Civil Engineer redesigned the Site Map to eliminate this problem - Staffs concerns regarding the driveways coming off the cul-de-sac would be addressed by Mr. Kier, Project Civil Engineer Concerns also centered around the provision of adequate public parking for the park site; neighbors wished assurances that they would not be impacted by parking overspill Residents asked that the City prepare a parking plan which would be reviewed by them prior to any formal submission by the School District - An additional meeting was held to allow the City to present several plans for discussion and the neighborhood was given certain assurances that there was adequate space on the park site to provide the necessary public parking; if it were found at a later date that parking was insufficient, alternative site configurations would be considered to add the additional spaces required Thc main issue was access; five residents on Rodrigues Ave., in the Pan-Cal Develop- ment, wished to see another access to the park in addition to the Rodrigues Ave. access Furthermore, Rodrigues Ave. was only a half street, which further restricted access The District contacted Mr. Gheno, owner of the undeveloped parcel between Rodrigues Ave. and Park Side Ln.; there was hope they could work together to complete Rodrigues - The District directed Mr. Kier to design a second Tentative Map; however, they now understood the City was not favorable to this Map - Thus, the District was submitting the Map they believed was the City's first choice; i.e., access from Rodrigues Ave. ending in a cul-de-sac, with eight lots off of Price Ave. - There was also question whether it would not be better to have access from Rodrigues Ave. and from Park Side Ln.; the Rodrigues Ave. residents may wish to address this - The District tried very hard to respond to the neighbor's concerns, but there were differ- ing positions between the neighbors and the City; the District submitted the proposal that the City felt was best for the community as a whole Mr. Dick Kier, Project Civil Engineer, reviewed the traffic circulation and access alterna- tives which had been considered and presented for consideration to the affected residents; access from Rodrigues Ave. ending in a cul-de-sac, with eight lots off of Price Ave. appeared to be the best alternative. Per discussions with Staff earlier in the day, they were confident they could reconfigure Lots 15 through 18 to meet City Code requirements. Ms. Steinberg presented the Site Plan showing the Price Ave. cul-de-sac and discussed the impacts to the public parking on the park site. Mr. Kier provided additional information. Com. Szabo noted that adequate parking was a major issue. Com. Claudy commented that the biggest issue with regard to the public parking, was that there needed to be a commitment on the part of the City to provide adequate parking; such may entail the loss of one of the playing fields. If the parking lot was filled, users of the park might resort to on-street parking on the cul-de-sacs in the residential area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 14 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Com. Mackenzie's comment, Mr. Whitten stated that the City was commit- ted to providing sufficient public parking, some of which would be placed along the Rodrigues Ave. cul-de-sac, which would not result in the loss of a playing field. Com. Mackenzie responded that double-sided parking along the Rodrigues Ave. cul-de-sac was an attractive configuration; cul-de-sacs in general did not provide sufficient parking. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Fred Carlson stated that the following issues had never been addressed: - The size of the lots; adjacent properties ranged in size from 7,500 sq. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft.; lots of the new development should conform in size to existing, abutting properties rather then to lots near the Creek area which were further removed Called attention to the limited frontage of existing sites and the resulting, cramped park- ing; some lots of the new development would have a similar problem - A right.of-way easement and the utilities had not been discussed in neighborhood meetings - Drainage problems existed in the area and he thought they had not been addressed Mr. Gooff Brown summarized his and neighbor's priorities as: - They did not want a driveway adjacent to their back yard fence; there had been impacts in the form of pedestrian traffic and auto traffic - Did not want any side yards abutting their rear yards; the new development was higher in elevation and would impose on them - Lots of the new development backing up to the existing homes would be limited to one- story structures; there was precedent in the Hoover School development that new structures adjacent to existing single story homes was restricted to a single story element Mr. William Stearns, Cupertino, read into the record a letter from Rodrigues Ave. Residents Association (five property owners) listing their desires, objections and recommendations. The Commission interrupted the Public Hearing on Item 9 to make the following Motion. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to Continue Application 20-U-89, ll-TM-89, 9-Z-89 and 26-EA-89 (Joseph Park Assoc.) and Application 12-TM-89 and 27-EA- 89 (Elmer Buxton) to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on September 12, 1989. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Commission returned to the Public Hearing on Item 9, Cupertino Union School District. Mr. Harry Gheno stated he wished to work with the City and the Applicant to complete the improvements to Rodrigues Ave., but did not wish to develop his property at this time. Mr. Andy Prophet, Deep Rose PI. and Price Ave., Cupertino, cited circulation patterns and felt there was already too much traffic; some configurations would aggravate the situation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 15 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Sam Sundaram, Civil Engineer and resident of 19991 Rodrigues Ave., Cupertino, noted the effects of traffic on residential neighborhoods and cited a reference which stated that while people were more tolerate of traffic during commute hours, they were not so willing to accept traffic impacts during the evening and weekend hours. The alternative proposed, channeling all traffic onto Rodrigues Ave.,would increase the impacts. The position of the City's Public Works Director seemed to be that residents of one street, namely, Rodrigues Ave., would have to suffer in order to benefit the common good; he felt it was possible to devise a plan that would balance the traffic circulation. Mr. Steven Chase, 19979 Rodrigues Ave., Cupertino, was surprised the City proposed a traffic alternative when they did not know what the existing levels of traffic were; in addition, on-street parking in residential neighborhoods was not a solution. He estimated that two hundred cars were parked in the area during baseball games held on weekends. Mr. G.P. Hegde, 19773 Rodrigues Ave., Cupertino, wished to impress on the Commission that after work it was essential for him to rest; traffic impacts made it difficult to relax. The residents were not merely concerned about a potential loss of property value, but rather they were concerned for the safety of their children; he had four children of his own. Ms. Steinberg briefly responded to concerns raised by the above speakers. Mr. J. B. Burke felt that if Price Ave. had normal traffic patterns, this proposal might be acceptable; however, Price Ave. was something of an expressway. Mr. Carlson asked if it would not be wise to retain Wilson School for future growth. Mr. George Plumleigh, Cupertino Union School District Asset Manager, reviewed the growth projections for schools; he confirmed that the issue had been very carefully studied. Chr. Adams noted that the school sites had been purchased with tax dollars and stated that he would prefer to retain them; however, he was aware that a decision to the contrary had already been made. Mr. Plumleigh responded that the funds derived from the sale of the Wilson School site would be used to upgrade and restore the existing schools. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Szabo moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Claudy Passed 5-0 Chr. Adams suggested they address whether the street configuration was acceptable. Com. Mackenzie did not think so; there had to be a second access for traffic generated by this subdivision, as well as from future developments. Com. Sorensen agreed; in response to her question, Mr. Cowan stated that both Hoover and Jollyman sites were configured differently and had more than one access. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 16 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Claudy commented that while the street layout was not the best possible, access to the park through the residential area by way of Rodrigues Ave. or Price Ave. was not desirable. Monta Vista Park was an example of good design of a park with playing fields; however, Monta Vista Park was surrounded by public streets which was not the case here. He added that what was being done was implementing a plan for this area which had been in place for a number of years; Rodrigues Ave. was scheduled to be improved to a full street width to serve the school site. He understood Staffs reluctance to install a parking lot on the park site which would destroy the greatest amount of usable recreational space; on-street parking would not have the same impact on the playing fields. He had concluded that this was a reasonable plan. Com. Szabo stated that it was a fundamental decision whether access would be taken from Price Ave. or not; he concurred with other Commissioners that access from Price Ave. did not make a lot of sense. A decision whether or not to construct a through access from Parks ide Ct. was a decision that could be changed; furthermore, this was a decision to be made by the City Council, not the Planning Commission. Chr. Adams favored the street layout and park access presented; while he empathized with the neighbor's concerns, he believed the configuration presented was the best option available and a reasonable plan. He did not favor an access from Price Ave. The Chair asked the Commission to comment on the lot size and configuration. Com. Mackenzie stated he was concerned about the small sized lots on the east side of the project; however, the average lot size was acceptable. He suggested that Lot 16 take access off of Price Ave., along the western edge of Lot 1; this driveway location would prevent impacts to the existing residence, free up the cul-de-sac and improve the parking situation on the cul-de-sac. He asked that Lots 17 and 18 be increased slightly. Com. Sorensen agreed and added that accessing Lot 16 from Price Ave. would allow Lots 17 and 18 to be enlarged. Initially, she had been concerned about Lot 18; however, she realized later that this lot would have visual access of the park, which would be helpful in creating a feeling of open space. Com. Claudy agreed with the other Commissioners' comments; between Price Ave. and the Rodrigues Ave. extension, relatively deep and large lots would be created in this section of the development, although these lots would have minimum street frontage. Unfortunately, there was a perception of density, rather than true density; short of eliminating a lot, this perception would remain. With respect to side yards backing up to rear yards, this situation existed all over the City. Chr. Adams stated that he considered a reduction in the number of lots. He agreed that having Lot 16 access from Price Ave. was a good idea and addressed some concerns raised. Consensus appeared to be that the Commission could accept 18 lots, with some Commissioners preferring the elimination of one lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 17 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Com. Sorensen's question, Mr. Whitten reviewed the standard requirements pertaining to drainage placed on all subdivisions; this project would be no different. Com. Sorensen commended Ms. Steinberg for placing a limitation on new houses adjacent to existing, one-story homes; it was important to retain the neighborhood's character. Com. Szabo responded that he did not see any such restriction in the Model Resolution limiting certain structures to a single story element; he agreed that such was a good idea. Com. Mackenzie responded if a one-story limitation were placed the subdivision lots, he wished to see a similar restriction applied to the adjacent, existing properties. Mr. Whitten asked that Application 1O-TM-89, Condition 1 Street Widenin~. be amended, adding a sentence to read, "The developer will be responsible for providinir half street im- provements plus 10 ft. on Rodri¡¡ues Ave. between the westerly boundary of the sub- division and Blaney Ave.. includinl1 acquisition of riirht-of-way. The City will enter into an a¡¡reement to reimburse the developer when the adjacent property develops. " The City Attorney advised the Commission that if the elimination of one lot was required, the Tentative Map would have to be brought back for final approval. Consensus reached that the Commission would approve the Tentative Map as presented. Com. Claudy and Sorensen preferred 17 lots, but would accept an 18 lot subdivision; Com. Sorensen asked that the driveway for Lot 16 access Price Ave. as discussed above. Com. Mackenzie noted that Lot 18 had only 6100 sq. ft.; Com. Sorensen responded that when the Tentative Map was redrawn to reconfigure driveway access for Lot 16, Lot 18 would be enlarged and would have approximately 6500 sq. ft. Com. Mackenzie agreed that if Lot 16's driveway were reorientated, Lot 17 could be shifted and Lots 17 and 18 would have 6750 sq. ft. minimum, subject to Staff approval. Driveway for Lot 16 to be located between Lots 1 and 2 and would access Price Ave. Com. Mackenzie did not wish to place a one story limitation on certain lots in the project. Com. Sorensen agreed and added that two-story elements were permitted; the Applicant made a good faith statement that they would restrict certain lots to a one-story element. In response to Com. Szabo's comment that even if built as one-story homes, a second story element could be added at a later date, Com. Mackenzie responded that the same was true for the existing one-story homes; other Commissioners agreed. Com. Sorensen added that with respect to comment by Mr. Chase, that a parking lot could be installed at the south end of the Park site, such was not under consideration at this time. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Sorensen moved to approve Application 25-EA-89. Com. Claudy Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 11, 1989 Page 18 PC - 580 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy moved to recommend approval of Application 8-Z-89 subject to conclusions and subconc1usions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. Com. Szabo Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy moved to recommend approval of Application 10-TM-89 sub- ject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. Condition 1 modified to add, The developer will be responsible for providin~ half street improvements plus 10 ft. on Rodri¡¡ues Ave. between the westerly boundary of the subdivision and Blaney Ave.. includin~ acquisition of ri¡¡ht-of-way. The City will enter into an a¡¡ree- ment to reimburse the developer when the adjacent property develops." Conditions 2-15; adding a Condition 16 indicating that access to Lot 16 shall be by way of a flag corridor entering from Price Ave. between Lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision; adding a Condition 17 indicating that the net square footage for Lots 17 and 18 shall be increased to a minimum of 6750 sq. ft. per lot. In order to comply with the minimum lot requirement, the Applicant may make minor adjustments to other lot lines as shown on the plans, subject to Staff approval. Com. Szabo Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to send a Minute Order to the City Council recom- mending that access on Parkside Ct. from Blaney Ave. into this subdivision and future developments be provided. Com. Sorensen Passed, Com. Claudy dissenting 4-1 ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission Meeting was adjourned at 11:58 P.M. to the Adjourned Regular Meeting of Tuesday, September 12, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. Respec