Loading...
PC 07-10-89 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 JULY 10, 1989 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairman Adams Vice Chairman Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Sorensen Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Larry Harmer, City Planner Mark Caughey, Senior Planner Travice Whitten, City Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Plan- ning and Parks and Recreation Commission of June 21,1989, as presented. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VarE: Passed 4-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 26, 1989. as presented. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VarE: Passed, Com. Sorensen abstaining 3-0-1 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. Cowan stated that the Applicant in Item 5 had requested a Continuance. Mr. Edmund Tai, Property Owner, Item 5, confirmed that such was acceptable. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to Continue Application 2-V-89, Robert Boles, Appli- cant, to July 24, 1989, per request of the Applicant. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VarE: Passed 4-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - As stated above CONSENT CALENDAR: - None. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 10, 1989 Page 2 PC - 576 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 1: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Acres: 3-V-89.3-M-89 Mehdi Nade "7J1ci Same 21620 Rainbow Drive ..1! VARIANCE to Section 10.61.2 of Ordinance 1450 to exceed the 20 ft. building height limitation for a structure located on an adjacent ridge line. Interpretation of a Condition of Approval for Tract ;;990 regarding the defmition of the building envelope and access for Lot 13. CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 26,1989 (3-M-89) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED (3-M-89) FIRST HEARING (3- V -89) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorica1lyexempt TENTATIVE COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 17,1989 (3-V-89) Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan presented the Application, Site and Topographical Maps and a rendering of the proposed structure; he reviewed Staff Report Bachround and Dis- cussion. He reviewed the access routes and traffic circulation patterns in the area. Apolicant's Presentation: Mr. Jim Jackson, Applicant's Representative, presented a photo montage of the site and adjoining properties and commented as follows: - Applicants did not agree with the statement in Staff Report Discussion. that the "Hard- ship, if it exists in this case, is self-imposed..." - Presented a copy of the topographical map given to the public to demonstrate that infor- mation could be confusing and/or unclear to the public Furthermore, this site was not on the crest of the ridge, in their opinion. - Lots in this area were view lots with large, expensive homes; Applicant was only re- questing a home of less than 5,000 sq. ft. Applicants were not able to keep the house under the 20 ft. height limitation and maintain driveway access below 15% slope It was impossible to conform to the 20 ft. height on a lot of this steepness Narrowness of the lot did not a1low a wide, one-story configuration for the house - An economic hardship would result; in addition, there were no issues of health or safety Applicants were willing to work with Staff regarding redesign and elimination of some of the areas exceeding the 20 ft. height limitation PLANNING COMMISSlON MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 10, 1989 Page 3 PC - 576 PUBLIC HEARING Continued Com. Claudy observed that while the proposed house did not appear to stand out, the Applicant could construct a structure on the lower portion of the lot. Mr. Jackson re- sponded that such would require deep cuts into the hillside and extensive retaining wa1ls. Com. Claudy added that he would be willing to consider the Application as presented, but he felt a redesign was in order; design alternatives were discussed with the speaker. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Mario Zanate, Property Owner of Lot 17, reviewed the access route of an adjacent property and the subject site, both of which were dependant upon an easement across his property. While he wished to be cooperative, he had reservations regarding another access across his property, due to the amount of traffic that would result; at this time, his answer to allowing access across his property would be no. Mr. David Phipp, 21700 Rainbow Ct. Cupertino, commented as follows: - The Applicant's structure, if sited as proposed, would interpret his view corridor - Contended that the Residential Hillside (RHS) Ordinance was enacted not only to protect the people in the va1ley, but also to protect hillside residents - He had to install substantial retaining wa1ls on his site; the Applicant could do the same - Objected to moving the building pad up the hill and exceeding the 20 ft. height limitation - Did not object to the proposed access although he agreed that congestion might result - The house proposed only had two off-street parking sta1ls; there was no on-street park- ing on Rainbow Ct. - Did not feel a Variance should be granted when alternatives were available Ms. Greenie Van Buren, 21660 Rainbow Ct. Cupertino, commented as follows: - Cited the lack of maintenance of the existing access/driveway Noted that parking was extremely limited in the area; insufficient on-site parking would create problems for the neighborhood - Added her concerns about preservation of the view corridor for existing residents Mr. Frank Gonsalves, Architect, commented as follows: - Confirmed that Lot 13 did have frontage on Rainbow Ct.; access from the emergency access road was a convenience Central Fire District required that they improve and maintain the access road Lot lO's view corridor would not be blocked; they would be able to see over the roof of the proposed house Agreed the proposed house could be built on the lower portion of the site; however, the Applicant wished to take advantage of the view from the top of the site In addition, the access road would pass by the rear (service) area of the adjacent property Concluded the design was directly related to the site constraints; noted the narrowness of the lot and the steepness of the slope which placed severe restrictions on the design Added they were willing to work with Staff to minimize what Staff considered a bulky structure; design alternatives and design constraints were discussed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 10, 1989 Page 4 PC - 576 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Drew Arvay, Homeowners Association for Rainbow's End, commented as follows: Cited residents attempts to preserve the integrity of the hillsides and the neighborhood; residents objected to obtrusive, bulky homes and/or inappropriate materials and colors Noted that property owners purchased their sites with the view in mind; he questioned the fairness of penalizing those who conformed with the applicable requirements Suggested design alternatives for the subject property, including terracing and an alter- native driveway easement - Urged that the Ordinance intent to protect all the residents be adhered to Mr. Jackson agreed the neighbor's concerns would have to be better addressed; however, the 20 ft. height limit was imposed for the benefit of the public view, not private views. He confirmed the Applicant's structure would not block neighbor's views and agreed they would mitigate bulk and height of the proposed structure to an acceptable level. Com. Claudy commended the Applicant's Architect for his candor in acknowledging that relocation of the building pad was to take advantage of the view. He felt compromises would have to be made and agreed the height limitation was designed as public benefit. Com. Sorensen agreed a compromise was in order; alternative access was suggested. Com. Mackenzie commented that he did not wish the Commission to impose design stan- dards on applicants; however, he felt a compromise could be reached. If the house were stepped up the hillside as suggested by Staff, he would be amenable to allowing some por- tions of the house to exceed the 20 ft. height limitation. A present, almost all portions of the house were 20 ft.in height, with some sections exceeding the limit. He suggested con- sideration of an alternative driveway. While the Residential Hillside Ordinance was de- signed with the community in mind, this was a Variance Application and the views, property values and concerns of adjacent residents would have to be considered; neighbors had a right to equal protection under the Ordinance. Mr. Arvay suggested an alternative driveway access to the Applicant's Architect. Mr. c.T. Ma requested information on his Application which was pending before the City; the Commission advised that if a Variance Application were made, they would consider it. Chr. Adams stated he would have difficulty making the required Variance Findings. He felt the Applicant could build within the standards set down. He asked that the Applicant work on a redesign. The Public Hearing remained open. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to Continue 3-V-89 and 3-M-89 to August 14, 1989. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 PLANNING COMMISSJON MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 10, 1989 Page 5 PC - 576 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 2: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-U-89 and 17-EA-89 University of San Francisco Seet Familv Trust Northwest auadrant of Bollinl!er Rd. and De Anza Blvd USE PERMIT to operate a specialized educational institution encompassing 5,200 sq. ft. of classroom area within an existing office building. CONTINUED FORM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 26, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 17,1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Harmer reviewed the Application. Annlicant's Presentation: Ms. Adele Salle, Representing the University, presented a letter from Mr. Russ Werner, General Manager ofK-Mart, dated June 29,1989. Com. Claudy read the letter into the record and noted it did not indicate the length of time parking on their site was being allowed; he suggested a written reciprocal parking agreement be required as a Condition of approval. Com. Mackenzie added that the letter referenced the south east corner of the K- Mart park- ing lot; it was the north west corner of the lot that was required for the satellite parking. Mr. Cowan noted that the north east corner of the lot was adjacent to a cross walk. Mr. Whitten confirmed that the City would not permit a cross walk in mid-block. Ms. Sa1le provided information on the number of students currently enrolled and added that the parking area in this Center, from Kathy's School of Dance to the Donut Shop, had many parking spaces available this evening when she visited the site. Chr. Adams asked the Applicant to reafftrm the parking agreement with K-Mar!, providing a written statement showing the location of the parking and the length of the agreement. Com. Mackenzie felt a legal covenant acceptable to the Qty Attorney was required. Mr. Salle asked if the above requirements were met, could they feel confident negotiating an agreement for renting the space. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: SECOND: VarE: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 4-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 10, 1989 Page 6 PC - 576 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: SECOND: VarE: MOTION: SECOND: VarE: ITEM 3: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 17-EA-89. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 9-U-89 sub- ject to the conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hear- ing per the Model Resolution, Conditions 1,2; Condition 3 modified to read, "Prior to initiation of the Use Permit for the proposed classroom space, the applicant in cooperation with the property owner, sha1l enter into an agree- ment which will run with the land for "satellite" parking at a las9.tiaR aSgef!tal¡Je ta tae ~. on the north end of the K-MartlBank Darkin~ lot. This agreement is subject to review and approval by the City Attorney prior to recordation." Condition 4. Com. Sorensen Passed 4-0 Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Acres: 14-U-89 Milton Pa~onis. D.D.S. Civic Center Professional Grou'p 10383 Torre Ave. 1....2. USE PERMIT to add a 1,000 sq. ft. basement to an existing 21,000 sq. ft. medical/ dental office building. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorica1ly Exempt TENTATIVE COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 17,1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey noted specific issues in the staff report concerning parking and restricted use of the basement area. Com. Claudy stated he had reservations about the request for increased square footage; Mr. Cowan responded the intensity of use was not being increased; however, a Condition could be added to address these concerns if the Commission so wished. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Don Spenhoff, Applicant's Agent, stated that the Applicants wished to relocate their records on site; there would not be any increase in traffic or the number of patients served. Areas presently designated for storage would not accommodate extra operaries; in addition, the 35 sq. ft. lounge originally proposed would be expanded. The Public Hearing was then opened. Dr. Ken Frangidakis conftrmed he would have no objection to a Condition that limited the number of operatories. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 10, 1989 Page 7 PC - 576 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: SECOND: VarE: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 4-0 Com. Mackenzie stated he would not vote in favor of this Application. Com. Claudy commented that while the request seemed logical, he continued to have reservations regarding the parking allotment; however, since the City Council had deter- mined that 108 parking spaces were sufficient, he would vote for this Application. Chr. Adams stated he also had concerns whether the parking allotted would be adequate. Com. Sorensen added that when dental offices were successful, record storage increased. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to recommend approval of Application 14-U-89 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution, Conditions 1-6; and adding a Condition 7 to stipulate that the intensity of use defined by the number of patients, staff and operaries permitted in Application 25-U-88 not be exceeded. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VarE: Passed, Com. Mackenzie dissenting 3~ 1 ITEM 4: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Acres: 15-U-89 David I-Hwa Yani Same 10249 Pasadena Ave. JJ1 USE PERMIT to construct a 1,564 sq. ft. two-story detached dwelling. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt (Section 15303 [aD TENTATIVE COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 17, 1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application and presented diagrams of the proposed second story addition; Staff recommended an additional Condition 16 to read, "Annexation: Prior to implementation of this Use Pennit. the Droœrtv owner shall com- Dlete Droceedinws for annexation of the subiect property to the City of Cupertino. Said annexation process shall be completed prior to issuance of any land develo.pment entitlements. " ApDlicant's Presentation: Mr. David I-Hwa Yang, Applicant, noted the sma1l size of the lot and reviewed his proposal to add a second story addition which would contain a master bedroom, second bedroom, two baths and a hallway. Staffs recommendation would not a1low the necessary living space. The Public Hearing was then opened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 10, 1989 Page 8 PC - 576 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Gloria Tangen, 10217 Pasadena Ave., Cupertino, reviewed the site constraints, in- cluding the small lot size and the proximity of an adjacent property owner's garage. She cited traffic hazards at this corner, inadequate parking and the lack of sidewalks; she asked that the setback requirements be met and the Monta Vista Design Guidelines observed. Ms. Karen Metzger, 10223 Pasadena Ave., Cupertino, reiterated the above comments and concluded that the proposed addition would result in too much house for this srna1llot. Mr. Yang agreed this was a small lot; however, two on-site parking spaces were provided. MOTION: SECOND: VarE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 Com. Mackenzie cited Com. Claudy's earlier comment that Pasadena Ave. right-of-way could accommodate on-street parking, sidewalks and planter strips. Com. Mackenzie added that he would allow a.45 FAR. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations assumed a two-car garage; this Applicant benefited in this respect from the one-car garage. Com. Sorensen was favorable to reducing the FAR to a.45 and shifting the house slightly. Com. Claudy agreed the house could be shifted toward the street and added that there should be a prohibition on fencing along the Pasadena Ave. side of the house. Com. Mackenzie asked this Application to be returned to the Architectural and Site Committee. Com. Claudy suggested the west elevation windows be altered. MOTION: SECOND: VarE: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 15-U-89 sub- ject to the conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution, Conditions 1-12; Condition 13 amended to require the FAR not to exceed to .45; Condition 14 amended to read, "The first and second story sideyard setbacks on the west side of the site are not approved. A minimum seven (7) ft. lower story setback shall be maintained from the west property line, with a corresponding reduction to a five (5) ft. lower story setback from the east property line. '¡: ¡e eeRtimleøø w&l.l¡liane 1!e~':eeR Ibe fiFs! anà seeeRå stBfY GRail B8 91i-~-&teà trJ9øglt Ii desigR 681øtiea ap,r81~eà 1!y Ibe .'\U.C. In addition. no fencin~ shall be ~nnitted alon~ the east nronerty line. adiacent to the house." Condition 15 modified to read, "The Applicant sha1l submit a color and materials palette and the final buildin~ confi~tion to ASAC for informal review prior to issuance of building permits. The intent of said review is to accomplish the following...": add to end, that the second- story west facin~ windows are to be horizontallv orientated and of translucent ~. Add Condition 16 to read "Annexation: Prior to implementation of this Use Permit. the pronertv owner shall complete nroceedin~s for annexation of the subiect nronertv to the City of Cupertino. Said annexation nrocess shall be completed prior to issuance of any land develonment entitlements. " Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 10, 1989 Page 9 PC - 576 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 5 was Continued as previously noted. ITEM 6: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 12-U-88 (Amended) and 29-U-84 (Amended) Arthur Gunther (Pizzeria Uno) Steven Gazzera South side of Stevens Creek Blvd.. 250 ft. E. of Blanev Ave. AMENDMENT TO USE PERMITS to allow reciprocal overflow parking and a con- necting walkway to the adjoining property to the east. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorica11yexempt Staff Presentation: Mr. Harmer reviewed the Application. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Jim Jackson, Attorney Representing the Applicant, agreed a parking problem existed during the peak hours of business; this problem was resolved by allowing overflow parking onto the adjacent commercial site. The Application was °to legitimize a solution already implemented. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. King-Wah Yeuug, 10129 Mello Pl., Cupertino, stated his concerns were as follows: - Noise from increased traffic - Privacy intrusion from pedestrians on the other side of a 6 ft. high fence between the rear of his property and the Drexel-Heritage parking lot - Safety problems from possible vandalism or disorderly customers of Pizzeria Uno Mr. Vie Dervin, 10109 Mello PI., Cupertino, stated he was authorized to speak on behalf of Rene Champagne, 10119 Mello PI., Cupertino. They preferred that overflow parking on the Drexel-Heritage site not occur, but if such were allowed they wished to see the wall separating the commercial and residential uses upgraded to the standard imposed on the wall at the rear of the Pizzeria Uno property; in addition, they wished relief from the lighting overspill on the Drexel-Heritage site. Mr. Gunther, Applicant, presented photographs and commented as follows: - Reviewed the current restaurant operation, the typical customer and procedures followed in deaJing with the serving of alcoholic beverages - Noted efforts solicit comments from neighbors regarding any problems that occurred - The overflow parking lot was insured to cover any accidents that may occur The overflow parking lot would prevent increased traffic in the neighborhood Mr. Yeung responded that when he had been approached by Mr. Gunther, he had lived in the neighborhood only about a year; in an attempt to be a good neighbor, he had responded that there were no problems. However, he now saw that this would be a major change. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 10, 1989 Page 10 PC - 576 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Gunther added there were changes during the process of converting an informal ar- rangement to a formal arrangement; there was no attempt to misrepresent the situation. Members of the Commission noted that "the City reserved the right to Condition or nullify the shared parking licenses granted by the respective property owners if necessary to mitigate future noise disturbance or criminal activity affecting the adjacent homes to the south, consistent with the intent of Conditions 25 of Use Permit 12-U-88" as stated in Condition 2; such would protect the neighbor's interests. MOTION: SECOND: VarE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 4-0 MOTION: Com. Sorensen moved to approve Application 12-U-89 (Amended) and 29- U-89 (Amended) subject to the conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VarE: Passed 4-0 NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Chr. Adams noted that the parking lot of the former Nite Cap Lounge was often f1lled. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:45 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of July 24, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recording Secretary