Loading...
PC 06-15-89 · . ,~- CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4642 MINUTES OF REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 15, 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 Planning and Development Larry Harmer, City Planner Mark Caughey, Associate Planner Glen Grigg, Traffic Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 1: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 12-U-89 and 12-EA-89 Coit Comm Vallco Park. Ltd. 18922 For~e Dr.. East of Tantau Ave. USE PERMIT to modify height and sectional standards to permit installation of a 60 ft. high microwave communications tower, in accordance with Section 69.1 of Ordinance No. 220 (g). CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 19, 1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey presented the Item and reviewed Staff Report Discussion. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. John Duggins noted the greatest concern seemed to be the issue of visibility; the unit was licensed with the FCC and would not interfere with the TV, radio or ham frequencies. The majority of surrounding buildings were using microwave; however, these facilities did not need to be as high as the proposed tower. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 15, 1989 Page 2 PC - 573 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Com. Claudy's question, Mr. Duggins stated the proposed tower was a link in the network and must be in line with the Kifer Ave., San Jose, location; he confirmed that the trees presented a significant interference. The 4 1/2 ft. wide cross-section was required to support the 60 ft. height; no movement could be tolerated in the satellite dish. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 2: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 Com. Sorensen moved to approve Application 12-EA-89. Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Com. Sorensen moved to recommend approval of Application 12-U-89 sub- ject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel (Acres): ll-U-89 and 1O-EA-89 Valley Church Valley Church West side of Stellini Rd. 500 ft. south of Homestead Rd. 8.9 Acres USE PERMIT to construct a 7,200 sq. ft. activity center building within an existing church complex. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 19, 1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application and presented an aerial photo- graph and Site Plan; he discussed Staff Report Discussion. A Buildin¡¡- Materials and sug- gested the addition of a Condition to read, The exterior materials shall be be approved as noted in Section III. A of the Staff Report of June 12, 1989. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Sal Caruso, Project Designer, commented as follows: - Lot C, referenced in Staff Report, Parkin¡¡- A¡¡:reement. was already owned by the Church - They agreed there was an error in the building materials shown on the plans submitted PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 15, 1989 Page 3 PC - 573 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Caruso, Project Designer, continued his comments as follows: - Applicants had discussed with the Design Review Committee the possibility of adding six tree wells along the west elevation, rather then adding something to the building that would be of minor architectural significance; the environmental enhancement from the trees was more desirable - With respect to area along the west property line where some trees were missing, cited in the Staff Report, the trees had been replaced - Asked that the Recommended Condition 4, Parkin ¡ Area. requiring all unimproved dirt parking areas be improved to city standards prior to issuance of building permits, be amended to read, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit; such would allow the Appli- cants to move forward with the construction of the new building The Public Hearing was then opened. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 3: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy moved to approve Application 10-EA-89. Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 11-U-89 sub- ject to the conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hear- ing per the Model Resolution, Conditions 1-3; Condition 4 amended to read, All unimproved dirt parking areas be improved to city standards prior to issuance of an occupancy permit; Conditions 5 and 6; and adding Condition 7 Buildin ¡ Materials to read, The exterior materials shall be approved as noted in Section III. A of the Staff Report of June 12. 1989. Com. Sorensen Passed 5·0 Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-U-89 and 17-EA-89 UniversÜy of San Francisco Seet Family Trust Northwest Quadrant of Bollin ¡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. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 19, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 15, 1989 Page 4 PC - 573 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Staff Presentation: Mr. Harmar reviewed the Application and presented an aerial photo- graph and the Site Plan; Staff Report ~ was discussed. Com. Mackenzie noted that the existing use placed considerable demand on the parking; doubling the square footage would be significant with respect to the available parking. Applicant's Presentation: The Applicant was not present. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 4: Com. Mackenzie moved to Continue the Item to the end of the agenda. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 1O-U-89. 18-EA-89 Mariani Development Co. Mariani Development Co. Southeast corner of De Anza Blvd. and Homestead Rd. 18.1 Acres (Gross) USE PERMIT to construct and occupy a 176 unit, 4 story apartment structure and 182 zero lot line townhomes with related site improvements. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 19, 1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Harmar reviewed the Application and discussed Staff Report ~ ~. He added that the Applicant had verbally indicated a desire for project phasing, completing the townhomes first; however, there was no specific proposal presented. He noted the following amendments to the Recommended Conditions of Approval: 24. Acoustical Barrier was an inadvertant carryover from an earlier approval and the phrase "except the Applicant may integrate the soundwall element into the southwall of the garage structurtes along the south property line" could be deleted 27. Private Driveway Covenant was redundant of an earlier Condition and could be deleted Com. Claudy noted the density of the project; it appeared the open space had been elimi- nated, placing the single family homes very close together. A comparison was made with the Seven Springs Development, which had provided significant open space areas. Com. Claudy questioned the 50 ft. building height listed in the Staff Report Proi~t Data; Mr. Harmar responded that he took the extreme height proposed. The Commissioner reiterated his concerns about the height; the Applicant was asked to address this point. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 15, 1989 Page 5 PC - 573 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Delmare commented as follows: - Responded to Com. Mackenzie's question, comparing the Seven Springs Zero Lot Line configuration, with about 3,000-3,500 sq. ft. per lot with this project - In addition, Seven Springs Project probably took advantage of the Park Credit Fee With respect to the Mariani proposal, they had come to a conclusion that it would be better to pay the Park Credit Fee and design the site as presented; such solved a number of problems on-site, i.e, the long linear streets originally proposed - Building height: the proposal was for three story buildings, namely two stories of living space above a garage/storage/utility area - Did not know the full height proposed, but floor to floor height was 10 ft. with the plate line at 30 ft.; he estimated the highest point would be 40 ft. in height The original Site Plan was reviewed and a comparison made with the Revised Site Plan Issues of the corner setback in the gateway area, the density proposed, and a concern about a mix of product types was noted; they were trying to address these issues Applicants had developed an alternative Site Plan which was presented to Staff earlier in the day; the alternative Site Plan changed the corner setback area at the intersection of Homestead and De Anza; in addition, the number of units proposed had been increased Com. Szabo commended that the original Site Plan appeared more attractive; the Revised Site Plan looked like San Francisco row houses which he did not care for. Furthermore, there was a lack of open space, and did there appear to be recreational facilities; he felt the project could degenerate into a ghetto type area. Mr. Delmare responded that when the approval was granted, they determined they could not build the project as submitted. The two-stories over the garage was a very expensive product type; the project they could afford to build did not contain the quality materials or architectural detail originally proposed. The Mariani family decided it would be better to alter the density and build a quality development on-site; Applicants wished to sell these units as single family homes although the density was similar to a townhouse development. Design alternatives were discussed with the Commission. In response to Com. Sorensen's questions, Mr. Delmare stated that original plans showed the driveway off-set from Bluejay; however, revised plans attempted to address concerns of Northpoint residents regarding out going traffic. The proposed alignment fit nicely with the modular lots and secondly, the view of a landscaped area was preserved for incoming traffic. Guest parking was provided at a 1:5 ratio in the absence of a specific standard. In response to Com. Claudy's question, Mr. Delmare confirmed there was no on-street parking between individual driveways; the streets would be posted "No Parking". In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, Mr. Delmare responded that the elevation of the apartment building was as previously approved; however, depressing the parking level allowed a four story building at a height of 36 ft., where 35 ft. was originally approved. The Revised Plans presented at the hearing were reviewed with the Commission; he con- firmed that Architectural and Site Review Committee had not seen these plans. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 15, 1989 Page 6 PC - 573 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Lopez commented the Use Permit application was Noticed at a density of about 350 units; the Revised Plan, at 410 units, would have to be re-advertised prior to any action. Mr. Delmare stated they wished to decrease the number of units in conformity with the market analysis which favored larger units. Applicants did not object to action on the pro- ject as noticed; however, a tight time schedule existed and re-noticing would be a problem. With respect to phasing, there were two product types, different markets, separate financ- ing and contractors involved; neither project could be financed if the two were tied together. Regarding the Recommended Conditions, Mr. Delmare asked that the apartment units be allowed to be mapped as condominiums for financing reasons, at an unspecified time. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Art Pittock, President, Northpoint Homeowners Association, stated that while they had met with Mr. Delmare on occasion, they had not seen the Revised Plans. They were concerned that residents of the development would use Bluejay as an exit; a traffic detail should be required. They were pleased the density would be reduced since traffic impacts would also be decreased. He cited a portion of property that could result in a liability from a traffic accident; the Association asked that this area be transferred to Mariani Development or to the City. Finally, they had concerns regarding the proposed 50 ft. height. Mr. Harmar stated the height would have to be reviewed; a 40 ft. height seemed more likely. Ms. Virginia Thomas, 20218 Northwest Sq., Cupertino, cited previous testimony on this project; the proposal was acceptable with the exception of the height--even a 40 ft. height. Northpoint residents had no idea that a four story building was again being considered. Mr. Delmare pointed out the 39 1/2 ft. height to the peak of one building element; these were not four story buildings, they were three stories. The overall height differential be- tween the project's three stories and Northpoint's two stories was not a complete story but about 6-7 ft. He noted the attempts to visually break up the building facade. Mr. Marty Rosenblum, Owner of an apartment building on Homestead Rd., Cupertino, had concerns about the privacy impacts from a 40 ft. high building with a limited setback. Mr. Delmare responded by reiterating comments made above. Chr. Adams was concerned regarding the loss of almost 200 units; it was the responsibility of the Commission to secure as much housing as possible. In addition, there were a num- ber of other concerns. The Applicant's proposal for a two condominium complex with better architectural treatment at the entrance to the City provided a more appealing entrance and made the project more viable. With respect to phasing, he wished to ensure that the two phases were tied together with the appropriate Conditions. Com. Sorensen was also concerned about the loss of housing; however, the larger units would accommodate families, which was a plus. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 15, 1989 Page 7 PC - 573 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Com. Sorensen continued her comments, stating she had reservations about the amount of guest parking provided and asked the Central Fire District to review the traffic circulation routes for accessibility and a safe exit for residents. The phases should be tied together to prevent completion of one phase while the second was abandoned due to changes in the market. She asked Architectural and Site Committee to review the Revised Plans. Com. Mackenzie did not see any way he could vote favorably on this proposal. He previ- ously favored increasing density, not lowering it, as proposed here; this was one of the last sites on which additional housing could be built in the City. Furthermore, the previously approved project was more attractive and better laid out. He noted discussions on the R-l Ordinance and Floor Area Ratios (FAR), to preclude large homes on small lots; this pro- ject, although zoned Planned Development (PD), would undo their efforts in this regard. Com. Claudy understood Com. Mackenzie's concerns. The proposal under consideration was essentially an attempt to build single family homes on substandard lots; such was not the intent in allowing higher density zoning. However, the design proposed had a number of pleasing architectural elements and the configuration separating traffic from the apart- ment units was a good idea. More guest parking was clearly required especially since street parking was not being provided. If the Commission accepted the proposal, he would agree; however, such did not conform with his perception of the building form. He favored the addition of more apartment units. Com. Szabo had serious reservations about the project, despite the fact that individual buildings were architecturally attractive. He noted the proposed height and the starkness of the buildings which would appear as row houses. 2300 sq. ft.+ was crammed on very small lots; his home of similar size was sited on one-third acre. This crowding was com- pounded by the fact that many units were being built in similar fashion. The difference in square footage between the previously approved project and these plans was only 10%; but the layout was much less efficient and resulted in minimal open space. He concurred with Com. Mackenzie's comments and stated he would not approve the Application. Mr. Delmare felt they may have done too good a sales job calling the units single family; this was a townhouse development. The market demanded single family homes, so that no matter what was built, developers tried to mirror single family homes. Parking proposed was more than double the standard for townhouses. Projects could not be designed to allow for guest parking required for a party which occurred once a month or at holidays; guests would have to walk a few blocks as they did in any other residential area. Secondly, the number of units was played up as fewer units; in reality, the project had 10- 15% less than previously approved, with 10-20% less bedrooms. This project was 12-13 units per acre--a traditional townhouse development, the only difference being the physical separation between units and the "bonus space" of utility rooms and other amenities. Com. Claudy noted that every parking stall was on private property; guests could not use them. In traditional condominium developments, one of three spaces was a common space. Mr. Delmare responded that such was partially true; if a severe demand occurred, guests would park on the sidewalks. Com. Claudy noted that Northpoint was the nearest parking. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 15, 1989 Page 8 PC - 573 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Szabo added that even if two visitors came over, parking would not be available. Mr. Delmare stated they hoped residents parked in their own garage, leaving two spaces. Com. Szabo noted that three to four bedroom units may require all available on-site parking. Mr. Delmare responded that one bedroom was located adjacent to the garage and would probably not be occupied as such; it would probably be an office, den or work-out room. Mr. Pittock, speaking for himself, suggested the most efficient traffic flow from the project and suggested the access to Northpoint be blocked to prevent any overflow parking. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy noted the possible 3-2 vote to deny this Application and suggested the Applicant be offered the option of a Continuance. Mr. Delmare asked that a vote be taken. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Application 18-EA-89. Com. Sorensen Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend denial of Application 10-U-89 making the Findings that the project was at the inappropriate end of the density range, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was excessively high, and the amount of guest parking was inadequate. Com. Szabo Passed, Chr. Adams, Com. Sorensen dissenting 3-2 Commission returned to Item 3, University of San Francisco; Applicant was not present. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to Continue Application 9-U-89, 17-EA-89 to June 26, 1989. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Claudy cited an existing water leak at Foothill Blvd. and Voss Ave. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted.