Loading...
PC 03-13-89 ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4642 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 13, 1989 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Vice Chairman Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Sorensen Commissioner Szabo Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Mark Caughey, Associate Planner Travice Whitten, City Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Sorensen moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 27, 1989, as presented. Com. Szabo Passed 4-0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - Letter from John K. Crawford, Re: 34-U-88 and 45-EA-88, dated February 23, 1989 - Letter from Vallco Skating Club Re an upcoming fund raiser ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: l-U-89 Kathy's School of Dance Seet Ah M. Trustee Tenant space within the commercial center located on the north side of Bollin~er Rd.. west of DeAnza Blvd. USE PERMIT: To operate a dance studio of 1,750 sq. ft. within an existing shopping center (Section 6 [K] of Ordinance 1344). FIRST HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 13, 1989 Page 2 PC - 566 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: MARCH 20, 1989 Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and discussed Staff Report Issues. In response to Com. Mackenzie, he confirmed that Staff suggested the parking lot be re- stripped; however, such did not change the number of parking spaces. With respect to other tenant uses by a State College, he noted that the City had jurisdiction over such. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Bill Wittmer, Applicant, requested clarification of the Staff Report Issues, Parkin¡¡ and Ille~al Stora~e: information was provided. With respect to the Model Resolution, Use Limitation. he questioned the limitation on the hours of operation. Ms. Kathy Wittmer, Applicant, added that parents of pre-schoolers wished a class in the morning since these children slept during the afternoon; she asked that the flexibility be available to offer classes as needed. Mr. Cowan responded that the Applicant's letter listed the hours of operation as stated. Ms. Wittmer responded that while such would be the basic hours of operation, she did not realize that the operation would be strictly limited to the proposed hours. Vice Chr. Claudy suggested a 9:30 to 11:30 AM. and 1:30 to 9:30 P.M. to accommodate the Applicant's request and still prevent traffic problems during the lunch hour. Mr. Wittmer reiterated that parents would be dropping their children off and picking them up; they would not be parking and staying during the class. Furthermore, she anticipated that the average number of students per class would be 10. Mr. Wittmer added that there were two studios shown on the preliminary plans submitted; the intent was 10 students per studio. Mr. Cowan cited the existing parking problem at this Center and the deficit of two parking spaces; it was Staffs understanding that 8-10 students would be on-site at anyone time. He suggested a continuance for further review. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. The Public Hearing remained open. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 2 Com. Sorensen moved to Continue l-U-88 to March 27,1989. Com. Mackenzie Passed 4-0 Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Acres: 2-U-89. 2-EA-89 Ruth & Goin~. Inc. Marianist Province of the Pacific Westerly terminus of Mercedes Rd. Já PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 13, 1989 Page 3 PC - 566 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued USE PERMIT: To construct and occupy a 3,000 sq. ft. dormitory addition to an existing group quarters facility for a religious order. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application and presented a Section Map showing the sight line of an adjacent single-family residence. He noted an error in the Staff Report IV Discussion. A) Occupancy Limit which eliminated a staff member; the total number of residents would be 16. Applicable Condition in the Model Resolution would be amended to add, "...plus one live-in staff house keeper." Staff Report, IV Discussion. Desiirn Issues. Materials Palette and Geotechnical Issues were discussed; Model Resolution Condition 5, Landscape Plan provided the mitigation required to screen the proposed construction. Architectural and Site Review Committee asked that both the Landscape Plan and the Materials Palette be brought back for a final review. Applicant's Presentation: Ms. Loraine Poggine, Ruth & Going, Inc., had no objection to the landscaping requirements and felt that the screening proposed would be adequate. They understood that the materials proposed were acceptable; a sample of the roof treatment was presented. They were concerned about a delay from further review of these issues by Architectural and Site Committee. Mr. Cowan reviewed Architectural and Site Committee's (ASAC) comments and confirmed that a final review as requested by the Committee would not delay the project. Vice Chr. Claudy noted that the Arbutus Unedo tree would not grow to the 30 ft. height anticipated. Mr. Caughey responded that such was correct; he thought that the Mencesii which grew to a 20 ft.-IOO ft. height was intended. This was the type of issue ASAC wished to review. Ms. Nancy Herdert, San Juan Rd., Cupertino, noted that the name of the road was San Juan Rd., not Elena Rd. as shown on a Staff Exhibit; she felt the geological and soils studies, proposed pier construction and pleasing aesthetics of the existing building was acceptable; in addition, the tallest part of the building would be placed against the hillside. Mr. Angelo Leber, 1073 Harlan Dr., San Jose, stated that the Marianists were good neighbors and he had no objection to the proposal before the Commission. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Sorensen Passed 4-0 Com. Szabo moved approval of 2-EA-89. Com. Sorensen Passed 4-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 13, 1989 Page 4 PC - 566 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued With respect the Architectural and Site Review Committee's for a final project review, Com. Sorensen felt that granting their request was a professional courtesy. Com. Mackenzie agreed and noted that there remained some discrepancy between Staffs understanding of the materials proposed and the Applicant's Representative's presentation; final review by Architectural and Site Review Committee would clarify these discrepancies. Vice Chr. Claudy added that he did not feel that the final review would delay the project. MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to approve 2-U-89 subject to conclusions and subconclu- sions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution; Conditions 1-3; Condition 4, add to the end of the sentence, "...plus one live- in staff house keeper." Conditions 6-7. Com. Sorensen Passed 4-0 SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 3: Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area: Acres: 3-U-89. 3-EA-89 Imwalle Ste~ner R. Mooney Southeast corner of Blaney Avenue and Homestead Rd. 20.100 sq. ft. dQ. USE PERMIT: To construct and operate a 5,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail building. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and discussed the Master Site Plan showing the Applicant's Alternative and Staffs Alternative for development of the site. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Rick Shaflin, Representing the Applicant, commented: - Applicant's Alternative was a better site plan for a retail use and for site access - In addition, three extra parking spaces resulted from the above alternative They could provide a landscape buffer between Northpoint and the existing center This alternative included a second right-of-way and an open traffic circulation pattern - ShoppersweÌ'e~impulse buyers especially at convenience centers Staff noted that it was important to design the center for the future; applicants were concerned about the immediate effectiveness of attracting shoppers Disadvantages included less landscaping and a significant blockage of visibility of the existing, adjacent building - However, he felt the Applicant's Alternative blocked less building square footage than Staffs Alternative PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 13, 1989 Page 5 PC - 566 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Shaflin continued as follows: While Staffs Alternative provided for an improved visibility of the new building from the existing shopping center; however, there was no access from this side and consumers lacked the ability to cross shop without walking through landscaping In addition, a double frontage confused shoppers and required signage on both Blaney Ave. and the east elevation; use of a monument sign as suggested was ineffective with more than three or four tenants listed Non-lighted signage on the Blaney Ave. side would help A better traffic circulation pattern in the Applicant's Alternative more than offset advan- tages of the Staff Alternative; requested approval of the Applicant's Alternative The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Angelo Leber, Representing adjacent center's owner, noted the following concerns: Cited the definite and significant impact on the existing shopping center The large parking area was almost filled to the maximum; for shoppers on the two main arteries servicing the site, the center would appear to have no parking and they would access the center over their easement, park in their lot and go to the new building to shop - This property owner had no motivation to grant a reciprocal ingress/egress easement Supported the two driveway configuration which facilitated traffic flow; however, the Blaney Ave. driveway was too narrow and should be enlarged to 35-37 ft. wide Trucks would have to traverse over their easement area, impacting their parking lot With respect to the proposed building, such impacted their parking area since shoppers would back up toward the building; there was no provision for any buffer protection Trash enclosure shown on the Applicant's Alternative would be a problem area for the garbage trucks Drainage: only one catch basin was proposed for the whole site; drainage would have to be provided for the building roof, down spouts and gutters There appeared to be a potential for drainage from the Applicant's site onto theirs over the easement which was not permitted; the easement was for ingress/egress only . Staff showed the building elevations at 18 ft; his drawings showed 22 1/2 ft; either height proposed was excessive, especially with a raised building pad Proposed architectural design was not compatible with their building; adjacent home owners would not want to see glare and/or lighting from the new building's windows - Felt the Applicants had not put forth sufficient effort to create a homogeneous site, com- bining the Northpoint homes and the existing shopping center Mr. Steven Siner, adjacent land owner, commented as follows: - Concurred the the above speaker's remarks - Their major concern was parking and traffic circulation patterns; the existing ingress/ egress was never designed for the amount of traffic proposed - While they did not object to the development, they wished to see a project that was mutually beneficial; both alternatives presented would severely impact existing tenants Summarized that the Applicant's proposal was hasty and posed numerous problems PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 13, 1989 Page 6 PC - 566 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Vice Chr. Claudy's questions, Mr. Siner confirmed that Applicants ap- proached them about a cross easement over the parking lots; however, they chose not to participate. He stated he lacked the technical knowledge to suggest a better building site. Mr. Robert Pollack, Owner of the adjoining center, noted that his tenants were small busi- nesses; they looked to the City for protection from being hidden behind a new building. The lack of integration within the complex would result in problems. In response to Vice Chr. Claudy, he stated that if he sat down with an architect, he might be able to site the building in a better location; he reviewed the architectural features that could be redesigned. The Public Hearing remained open. Com. Szabo suggested the adjoining property owners meet to consider a more workable solution for all parties concerned; perhaps a property trade would be beneficial. He asked that the proposed building height be reduced. Com. Sorensen agreed that the Applicant's Alternative presented a sterile appearing build- ing wall toward the adjoining property owner's building; she felt that the buildings should be buffered with landscaping. The Applicant and adjoining property owner were asked to meet with Staff to consider a better alternative for the site as a whole. Com. Mackenzie felt that of the two alternatives proposed, he favored the Applicant's; the traffic circulation pattern and parking were more workable. He concurred that the south easterly side of the building required some architectural relief and the height was excessive. He advised the Applicant and adjoining property owner to reach a more workable solution; however, if such failed, he would approve the Applicant's Alternative. Vice Chr. Claudy concurred; with respect overall appearance of the center, he would not require the new building to conform to the older building; the City benefited from encour- aging an older shopping center to upgrade. He advised the adjoining property owner to reconsider a reciprocal easement. Finally, the building height was excessive and a raised building pad was perhaps unnecessary. If adjoining the property owners failed to arrive at a more workable solution for this site, he would approve the Applicant's Alternative. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 4: Com. Szabo moved to Continue 3-U-89 and 3-EA-89 to April 10, 1989. Com. Sorensen Passed 4-0 Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area : Acres: 2-TM-89 Dou~ Chan~ Robert Chan~ North side of Rae Ln.. 250 ft. west of Linda Vista Dr. 21.560 sq. ft. .49 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 13, 1989 Page 6 PC - 566 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Vice Chr. Claudy's questions, Mr. Siner confirmed that Applicants ap- proached them about a cross easement over the parking lots; however, they chose not to participate. He stated he lacked the technical knowledge to suggest a better building site. Mr. Robert Pollack, Owner of the adjoining center, noted that his tenants were small busi- nesses; they looked to the City for protection from being hidden behind a new building. The lack of integration within the complex would result in problems. In response to Vice Chr. Claudy, he stated that if he sat down with an architect, he might be able to site the building in a better location; he reviewed the architectural features that could be redesigned. The Public Hearing remained open. Com. Szabo suggested the adjoining property owners meet to consider a more workable solution for all parties concerned; perhaps a property trade would be beneficial. He asked that the proposed building height be reduced. Com. Sorensen agreed that the Applicant's Alternative presented a sterile appearing build- ing wall toward the adjoining property owner's building; she felt that the buildings should be buffered with landscaping. The Applicant and adjoining property owner were asked to meet with Staff to consider a better alternative for the site as a whole. Com. Mackenzie felt that of the two alternatives proposed, he favored the Applicant's; the traffic circulation pattern and parking were more workable. He concurred that the south easterly side of the building required some architectural relief and the height was excessive. He advised the Applicant and adjoining property owner to reach a more workable solution; however, if such failed, he would approve the Applicant's Alternative. Vice Chr. Claudy concurred; with respect to the overall appearance of the center, he would not require a new building to conform to an older building; the City benefited from encour- aging an older shopping center to upgrade. He advised the adjoining property owner to reconsider a reciprocal easement. Finally, the building height was excessive and a raised building pad was perhaps unnecessary. If adjoining the property owners failed to arrive at a more workable solution for this site, he would appnwe the Applicant's Alternative. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 4: Com. Szabo moved to Continue 3-U-89 and 3-EA-89 to April 10, 1989. Com. Sorensen Passed 4-0 Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area : Acres: 2-TM-89 DOI.!i Chan~ Robert Chan~ North side of Rae Ln.. 250 ft. west of Linda Vista Dr. 21.560 sQ. ft. .49 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 13, 1989 Page 8 PC - 566 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application. Applicant's Presentation: Applicant did not wish to make any comment. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Dick Roggenbuck, 7401 Plum Blossom, Cupertino, upon receipt of information requested, he was favorable to the Application. Ms. May Paer, 7412 Wildflower Way, Cupertino, favored the current lot configuration where rear and side yards adjoined adjacent sites rather than having a driveway next to their bedroom. New homes in the area were primarily two-story, large houses with small yard areas; if the proposed houses were to be two story, she asked that the existing trees and hedge be maintained and a suitable side and rear yard areas retained. Finally she asked that both the new houses not take power from the utility pole in her yard. Mr. Whitten stated that the new houses would have undergrounded utility lines. Mr. Cowan suggested that the preservation of the trees cited be conditioned. Mr. Roggenbuck added a request to the Applicant to remove the existing five poplar trees due to the damage done to his pool from the root structure. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Sorensen moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Mackenzie Passed 4-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to approve 3-TM-89 subject to conclusions and sub- conclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution; Conditions 1-10; Condition 11 amended to state, "The applicant shall provide a plan for preservation of three Palm trees on the subject property located near the Wildflower Way frontage and to retain the two twelve inch trees on the western property line...." Condition 12. Com. Passed 4-0 NEW BUSINESS: - None OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Sorensen asked that consideration be given to a bond requirement to insure the preservation of trees during the construction phase of the project. Mr. Whitten responded that problems with grading were eliminated through requiring a bond.