Loading...
PC 12-12-88 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252·4642 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 12, 1988 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Vice Chairman Adams Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Szabo Staff Present: Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planning Director Mark Caughey, Associate Planner Glen Grigg, Traffic Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 1: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Acres: 27-U-88 and 35-EA-88 Robert H. Lee Associates Shell Oil Company Northeast corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stellin~ Rd. ,2± USE PERMIT (27-U-88) To construct and operate a single stall car wash structure at an existing service station. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 19, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application. Com. Claudy felt the circulation plan was inadequate and questioned the level of service to be provided in the car wash operation; Mr. Caughey responded that the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) asked Applicants to address traffic circulation patterns onto Stevens Creek Blvd. and stacking lanes on-site. Applicants were asked to address concerns. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of December 12, 1988 Page 2 PC - 561 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Andrew Pawlowski, Robert H. Lee Associates, commented: Conditions presented in the Model Resolution were satisfactory to the Applicants - Reviewed the car wash operation which would be self service; the cycle lasted about a minute, thus, the queuing and stack-up areas was not expected to back up Cars would not be moved on a track but would be driven into the bay by the driver Traffic circulation pattems onto Stevens Creek were discussed; felt that customers would plan the most advantageous exit from the site While less than half of the customers would utilize the car wash The Traffic Study interviewed customers regarding their destination as well addressing the fact that these types of uses were incidental in generating trips Customers stopped by a station such as this on their way to another destination Services such as a car wash offered station operators a chance to compete in the market; sale of gas alone was not sufficient Mr. John Williams, Shell Oil Company, stated that the dealer requested the car wash opera- tion; such provided station operators with additional income. He felt the traffic circulation pattern proposed was the best layout possible for the site and noted that customers became adept at negotiating the site. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 Com. Claudy felt the use was reasonable with an added Condition.as stated in the Motion. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 2: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Application 35-EA-88 Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 Com. Claudy moved approval of Application 27-U-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution with an added Condition, If within the first year of operation, Staff determined that traffic circulation became a problem, Applicant will be required to come back to the Planning Commission to discuss mitigations. Szabo ~~ ~ Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 19-TM-88 Lawrence Luiz John Janovich 1339 S. Stellini Rd. 0.33+- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of December 12, 1988 Page 3 PC - 561 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued TENTATIVE MAP (19-TM-88) To subdivide an existing lot into two parcels measur- ing 0.17 and 0.16 acres (net) respectively. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application. He stated that the property owner wished to retain the existing home; after consultation with the City Attorney, it was determined that there was no practical means to insure that if the home remained on site, the necessary adjustment could be made in the dedication along Seeber Ct. The Applicant was advised that the existing home would have to be relocated on the site or removed. The required dedication along Seeber Ct. caused two problems for this Application: - Reduction of the lot width for Parcel B to less than 60 ft. (lot frontage on Stelling Rd.) - If lot frontage were oriented to Seeber Ct., only an 18 ft. depth remained for the house - Lot would be reduced approximately 1200 sq. ft., resulting in less than a 6000 sq. ft. minimum lot; however, the lot line on Parcel A could be adjusted to remedy the deficit Staff did not feel the Application could proceed without a variance to orient the lot toward Stelling Rd; Staff recommended continuance of the Item to allow a variance application to be made. Due to time constraints, Applicant was not informed of this recommendation. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Lawrence Luiz, Applicant, stated that Mr. Janovich, the property owner, did not wish to relocate or remove this house; he had previously moved his home as well as another house, and was aware of the cost and difficulty of such an undertaking; in addition, the home had sentimental value to him. Slides of the property were shown including examples of sites where the house had become non-conforming. Mr. Piasecki stated that if the Applicant was intent upon preserving the home as sited, the variance application was a mute point; Staff would recommend denial of the Application. Homes shown in the slide presentation were under separate ownership from the surround- ing development; development had been allowed to proceed since projects could not be held up by adjacent properties under separate ownership. Mr. Luiz responded that his attorney had conferred with the City Attorney regarding this situation; discussions were still in progress. He was agreeable to continuance of the Item. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Gary Heidenreich, 2223 Seeber Ct., Cupertino, expressed concern about the narrow- ness of the street and the increased traffic impacts from an additional home on the Court. Mr. Luiz provided examples of courts that had more homes than proposed here; precedence had been established. The existing emergency vehicle turn-around would no longer be needed if the subdivision were completed; street improvements would facilitate traffic flow. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of December 12, 1988 Page 4 PC - 561 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Claudy agreed with Com. Szabo's comment that if property in question were sub- divided, both parcels would have to be legal, conforming lots; he felt that the house on Parcel B would have to be resited or removed and the entire length of the court improved. If the house on Parcel B faced Seeber Ct., a variance would be required. He would not approve the Application as presented. Com. Szabo advised the Applicant that the Commission had never approved a request of this nature during the time he had been a member; approval of the Application as presented would be unprecedented. Com. Adams added that he did not wish to see any subdivision approved which required a variance; such a subdivision would not have been legal in the first place. The Public Hearing remained open. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 3: Com. Mackenzie moved to continue Application 19-TM-88 to January 25, 1989. Com. Szabo Passed 4-0 File 81.004.130 - A~ricultural/Recreational (A-ua) Zone - Requesting Planning Commis- sion review of an amendment of the existing A-ua Zone or establishment of a new private recreation zone incorporating definitions, allowed uses and zoning standards for private outdoor recreation uses. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Not Completed. Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki presented the draft Ordinance. In response to Com. Szabo's question, he stated that Performance Standards were developed per the Council's direction. Com. Claudy cited Permitted Uses. Section 6.2, Conditional Uses - Use Permit Reqµired, and questioned the categorization of activities for Rural, Semi-Rural and Urban settings. Mr. Caughey responded that distinctions between the activities were based on the intensity of use as perceived by Staff; the assumption was made that Rural and Semi-Rural designa- tions were the least intensive. Such explained why the activities cascaded from least inten- sive in Rural areas, to more intensive in Semi-Rural, to intensive activities in Urban areas. Com. Mackenzie questioned Staffs concerns in designating these categories. Mr. Caughey responded that the lack of road systems to handle additional traffic, less ability to provide associated support services and privacy issues were considered. Com. Mackenzie noted that the question whether the foothills should be preserved as quiet residential areas or as a resource available to everyone was a fundamental planning issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of December 12, 1988 Page 5 PC - 561 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Caughey stated that a limitation of a performance based approach was that a hierarchy of use intensity had to be set up, appropriate mitigations determined in a given geographic context (Impact Evaluation Matri¡¡;) and standards defined for the criteria based on location and intensity; such promoted a pre-judgment of the appropriateness of a use in a specific geographic location. Com. Claudy cautioned that limitations may be imposed when they were unnecessary. Mr. Caughey noted that a clause had been inserted in Performance Standards, Section 7.2: Impact Evaluation which allowed an applicant to present an alternative. Com. Claudy suggested a performance standard that allowed the Commission or Council to make a determination on the level of impact in a particular use; once such a determination were made, then appropriate mitigation measures could be designed--rather than determin- ing the impacts in advance of the use. Com. Adams suggested in Section 7.3, Impact Miti~ations Standards. Performance Stand- ards Criteria Chart, the addition of categories such as Visual and Odor. Com. Claudy raised the question whether such items as Lighting and Hours of Operation were impacts or mitigations. Com. Mackenzie wished the Ordinance to encourage recreational uses in the City; the draft under consideration seemed somewhat restrictive. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Wally Dean, Parks and Recreation Commission, conveyed to the Planning Commission citizen's interest in recreational facilities within the City; he reviewed results of the recrea- tional survey conducted Draft Ordinance to be provided to Parks and Recreation Commis- sion for their consideration and review. Mr. Ed Hirschfield commented as follows: - Had problems with the concept of an Ordinance - The proposed Performance Standard was not needs orientated Recreational uses should focus on needs of a community as determined by the community - Standards appeared mechanical; impacts and intrusion were being considered first Impacts and intrusive elements could be mitigated The first consideration should be that the commuaity was reaching full development The issue to be addressed now was, what can be done to make the quality of life better Mr. Chuck Jacobson, Citizens to Save Cupertino Recreation, presented a prepared statement including a list of various recreational activities. Mr. Mort Schour, 20151 North Wood Dr., Cupertino, stated that individuals viewed con- sideration of private recreational uses as specifically concerned with the Tennis Club; this was the origin of the Ordinance review. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of December 12, 1988 Page 6 PC - 561 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. 1. Huntsman, 22333 Bahl SI., Cupertino, was favorable to the stated purpose (Section 3: Purpose): however, if the draft Ordinance were endorsed, recreational needs in Cupertino would be eliminated and the impact on the City, drastic. Regulations and ordin- ances such as this tended to limit opportunity. The draft did not encourage recreational uses. He asked that the ordinance be more generic, allowing private, civic and state involvement in promoting recreational uses. Mr. John Vidovich, 1307 S. Mary Ave., Cupertino, commented as follows: - With respect to Measure K bond initiative, he had a grea.t deal to gain if such had passed; however, it was a very difficult Measure to pass, requiring a two-thirds majority - Tennis Club was closed; however, the facility had not been demolished due to the com- munity's concerns and the fact that a facility on-site was worth more than the site alone With respect to the draft Ordinance, the format was excellent; the proposed categories of intensity were similar to residential zoning Listing of uses was good; such determined an appropriate category for various activities Placing the Performance Standards in the Ordinance may limit the City since adequate data was lacking and decisions were made on a site specific basis Impact Evaluation Matrix may help applicants, however, it would limit the Commission - A listing of recreational activities helps to define the perimeters It was to everyone's benefit for the Commission to move quickly on this issue Mr. Don Kluge cited an example that occurred in Palo Alto. Mr. Dave Davis, 10863 Northfield Sq., Cupertino, Noted the difficulty of understanding the draft Ordinance Impact Evaluation Matrix would make it impossible for a recreation property in the City to comply with such; thus the City Council would be obliged to rezone these properties Felt that the Matrix was the manner in which the owner of the Tennis Club was attempt- ing to get the property rezoned Any property currently zoned recreational should not come under a new Ordinance - Asked that the Planning Commission make the evaluations contained in the Matrix Mr. Phil Zeitman, 22907 Cricket Hill, Cupertino, noted his confusion regarding this issue and questioned why the City would disrupt that which was already in place. Mr. Thune, 22958 Cricket Hill, Cupertino, requested information on the draft Ordinance. Com. Szabo commented as follows: The Performance Standard Criteria was not the right thing; suggested "Goals evaluating a property - Factors to be considered by the Commission" would be more appropriate, followed by a list of such factors and possible uses Reducing the process to numerical values was a trap; he wished to eliminate this aspect Add a caveat that given two uses of a property (one recreational) and the impact was equal, under no condition should a commercial use be permitted over a recreational use - Recreational use was a higher need in the City and should be given preference if impacts generated from a recreational and a non-recreational use were deemed equal PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of December 12, 1988 Page 7 PC - 561 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Claudy commented as follows: - Suggested the Impact Evaluation Matrix be eliminated and replaced with factors to be considered and mitigation measures that could be implemented Noted that one of the mitigations may be that an impact was so severe as not to be allowed; however, for most impacts, there were mitigations Suggested that instead of Zonin¡¡ Desi¡¡nations (Rural, Semi-rural and Urban), permitted uses be listed by intensity of use; however, he felt that the matrix in Section 6 remain In general, low intensity uses will be encouraged in the rural area Suggested reconsideration of the placement of uses in the categories suggested; some uses may be appropriate for more than one category - Favored the use of examples of recreational activities Com. Mackenzie commented as follows: - Did not necessary agree that intensity of use and Zonin¡¡ Desi¡¡nations (Rural, Semi-rural and Urban) had an inverse relationship Favored the identification of possible impacts for consideration in making a decision Impacts could be mitigated directly by limiting hours of operation, sound barriers, control of lighting, etc. In addition, there was the off-setting factor of utility of need by residents of the City; if an applicant could demonstrate such a need, such would be a mitigating factor Favored recreational uses of particular interest to residents of Cupertino over uses which drew from a regional area, for example, Santa Clara County, if the impacts were similar Would tolerate greater impacts from uses of greater benefit to City residents Rather than have an absolute impact level for a recreational zone, consideration would be given on individual applications for the surrounding area, i.e., a recreational use in an industrial area were permit more impacts than a similar use in a residential area Asked that indoor recreational uses also be considered Mr. Caughey stated that a second draft would be prepared for the Commission's review. The Public Hearing remained open. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to continue File 81,004.130 - AgriculturallRecrea- tional (A-ua) Zone to January 25, 1989. Com. Claudy Passed 4-0 NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Claudy asked that a possible violation of the Home Occupation Permit be investigated and that the traffic signal at Foothill/Stevens Creek intersection be checked.