Loading...
PC 11-28-88 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4642 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING CO MISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 28, 1988 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: 7:30 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Sorensen Vice Chairman Adams Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Szabo Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Plannirtg and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planning Director Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attomey APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Com. Szabo asked that his comments on Page 2 be amended as follows:"Number of bedrooms was not proportional to traffic impacts; two one-bedroom units would generate more traffic than one two-bedroom unit." Add to Housing Need: "...hence he favored more two-bedroom units rather than single bedroom units." On Page 5, amend to read, "Traffic Studies were believable but were understated because of the following assump- tions: - Studies only considered the buildout of Cupertino, not the buildout of other cities surroundirtg Cupertino." Mr. Delmare's statement amended 10 read, "...would result in the loss of 150 one bedroom units..." MOTION: Com.Claudy moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 14, 1988, as amended. SECOND: Com. Szabo VaŒ: Passed, Com. Adams abstaining. 4-0-1 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter from the Wartells regarding the Mariani Project Letter regarding a Scenic Blvd.project ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 28, 1988 Page 2 PC- 560 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued' ITEM 1: Use Permit 30-U-85 (Mariott Corporation) Requesting approval of expansion of time for a use permit for a major hotel development. (Northeast quadrant - Finch Avenue at Stevens Creek Boulevard. ITEM 2: Use Permit 4-U-86 (Prometheus Development) Requesting approval of expansion of time for a use permit for a major hotel development. (Southeast quadrant - Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevard). Com. Claudy requested removal of Item 2 of the Consent Calendar. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: CQm. Mackenzie moved approval of Consent Calendar Item 1, Use Permit 30-U-85 (Mariott Corporation) Com. Claudy Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy questioned the linkage between the proposed hoteVoffice use and park area at Prometheus Development; Mr. Cowan responded that at least 50% of the park be con- structed in conjunction with the office towers, It was his understanding that the developer would be completing more than the 50% required at occupancy of the office towers. Com. Claudy was unwilling to extent the time period of the Use Permit if the Commission were not assured that the park area would be started before project completion. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve a Resolution granting an extension of a Use Permit for a period of one (1) year for Application 30-U-85 Com, Passed 5-0 Mr. Piasecki advised that the Representative for Landmark Development was not present. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to place Application 8-Z-88, 28-U-88, 14-TM-88 and 36-EA-88 (Landmark Development) at the end of the agenda. CQm. Adams Passed 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 4: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 18-TM-88 B. S. Dhillon ~ Northwest corner of Rae Ln. and Linda Vista Dr. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 28, 1988 Page 3 PC- 560 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued TENTATIVE MAP (18-TM-88) To subdivide an existing parcel into two lots measur- ing 0.286 acres and 0.202 acres respectively. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and presented a Tract Map; he stated that building sites shown on the Map were hypothetical and not part of this Item. Photographs of the on-site trees were made available for review by the Commission. Com. Adams advised the Applicant that he did not wish to see a variance request for the building sites at a later date; Com. Claudy felt there was no necessity for a variance. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Bob Dhillon make himself available for questions. He con- firmed that he did not intend to request a variance for the building sites. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Adams Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 3: Com, Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 18-TM-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report per the Model Resolution. CQm. Claudy Passed 5-0 Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 8-Z-88. 28-U-88. 14-TM-88 and 36-EA-88 Landmark Development Lawrence Guy Gardenside Ln.. north of Rainbow Dr. 2.6 + (J'hase 1) REZONING (8-Z-88) From P(R-3) Planned Development with residential multiple family intent to P Planned Development with single-family residential 10-20 dwelling units per acre irttent, or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. USE PERMIT (28-U-88) To construct 32 single-family residential dwellings as the first phase of a possible two-phase project. TENTATIVE MAP (14-TM-88) To subdivide five separate parcels into 32 parcels with one additional lot to be held in common ownership. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 28, 1988 Page 4 PC- 560 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration (Phase I) TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 19, 1988. Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application and called attention to the M¡ijQ[ ~ discussed in the Staff Report; Exhibits showing Site and Land Use Maps and the proposed Route 85 Corridor adjacent to this property were presented. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Larry Guy reviewed the project design and stated that due to the Route 85 Corridor, the project would be developed in phases. He noted the amenities of this development, namely, useable yard space, common open space, standard separa- tion of 10-20 ft. between units, varying height elevations of the units and architectural design features. Applicants attempted to create an appearance of single family units; developers felt this proposal was superior to other townhouse developments in the City. In response to Com. Adams' question on the provision of adequate parkirtg, Mr. Guy pointed out parking to be provided and summarized that such equalled 3 stalls per unit. Driveway aprons had been used to give visual relief from the street and allow landscaping surrounding them; driveways were limited to 2-3 ft. to prevent parking. This was a low density project; pictures of a similar project developed by the Applicant were presented. Com. Claudy noted that at the time the property was rezoned, an apartment colDplex was envisioned. While the plans pre se, were not single family detached housing, the units, open space and amenities were for all practical purposes, single family detached housing. Mr. Guy responded that the parcel was a mix of zonings; in addition, site constraints had to be considered. Applicants had reviewed various plans but it was difficult to design to over, 20 units per acre, especially if a height limitation was required. This Phase of the project was designed at 12-13 units per acre with a large common open area; Phase IT would pick up more units to arrive at an average of 16 units per acre for the project as a whole. For economic reasons, they wished to build townhouses rather than apartment units. CQm. Adams was concerned regarding the parking shortage. The Public Hearirtg was then opened. Ms. Barbara Plungy, Garden Terrace Homeowners Association, commented as follows: - Questioned whether the proposed development would maintain Cupertino quality - Residents felt that encroachment would result from the project under consideration Driveway aprons would be used for parallel parking despite restrictions to the contrary - Cited the traffic impacts to their area from the project under consideration Presented a petition requesting that project density be limited to 14 units per acre, that three story structures not be built in such a way as to intrude on their privacy or views, that the CC&R's require that garages be used as such and not for storage area, that construction ingress/egress be onto Rainbow Dr. and that construction noises not disturb the existing residential area, exit off of Route 85 be designed as a clover leaf and that there be chatter bars ÌI1Stalled to control the already excessive traffic speeds PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 28, 1988 Page 5 PC- 560 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Guy responded that the project was designed to reflect a single family neighborhood; the project did not exceed 30 ft. in height and did not overlook other developments. Com. Claudy stated that he had two major concerns, namely, the building form proposed and the question of ownership of the units. If single-family, detached, individually owned homes were accepted, the design was acceptable; however, he agreed that parking was woefully inadequate. The first and foremost issue was whether the project should be the type proposed; when annexed, the property was planned for rental units since such was the existing need in the City. CQm, Adams commented as follows: Could accept the project density proposed with some alternations to the project Parking shortage needed to be addressed to prevent on-street overflow Objected to the rows of garage doors that would appear from the streetscape; requested architectural variation to break up the effect Agreed that garage units would be used for storage; in addition, the narrow driveway apron would not prevent individuals from parking parallel in their own driveways Wished to see the driveway aprons designed to accommodate parking Suggested consideration of reducing the density if need be Com. Szabo noted the difficulty of the project; once the constraints of mimicking single- family, detached units were accepted, a serious problem resulted. In order to make the project workable, the side yard area, which was virtually useless, had to be eliminated; in addition, the buildirtg form presented problems. Ordinarily, the square footage proposed would not be permitted on R-l Single-family residential lots; the proposed building form would have to be redesigned in order to make the project viable. Com. Mackenzie concurred and noted the Commission's recent review of the R-l Ordin- ance; Planned Developments were being used to skirt the R-l Ordinance requirements. If as suggested, the side yard area were eliminated, more common area would be available. Typical single family homes would be 1-5 dwelling units per acre while this project was 10-35 units per acre; such was too great a gap. Th maintain quality of life desired, more common area must be provided, the parking shortage must be addressed with 2 of required 4.5 spaces irt common/public parking. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was too high and the driveway aprons must be made to work or be eliminated. Chr. Sorensen concurred with Com. Szabo's comments and agreed that the parking short- age must be addressed. She also had concerns regarding the alignment of the garages and the resulting appearance; she asked that construction ingress/egress be off of Rainbow Dr. to prevent impacts to existirtg residents. Mr, Piasecki summarized the Commission's comments for the Applicant, Com. Adams noted that the appearance of the project was not considered from the existing residential area; he suggested that architectural relief be added to the units. Chr. Sorensen noted that landscaping would be installed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 28, 1988 Page 6 PC- 560 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Guy reviewed project plans and compared such with other developments in the area. Mr. Paul Tai, Project Designer, suggested an alternative design to offset garage alignment. Applicants were agreeable to a Continuance to address the Commission's concerns. The Public Hearing remained open. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy moved to Continue Application 8-Z-88, 28-U-88, 14-TM-88 and 36-EA-88 (Landmark Development) to January 9,1988. Com. Adams Passed 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: - None OTHER BUSINESS: ITEM 5: Potential cancellation of the December 27, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to cancel the December 27, 1988, Meeting of the Planning Commission. Com. Adams Passed 5-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: - Com. Claudy suggested a Question And Answer Column in "Soundoff." REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: - Written Report submitted, DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Plannirtg Commission adjourned at 9:45 P.M, to the next Regular Meeting of December 12, 1988 at 7:30 P.M., to be held in the Conference Room at City Hall.