Loading...
PC 08-01-88 CITY OF CUPERTINO, ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 1, 1988 Meeting Held in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Ave. 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 Planning and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planiting Director Travice Whitten, Assistant Oty Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy Oty Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 11, 1988, as presented. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed, Com. Claudy, Szabo absent 3-0 Com. Mackenzie asked that the Minute Order be amended to read, "...is not irttended..." MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve the Mirtutes of the Regular Adjourned Meeting of July 13, 1988, as amended. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed, Com. Claudy, Szabo absent 3-0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - SlIDt)lemental GeolO!!Ìc Review, William Cotton as Associates, August 1, 1988 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 1: Parcel Area (Acres): 8- TM-88. 3-Z-88 and 25-EA-88 Steve Zankich Leon Rimovskv auuroximatelv 200 ft. west of Rae Ln.. at the southerlv terminus of Phar Three Dr. .6 net Application No(s) Applicant Propeny Owner: Location: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of August 1, 1988 Page 2 PC - 551 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ZONING: (3-Z-88) To RI-7.5 (Single family, Residential, 7.500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. TENTATIVE MAP: (8- TM-88) To subdivide one parcel irtto two parcels with lot sizes of 11,200 sq. ft. and 14,800 sq. ft. RRSTHEARINGCONTINUED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 6,1988 Com. Claudy present at 7:34 P.M. Com. Szabo present at 7:39 P.M. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan presented a Site Map and reviewed the Application; infor- mation had been received from the Applicant indicating that the current property owner as well as subsequent property owners, had access to Rae Ln. He cited the Report of William Cotton Associates presented under Written Communications and suggested the recordirtg of a covenant to notice future builders of geologic problems in the area (Condition 12.). ADDlicant's Presentation: Mr. Marvin Kirkeby, Civil Engineer, noted that the required Soils Report had been received The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Pete Gachina, 22100 Rae Ln, Cupertino, commented as follows: - Noted that he had installed and maintained the driveway for 30 years - Questioned status of this driveway--a maintained thoroughfare? Maintained by the City? - Favored the location of the entrance over the previous entrance from Par Three - Asked for a completed driveway, sewer line hook up and undergroundirtg of utilities Mr. Cowan provided information requested and added that the irttent was to have the drive- way along the access. Mr. Steve Sears, President of Fairway Seven Homeowners Association, commented: - Requested a height limitation, landscapirtg, to prevent an invasion of privacy - Wished to be assured that they would not be responsible for maintenance of new access - Requested consideration of speed bumps or sound barriers to control noise - Asked that pavirtg of the driveway be completed before construction to control dust - Asked that construction comply with City Ordinances regarding hours of work Mr. Cowan noted that Rl-10 I zonirtg could be considered if the Findirtgs could be made. Com. Claudy responded to Mr. Sears comments, reviewirtg Rl Zoning Requirements. Mr. Whitten provided information on the hours that construction activity was allowed. Mrs. Dorothy R. Gachina, 22100 Rae Ln., Cupertino, requested information on an "exclusive" right-of-way; Ms. Lopez provided information requested Mr. Gachirta requested information on Condition 11, the Road Maintenance A!n'eement: Mr. Cowan stated that it was the intent was to require the developer to build the road and the new property owners would maintaÌl1 such. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of August 1, 1988 Page 3 PC - 551 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Sears questioned the possible development of a common area for Fairway Seven; Commission and Staff provided information on access, easements and property deeds. Mr. Kirkeby felt that the Road Maintenance Aereement clearly spelled out that new property owners would mairttain the driveway; the Gachina's would not be responsible. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie stated that he had not changed his mind from the previous hearirtg. Com. Adams had no objection to this proposal with the amendment of Condition 11. Com. Szabo advised the public that the City must approve reasonable use of the land or purchase the property; he stated that he would vote for this Application. Chr. Sorensen noted that the GeolO!ric Review had answered some of her questions. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved approval of Application 25-EA-88. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 3-Z-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved approval of Application 8-TM-88 subject to conclu- sions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution; Conditions 1-10; Condition 11, modified to read, "A reciprocal maintenance agreement shall apply to the two parcels; this agreement will be expanded as other properties were developed...." Conditions 12-14. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Mr. Kirkeby objected to the delay in the Tentative City Council Hearing for the zoning; Mr. Cowan stated that noticirtg requirements prohibited an earlier hearirtg date. ITEM 2: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 16-U-88 and 26-EA-88 Stowers Associates Edward S. J. Cali. Trustee Northwest corner of De Anza Blvd. and McClellan Rd. USE PERMIT: (I6-U-88) To construct a one story, 5,450 sq. ft. commercial building FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: August 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of August 1, 1988 Page 4 PC - 551 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki presented a Site Plan and reviewed the Application; Staff further recommended that additionallandscapirtg and lawn be planted to provide screenirtg. Condition 21, Drivewav Modifications. to be modified to read, "44 ft." and "4 ft." Condition 19, Landscauin!!. 3. modified to read, "Shrubs and landscaping shall be provided along the edge of the parking lot. The remainder of the landscaped area be planted, and lawn to be consistent with the frontage along McClellan Rd. Com. Claudy expressed concerns regarding traffic circulation patters in the driveway area; he noted his objections of the front circular area of the buildirtg. Auulicant's Presentation: Mr. Ron Cali stated that Applicants were in agreement with the Staff Report; however, they had some concerns regarding the driveway. He understood that ingress/egress would be allowed on both sides of the property line. Mr. Whitten responded that ingress/egress could not be permitted as stated above; if ingress/egress were allowed on-site, the adjacent driveway would have to be closed off. Mr. Richard Stower, Architect, presented photographs and commented as follows: - Goal of the buildings design was to relate to existing buildirtgs on Mc Clellan Square Basic fascia and form of the buildirtg was consistent with surroundirtg shopping centers with consideration to the smaller site of the property in question One design consideration was the corner; a cylindrical element seemed to be the most satisfactory solution of tumirtg the corner and providing visual support Reviewed materials, colors and landscaping proposed; Applicants had no objection to the landscapirtg changes proposed by Staff Com. Claudy reiterated his concerns regardirtg the circular element irt this angular buildirtg. Mr. Stower responded that this element was distorted by the perspective drawirtg; the Site Plan was reviewed for size and location of this element irt relationship with the building. Com. Mackenzie questioned why the circular element did not extend to the roof. Mr. Stower stated that such would destroy the horizontal integrity of the structure. Com. Adams stated that he origirtally had concerns that the protrusion of this circular element would irtterference with visual access for exiting traffic; however reduction of this element would not make a significant difference to the view angle of approaching traffic. He asked that shrubbery be kept low. Mr. Cali cited Chr. Sorensen's comment as the Architectural and Site Review that the 2 ft. shift of the buildirtg would remove any irttrusion irtto the sight line. The Public Hearirtg was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearirtg. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy moved approval of Application 26-EA-88. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of August 1, 1988 Page 5 PC - 551 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to recommend approval of Application 16-U-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution; Conditions 1-18; Condition 19. 3. be modified to read, "Shrubs shall be installed along the edge of the landscaped area south of the parking lot to provide additional understory screening of parked cars; shrubs within the sight line shall be a low growth variety. The conditioned lawn shall be extended into the southern landscaped planter area in the remairtder of the space available." Condition 20; Condition 21, modified to read, "The drive- way shall be a maximum of 44 fl in width. The applicant shall install a median approximately 4 ft..." Conditions 22-23. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Break: 8:50 - 9:05 P.M. ITEM 3: Application No(s): Applicant Property Owner: Location: 8-U-88 and 15-EA-88 Cali-Land Same Southwest auadrant of Blanev Ave. and Stevens Creek Blvd. .u Parcel Area (Acres) FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: August 15, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the history of this Application and discussed Proiect Descril1tion and General Plan and Zonim!: Consistencv irt the Staff Report. Apnlicant's Presentation: Mr. Gary Schmidt commented as follows: - Reviewed the history of the Application over a two year period of time - Cunent proposal irtcluded the following modifications: No expansion of any night time use - No square footage expansion or second story addition of Hamasushi Restaurant - Amount of total square footage has been reduced by approximately 600 sq. ft. - Night time uses were to be reduced irt the Sandwich Shop (Village Gent) from 90 seats to 45 seats and no beer, wine, entertairtment or dancing occur - Limitation on beer and wine sales over time - Parking was now in excess of 6 spaces - Noted the difficulty of combirtirtg various parcels irtto a unified development - Summarized that the overall proposal was economically viable and meets the majority of the City's objectives . - Alternative would be that Parcels 4 and 6 would remairt substantially unchanged for up to twenty years with the exception of mirtor improvements - Applicants did not wish to regress to sirtgle parcel development; such was not in the best interest of the Oty or the Applicants PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of August 1, 1988 Page 6 PC - 551 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Com. Szabo, Mr. Piasecki summarized that irt the previous proposal: Better balance on-site given that additions were beirtg made to front and rear buildirtgs Specific direction on setbacks for area adjacent to residential use and concerns raised on architecture during previous Hearing process was not addressed Staff concluded that square footage and mass needed to be reduced Mr. Schmidt responded that the Oty Council was concerned about the second story on the front building and the expanded use; Applicants moved a portion of the extra square footage to the rear building and eliminated the second story--the core of everyone's concern. In addition, rear setbacks were increased; he noted the distance to the adjacent townhouses. The Public Hearing was then opened. Ms. Darlene Thome, 20097 John Dr., Cupertino, commented as follows: Cited concerns regarding the proposed underground parkirtg Objected to the proposed density of this project Questioned whether the use were commercial or office and noted the existing tenants Noted concerns regardirtg traffic and resulting impacts from office use at 5:00 P.M. Stevens Creek Blvd was a major intersection; additional traffic study was warranted Architecture proposed was massive and not irt keeping with the area Mr. Schmidt responded that several tenants were interested in space irt the new building; noted the traffic study completed. With respect to the massirtg of the buildings, a street- scape was presented for comparison. Com. Claudy commented as follows: Problem was not square footage or parkirtg, but rather the effon to retain an existing buildirtg, concentrating the irttensity of use irt the other buildirtg Solution would be to level the site and develop the site as an irttegrated plan In order for the bonus to apply, the above solution would be required Design for Nite CaplHamasushi was not in keeping with design of the new buildirtg Com. Mackenzie noted the 45% bonus allowed; substantial improvement would be required, such as levelirtg the site and developirtg a new project. Com. Adams felt that while the Nite Cap/Hamasushi had been dressed up, such was not sufficient for a full bonus consideration; however, bonus credits could be given for the underground parking. He noted the massiveness of the buildirtg provided a buffer from Stevens Creek Blvd traffic for the townhouses to the rear of the subject property. Com. Mackenzie noted that he had previously voted irt favor of this Item sirtce the Applicant had complied with the direction of the Council at that time. Com. Szabo noted the difficulty of the site; however, the buildirtg was massive. Maximum bonus would require dressing up the front buildirtg and moving the rear buildirtg forward Chr. Sorensen concurred and noted that the Council had not previously been favorable to the design character of the buildirtg; she objected to the massiveness of the building and the "busyness" of the design. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of August 1, 1988 Page 7 PC - 551 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Schmidt stated that they were willirtg to make substantial changes in design; how- ever, he noted the time constraints. Applicants had addressed the issues of the Council. In response to Chr. Sorensen's question, Mr. Schmidt cOnI1m1ed that he wished a vote taken and the Application heard by the City Council. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Application 15-EA-88. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend denial of Application 8-U-88 making the Findirtgs as stated in the Model Resolution. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 4: Application 3-M-88 - Shirley Lim Kinoshita - Interpretation of Home Occupation Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and noted that the Applicant was requesting a timely decision. Staff was recommendirtg a review of the Home Occupation Law; however, such was scheduled for later irt the year. ADDlicant's Presentation: Ms. Kinoshita stated she had reduced the number of students substantially and was now having 3-5 students requirirtg two cars twice a day. In addition, she asked that music and art teachers be exempted from acquiring a busirtess license. Members of the Commission agreed that the Home Occupation Law required review. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 3-M-88 per the Model Resolution. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None