Loading...
PC 07-13-88 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino. CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 13, 1988 Meeting Held irt 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 Robert Cowan, Director of Planiting and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planiting Director Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - Letter received from Mr. John Vidovich regarding De Anza Properties - Letter from Barton-Aschman Traffic Consultants Staff Present: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 1: Parcel Area (Acres): 20-U-88. 4-Z-88 and 29-EA-88 Cunertino Otv Center Associates. A&D Same East side of Torre Ave.. annroximatelv 400 ft. north of RodriQ.µes Ave. lá..±:. Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: REZONING: (4-Z-88) 1. To adjust the permitted mixture of residential unit types within the 50 acre City Center area to allow up to 200 additional residential units irt the Prometheus project generally located at the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and De Anza Blvd. 2. To change the land use designation for the subject site from open space to residential USE PERMIT: (20-U-88) To construct a 130 unit, 3 and 4 story residential complex FIRST READING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 18, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 2 PC - 550 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Zonirtg Application and presented a slide presentation; he answered questions regarding Trin Accountin~ and Housinl! Policy. Annlicant's Presentation: Mr. Mark Kroll, Cupertino City Center Associates, commented: - Presented a historical perspective of the project Concluded that Exhibit A 2nd Revision was a conceptual plan; cited the following: - Area referred to as "Open Space," a portion of which was not the propeny of the Applicant; the Pinn Brothers condominium had been built on this area Zonirtg did not allow the Building currently shown on the Approved Exhibit Cited City Council Action - Application 2-Z-83, 16. Land Uses: "The triangle shaped parcel...has no development potential and shall be open space under this Conceptual Plan." and compared with Residential: which encouraged 600 units irt Town Center - The Commission originally encouraged residential development on a portion of the site; however, Applicants wished to build office use and decided to land bank the area - Had Applicants complied with the Commission, Application would not have been made - Cited the need for housirtg irt the City and reviewed the proposal - Understood that irt other commercial areas, residential use was not restricted The Public Hearirtg was then opened. Mr. Mike Mulhulland, Cupertino Waterfall, favored retaining the open space area and questioned why development was proposed along the boundary line abutting a residential use; he cited existing traffic impacts on Rodriques Ave. and Stevens Creek Blvd. Mr. Joe Jackson, Board of Directors, Cupertino Waterfall Homeowners Association, reviewed his letter submitted to the Commission, July II, 1988. Mr. Farokh DeBoo, Board of Directors, Cupertino Waterfall Homeowners Association, reiterated that 112 people were represented. He understood the area would remaÌl1 a park. Mr. Miguel Ramos, Cupenirto Waterfall, had been told that the area adjacent to his property would not be developed; he cited concerns regarding the proposed development Mr. Kroll cited a letter sent irt 1983, disclosing the irttent for this property; in addition, the developer of Cupertino Waterfall did not believe they made representations regarding the status of the property in question. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing on 4-Z-88 SECOND: Com. Szabo Com. Mackenzie withdrew the Motion. Mr. Mulhu1land addressed the following questions: - If the area was irttended to be a park, why was the area paved - Why could not the density be absorbed irt other areas rather than impacting residents Mr. Kroll responded to the second inquiry, stating that there was no additional land avail- able; site plan was reviewed for the full build out. With respect to the first question, he noted the historical perspective, citing a temporary use permit granted for the parking lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 3 PC - 550 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Mulhulland questioned the statement that creating a park was an inappropriate use of the land; the site did not have to be the most density populated lot irt Cupertino. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing on Application 4-Z-88. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie commented as follows: The request for 130 units was reasonable; he favored the zoning requested With respect to whether there would be sufficient units remaining to complete a mirror image building, he felt that the answer was yes Concerns raised by Cupertino Waterfall residents were Use Permit issues Com. Claudy commented as follows: It was clear irt the original zoning that Prometheus Development was not proposing a park; area was clearly a land bank Residents may have believed a park would exist; however, such was never the irttent Felt strongly that a mirror image building was a necessity and sufficient space would have to be reserved to insure this architectural feature Cited Mr. Vidovich's letter stating that he would not relinquish his allocation of units and reviewed previous Applications made by him Favored residential units and questioned whether these units should to be given to this developer or be held back to encourage Mr. Vidovich to build more residential units Com. Szabo considered the 600 units allocated by the Commission and questioned whether the triangular portion had been set aside as open space; he did not feel that such was the case, subscribirtg to the land bank concept. He was favorable to zonirtg proposed. Com. Adams reviewed previous discussions on the property; he concurred that a mirror image residential unit was desirable. He supported residential zonirtg for the triangular por- tion of the site as requested; any other use would be out of character with the adjacent area. Chr. Sorensen concurred with the above and noted that the Council and Commission had agreed on an allocation of 600 units; she favored the mirror image building. She was favorable to the zonirtg requested; other concerns would be addressed in the Use Permit. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved approval of Application 29-EA-88 SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 4-Z-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie amended the Motion, modifying Condition 1. Residential, deleting "328 dwelling units (maximum)" to read "A maximum of 328 dwell- ing units. The overall discounted number of residential units.... "; Condition 2. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 4 PC - 550 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Application 20-U-88 was then heard. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed Use Permit Application and called attention to the Staff Report Architectural/Site Issues and Parkin~; Exhibits were presented. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Mark Kroll, Cupertino City Center Associates, commented: There was 1 parking space allotted per bedroom as opposed to condominium/town- house developments with 3-4 bedroom units which had heavier parking demands It was decided that a 200 unit residential unit complex would have greater impacts; in retrospect, this decision should have been left to the Commission Project was, arbitrarily, but deliberately, reduced 35% for economic reasons Project height was reduced, units fronting Cupertino Waterfall was opened up and in response to Architectural and Site Review, Torre Ave. frontage was also opened up Mr. Alex Seidel, Architect, reviewed project redesign, relationship of the project with exist- ing residential development and presented Exhibits showing the Site and Elevation Plans. Mr. Kroll summarized that Applicants attempted to minimize irttrusion on the neighbors. In addition, they would consider alternatives for reducing height through roof modifi- cations; however, they opposed shifting the units toward Torre Ave. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Joe Jackson, Board of Directors, Cupertino Waterfall, commented as follows: Per discussion of Architectural and Site Review, favored a reduction in height Frontage along Torre Ave. was architecturally interesting; asked that the rear of the project be limited to two-story structures, stepping the project up from the rear area Respondirtg a question, he preferred a two story limitation on the structure and the podiurn raised 3 ft, rather than a three story structure adjacent to residential Mr. John Meyer, Cupertino Waterfall, concurred with the above. Mr. Kroll asked that Condition 19 Parkin~ be modified to allow shared use parking for this mixed use complex; felt there was no benefit for empty parking lots during the day. Com. Mackenzie commented as follows: Was favorable to the project as proposed Architectural and Site Review Committee's concerns had been addressed Felt that varying height of units facing adjacent residential, was aesthetically more pleasirtg than a "walled effect" Only 4 units would look down on Cupertino Waterfall development Favored a reciprocal parking feature Com. Szabo's primary concern was reducing impacts to Cupertino Waterfall project; asked for modified architectural design of project facing the adjacent development and asked that a worse case scenario be prepared. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of July 13. 1988 Page 5 PC - 550 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Claudy concurred with Com. Szabo and asked to see further mitigation of the view shed facing Cupertino Waterfall. Com. Adams commented as follows: - Originally felt a 130 units was excessive; however, he now considered acceptable Favored greater setbacks and a lower appearance on Torre Ave. more for the aesthetics on Rodrigues Ave; such would be more in character with this street Cupertino Waterfall appeared 2 1(2 stories high; this proposal was acceptable Shared parking was acceptable and Condition 19 could be amended as requested Single entrance to underground parking might not be well utilized Wished to see B uildirtg 2 a mirror image of the other buildirtg Asked project designers to consider mitigations for the development to the south Mr. Kroll did not object to returning for design review; however, he asked for clear direction. He noted time limitations irt getting construction underway. Chr. Sorensen favored apartment units over condominiums. Design alternatives for the project were considered by the Commission. Mr. Piasecki suggested wordirtg to require a reduction of project height on the east side to two stories, givirtg the option of relocating of units subject to the Commission's approval. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearirtg SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved approval of a Negative Declaration SECOND: Com. Adams V01E: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to recommend approval of Application 2O-U-88 subject to conclusions and subconc1usions of the Staff Repon and this Hearing per the Model Resolution; Conditions 1-8; Condition 19 modified to allow shared use parking for this mixed use complex; Conditions 20-21. In separate application, Applicant shall reduce the height of the eastern units adjacent to Cupertino Waterfall project to two stories and dropping the garage platform. Units may be relocated withÌl1 the project area subject to review by the Commission. SECOND: Com. Claudy MOTION: Com. Szabo amended the Motion, Condition 12. to reflect the architectural drawirtgs presented at this Hearirtg. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to send a Minute Order informing the City Council that the decision to grant 130 dwelling units to Prometheus is not intended to preempt future development of a proposed multi-story apartment structure planned for the western boundary of the City Center Amphitheater. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 6 PC - 550 NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 2: Application 2-M-88 - Mariani Development Corporation - Interpretation of a non-conformirtg use. The property is located on the southeast comer of Home- stead Rd. and De Anza Blvd. Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application; Staff recommended a Continu- ance to enable the Applicant to address concerns stated in the Staff Report. ApDlicant's Presentation: Mr. John Delmare, Project Manager, commented as follows: Reviewed the history of the site, prior use and type of storage Intensity of use on-site had been reduced in consideration of neighbors Currently, the number of vehicles on-site was no greater than would previously have been on-site at a peak period Storage was visible from the street and could not be screened from freeway overpass Goal was to generate income on a short term basis; an Application for a multi-family housing project had been fIled Com. Claudy questioned the temporary status of the operation and cited similar requests made in early 1980; Com. Szabo also was concerned regarding this non-conforming use. Consideration given by the Commission to curtailing the continuance of this situation. Mr. De1mare commented as follows: Suggested shifting storage areas to the site irtterior and removal of signs on trucks Questioned the location of an acceptable storage area adjacent to the freeway Applicants wished reasonable use of the property They intended to clean the site and to be as unobtrusive as possible Requested a month for evaluation of the current situation and alternatives available MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to Continue Application 2-M-88 to August 22, 1988. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 ITEM 3: Application 10- TM-77 (Revised) - Kikuchi and Associates - Requesting inter- pretation of a mirtor modification to a tentative map to allow a revision to the approved pad elevation for Lot 9 of Tract 6310. The property is located at 22340 Regnart Rd. Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to send a Mirtute Order to Staff advising that 864 ft. is an appropriate pad elevation. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 OLD BUSINESS: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 7 PC - 550 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Szabo visited the Monta Vista area to assess the commercial/residential uses He requested information on facilitating child care alternatives Com. Claudy asked that the De Anza Blvd./McClellan Rd. service station be reviewed Chr. Sorensen reported on the July 4th celebration She irtformed the Commission of upcoming events of interest REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the P1annirtg Commission adjourned at 11:45 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of July 25,1988, at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recordirtg Secretary Approved by the Plannirtg Commission At the Regular Meeting of July 25,1988 / r,·- / l,.; / ,1 " / J!:L+ùllf >-'Xi ();,}.t¡/')£v ,/ ura1ee Sorensen, ChairWoman Attest