Loading...
PC 03-14-88 .. CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 14, 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 Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Plannirtg and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Plannirtg Director Randy Tsuda, Planner II Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Charles Kilian, City Attorney Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Com. Adams asked that" Page 3, seventh paragraph to read, "Com. Adams concurred with the exceptin that upon completion of the Recreational Needs Assessment a hearing date should be scheduled at an appropriate time and not necessarily tied to a specific date." MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 22,1988, as amended. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: . Letter received from Ms. Barbara Jones re: Item 5. Amendment of the Residential Zoning Ordinance. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM 1. Application 4-U-86 - Prometheus Development Company, Inc. (Doubletree Hotel) - Requesting a one year extension of Use Permit MOTION: Com. Claudy moved approval of Consent Calendar. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 ------.---- ---- ---.------- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1988 Page 2 PC - 539 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 1. Application No(s) 2-TM-88 Applicant; JBK Venture II Property Owner: Same Location: Northeast corner of Rainbow Dr. and Manita Ct. Parcel Area (Acres): 61 ~oss TENTATIVE MAP: (2-TM-88) To subdivide 1 parcel irtto 3 parcels with lot sizes ranging from 6,400 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DE1ERMlNATION: Categorically Exempt Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and outlined issues as follows: - Preservation of the Oak trees on-site - Gradirtg resulting irt a 1-4 ft. height greater than adjacent properties to the east and north - Manita Ct. street "knuckle" Staff recommends to be installed - Any structures shown on exhibits presented were for informational purposes only and were not being approved Mr. Whitten provided additional information on the recommended street knuckle. Com. Claudy noted that Parcel A fronted on Rairtbow Dr. and Parcel B on Manita Ct.; he questioned the frontage for Parcel C. He felt that rear yards of the new development should back up to the existing rear yards, expecially for Parcel A. Mr. Cowan responded that constraints existed, namely that this was a residual piece of property with the road already irt place. The proposed development was not an unusual situation. Mr. Piasecki stated that the Exception requested was minor; on Parcel C the lot lirtes were such that it could be irtterpretated that the north and east property constituted the rear yard. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Robert Keil presented pictures of the existing house; with respect to the rear yard, it was irt the interest of an adjacent property owner to have the proposed house face irt the same direction, providirtg continuity to Manita Ct. Applicant would cooperate with the Public Works Department to preserve the Oak trees. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Al Worth, 7724 Squire Hill Ct., Cupertino, stated that on a previous development, 6 ft. of fill was brought irt with a resulting loss of privacy. Location of the rear yard on Parcel C was important to prevent further privacy impacts to his master bedroom area. 3 ft. of fill was planned to be brought in on this development. Mr. Keil responded that a retaining wall/fence would be installed to prevent privacy in- trusion as discussed with neighbors. He confirmed that the gable would have no windows. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1988 Page 3 PC - 539 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Joseph Galleos, 938 Triton Dr., San Jose, endorsed a plan to preserve the Oak trees; Mr. Keil answered questions on the shifting of the existing house forward and grading. Mr. Laxmis Rastofs, 21075 Manita Ct., Cupertino, questioned traffic impacts, Parcel A access and asked that Parcel B be similar in size to Parcel A. Mr. Keil reviewed applicable interium Ordinance requirements for residential development Mr. Jen Kao, 21109 Manita Ct., Cupertino, questioned whether the Parcel B house would block his view and asked about parking and safety on Manita Ct. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to close the Public Hearirtg SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy preferred that on Parcel C both north and east be designated rear yard area; Parcels A and B were acceptable as presented. Com. Mackenzie was concerned about substandard streets and inadequate parking; how- ever, the design as proposed met Oty standards. Chr. Sorensen stated that Condition preservirtg the Oak trees addressed her concerns. Mr. Piasecki advised that if the Applicant wished the east property on Parcel C to be desig- nated as sideyard, the Commission would have to make the necessary interpretation; if no such interpretation were made. both east and north side could be construed as a rear yard. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to reopen the Public Hearirtg SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 Mr. Keil questioned whether the north side of the site was still considered the rear yard; if the east side were considered a rear yard, only a 15 ft. second story width remairted. He reviewed alternative plans discussed with Staff. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to close the Public Hearirtg SECOND: Com.Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Adams moved approval of Application 2-TM-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of this Hearirtg per the Model Resolution, making the Firtding that the south property lirte of Parcel C and the bulb of the cul-de-sac adjacent to Parcel B be designated the front yards. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1988 Page 4 PC - 539 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 3 Application No(s) Applicant: Propeny Owner: Location: 46-U-87. 18-TM-87 and 47-EA-87 Watkins Commercial PrQpenies Stevens Creek/Cupenino Associates Nonh sid~ of Stevens Creek Blvd. between Brandley and Saich Wav ITare:et Store site) 1.Q..l.. Parcel Area (Acres): USE PERMIT: (46-U-87) To construct a 13,000 sq. ft. retail center, reconfigure existing parking lot, install new landscaping, and install associated site improvements. TENTATIVE MAP: (18-TM-87) To subdivide 1 parcel into 3 parcels with lot sizes ranging from 35,000 sq. ft. to 360,000 sq. ft. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMlNA TION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 4, 1988 for 46-U-87 Staff Presentation: Mr. Tsuda reviewed the Application and stated that the Use Permit in- cluded improvements to the entire site; Staff Repon, Site Modifications and Allowed Uses were reviewed. A series of drawings of the proposed development were presented. Mr. Killian stated that a Use Permit allowed some control of the site to be retained; desired improvements on any parcel of the subdivision were to be stated in Conditions of Approval. Mr. Cowan added that the boundaries of the Use Permit were comprehensive; secondly, the creation of lease lirtes for firtancial reasons was very common. Com. Szabo was concerned that the proposed subdivision would result irt problems; the City would have no leverage to require improvements. Examples were cited. Mr. Killian responded that the Commission may wish to add Condition 19 to the Use Permit as follows: "The Applicant shall record a covenant running with the land in form approved by the City Attorney, which will obligate the owner or owners of all the lands subject the the Master Use Permit to comply with the conditions contained herein." Such would address the undergrounding of the utilities, signs, landscape plans, approved uses, noise making devises and trash enclosures. Mr. Cowan stated that the parking reciprocitiy agreement could be extended to other areas of mutual interest, such as landscapirtg, undergrounding utilities. Design controls could also be exercised; Town Center was cited as an example. Mr. Tsuda confirmed that any approval given this Application did not include signs. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Steve Carlson commented as follows: Reviewed the negotiations and project plans surrounding the site irt question Stated that the reconfiguration of the parking area would enhance ingress/egress and result in an increase of over 100 parking spaces Tentative Map Application was made to facilitate financing .. -~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1988 Page 5 PC - 539 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Carlson continued as follows: - Noted an existing covenant with Target restricting ingress/egress, maintenance, man- agement and other areas Bus duck out was irtcorporated irtto a combination duck out/deacceleration lane Sidewalks on Stevens Creek Blvd., Saich Way and Alves Dr. would be replaced A 3 ft high masonry wall would be removed Proposed landscapirtg plan was reviewed Pedestrian walkways would be created within the development Renderirtgs of the development were presented Mr. Carlson stated that he did not object to the addition of a Condition 19 as noted above. Mr. Whitten replied to Com. Szabo, that he did not foresee a problem with the proposed deacceleration lane; however, he did understand the concern expressed regarding safety. Com. Claudy was favorable to site improvements; however, he noted the followirtg: - Target was not the Applicant; control over Target by the Applicant was limited Parkirtg was located to the side and the back, where people did not wish to park - Parking was beirtg removed where most needed (irt front) while demand was irtcreased - Back side of the new building faced Stevens Creek Blvd. - Questioned whether mechanical equipment would be screened Mr. Carlson confirmed that Applicants would accept a Condition requiring that the mechanical equipment on the roof be screened. He reviewed the landscaping plan. The Public Hearirtg was then opened. Mr. Bob Hoxsie, 22337 McClellan, Cupertino, commented as follows: - Questioned the number of compact parkirtg spaces proposed - Ojected to the amount of compact parkirtg often found irt retail centers - Traffic hazards from a bus duck out - Questioned the differences between Gemco and Target Mr. Carlson responded as follows: - 25% of parkirtg would be compact whereas 33% was allowed - Only the compact car configuration would be used, not the width - Compared Gemco and Target operations Ms. Fran Jackler, 10161 Park Orcle Way, Cupertino, commented as follows: - Oted hazards to adjacent residents (children) of cutting across the loading area - Cited traffic hazards to children irt the Stevens Creek Blvd. area - Objected to the number of compact car parkirtg spaces - Asked that more parking be provided for vans, RVs etc. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1988 Page 6 PC - 539 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Szabo felt that the site was being improved; he asked that a covenant be signed as discussed above. Com. Claudy noted that most of the compact parking spaces were in the outermost areas; he was favorable to such. His major concern was that from Stevens Creek Blvd. would be the rear of the building; he suggested that architectural features on the rear building would add interest. Com. Adams concurred that this was a site improvement; however, if this Application were a new project, he would ask that the development be laid out differently. Location of the parking was acceptable. Com. Mackenzie commented that sirtce employees had more compact cars than shoppers, perhaps these parking spaces would be designated for employees. MOTION: Cc a. Szabo recommended the granting of a Negative Declaration SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Szabo moved approval of Application 18-TM-87 subject to the con- clusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing, Exhibit A-I be changed to indicate a bus duck out. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to recommened approval of Application 46-U-87 subject to the conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing, Conditons 1-11; Conditions 12 to add,"Roof equipment will not protrude above the parapet walls of the referenced exhibits." Adding a Condition 19 to read, "The Applicant shall record a covenant running with the land irt form approved by the Oty Attorney, which will obligate the owner or owners of all the lands subject the the Master Use Permit to comply with the conditions contained herein." SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 The Commission provided directive for further review of the rear elevation by Architecture and Site Approval Committee. Mr. Kilian noted that the Tentative Map Approval was subject to approval of the Use Permit Application by the Oty Council. Break: 9:45 - 9:55 P.M. .. -' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1988 Page 7 PC - 539 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 4: Application No(s) l-EXC-88 and Minor Amendment of 19-U-80 Applicant: Martan and Elizabeth Mann Property Owner: Same Location: 10037 Scenic Blvd. Parcel Area (Acres): WA EXCEPTION (I-EXC-88) From Ordinance No. 686 to allow a fence to encroach into a required yard area and irtto the public right-of-way along Stevens Creek Blvd. Mmor amendment of 19-U-80 to make adjustments to the fence plan for Lot 3. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 4, 1988. Mr. Kilian advised the Commision regarding areas of litigation irtvolvirtg this property and the ramifications of the Court decision on the easement and the Use Pennit. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan provided information regarding easements and the location of City property. The recent Application heard by the Commission on an adjacent property was noted. Mr. Whitten stated that the City did not wish to arbritrate the dispute between the two parties involved; no encroachment pennits would be issued until agreement was reached regarding the location of the property line. Applicant's Presentation: Ms. Elizabeth Johnson-Mann had no additional comment. Mr. Mann, Applicant, responding to Com. Adams question, stated that he did not know what the oil and screen for the parkirtg area would involve. He noted that they had no direct access to their home and thus, were requesting nonimal parkirtg irt the easement. Mr. Cowan noted that use the right of way was a matter of City Council policy; the question before the Commission was can the Oty expand their yard through allowing the irtsta1lation of a fence. Mr. Whitten provided information on the composition of the oil and screen to be used. The Public Hearirtg was then opened. Mr. Jim Sisk, 10047 Scenic Blvd., Cupertino, commented as follows: Wished to ensure that the issue before the City was the extension of the fence; he was not opposed to such Wished to ensure that the Planiting Commisison was not grantirtg the Applicant any rights of vehicular access to the easement; such was the subject of a lawsuit Noted that the area in question was Oty property; he favored beautification of the area Asked that the City require compliance with laws; use of Oty property was a privilege '" PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1988 Page 8 PC - 539 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued Mr. C. Lin stated for the record that Staff Report was irtcorrect as follows: Legal action was initiatied by the neighborhood, not just the westerly property owner Applications were not identical MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy noted for the record that the Execption did not address parking; only the allowing of a fence on City property was addressed. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved approval of a Mirtor Amendment to 19-U-80, modifyirtg the fencirtg plan for Lot 3 SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed, Com. Adams dissenting 4-1 Com. Adams stated that he had dissented due to the cloudiness of the entire issue; he felt that he could not approve this request. Com. Claudy noted his opposition to the use of City property; however, the Oty Council had allowed use of the property in question. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy moved approval of l-EXC-88 per the Model Resolution. Com. Szabo Passed, Com. Adams dissenting 4-1 ITEM 5: Application No(s) Applicant: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 81.004.18 fRn. 81.004.121 CA. An. 81.004.8 fRHS) 2-EA-88. 3-EA-88 and 4-EA-88 Citv of CUDenino Citywide 1:íLA AMENDMENT OF THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL ZONING ORDINANCES: Rl Residential, Sirtgle-family RHS Residential, Hillside AL Agricultural-Residential A Agricultural Said amendments may include revision of the requiremcnts penaining to setbacks, height, buildirtg area, bulk, lot size, landscaping, and definitions. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: No action taken at this time. TENT A TIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 4, 1988. Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Applicaton and presented a series of Exhibits: Policy 2-22A. Scale of Residential Development. Buildin~ Size. Floor Area Comparison. .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1988 Page 9 PC - 539 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Piasecki noted Staffs efforts to keep regulations simple; for example, floor area ratio was measured in "habitable area" rather than counting attic spaces. Setbacks were determined not by number of stories but by height of the structure. Questions of the Commission were answered and issues before the Commission were reviewed. The Public Hearirtg was then opened. Mr. Bob Naegle, 22145 Orchard Ct., Cupertino, commented as follows: Felt that an antagonistic attitude existed toward property owners in determirtations re- gardirtg their property Asked for careful consideration of Staff recommendations which seemed reasonable Concurred with Staff regarding front setbacks Most lots were too small for 30 ft. setbacks; such was too restrictive Questioned the purpose of the Qrdirtance - Controlling buildirtg mass? Such could be addressed by other than square footage - Impervious coverage can be contolled through footprirtt requirements In response to Com. Mackenzie, he stated that mass could be addressed by daylight plane. Mr. Jan Stoeckenius, 22386 Cupertino Rd., Cupertino, commented as follows: Was pleased at the proposed Ordirtance Felt that percentage of buildirtg width/depth was easier to work with than setbacks Given the 50% FAR, questioned the purpose of a second story FAR Buildirtg mass: suggested a formula for calculating such Favored variation of individual homes; proposed Ordirtance would allow such if the total development met the .5 FAR, individual composits up to .6 With respect to encouraging larger houses, he suggested a percentage ratio address this Mr. Dick Oliver, Divident Development Co., stated that Mr. Richard Childress regretted that he could not attend. He noted that interested individuals had not had a change to confer and provide input on this issue. He asked that they be allowed this opportunity. He noted the impacts of the Qrdirtance if developers did not have a sufficient transition period. Mr. Harlen Jackson, 22450 Cupertino Rd., Cupertino, questioned setback percentages allowed; he favored large rear yard areas for the raising of children. Mr. Sam Marchese, 10572 Randy Ln., Cupertino, noted his concern regardirtg Larry Way and Randy Ln; the area wished to remain Al zoning. Mr. Marvirt Kirkeby, 21442 Elm a., Cupertino, commented that percentage setbacks for sideyards was unworkable; he cited an example. The wider the lot/ground floor was, the more out of proportion/narrower the second floor. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to Continue Application 81,004.18 (Rl), 81,004.121 (A, Al),81,OO4.8 (RHS), 2-EA-88, 3-EA-88 and 4-EA-88 to March 23, 1988. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 14, 1988 Page 10 PC - 539 NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planiting Commission adjourned at 11:15 P.M. to the Regular Adjourned Meeting of March 21,1988 at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission At the Regular Meeting of March 28, 1988 \ ~ ..... :t.aøe.. çjJ / fktA1/ ß~ee Sorensen, airwoman Attest: D~gß¿"