Loading...
PC 12-08-80 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-347 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 P.M, ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Adams Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Claudy Chairman Koenitzer APPROVAL OF MINUTES POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter and folder on The Endangered Harvest - The Future of Bay Area Farmland, from The People for Open Space, and copies of State Assembly Bills from the Department of Housing and Community Develop- ment. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The new Recording Secretary, Pam King, was introduced. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1, Applications 47-Z-80, 21-TM-80 and 29-U-80 of BARRY SWENSON BUILDERS: REZONING approximately 2.3 acres from CG da (General Commercial, development plan required) to P (Planned Development with office intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed apprppriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately 5.2 acres into two parcels equaling approximately 2.9 acres and 2.3 acres; USE PERMIT to construct a 36,000 sq. ft. office building and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevar and Finch Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - January 5, 1981. Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report. He explained that the proposal involved three component applications. The zoning application relatèd to the easterlymost 2.3 acres at Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard, and was to change the zone from 'CG da designation which was applied in 1966 and approved for an overall 39,000 square feet. One building of 36,000 square feet was now being applied for under the Use Permit, so for this reason and the triple constraint requiring a planned development approach, it was necessary to change the zoning. It was proposed to divide the 5.2 acres into a 2.9 acre site encompassing the present Barclays Bank facilities and a 2.3 acre portion for the proposed development. ,_PC-347 age 2 MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION ÞŒETING He said Staff had looked at the principal of land use and whether an industrial administration office was appropriate in a commercial zone. Use woudd be more intensive, especially during peak hours, but no strong reason was found to indicate that it would be much beyond commercial use, and would be less between peak hours. It was not felt that a deeper investigation was warranted, as the City did not expect to get many of these requests. Sunnyvale Sanitary System serviced the area, together with Rancho Rinconada and parts of Bollinger and Blaney. The building comprised of a one-story structure with underground parking, and some adjustment was needed for the 10 ft. 6 in. clearance needed by the Fire Department for the underground access. Parking was independent on each site, though reciprocal ingress and egress would be required in the future. He said that the Public Works Department wanted the two driveways modified to the 32 ft. commercial standard, and that one driveway would have to be moved easterly to provide safer ingress and egress. The applicants were aware that one driveway would have to be closed and replaced with landscaping. COM. ADAMS inquired as to the original date of it was changed when the Barclays Bank and Dean into being. Also, he wanted to know the change ho~ much had been used to date. approval and the date Witter buildings came in square footage and Associate Planner Piasecki answered that the approval date was 1966, and according to the Architectural Committee file it had changed in 1973. 39,000 square feet was originally approved, and 16,450 square feet was presently constructed, leaving approximately 22000 square feet of potential development. However, 36,000 was now proposed, 14,000 over the limit, necessitating a change in zoning. COM. BLAINE wanted to know how many employees would be working in the building. Associate Planner Piasecki answered that the ratio for industrial was between 40 and 50 per acre, or 1 per 200/250 square feet of office space. There were no more questions of Staff. Mr. David Strong of Swensons Builders, 701 N. First Street, San Jose, said the use of the site would be general office, with approximately one employee per 250 square feet. Tandem Computers were very interested in the site for their executive offices, so that it would be a high-class building. In terms of the site and the Master Plan, he felt it would .fit in very well, and did not depart radically from what already existed there. Traffic flow had been looked at and the Fire Marshall had been consulted, There was 10 ft. 6 in. clear underneath the building, and access to any point could be made with hoses. COM. BLAINE asked Mr. Strong if the building was intended for one user. and whether the Sunnyvale Sanitary District had been consulted about the sewer system. MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-347 Page 3 Mr. Strong replied that the building was for one user right nbw,though with the present financial climate, things could change. With regard to the sewer system, there was an agreement between the Sunnyvale sanitary district and the previous property owners which had been made part of the Title. There was now a written agreement between Sunnyvale Sanitary District and Swensons and the matter was with the respective attorneys. COM. BLAINE pointed out that Sunnyvale was cutting back, because of a shortage of hook-ups. COM. CLAUDY observed that Sun~yvale had a legal commitment, and it would be conditioned that Sunnyvale had to provide hook-up. MR. STRONG said that the agreement was to provide hook-up to the site with no qualifications as to building size. CHR. KOENITZER questioned if a residential development on the site would generate more or less sewage than an office building. .' , MR. STRONG said the proposed office building would generate much less, having only between two and four bathrooms in the whole place. COM. ADAMS asked if the architecture had been fixed as a one-story structure. Mr. Strong said that it had not, but that this was a requirement of Tandem Computers. !'~> COM. CLAUDY found the architecture totally unacceptablè, and felt it would add another architectural diversity to the area which had too many styles. He agreed with the Staff Report that it was attractive, but not that it waS compatible. It was agreed to ask the Architectural and Site Planning Committee to take another look with regard to the building matching others in the area. Mr. Strong observed that the separation between buildings would be large. There would be over 40 feet of landscaping in front, and this building would be divorced from others in the area. COM. CLAUDY agreed that the landscaping was a definite improvement and complimented Mr. Strong. However, he hoped there would be entrances on the front, as he felt buildings looked abandoned with no doors on the front. .....,..,,"1 Mr. Strong indicated on the exhibit the entrance, which was recessed and set off to the side. COM. BLAINE thought that it would look like what it was, an industrial office building. This type of use was not condusive to a "come in "ff the street" entrance, she thought. CHR. KOENITZER suggested that this concern could be submitted to the PC-347 ~age 4 MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Architectural and Site Approval Committee, together with the concern of design compatibility Miss Deborah Nobel; a member of the Cupertino Architectural and Site Approval Committee, said that she could hardly credit the statement tnat the Architectural Committee had reviewed the proposal and also had no negative comments. as there was general dislike for the building. It did not fit in with the area, was not compatible, and lacked design integrity. She was pleased that the Planning Committee felt the same way she did, and hoped that it would be improved. CRR. KOENITZER asked if the Planning Committee wanted to discuss the use of industrial and administrative offices in a commercial zone. COM. CLAUDY felt that as long as it was tasteful and compatible with existing uses there was no problem. Here was a way to protect the Town Center's commercial base without putting in houses. Some trans- portation plans, such as van-pooling, mentioned in .the Staff Report, must be made, as people would be arriving and leaving at the same time. COM. ADAMS questioned if there would be a constant traffic flow between the executive offices and offices at other sites, and also if entranc~ and exit would be from the easterly driveway cut. MR. STRONG answered that he did not anticipate a great traffic flow between offices, since communications would probably be mainly by telephon~; access to the site could also be gained from the existing complex. General discussion ensued on the access question. Mr. Strong said that Swensons had been requested to provide one ingress/egress onto Stevens Creek only, and have the major traffic flow coming off Finch, In the next easement to be requested, there would be a·connection going on through to Tantau to keep major traffic flow from Stevens Creek. CRR. KOENITZER said it might be considered as a suggestion or require- ment that Tandem Computers run a shuttle bus between their buildings every 10/15 minutes to cut down on tvaffic. COM. BLAINE observed that the Bank and Dean Witter did not seem to generate much traffic. She did not think that Tandem's traffic would have very much effect compared to a commercial use. COM. ADAMS thought that condition 19 on the Use Permit covering car and van pool programs, ensured that this potential increase was covered. COM. BLAINE did not see that the industrial use was any problem. She likened it to a professional building. MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING CO}lliISSION MEETING PC-347 Page 5 CHR. KOENITZER considered it would be useful to have something could be used as one, or subdivided, in case either Tandem did take the building or decided to relocate at a future time. that not COM ADAMS wondered if a future lessor could put manufacturing on the site. COM. BLAINE pointed out condition 21 in the Use Permit which said that manufacturing uses were precluded. The Commission had no objections to the site being used as an indust- rial office building, wanted to see it remain one-story and liked the underground parking. They were not pleased with the architecture. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Corn. Blaine. Second: Com. Claudy PASSED MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4-0 Corn. Blaine, ,recommend the granting of a negative declaration by the Environmental Review Committee. Corn. Claudy Passed 4-0 Corn. Blaine, recommend approval of 47-Z-80, subject to standard conditions 1-14 and condition 15 on the Staff Report. Corn. Adams . Passed 4-0 Corn, Blaine, recommend approval of 2l-TM-80, subject to standard conditions 1-14 and conditions 15-18 in the Staff Report. Findings and subconclusions as in the Staff Report. Com. Claudy PASSED 4-0 Com. Blaine, recommend approval of 29-U-80, subject to standard conditions 1-14. special conditions 15-25, as in the Staff Report. Corn. Adams PASSED 4-0 to express concern with the design of the building, that it should be more in keeping with the development to the west, and expressing concern for a design with an open-feeling towards Stevens Creek Boulevard, rather than the parking lot, The landscaping, and the building being one-story with parking under, were to be recommended and encouraged. MINUTE ORDER TO H.CONTROL: by COM. BLAINE SECOND: VOTE: PASSED 4-0 Mr. Strong pointed out on the exhibit that the entrance was going to be floor to ceiling glass with about 45 ft. of glass going each way and wrapping around the corner. · ~C-347 age 6 MINUTES DECWEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEM #2, Application 22-TM-80 of DEBCOR CORPORATION (PABOOJIAN PROPERTY): TENTATIVE MAP to adjust a lot line between two existing parcels to reduce the size of one parcel from one acre to .5 acre and increase the size of the second parcel from 1.8 acres to 2.3 acres and ENVIRON- MENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of Lindy Lane opposite the intersection with Lindy Place (approximately 500 ft, westerly of Terra Bella Drive), in an Rl-20 (Residential, Single-family, 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - December 15, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report and pointed \ out the new lot line on the exhibit. He explained that if it were a minor change it would be adjudicated by the City Council directly, but it established a future development pattern for the larger property. The property to the north of the hill had been before the Planning Commission previously. In 1967 a condition had been tied to these properties, that no new development should occur without road planning and some commitment to future road construction, as this would be needed for smaller lots. In this case, there was a change in lot sizes, but not in number. Staff felt the application should be approved with the dondition that the property owner be asked to dedicate land to provide for a hillside public road, with reservation for a cul-de-sac. Potentiaily, sixteen lots could be developed in this area, necessitating beginning a process for a public street~ COM. CLAUDY questioned if this was the same subdivision as on the other side of the hill, where a minimum lot size was specified. y Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that this was a different sub- division. He had researched back to 1967, and was almost positive that the original subdivision was under county jurisdiction prior to annexation. It was rezoned from 1 acre to 1/2 acre in 1967, and was now zoned 1/2 acre with the special provision of providing the road system. CHR. KOENITZER asked if the change in the lot line increased the possibility of there being another lot Assistant Planning Director Cowan confirmed that this reconfiguration of the existing line established the possibility that a lot could be added, and perhaps,PP to three, depending upon the slope density formula, but since the sa~e'property owner had two parcels, the potential existed anyway. COM. BLAINE asked whether the Resolution 468 of 1967, calling for 20,000 sq. ft. lots, was approved by the City Council and the Planning Commission and whether the zoning was placed on it at that time. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that it had been changed from 1 acre to 20,000 sq. ft. Both these properties were over the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum. When asked if the smaller one could be subdivided, he MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-347 Page 7 said it cuuld not, but the larger one could be divided into four lots maximum. COM. BLAINE noted that it had been five, prior to the readjustment for the drain field. There were no further questions of Staff, but COM. BLAINE called upon Mr. Childress of Debcor Corporation, to explain Mr. Paboojian's motive for this action. Mr. Childress, 22025 Regnart Road, explained that Mr. Paboojian owned both parcels, the larger one being his new home and the smaller one being occupied by his mother-in-law. He might sell the upper property, and wanted to adjust the line so that the upper property would not be subdividable, and he would have control of all property around his residence. There was no future development intended. Mr. Paboojian wanted to have all the flatter land around his home, leaving the other home elevated some 60 ft. above on its own separate parcel. Mr. Chuck Schneider of 11244 Mount Crest Place, a neighbor of Mr. Paboojian, said the application referred to earlier was his. He was surprised at the position now being taken, as his application to rearrange property lines and to divide his property had been rejected. The Planning Staff had at the time referred to the 1967 Council action and said that no development was to take place until property owners had jointly planned in terms of land us~ and intensity. He wondered if such a plan had been put together for the area. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that the distinction was Mr. Schnieder's application had been for the creation of a new lot, whereas the present application was to rearrange lot lines. Mr. Schneider said the position of the Planning Commission at the time was in regard to the whole area, not his lot specifically, until a road use plan was developed. CHR. KOENITZER explained that Mr. Schneider's proposal would mean creation of a new lot with a new building on it. The present proposal did not create any new lots or buildings. Mr. Schneider saw the present proposal as creating the potential of a new subdivision, He was confused by the fact that the planning Commission was taking action to move lot lines in this matter. COM. BLAINE clarified the position by saying that if Mr. Paboojian came to the Commission to parcel off a portion for a new lot, then he would be in the same position as Mr. Schneider had been in. The reason for the action was still not clear to Mr. Schneider. - I'C-347 age 8 MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING It was pointed out by the Commission that the present proposal fitted in with the road plan for the area, as it required Mr. paboojian and any purchaser of the upper property to enter into agreements to develop the road system, therefore helping to get a rational road plan for the area. Mr. Childress noted that a valid point had been made, in that Mr. Paboojian would provide 20 ft. for a roadway, which in the future would help people wanting to subdivide. He thought that the cul-de- sac location was incorrect, and that it was planned at the upper end. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that only a reservation and not a dedication for the cul-de-sac was required at this time. He exhibited a map that had been submitted to staff only, showing Mr. Paboojian's house and driveway. He pointed out where the 20 ft. dedication was required and where the reservation was required, in two places, as it had not been decided exactly where the cul-de-sac should be located. There were no other comments on the application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Blaine PASSED: 4-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com.Claudy , recommend a Negative Declaration on this project. Com. Blaine PASSED 4-0 . ' SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy, approval of 22-TM-80 be recommended, subject to standard conditions 1-14, special condition 15 modified to read Exhibit A revised, dated 12.5.80., conditions 16 and 17 as per the Staff Report, subject to findings and sub conclusions set forth in the Staff Report. Com. Blaine PASSED 4-0 MOTION: UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM #3, Application 22-U-80 of ROBERT E. AND DIANE H. SCHEY: USE PERMIT to construct six residential dwelling units and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located adjacent to and southerly of Bollinger Road at its present westerly terminus approximately 120 ft. west of De Foe Drive. Referred back to the Planning Commission from City Council meeting of November 17, 1980. Tentative City Council hearing date - December 15, 1980. Associate Planner Steve Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report. He said the Application had been referred back, the principal concern of reduc- tion to six lots had been taken care of by the City Council. He indicated on the exhibit that some parcel sizes had increased, and some unit sizes had slightly increased, while some had decreased, giving an overall ' improvement. The architecture had not changed, and the two-story structures gave a pleasing appearance. Staff had no other comments. MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COM. CLAUDY wondered whether the City Council had approved the Tentative Map dividing the property into a six-unit subdivision. Associate Planner Piasecki said that the zoning only had been approved. He pointed out one condition that the Commission had not seen on the Use Permit, pertaining to sanitary sewer hook-up to the San Jose system, which was agreed upon by Cupertino Sanitary District and the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara at the time of the reorganization of the area. San Jose serviced all the areas within the city limits of San Jose at the time of the reorganization. The condition they had put into the reorganization agreement was that no new areas should be added, beyond those already annexed, without their concurrence. He said the burden was on the applicant to go to the two cities and clarify the matter. He called on Mrs. Schey to report on the progress. Mrs, Diane Schey, 10762 S. Stelling Road, Cupertino, said that on November 24 she and her husband had met with representatives of the Public Works Department and the Department of Engineering of the City of San Jose, together with representatives of the Cupertino Sanitary District, who were very willing to hook them up. Mr. Fleming of the Cupertino Sanitary District had asked that all pocket areas annexed that had asked for hook-up be hooked up together, This had been agreed to and the City of San Jose Attorney's'Office was drafting a resolution to go before the City Council in mid- January. Mr. Philip Schwimmer, 39 E. Main Street.,Los Gatos, the architect of the proposed development noted changes from the original appli- cation to this one, in that rear yard set-backs were larger and the zero lot line concept on one side was being used. He believed the scale and architecture to be very compatible with the area. Some discussion ensued regarding the side yard set-backs, whether they were adequate, also whether the houses were too big for the lots. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Adams. PASSED 4-0 MOTION: Com Adams, to accept the Environmental Review recommendation fo~ the granting of a Negative Com. Claudy PASSED Committee's Declaration. SECOND: VOTE: 4-0 MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend approval of 22-U-80, subject to conditions 1-18 presented in the Staff Report. Com. Claudy PASSED 4=0 SECOND: VOTE: ITEM #4, Application 8-TM-79 and 7-U-79 of B.A.S. HOMES, INC: Request for extension of Tentative Map and Use Permit. The subject property is located on the northeast corner or Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vista Drive. PC-347 Page 9 .. P~-347 -Page 10 MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that this was an application for an extension, that the Use Permit was due to expire a few days previously, and that there had not been an opportunity at the last meeting for current matters. Mr. Stern of B.A.S. Homes had other commitments and could not address the Planning Commission on the matter. There were no other comments, and the Commission did not see any reason why an extension should not be granted. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to grant and Use Permit 7-U-79 of December 4, 1981. Com. Adams PASSED an extension for the Tentative Map 8-TM-79 for one year, with a new expiration date SECOND: VOTE: 4-0 NEW BUSINESS ITEM #5, Discussion of new SEate legislation concerning Mobile Homes and occupancy of residential units. CHR. KOENITZER asked if Deputy City Attorney Terry Foley had any comments on the occupancy of residential units. Deputy City Attorney Foley said that this would have to be discussed in closed session because of the possibility of litigation. CHR. KOENITZER announced that the Staff Report on Mobile Homes and the . changes in legislation would now be discussed. He did not want any action taken tonight, but wanted it carried on to the second meeting in January. He wanted to publicize through the Cupertino Scene and newspapers to get maximum public awareness of the.meeting and changes in legislation. COM. BLAINE wondered if, when someone wanted to put a manufactured home on a lot, they would have to come to the Planning Commission, or whether it would be handled through Staff as in the case of a normal single-family home. CHR. KOENITZER said the law specifically stated that they would only have to meet set-backs and build a 2-car garage and did not have to come. He said he felt that though the discussion would be continued in January, some points from the Staff Memo should be discussed tonight, especially whether or not to change the regulations applying to all R-l homes so that mobile homes would have some controls. ,COM. BLAINE asked if all mobile homes came with flat roofs, a 2-car garage was necessary and if it had to be attached, looked at a mobile home on Cupertino Road which looked like also whether She had a normal house. COM. CLAUDY thought the majority were "ow coming with pitched roofs. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that a 2-car garage was necessary' but did not have to be attached. COM. ADAMS thought it was inevitable that we would be faced with accep- ting lower cost housing in the future so people could afford homes. MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RC-347 Page 11 Assistant Planning Director Cowan when asked, said that every R-l lot in the City was a potential one for a mobile home. There were two to three hundred potential and existing lots, not including redevelopment. He would give the exact figures in January. COM. BLAINE expressed the opinion that if this was a way of providing lower cost housing that would be compatible it would be fine, so long as standards were met. COM. CLAUDY thought there would be less concerns with houses being too big for their lots. From pictures he had seen, mobile homes were now better looking than some houses in the City. Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that there was no guarantee that they would all look good. They could look like aluminum boxes. CHR. KOENITZER said that aluminum siding had not been used on mobile homes for years. The siding used on houses to cut down on painting had been used instead. He said his most serious concern was the flat roof configuration. Nothing at present prevented anyone from building a flat roof home. He mentioned the Garden Gate area of flat roof homes. COM. BLAINE requested the Staff to come up with some locations of mobile homes, so that the Commissioners could take a look at them. It was recommended that the Commission look at homes in mobile home parks, particularly ones with new units·-in them. There was discussion on foundations, and how mobile homes would fare in earthquakes. It was decided that the mobile homes in parks were not on permanent foundations and were therefore not stable, and that this did not necessarily apply to mobile homes on their own lots, Assistant Planning Director Cowan advized the Commission to keep in mind that there was an ambiguous section in the law allowing the City to designate lots of suitability or compatibility. There was a general feeling that this would not be a good thing. It was felt that every R-l lot should be available for a mobile home if the owner wanted one. COM. CLADDY was curious about something in the law, where it stipulated that any mobile home bought or built after the effective date, October 1, 1976, met the requirements. CHR. KOENITZER noted that this was the interpretation from The League of California Cities' Memorandum, and a few words might have been missed. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Chr. Koenitzer, that manufactured housing January. Com. Blaine PASSED the discussion of mobile homes and be continued at the second meeting in 4-0