Loading...
PC 09-08-80 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 Minutes September 8, 1980 Regular Planning Commission Meeting PC- 339 Pa~e 1 CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:35 p ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Adams Commissioner Johnson Chairman Koenitzer Commissioner C1audy Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner ~Piasecki City Engineer Whitten City Attorney Kilian APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 28, 1980 Regular Planning Commission Meeting: Page 3, insert after motion of approval for 32-Z-80 "The Commissioners agreed that Staff should be directed to remove Reviera Road from the map." (By Com. Blaine) Com. Blaine moved to approve the minutes with the above correction. Seconded by Com. Adams, the motion for approval PASSED-4-0 Com. Claudy ABSENT July 30, 1980, Adjourned Regular Planning Commission Meeting, accepted submitted by Com. Adams, motion second by Com. Blaine, PASSED 4-0 Com. Claudy ABSENT POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS ITEM #1, MOTION to grant one-months' CONTINUE to the meeting of October 13, 1980. ITEM 117, MOTION TO REMOVE FROM AGENDA, PC-339,as per Applicant's request. Request granted. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Copy of a letter to Cupertino Mayor, Barbara Rogers, was included in the packets for the Commissioners. It was agreed that the letter should be held until Wednesday evening. September 13 1980 Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PC-339 Page 2 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEM #2. Application 2-U-80 of PARK PLAZA DEVELOPMENT: USE PERMIT to con- struct 79 residential condominium units and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence no action is required. The sub- ject property is located at the southwest corner of Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevatd. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date -- September 15, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the application and staff report. He said the exhibited plan was the third development plan site that had been presented during the past year. The 1st plan had been for 20-35 units/acre. Through General Plan Amendment, the property had been changed to a designation of 14-15 units/acre (representing the current plan on the board). He reported that the density of the planned project did not represent BMR bonus units. He said the BMR is within that density range. The exhibits showed lot elevations and opaque manual windows with limited opening used in stairwells and bathrooms to provide privacy . . of occupants and neighbors. Mr. Lon Mills, architect for Dick Finnigan, 3238 McKinley Drive, Santa Clara, 'explained various features of the plans that reflected the wishes of the Commissioners from a previous meeting. Mr. Marvin Grimes, 10174 Randy Lane, Cupertino, asked if the plans were in conformance with the General Plan and if the recommended changes in densities and setbacks of Cupertino was based upon high density and low industrial usage at the present time. CHR. KOENÍTZER said that the development being discussed did conform to the density that was recently ratified under General Plan Amendments as part of the review and updating of the General Plan (a process required by law). Mr. Jason Chartier, applicant, explained the emergency access lane for the Central Fire District that extended the length of the property -- off Borta1 Avenue -- and curved into the complex at the far end. The area was to be densly landscaped, especially along the fence bordering the single family homes. It was agreed that a gate (approved by the fire district) could be installed at each end of the fire lane. Mr. Ron Bierman, 19781 Bixby Drive, commented on the length of time the issue had been under consideration. After talking to neighbors and residents in the area, he said he felt they were not happy with the reduction of units (from 144 to 79). He noted that the project had been previously accessed for environmental impact and asked what that meant. CHR. KOENITZER briefly outlined the sequence of the environmental impact process and the review to determine whether this particular plan for the projects had impacts which were not included in the General Plan assessment. Mr. Bierman asked for assurance that the emergency access fir~ lane would not be used by residents of the project as another entrance or for social purposes. Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that the Staff Report called for a masonry or stucco wall along Stevens Creek to the front of MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-339 Page ] and landscaping to further protect the residents' privacy. It was agreed that a 75 ft. setback would be provided at Stevens Creek Boule- vard and Portal Avenue and that 24-inch box trees of a slow-growing but dense foliage would be used along the fire access lane. Mr. Jason Chartier pointed out that they were obliged to develop the fire lane access in accordance with what the Central Fire District gave them as instructions,. He pointed out features of the units bordering the fire lane that would discourage use of fire lane except for emer- gency. Mr. Robert lIall, 7544 Kirwin Lane, asked that the single boiler for fur- nishing hot water (solar heated) to a number of units be investigated as to legality. That seemed to him to be a source of metering problems, allocations of quantites of water/units. CHR. KOENITZER stated that the use of the solar-heated hot water boiler shared with several units. was for water only. There was no plan for space heating the development with solar energy. ~Ir. John Callahan, 19954 ~fueaton Drive, said he felt the major point that kept getting lost in the shuffle was the congestion created by the new traffic. The new traffic information said that the 85 corridor was not needed; yet, with the project and others planned for Cupertino, he questioned that conclusion. He asked the Planning Commission to take another look at the traffic problems and plan for the oncoming increased congestion of Cupertino streets. ResidenLs are tired of more stores, more building, high density. lie asked that future plans for development be spread around the area rather than be dumped down one alleyway -- Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards. Mr. Jason Chartier, continuing his explanation of features of the pro- posed project, said that each unit would have storage space,S ft. x 5 ft., enclosed, provided in the patio area for each unit. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Adams. PASSED 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Claudy Addressing the issue of the single boiler accommodating several units, Assistant Planning Director Cowan said he thought the Uniform Plumbing Code would probably determine what could be installed. He did not know that space heating was intended, either individually owned or commonly held systems were intended; however, it was prohable they could be done. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams, Approval of 2-U-80, Standard Conditions 1/1 through #18 as per Staff Report; Condition #19 stating a 75 ft. setback from Stevens Creek Boulevard; Condition #25 reflecting that a fire access driveway shall have a security gate at each end or gates as specified by the Central Fire District and as per Conditions 1/19 and #25. Com. Blaine PASSED 4-0 MOTION: IT~I #3, Applications 44-Z-80 and 25-U-80 -- ALl YAZDANMANESH: Rezoning approximately one acre from R3 (Multiple Family Residential zone) and PC-339 Page 4 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RI-IO (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to P (Planned Development with Residential, 10-15 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct 14 residential condo- minium units and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Com- mittee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 300 ft. easterly of Randy Lane (approximately mid-block between Randy Lane and Blaney Avenue). First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date -- October 6, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report. He pointed out the lack of open space and the failure of the owners of the project and an adjacent project to combine the two areas for development. Zoning change was recommended. Use Permit was not recommended pending changes. Mr. Muzettis, architect of the project, reviewed the plans on the board. He said there were 6 two-bedroom, 8 three-bedroom units, the former ' of 1,600 sq. ft. and the latter of 1,800 sq. ft. The approach road was depressed 2 ft. below the level of Stevens Creek and access to recessed garages was depressed another 2 ft., which kept the height of the structures under 30 ft. to the highest ridge and 22 ft. to the eave -- lower than single-family residences to the north. To avoid large expanses of concrete, the plans called for grass-crete. All fronts of buildings would be landscaped and trellises would soften the impact of the elevation of the units. Mr. Musettis said there had been some ,discussions and cooperation with the developer to the west. The entry design was a cooperative effort. He said he did understand the the developer of the site was re-thinking his designs. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reminded the Commissioners that the zoning for the project to the west was denied. CHR. KOENITZER stated that this was one case, with two developments on adjacent sites, that the City could use some means of requiring co- operation and joint development of the two parcels. Mr. Marvin Grimes said he was disturbed by the impacts upon the neighborhoods in the area. He asked if the environmental impact ad- dressed noise polution. The congestion in the area was such that it was almost impossible to get any place in Cupertino. He asked that the land be used for something other than high density housing. He in- dicated he'd like to look at the General Plan to see what it is and where it is. CHR. KOENITZER briefly described environmental impact of proposed uses aná density of uses as routinely reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee. Copies of the General Plan had been made available at City Hall or in Cupertino libraries. Mr. Grimes asked if surveys of businesses had been undertaken to determine the percentage of their employees expecting to be living in the area. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that the General Plan Circulation Element would be reviewed for Amendment on Wednesday MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING pc- 339 Page 5 evening, in the Council Chambers, by Mr. Bert Viscovich, Director of Public Works. All citizens were invited to attend the meeting. CHR. KOENITZER said that the complete study of the General Plan was necessary because it was unlikely that the 85 corridor would be completed; and, therefore, it was necessary to amend the General Plan. Mr. Grimes commented that he hoped the figures could be substantiated. Mr. William Clark, 20054 I~eaton Drive, said he'd heard the word fore- sight used. Yet, he said, it seemed to him that a monster had been created. He asked if talk of jobs meant two jobs per household or if any effort had been made to determine if there might be more people than there are jobs. As for the plans on exhibit, he said he'd like to see some landscaping included to the rear. Mr. Tom Siron, 20064 I~eaton Drive asked for the dates of adoption of th General Plan. He said he felt the proposed densities were inconsistent. CIIR. KOENITZER said that the General Plan was initiated in 1973, revised completely and finally adopted in July of 1979, the latter General Plan being the one presently being amended as per state law. Mr. Siron did not understand the switch from needing 85 to not needing 85. He said also that he was disturbed about putting anything else on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mrs. Rosemary Callahan, 19954 Wheaton Drive, complimented Mr. Jason Chartier on the plans he had submitted for Park Plaza and stated thài the plans for Applications 44-Z-80 and 25-U-80 were very poor renderings in comparison. CHR. KOENITZER asked that if there were other drawings on the proposed applications they be exhibited. Recess was called RECESS 9:40 p.m. Mr. Ron Bierman, 19781 Bixby Drive, said he didn't know where the 10- 15 density came from. On this specific proposal, compared to previous ones that had gotten through, there seemed to be requirements for cer- tain amounts of open space. and the plans on exhibit did not meet that requirement. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that there was no requirement for ratio of open space. He said open space was determined, more or less, on a case by case basis with consideration for available yard space and space held in common. In any project, he said it was felt there should be some degree of open space provided. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Johnson PASSED 4-0 ABSENT: Com. Claudy COHo ADAHS pointed out that he felt it would be ideal if the two owners could be persuaded to joint development of the properties to the west and to the northeast. PC-339 Pàge 6 MINUTES SEPTE}!BER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COM. JOHNSON said he felt it was difficult to look at one area without the other areas being in. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that there was the unusual circumstance of two of the parcels having applica'ions in at the same time. He called attention to Condition 915, which showed that cooperation was required between the developers. CHR. KOENITZER said he felt the unusual circumstance of two parcels being in at the same time, it would not be unreasonable to hold up one development in order to persuade another developer to participage in joint development. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: YES: NO: ABSENT: MOTION: Com. Blaine, Approval 44-Z-80, Standard Conditions 91 through 914; Condition #15 amended to read "approval is based upon Exhibit A of Application 44-Z-80, and Condition #16 as per Staff Report. Com. Adams PASSED 4-0 Com. Claudy Com. Blaine, recommend granting of a Negative Declaration Com. Adams PASSED 3-1 Commissioners Blaine, Adams, & Koenitzer Commiss10ner Johnson Commissioner C1audy Com. Blaine, Denial of 25-U-80 as per Staff Report of September 5, 1980 (Page 1, par. 5 and Page 2, par. 1). ITEM 94, Application 16-TM-80 of ITSUO UENAKA: TENTATIVE ~UŒ TO subdivide approximately 4.8 acres into two parcels equaling 2.6 acres and 2.2 acres and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence no action is required. The subject property is located on the east and west side of Bandley Drive approximately 300 ft. south of Mariani Avenue in a P (Planned Development with commercial, industrial, residential intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date -- September 15, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report, which was a straight forward request for division of a large parcel into two parcels. COM. BLAINE asked Mr. Uenaka if he had any reservations or comments about adding improvements for parcel 6. Mr. Itsuo Uenaka, Applicant, said he thought there was no problem at the moment, and he stated that his mother owned parcel 6. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine SECOND: Com. Adams PASSED ABSENT: Com. Claudy 4-0 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8. 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-339 PaJ';e 7 SECOND: PASSED: ABSENT: Com. Blaine, recommend Approval 16-TM-80, Standard Conditions #1 through #14; Conditionp #15 and #16 as per Staff Report. Com. Adams MOTION: 4-0 Com. Claudy ITEM #5, Application 23-U-80, D.C.E. INC. (RICHARD CHILDRESS): USE PERMIT to construct 7,500 sq. ft. commercial/office building and ENVIR- ONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Pasadena Avenue in the Monta Vista neighborhood. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date -- September 15, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report. He advised that the curb line on Stevens Creek Boulevard, actually was the property line (5 to 10 ft. further north) and within the street right-of-way. A revised drawing could show the corrected property 1ine.if the Commission rs felt it was required. The property was within the Old Monta Vista Planning Area on Pasadena and the design was consistent with the plan in that it designed parking in the rear (an effective device for getting the public into the shops and stores through a 1st floor mall built over. The plans incorporated the 750 parking stalls on Pasadena (a credit of total of 7 narking spaces per acre to Mr. Childress). COM. ADAMS' asked about the depicted kickouts at the end of the block on Pasadena. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that was part of the Old Monta Vista Plan and that developers were being encouraged to cooperate for installation along the length of Pasadena. Mr. Dick Childress, 22025 Regnart, Applicant, said he had nothing to add except that he'd like to work with the other developers and make some- thing of the street. Design refinements might be incorporated into the building at the corner. There were three (3) parking spaces in excess of the number required. Although a restaurant tenant was welcome in the project, he said they had not lined up a prospective tenant. CO!!. JOHNSON asked how heavy the shake roof would be. Mr. Childress said they would prefer to have a material consistent with the rest of the area. Heavy wood shakes were preferred. The detail could be worked out with Architecture & Site Control Committee. Ms. Ann Anger, resident, complimented the design and said she would like the heavy shake roof. The other buildings being started could be con- sistent throughout the Old Monta Vista area. She recalled that Imperial Avenue, on one plan, was going to come out on Orange, and a signal light was scheduled for Mann Avenue. She said she was pleased with the street design decided upon. She suggested getting rid of the parking lot on each side of Pasadena, closing off the street at the end, and thus creating a large mall of Pasadena Avenue. With the businesses having their parking in the back, she suggested parking (angle parking) on Pasadena was unnecessary. PC-339 Page 3 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION HEETING Assistant Planning Director Cowan recalled that closing off Pasadena had been one variation of the suggestions for designing the street. The desire to have small, individual shops had discouraged the idea of a large mall on Pasadena. Ms. Ann Anger said she understood and hoped they could entice some foot traffic into the shoppin~ area. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Johnson. Second: Com. Adams. PASSED 4-0 MOTION: Com. Blaine recommended a negative declaration. Second: Com. Adams PASSED 4-0 MOTION: Com. Blaine, Approval of 23-U-80, Standard Conditions #1 through #14 for Exhibit A., 1st Revision Conditions #15, #16 and #17 as per conditions and findings and sub conclusions of the Staff Report. SECOND: Com. Adams PASSED: ABSENT: Com. Claudy 4-0 ITFM #6, Applications 24-U-80 and 17-TM-80 of SHUTTS & SCHWI~rrIER: USE PERMIT to construct two new single-family homes and retain an existing single-family structure; TENTATIVE ~IAP to subdivide approximately one acre into three parcels and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of Orogrande Place approx- imately 450 ft. westerly of Stelling Road in P (Planned Development with single-family residential intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative £ity Council hearing date -- September 15, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report by reminding the Commissioners that the site was part of an overall development, part of which was approved. Two developers had been working together, and the Item #6 represented the plans of one of the developers to con- struct two new buildings (homes) and retain an existing hom on the site. Possible problems could accrue in terms of accesS along Stelling Road. A major redesign of the area would be necessary if the project fails to occur or one or the other of the developers do not perform. A joint emergency access road for fire equipment -- turnouts. Smaller lots with homes designed to match Ponderosa Homes project. COM. BLAINE asked if this project was different than what was approved as all one project. Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out the difference in terms of the number of units (from 10 to 8), the access road served lots (and the new concept did not serve private property. CHR. KOENITZER asked if on the five-unit development the houses were 2,600 sq. ft. Assistant Planning Director Cowan, checking the file stated that the houses were over 2,000 sq. ft. CUR. KOENITZER said he calculated that the houses were about 2,500 sq. ft which seemed to him to be too large a house for the size lot. 2,000 to 2,200 sq. ft. seemed reasonable to him; but, 2,600 sq. ft. was a little much. MINUTES SEPT~IBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC- 139 Pa~e 9 Mr. Phil Schwimmer, Architect representing the owner, advised that the adjacent buildings were 2,400 sq. ft. Two of them were 2,200 sq. ft. He said it was felt they could go to a larger home because of the open space available and that the homes at that size would not be over- building the sites. The application of a project that is continued and would definitely go forward -- the dedications and adjustments to enable joint development had been maintained. The esthetics and quality (the lower number of units) should make the two lar~er homes work out fine. Mr. Schwimmer advised that he was the architect on both projects and tha they were in the process of finalizing permits and commencing with initial work -- cooperation 'between the two projects for streets and drives were underway. He said tentative maps had been filed. City Engineer \;bitten advised that the maps would go to City Council the 15th and would be recorded within a day or so. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that the two developments did not have to be developed in sync. Yet, the things done on the one project would determine some progress on the subject project. He said he felt that the developer and owner was aware of the requirements. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Adams. Second: Com. Johnson PASSED ABSENT: Com. C1audy 4-0 CHR. KOENITZER said he wished to space the homes evenly over the 3 parcels. ,Given dedications and fire access lanes, the homes became large for thê sites. Ilr. Schwimmer said that the odd shapes of the lots permitted a different padprint to be used and because of the changing shape of the front acces they were not in a standard lot situation. The lot sizes and shapes were used to provide larger homes on the sites. COM. BLAINE said she felt that because of the grouping of the homes on that particular site; and, recognizing that there would be no more homes built in that area, and that it bordered a creek, she was not uncom- fortable with the home sizes. NOTION: SECOND: PASSED: ABSENT: MOTION: Com. Adams, Recommend a Negative Declaration to City Council Com. Johnson 1,-0 SECOND: PASSED: Com. Claudy Com. Adams, recommend Approval, 17-TM-80, subject to conditions #1 through #20 as per Staff Findings and Conclusions. Com. Johnson 4-0 MOTION: Com. Adams, recommend Approval 24-U-80 in accordance with the Findings and Conclusions of staff's report ITEM #7, Withdrawn at the request of the applicant. PC-339 Page 10 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM #8, Application 15-U-80 of GRACE CLOVER: USE PERMIT - Referred back to Planning Commission from the City Council for consideration of con- ditions of approval. Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that Item #8 was back to them for interpretation only. The Commissioners discussed the conditions and agreed that difficulty might lie in the condition on how many animals were permitted. COM. ADAMS asked if the Applicant had complied with all the requests contained in a letter from the Bui1din~ Department to bring the property into conformance with ordinances and controls governing number of pets permitted. He recalled the concern of neighbors who spoke at the last meeting. ~!s. Narcissi- clarified the situation with the animals. She maintained that any resident in her home could have a pet or pets. She asked that the Condition not be included in the approval. The animals were removed. COM. ADAMS said that they were talking about a BQ zone City Attorney advised Com. Adams that he suggested the property be treated as residential triplex until such time as neighbors became con- cerned and" complained. The understanding was that a problem would come back for further interpretation. This interpretation, it was agreed, that people having pets and living there would not have to give them up. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Adams. Second: Com. Blaine PASSED 4-0 SECOND: PASSED: ABSENT: Com. Adams, Approval of 15-U-80 subject to Conditions #1 through #17, and additional Condition #18 controlling the control of pets on the property. Com. Blaine 4-0 MÓTION: Com. Claudy NEW BUSINESS ITEM #9, Request by Robert L. Hambelton for an interpretation of Section 12.1 of the Rl Ordinance pertaining to enlargement of structures along existing building lines. The Commissioners discussed applying a whole new extension or extension of existing building at the 2nd level. COM. BLAINE said she felt the intention, at the time the ordinance was written. was not to permit ex- tension at the 2nd floor level. It was finally agreed that: MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-339 Page 11 COM. KOENITZER felt that in his reading of the ordinance he felt a 2nd-story extension was permitted. A completely new 2nd-story would be prohibited. He stated that the parentheticals in the ordinance were just examples and not directions. It seemed to mean that new 2nd floors could not be extended into the new setback spaces. CO~I. BLAINE suggested that the Rl Ordinance, Section 12.1 be interpreted to support the Planning Directors interpretation. M~. Robert H~mbelton, ar.£hitect for the orooosed 2nd-story extension asked that the problem be resolved to avoid having to go back to Council CHR. KOENITZER said he was familiar with the area. He had looked at the houses in the area at one time. ~Ir. Hambelton said the houses next to the house under issue, appeared to be built the same -- with an equivalent 2nd story extent ion as originall built. He said they had not gone for the variance because the Planning Director suggested they appeal the decision to City Council * MOTION' Com. Blaine, we uphold the Planning Director's interpretation of the Rl Ordinance, Section 12.1, especially the second sen- tence. SECOND: Com. Johnson PASSED 4-0 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSIQN REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT of the September 8, 1980 Regular Planning Commission Meeting to the September 10, 1980 Adjourned Regular Planning Commission Meeting. * ABSENT: Com. Claudy. Mr. Hambelton, in a brief informal note, advised Assistant Planning Director Cowan that he wished to appeal the inter- pretation of the Planning Commission to City Council, earliest possible time. ' APPROVED: R£4~~~/ ATTEST: a ,. City Clerk