Loading...
PC 07-11-83 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 11, 1983 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA PC-420 Page 1 Chairperson Adams called the meeting to order in th Council Chamber at 7:30 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Blaine, Claudy, Chairperson Adams Koenitzer, Staff Present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk City Clerk Cornelius Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Engineer Whitten City Attorney Kilian (7:40 p.m.) APPROVAL OF 11INUTES: 11inutes of regular meeting of 1lay 9, May 9 1983 - It was moved by Corn. Claudy, seconded by Corn. Blaine minutes and passed unanimously to approve the May 9 minutes with apptoved the following corrections: Page 4, Item 2, should include, "It was moved by Corn. Koenitzer, seconded by Corn Claudy and passed unanimously to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration." Paragraph 4, when speaking of Condition No. 29 and Condition No. 30, the word "should" shall be changed to "shall." On page 5, paragraph 7, the conditions should show as follows: 1. No noise shall be heard outside the building. 2. The applicant shall enter into agreements for parking with St. John's and Brentwood shopping center. 3. The permit shall be reviewed by the City of Cupertino should problems occur. POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS It was moved by Corn. Claudy, seconded by Corn. Blaine and Item passed unanimously to remove Item No. 10 from the agenda. removed WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Assistant Planning Director Cowan reported that a letter had been received pertaining to Item No. 7 on the agenda. PC-420 1 2 Public hearing closed 7-TM-83 recom- mended for approval Public hearing closed Negative Dec. fox 5-Z-83 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application 7-TM-83 of Monta Vista properties (Terry Brown): Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide approximately .5 acre into two parcels and Environmental Review: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the north side of Alcazar Avenue approximately 400 ft. east of Byrne Avenue and 300 ft. west of Orange Avenue in a Rl-7.5 (Residential Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing. Director of application transparency Planning and Development Sisk with the Commission and of the parcel map. reviewed presented the a It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to recommend approval of Application 7-TM-83 with conditions per staff report, findings and subconclusions per staff report. (City Clerk's Note: p.m.) City Attorney Kilian arrived at 7:40 2. Applications 5-Z-83 and 8-TM-83 of James Sirois: prezoning approximately .5 gross acre from Santa Clara County Rl-8 (Residential Single-family, 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino RI-7.5 (Residential Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; Tentative Parcel Map (8-TM-83) to subdivide approximately .5 gross acre into two 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 Almaden Avenue approximately 200 ft. east of Byrne Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date for prezoning - August 1, 1983. Director of Planning and Development Sisk reviewed the two applications with the Commission. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. passed unanimously to close the public hearing. Claudy and It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration for Application 5-Z-83. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by passed unanimously to recommend approval 5-Z-83 per staff recommendations with subconclusions per staff report. Com. Claudy and of Application findings and It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. passed unanimously to recommend approval of 8-TM-83 per staff report. Blaine and Application 3. Applications 22-U-83 and Il-TM-83 of Canada Development Company, Inc.: Use Permit to construct nine attached residential townhouses; Tentative Subdivision ~ap to subdivide approximately one acre into nine residential townhouse lots and one lot to be held in common ownership and Environmental Review: The project was previously assessed, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of Blaney Avenue and Beekman Place in a P (Planned Development with 5-10 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 18, 1983. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the application with the Commission and informed them that there are changes to two of the conditions on the use permit proposed resolution. Condition No. 17 should state that the second story master bedroom windows shall be obscure glass as described in Exhibits C and D. Condition No. 20 should state that the applicant shall provide plumbing and necessary pipe chases to later facilitate solar assisted hot water heating systems, etc. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to recommend approval of Application ll-TM-83 with Standard Conditions 1-14, Conditions 15-17 per findings and subconclusions per staff report. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to recommend approval of Application 22-U-83 with Standard Conditions 1-14, Conditions 15 and 16 per staff report, Condition 17 as amended, Conditions 18 and 19 per staff report, Condition 20 as amended. 4. Application 18-U-83 of Shell Oil Company (John Williams) : Use Permit to construct and operate a self-service gasoline station and Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Homestead Road and North De Anza Boulevard in a CG-rg (General Commercial) zoning district. First hearing. PC-420 Page 3 5-Z-83 recommended for approval 8-TM-83 recom- mended for approval Public hearing closed ll-TM-83 recom- mended for approval 22-U-83 recom- mended for approval p- '.20 1 e 4 Director of Planning and Development Sisk reviewed the application with the Commission. Public hearing I t was moved by Com. Bla i ne, seconded by Com. Claudy and closed passed unanimously to close the public hearing. The Commission expressed concern regarding traffic at the corner of the proposed station. The opinion was expressed that the station would not fill a real community need. Concern was also expressed because the proposed location is an entrance to the City. There was a feeling that a gas station would not be appropriate. l8-U-83 denied It was moved by Com. Blaine, passed unanimously to deny findings and subconclusions discussion. seconded by Com. Claudy and Application l8-U-83 with as per Planning Commission 5. Application 19-U-83 of Valley Church: Use Permit to replace an existing single-story building with a two-story classroom/assembly room building totaling approximately 21,000 sq. ft. and Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the west side of Stelling Road approximately 650 ft. south of Homestead Road in a BQ (Quasi-Public) zoning district. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the application with the Commission. Don Schmidt, 1916 Old Middlefield Way, Mountain View, a member of Valley Church, informed the Commission that attendance at the church had increased and there was a great need for the proposed expansion. He showed slides depicting the site, the buildings, the parking area and landscaping. He stated that he was not sure that the landscaping as recommended by staff was necessary. Chairperson Adams inquired as to the expected time frame for the proposed addition. Mr. Schmidt replied that it would probably be four and a half to five years, depending on funds available. Mr. Schmidt questioned the need for Condition No. 17 of the proposed resolution. He stated that an irrigation system would be installed on the west side and large shrubs and trees would be used. There was discussion regarding planters and a raised stop bar at the end of each parking slot to prevent vehicles from entering the planter area. Mr. Schmidt stated that there was no storm drain system on Stelling and that water runs to Homestead. The church did not wish to put in storm drains from its site all the way to Homestead Road. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. PC-420 Page 5 Public hearing closed In regard to the storm drain, Chairperson Adams expressed the opinion that it should be left up to staff. The applicant could appeal if he so desired. It was moved by Corn. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine and 19-U-83 passed unanimously to approve Application 19-U-83 subject recom- to Standard Conditions 1-14, 15 and 16 per staff report, mended for Condition 17 modified to read that the applicant shall approval improve the landscaping areas on the westerly and southerly property lines which shall be planted with additional trees and/or shrubs and be fully irrigated, subject to the review and approval of the Architectural and Site Approval Committee prior to issuance of building permits, findings and subconclusions per Planning Commission meeting. It was moved by Corn. passed unanimously Application 19-U-83. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Claudy and to grant a Negative Declaration for 6. Application l-U-68 (Revised) of Dale Applegate and Robert Morgan: Revision of a use permit to allow retail use in an existing office building and Environmental Review: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 270 ft. east of Stelling Road in a CG (General Commercial) zoning district. First Hearing. Director of Planning and Development Sisk reviewed the applicant's request and staff concerns with the Commission. Dale Applegate, 1243 Meridian Avenue, San Jose, submitted a written communication and picture of the building (29040 Stevens Creek Boulevard) and reviewed Council action on the Community Housing Developers application. He stated that he and other owners of the property received no benefit from Bianchi Way; only Community Housing Developers did. He stated that his counsel had been assured by staff several weeks prior to the meeting that the dedication was a dead issue. He stated that the first notice of a dedication requirement was receipt of the staff report that morning. He requested that the Commission delete Condition No. 17 of the recommended resolution. Negative Declara- tion for 19-U-83 PC-420 Page 6 Public hearing closed l-U-68 (Rev. recommended for approval Linda Smith, Community Housing Developers, urged the Planning Commission to require the dedication. She stated that if it were necessary for CHD to purchase the property it would be a large financial burden. Howard Roberts, 11121 Clarkston Avenue, Cupertino, stated that he and his wife were in the process of acquiring the property from Mr. Applegate. He did not see any correlation between the application submitted and the dedication. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. when asked rather than he would. if the applicant would agree to dedication only improvements as well, Mr. Roberts stated that It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unanimously to recommend approval of Application l-U-68 (Revised) with Standard Conditions 1-14, 15 and 16 as per staff report, 17 revised to require dedication of Bianchi way (not improvements), with findings and subconclusions per staff report and Planning Commission discussion. 7. Application 10-TM-76 (Revised) of Walter and Roseann Frederick (BAS Homes): Tentative ~ap Revision to amend Condition 17 of Application 10-TM-76 to permit a second-story addition. Condition 17 currently limits residences adjacent to Lazaneo Drive to one story in height. Environmental Review: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Lazaneo Drive and Miner Place in a P (Planned Development with Residential Single-family intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 18, 1983. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the applicant's request with Commission. He informed the Commission that neighbors have expressed concern that the residents are renting rooms. Roseann Frederick, 10234 ¡liner Place, stated that she and her husband have five children. The oldest, age 29, is disabled. She stated that the remodeling requested would enable her son to live at home so she could supervise him. The exterior stairway was being requested so he could enter and leave the home. She submitted pictures of the house exterior. May Hull, 21853 Woodbury Drive, asked why the second story couldn't be built. She stated that near her home there were second stories that had been added. She felt that with the economy the way it is and with more children returning home, second stories seemed reasonable. She stated that this is a hardship case and that a second story if well built should be all right. PC-420 Page 7 Tom 3assett, 2965 Porterfield Court, stated that he and his mother own the house next door to the Fredericks. He presented a copy of a letter to the Fredericks from the City's Code Enforcement Officer that had been sent to his mother regarding a code violation of the Fredericks (metal shed). He stated that the shed has not been removed. The letter, dated April 27, had said to remove the shed or the matter would be referred to the City Attorney. He stated that people bought in this development because of certain standards. The CC and R's do not even allow for TV antennas on the roof. He asked what would happen next if this deviation were approved. He urged the Commission to "hold the line." Mrs. Frederick stated that she had gone to the Bassett's house with a contractor regarding the storage shed. The setback is approximately six inches less than it should be. She stated that when she went to the Bassetts, she had been told, "Put it in front of your patio." ~rs. Frederick also stated that the neighbor does not want anyone parking in front of her property. ¡Irs. Frederick informed the Commission that she had planned to take care of the shed when the addition is started. Mr. Bassett expressed concern regarding a potential "granny unit." He felt that the proposed configuration would easily be usable for a rental. Dean Bowman, 10273 é1iner, stated that originally he had wanted a two story building on a corner lot but was told he could not have one. He stated that the proposed remodeling would be a detriment to the neighborhood and an eyesore. He informed the Commission that he has had to have cars towed away. Lloyd Taylor, 10214 ¡liner Place stated that no homes in the subdivision presently have outside stairways. He expressed the opinion that the back of the Frederick's building is being used as a rental. Present rules seem to be being violated. He asked what would stop new rules from being violated. A resident at 10204 Miner Place stated that since he had moved into the neighborhood there had been three times that the City Council, the Planning Commission and neighbors had violated the good faith he put in the community. He stated that piecemeal exceptions had been allowed and they are ruining the neighborhood. 1 20 Page 8 Public hearing closed. 10-TM-76 (Rev.) reconnnended for denial Peggy Nessman, 10194 Miner Place, stated that when the BAS Homes development was approved the houses were very close together and the streets were narrow. Two cars cannot pass. She expressed concern regarding exceptions and requested the Commission to consider the overall nature of the neigbhorhood. I1artin Drummer, 1938 [1ontecito, [1ountain View, showed a transparency of the proposed addition. architect, It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Claudy and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. Com. Blaine and of Application the original was made after the fact that It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded by passed unanimously to recommend denial 10-T!1-76 (Revised) and to continue with tentative map conditions. This decision much thought and deliberation and is based on no evidence for change was presented. RECESS: 9:45-9:57 p.m. 8. Applications 6-Z-83, 20-U-83 and 9-TM-83 of Terry Brown Construction Company: Rezoning approximately two gross acres from RI-IO (Residential Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to P (Planned Development with Single-famiy residential intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; Use Permit to construct seven single-family homes; Tentative Subdivision nap to subdivide the site into eight parcels and Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a ~egative Declaration. The subject property is located on the east side of Carmen Road, southerly of Stevens Creek Boulevard behind the existing homes which front Carmen Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - August 1, 1983. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the applications with the Commission. Discussion followed regarding the Stevens Creek Plan Line. Terry Brown, 21884 Stevens Creek addressed Commission and requested condition to alleviate any concerns owners may have. Boulevard, Cupertino, a height limitation neighboring property Agnes Couger, 10106 Carmen Road, stated that presently she does have a nice view from her residence and she does not want to look out at someone's second story. It was suggested that a deed restriction could be recorded that would have the effect of a height limitation. Bruce Blake, 10115 Scenic Boulevard, expressed concern regarding cars on the road that he felt would be right over his house. He felt that the way the road was designed is dangerous and a hazard from a traffic standpoint. He stated that from the setbacks approved on his house, it appears that the road was never expected in its proposed location. He felt that there was also an increased possibility of a cave in with the proposed development. He stated if the project were approved the road should be moved. He presented slides showing his house and where the road would be placed. He felt that the proposed development puts a great many houses in a small area, and he objected to the density proposed. He asked if any improvements were planned for Carmen Road to handle the additional traffic. He felt the proposed project would degrade the environment of Cupertino. PC-420 Page 9 Cliff Abel, 10164 Carmen Road, stated that he had access to a back lot through a neighbor's property. In regard to the closure of Carmen, he felt there would be a danger backing out of the driveway. He also inquired as to storm lines and drainage. He questioned the road configuration and the degree of slope. Mr. Blake expressed concern regarding a noise problem with cars. He felt that less density would allow for more reasonable dimensions. With fewer lots the road could be moved. Mr. Brown stated that he could understand concern regarding the street, but he feels that a private street serving three lots is more like a driveway. Commission discussed concerns regarding the street and asked if another design could be done so the street was not so close to the edge. Mr. Brown stated that he had looked at many configurations on this development. He felt that looking at the safety of the street would be more reasonable than a redesign. Mr. Blake stated that there was a very steep slope and a retaining wall would not necessarily stop a vehicle. Com. Blaine felt that a redesign the road in a different location. it is a safety hazard. would be appropriate with She stated that she felt Com. Koenitzer requested that Lot No.7 be removed from the exhibit since it is not part of the application. Discussion followed regarding flag lots. PC-420 p,,-~ 10 ~ 6-Z-83, 20-U-83 and 9-TM-8 continued r1r. Brown asked the Commission if there was a possibility of approval of the application should he return with information showing that the proposed road is as safe as any of the other possibilities. He stated he would like to show justification for the proposed location of the road. This' would be done via engineering studies rather than emotional involvement. It was moved by Com. Claudy, seconded passed unanimously to continue the meeting of August 8. The Commission plat map that would show the entire of e~isting homes. by Com. Koenitzer and application to the requested a better area and the location UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. Report regarding minor text editing of General Plan Amendment I-GPA-80. Assistant Planning Director Cowan stated that the report was being presented to the Commission to enable them to look at the final wording. Commission requested a deletion on page 11 regarding condominium conversion. The Commission was informed that the State has expressed concern regarding the City's "fair share" in the jobs housing balance. Commission was also informed there could be some number changes on the General Plan Amendment. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: /~£¿ City Clerk ____.._ _u___