Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 07-22-1974CITYOF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone; 2524505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 22, 1974, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Chairman O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:36 P.M. with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Commn. present: Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe. Comm, absent: None Staff present: Associate Planner Cowan Assistant City .Attorney Wenzel.. Assistant City Engineer Whitten APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 5, 1974. Paragraph 3, Page 4, next to the last line: Delete "for" and replace with "with". Moved: by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Woodward to approve the Minutes of June 5, 1974 as corrected. Motion carried, 4-0-1 Comm. Adams abstained Minutes of Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 19, 1974. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Cooper to approve the Minutes of June 19, 1974, as submitted. Motion carried, 4-0-1 Comm. Adams abstained PC --162 Pane 1. June 5 Minutes approved as corrected June 1!' Minutes approved as submitted Trc- ].62 MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1.974 PLANNING COMMISSION ET.LnTG Page 2 1..,, I June 20 nitrites approved as submitted June 24 vedaa I corrected July 8 Minutes approved as corrected Minutes of Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 20, "1974. ved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Comm. Woodward to approve the nutes of June 20, 1974, as submitted. Motion carried, 4-0--1 Comm.. Cooper abstained nutes of the Regular Meeting of June 24, 1974. Page 9, paragraph 7, last sentence should read: "He felt the best plan was alternative 1, page 21." Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to approve the Minutes ni June 24 L914, as corrected. Motion carried, 4-C-.1 Comm. Cooper abstained Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 3, 1974. IPage 5, second full paragraph, first sentence should read: "Chairman i0?K.eefe said..............parking . . . .-parking lots is the excessive speed or some Iof the cars traveling within these lots." IPage 6, second paragraph, line 5, add the word "such" between "two" and I "businesses". Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to approve the Minutes of July 8, 1914, as corrected. Motion carried, 5-0 TEN COMMUNICATIONS = There were none. COMMUNICATIONS airman O'Keefe noted that no public_ hearing would be initiated after night. ST PONEMEi1T S 7--Z.-74, 8-Z_74. Upon recommeadat.icn of the staff, it was moved. by Comm. Gatto, seconded 9-7.-74 ,ostrcned by Comm. Adams to postpone applications 7--Z--74; 8-Z-74 and 9-7-74 to Le Aug.26 August 26, 1974. Motion carried, 5-0 MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1974 PLANNING CONMISS1O14 MEETING Upon recommendation of the staff, it was moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm, Gatto to continue application 15 —TM -74 to August 12, 1974. Motion carried, 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application -15-=IM-74 - 1 RUNSWICK CORPORATION Postponed to August 12, 1974. 2. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Proposed amendment to Sign Ordinance No. 353 as recommended by Architectural and Site Approval Committee pertaining to Sections 5.11 and 7.021. First Hearing continued. The Associate Planner reviewed the July 19, 1974 memo from Assis Planner Toby Kramer regarding revisions to the Sign Ordinance, recommended by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee at their meeting on June 17, 1974. The Assistant City Attorney advised that the Sign Ordinance, as now proposed, says that if there is a change in the business a change of copy on the existing sign will be allowed for a period of six months after the new Sign Ordinance comes into effect. It was noted that the person with a six-month -old sign won't be in any different situation than, say, a five -year -old sign as far as abatement is concerned. Comm. Woodward would like that paragraph to go further, and warn the people about this situation. Architectural and Site Approval Chairwoman Sallan said the develop; is running a risk if he should adhere to the guidelines. The Committee is saving the guidelines will be speaking not necessaril3 to the new Sign Ordinance. The guidelines, if approved by the City Council., will be a policy. They will serve as direction to. the applicant. Comm. Gatto said the quarrel is not with the guidelines. The question is whether the business will be required within six monthE to bring his sign into conformance, lie is concerned about an interim ordinance. Comm. Woodward is interested in allowing a new businessman to change the copy of his existing sign and leave it. until six months after enactment of a new Sign Ordinance. PC -162 Page 3 15--TM-74 postponed to Aug. 12 ES OF THE JULY- 22, 197'i PLANNING COI iISSION MEETING Pdge i Mr. Frank P. Muikern, 20800 Homestead Road, Apt. 14H, Cupertino, (Manager of the Cupertino Chamber. of Commerce, said the reason they were against Resolutions No. 405 and 406 was the issue that dealt with the change to the Sign Ordinance Nc, 7021. They felt the wording was such that this amendment says the Architectural and Site Approval Committee will have the power to judge a sign, not to make recommendation to the City Council. The Chamber of Commerce wrote. a letter on June 17, 1974, dealing with the criteria of the guidelines of the Architectural and Site Approval Committee. He said the Committee has done a rather good job with their guidelines, The Chamber objected to that portion of the guidelines saying: "The Architectural and Site Approval Committee shall have the power,.,...", because they feel this says the City Council relinquishes the power to the Committee. Mr. Mulkern stated that they feel the business community could provide input and they could better live with a sign ordinance that they had a part of constructing. The Chamber pleads for no changes to the Sign Ordinance for the interim period. They believe the Committee needs no further help for what they are now able to do. IUomm. to shwli n y developer *,Fiat is coming down the path via guidelines rather than just give him a copy of the old. Sign Ordinance to go by. 1XIs, Sailan notedthat the developer always has the right to appeal to the City Council on a decision. The Associate Planner said we are dealing with nonconforming signs and sign area. City Attorney David Adams has ruled that someone who qualifies for a certain size sign can demand it. Also, in respect to nonconforming signs, the. present Sign Ordinance says the Architectur.e,l and Site Approval Committee has no discretion; their whole purpose is to use judgment and discretion. The Assistant City Attorney answered Comm. Woodward that if Resolution No. 405 is adoptedby the City Council, it will make. those guidelines a part of the Ordinance. Ms. Sallan said the intent of the Committee is to have the guidelines not a. part of the Ordinance. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to be in favor of the concept of guidelines as long as they are -not tied to the Ordinance. The problem needs to be studied in depth prior to enactment of the Ordinance. Past Chairman of the Architectural and Site Approval --Committee Juanita ioLaren, 22101 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, noted that on July 5, 1974, the City Council o voted, a. C ed. to �zork on the Sign Ordinance. She noted that this i.S very serious to the business community and would like to see it r exp;dited• MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Co;rn�. Gatto suggested changing the wording to read 3% as a maxi- mum allowance. Comm. Cooper- suggested rescinding the last decision and allowing this document to be returned, to staff for rewording, and to let the Committee come up with suggestions for solid wording for the new Ordinance. Comm. Gatto would prefer to see a change in the Ordinance rather than guidelines. Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Cooper to continue discussion on proposed amendment to Sign Ordinance No. 353 to the next regularly scheduled meeting. AYES: Comm„ Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 3. Application 22 -IT --74 of MERCURY SAVINGS & LOAN: USE PEPMIT to defer the installation of underground utilities in a CG (Genera:l. Commercial) zone. Said property is located at 19300 Stevens Creek Blvd. First Hearing. The Associate Planner reviewed details of the July 19, 1974, memo from the Director of Public Works regarding this use permit application. The staff recommended the undergrounding of the utility lines be deferred until such time as a larger project for this area is completed, with the condition that the applicant provide the City with an adequate cash deposit. The Assistant City Engineer answered Comm. Cooper that Project 6A includes Mercury Savings and Loan and one undeveloped property to the east, one undeveloped property to the west, and one service station. Mercury Savings and Loan represents 1/5 of the project. Comm. Woodward wanted to delete the 14 standard conditions in this case and just use condition 15 as 1 condition. Chairman O'Keefe asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Woodward to close the Public Hearing. PC• -1.62 Page 5 Sign Ord. Amend continued Motion carried, 5-0 PC -:162 IMTNUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1974 PLANNING CO 1MISSION MEETING Page 6 22-U-74 Moved by Comm. Cooper, seconded by Comm. Gatto to approve application ono roved 22-U-74 with the condition that the applicant provide the City with an w/1condition adequate cash deposit to be determined by the Director of Public Works to insure the future undergrounding of utilities. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe .NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 _—_--- Appli:cati:orto .mencl 11SE PERMIT 16--U-74 of SOBRATO-BERG PROPERTIES i kme:hdment to allow construction of a light industrial/office complex in a P (Planned Development with commercial/industrial intent) zone. Said property consists of 8.5 acres and is located in the southwest quadrant of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Freeway Route 280. First Hearing. iThe Associate Planner identified the property by means of a transparency projected or, the bulletin board. He noted that the applicant previously vroposed the Draehman- i syatem for the--project..-At this mee ing,. the applicant submitted Exhibit A -2nd Revision, showing buildings l.. & 2 :3s 2 -story structures and building 3 as a single -•story structu 'e. The 1tot^1 square footage is the same as the original proposal, therefore, it 1 i,? consisE e..n't with the General Plan and zoning d i stri ar., The project 1has been approved by Architectural_ and Site Approval Cernraitte.e, and 'they recommended building i#3 be shifted at least 10to the crest and Ithe curb cuts for buildings 1 & 2 be consolidated into one driveway. IThe applicant is well in excess of the Ordinance requirement for parking #space's. On a test basis, the staff felt it would be all right to try ;the Drach:.ran system for 60 spaces. Comm, Gatto stated that this proposed use may not be consistentwith the trip ends allowed for this area. Although these are spec buildings, by their design, it is apparent they will be offices rather than industrial. It is much more difficult to stagger working hours for offices than industrial. Ha also said they would have to allow for iore cars. The Assistant Planner said that by virtue of the zoning district, they can't have a town center --type use at this location. It could he, say, a computer software -type operation, however. 1r. John Sobrato , 2775 I`i.ddlef ield Road, Palo Alto, said their experience has been that a typical assembly line situation generates the greatest number of trip ends. Office buildings allow for corridors, conference rooms, etc. He stated that these are not spec buildings anymore.. The project will be in 2 phases, with bu.ildin- 2 as phase 2. Their intention is not to rip out the orchard for prrlcir.g until it i.s needed. Et is their intention to install landscaped courtyard and right-of-way.. This plan works out a t. 5±" pa:es (l00 r ft. of building. �� p�:r!'_intr cyp :Fs per 1. �'- u:�. MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1974 PLANNING COTISSION MEETING Mr., Sobrato said the reason they have two curb cuts and separate driveways is that unless they separate their parking problems could occur. It is much easier to control this way, so the tenant; don't use each other's parking spaces. This is the reason for the landscaped barrier. He said he would be willing to concede the extra 4 — 5 spaces. He would be willing to eliminate the sidewalk on the west side of building 3. Mr. Sobrato answered Comm. Gatto that in the event the tenant for the 60,000 sqft. building does not stay, for one reason or another, there are 1.5 other tenants ready to come in. Mr. Sobrato said they discussed staggered working hours with the staff, but the conclusion was that the staff had no way to police this. Comm. Adams said he had no objections to the deletion of condition 19 nor to the deletion of the sidewalk. Comm. Gatto and Woodward stated they were in favor cf keeping two driveways. Mr. Sobrato .answered Comm. Gatto that he would eliminate two parking spaces for a pedestrian walkway to connect these buildings with the restaurant. Comm. Cooper asked how the applicant would feel about providing driving access to the rear. Mr. Sobrato said Lie would prefer to leave it the way it is; if a future tenant should want this he would then put it in. Comm.. Woodward was in favor of deleting condition 18 and retaining the walkway. He noted that the change in the type of use of the buildings .lends itself to peak hour traffic. The Associate City Engineer said the trip end generation is based on gross acreage, not on number of parking spaces. The Assistant Planner said there was a transfer of trip ends at the time this property was rezoned. It was noted that the tenant is Tymeshare Corporate Offices. Comm. Woodward asked the staff for a report on traffic generation rationale for office use versus industrial use. Comm. Gatto said just straight office use would not be. admitted in an industrial zone. The Associate Planner said the 20 trip en was based upon use of the building and staggering of the working hours. Mr. Jim LeDeit, of Pacheco Associates, representing Mr. Garner, said they went through the criteria with the staff on this. He said we are talking about 11 acres, including the ministor.age. Uses falling within the 16 trip ends are mini storage, realty offi etc. He referred to the hook in the Director of Public Works' office on this. The Assistant City Engineer said this bock is based on one -day counts. PC -1.62 Pace 7 t -1 h? INUTE • ,OF THE JULY 22, 1974 PLANNING CO ISSION MEETING Pa t Comrl. Cooper asked if the.. applicant was still willing to eliminate 36. parking spaces, shift the landscaping and install the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Sobratu said he would rather give up 1-1/2' of the courtyard for the walkway than the parking spaces. Discussion of the conditions followed. Chairman O'Keefe asked for comments from the audience. There were none. by Comm. Woodward. seconded by Comm. Adam.sto close the public in;. Motion carried , 5-0 ,a,:'s4 loved w/20 -oudi.'ti.ons 'loved by Comm. Adams, seconded by Chairman O'Keefe to approve application 1.6-U-74, subject to the 20 conditions outlined in the staff report, with new conditions 19 and 20 as arrived at at this meeting: Condition 19. That a walkway shall be constructed to connect Buildings 1, 2 and 3 with the properties to the east in a manner approved by the r .itectzral and Site Approval. Commirtse. Co odi.tioa 20. That prior to City Council approval,, the staff shall submit a report verifying that the aupli_-,.ti.on. .s consistent with the trip -end inte-,asit-y scarilai:d stiul.ated l.'.1 the planned development zorLi.Ii≤; district land general plan. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Cha:irt^ain O'Keefe NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 5. Apt}liaations 23-L-74 and 23-U•-74 of ALICE SIEGIZIST.: REZONING .93 acre from CG (General Commercial) to P (Planned Development with commercial intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed aprl_opriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERJ'IIT to allow for expansion of the existing shopping center, improvement of parking and planting areas, and the rer,odeling of a xterior architectural style. Said pr.o=pe:- .v is to atoll at 10215 South Saratoga —Sunnyvale Road. First iearin g. The Assi,ciate Pisnner identified the property on the map. There are some e:i.s+ ing buildings to the rear of the property that are zoned coi�m ercial. The applicant is requesting a l.6 —space deviation, while the staff recommended that the off --street parking ordinance be deviated by no I).ore than 8 spaces. tkrchi%:'cct Jim Ctorelan, 39 East Ma.is Street, Los Gatos, said he studied the po ;i_n; numbers and length of stay, beginning at 3:30 A.M.. £he naxim1L,,i number or. cars was 17, 16 of which were er.iplovees. Over a one -- hour n riod, there were 20 pedestrians, 11 bicycle:-, and 2 motorcycles. MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1974 PLANNING COIIISSION MEETING PC --162 I Page 9 He said that what we have at this location is a neighborhood commercial occupancy. He believes 61 parking spaces will be sufficient. The proposed delicatessen will be a take -out -food operation. He pointed out there will be an extensive facelifting on this small shopping center, if approved. . Mr. Morelan answered Comm. Gatto that he could include a bicycle rack. Chairman U'Keefd observed that if this facility changed drastical1} the reduction of 20 parking spaces could be a hardship. Mr. Morelan said any prospective business that would consider moving in here would take a hard look at the number of parking spaces. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Adams to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 Discussion followed. It was the consensus that the benefits to be gained by the community far outweigh the problem of the reduction of parking spaces. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Cooper to approve applica- tion 23-Z-74 with the 1.4 standard conditions, and 15. That the application he approved based upon Exhibit A of 23-Z--74 and Exhibit A of 23-TJ-74, as may be modified by addi- tional conditions contained herein. - 16. That the applicant be allowed to utilize parking stall width • of 9' rather than 9' 6" in order to provide adequate landscap- ing depth. 17. That an overall sign program be developed for the shopping center including a revision to the existing free-standing shopping center sign. 18. The parking to the rear of the buildings shall be designated for employee parking only. AYES: • Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None 23-Z-74 approved Motion carried, 5-0 3—U-74 _a. p,) rov ed Cluster Ord. c')ntinued to 3 ., t;. 26th TES OF THE JULY 22, 174 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING loved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Cooper to approve application 23-U-74, subject to the 14 standard conditions and conditions 15 through 18, with deletion of condition 16 and addition of condition :19 regarding designation of rear parking for employees only. AYES: Comm. Adams, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe [DOES : None Motion carried, 5-0 Chairman O'Keefe called a recess at 10:50 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 11:03 P.M. 16. CITY OF CUPERTINO; Amendment to Ordinance 220(e), Cluster Ordinance, establishing new regulations affecting residential cluster develop- ments. First Hearing. The Associate Planner said a Zoning Ordinance Review Committee was established two years ago. Work on the cluster ordinance was started, abut other matters preempted its completion. At the present time, 5 or 6 properties are being considered for cluster developments and the ,resent ordinance -is inadequate. The duly 19, 1974 memo from the staff was reviewed. The consensus of }the Planning Comriission was that there should be the establishment of a procedure to permit the City to initiate a cluster zone. As to the relationship of the cluster ordinance to the General Plan relative to dwelling unit per acre density, the Associate Planner said th.e staff feels the ordinance should be geared directly to the General Plan. This talks about ownership units, not apartments. Comm, Adams w:u.id like to add criteria as including a slope/density formula. It was felt this could be incorporated into 2 B in the July 19th staff report. Comm. Catro said the history built up in the City should provide the specifics, and the criteria should be broad. Comm. Cooper wanted to add the term "aesthetic value" to this. As to the minimum development area, presently 5 acres, it was felt that distance between buildings should be included. As to the performance standards, it was noted that people seem to still went their privacy. iicved by Comm. Gat.to, seconded by Comm. Adams to continue discussion on Ordinance 220(e)- to August 26, 1974, Motion carried, 5-0 MINUTES 1C' i }T pt .SS.. J try NG OF 'i -iL JULY l2, 1 s';-� T ..�,Nt(IP+t: CO.�M�i� �.�itP� :__..:'I:I.v� 1'a 11 7. Lpplication 7-Z--74 Continued to August 26, 1974. 8. Application (i--Z-74 Continued. to August 26, 1974. 9. Application 9-Z-74 Continued to August 26, 1974. UNFINISHED HE SI..: SS 1.t.F�\TISz�L;) BU�1��E» 10. Discussion of Procedural Ordinance ->-- Staff not ready. NEW BUSINESS: None ENVIRONMENTAL REVIi W C0.•a-IITTEE: No report. RP'POF T OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: No report. P.P.PORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: No. report. AD.) O `R N: TENT Chairman O'Keefe adjourned the meeting at 11:35 F.M. APPROVED: LL_ Daniel P. O'Keefe Chairman ATTEST: City Clerk