Loading...
PC 04-11-88 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupenino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRil. 11, 1988 Meeting Held in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Ave. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: 7:30 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Sorensen Vice Chairman Adams Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Szabo Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Plannirtg and Development Mark Caughey, Associate Planner Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Charles Kilian, City Attorney Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 28, 1988, as presented. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: ITEM 1: Application 3-U-88 and 8-EA-88 - Ken Kay Associates - Applicant requests a continuance to the Meeting of April 25, 1988. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to Continue Application 3-U-88 and 8-EA-88 - Ken Kay Associates - to April 25, 1988, per request of the Applicant. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 2: Application 36-U-86 (Amended) and 6-EA-88 - De Anza Properties: Applicant not present; Motion to hear the Item at the end of Public Hearings. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to hear Application 36-U-87 (Amended) and 6-EA-88 - De Anza Properties at the end of Public Hearings. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of Aprilll, 1988 Page 2 PC - 541 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 3: Application No(s) 2-Z-88. 3-TM-88 and 5-EA-88 Applicant: Steve Sarayqpour Property Owner: Same Location: West side of Tula Ln.. 0l'vosite Tula Ct. Parcel Area (Acres): 0.44 net REZONING (2-Z-88) From City Rl-1O (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to City RI-7.5 (Residential, Single-family 7,500 minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. TENTATIVE MAP: (3-TM-88) To subdivide 0.44 net acres into 2 parcels with lot sizes of 17,800 sq. ft. and 9,000 sq. ft. respectively. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 2,1988 (2-Z-88) Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Item and presented Site and Zoning Maps; he noted that the rezoning and flag lot configuration were consistent with the Tula Ln. area. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Saraydpour confinned that specimen trees would be saved. The Public Hearirtg was then opened. There were no speakers. Com. Mackenzie noted concern that when on site trees were destroyed during construction penalties were sometimes viewed as insignificant to the loss of specimen and/or significant trees; Com. Claudy concurred. Issue to be agendizedfor further consideration. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy moved approval of Application 5-EA-88 (Negative Declaration) SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to recommend approval of Application 2-Z-88 subject to the conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy moved approval of Application 3- TM-88 subject to the con- clusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing. SECOND: Com. VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 11, 1988 Page 3 PC - 541 PUBLIC HEARINGS Contilnued MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to send a Minute Order stating the Commission's desire that Staff review possible courses of action in order to preserve specimen and/ or significant on-site trees during construction; Report to be submitted to the Commission. SECOND: Com Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 ITEM 4: Application No(s) 2-U-88 Applicant Good Samaritan Church Property Owner: Same Location: Southeast corner of Homestead Rd. and Linnet Ln. Parcel Area (Acres): 1.4 net USE PERMIT: (2-U-88) To construct a 5,100 sq. ft. second story addition and associated site modifications to an existing church. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application and presented aerial, Site and Building Elevation Maps; in order to ensure that an increased irttensity of use would not result from this request, Conditions of Approval were amended as follows: 11. Prior Conditions: Planning Commission Resolutions 1503 and 3094 were referenced. 12. Allowed Uses: As stated above. Com. Claudy requested information on parkirtg agreement between the Church and Vallco Village; Mr. Caughey responded that the Church had a non-exclusive right to use of the Vallco Village Parkirtg area as long as church use continued. Annlicant's Presentation: Mr. Ahmad Sobouti provided information on a roof door which would be used for access to the mechanical equipment area from the north elevation. In response to Com. Adams' question he stated that landscape screening had been reviewed by Architectura1 and Site Control Committee (ASAC) on April 4th. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: Com Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy moved approval of Application 2-U-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of Aprilll, 1988 Page 4 PC - 541 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 5: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: l-U-88 and 7-EA-88 Richard Sutherland Same North side of Peninsula Blvd. near Stevens Creek Blvd. (10022 Peninsula Blvd.) ....l Parcel Area (Acres): USE PERMIT: (I-U-88) To remodel and existing 2,600 sq. ft. building to permit office and retail activities. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 18, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the history of this site and presented a Site Map; there is no off-street parking for this buildirtg. Since this Application requested a broader range of uses (more intensive), alternatives to resolve the lack of parking and the circulation patterns on Peninsula Blvd. would have to be addressed; legal and design alternatives were presented. Com. Claudy felt that the merits of the proposal were not particularly relevant to the parking and did not feel that the City should be providing the parking required. Com. Adams concurred that the City could not dictate to the property owners a solution to the parkirtg. Com. Mackenzie favored restricting on-site uses; Com. Claudy concurred. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Ray Rooker, Architect, commented as follows: Noted an opportunity for site improvements; architectural improvements cited Difficulty of the site, i.e., buildirtg built on the lot lines and the visibility of the site Historically the Use Permit had been conditioned; examples of tenants were cited Asked that a Conditioned Use Permit be granted with Staff approval of specific tenants Applicants would participate in any decision reached regardirtg the possible abandon- ment of Peninsula Blvd. by the Oty Answered questions regardirtg the age of the building, emergency exits The Public Hearing was then opened. Dr. Brown, neighboring property owner, commented as follows: Peninsula Blvd. had been a public right-of-way for many years; property could not be reverted back to a private property owner Nor would there be any purpose in giving Peninsula Blvd. to private property owners; the existence of public utilities on this land was cited Noted the warehouse-type of uses of the site in question; such a use was acceptable Traffic on this corner could not be improved by changes to the existing area Landscapirtg improvements would not create more parkirtg Emergency access: a 6 ft. fence on top of a 3 ft. wall existed on his property Noted the cost of meeting Fire Codes on his property PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 11, 1988 Page 5 PC - 541 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Ann Anger, Monta Vista, commented as follows: - Peninsula Blvd. had been a public street since 1917 - Site had been a problem for many years Buildirtg in question had existed prior to 1945 - Cited the construction of the buildirtg, tin roof - Noted the property value and suggested that a new buildirtg be constructed on site The Public Hearing remained open. Mr. Rooker requested additional information from the Commission; he noted concern that in prior conversation, Dr. Brown had expressed no interest in improvements to the site. Mr. Kilian outlined restrictions on the site; however, he noted that the Applicant was entitled to some reasonable use thereof. Mr. Rooker requested a two week Continuance; while he recognized that a firm agreement with adjacent property owners could not be reached, their disposition irt this matter could be ascertained. He noted the time already elapsed in pursuing this Use Permit Mr. Glen Salmon, Paul and Eddie's, was not interested in the abandonment of Peninsula Blvd. by the City, with responsibility being assumed by adjacent property owners. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to Continue the Public Hearing on Application l-U-88 and 7-EA-88 to April 25, 1988, Meeting of the Planning Commission. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 ITEM 6: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 5-EXC-88 Alan Stocklmeir Alan and Barbara Stocklmeir 2225 C¡¡pertino Rd. - Northeast corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Cunertino Rd. Parcel Area (Acres): l:3LA FENCE EXCEPTION: 5-EXC-88 From Ordirtance 686, Sections 16.28.040.1 and 16.28.040.2 to permit various fence encroachments into required side yard and front yard setback areas. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application and presented a site diagram. Fencing Ordinance Exception Criteria had been met; additional criteria set by the City Council were noted. The following changes in Conditions of Approval were noted: 1. Approved Exhibits: to reference "..based on Exhibit A-I and the Staff Info Exhibit..." 2. Fence Heil!ht Setback Limitation: Second sentence to read in part, "...generally des- cribed on Exhibit A-2 as submitted by the Applicant." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 11, 1988 Page 6 PC - 541 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Stocklmeir showed the proposed placement of the fence on the site diagram; such was being requested to provide a sound and safety barrier. In response to Com. Adams' question, he stated that erosion had not been a problem. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no other speakers. Mr. Whitten confirmed that this bank was very stable and not subject to erosion. Com. Claudy stated he would abstain from voting on this Item sirtce he was unfavorable to the placement of fences on slopes; however, he could understand the Applicant's intent MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: Com Szabo moved to close the Public Hearing. Com. Adams Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Szabo moved approval of Application 5-EXC-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing; Condition 1 amend- ed to read, "based on Exhibit A-I and the Staff Info Exhibit;" Condition 2. second sentence amended to read, "...generally described on Exhibit A-2 as submitted by the Applicant" Condition 3. Com Mackenzie Passed 4-0-1 ITEM 2: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 36-U-86 (Amended) and 6-EA-88 De Anza ProDerties Same as above East side of Torre Ave.. southerlv of Stevens Creek Blvd. .8.....8. USE PERMIT (36-U-86 [Amended]) Amendment of previously approved use permit to delete a 110 unit apartment complex, and add 51 units of senior citizen housing with parkirtg garage and relocate a previously approved 45,000 sq. ft. office building. FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: Apri118, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey reviewed the Application and discussed Staff Report, Use Permit Issues, Parkin~ and Buildin~ Orientation. The following corrections noted in: IV. Zonin~ and General Plan Consistency: B. Proposed: delete "Sr. Apartments 51 Units" Amend Congregate Care to "220 Units" C. Trip Accounting: Corrected figures presented to the Commission. Staff recommended that the Use Permit Amendment be continued to allow the developer to time to address issues of concern. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April11, 1988 Page 7 PC - 541 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Claudy asked the Applicant to address benefits to be derived by the Oty from the loss of 59 Market Rate Units and the architectural benefits of revised plans; such would have to be addressed in order for him to consider approval of this Application. Finally, he questioned whether the Applicant was entitled to the 45,000 sq. ft. of office space; such was allowed irt recognition of the apartment units to be constructed. Mr. Caughey commented that the production of office space was part of a Condition on the 220 senior care units without regard to whether such was congregate or market rate units. Any units above the 220 was not tied to the 45,000 sq. ft. of office space. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. John Vidovich commented as follows: Reviewed the history of this site and noted the difficulty of the project In the original concept, the 220 units were contained in one, four story building Financing was not available for this project Commission also was concerned in that the use was so dedicated to senior use, what would happen if the use were a failure? Currently, out of the 169 units, 140 unit were already reserved The need for more congregate care units was obvious; Applicants proposed to build an additional 51 units While sufficient parking existed on-site, parking was too distant for senior users Applicants proposed additional parking located adjacent to the building irt question More units could have been built if all 220 units could be placed in one building Reviewed the design and facilities of the proposed building Objected to the City Council's imposition of the BMR program on developers who had Use Permit approval but had not yet built; he was the only developer in this category Questioned for the record the legality of such being imposed on new Use Permits Asked that the following be amended irt Conditions of Approval 13. ADproved Uses: delete "Apartments" Senior Housing to read, "220" 14. Occqpaney RCQ)1irement - A~e Restrictions: Amended as above 19. ReciDrocal Inl!ressÆl!ress: Condition already imposed on property facing Stevens Creek Blvd; it would be impracticable to impose such on the property in question Requirement for a fire road be deleted; adequate access for emergency vehicles existed Suggested that trips could be sold to Promethius Development Mr. Caughey responded that Conditions 14. Occupancy Req,µirement - A~e Restriction, 15. Parkin!! and 21. DevelQpment Phasin~ would be amended as required. With respect to a comment on Condition 18. DevelQpment Permit, he noted that this Item was a request for an amendment of a previously approved Use Permit; generally all Conditions of the prior Use Permit were stated in the Amended Use PermiL Com. Claudy stated that the Applicant had not answered his questions addressed above. Mr. Vidovich stated that residential units were being lost from the previously approved Use Permit; however, the loss of these units may not be so great if compared to earlier Permits granted. Loss of apartments was a gain in congregate care units; if additional congregate care units could be built, he would do so. The City needed congregate units. With respect to the architectural design of the Office Building, the Architect would address the Commission; he noted the constrictions of placing the building between Stevens Creek Blvd. and the congregate care facility. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 11, 1988 Page 8 PC - 541 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Adams reviewed the Amendments to this Application; he noted that residential units were beirtg decreased irt this request without a similar reduction in the commercial space. Mr. Vidovich responded with a review of the approvals and conditions imposed; he concluded that Applicants were fulfillirtg their part of the bargain. Mr. Denis Henmi, Architect, commented as follows: Presented Site and Elevation drawings for review Reviewed revised traffic circulation pattern, access and parking for the congregate care facility and office building Discussed placement of the office building between Stevens Creek Blvd. and the con- gregate care facility Com. Claudy noted the loss of architectural interest in the design of the office building and asked that if approved, landscaping be added to soften the appearance. Ms. Dale S. Gray, President of American Chateaus, commented as follows: Had been involved irt almost 30 retirement projects during the past 23 years Chateau Cupertino was settirtg records regarding reservations received before opening Noted the need for such units and asked that the Commission consider this need The City could be proud of this project The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. Com. Adams complimented the Applicant on the congregate facility proposed; such was an excellent amenity for the Oty. He was disturbed at the loss of residential units and noted that the commercial/office use was not similarly reduced. He cited the continuing need for residential space while office space went vacant; an increase irt office use would result in a demand for residential space. He noted the boxy shape of the office building proposed. Com. Mackenzie concurred with thoughts expressed by Com. Claudy; he could not see the improvement in the revisions proposed. As the Application stood, he would vote no. Com. Claudy felt that his questions had not been answered; however, the revised placement of the congregate care facility was better planned. He noted the loss of 59 apartment units which were needed; senior housing did not resolve the job/housing imbalance in the City. He concluded that housing had been lost and a less attractive architectural design presented for the office building; in addition, this site was down the street from one of the best designed office complexes irt the County--the Prometheus Development. Com. Szabo concurred regardirtg the loss of the 59 units and felt that the BMR program would also be lost; the proposed office building was a less attractive design. He would be favorable to the project if an individual or company would assure that the apartment units would be provided. He suggested that a mechanism be devised wherein the approval of the office building depended upon assurances that the apartment units would be built (not necessarily by this developer) and the BMR obligation be disposed of by in-lieu fees. Com. Claudy inteIjected that it was his understanding that the Prometheus Development would be building apartment units regardless of outcome on this Application; such would not provide additional units for the City. The intent was that apartment units additional to those already planned, be developed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of Aprilll, 1988 Page 9 PC - 541 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chr. Sorensen concurred with the above and added that she was reluctant to lose the apart- ment units; she was not favorable to the design proposed for the office building. Mr. Vidovich asked that the Commission vote on the Application and not Continue it. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Adams seconded the following Motion with the irtcorporation of a Finding that for the loss of residential use, there was no corresponding reduction of office/commercial use. Part of the incentive for an increase in the office/commercial use on a site originally planned for residential use, was the addition of the apartment units in question. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to recommend denial of Application 36-U-86 (Amended) subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing making the Findings that the proposed revisions resulted in a significant loss of the residential use originally planned, that the architectural design of the office blÙlding was significantly less attractive than the original design and that there was no corresponding reduction of office/commercial use for the loss of the apartment units. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Consensus reached that Com. Adams would attend the April 18, 1988, Meeting of the City Council to represent the Plannirtg Commission on this Application. Com. Mackenzie added to the Motion below that the traffic flow was better designed to meet the needs of the senior residents. Com. Adams noted that the locations of the additional parkirtg adjacent to the congregate care was compatible with the original design. Com. Szabo asked that if approved by the Council, the office building be reviewed by the Commission. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to send a Minute Order to Council stating that it was the understanding of the Commission that the irtcreased office/commercial use was linked to the increased residential use; the reduction in residential use did not have a corresponding reduction in the office/commercial use. The Commission noted that traffic circulation patterns were better designed to meet the needs of the senior residents; the location of additional parking adjacent to the congre- gate care facility was compatible with the original design. If this Application were approved by the Council, the Commission asked that the design of the office building be referred back to the Commission for review. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy moved approval of Application 6-EA-88 (Negative Declaration) SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 11, 1988 Page 10 PC - 541 NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 7: Application 2-GPA-88 - Prometheus Development Company - Request to amend the General Plan to allow increase of residential dwellings in City Center Development. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and presented Exhibit A. Mr. Kilian advised that the Council, Commission and Planning Director were the chief interpreters of the General Plan; an interpretation either way on intent of these schedules was legally supportable. Ap,plicant's Presentation: Mr. Mark Kroll stated that Applicants felt that their request did not require a General Plan Amendment; he cited the time constraints of waiting for the June hearing or the changes that may occur after the general election to be held in November. He reviewed the need for residential dwellings and added that residents in the first residen- tial building were working and living irt the City; such aided the jobs/housing balance and reduced traffic congestion. Mr. Cowan suggested that he compile applicable information and Report such to the Council for their review. Consensus reached that a General Plan Amendment was not required. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to send a Minute Order to Council stating that a General Plan Amendment was not required SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:35 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of April 25, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recording Secretary