Loading...
PC 03-11-92 , �' > CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINU'PES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMI�4ISSION HELD t�N MARCH 11, 199 2 �� ROLL CALL: � Commissioners Present: Chairman Fazekas Vice Chairperson Mann Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Mahoney Commissioner Austin Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of � Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works � Cheryl Kershner, Deputy City Attorney r ORAL COMMiJNICATIONS: ` - None 1. APPLICATION 3-GPA-90 - GITY OF CUPERTINO: ADJOURNED PUBLIG � HEARING to continue discussion of the General Plan: Subjects are Land Use, Monta Vista, Hillsides, Housing, Transportation, Public services and Utilities. Staff Presentation: City Planner Wordell noted the discussion at this hearing will be Hillsides, Land Use and Housing. She noted included in the staff report are recommendations from other Commissions regarding the topics of discussion. HILLSIDES: � Com. Mackenzie sugqested that the Commissioners make a decision as � to where the hillside line should be drawn. r � Com. Mahoney sugqested defining the hillside policy and then � drawing the line. City Planner Wordell stated that all the County unincorporated areas in the hillsides are at least 20 acre minimum. Regarding the I clustering of homes and undeveloped portions of a subdivision which would not allow public access, policies have been included to provide public access to the undeveloped portions through trail easements. Com. Mackenzie stated the trail easements would not preclude the public, but would not necessarily include the public either. Ms. Wordell pointed out the urban service line on the city map. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of March 11, 1992 Page 2 She noted there are areas east of the line which are subject to the hillside slope density formula, but it may be awkward applying this formula to developed areas. The Comrnissioners looked at the model of the h.illside areas. Corn. � Mackenzie =:�utlined where he drew the hillside line. The Commissioners discussed this. Com. Austin did not want the line removed. Com. Mackenzie suggested following the 10 percent slope and separating the Seminary Property. Com. Mahoney stated the five acre minimum for the Seminary property is not appropriate. � I Com. Mann expressed concern regarding traffic congestion, if large development occurred. She stated the environmental and visual issues will be impacted also. She stated the EIR will determine � how many units are appropriate. � Com. Mahoney suggested discussing the General Hillside Policy and dealing with the Seminary property at a different time. The Commissioners went through the Hillsides General Plan Policies and voted on each item, not taking the Seminary Property into consideration: EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD Policy: Develop standards which provide for maximum hillside protection while allowing for a reasonable use of property. These policies should, among other things, require adjacent properties under the same ownership to consolidate lots for purposes of developrnent. 5-0 � Strategy: The number of potential lots shall be determined by using the slope density formula as of February 4, 1992. 4-1. 1 (Fazekas No) Com. Mackenzie stated he would favor the slope density and � suggested that.both developed and undeveloped property be merged. URHAN SERVICE AREA Policy: The current urban service area shall not be expanded. The intent of this policy is to limit future development to lands within the existing urban service area. 5-0 Strategy: Request that the Local Agency Formation Commission remove Cupertino's Sphere of Influence boundary, which indicates areas planned for long-term growth needs. 4-1 (Fazekas No) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of March 11, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Cowan stated the County's policy will force development into . cities. � Chr. Fazekas suggested moving the Urban Service Line to meet the � � Sphere of Inf luence Line . . ' Com. Mackenzie expressed concern about giving the County control of the land. SANTA CLARA COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS Policy: Hillsides policies found in the Santa Clara County General Plan in effect in 1992 are incorporated into the Cupertino General � Plan by reference. These policies are incorporated because they are consistent with hillside protection goals. If changes are proposed in the County plan which are inconsistent with the City's hillside protection goals, then the City should protest those � changes as well as not incorporate them into the City's General Plan. 5-0. � ( DENSITY Policy: Apply a slope density formula to low intensity development in the hillsides. Density shall be calculated based on a 5-20 acre slope density formula, with a minimum size of 5 acres. Actual lot sizes and development areas will be determined through clustering and identification of significant natural features. 5-0. Ms. Wordell pointed out the change areas and noted the current slope density formulas. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, Ms. Wordell stated, if using the 5 acre slope density proposed, the number of potential units would go down from approximately 300 to 70 in the hillsides. She noted the new formula cannot be applied � to existing lots. � Mr. Cowan outlined the existing slope density for hillsides. { � Com. Mackenzie stated the policy is very restrictive. � i Com. Austin stated she would support the policy. Com. Fazekas stated he supports the 5 acres, but does not think it ► should go as high as 20 acres. Com. Mahoney and Com. Mann spoke in support of the policy. Com. Mann expressed concern regarding large trucks and emergency vehicles traveling up the steep roads. At this time the Commissioners decided to defer clustering to the � end of the discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of March 11, 1992 Page 4 DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION STANDARDS Policy: Establish stricter building and development standards for � the hillside area which, among other things, would provide that � views of the ridgelines remain unobstructed and would require that . designs and material for homes and other structures blend with the natural hillside environment. 5-0 Com. Mackenzie stated that maybe the ridgelines should not be so restrictive and feels a one story home that blends into the hillside would be acceptable. Com. Mahoney stated it is a silhouette issue. LOCATION OF STRUCTURES � Policy: No structures shall be located on ridgelines if visible from established and newly established valley floor vantage points, unless it is determined that greater environmental impacts occur if structures are located elsewhere. 4-1 (Mann No) . Strategy: Amend the RHS ordinance to state that the structures shall not penetrate the silhouette of the ridgelines as viewed from the established valley floor vantage points. Consider adding new vantage points. 5-0. Com. Austin requested a map outlining the vantage points. ARCHITECTURE Policy: Colors and materials of roofs and walls shall blend with the natural environment. 5-0. . Policy: Effective visible mass shall be reduced through such means i as stepping structures down the hillside, following the natural contours, limiting the height and mass of the wall plane facing the valley floor. 5-0. Strategy: Incorporate color, materials and height requirements into the RHS ordinance. 5-0. HEIGHT Policy: The maximum height of a structure shall be 25 feet. Height shall be determined by establishing a hypothetical line at the maxirnurn building height parallel to the natural grade or finished grade, whichever elevation creates a lower building profile. Limit height of downhill elevations. 5-0. Strategy: Amend the RHS ordinance to change the height � requirements. 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meetinq of March 11, 1992 Page 5 Chr. Fazekas stated the overall height should be limited. Com. Mackenzie stated the ordinance should require the following: limits on the height above natural grade; limits on overall height; i and lirnits to control the rnassing from the valley floor. SLOPES Policy: No structures or improvements shall occur on slopes greater than 30�. 5-0. Strategy: Amend the RHS ordinance to include this requirement. 5-0. � Ms. Wordell stated this is more restrictive than ordinances in othe� communities. i GRADING Policy: Follow natural land contour and use methods alternative to mass grading in new construction, especially in flood hazard or ( hillside areas. Grading large flat yard areas shall be avoided. 5-0. Policy: Be sure that natural land forms and significant plants and trees are disturbed as little as possible during development. Al1 cuts and fill shall be rounded to natural contours and planted with natural landscaping. 5-0. Strategy: Amenc3 the RHS ordinance to include the two new requirements. Specify a maximum quantity of allowed cut.and fill to help define an acceptable grading quantity. 5-0. � NATURAL RESOURCES ' Policy: Retain creek beds, riparian corridors, water courses and � associated vegetation in their natural state to protect wildlife � and recreation potential and assist ground water percolation. i 5-0. Policy: Provide trail linkages within and between properties for both recreational and wildlife activities, most specifically for � the benefit of wildlife which is threatened, endangered, or designated as species of special concern. 5-0. Strategy: Amend the RHS ordinance to require identification of creeks and water courses on site plans and reguire that structures be located a certain distance from them to provide adequate protection. The ordinance could state that trail easements for trail linkages may be required if analysis c3etermines that they are needed. 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of March 11, 1992 Page 6 Com. Mahoney stated that trails are not necessarily good for wildlife and this is being debated in South County. Ms. Wordell stated that passages for the wildlife are not being blocked. LANDSCAPING Policy: Landscaping Near Natural Vegetation: Emphasize drought tolerant native plants and ground covers when landscaping properties near natural vegetation, particularly for control of erosion from disturbance to natural terrain. 5-0. Policy: Minimize lawn area. Maximum the number of native trees. 5-0. Strategy: Amend the RHS ordinance to emphasize drought tolerant native plants and minimal lawn area and maximize the number of new trees. 5-0. FENCING Policy: Hillside Property Fencing: Confine fencing on hillside property to the area around a buildinq, rather than around the entire site, to allow for migration of wild animals. 5-0. Strategy: (The current RHS ordinance restricts solid fencing to 5,000 s.f. for lots greater than 3Q,000 s.f. Open fencing is unrestricted.except for the front yard area.) Limit solid fencing to 5, 000 s. f. on lots greater than 20 , 000 s. f. Limit open fencing to a 1/2 acre area. . Com. Austin stated there should be a height restriction on fences and the fencing should be around the house only. , Com. Mann stated fencinq needed to fence in animals would be acceptable. Com. Mackenzie suggested 3 ft. high fences of natural colors. Ms. Wordell suggested limiting the fencing to the five acre minimum. i Com. Mann stated if each property owner was required to fence 20 ft. within the property line, there would be a corridor between properties for wildlife. Com. Mackenzie stated there would be openings in the fences for wildlife and he would support limiting the height and color. Chr. Fazekas suggested an alternative to the Strategy: Amend the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of March 11, 1992 Page 7 RHS ordinance to limit the amount of solid and open fencing to provide for aesthetics, migration of wild animals and trail linkages. � Com. Mahoney suqgested changing the policy to say limit the fencing on hillside properties to allow for the migration of wild animals. LIGHTING Policy: Outdoor lighting should be low intensity and shielded so as not to be visible off-site. 5-0. Strategy: Amend the RHS ordinance to require that the type and ( location of new outdoor lighting be shown on building plans and be required to conform to the above policy. 5-0. The Commissioners addressed Com. Austin's check list which she � presented at a previous hearing. The Commissioners discussed limiting house size, it was agreed not to set a limit at this time. Corn. Austin noted she would iike a I limit between 4,000 - 6,000 s.f. CLUSTERING Policy: Residential development of lots over 5 acres shall be clustered, reserving 90a of the land in private open space to protect the hillsides frorn adverse environmental irnpacts. The clustered homes shall not have lots of less than one-half acre in size. Strategy: Change the RHS ordinance to include this requirement. Require that significant natural features, such as.vegetation, � slopes over 30%, creeks and water courses, faults, landslides be shown so that the area for clustered development can be determined. ' Require an open space easement or an open space zoning district on I the 90o undeveloped area. i Chr. Fazekas and Com. Mahoney are not in support of the policy at this time. Com. Mann stated less grading will be required with this policy. ( She stated the clustering would work on 100-200 acre parcels. Com. Mackenzie feels the grading gives a lot of control. Com. Mahoney stated cluster.ing is good on some parcels, but not on others. Com. Mackenzie concurred. The Commissioners discussed the County policies regarding clustering. PLANNING COMMISSION HINUTES Special Meeting of March 11, 1992 Page 8 Com. Mackenzie stated that clustering encourages land banking. He suggested modifying the ordinance to allow the concept of clustering. Chr. Fazekas suggested deleting the clustering provision and encourage building on the best site of the lot with as little grading as possible. Com. Mann suggested encouraging clustering. Ms. Wordell stated when encouraging, property owners will not do the clustering. She stated clustering will avoid some roads having to be constructed. Chr. Fazekas, Com. Austin and Com. Mahoney spoke in favor of the County Policy with a 20-80 development/non-development policy. The Cornmissioners took a vote on the following: Clustering for large developments of 5 acres and over. 4-1 (Mackenzie No) 20 percent of the land for developrnent, 80 �ercent for private open space. 4-1 (Austin No) In hillside areas, gross area shoulcl be calculated on the existing parcel only, not including driveways. 3-2 (Mann, Austin No) In response to Com. Mahoney's question, regarding a hillside ordinance, Chr. Fazekas reiterated the criteria for such an ordinance. The Commissioners discussed the hillside line as presented by Corn. Mackenzie at a previous hearing. Chr. Fazekas presented his view of the hillside line and the Commissioners discussed this. Com. Mahoney stated the hillside ordinance should apply• to the areas which are impacted by the issues they have discussed. He does not feel that.development on the Seminary Property will have as much impact as development in other hillside areas. Com. Austin stated it will impact transportation. Com. Mackenzie reiterated reasons for having a hillside ordinance. He noted everythinq above 10 percent grade is on a steep hill. He stated most of the seminary property is not above 10 percent grade, but some of the hillside ordinance will apply. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of March 11, 1992 Page 9 . Com. Mahoney feels that the City needs to create a separate ordinance for the seminary property. Com. Mann stated she would like to see the seminary property '� protected, but many issues in the hillside ordinance do not apply to this property. I . It was a consensus of the Commission to have staff draft a modified hillside ordinance to deal with the seminary property. Com. Mackenzie stated he would like to consider the 10 percent slope line in the modified hillside ordinance. � The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Sobrato, Sobrato Development, asked where the hillside line is? I The commissioners discussed this and decided more discussion needs I to be held on this issue. � In response to Mr. Sobrato's question, Ms. Wordell stated "special concern" is a term used by the Parks & Recreation Commission and is ' an established definition. � Mr. Sobrato stated that Cristo Rey operates at LOS C even with an additional 480 units. Ms. Kindel Blau stated the traffic study Mr. Sabrato refers to is old and needs to be reviewed. She suggested looking into the guidelines of the Creeks Task Force Coalition of Santa Clara County regarding creeks. She stated Permanente Creek, on the diocese property, jumped its banks approximately 50 ft. after the rains. � She stated setbacks ne�d to be considered. Regarding clustering, Ms. Blau asked if the market forces would take care of the � clustering. 1 � Com. Fazekas stated it would not. � In response to Chr. Fazekas' question, Ms. Blau stated she would rather see development in the flat lands as opposed to hillsides. She also stated that more and more people are using Rancho San r Antonio Park, regardless of the parking situation. Ms. Wordell stated the County is doing a master plan for the park and the parking is limited. Mr. Bob Summers, stated he is on the Task Force for the Parks Planning and they have not come up with the number of parking spaces which will be required. He noted the Task Force is dealing with after hours parking. He stated single family homes do PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of March 11, 1992 Page 10 generate more traffic. He stated in terms of cancellation of the Williamson Act, notice has been given and confirmed twice by the County. Ms. Diane Moreno Ikeda, FAIR, stated it is a good idea to look at the Seminary Property separately. She outlined some of the areas throughout tre City which were under the Williamson Act. She noted . the Williamson Act has never been asked to be canceled and refused. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:10 P.M. to the next Special Meeting of March 18, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, � �� ,� _ ,� �..�� �' Catherine M. Robillard, Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of March 25, 1992 /s/ Daryl Fazekas Dary Faze as, C airman Attest: /s/ Dorothy Cornelius � Dorot y Cornelius, Ci y C erk i I �