Loading...
PC 10-26-92 . i� � � ' " '�'e •.C.. �!. � _.: �iiY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA � 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 26, 1992 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROI�L CALL : Commissioners Present: Chairman Fazekas i Vice Chairperson Mann Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Mahoney Commissianer Austin Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of i Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Charles Kilian, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINVPES: MOTION: Com. Mann moved to approve the minutes of June 8, 1992, I as presented. SECOND: Com. Mahoney VOTE: Passed 4-0-1 � ABSTAIN: Com. Mackenzie Com. Austin made the following correction to the Minutes of October 12, 1992: Page 1, her arrival time was 6:47 p.m. MOTION: Com. Mann moved to approve the minutes of October 12, 1992, as amended SECOND: Com. Mahoney VOTE: Passed 5-0 POSTPONIIKENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITIIKS: - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: No discussion ORAL CO1KMi7NICATIONS : Com. Mann suggested that correspondence sent to the Planning Commission be sent in advance so they can be included in the packet they receive. The Planning Comrnissioners can then review thern before the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR: - None PL�NNING COMPIISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 26, 1992 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application No(s): 3-GPA-90 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Same Project Location: Citywide ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING to continue discussion of the General Plan. Subject: Inspiration Heights. Staff Presentation: City Planner Wordell presented the staff report. She outlined the hillside protection areas and the developrnent plan in Inspiration Heights. Ms. Wordell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations as outlined in the staff report. She noted the 5-20 acre zone district was recommended to the more rural areas of the hillsides. She noted after public testimony the Planning Cornrnission requested further study to the potential development in this area. Ms. Wordell noted there are approximately 15 lots in the area which are either existing, could be certified or maybe subdividable. She stated that staff suggest a policy which states that sites with a 30% or more slope are unbuildable unless development is approved through a variance or exception process. Ms. Wordell stated there is adequate protection � to address some of the undeveloped lots in this area and reviewed the Definition of Terms, as outlined in the staff report. She stated staff suggest the following options: 1. Lots with less than 5,000 s.f. should be merged with contiguous lots if the merger criteria is met. 2. Only through a variance process can slopes of 30% or rnore be built on. Ms. Wordell stated if the Planning Commission does not select the options above, staff suggests the existing Planning Commission recommendations be applied. She stated staff is not recommending consolidation as it will only involve one lot on Cordova Road. In response to Com. Austin's question, Ms. Wordell stated there are no 5,000 s.f. lots, which stand alone, in this area. Com. Mackenzie asked if the R1-10 area is rezoned to RHS does this prohibit lot line adjustments? City Attorney Kilian stated a lot line adjustment is a ministerially act done by the Public Works Department and only reflects adjusting of lot lines where there is no discretion. He noted it does not necessarily mean that building would be allowed on the lots. He stated under the current General Plan lots of record are recognized, therefore lot line adjustments would be approved autornatically and building could occur on the lots as they stand now. He stated the lot line adjustment, certificate of PLA�'tiJNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 26, 1992 Page 3 compliance and mergers are related to the Subdivision Map Act and does not regulate building on the lots. Regarding the Merger Definition, City Attorney Kilian suggested the language not be limited to just lots less than 5, 000 s. f., but lots should be merged if they meet the merger criteria. Mr. Kilian reviewed the merger criteria as outlined in exhibit C of the staff report. He clarified that if there is two lots under the same ownership, only one lot has to meet the merger criteria. � Mr. Cowan suggested adding slope stability to the findings. In response to Com. Mann's question, City Attorney Kilian stated the subdivision Map Act requires Cities and Counties to recognize existing lots of record for subdivision purposes. He stated when � development occurs the Subdivision Map Act is not applicable, but is under the zoning and General Plan of the City. He noted most cities do not recognize lots of record for building purposes. He stated the Planning Commission may need to establish an exception process, strictly for the hillsides. City Attorney Kilian reviewed the Certificates of Compliance. He 1 noted the City has very little discretion on whether to issue a Certificate of Compliance. He stated a Certificate of Compliance only applies to the Subdivision Map Act. There are two different i Certificates of Compliance, one being a Certificate of Compliance and the second being a Conditional Certificate of Compliance. He stated the Certificate of Compliance applies to lots which were created legally several years ago, and a Conditional Certificate of Compliance applies to lots which were created illegally. He noted in both cases the City does not have an option, but must issue a Certificate of Compliance and a Conditional Certificate of Compliance. He stated the Conditional Certificate of Compliance is issued with conditions which would be imposed on the property owner, if it were to develop. If the owner of the property is a bona fide purchaser, the conditions which can be imposed are those conditions which would have been in existence when the previous owner bought the property. If the property is owned by the person who created the lots illegally the laws says that the current conditions can be applied. He feels the City should adopt a hearing process when dealing with a Conditional Certificate of Compliance, because neighbors are being affected. City Attorney Kilian reviewed Policy 2-50. He stated lots, regardless if they meet size and slope density criteria for development, will be allowed to be developed in the hillsides, except for those areas which are substantially vacant or non- improved small lots which were recorded many years ago without adequate field investigations. Chr. Fazekas opened the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 26, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Don Deal, Inspiration Heights, stated he owns property within Inspiration Heights which is below 3% grade. He requested the Planning Commission not study this area. He noted, although this is the third meeting regarding this item, he was only notified once. Chr. Fazekas stated that Mr. Deal's property is outside the study area. Mr. Deal stated staff should walk the sites to determine which ones are hillside lots. He stated flag lots should be allowed. Mr. Deal noted there are four homes on his property and they have never had a mud slide or damage from earthquakes. Mr. Richard Gracia, 10545 Cordova Road, stated the map he received from the City shows 18 lots in this area. Mr. Garcia noted he owns nine of these Iots. He outlined an error on the City map, noting that one of the lots is 19,000 s.f. He stated the lots are landscaped and do have sewer and utility access. He stated the nine lots do show up as separate assessors parcels. Mr. Gracia submitted copies of the map to the Commission. Mr. Peter Biance stated he owns property in the undeveloped area. He noted Policy Z-50 makes lots unbuildable. He feels this area in question is a poor area to start the green belt. He stated there are many property owners affected by the changes proposed. He suggested getting the property owners together to decide what to do with the undeveloped property. Mr. Dennis West, Cordova Road, reviewed the recommendations from residents presented to the City Council. He noted 33 people signed a petition requesting the Hillside Protection Policies be applied to this area. He spoke in favor of the variance process for a lot line adjustment. Mr. West addressed traffic on Cordova Road as well as health and safety issues. He also addressed the citizens recommendations to the City Council as outlined in the petition submitted. Mr. West noted if more homes are to be developed the roads and storm drains will have to be improved prior to developrnent. Ms. Barbara West, Cordova Road, outlined the area under study. She expressed concern about safety on Cordova Road and noted one part of the road is just over 9 feet and two cars could not pass each other. She stated the issue of safety on the access roads and neighbors should be considered, as well as stability of lots. She stated if development is allowed in the area the roads should meet City standards. Ms. West address mud slides and stated there are no storm drains on the upper side of Cordova Road. She stated many individuals who live in the study area are concerned about further development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Reqular Meeting of October 26, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Steven Haze, San Juan Road, presented a transparency outlining the study area. He expressed concern about developrnent on slopes with a 30� grade or more. Mr. Haze questioned the merger process. City Attorney Kilian stated the merger process only allows for mergers sufficient to create legal lots. It does not allow for further merger. Mr. Haze stated staff's recommendations do not address substandard � lots in a geological area. He suggested reviewing 1-GPA-84 ' regarding substandard lots. He stated in the R1-10 area there is potential for lots less than 10,000 s.f. He expressed concern about the irnpact on neighbors in the area if developrnent is allowed. He noted improvements to the road must be made before deveiopment can occur. He requested that the Planning Comrnission apply the Hillside Protection Policies to all properties recognized as being in the hillsides. He commended the Planning Cornmission and staff for discussing the issues. Mr. Dave Severin, 22582 San Juan Road, questioned how the 5-20 acre can be applied to this area when there are no lots of five acres. He stated the storm drains the City installed are inadequate. In response to Chr. Fazekas' question, Ms. Wordell stated part of the Severin property is in the Foothill Modified Slope Density � formula (.28 acre minimum), and part is in the one half acre (.5 minimum). Ms. Loretta Stagin, 22820 San Juan Road, stated her family bought this property many years ago. She expressed concern about her property being merged in 1983 by the City of Cupertino. She stated the average slope of her property is 23.4� and is 3.31 acres. City Attorney Kilian stated in 1983 the laws where such that the 5,000 s.f. limitation did not exist so that Cities and Counties merged lots that were inconsistent with the General Plan. He stated the property owner needs to re-subdivide to get the three lots back. Ms . Ann Anger, Empire Ave ., stated that the 5, 000 s. f. minimum does � not fit into this area. Mr. Henry Severin, 22750 San Juan Road, expressed concern about this process . He stated they should use the same system as before . Mr. Dean Seir, Stevens Canyon Road, addressed the houses built on McClelland Road on the horseshoe curve. He stated the slopes are practically vertical. He stated there should be consideration given to people who have owned property for many years in this area. He suggested this property be considered on a case by case basis. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 26, 1992 Page 6 Chr. Fazekas closed the public hearing. Com. Mahoney stated he is in support of staff's recommendations, with the exception of the 5,000 s.f. minimum. Mr. Kilian stated State law states that lots over 5, 000 s. f. cannot be merged. Ms. Wordell stated the R1 Ordinance could be amended to address slopes 30a or greater. Com. Austin spoke in support of staff recommendations. She stated health and safety standards need to be met. Ms. Wordell stated that additional road dedication and storm drains would be required if development occurred. City Attorney Kilian stated for the City to be legally responsible for the roads they must be offered for dedication and accepted by the City. He stated there has to be a resolution to bring thern into the road system, or the City has to make improvements to the roads. He also noted that safety measures and improvements would be addressed at the building permit stage. He stated a statement could be added to the General Plan stating that there would be no development in the hillsides unless there was adequate provision in the building perrnit to address roads and storrn drains. Com. Mackenzie spoke in favor of the hearing process for the Conditional Certificate of Compliance. He noted this needs to be added to the General Plan. He suggested anything which does not meet zoning requirements is not buildable unless a variance is obtained. Mr. Kilian stated staff is only recommending a variance for the 30� slope or greater. He also stated that a specific plan for the area dealing with specific sites and roadway criteria can be established to address public concern. He noted he is not suggesting a case by case basis. Com. Mahoney suqgested a case by case basis for this study area. There was a consensus of the Commission that lots with a 30� slope or greater are not buildable unless a variance is obtained. This is recommended for the entire General Plan. Com. Mann spoke in support of staff recommendations, but requested removing the words "Existing legal lots..." The Commissioners discussed the Health & Safety issues. Ms. Wordell stated this should be addressed during the building permit review stage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meetinq of October 26, 1992 Page 7 Com. Mackenzie suggested a public hearing for every undeveloped lot in the study area. Chr. Fazekas spoke in favor of staff recommendations with a modification to the Existing lots of record. City Attorney Kilian suggested the following wording for existing lots of record "Existing legal lots are not considered buildable if development is proposed on slopes greater than 30% or in any other areas in Inspiration Heights which further study demonstrates potential for health & safety and welfare problems . Any such areas will only be allowed development through an exception process." There was a consensus to support the City Attorney's Ianguage. � REPORT OF THE PLANNING COI�ISSION: - None REPORT OF DIRECi'OR OF CO1�II�JNITY DEVELOPIKENT : - None � DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: � - None � ADJOURNIKENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission , adjourned at 9:55 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of November 9, 1992 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C M• � Catherine M. Robi lard, Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission � at the Regular Meeting of November 9, I992 Daryl Faze as, C airman Attest: /s/ Doroth Cornelius Dorot y Corne ius, City Cler