Loading...
PC 08-23-1993 CITY 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 AUGUST 23, 1993 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Austin Vice Chairperson Mahoney Commissioner Doyle Commissioner Roberts Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Bautista Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner II Tom Robillard, Planner II Colin Jung, Associate Planner Charles Kilian, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approve the minutes of July 26, 1993, as presented. SECOND: Com. Roberts VOTE: Passed 4 -0 -1 ABSENT: Com. Bautista MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the minutes of August 9, 1993, as presented. SECOND: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4 -0 -1 ABSENT: Com. Bautista POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - No Discussion ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None CONSENT CALENDAR: - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application No: 6 -U -93 Applicant: Imwalle /Stegner Property Owner: Homestead II Assoc. Location: 19998 Homestead Rd. USE PERMIT for a delicatessen in an existing shopping center. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report noting the request is to occupy 855 sq. ft. of an existing 4,934 sq. ft. commercial building. She stated a traffic study was completed and is consistent with ':he extraordinary use policy. She noted staff recommends approval. In response to Commissioners questions Ms. Bjurman stated the traffic survey was completed on a similar use. She also noted the proximity to residents is approximately 100 feet. Chr. Austin opened the public hearing. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Houshang Shabestar, 4208 Queensboro, Union City, stated he is currently operating a deli in Los Altos and wants to move the operation 1 :o Cupertino. Mr. Rick Shaffer, 1181 Fairview Ave., San Jose, representing Imwalle /Stegner, noted he will answer any questions of the Commission. Mr. Shaffer noted the hours of operation in surrounding businesses. Chr. Austin closed the public hearing. MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve application 6 -U -93, subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. SECOND: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4 -0 -1 ABSENT: Com. Bautista 2. Application No(s): 81,004.3 and 4 -EA -93 (RHS) Residential Hillside Ordinance Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide An Ordinance of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 19.09, Residential Hillside Zones (RHS) and Title 18 (Subdivisions) of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report. He reviewed the major areas of implementation for the Hillside Protection Policies of the General Plan, as outlined in the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Page 3 WATERCOURSE PROTECTION Planner Robillard noted staff suggested a 50 foot setback from the top of creek bank or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. He stated the only development which could occur without discretionary review are two existing lots along Regnart Creek. He stated both the building pads are approximately 300 ft. away from the creek. He noted if larger than a 50 ft. set back is required it may cause greater environmental impacts due to increased grading. In response to Com. Roberts question regarding the "100 year event ", Planner Robillard noted the General Plan policy requires new development to occur one foot above the flood plain. In response to Com. Roberts question regarding previous discussion about protection of potential riparian vegetation, City Planner Wordell stated this wording is under hillside subdivisions. She noted this does not apply to existing single family lots. Ms. Wordell noted potential riparian vegetation will be protected through an environmental analysis which would be required through CEQA. Ms. Wordell noted staff will make this requirement more explicit in the ordinance. Com. Doyle suggested that the requirement of 50 ft. from the drip line of the vegetation be more explicit in the ordinance. CLUSTERING Planner Robillard noted the major concern of the Commission was which clustering concept would be applicable and legal. He noted after discussing this issue with the City Attorney, all concepts would be appropriate. He noted staff's recommendation is for option 2 or 3 because the remaining 90% can be zoned for open space. City Attorney Kilian stated from a legal standpoint all three options would be appropriate. He noted a conservation easement or a permanent dedication of development rights to the City would protect the open space. Chr. Austin opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Bruner, 1144 Derbyshire Dr., stated it is important that all options be left open. He noted there will be certain areas were it is appropriate to have the open space preserve, and other areas were it is appropriate to have larger lots with conservation easements. Rev. Michael Mitchell, Diocese of San Jose, stated the Commission needs to be careful that the Hillside Ordinance is not too restrictive. He expressed concern about using the word PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Page 4 "potential ", he believes there is no definition to this word. He concurs with the 50 ft. setback from the riparian corridor, as recommended by staff. The Commissioners spoke in favor of recommending all three clustering options. In response to Com. Roberts question regarding private open space easements, Planner Robillard stated there are private open space easements on Regnart Ridge subdivision with no substantial encroachments. City Planner Wordell noted wording changes will be made for clarification. EXCEPTION PROCESS Planner Robillard reviewed the findings for the exception process as outlined in the staff report with the addition of number 7. He stated staff recommends that the Director of Community Development hold a public hearing for an exception. He added appeals will go through the Planning Commission. Chr. Austin stated the exception process should go through the Planning Commission. Chr. Austin opened the public hearing. Ms. Barbara West, 10670 Cordova Rd., addressed the exception process and noted this process should go through the Planning Commission. Ms. West presented slides and reviewed the background of Inspiration Heights. She expressed concern about the health and safety of residents as a result of more development. She noted the City Council went on a tour of Inspiration Heights and listened to substantial concerns of the residents. Ms. West stated at a meeting following this tour the City Council made a motion that any development should go before the Planning Commission and requested the wording be modified in the ordinance to reflect this. Planning Director Cowan stated if the exception process goes through the Planning Director it is the same process, but less formal. He believes this will be a shorter process. Mr. Charles Williams, 22770 Mercedes Rd., expressed concern about the exception and variance process. He stated it was the City Council's intention that this be a Planning Commission review. He stated any development in Inspiration Heights affects many people. He spoke in favor of Planning Commission review for the exception process. Com. Mahoney feels the exceptions are significant and should be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Page 5 reviewed by the Planning Commission. Both Commissioners Doyle and Roberts concurred. AVOIDANCE OF GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Planner Robillard stated that staff recommends retaining the existing geologic protection procedures in the RHS Ordinance which are sufficient to identify and mitigate any potential geologic hazards. He stated the General Plan identifies potential geological hazard areas. The Commission agreed with staff recommendation. RIDGELINE VISIBILITY Planner Robillard reviewed the two options as follows: 1. The development of new independent structures shall not disrupt a view angle of 15% from the top of a prominent ridge as described in appendix A. Should this requirement cause undue hardship, an exception may be applied for as prescribed in the exception section. 2. The development of new independent structures shall be prohibited within 20 vertical feet of a prominent ridgeline as described in appendix A. Should this requirement deprive the property owner of reasonable economic use of land an exception may be applied for as prescribed in the exception section. Planner Robillard stated staff prefers option 1, but either option is workable. Com. Roberts noted he prefers option 1, but expressed concern about enforcing this. In response to Com. Doyle's question regarding option one, specifically "new independent structures ", Planner Robillard stated a person could add on to an existing structure, if the matter is not made worse than it already is. Planner Robillard stated option 1 can be made clearer, that additions to existing structures can not make the situation worse than it is. He stated staff will come back with options for addressing extensions to existing structures. LOCATION OF STRUCTURES Planner Robillard stated staff believes that the existing first floor setbacks are sufficient. He noted slope density, grading, location to prominent ridgelines and relationship to riparian corridors will also be considered. He stated the existing setbacks PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Page 6 allow flexibility for the location of the structure. The Commission agreed with staff's recommendation. REDUCING VISIBLE MASS AND BUILDING HEIGHTS Height: Planner Robillard stated staff proposes to reduce the height to 30 ft. and change the definition of height. Mr. Robillard reviewed the changes as outlined in the staff report. Second Story Setbacks: Planner Robillard stated the proposed second story setbacks will be measured from the first floor as opposed to the property line. Mr. Dennis West, 10670 Cordova Rd., stated many homes affected by the second story setbacks are existing homes that may want to add a second story. He stated with the 20 ft. depth rule, this does not leave room for additions. He added setbacks should be from the property line for additions. Mr. Mory Nelsen, 21801 Stevens Creek Blvd., addressed the 30 ft. height limitation. He stated with the additional setback there may be no room for additions. He spoke in favor of setbacks being measured from the property line. Mr. Charles Williams concurred with Mr. Nelsen and noted the setback restrictions would prevent many people from adding a second story. He spoke in favor of measuring the setbacks from the property line. Planner Robillard stated the intent of the second story setbacks is to reduce the visible mass. He noted it would be workable to reduce the uphill setback to 10 ft. Com. Mahoney spoke in favor of the 10 ft. downhill setback and eliminating the 5 ft. uphill setback. Com. Roberts stated the intent and spirit of the ordinance is to follow the natural grade. The Commissioners briefly discussed the setback options. Mr. Dennis West stated many of the existing homes in the hillside areas are 22 ft. deep and the proposed setbacks will eliminate a second story. Com. Mahoney and Com. Doyle spoke in favor of a 10 ft. downhill setback and eliminating the 5 ft. uphill setback. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Page 7 Chr. Austin and Com. Roberts spoke in favor of the 15 ft. downhill setback and eliminating the 5 ft. uphill setback. Planner Robillard stated eliminating the 5 ft. setback on the uphill side, could result in a large flat elevation. Planner Robillard stated he will return with the options when a full Commission is present. Roof and Building Forms: Planner Robillard reviewed the proposed RHS ordinance amendment regarding roof and building forms as outlined in the staff report. Color & Materials: Planner Robillard stated staff recommends the use of natural earthtone colors and minimizing the use of stucco. He noted there will be a clause that the ordinance can be interpreted by the Planning Director which can be appealed to the Planning Commission. Chr. Austin expressed concern about earthtones. Mr. Dennis West addressed minimizing the use of stucco. He noted stucco is one of the easiest materials to maintain and is also fire safe. Mr. Mory Nelsen concurred with Mr. West. He noted the only structures which survived the Oakland Hills fire were stucco homes. He noted stucco can be architecturally pleasing. Mr. Mike Bruner stated stucco, used in the right way, can look very good. He stated the colors should be defined more. He suggested using a reflectivity standard. Planner Robillard stated staff is concerned about being too strict with regards to color, as every person wishing to paint their house would have to have the color reviewed by the planning staff. Com. Mahoney spoke in favor of eliminating "minimizing stucco ". He noted more work is needed on the color requirement. Planner Robillard stated he will come back with more wording for the color requirement. Building Size: Planner Robillard stated staff recommends a cap of 45% FAR or up to 6500 sq. ft. He noted an exception can be filed if a larger home is requested. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Page 8 In response to Mr. West's question, Mr. Robillard stated the net lot area is all the area within the property lines. The Commission agreed with staff's recommendation. OUTDOOR LIGHTING Planner Robillard reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment as outlined in the staff report. He stated the intent is to avoid high intensity lighting. Rev. Mitchell expressed concern about limiting outdoor lighting for tennis courts, when the City is requiring 5 -20 acre lots. He stated there should be a requirement that lighting should be designed to minimize off -site intrusion. The Commission agreed to leave the proposed amendment as presented by staff. GRADING Planner Robillard stated staff is recommending that the grading be limited to 2500 cubic yards, balanced between cut and fill. He also noted that a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. of flat yard area may be graded. Planner Robillard added 2500 cubic yards is what various other cities require. Mr. Mory Nelsen stated the balancing of the cut and fill should be left up to the property owner. He stated 2500 cubic yards is not abnormal for a five acre site. He recommended making the grading subject to a grading ordinance. He stated balancing between cut and fill is desirable, but should not be a requirement. City Planner Wordell stated the balancing between cut and fill will reduce the number of truck trips from the property. Mr. Craig Clark, 21845 Hermosa Ave., expressed concern about too many restrictions. He asked if adding a basement is included in the 2500 cubic yard requirement? He stated grading should not be restricted if the City does not want visible mass. He stated more restrictions cause more damage to the general public and is also more expensive. He stated the Commission should consider making the hillside zoning PD and design every lot specifically. Mr. Mike Bruner stated the word "balancing" is not appropriate in the case of a basement or putting the home more into the hill. He noted the maximum 1,000 sq. ft. flat yard area may be too stringent. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Page 9 Rev. Mitchell stated they are currently involved in developing 14 lots in the Evergreen area. He stated grading for the development is approximately 70,000 cubic yards and noted that 2500 cubic yards is not an excessive amount. He added the decision to remove the dirt will be an economic decision. Chr. Austin spoke in favor of eliminating the 2500 cubic yards. She noted balancing between cut and fill should be encouraged. The 1000 sq. ft. flat yard area is acceptable. Com. Doyle spoke in favor of the 1,000 sq. ft. flat yard area and the balancing of the cut and fill should be an economic decision. He stated some restrictions are needed on the amount of grading, but does not have a specific amount. Com. Mahoney spoke in favor of the 2500 cubic yards, eliminate the word "balance" and the 1,000 sq. ft. flat yard space is acceptable. Com. Roberts stated restrictions are needed for the amount of grading allowed and agreed with the 2500 sq. ft. maximum amount of grading. He feels the balancing can cause more harm than good. Planner Robillard stated he will bring back examples of grading plans which will demonstrate the amount of grading required. VIEWS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES Planner Robillard reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment as outlined in the staff report. Com. Mahoney stated the strategy does not match the policy. City Planner Wordell stated a General Plan amendment is needed to make the wording more consistent. PROTECTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION Planner Robillard stated guidelines for emphasizing drought tolerant native plants and ground covers has already been established in the Xeriscape Landscaping Ordinance. Mr. Robillard stated this proposed ordinance amendment will follow the same procedure as the Xeriscape Guidelines, but will not have to go through ASAC. He noted he will talk to the Central Fire District regarding fire protection. FENCING Planner Robillard stated the current ordinance covers this issue and there have been no problems in the past. He noted an exception process will be added, if needed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Page 10 TRAIL LINKAGES Planner Robillard stated in both the Hillside and Subdivision Ordinance trail linkages which are needed would have to be identified on the site plan. He stated staff would then require a trail easement. City Planner Wordell noted the City Attorney suggested additional language, under 2. Proposed Amendment, RHS Ordinance should read "If a trail linkage across a property being developed is shown in the General Plan Trail Plan, and the proposed development will interfere with the trail a trail easement shall be granted in favor of the City prior to issuance of building permits." City Attorney Kilian stated the City should not require dedication of a trail easement across private property when the owner is remodeling. He stated the purpose is to make certain the trail linkages shown on the trail plan are maintained and not affected by development. Com. Mahoney addressed fencing. He stated section (b) of the fence regulations is inconsistent with the General Plan policy. Mr. Robillard stated he will come back with new wording. Rev. Mitchell addressed fencing. He stated the purpose of fencing is to keep public off private property. He stated the reason for the 75% visual transparency is to allow the migration of wild animals while keeping the public off private property. The RHS Ordinance hearing was continued to the meeting of September 13, 1993. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Consideration of a request to set a public hearing for a General Plan amendment to change the designation of APN 366- 46 -004 (14 acres) from 5 -20 slope density to Semi -rural 5 acre slope density. Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Jung presented the staff report and noted the request is to amend the General Plan for a 14 acre parcel in the Regnart Canyon area. The proposed amendment is to change the current 5 -20 slope density formula to a semi -rural 5 acre designation. Mr. Jung showed a view graph of the surrounding properties. He stated the site has three dwelling units on it, and staff have not been able to obtain building records for these units. He stated this is a steep hillside lot. Mr. Jung stated new information submitted indicates that water supply for the four proposed lots would not be a problem, if approved. Mr. Jung stated under the current designation the property owner would not be able to subdivide further, but under the proposed designation the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Page 11 engineer indicates that the property owner could subdivide into four lots. Associate Planner Jung reviewed the three tests, one of which must be met in order for the Commission to recommend that a public hearing be set. He stated staff could not meet any of the tests and therefore recommends denial of the request for a public hearing. In response to Com. Mahoney's questions, Mr. Jung stated there is an inability to subdivide because of the steepness of the property, according to the engineer. He stated this is the last property, in this area, which could have been subdivided under the pre- existing General Plan. He pointed out that a few lots in the area fell under the consolidation section of the General Plan. Mr. Jung noted all property owners were notified of the General Plan amendments during the General Plain hearings. Mr. Jung outlined the slope density on the property. He also reviewed the zoning regulation of when the homes were built, but no records could be found. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Cecil Mahon, 22045 Regnart Rd., stated he would like a recommendation to the City Council to set a public hearing. Mr. Mahon read his letter dated August 20, 1993 addressed to the Planning Commission. He feels he should not have been included in the 5 -20 slope density formula as his neighbors are not in this designation. Mr. Mahon stated they wanted to submit a application for subdividing, but missed the deadline by one half hour. City Planner Wordell stated if the property owner had made the deadline to submit the application for subdivision, it would have come in after the June 1, adoption of the General Plan. Mr. Mory Nelson, representing Mr. Mahon, stated all the properties surrounding Mr. Mahon's property are between 1 and 5 acres. He stated the proposal for a four lot subdivision is in conformance with the area and also with the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. He stated the land has a less than 30% slope, it ranges between 5 and 20 percent. He noted the average slope of the site is 31.6 %. Mr. Nelsen stated the configuration of the four lot subdivision presented to the Commission is only one of many ways it could be developed. He noted each of the four parcels would be on septic tanks. Mr. Nelsen requested that the Planning Commission recommend setting a public hearing. He noted Mr. Mahon wants to enjoy his property as his neighbors did. Chr. Austin asked if there is a Regnart Plan? Mr. Cowan stated in 1975, when the hillside study was underway, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Page 12 attention was paid to two hillside areas, Inspiration Heights and Regnart Canyon. He stated there was discussion involving development standards and types. He stated the homeowners presented ideas to the Commission and Council and as a result the City created the semi rural formula. He stated there is no official Regnart Plan. He added it was a private initiative for a planning effort in this area. Mr. Mory Nelsen stated it would be more appropriate to have this property designated Foothill Modified. Com. Mahoney stated he would recommend a public hearing be set as he does not recall the Semi Rural zoning being discussed during the General Plan hearings. He believes this is new information which should be considered. Com. Roberts spoke in favor of staf=f's recommendation. He believes it would be a bad precedence to recommend setting a public hearing. Com. Doyle stated it is his belief that the property owner could have taken action before the new General Plan was adopted. He stated once the Planning Commission and City Council adopted the General Plan they should be consistent. He stated he does not see enough reason to recommend setting a public hearing. Chr. Austin expressed concern about setting a precedence and would support staff's recommendation. Com. Mahoney stated the Semi- Rural designation for this area could prevent setting a precedence. MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to deny the request to set a public hearing subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. SECOND: Com. Roberts VOTE: Passed 3 -1 -1 NOES: Com. Mahoney ABSENT: Com. Bautista 4. Application 81,144: Biodiversity Regional Planning: Preliminary discussion of City involvement in local biodiversity Regional Planning efforts. Staff Presentation: City Planner Wordell stated this is a subject that would look into doing natural habitat planning on a regional bases and the interrelationships of different endangered species. She noted Com. Roberts requested that this be brought to the Commission's attention as he is exploring City involvement. She noted they will report back after their meeting with the County. The Commission unanimously agreed to authorize staff and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 23, 1993 Page 13 Commissioner Roberts to meet with County staff and submit a report to the Commission at a future meeting. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Chr. Austin congratulated Ciddy Wardell and Colin Jung on passing the American Institute of Certified Planners board exam. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Chr. Austin encouraged the Commissioners to read the articles. ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:30 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of September 13, 1993 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (&Q ,,(PL M. f�a Cala vd Catherine M. Robillard, Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of September 13, 1993 PSYw�� Donna Austin, Chairwoman Attest: Kim Smith, City Clerk