Loading...
PC 09-13-1993 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 SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Austin Vice Chairperson Mahoney Commissioner Doyle Commissioner Bautista Commissioner Roberts Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Thomas Robillard, Planner II Charles Kilian, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the minutes of August 23, 1993, as presented. SECOND: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4 -0 -1 ABSTAIN: Com. Bautista POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: Item 1: Application 7 -U -93, 3 -TM -93 and 5- EA -93: Smiths Food & Drug Centers, Inc. - Continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 1993. Item 2: Application 1- EXC -93: Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co. - Continued to the Plannir..g Commission Meeting of September 27, 1993. There was a consensus to continue item 1 to October 11, 1993, and Item 2 to September 27, 1993. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - No discussion ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None CONSENT CALENDAR: - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 13, 1993 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Application No: 81,004.8 and 4 -EA -93 (RHS) Residential Hillside Ordinance Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide An Ordinance of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillside Zones (FHS) Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential Zones (R1), Chapter 19.08, Definitions, and Title 18 (Subdivisions) of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report dated September 13, 1993. He reviewed the changes made by the Commission at the last hearing and also the changes made by staff. Planning Commission Changes: Exception Process: Exceptions must be approved by the Planning Commission as opposed to the Director of Community Development. Ridgeline Visibility_: Additions to legally existing homes located within the 15% site line of a prominent ridgeline may not further encroach into thF site line, e.g. the addition may not add height or bulk which may increase the disruption to the 15% ridgeline site line. Reducing Visible Mass and Building Height: Planner Robillard stated there was a debate between the Commissioners present at the last meeting regarding the uphill and downhill setbacks. Planner Robillard reviewed the setbacks required for a second story. Chr. Austin opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Bruner, 1144 Derbyshire Dr., expressed concern about the setbacks required for a second story. He feels the second story would be unusable because the window sill would have to be 5 feet from the floor. - Mr. Dennis West, Cordova Rd., expressed concern about not being able to add a second story to existing homes. He noted the proposed setbacks will prohibit many of the present homes adding a second story. He suggested a total of 10 feet for the uphill and downhill setbacks. Planner Robillard presented a drawing outlining a structure with PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 13, 1993 Page 3 the proposed setbacks. He stated the setbacks are restrictive, but they do meet the intentions of the General Plan. He noted an exception process can be added which would allow more flexibility. Com. Bautista stated the 15 feet is too restrictive. He stated a 10 foot downhill setback would be acceptable. Com. Mahoney and Com. Bautista supported a 10 foot downhill setback. Chr. Austin, Com. Doyle and Com. Roberts spoke in favor of a total of 15 feet for downhill and uphill setbacks with a minimum of 10 feet on the downhill side. The Commission agreed to add a clause for an exception. Regarding D 1) Front /Rear setbacks, the Commission agreed to remove the words "required" and "setbacks" from the first sentence. The Commission agreed that the side yard setbacks were acceptable. Com. Bautista addressed the exception process. He asked why the City is requiring exceptions to hillside lots which are substandard in lot size? Planner Robillard stated if the Lot is in the 1/2 acre foothill modified or foothill modified slope density area and if substandard in size, then the property owner would need an exception, as this is what the General Plan calls for. City Attorney Kilian stated standard lots go through a variance process, because there is more land to work with and more findings must be made. With a substandard lot, there is not much to work with and an exception process was developed to make it easier to work with a smaller lot. He noted all findings must be met to grant an exception. Planner Robillard changed "and" on the third and fourth lines of the exceptions to "or ", at the request of the Commission. Com. Bautista suggested modifying findings B and G. Finding B, add the words "even if mitigated." to the last sentence. Finding G, change the word "services" to "utilities ". The Commission agreed to leave findings B and G as written in the ordinance. Color and Materials: Planner Robillard stated staff reviewed six hillside development ordinances from different cities, Los Gatos was the only city which had a reflectivity standard. Mr. Robillard reviewed the proposed amendments. He stated a combination requirement of reflectivity value and using natural earth tones and vegetation colors will meet PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 13, 1993 Page 4 the goal of the General Plan. Planner Robillard presented a color board to the Commission. He noted staff is recommending a reflectivity value of 60. Mr. Mike Bruner stated the Commission should specify that the reflectivity value is on a flat surface. He also suggested some flexibility for trim color. Com. Roberts expressed concern about defining natural earth tone colors. He spoke in support of the flexibility for trim color. Com. Roberts spoke in favor of the proposed amendment regarding the use of stucco. Com. Mahoney agreed with Mr. Burner that the City needs to specify that the reflectivity value is on a flat surface. He also spoke in favor of flexibility for trim color. Com. Doyle stated the reflectivity value, as proposed by staff, is appropriate. He noted there should be some level of control on the trim color. Com. Mahoney stated the reflectivity value should stay at 60 and . define another category for trim color. Com. Bautista stated the trim should also fit into the natural environment. City Attorney Kilian suggested the following wording: "Trim should be compatible with the main body color and the surrounding natural vegetation ". Chr. Austin spoke in support of earth tone colors and would support staff's recommendation. There was a 5 -0 vote for a reflectivity value of 60 and the use of earth tone colors. Planning Director Cowan stated there will be some subjectivity, but staff will be conservative in selecting the earth tone colors. He noted there is a mechanism to allow the applicant to Come before the Planning Commission if they don't agree with the Planning Director's decision. In response to the City Attorney's question regarding repainting of a house, Planner Robillard stated any repainting will have to come before the Planning Department. The Commissioners agreed on the following wording for colors and materials: "Exterior body colors of all structures on the lot shall use natural earth tone and /or vegetation colors which compliment the natural surroundings and shall not exceed a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 13, 1993 Page 5 reflectivity value of 60 on a flat service. The trim color should be natural earth tone and vegetation colors and be compatible with the natural surroundings. Natural earth tone and vegetation colors include natural hues of browns, greens or shades of gray ". The Commissioners briefly discussed the limited use of stucco as recommended by staff. There was a consensus to delete the proposed amendment #2 regarding the limited use of stucco. Building Coverage: Planner Robillard stated a clause was added regarding an exception process. Chr. Austin addressed the Floor Area Ratio and noted it was staff who recommended a cap of 45% and not to exceed 6500 sq. ft. It was a consensus of the Commission to delete the exception process as an applicant would have to go through a variance process. Planner Robillard stated in the Environmental Review Process, they did not cover amending the R1 ordinance as far as the 6500 sq. ft. limit, so staff suggest this be taken out of the model ordinance and it will be covered when the R1 ordinance is amended. Grading: Planner Robillard stated the requirement for balancing between cut and fill was eliminated. Fencing: Planner Robillard stated the Commission questioned the appropriateness of the fencing requirement for open fencing and the possibility of precluding the migration of animals. He stated staff considers the requirement to be appropriate and reasonable for existing lots which fall under the RHS Ordinance. He noted setbacks for migration of animals would be more applicable in the subdivision ordinance. He stated staff's suggestion is to leave the existing fencing as is in the RHS Ordinance. Water Course Protection: Planner Robillard stated the Planning Commission requested, that the setback from riparian vegetation be defined more clearly. He stated the setback will be measured from the drip line perimeter. Staff Changes: Geologic and Soils Report Procedures: Planner Robillard stated staff developed a set of criteria to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 13, 7 Page 6 clarify when a geological and soils report is needed. He stated in all developments the applicant, at minimum, needs to do a soils letter. He added, this is required throughout the City. The Commissioners discussed paragraph A 2)b. and there was a consensus to remove the word "not" in the first sentence. Trail Linkages: Planner Robillard stated the C:Lty Attorney advised that the requirements for trail linkages be changed to say that if a trail linkage was identified across someone's property, they could not build on that area. He added, they can voluntarily dedicate it to the City, but the City can not require dedication without just compensation. City Attorney Kilian stated he did review this with staff, but suggested adding the language "except through a variance issued by the Director of Community Development." City Attorney Kilian suggested combining major and minor subdivisions as it would be appropriate to require dedication for a minor subdivision, as a condition of development. The Commission agreed to delete H2, delete the word "minor" from Hi and add the wording as suggested by the City Attorney. It should read as follows: H Trail Linkages 1) In subdivisions, if a trail linkage, as shown in the General Plan Trail Plan, is identified on a property being developed, a trail easement shall be dedicated in favor of the City prior to recordation of the final map. Development on Slopes of 30% or Greater: Planner Robillard stated the intent of the change of the 30% slope requirement was to clarify at what point an exception would be required. If the area of 30% slope or greater was less than 1000 sq. ft. an exception would not be required. Com. Mahoney requested that the wording be clarified. Purpose: Planner Robillard stated F and G were added to reflect the General Plan objectives. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 13, 1993 Page 7 Permitted Uses Planner Robillard stated sections c; and H were deleted because they are appropriate in an agricultura=l zone. He stated the intention of the General Plan in the hillsides is to protect the natural environment, minimize erosion, and protection of water courses, which agricultural uses tend to promote. This completed Planning Commission and staff changes. Com. Roberts questioned the "potential riparian vegetation" for the Water Course Protection in hillside subdivisions? Planner Robillard stated if an area that had been cut back previously for agricultural uses, but would have normally been part of a riparian vegetation, it should be included and will be determined through an environmental study. He stated all subdivisions require an environmental review. Planner Robillard added the State is working on guidelines for the protection of riparian corridors and water courses. He noted these are draft at this time and will be incorporated once adopted. Com. Bautista questioned the parcel consolidation and asked for clarification. Planner Robillard stated the City can not prohibit a person from building on a lot that is less than five acres if this is the only parcel they own. City Attorney Kilian stated if there is a lot less than 5 acres and is adjacent to another lot, held in common ownership, they should be consolidated and then development can occur. He stated if a person owns one lot less than 5 acres it can be developed. Com. Bautista requested that the wording for Parcel Consolidation be clarified. Com. Roberts addressed lots adjoining public open space and requested that the following language be added "...and designed in a manner to minimize impacts on the adjacent public open space." There was a consensus to add the wording suggested by Com. Roberts. MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to recommend a negative declaration SECOND: Com. Roberts VOTE: Passed 5 -0 MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to recommend approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 19.40 Residential Hillside Zones (RHS) and Chapter 19.28 Single Family Residential (R1) Zones, Chapter 19.08, Definitions, and Chapter 18.13 Hillside PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 13, 1993 Page 8 subdivisions, subject tc the findings and subconclusions of the hearing and including all changes made at this hearing. SECOND: Com. Roberts VOTE: Passed 5 -0 OLD BUSINESS 4. Review of General Plan text prior to publication. City Planner Wordell stated there has been minor editing by staff. Ms. Wordell rioted this will be reformatted with all the graphics and referred to the City Council for their final review before publication. She suggested that if the Planning Commission see any changes that should be made they should let staff know. Com. Austin suggested the Commissioners go through the text and give any corrections to the planning staff. Com. Roberts addressed Pg LU25 policy 2 -55 and stated a General Plan amendment may be needed. He stated the policy and strategy are not compatible and suggested changing the strategy. Ms. Wordell stated staff will create a new policy to meet the strategy. NEW BUSINESS: - None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Doyle reported on the affordable Housing Committee. He noted the Committee is looking into selling 2 City owned properties and using the money towards purchasing multiple housing. Com. Roberts reported on the Bio- Regional Planning. He stated he had a meeting with the City Planner Wordell and County planners. He noted there is interest at the County level and does see some possibility in the long term. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 9 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of September 23, 1993 at 6:15 p.m.