Loading...
P&R 09-05-96~?ITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 777-3200 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET1NG OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Hall September 5, 1996 CALL TO ORDER 1. Regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission called to order at 7:02 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG 2. ROLL CALL 3. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Staff present: Buhler, Hopkins, Lohmiller, Shukis, James Stephen Dowling, Director of Parks and Recreation Linda Lagergren, Recording Secretary Colin Jung, Associate Planner ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 4. None UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. None NEW BUS1NESS 6. Director stated that the issue before the commission is to review the park elements of the Thompson residential development (Tandem site) in light of policy 5-53 which was recently enacted in the update of the General Plan of 1993. Colin Jung gave a brief presentation of the project with regard to policy 5-53 which has to do with residential development in non-residential areas. Colin stated that the question is knowing that they need parks and recreation facilities, whether it is appropriate to have publicly dedicated park lands or privately owned lands. Planning staff's conclusion at this point is that a public park wouldn't be warranted here and that any park dedication fees that we may collect on this project and possibly other projects in this area would be applied to areas where it would do more good. Staff is recommending that you forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council that after interpreting this policy you make findings that private open space would be the most appropriate park amenity that would be provided here rather than public open space. Commissioner Shukis stated that the formula that was calculated for the number of residents (616) was based on the ordinance (1.8 people per unit/3 acres of park land per thousand). That ordinance was generated in 1986 and the General Plan was generated in 1993, which would amend that ordinance. In that General Plan the assumption is 2.6 people per household. My question is since the ordinance came out in 1986 and the General Plan came out in 1993, shouldn't we be using the General Plan assumption of 2.67 PRC $180 Approved 11-7-96 Call to order Salute to Flag Roll Call Review park elements of the Thompson residential development (Tandem site) Colin Jung stated that the 2.6 was an average household size for Cupertino based on all the types of living situations that includes senior housing, single family residences, apartments, condominiums, and townhouses. Apartment projects tend to be skewed to lower household sizes. Larger number households tend to be in the single fmnily homes. When you start getting down to the specific housing type then you need to apply the specific household size that we have experienced for that particular type of development. Commissioner Shukis wanted a clarification on this from the Planning Commission or a recommendation that the Planning Commission look into this. Chair Buhler stated that he reads the 2.6 as being an overall average for the city for all types of housing and what you are talking about here is an apartment building which would be different than the average type of housing that we have in Cupertino. We have more single family housing than we do apartments Commissioner Shukis asked for clarification on the private open space in a development and how it is determined the amount of credit that is given. Director cited that when an applicant applies for a park dedication credit, staff goes through and validates the computations to make sure they meet the necessary criteria. Staff is currently evaluating whether those spaces are legitimate in their use and add up to the right number. Commissioner Shukis questioned the amenity tabulation for the acreage. It falls short by a half acre of meeting the requirements of the ordinance. Director asked Commissioner Shukis if he was calculating their amenities to compare it to 1.85 acres. Commissioner Shukis said that was correct. Director stated that that was two different issues. The developer is required based upon the number of residents their development generates to provide the equivalent of 1.85 acres of land. However, to get credit they only need to follow the formula table ratios. They get up to fifty pement credit. Commissioner Lohmiller stated that the reason why is because the residents are also using community recreation areas as well. Colin Jung stated that the applicants original proposal was to not even apply for the credit itself, but to actually pay the whole in-lieu fee and short change the development of any recreational space. We told them that we weren't going to accept the proposal like that. Given the significant number of new residents in that location, and the lack of park amenities, that we were not going to be supporting their proposal unless they had an adequate amount of recreational and park space within their property. At that point they decided to go for the park credit. Commissioner James asked who determines and how do you determine the extent of recreational space within this development that it is or it isn't appropriate for that number of residents. Are there standards that you follow? How does it compare to others? Director said the space factor is based on our 3 acres per thousand residents formula. The park dedication ordinance spells out what the active recreation amenities are to be and it has minimum acreage requirements for each amenity. Chair Buhler asked in regards to neighborhoods I,J,K,L, and M in the proposed General Plan the ratio reaches 2.88 which is below the city standard of 3 acres per thousand residents. You are asking us to recommend a private park in lieu of a public park in this facility while at the same time you are showing that under the proposed General Plan we are not going to meet the standard. Why do you believe that that is the appropriate recommendation? Review park elements of the Thompson residential development (Tandem site) Director Dowl[ng displayed Exhibit A (Cupertino Resldentlal Land Use) and explained sta:~s recommendation. It makes more sense for the city to concentrate resources onto larger parks and not necessarily provide for smaller neighborhood components in some of the other areas. Instead of having smaller parks of less than 3 acres it is more sensible to concentrate what little development opportunity we are going to have at a site like Portal because of the adjacency of the school and the existing park. That is why we are saying although the ratio formula is going to be deficient operationally, it makes more sense to do it this way. Chair Buhler asked if we take the in-lieu fees and use them to further develop Portal park, will that improve the ratio in that area. Director said that it would. There was no public comment. Commissioner Hopkins felt it made sense to him because it is an isolated pocket and that it would be difficult to try to find park land. We do need housing in the city, so I'm glad we're trying to build some, hopefully, affordable housing. Commissioner Shukis stated that he felt it was the right thing to do for private park rather than a neighborhood park, but I would just like to have clarification on the 2.6 versus 1.8. I understand your team is looking to find out if what is there already is blocked off as park area for recreation is really allowed to be that under the design requirements and zoning. With consideration of those two items, I am happy with the private park area. Commissioner James moved that the Parks and Recreation Commission forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council that in interpreting General Plan Policy 5-53, private open space oriented to the residents of the project is more appropriate than developing a public park. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed. The Commission discussed scheduling a park tour in preparation for the Capital Improvements Program. The two dates that were decided upon were Wednesday, September 18, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. and Wednesday, October 16, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. Commission was in agreement to cancel the regularly scheduled Commission meeting of Thursday, October 3, 1996. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 8. Commissioner Lohmiller moved and Commissioner James seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the August 1, 1996 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting as submitted. Commissioner Buhler abstained. All in favor. Motion approved. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 9. None MONTHLY REPORTS 10. Director reported on the success of the summer programs and Shakespeare in the Park. He announced upcoming events: Art in the Park (September 22) and De Anza Optimists Bike Safety program (September 14). 11. Under community contacts, Commissioner Hopkins reported on the YMCA Teen Center grand opening. Commissioner Lohmiller reported on a "Day at the A's Game" for YMCA youth and reminded commissioners of the upcoming C.C.S barbecue at Blackberry Farm. Commissioner James announced that they are picking a meeting date in October for the policy group of the Teen Task Force. She also announced that she was asked to sit on the De Anza Commission. Page 3 Review park elements of the Thompson residential development (Tandem site) MOTION Park tours scheduled MOTION Monthly Reports MIgCI~LLANI~OUg 12. There was no legislative updates. 13. Chair Buhler attended the Mayor's breakfast meeting and stated that at the meeting he reported the commission's view on the 4th of July funding. 14. There was no staff oral report. ADJOURNMENT 14. Commissioner James moved and Commissioner Buhler seconded the motion to adjourn at 8:04 p.m. to the adjourned regular meeting of thc Parks and Recreation Commission on Wednesday, September 18, 1996, 3:00 p.m., City Hall. All in favor. Motion passed. Respectfully submitted, -Linda M. Lagergren, Rec~2 e~cretary ATTEST: APPROVED: Chairperson Page g Community Contacts MORON