Loading...
PC 08-14-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 14, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Doyle, Harris, and Chairman Roberts (Com. Austin arrived at 6:55 p.m.) Commissioners absent: Mahoney Staff present: Charles Robert Cowan, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Kilian, City Attorney; Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Roberts noted written communication relative to Item 2, correction of density and correspondence relative to Item 5. Com. Harris noted a letter she received relative to the proposed service station. She said she would distribute copies at the next meting. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENTCALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 10-ASA-96 Lutheran Church of Our Savior Same 5825 Bollinger Road Architectural review to intall a play structure at an existing church school. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application No. 10-ASA-96 Com. Harris Corns. Austin and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 12, I t)t)6 Com. Austin arrived. PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 3-GPA-96 and 19-EA-96 City of Cupertlno Lily Chang, Inc. 22371 Cupertino Road GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: to revise the land use map designation on APN #326-15- 010, from med-high density residential 10-20 dwelling units per gross acre to Iow density residential 1-5 dwelling units per gross acre. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 3, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 1996 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for change tile land use designation of the road lot from medium density residential 10-20 dwelling units per gross acre to either a single family residential use with a density range of 1-5 dwelling units per gross acre, or a single family residential use with a density range of 5-10 dwelling units per gross acre. Land use changes such as this application require an amendment to the city's General Plan. Following the review of the application on July 8, the Planning Commission recommended a denial of the application to the City Council concluding that the existing density was too high the neighborhood of mostly single family homes. The applicant has since submitted an alternative plan which calls for the construction of two rather than three homes. Staff recommends approval of the application. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, referred to overhead maps and reviewed the density ranges within the community and the area in question. He briefly reviewed the previous application for a 3 lot devlopment which was denied by the Planning Commission because it was inconsistent with the character of the community. Staff was directed to initiate a public hearing to consider a General Plan change at a lower density. The public hearing will be held September 3rd. Mr. Cowan discussed the options available: The residual property was master planned tbr high density over the years. The Planning Commission decided that high density use for the property was inappropriate, stating that there should be a lower density development for the property. The question is what type of land use intensity is appropriate. Some of the neighbors feel that there should be on dwelling, approximately 3.57 units per acre; the property owner considers 2 or 3 dwellings. The Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council lbr either a low density, single family; keep the 10-20; or consider a 5-10 per acre range. He pointed out that the zone was used in various areas in the community, most recently Blaney Avenue near Price Avent~e. Staff feels that if the project was starting with a clean slate with ilo history, you would use this particular density range. In view of the history of the area, staff feels that the proposal is an appropriate compromise. Mr. Cowan noted some corrections in calculations. Planning Commission Minutes 3 August I 2, 1006 In response to Chair Roberts' question, Mr. Cowan stated that a duplex would be in the range ol' 5-10 per acre. Mr. Jim Jackson, representing the applicant Lily Chang, summarize that to some extent it was an issue of equity, fairness and character. He said that he could understand the feelings of tile neighbors, but that it was important for government to demonstrate as much as possible fairness and equity in determining zoning because property rights are affected. He noted that the General Plan has been in the community for many years and the property has been zoned for the higher density, general planned for the higher density and several General Plan hearings have been conducted over the years. He cautioned against changing the General Plan to accommodate an individual piece of property or application that may appear not to be as appropriate as befits tim community, which seems to be the inclination in the subject application. He noted that the existing zoning had it been applied for, could have supported 5 or 6 units as an apartment type complex, which is not in keeping with the character. The developers felt that 3 traits were more in keeping with the character and are willing to recognize some of the issues, and l'eel thc fairness issue should be recognized, in that they purchassed the property, checked tile zoning, and checked the General Plan and have done everything appropriate. Mr. Jackson explained that he proposal is for 2 lots, with homes of approixmately 2,000 square feet, FARs of .48 for the two homes, usuable rear yards, adequate setbacks, and will save all the trees except two. Because of the new orientation, retaining walls will not be needed; the privacy factor will be improved for the neighbor with the unit oriented toward the street in a conventional single family development. He referred to other developments for comparisou purposes, noting the Citation, Summerhill, City Center and Jozovich developments. He said that the present application is superior in lot size and building size to all except the highest range the Jozovich property; the FAR is better than all the comparisons using the average; the building height is 26 feet vs. 31, 28, 26 and 28 on the comparisons. The new two unit development meets or exceeds the projects that the City has been approving. Mr. Jackson said that in due respect to the neighbors he would request that the General Plan be amended in the 5-10 area, and provide comment on the proposed plan. He noted that the design of tile homes is similar to the recent project on Peninsula Avenue, and provided plans from the development for the Commission's viewing. In response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Jackson stated that the side yard setbacks were 5 feet between the houses and the rear yard setbacks were 25 and 50 staggered. Chair Roberts opened the hearing for public input. Mr. Donald Gaubatz, 10033 Hillcrest Road, said his property was adjacent to the applicant's property. He thanked the developer for recognizing the neighbors' concerns about the proposal. He recalled that when the property was under county jurisdiction many years ago, the property was rezonined 2R3 without the neighborhood being notified. The property was initially a PG&E right of way which included a 400 ft. x 40 ft. strip of property running along the General Plan boundary to Salem Alpine; the 40 foot frontage on Salem Alpine incorporated all the property through the Cupertino Road. The neighbors were unaware that the small lot was included in that. The property along Foothill was rezoned to R3 and because the 40 foot froutage picked up the strip down to Cupertino Road. He said that the first notification to the neighbors was when a developer wanted to put in 32 units on the 3/4 acres of land including the 400 fl. by 40 ft. strip. The neighbors were able to get the land use modified to 16 units, which subsequently becmne Planning Commission Minutes ~ August 12, 1006 part of Sunnyview Manor, which is zoned BQ. He said that the first they were aware that the parcel was still R3 was when a notice was cimulated that the developer wanted to put 3 units oil the property. All the land to the north on Cupertino Road and Hillcrest Road, Crescent is all RI 10,000; the land across the street is RI 10,000 except for one R1 7.5 near Foothill. The neighbors feel that any multiple use on the property is contrary to the wishes of the neigbbors. He said that many of the neighbors wrote letters of objection to the Planning Commission and are part of the packet. Mr. Gaubatz provided a comparison with other planned developments. He pointed out that the lots range from 2/3 to 3/4 of an acre and are custom homes. He said years ago, the neigbborhood petitioned the city and has an agreement for no sidewalks or street lights. He said that il' thc developer does not have to put in a sidewalk, the trees along the street will be maintained, which is keeping with the agreement the city has with the neighborhood. The area is isolated and contained with only two entries at Cupertino Road from Stevens Creek, and Cupertino Road from Foothill Expressway. Mr. Gaubatz concluded by saying that whatever decision the Planning Commission reached was one the neighbors would have to live with, not the developer. In response to Com. Austin's question about the inclusion of sidewalks, Mr. Cowan said that at such time when the property develops, there would be street improvements. He said be was not aware of the agreement referenced by Mr. Gaubatz. Mr. Jan Stoeckenius, 22386 Cupertino Road, said that he would address four specific items related to the application: the anomoly of the current density and zoning; the fact that even with the two units, you may create a high desnity island rather than a transition; the fact that it is an awkward block to develop; and that the reduced density 1-5 is consistent with the current nse. He said he would speak in favor of reduction down to the I-5 range which would make it single family. Referring to an overhead map, he pointed out the area covered by the General Plan and provided a background of the developments in the area. He illustrated the borders forming tbe back lot lines and the series of lots that are flagged back from Hillcrest. He noted the area oa tile map where the pattern broke and a crest formed. Referring to a chart, Mr. Stoeckenius discussed tbe density, FAR, cars per acre, and people per acre. He said that even with the revised proposal 2 units, it is really not a transition, but is a higher density area, very small, sitting in a predominantly much lower density especially the R1. Referring to an overhead of the proposed development, he said it was overall a small development, and it is not a typical 10,000 sq. I't. lot, measuring 72.9 by 140 which is very narrow, which is only 13 feet wider tban all RI6 lot. In addition, comparing it to planned developments, most planned developments, whereas the traits are closer together, there is some greater distance to surrounding properties. The proposed development is 5 foot to the border of the surrounding properties. He said tbat tbe 2 unit garages completely dominate the frontage, with approximately 20 feet of the 36 lbot f¥ontage used by the garage which forces the front door to be located close to the side, wbicb is not characteristic of the neighborhood. He continued bis discussion, illustrating the awkward slope. He pointed out that the original borderline was from a ridge; the ridge dimishes and is still rising from the units to the north and west, specifically from the west, toward the property, resulting in a two story element will be quite high above the surrounding property to the west. There is a driveway that gives some distance, but it will be a significant rise from where the people are now to the property to the west. Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 12, 10t)6 Mr. Stoeckenius said that relative to the issue of equity discussed earlier; it has been a long time use as a single family residence. To the extent that searches have determined, the property has transacted at prices typical for older single family homes in that area. He said that when he developed his current home in 1989, it has an 1,100 sq. ft. home assessed for $300,000. Single family use is not out of line with what the current owners paid for the property. He reiterated that none of the neighbors were aware of the zoning although it was on the zoning map, because it was out of the norm. Ms. Julia Tien, 22386 Cupertino Road, said that in terms of the two unit proposal presented, although it is reduced over the 3 units, the current property has one home on it with R I- I 0 usage, which is an increase in density over current usage. She said that ifa General Plan amendment is made to reduce the density to a 2 unit configuration, it still creates a discontiuuity in the neighborhood. She questioned if it was aprecedent that the Planning Commission waated to set by doing an amendment to create a pocket of a higher density parcel. She said it would make more sense to rezone it to be in conformance with the remainder of the neighborhood which is RI-I 0 and also to be consistent with whatever the current use of the property which is R I - 10. Mr. Deane Gardner, 22321 Cupertino Road, said that the two unit proposed development has approximately 36 foot frontage on each lot which is very narrow; most of the neighboring lots are 70 feet to I00 feet frontage. He said that that typically the neighboring homes have 40 to 60 feet between the homes, compared to the 10 feet between the two proposed homes. He said that the view from the street will appear cramped and will not fit in the neighborhood. Referriug to the zoning map of the R3 area, Mr. Gardner said that there was no way to get from Hillcrcst or Cupertino Road to the subject neighborhood. He said he was in favor of reducing the density down to 1-5 units per gross acre in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Maloney, resident, said that she resided adjacent the subject property aud strongly believed the proposed plan is not in character with the neighborhood and anticipated that the Planning Commission would revisit the zoning issue. She said she disagreed with Mr. Jackson's comparison because it is different zoning and a different neighborhood. She indicated on the overhead map where she resided, and said she also had concerns about privacy. Ms. Maloney said she was hopeful that the Planning Commission would recommend to the owner to submit a new plan. Chair Roberts asked if the applicant's revised proposal mitigated Ms. Maloney's concerns. She said that she agreed with the neighbors that the new plan would crowd the neighborhood, and present a different overall character to the neighborhood. Chair Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Harris said she was in favor of the Planning Commission's recommendation to reduce the zoning to 1-5, not the staff recommendation for the two units for a series of reasons. She explained that Summerhill and the others mentioned were planned development communities and the proposal is an infill project, a redevelopment of one lot in an existing neighborhood. She said she felt the comparison was not appropriate. All the adjacent surrounding and adjacent properties except for Sunnyview Manor are RI-10, with 70 foot frontages and reasonable and signficant setbacks on the side, not 5 feet. The subject property is separated from the previous multi-family area, there are not adjacent multi-family homes in close proximity. Com. l~larris Planning Commission Minutes 6 August I-9. 1006 said she was not in favor of developing the narrow lots in a dense way that does impact II~e neighborhood; it is a single family use and should remain so. Com. Austin said that the width of the proposed homes was too narrow, and remarked on the parking area. She said she concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation of I-5. Chair Roberts said he was pursuaded by the revised plan; and he understood the argument expressed. He said generally speaking he did not favor long narrow lots because they lead to long narrow buildings and experience shows in Cupertino that they do not turn out well. I lc said he was more amenable to two houses joined together such as a duplex or duet home. He said the revised proposal seems to be a suitable proposal. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to change the land use map designation General Plan from medium high density residential 10-20 dwelling units per gross acre to Iow density residential 1-5 dwelling units per acre, according to the model resolution. Com. Austin Chair Roberts Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 2-1 - 1 Mr. Cowan noted that the General Plan recommendation and zoning would be heard at the September 3, 1996 City Council meeting. MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 19-EA-96 Negative Declaration Com. Austin Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 3-0- I Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 13-U-94 (Mod.) and 17-EA-96 Cafe Wraps (Robert Sauvageau) lmwalle/Stegner 10745 So. DeAnza Blvd. Use Permit for an approximately 1,830 sq. ft. fast food restaurant in an existing retail center ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEET1NG OF AUGUST 12, 1996 Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the 1,830 sq. it. last food restaurant in an existing shopping center. Following a review of the application, staff does not believe that Cafe Wraps will generate noise or parking overflow problems that will impact the residential area. Using the formula provided in Cupertino's new parking staudards, the parking standards pending City Council approval, staff determines that the center will meet the exact number of spaces required for the retail shop and fast food restaurant. In conclusiou, staff recommends approval of the application. Planning Commission decision is considered fiual unless appealed within 14 days.