Loading...
PC 11-19-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Ton-e Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED .MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 19, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners presem: Commissioners absent: Austin, Hams, Maboney, Chairman Roberts. Doyle Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; APPROVAL OF MINUTES:None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Roberts noted a letter from Don Burnett. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None 1. Annual General Plan Review. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: December 2, 1996 Staff presentation: Community Development Director Robert Cowan reviewed the pulpose of the General Plan review. He explained that under State law the City must provide an annual report by October of each year. The General Plan review is also used to measure the effectiveness of the City's General Plan as well as to comply with the policy of the Congestion Management Agency relative to their policy in terms of checking the level of service indicators for all streets. Ms. Ciddy-Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the staffrecommendatious for discussion and comments by the Planning Commission on the City's progress in implementing the General Plan policies as outlined in the staff report. Items for discussion include: general or specific comments on the Implementation Section; Bubb Road/North DeAnza housing potential; residential densities; neighborhood parks in Lland L2 and general traffic information. A discussion ensued regarding the traffic levels of service as shown on Page 6 of the staff report. Staff answered questions regarding traffic counts at various intersections. There was consensus from the Planning Commissioners present that staff provide data for Miller Avenue at Bollinger Road, and Stelling Road at Homestead Road, McClellan Road and Rainbow Drive, and that Mr. Viskovich reanalyze the freeway interchanges. Referring to Page 7-3 of the General Plan, there was a brief discussion about addressing the possibility of having a mid-course review (every five years) of the General Plan by an ad hoc Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 19, 1996 citizens' review committee. There was consensus that the review be facilitated by an outside consultant and scheduled for a weekend charette. Com. Hams addressed the Implementation Section, and noted her opposition to the instances in the past when affordable uff~ts reverted back to market rate hou~mg units. Mr. Cowan explained that in the 80s when the BMR program became inoperable, the City exercised the fight of first refusal on BMR amts and purchased the homes, and with the leverage funds was in mm able to provide more BMR units for needy families. He noted that the BMR program was back in operation. Com. Harris asked that staff report back indicating the inclusion of the promotion of availability of affordable housing or propose language to be included. Following a discussion regarding the feasibility of Bandley Drive, Bubb Road and portions of Stevens Creek Boulevard for mandatory or mixed use residential development, it was noted for the record that Commissioners Austin, Hams, Mahoney and Chair Roberts were in favor of maintaining the Bubb Road area as is, with the 150 umts attached to it. A discussion ensued regarding Bandley Drive and North DeAnza Boulevard. Com. Hams stated that she would like a study conducted and a specific plan prepared for North DeAnza. She recommended redu(mg the density fi.om 20 units per acre to 10 units per acre, and stated the need for a plan which could be altered when necessary. Mr. Cowan suggested staff conduct a study this year and then make a decision about density. Chair Roberts suggested a citizen's advisory comnUttee to study it and decide if it was a priority. He said he did not feel it was a priority item. Com. Mahoney concurred that it was not a priority item. Chair Roberts stated that Policy 3-1 of the General Plan said that hous'mg sites for the Vallco North DeAnza and Bubb Road planning district will be designated when specific plans are prepared. Com. Harris said that Policy I in the General Plan stated to "prepare specific plans for Vallco and North DeAnza areas". She said that it has not been accomplished in 7 years and questioned if it should be taken out of the General Plan. Following discussion, there was consensus that North DeAnza Boulevard was not a priority item and would be put on next year's list. Com. Hams commented that Stevens Creek was already done as part of the Stevens Creek plan. Adoption,of parking ordinance amendments was discussed. Com. Mahoney stated that in a recent meeting, it was apparent that people did not want to see parking studies. He said if that was the case, a policy should be writtan to avoid the ordeal of going through parking studies; the policy should conform to the or~mance. Mr. Cowan read the contents of the parking ordinance for clarification. Discussion ensued regarding Appendix B, Sites for Housing Development. Com. Hams requested that staff provide a summary of the units crossed out as to how many units there were compared to the total potential. Table [, Cupertino Development Status as of October 31, 1996, was discussed. Staff' answered questions. Mr. Cowan said that Tandem would be presenting an application to the planmng Commission ['or a proposed hotel on the Carlos Murphy's restaurant site in the near future. Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 19, 1996 Referring to Residential Densities on Page 4 of the staff report, Com. Hams stated that the General Plan encourages development at the high end of the range, and perhaps it should be taken out of the General Plan. Following discussion, it was agreed that a study be conducted on the issue. Referring to Page 2-29, Ms. Wordell questioned if more specific design directions were desired. Mr. Cowan said it was apparent the Planning Commission was concerned about the issue of heighffstory requirements for project edges. There was a vote of 2:2 to continue discussion of heights. Those present agreed to ask Corn Doyle if he was in favor of discussing heights. It was noted that density was also a concern addressed in Don Burnett's letter to the City Council. Ms. wordell pointed out that on Page 3-22, Policies 3-10 and 3-11 were addressed; set landscape, open space and setback standards. She asked the planning Commission if they felt that specific standards should be designated for projects such as Thompson Residential and Sand Hill when they come in. There was agreement that standards should be designated. Mr. Cowan said that ordinances could be written. Mr. Cowan said that at a recent City Council meeting, staff was asked to report on what remaining parcels might be subject to similar proposals in the future. He said that staff would present the information to the Planning Commission. Using overheads, Mr. Cowan illustrated properties with potential concerns: Rainbow Drive and Gardenside; properties off Cleo which are single family master plan for high density. He illustrated 10,000 sq. fl. lots surrounded by aplahuents. He showed examples south of Rainbow and also of master plans for 5 to 10 range that were potential problems. He said even though there was the option to go to higher density range, all the new developments have been filled at the low range except the duplexes. Com. Harris said that the fringe properties should be addressed and corrected where obvious. A discussion ensued regarding the parks issue· Chair Roberts said he was in favor of parks, and suggested having an incentive to create parks. Mr. Cowan reported that the City had a 25 year lease agreement with the school disWict to take care of surplus green area. He said that the school next to PoCtal School had surplus area that is not turf and possibly a deal could be struck. Com. Austin left the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Com. Hams addressed the issue of passive areas and pocket parks along major thoroughfare developments such as the Heart of the City. She said that the policy states that all parks be 3-1/2 acres which was appropriate when the city was large, but it did not take into consideration the Heart of the City plan. She said that pocket parks and passive areas would provide attractive areas to drive past or walk through. Mr. Cowan stated that it would not meet the neighborhood park requirement of having organized play space, but would benefit the urban environment. Chair Roberts said that the Parks and Recreation Committee was working on a different premise of a minimum of 3-1/2 acres, and questioned if they were aware of Policy 5-47. Com. Hams suggested Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 19, 1996 adding to Policy 5-47 language to bring in the language from the Stevens Creek Specific Plan. Chair Roberts indicated that there was a need in the northeast part of the city in LI and L2. It was noted that City Council recently approved acquisition of a parcel adjacent Blackbeny Farm. Relative to traffic, staff indicated they would return on December 9th concerning the issue. Com. Hams discussed Stelling Road and noted her frustration at the last Planning Cormmssion meeting when it was apparent that the entire Planmng Commission was in favor of having the houses on the Emily Chert property face Stelling Road when developed, so that there would not be a fence in an undeveloped area that would not be maintained. She said that there are numerous pockets along Stelling Road now where the houses face the other way; there is a fence and the land is not maintained. She said the only way it could have been done is with a P, but suggested a specific plan for Stelling to require certain landscape maintenance if the houses are built that way. Mr. Cowan suggested an ordinance setting forth special rules for setbacks or flag lots. The ordinance would contain specifics to avoid a separate detail use permit review for those kinds of conditions. Com. Hams said it was necessary because of the many potential sites in the neighborhood to retain. She said that there were negative pockets in the area now. Com. Mahoney said that one of the challenges because of the traffic was to have the houses face with their front and come in with their side to the garage. Mr. Cowan said it could be implemented in the ordinance. Com. Hams said relative to voodoo land economics, she wanted to know which parcels' density rights were traded away and what happened to them? She questioned where did they then build extra and what happened in the next General Plan to that land as a designation? Com. Mahoney said it was his opinion that a plan existed, and it should be looked at where the development is supposed to be, as it is based on the current traftic and current model of what is desired. He said the fact it came fi.om elsewhere is irrelevant. Com. Harris said that the General Plan should contain language stating if density credit has been transferred away fi.om a parcel to allow more intense development on another parcel, that specific information should be brought up at the next General Plan meeting and the information be provided to the people doing the General Plan review. A brief discussion ensued regarding Don BurneR's letter to the City Council regarding the General Plan review. Com. Hams said that it had been previously discussed that the City used gross density calculations and that every other jurisdication in the County used net. She recommended that the City use net calculations because it was clea~r. She said that recently, Thompson Residenliai got credit for all that size on Wolfe and all the length on Pnmeridge added to their size to calculate their density; whereas Sand Hill across the street had much less fi.ontage. She said it was skewed when looking at the result in density. Ms. Wordell noted that the particular parcel would always be difficult to intempret. She said that the point is easier to deal with when talking about whether streets are counted or not. When something is part of a planned development, you don't know whether to count the park; that's more complex. Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 19. 1996 Report to City Council regarding general plan consistency relative to acquisition of assessors parcel 357-10-05 (property next to Blackberry Farm entrance) for park purposes. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: December 2, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: NEW BUSINESS - None OLD BUSINESS- None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Mahoney moved to report to the Ci.ty Council that the parcel is consistent with the General Plan. Com. Hams Coms. Doyle and Austin Passed 3-0-0 Com. Harris recommended that future Planning Cormmssion agendas not exceed 8 items. Chair Roberts recommended that the meetings not continue past 12 midmght. A brief discussion followed. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING - None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to the November 25, 1996 regular planning Commission meeting of November 25, 1996. Approved as presented: December 9, 1996 Respec~ly Submitted, Recording Secretary