PC 08-15-84c.• .•
)jJ~tEi '/"c·:::::>';>~"~'.,,{::(C:\ ,,.J,sn\,:.>.·.: .•. :,,\:·~\.,.,<:•.'.i)<'..'',, .. c;, •. · .. ;:··,·· .•,·.·., ..•. •'.·/.,,:",· .. ··
;;;};:,t&, f:j, :> '>;:;; 'c;i;·:"CIT?fop '·ctJPE.RT:.CNO STATE; OF' CALIFORNIA'·.···· i 'S• , '''.' ; ~t~~~i;~t~~~~"\~~~~~f !~~~rs~~o ,ca.~(P~~C' , . , . , .. ·.· ' : -J , · ..• r.,:1'"'
'· . · . MINUTES OF' THE REOULAR · ADJOURNED MEE'I'Il'1G OF 'l'HE, PLANNI~G. '.COMM ..... '""""'"'","'·" , · .: ,·. ' · . HELD, ON AUGUST 15 1984, · : · · · ._ .. ::i: · , ". ·''. ,,s,.·,;: . ~i~~:e~~:.~,i~~g:;;=d c~~; ~!!i7:~' ;~~ 0 ~~~. ~~ [;~j?·:~:,;'[.%~ ,
"' ., .. ~''
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL,CALL
Comm1ss1onera Present: Commissioner Adams Comm1s$ioner Claudy Commissioner Koenitzer Commissioner Szaoo Chairperson Bl4\ine
Staff'. Present: Assistant Planr.tng Director
PUBLIC HEARINGS~
. , 9. Appl1catiom; 12-U-84 and 7-TM-8.4 or HW,&.ASSOOIA'l'ES. IN\l'ES
~ co. :'.USE PERMIT to construc.t. 16 two;.;.story residerit:ta ·. ' .. ""s'fi1gle-fat:iily. condomin1um,.un1ta;: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIO}l}:MJ\ ··to• subdivide approximately 1.15 acres into •. ,17 parcels<;\'.'·;,·, . ; con~isting of 16 residential condominium parcels ·and one): · .. • parcel to be held in common -~wnc.rship ·and. ,ENVI}tONMENTA,Lc;<(;': REVIEW: The Environmental Review .committee reconuilends:'.'tl>.~, g1·anting of a· Negative Declaration. The ··su-p.fettttpr.QJ?.~~tt.·r in a:P (Planned Development with residential·, int·ent ... 4~,~'~l dwelling units per gross acre) zoning distri'ct "located on the south side ot Olive Avenue between Imper1al'Avenue'an Pasadena Avenue. First· Hearing. 11entative City Oounc1,r heatting date -August 20, 1984.. · .. ·· .· ....
Assistant Planning Director, Cowan gave a detailed review o"r t Star: Report and indicated the proximit;y of an industrial are also where the 2:oning was master planned :for the samedens1ty the area. .
He indicated the position of a proposed culdesaa on Olive.A~e f.i'hich would be part ot a twin culdesac arratu~e.ment to divide the propety from the industrial sector, and advised that the condition pertaining to this should be left in to obligate th developer to build it at a later date 1.t' necessary~since the· City Council was working with the Monta Vista Homeowners Asso 1•· ation to revise the traffic management plan in the area.
He pointed out thet the npplioant was taking max:1.mum advantag or the BMI* program, but wanted to make it veX>y clenr that 1f he· denaity waa cut to 14 units, only one would have to be a BMR*, unittJ
He described the dwelling configurations and pointed out the driveways and guest parking arrangements, and suggested means to solve the problem or sl:Lght privacy intrusion 1nt:o the aur-9un-ding area. ·
,*BMR -l,3elow · MaJ;>ket Rate housing · ' '}~ < .. ·-.
'.--'·"·
;~;;!4 ~A,: ~~J;!~f ~~[~~~~[lj~!~!t~f~~~~J~f~~~~~~~[tf :~~~i~~~~a~,,, ,~~:~%::,::,::1i~l~111 ... ·9 . drew· the>Comm1sadion 1 s atten·t1on ·to the· approXlf.\mit.t~ly,.;·03.~lY.ra~i()",t'.:};:Ft:"\i. /,' ?
It was determined. w1~h Mr •. Johnso~ t,hat• eao.h' w~1ty:woulct?:b,e:,/1:SZ~?;~:),~'.'.0,:~:;{":;'~g.::'.·:· . 1,300 square !'eet,·· approximately, with two ma.ster.:·bed:room? ;.,:·'·;,/'"·i:';,':~J··:;); .· suites, and that the project was not designed tor. large tamilies~':;J ··. ··.
Com. Blaine established that the architect andi·hia ;cli~nt wer~ 'r' " fully aware of· the 1lillplicat1ons or the BMR*. program and the ... price range or the' BMR* units. She ··establishec:t the. type or.· .. · ... :> .· ... construction materials .to be used,anddtllat ti:ie~e.>were no·~~·.' ' large trees to be preserved on the siteo . . < ... · ·. · . · .· ·
On the request ot Com. Blaine, Mr. Johnson indicated the· position of the· guest parking and added than· f.our more spaces had o~iginally been planned,. but· had been replaced with U.nd-. , soaping, though this could be changed latar if more' parking .. was needed. · ' · ·
Lance Brown, 10261 Orange A,;enue,, wanted io know where the · , .. open space was,, and it it· would. be deeded to. the City. .· ·· : .· ... ·.·
Mr. Johnson ex»ilained that the.re was 2,,000 ~squ~~e teetoot.·open·,".:':./:..;·,
e~8'81Q···· .. · .: ... . ... , ·· -... ·. • ·~~n,}.'i:;:;;>. by the. homeowners association·~ ·though· the·· C!t'f· .. would.:)iold the'.·.;.( ,i):V development rights. The balance of. the open s:pace .. was>in'privatc yard areas, he said. · ·· .;~ · · ·
Mr. Brown asked for a description ot the homeowners ~~sooiation~
Mr. Johnson explained that in a tow~bouse; p~oiect}.;<the land~·~nd.er ·
'fidl~~-·~"" :._.'"41.•:""'tfl.._ __ .._~~~ ... 'ft"-rh~~~ .. ·' 1W-~~~;~~~· ~~~~~~~ .. -~. ~~~~:~~~-·,, likened 1 t to a single family home.. The Department or Real ·· ·· Estate controlled the codes, covenants and restrictions, he .said., and in this case» they had not been drawn up yet.
Mr. Brown referred to I'eoent State legislation on the financial ; aspects of h<Jemowners associations in cluster developments and
~aid it had been found that such projeoto experienced financial difficulties. He felt that with only 16 homeowners,. this project could become such a ¢ase. He also re.t'erred to the tra.ff.io ..... problems in the Manta Vista· area since· the road closures.I and>.·· , ... stated that the deveopment proposed was at one Qf the most
dange~ous intersections. The neighbors wanted the land developed,, he said, but not at this density,. and he thought the $160,,000 price range was impractical when older rental homes in the area cculd be bought and rehabilitated for considerably less. ·
Ann Anger,, President• of the· Monta Vista Hommowners Association,, said the project was in the wrong neigh~orhood and was not wanted. She felt the peop2e who would want to live in this type of development could not find the facilities they wanted· on one· acre and mentioned that new custom homes were being build in old Monta Vista,,· ranging !n price from $300,,000 to $400 1 000. She wanted to see the executive trend continue in the area, whether
*BMR -Below Market Rate housing
single frunily, townhouse or apartment residences, she said. She had researched the income necessary to live in the propose project, and had found it was at least $65,000 per year.
There was a discussion between Mrs. Anger, Mr. Brown and the Commission regarding Ordinances 618 and 652, and whether it th City Council made changes ir1 what had been i•eoommended by the Blanning Com..~i~sion the matter should come back to the Planuin Commission. ·
Com. Blaine explained that the City Council could send changes back to the Planning Commission at their discretion,and that t Planning Commission had neve~ .. had .final authority anyway.
Mr. Brown stated that in ord~r to justify any development in t Planned Development zone, the six items of Ordinan~en618~secon paragraph, Section 3.1 had t~ be addre~sed.
Mrs. Anger reiterated that the density of the project should bE lower.
James Dyer, 21685 I.omita Avenue,, seconded the comments of Mrs. Ange~ and Mr. Brown. He established that each lot measur approximately 1,~oo square feet, a~d observed that Planned. Development zoning recently seemed to be used to build single family homes on substandard lots, which was h,is ilipinion of thi project. It would open the door for very congested,,high densi development, he said, and he planned to call on the City Council to amend the General Plan to limit the Planned Development ·zon ng to preclude such developments. He mentioned that on Orange Avenue it appe~red there would be almost continuous curb cut, therefore preventing on-street parking.
Com. Koenitzer felt that the Planned Deve;J;:o:~btlhe~uJlU~ y issues were being confu3ed. He pointed out that t~e density had been set at an uppe:~ limit of l?. units per aoee sin~e 1969.
Hilda Wong, President of the HW J A::HJociates InYestment Compan addressing the neighbo~ho0d concerns, said she wanted to provi e comfortable homes .fo1~ as large a spe1~tr.·um of' the community. as possible and thought ~he nei~hborhood would be proud of these units, which were not intended. to be transitional homes,she sa From other projecwe she had sold, her experience was that youn couples with college deGrecs and olaer couples with a teena~e child were likely to buy,she said, He feeling was that it would not be practical to build any other type of development the land because of lan1 costs, development costs and fhe fact that it was bordered by a~ industr~al area. She thought ther~ was a trend towards the tow!lhouse a.s en a(\Cept.ed concept of 11
Questioned by Com. Adams about the ho111.::-,....w,,1ers dt1 es .. Ms. Wong estimated they would be approiimatel~· $70 per month per unit, and mentioned that, because of Derartm~~t of HPal Estate contr there would be an adequate reserve for upkee,.
'l'here was a short discussion on which areaf:. w.:.~r;; in common and would be kept up by the dues mentionp1.
f i
j FC-446A I Pagti 4 ie I I
';
Com. Szabo was apprehensive about the prices, since in his experience-they were outside the means of most professional young couples.
Mui.Wong related that a t~w months ago she had aold a similar project in Mountain Vie~, and knew that the salary structure in the area was much higher than anyone imagined.
Com. Szabo thought the units should be smaller, to cut down the price, and also to create more open space.
Com. Claudy observed that the units would n0t cost muoh less that way.
Mr. Dyer pointed out that the urea was mostly surrounded by single family dwellings, and was disturbed by the fa.ct that the land use and the density changed in mid-block, as it did here. He said he would also take this matter to City Council and request a General Plan amendment.
Mrs. Anger, answering Ms. Wong, said she knew people wanted to live in townhouses, out was agai~st the density i~ this instance. There was practically no open space, she said, and quoted from Section 3.1 of Ordinance 618 on thit matter.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that over 42% of the project would be open space, though it would be mostly in rear yard areas, and that requirements were met.
Mr. Brown envisioned the open space as not just for the people who would live in the development, but for the whole neighbor-hood. If there were developments like this in the whole area, he said, nobody would want to move into Monta Vista.
MOTION: Com. Claudy, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Koenitzer ·voTE: Passed unanimously 5-0
Con;. Adams felt that the presence of the adjacent industria'l eveJ.-O.:PDUt-created the condit:!.on of :IHndine; an amiable
trari~1tion$ but thought this maybe went too far. He inquired of Assistant Planning D11~ector Cowan .. the amount of open space that would be the norm in such a project.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan did not haveaan average figure» but observed there was usually a iower proportfon of the open space in rear yards.
Co~. Adams wondered how beneficial the BMR* units would be to the City, since they would not be serving the income bracket intended for such units, and he was not sure he wanted to see the project go in.
Com. Claudy observed that the trend seemed to be to get more single family units on a piece of land by claiming t~em to ~e townhouses. He found the buildings attractive, but there were too many,
*BMR -Below market rate housing
Com. Koenitz~r, noting that there was no rule about the site anct 1 g-!:6 ~ type of unite, said that that was the real question. He felt 80 ~ this plan was acceptable, though he wanted to see less private and more public open space.
Com. Szabo also agreed with the number of units and reiterated idea of making them smaller w1th more open sp~ce.
Com. Blaine agreed that the den81ty was set~but felt that with a townhouse development, there would have to be fewer to allow for sufficient landscaping. She &greed with the concept·ot back yards, but felt there had to be more front yard and more p~en space to create more green areas and less asphalt.
MOTION: Com. Saabo,to reopen the Public HearinJ SECOND: Com. Koenitzer
VOTE: Passed . . 4-1 (Com. Cla0udy dissenting)
1'~si.1 • Wong acknowledged the concerns of the Commission, but f'elt the project was very much what pevple were looking ·for. She was willing to work on the open space aspect, she said, and wondered if more open space in the eront of the units with less in thP. backyards would be acceptable.'
Com. Blaine said she w8.nted to see more common, green,open areas and did not know what that would require.
Mrs. Anger agreed that something had to be sa~rifieeds and felt that here it could be the backyards.
Com. Blaine ask~d the applicant and the architect whether they wanted to come back with a redesign. or whether they wanted a vote at this meeting.
Ms. Kong wanted to know if making the backyards smaller would be acceptable.
Com. Blaine said the Commission cr.ouJ:d not be comrr,1 tted, and would have to dee the redesign.
There was a short discuseion on continuancE proc6du~es and any new materials that would be necessary, anct it was estab11shed that Mr. Johnson could call Assistant Planning Director Cowan the next day for further information.
f".O'l1 ION: Com. Adams, to continue Applications 12-U-8Lf and 7-TM-84 to the Meetinc of August 27, 1984. SECOND: Com. Koenit~er VOTE: Passed unani~ously 5-0
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Corr:. Ada.ms broue;ht up the subject of the Use Perm:!.t for P. J. IV!ullicans.
Com. Szabo had heard they were planDin~ to expand.
is
. ' ,. '
f\C-4l16A Page 6 -Assistant Planning Director Cowan said Staff was supposed to be preparing a revision to the Ordinances to be used when this type of opera.ttton filed for a Use Permit. He obae:i:•ved that,, since it was a restaurant and not a bar, there were no controlm right now, but that regulation was needed to dontrol restaurants with bars.
Com. Blaine had epoken to Gary Stevens, a tecLniciant with the Santa Clara Valley Water District.11 about the reason for the smell at the spillway below the dam.11 and had determined th1e dead fish and deca~ing matter on the bottom of the reservair caused the water to smell when it spilled over. She observed that next year the darn would have a new face and would be: filled.
Com. Szabo udvised t:he Commission and Staff' of his new telephone number.
Com. Koenitzer had a problem with the building taking place behind his home in rega.rd to construction noise ill the early hours.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan suggested that he call the code enforcement officer, but advised that not all activities of this type were illegal at 6:30 u.m.~ though heavy grading was.
Com. Koenitzer was also concerned with the pruning or an oak
~reeton the property.
NEW BUSINESS
T:t:.ere were two requests foi.' General Plan Amendment Hear:1.ngs,and Assistant Flann~ng Director Cowan advised that Staff was waiting for direction from the Commission to prepare a procedure for such Amendments, s:i.nce now this was done on an a:d hoc basis. He suggested establishing a procedur~ for hearing such requests, hearing them between one and four times a year, and having some criteria to use. He suggested that Staff could have some :rc.'..~';w: procedures and criteria drawn up by the next Meeting and that using those procedures, the Commission could discuss whethe::? they wanted to hold a Hearing for the two requests. He advised that there would be a couple more requests coming along.
The Commiss1on was in agreement with Staf.f 1 s suggest:!.on.
Com. Claudy estahlished that a General Plan Amendment~ was not scheduled for this year.
'Co!ll. Claudy referred to a nwmo from Planner t Piasecki dated ugust 10, 1984 regarding Standard Condition 15, and wondered whether Pacific Gas and Electricity would be in agreement ith transformers being screened as suggested.
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... : ;'C··'0.'f ~t;,:;;~1\,,~""·,··
A:ssistant Plnnnine; Director Cowan said thl:'l.t ,he ~10U;f(;li'.':'¢l',i~p :'• with Pacific G~~~ and ~ncctr:tcity on theil" reqliir~nierit~/A:~:9r;~~ ... this l"'equest that ho:~d been received frc.m Gity .Q6tl,nc:ll .• ~t;~;if}/>Wi~:'f
! t;·,::'" -1·
' / : .; ' .... ·. . ; ' '. '' - . :cc ' -· ... -·.->.' :<:--"->_,:, ~-;· \:'.>/\·:': :--'·/b_\:_;5·~~\·~.·j./. Jan.es Dyer sta.~ed that he.' wot;l(e<1 for Cupe:r,•tino Elect:c>ic a.nct.J:;,. . .:;';;k;-\;:'.i:;
iM~orr.ted the CoirJr.iasion that .. P.acif'io Gaa and EJ.ec.1:.rio.it<.:r.. did<··ha;v.~ very restrictive requirements for t:i:•arH'l!'orr.iers •. · Jle ·a<.;tv,ised' X/fr:;?:;,' Sta.ff o:r:' a code book uvrd.lahlf.::. ·• ~ ···: \11:'/i:T
APPROVED1
' ·' ........ ,, ,'